Panzerkrieg-Onto the Plains of Russia! (Review and Discuss)

[Andy2012]

Alright, Kalach is mine and the 6th army stands at the gates of Stalingrad.
22 turns, medium difficulty. Bought another Stug. (Should repost my core later. Getting sloppy.)
I remember playing this in beta and being really, really pressed for resources. Still had to rely on the puny 5cm for AT and man, then those KVs and T34s are hard. Especially with those swarms of enemy fighters hunting for my Stukas.

Anyway, I largely ignored the northern flank and deployed south and in the middle. I went with fast units for the lake objective before refocussing on Kalach and then on to Stalingrad. The fighers were a hassle - had to leave my Stukas on the airfield for the first few turns to clear them out.
Around Kalach, the Red Army threw the bathtub and then some at me. Luckily, I had air superiority by then and could knock them out with my Stukas and let my tanks finish them off. In the south, my two elite Stugs were the difference. In the beta with its overtight resources, this was a tough one and my men reached Stalingrad battered. Now, the KVs faced down the barrel of my mighty Stugs and had no chance.

To Maykop, onwards. How did you guys do?
And please post your cores, too.

[CoolDTA]

My core for Kalach:

Infantry: 5 x Gebirgsjäger, 2 x Hvy Inf, 2 x Eng, 1 x Fallschirmjäger, 1 x regular Inf
Panzers: 2 x PzKpfw III J, 2 x PzKpfw IV F2
AT: 1 x StuG III F, 1 x 8.8cm FlaK 18
Arty: 3 x 17cm K 18, 1 x StuG III E
Luftwaffe: 2 x Fw 190 A, 4 x Ju 87 D
SS-units: Wiking, Inf '42, PzKpfw IV F2 (one each)

Ground leaders in tanks except Hube in Hvy Inf making it very resilient.

I liked the battle and used essentially three prongs. There was a period of sitzkrieg west of Kalach when I had an infantry unit in the town of Popov baiting the enemy armour. I guess they saw the surprise in the form of the 88 backing it up, because they didn't dare to attack. A whole lot of enemy units massed there before they were eliminated by attacks from three directions supported by heavy artillery and Stukas.

[Andy2012]

My core for Kalach:

Infantry: 5 x Gebirgsjäger, 2 x Hvy Inf, 2 x Eng, 1 x Fallschirmjäger, 1 x regular Inf
Panzers: 2 x PzKpfw III J, 2 x PzKpfw IV F2
AT: 1 x StuG III F, 1 x 8.8cm FlaK 18
Arty: 3 x 17cm K 18, 1 x StuG III E
Luftwaffe: 2 x Fw 190 A, 4 x Ju 87 D
SS-units: Wiking, Inf '42, PzKpfw IV F2 (one each)

Ground leaders in tanks except Hube in Hvy Inf making it very resilient.

Interesting choices. Gebirgsjaeger are fast, but are less efficient against armour, I think. I mostly went for light infantry.
Also, I have less tanks and a lot more Stugs than you have. Three to four light inf, maybe some light arty and 1-2 Stugs are a deadly strike team. #Stuglife And I could never bring myself to buy an 88 AT. Sure, the stats are great but they
are sooo slow. Same as heavy infantry - I hardly deploy the one I got in Demyansk.
Also, I think about upgrading the captured KV-1 from Kalach into a PzIV F2 when I have the money. KV is slow and attack is weakish. Just rumbling armour plate, if you ask me.
@devs: BTW, that text event in Kalach where you get the KV is a blank.
Also, if you have that many Stukas and so few fighters, how do you clear the skies? Replacing airforce is just sooo expensive. And you dont have any AA (me neither, but I have four FW 190s with 3-5 stars...).
Another thing - most of my commanders are deployed in infantry units. First, because I dont have that many tanks and second because infantry attacks infantry in entrenched positions with AT support much better than tanks do - so that extra anti-infantry kick sure does help here. But they get injured often. Keeping them in tanks would probably alleviate that.
Are there any more dedicated AT commanders down the line?

[CoolDTA]

Interesting choices. Gebirgsjaeger are fast, but are less efficient against armour, I think. I mostly went for light infantry.
Also, I have less tanks and a lot more Stugs than you have. Three to four light inf, maybe some light arty and 1-2 Stugs are a deadly strike team. #Stuglife And I could never bring myself to buy an 88 AT. Sure, the stats are great but they
are sooo slow. Same as heavy infantry - I hardly deploy the one I got in Demyansk.
Also, I think about upgrading the captured KV-1 from Kalach into a PzIV F2 when I have the money. KV is slow and attack is weakish. Just rumbling armour plate, if you ask me.
@devs: BTW, that text event in Kalach where you get the KV is a blank.
Also, if you have that many Stukas and so few fighters, how do you clear the skies? Replacing airforce is just sooo expensive. And you dont have any AA (me neither, but I have four FW 190s with 3-5 stars...).
Another thing - most of my commanders are deployed in infantry units. First, because I dont have that many tanks and second because infantry attacks infantry in entrenched positions with AT support much better than tanks do - so that extra anti-infantry kick sure does help here. But they get injured often. Keeping them in tanks would probably alleviate that.
Are there any more dedicated AT commanders down the line?

When you talked about light infantry I thought you meant Gebirgsjäger, which are exactly that. But you mean Regular Infantry. The reason why I have them is because this is an imported core and I had changed all my regulars to mountain men for Moscow. They are actually as efficient as regulars against armour if you compare units of the same year (Rzhev has 42 regs but 41 gebs). Gebirgsjäger have better defence values, but their forte is of course their speed. Great at encircling the enemy and also able to escape when needed.

StuG IIIs are excellent, I agree. Still have only one, but at least it has 5 stars. The 88 always comes with Sd.Kfz. 7, so it is not that slow. Uses less CPs also, which actually is the reason why I still field it instead of a StuG.

Heavy infantry is the best in defence and I always have one (the other came at Demyansk). In offense it has to be used with care: check out where the best roads are and use it there. And when possible use it to deliver the assault after which you get a free advance.

I didn't get the KV because I was too slow, but probably would not have fielded it anyway for the reasons you presented.

Five star Fw 190s clear the skies easily from the Soviet planes. In the latest battle (Zvesda) they actually tried to attack my elite Fw 190 (first time IIRC). The result: my losses 0-1 per attack, the enemy 5-6. The experience is what makes the difference. But yeah, replacements are expensive when needed.

My leaders are injured only rarely so your way is probably hazardous to their health. But I think all methods to use them have pros and cons so all are good in their own way.

[Andy2012]

When you talked about light infantry I thought you meant Gebirgsjäger, which are exactly that. But you mean Regular Infantry. The reason why I have them is because this is an imported core and I had changed all my regulars to mountain men for Moscow. They are actually as efficient as regulars against armour if you compare units of the same year (Rzhev has 42 regs but 41 gebs). Gebirgsjäger have better defence values, but their forte is of course their speed. Great at encircling the enemy and also able to escape when needed.

StuG IIIs are excellent, I agree. Still have only one, but at least it has 5 stars. The 88 always comes with Sd.Kfz. 7, so it is not that slow. Uses less CPs also, which actually is the reason why I still field it instead of a StuG.

Heavy infantry is the best in defence and I always have one (the other came at Demyansk). In offense it has to be used with care: check out where the best roads are and use it there. And when possible use it to deliver the assault after which you get a free advance.

I didn't get the KV because I was too slow, but probably would not have fielded it anyway for the reasons you presented.

Five star Fw 190s clear the skies easily from the Soviet planes. In the latest battle (Zvesda) they actually tried to attack my elite Fw 190 (first time IIRC). The result: my losses 0-1 per attack, the enemy 5-6. The experience is what makes the difference. But yeah, replacements are expensive when needed.

My leaders are injured only rarely so your way is probably hazardous to their health. But I think all methods to use them have pros and cons so all are good in their own way.

Gebirgsjäger are also more expensive and have slightly worse AT attacks. But just slightly.

Anyway, my core for now:
8-9 x Light Infantry no transport (backbone, cheap, fast, versatile)
4 x Engineers with transport (clearing mines, building bridges, sometimes leading assaults)
4 x Stug F8 (upgrade - with them, my infantry isnt slowed down or has to fear tank engagements. 2-4 inf and a Stug make a powerful team)
4-5 x Light arty (yeah, weak on the arty. But it can keep up with my attack force)
1 x Heavy Inf (from Demyansk, hardly deploy it)
2 x Pz III L (maybe replace these when I can afford it with Pz IVs. Right now, Russian tanks seem sometimes too powerful, e.g. M3 Lee)
1 x Pz IVF2 (With Guderian. always use the three tanks in one group)
Waffen SS II: 1 Viking, 1 light inf , 1 Stug F8 (buggy, always 7 CP unused, cant afford more)
2 x Stukas (helps with weak arty)
4 x FW 190s (always fast air superiority)

Most of my units are five stars in Stalingrad now. Will post about this later.

[Andy2012]

Alright, Maykop and Stalingrad are mine. Medium diff.

Mission notes:

With the aid of my trusty Stugs, Maykop was surprisingly easy to master. I remember struggling to get anywhere during the notoriously stingy beta versions. But the Stugs prevailed where my 5cm AT failed (rhymes, yeah.) I went for two strong pincers east and west and a smaller one down the middle. After taking the fringe objectives comfortably after 12 turns, I converged on the oilfield around Maykop. 21 turns, no big deal. No losses.

Stalingrad was a different animal, however. The rows and rows of dug in infantry, constant shelling from across the Volga and fighter attacks sure did take a toll. The most difficult thing was actually keeping my forces focused on the spread out objectives and dealing with the insane amount of troops the Red Army was throwing at me. 22 turns, no losses. But quite mauled.
@devs: Couple of observations (never actually made it this far in beta): The engineers you get as reinforcements after taking the secondary in 3 turns have no transport. That makes them way less useful. After sinking three barges, the deployed ones still land troops. Also, I think it is almost impossible to knock out the three arty on the other side with all the fighters and AA the Red Airforce has here. Thank God i got Hube in Voronezh.
Still, the mission nicely captures the grinding assault Stalingrad was for the Wehrmacht. Quite a piece of work.
(It is also a bit weird that you can actually capture the city in full...Paulus never managed that)
Well, onto Operation Winterstorm.

[kondi754]

@Andy
5 StuGs F and 4 FWs 190A are not available at 5th level, due to lack of funds.
I use 1 FW 190, 1 Bf 109G, 2 old Bf 109F, Marder, 1 StuG F, 1 88mm Flak and several light AT guns.

[CoolDTA]

Also, I think it is almost impossible to knock out the three arty on the other side with all the fighters and AA the Red Airforce has here. Thank God i got Hube in Voronezh.

With four Stukas it is quite possible. The 17cm K 18s also help with their superlong range. I think the key here is to take your time. Do not advance into the range of the Soviet artillery before it is eliminated. You have 34 turns and can take a cautious approach to preserve resources. IMO the Stalingrad scenario was easier than I expected. There were many Soviet units, but not really that many. I did play the two Stalingrad scenarios in Panzer Corps GC '42 not long ago, so I guess that's why I was expecting worse. Good scenario nevertheless.

I have a hunch Andy's StuGs will really shine in Operation Winterstorm.

[Andy2012]

@Andy
5 StuGs F and 4 FWs 190A are not available at 5th level, due to lack of funds.
I use 1 FW 190, 1 Bf 109G, 2 old Bf 109F, Marder, 1 StuG F, 1 88mm Flak and several light AT guns.

Maybe, but who else plays on Feldmarschall?
Still, I save money by not having that many tanks and keeping my Stukas away from fighters and enemy AA.
Also, Stugs cost money, but save money in return by protecting your infantry and saving credits on replacements. And they hit really hard.
BTW, if infantry secures a Stugs flanks, the 'weak flanks' trait is not a big issue. Keep them together and everything bounces off.

[Andy2012]

Also, I think it is almost impossible to knock out the three arty on the other side with all the fighters and AA the Red Airforce has here. Thank God i got Hube in Voronezh.

With four Stukas it is quite possible. The 17cm K 18s also help with their superlong range. I think the key here is to take your time. Do not advance into the range of the Soviet artillery before it is eliminated. You have 34 turns and can take a cautious approach to preserve resources. IMO the Stalingrad scenario was easier than I expected. There were many Soviet units, but not really that many. I did play the two Stalingrad scenarios in Panzer Corps GC '42 not long ago, so I guess that's why I was expecting worse. Good scenario nevertheless.

I have a hunch Andy's StuGs will really shine in Operation Winterstorm.

Yes, but the Red Airforce has so many fighters...
I was still careful, though. No losses.
Still, I have spent a lot of credits on elite reinforcements so far. Was still badly mauled in Stalingrad, so I need to use regular for now. But most of my units are five stars, so I will survive. I guess.

[13obo]

Reading your cores and I'm really surprised by the lack of artilleries.

I play on fieldmarshall and if I don't reduce an enemy's efficiency at least to 6-7 and strength from 13 to 8-10, I do not attack dug in positions because it's mostly suicide. Especially a heavy infantry needs to be at 5 efficiency and 8 strength at most else there are 1-2 losses.

Attacks are concentrated against softened targets and I try to finish them off before taking on the rest (similar to PzC where if you don't finish off a unit, the computer reinforces it to full on the next turn; in the case of OOB, if you don't finish off the unit, the computer retreats and rests the unit, which comes back at full efficiency and even at reduced strength, this leads to losses). I only attack non-softened infantry that's in the open and even then I dislike that because sometimes I lose a strength point in tank.

Just started panzerkrieg but in my blitzkrieg core, I had 3x of the 8 range arty (put them at the front and they are great even in attack as their range is so damn big and only cost 4 CP each), 1x Wurfrahmen 40, 1x of the mobile mountain artillery in the SS, 1 x armoured train which is great for softening but also tanking and only 2 CP, and finally 2x strategic bombers, which are actually amazing and underrated even if Germany didn't have proper strategic bombers.

I field a lot less infantry (I think I had 7 regular infantries in total for covered positions and soaking up damage as they are so cheap and only cost 3 CP), 5 tanks (2x PzIII and 3x PzIV), 1x captured british anti-tank as they are not good for assaults (will change this in Panzerkrieg and field at least 2x StuGs as they are mobile and I like the sound of the AT specialization), 1x ground recon and 1x air recon, and 1x AA. My air core has 3x FW dogfighters, 1x bf110 interceptor, 2x stukas, and the previously mentioned 2x strategic bombers.

So to summarise, I rely on softening the targets and using a lot fewer "direct damage" units to finish off the units. I find that this leads to minimal losses when done properly but requires careful planning and range checking of the artillery to "spread" the bombardment properly on all fronts. Because my front is so small, I soften up the targets, use leapfrogging to move the front, and utilise positioning to the maximum- ending turns with tanks in front in the open, or infantry if covered position). And because of the large artillery core, enemy attacks I get are often at reduced efficiency by the time they happen.

Has anyone tried both strategies? A core with more direct damage, compared to a core with more efficiency-reducing units? I'm curious how they compare like for like as I've always fielded a lot of artillery (probably mindset from playing PzC). I feel like although artilleries works great when the front in small like in the first maps, but in the soviet scenarios I was struggling a bit with the larger maps in terms that it is difficult to know where to expect the attacks when they happen and my artilleries were sometimes ambushed in the back when pushing, leading to a map restart.

[Andy2012]

Reading your cores and I'm really surprised by the lack of artilleries.

I play on fieldmarshall and if I don't reduce an enemy's efficiency at least to 6-7 and strength from 13 to 8-10, I do not attack dug in positions because it's mostly suicide. Especially a heavy infantry needs to be at 5 efficiency and 8 strength at most else there are 1-2 losses.

Attacks are concentrated against softened targets and I try to finish them off before taking on the rest (similar to PzC where if you don't finish off a unit, the computer reinforces it to full on the next turn; in the case of OOB, if you don't finish off the unit, the computer retreats and rests the unit, which comes back at full efficiency and even at reduced strength, this leads to losses). I only attack non-softened infantry that's in the open and even then I dislike that because sometimes I lose a strength point in tank.

Just started panzerkrieg but in my blitzkrieg core, I had 3x of the 8 range arty (put them at the front and they are great even in attack as their range is so damn big and only cost 4 CP each), 1x Wurfrahmen 40, 1x of the mobile mountain artillery in the SS, 1 x armoured train which is great for softening but also tanking and only 2 CP, and finally 2x strategic bombers, which are actually amazing and underrated even if Germany didn't have proper strategic bombers.

I field a lot less infantry (I think I had 7 regular infantries in total for covered positions and soaking up damage as they are so cheap and only cost 3 CP), 5 tanks (2x PzIII and 3x PzIV), 1x captured british anti-tank as they are not good for assaults (will change this in Panzerkrieg and field at least 2x StuGs as they are mobile and I like the sound of the AT specialization), 1x ground recon and 1x air recon, and 1x AA. My air core has 3x FW dogfighters, 1x bf110 interceptor, 2x stukas, and the previously mentioned 2x strategic bombers.

So to summarise, I rely on softening the targets and using a lot fewer "direct damage" units to finish off the units. I find that this leads to minimal losses when done properly but requires careful planning and range checking of the artillery to "spread" the bombardment properly on all fronts. Because my front is so small, I soften up the targets, use leapfrogging to move the front, and utilise positioning to the maximum- ending turns with tanks in front in the open, or infantry if covered position). And because of the large artillery core, enemy attacks I get are often at reduced efficiency by the time they happen.

Has anyone tried both strategies? A core with more direct damage, compared to a core with more efficiency-reducing units? I'm curious how they compare like for like as I've always fielded a lot of artillery (probably mindset from playing PzC). I feel like although artilleries works great when the front in small like in the first maps, but in the soviet scenarios I was struggling a bit with the larger maps in terms that it is difficult to know where to expect the attacks when they happen and my artilleries were sometimes ambushed in the back when pushing, leading to a map restart.

I once played with more long range arty myself. They are useful and it does work, but those nimble move and shoot arty are just awesome.
BTW, engineers do reduce fortification and have shock damage, too. And I do have those Stukas.
Oh yeah, that airforce is definitely more than you can deploy here at the same time.
And my whole core was five stars exp before I reached Kalach, so that is were my money went. That also means a lot more damage.

[13obo]

Thank you for the reply!

I think I will have to edit my core for Panzerkrieg. Indeed, if history proves correct and the Soviets caught up in the air warfare, while the Germans struggled to maintain superiority, then I'd expect I wouldn't have 25 Air CPs like I did in Blitzkrieg (though I did notice the +air CP specialization, which paired with the two +land/air CPs seems to be quite a decent boost).

The other main thing I plan to change to my core is focus a bit more on damage but still maintain a few artillery pieces. While previously I had around 25 land CPs out of about 75 total (about 33% of total) for artillery, now maybe I'll do about 25% and focus more on the frontline and AT weapons. I may even add 1-2 engineers to the team because I hadn't noticed they have shock damage, and the 2 CPs they require is just too brilliant!

[Andy2012]

focus more on the frontline and AT weapons. I may even add 1-2 engineers to the team because I hadn't noticed they have shock damage, and the 2 CPs they require is just too brilliant!

Yeah, that AT needs an upgrade. That 5cm is not going to cut it. 3-4 infantry and a Stug however own the battlefield when used as a team.
BTW, those engineers should have a transport; otherwise, they are terribly slow. They can lead an assault or built bridges, clear mines - but they should never be the backbone of your army.

[CoolDTA]

Reading your cores and I'm really surprised by the lack of artilleries.

I had 3x of the 8 range arty (put them at the front and they are great even in attack as their range is so damn big and only cost 4 CP each), 1x Wurfrahmen 40, 1x of the mobile mountain artillery in the SS, 1 x armoured train which is great for softening but also tanking and only 2 CP, and finally 2x strategic bombers, which are actually amazing and underrated even if Germany didn't have proper strategic bombers.

Hmmm..., I think our cores are not that different. Now that I finally have been able to field my full artillery from Blitzkrieg I have 5 K18s (that 8 range arty), the train and StuG IIIE. I like to have a lot of arty for the reasons you mentioned. I consider the Stukas a flying artillery. They just do direct damage while the Strategic Bombers do efficiency damage (love SBs in PzC). Now that Stukas have precision bombing they are really great.

I also use the softening tactics to preserve resources. Often one arty barrage (K18 if available) followed by a Stuka strike makes the following assault by a tank (or StuG!) to have no friendly losses and then infantry can mop up. Since you are playing on the highest difficulty more than just one barrage would be needed.

Those K18s are excellent pieces because you can cover a huge area with them. To save points I try to buy the best (or second best) piece from the beginning rather than use resources to lesser models and then later upgrade them. I do know those move and shoot pieces Andy favours have their merits. Perhaps I will use them also in the future.

Note that all this is a bit academic because just like PzC, the OoB at the highest level is not really the same game IMO. I think a direct damage core would fare badly in both games on the highest difficulty.

[13obo]

Hmmm..., I think our cores are not that different. Now that I finally have been able to field my full artillery from Blitzkrieg I have 5 K18s (that 8 range arty), the train and StuG IIIE. I like to have a lot of arty for the reasons you mentioned. I consider the Stukas a flying artillery. They just do direct damage while the Strategic Bombers do efficiency damage (love SBs in PzC). Now that Stukas have precision bombing they are really great.

I also use the softening tactics to preserve resources. Often one arty barrage (K18 if available) followed by a Stuka strike makes the following assault by a tank (or StuG!) to have no friendly losses and then infantry can mop up. Since you are playing on the highest difficulty more than just one barrage would be needed.

Those K18s are excellent pieces because you can cover a huge area with them. To save points I try to buy the best (or second best) piece from the beginning rather than use resources to lesser models and then later upgrade them. I do know those move and shoot pieces Andy favours have their merits. Perhaps I will use them also in the future.

Note that all this is a bit academic because just like PzC, the OoB at the highest level is not really the same game IMO. I think a direct damage core would fare badly in both games on the highest difficulty.

I'm glad we're of similar mindset! Yes, indeed on highest difficulty 2 artillery strikes from the K18 are best. They do decent 2 point average damage and reduce efficiency by 2 each. For a fortified heavy infantry, you would ideally do a 3rd strike, preferably from wurfhammer/strategic bomber/stuka.

The mobile wurfhammer was definitely very useful on assault scenarios like Kiev where an encirclement was required but having more than 2 for me is too expensive in terms of CP. Also they need protection from artillery as they are terribly squishy.

I agree that no arty core in PzC would not work on highest difficulty simply because you don't have the concept of CPs. There you have the problem that 1 infantry = 1 tank in terms of allowance so it's best to have a large tank/arty core with only few infantry for defending closed areas.

However, in OOB you are more flexible since 2 regular infantry are half the RP, and cost same CP as tank. There is definitely more choices for what to have in your core and how much of it. For example, I think it would be perfectly viable to get by without any tanks and rely on AT/infantry only as they are so cheap (never tried it though).

[CoolDTA]

However, in OOB you are more flexible since 2 regular infantry are half the RP, and cost same CP as tank. There is definitely more choices for what to have in your core and how much of it. For example, I think it would be perfectly viable to get by without any tanks and rely on AT/infantry only as they are so cheap (never tried it though).

Yep, that flexibility is one of the reasons I prefer OoB, tho PzC is also a great game (and what will PzC 2 be...). That no tanks, AT/infantry core is quite familiar to me: it is after all the Finnish core of WW2 (StuGs being the best "tanks" we had).

[Andy2012]

I have a hunch Andy's StuGs will really shine in Operation Winterstorm.

Played a few turns. You are most definitely right. Best investment ever. Holy cow.

[CoolDTA]

I knew it. I really must get me another StuG.

[Andy2012]

I knew it. I really must get me another StuG.

Alright, Stalingrad is saved (at least in OoB) and the sixth army has been resupplied. Suck on that, Fieldmarshall Paulus. 20 turns, no losses, medium difficulty. And my fleet of mighty mighty Stugs was a major factor.

First, a general AAR and strategy post, then bugs and observations.

1. To hold the Northwest, deploy your troops along the river. Start with some engineers (two each) in front of the Romanian bridge positions. Keep some credits in the bank and let them lay mines in front of your positions here (two each per northern crossing). The AI really struggles with this and you can funnel them into kill zones, forcing them to attack over rivers.
2. One fighter and two Stukas do a good job here in the north. Keep your Stukas away from the relief effort towards Stalingrad - there are way too many fighters and AA there. Even in the northwest, knock out heavy tanks with your tactical bombers first and dont venture too far.
3. Let three of your best fighters cover your attack towards Stalingrad. Air superiority is key. Also, take all your tanks and most experienced infantry and mobile arty.
4. In Stalingrad, let the sixth army take the whole city quickly. Concentrate fire on the Soviet Heavy Inf first and push all Soviet infantry across the river. You can also (strangely) deploy some core army here. I found that the Heavy Inf from Demyansk was finally useful here - and you can reinforce it a lot more often than the starving sixth army.
5. Around turn 4-5, you get more CP to reinforce your push. Deploy the KV (if you have it) in the Northwest, the Soviets use mostly infantry. There will be exclusively attacks on the two northwestern crossings, so dont waste units holding the rear airport. Some light arty behind the crossings and a Stug each will let all soviet attacks bounce off here.
6. Reinforce your push towards Stalingrad with Stugs (upgraded all to F/8 ) as well, with infantry they are deadly against KVs, T-34s and everything else.
7. Maybe even add another core unit to the Stalingrad cauldron. Concentrate on pushing the Soviets over the frozen Volga, but dont pursue them. Retreat damaged / low efficiency units into the center to recover.

Overall, I had a lot of fun. However, I think there are still some kinks in this one.

1. First, as I wrote in another thread, the supply planes are bugged. If you havent landed the first before you get the second, landing one removes all supply planes from the map. This is pretty important since when you take your time to clear the skies first and let the first supply transport refuel meanwhile, you cannot fulfill this secondary.
2. Second, the mission should have a crisper or more precise end trigger. I cut a corridor to supply Stalingrad and the northwestern attack force was basically gone after turn 20, never lost an objective - and still no end in sight.
3. Third, you still do not get notification when new unit versions with discounted upgrades are available. Rather annoying.
4. Fourth, I think the Stug III G upgrade available over the course of this mission is a bit overpriced. For one defense point more, you should pay 100 credits? Guys, this thing was a money saver...
5. Finally, even when staying really stingy in this mission and dropping my habit of elite reinforcements, I feel like offering experimental Tigers here and Panthers for Kharkov 43 for 350 credits (or 280 as an upgrade) is not affordable. Sure, you want to keep them as a special treat for Kursk, but some units just stay out of reach here.

How did everybody else do?

EDIT: Oh yeah, that Waffen SS II is still not fixed.