GrogHeads Forum

My new obsession is WWII's Eastern Front...it has captured my imagination.

I am currently playing Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front and love it. I also have Operation Star, Unity of Command, Panzer Corps and Company of Heroes 2. I loved Unity of Command. Haven't played much Panzer Corps in the East...only the West. I like it but I enjoy BA2 more.

I played CoH2 last year for a few hours but it didn't stick for some reason. I'm thinking of trying it again. Haven't tried Operation Star yet.

Also checking out CM: Red Thunder but IIRC it didn't get particularly rave reviews.

So...what do guys suggest?

I really like the scale of BA2...are there any other similar games on that tactical level in the Eastern Front? Maybe with slightly more focus on armor?

Thanks all.

I've only hit at the ends of the Eastern Front range of games-- tactical, CMRT and the old CMBB. And the strategic, DC Case Blue and Panzer General. I really like Red Thunder but it's limited in it's time period and location. CMBB was a classic and still probably my favorite East Front game but it's old and ugly like the guy I see in the mirror each morning. Case Blue is excellent but a bitch to beat from either side. So I guess I don't have an all time great to recommend though I always wanted to try the Squad Battles East Front series, Red Victory and I can't remember the other one. I hear they're great.

Panzer Command Ost Front http://www.matrixgames.com/products/391/details/Panzer.Command:.Ostfront

My favorite was CMBB, my favorite Combat Mission game.  I haven't played it in quite a while, and while I find it very believable that it's really ugly from a 2015 perspective, I don't think the visuals will really hurt your suspension of disbelief.  It's a lot like being there.

I have never played War In The East, but I actually found it's successor, War In Russia, quite playable - contrary to popular opinion.  From what I understand WITE, the 2010 version, is mostly the same thing with a paint job.  I think all the people who say it's overwhelming just crapped out without doing the work to figure out how to play.  At least for WIR, once you got the hang of it, it really wasn't that hard to motor through a turn.  I played it through to 1943 or so about 5 times, at which I point the game was either already decided or didn't seem like it would be fun any more.  But the real fighting was in '41 and '42 so I think "not fun any more" just reflects reality.  I'm not interested in the Pacific War after '43, either.  Perhaps others can comment on the differences between WIR & WITE, but . . . if you're really jonesin' for the Eastern front, you really haven't gone unless you've gone whole hog, and WITE is whole hog.

On a totally, totally different note, at least the first 2 Call of Duty games had Soviet campaigns and those games are about as good as shooters get.  I think Call of Duty 2 got the best reviews of any COD game and it starts with the Soviets.

And then there's IL2 and its numerous expansions, the Rolls Royce of combat flight sims - if you swing that way. . . .

Quote from: Gusington on February 03, 2015, 10:29:12 PM
My new obsession is WWII's Eastern Front...it has captured my imagination.

speaking about imagination I recommend CM RT  O0
with the latest patch the early problems reported are gone AFAIK (and at my place so far / PC version)
compared to your list its a tactical sim not a gamey game where tanks literally fencing with their gun barrels or chasing each others tails in circles like a dog fight seen in Company of Heroes.

Some wargames/sims have an editor or scenario creator which can fulfill some of your require.

I have played many mission in Steel Beasts Pro. There are many different missions/theatres etc. Heres an example:

http://dogsofwarvu.com/forum/index.php?topic=253.0

For small scale tactical try Heroes of Stalingrad by LnLP.

For operational scale try WWII Europe by Schwerpunkt.

There's a couple of board game recommendations I can make, but since this is a PC thread, I think everyone above has summed that portion up nicely thus far.

Quote from: MikeGER on February 04, 2015, 03:02:01 AM

Quote from: Gusington on February 03, 2015, 10:29:12 PM
My new obsession is WWII's Eastern Front...it has captured my imagination.

speaking about imagination I recommend CM RT  O0
with the latest patch the early problems reported are gone AFAIK (and at my place so far / PC version)
compared to your list its a tactical sim not a gamey game where tanks literally fencing with their gun barrels or chasing each others tails in circles like a dog fight seen in Company of Heroes.

Yep, I just up-dated to v1.03 and it seems much better.

Thank you guys, some good posts above. I know Gary Grigsby's games are the end all be all as far as detail, but are they fun? I'm leaning towards CM:RT...if I downloaded it today would I automatically get the latest version or do I have to patch it up myself?

And Glen I used to be uninterested in the late WWII era myself but for some reason I have become very interested in the final days in 1945, especially in the Soviets final push into Germany.

Gus, have you read Anthony Beevor's book on the Battle of Berlin? http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Berlin-1945-Antony-Beevor/dp/0142002801

Or Cornelius Ryan's The Last Battle? http://www.amazon.com/Last-Battle-Cornelius-Ryan/dp/B00246AL0W/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1423059291&sr=1-2&keywords=cornelius+ryan+the+last+battle

If you're into that period of the war (and it fascinates me), you will really enjoy either of the above books.

Quote from: Sir Slash on February 03, 2015, 11:37:48 PM
I've only hit at the ends of the Eastern Front range of games-- tactical, CMRT and the old CMBB. And the strategic, DC Case Blue and Panzer General. I really like Red Thunder but it's limited in it's time period and location. CMBB was a classic and still probably my favorite East Front game but it's old and ugly like the guy I see in the mirror each morning. Case Blue is excellent but a bitch to beat from either side. So I guess I don't have an all time great to recommend though I always wanted to try the Squad Battles East Front series, Red Victory and I can't remember the other one. I hear they're great.

  I pretty much agree with Sir Slash:  Case Blue is a classic and CMRT is pretty neato.

Thanks guys.

BC - those titles are on my list. I read Beevor's Stalingrad about 15 years ago. I also have The End queued up...forget the name of the author...but he's a popular one.

Believe it or not I'm reading aome pretty deep titles on WWII armor, etc. Fascinating stuff.

ASL via VASL if you must use a computer.   O0

For $25 CMBB has to be worth a go if you're leaning toward CMRT but aren't sure.  In my view CMx2 gives you pretty much the same gaming experience as CMx1.  (In some ways I prefer the latter - I want the toggle-able bases back rather than floating icons used to keep track of the units).  You get an awful lot of gaming for your money - even without user-made scenarios.

Another title I've played is Close Combat Cross of Iron - do you like the CC series?

Quote from: Gusington on February 04, 2015, 09:30:39 AM
Believe it or not I'm reading aome pretty deep titles on WWII armor, etc. Fascinating stuff.

whats on that list?

Quote from: GJK on February 04, 2015, 09:37:47 AM
ASL via VASL if you must use a computer.   O0

  And once you are off the computer and have played enough ASL, you can look at Roads to Leningrad and Roads to Moscow for a grand tactical look at 1941.

I played Close Combat years ago and liked it alot...Battle Academy sort of reminds me of CC in some ways.

Star right now I am reading Wehrmacht Panzer Divisions 1939 - 1945 by Jorge Rosado. It's an Essential Histories title basically for modellers. Lots of beautiful renderings and art.

Going to buy Tank Warfare on the Eastern Front 1941-1942: Schwerpunkt by Robert Forczyk.

Also looking at Jagdpanther vs. SU-100: Eastern Front 1945...part of the Duel series from Osprey.

Also looking at Last Citadel: A Novel of the Battle of Kursk by David Robbins.

Steel Panthers World at War(SPWAW), the Das Reich Campaign.

Quote from: Gusington on February 04, 2015, 09:08:11 AM
Thank you guys, some good posts above. I know Gary Grigsby's games are the end all be all as far as detail, but are they fun? I'm leaning towards CM:RT...if I downloaded it today would I automatically get the latest version or do I have to patch it up myself?

And Glen I used to be uninterested in the late WWII era myself but for some reason I have become very interested in the final days in 1945, especially in the Soviets final push into Germany.

I would like to hear somebody's comments on War In The East (and WITW, too, although that's off-topic), but War In Russia was a lot of fun and to me at least, again quite playable, although you do have to set aside some learning time, which is something I personally have kind of gotten out of the habit with on computer games.

His Apple 2e game The Guadalcanal Campaign, is one of my favorite computer wargames ever.  Of course, that was over 30 years ago and I would probably have a very different reaction to it now, but basically I have had a great deal of fun in my life paying Grigsby games - Mech Brigade, Steel Panthers, War in the South Pacific, and more - but mostly not very recent.  The only Grisby game I have played in the last few years was The Blue and the Gray, and although I definitely enjoyed it, that game had the misfortune of coming out at about the same time as Forge of Freedom and Ageod's ACW game, and that was very unfortunate and odd that they all came out the same time, because those are easliy the 3 best ACW strat games I've seen.

I also have lost most of the time I used to dedicate to learning new games, which is why I like Battle Academy so much...it is deep enough to be interesting but easy to pick up.

Yeah.. I enjoyed Close Combat III when it came out.. I'm not sure what the new Matrix one is.. I think maybe Iron Cross after the movie?

Cross of Iron, kind of a high price tag for such an old game, wait for a sale!

How about the newest IL2?

Quote from: Gusington on February 04, 2015, 03:57:34 PM
How about the newest IL2?

Can? Check.  Open?  Check.  Worms? Ewwwww. 

Actually, I bought into this game early and I like it, but if you're just looking for something eastern front with not too much learning time, then I'd look elsewhere.  It's a proper sim, and the FMs are a step up in fidelity from the old IL2, so you probably wouldn't just be able to slip into it (not to mention HOTAS, TIR and pedals).  I hate to be negative, but IMO this is something you'd have to give all your gaming time over to in order to enjoy.  If you can't/don't want to do that then it's not worth the cash.

Play "old" IL2 if you have it (or buy it for $10) - it has a wealth of content (another issue with the newer game)

Hop onto War Thunder Gus.  I could use some fellow Soviet tankers (most of the GH types seem to prefer the evil facists or, even worse, FREEDUM TANKZ in arcade mode).  I just switched up my super awesome T-34-85 (DT) for a goofy bobble-head KV-2.  It's slow; the turret traverse speed is glacial; reload speed is even worse and it's tiered up against Tigers and Jagdpanzer IVs that tear through it's armour as though it were paper but the stupid thing can be great fun when things do go your way.  The 152mm howitzer is intensely satisfying when you land a hit with it. The game's free to play and you never really feel and pressure or need to spend money if you don't want to.

I'd also advise steering well clear of IL-2: Battle of Stalingrad.   It had such promise in the early stages of development but the devs have gone full-retard and seemed to be hell bent on driving the thing into the ground as though out of spite towards the early backers who were mostly negative on the direction development took in the final weeks leading up to release.

Red Orchestra 2 is a decent, light tactical shooter.  Death to Spies is a very challenging Hitman-style 3rd person stealth game where you play a SMERSH agent during and immediately after WWII.

Theatre of War 2 is a decent tactical RTS type game if you can get it on sale for $5 or so. 

PT Boats: Knights of the Sea and South Gambit are sim-light naval games set during WWII where you control Soviet torpedo boats and can jump around from station to station as well as hop up a level to a tactical map and direct engagements. 

Iron Front: 1944 is based off the ArmA 2 engine.  Single player was and still is pretty buggy in campaign mode but individual skirmishes can be fun and multi-player co-op was fantastic.  The SimHQ guys shut their server down 5-6 months ago but Major Mayhem's server is still up and running on weekends.  Their style of play is  a little too chaotic for me though (common comms channel for all squads and multiple respawning allowed.)

Have you put much time into Operation Star?  That's still one of the best once you come to terms with the unusual UI and language quirks.

Quote from: glen55 on February 04, 2015, 03:42:29 PM

Quote from: Gusington on February 04, 2015, 09:08:11 AM
Thank you guys, some good posts above. I know Gary Grigsby's games are the end all be all as far as detail, but are they fun? I'm leaning towards CM:RT...if I downloaded it today would I automatically get the latest version or do I have to patch it up myself?

And Glen I used to be uninterested in the late WWII era myself but for some reason I have become very interested in the final days in 1945, especially in the Soviets final push into Germany.

I would like to hear somebody's comments on War In The East (and WITW, too, although that's off-topic), but War In Russia was a lot of fun and to me at least, again quite playable, although you do have to set aside some learning time, which is something I personally have kind of gotten out of the habit with on computer games.

His Apple 2e game The Guadalcanal Campaign, is one of my favorite computer wargames ever.  Of course, that was over 30 years ago and I would probably have a very different reaction to it now, but basically I have had a great deal of fun in my life paying Grigsby games - Mech Brigade, Steel Panthers, War in the South Pacific, and more - but mostly not very recent.  The only Grisby game I have played in the last few years was The Blue and the Gray, and although I definitely enjoyed it, that game had the misfortune of coming out at about the same time as Forge of Freedom and Ageod's ACW game, and that was very unfortunate and odd that they all came out the same time, because those are easliy the 3 best ACW strat games I've seen.

I've had WITE since not too long after its release and have bought both scenario packs as well. That said it has taken me a number of good intentioned efforts to get into it, but I think I'm finally getting there.

It is a huge game, I don't foresee me playing the campaign game any time soon (maybe when I retire) but the scenarios, with c20 added by the scenario packs are where it is for me and I'm now getting over feeling that I have to know all the rules before I play and having fun just pushing counters around  :)

I'd highly recommend having a look at this youtube letsplay, it got me to push the counters around rather that worrying about all the rules I wasn't using http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3782045

In regard to WITW - lovely lovely manual, if you get it get the physical edition, if you are in the UK it is just 98p more expensive than the download edition, if you are in the Euro Zone I believe it is cheaper then the download edition. Not much beyond browsing the manual and looking at the maps on this one myself so can't really comment further.

P.S. I've also had War in the Pacific Admirals Edition for probably 3 years now, fire it up every now and again, wonder at the grandeur of it, scroll around the map and then regretfully close it down having been overwhelmed, some day I'll get round to it.

Of course, Red Orchestra necessarily beats the old CoD games; and the music for CoD was dreadful (and suffered worse from comparison to the Michael Giacchimo score to the Medal of Honor games, which from all of his music I've heard far surpasses his other work, practically a John Williams film score).

But saying that, the Russian campaigns for CoD (1, United Front, and 2) were at least inventive. (CoD3 was console only, which I didn't have at the time; and I haven't played their callback to WW2 yet, though I own it.) I can never hate a game that starts me on a boat crossing the river under NKVD guard (so we don't jump and swim away) into the defense of... can't recall if it was Stalingrad or Leningrad... and learning on disembarking that they only have enough kit to give one man a rifle with one reload, and another man only the one reload. AND THE PLAYER GETS THE RELOAD NOT THE RIFLE!  :D


On the other hand, for squad-based tactics (sort of) set in 1943 Russia (sort of): Silent Storm Gold.

QuoteHow you lose a normal TBS game:
The enemy slowly picks off your squad because they are way too powerful for you to take on.

How you lose Silent Storm:
You take a shot, it misses and goes through the floor hitting an explosive barrel, the resulting chain reaction destroys 75% of the house and kills all of your squad except the guy who took the shot. He is then blown out of a second story window by a guy with a machine gun.

50/10

Quote from: JasonPratt on February 04, 2015, 05:41:07 PM



On the other hand, for squad-based tactics (sort of) set in 1943 Russia (sort of): Silent Storm Gold.

QuoteHow you lose a normal TBS game:
The enemy slowly picks off your squad because they are way too powerful for you to take on.

How you lose Silent Storm:
You take a shot, it misses and goes through the floor hitting an explosive barrel, the resulting chain reaction destroys 75% of the house and kills all of your squad except the guy who took the shot. He is then blown out of a second story window by a guy with a machine gun.

50/10

Yesss.   O0


There is a mod to remove the Steampunk suit stuff later in the game, if you want to stay historical.  Good either way.  The destructible environment mixed with the most detailed X-Com style squad tactical makes it one of the best of it's kind.  Think Soldiers At war but with much better graphics and features. 

GOG currently sells it IIRC.

I still think Close Combat:Cross of Iron is a great Eastern Front game, with a gentle learning curve.

please dont read that Kursk book Gus.  just dont!

read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Kursk-Modern-War-Studies/dp/0700609784/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1423099800&sr=1-2&keywords=kursk

^You read that novel? Will check out your link in a second, thanks Star.

I have only fiddled around with Operation Star...need a solid block of time for my first dive in.

Some interesting suggestions above from SDR and W8...need to check those out too, like the Cross of Iron game and Death to Spies. Will stay clear of IL2, any other aerial tank busting options out there instead?

no I haven't read that tripe! 

^Did you read the Glantz book? What do you like about it?

yes I read the Glantz book several times.  it was among the first books to take advantage of Soviet documents and operational reports.  I still don't agree with some of his conclusions but the guys is an Eastern Front specialist.

Have you read this?

http://www.amazon.com/When-Titans-Clashed-Stopped-Studies/dp/0700608990/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

War Thunder looks good but MMO is not my thing...wish it had SP.

Also...does Red Orchestra have a SP campaign yet?

Quote from: Gusington on February 04, 2015, 10:15:05 PM
War Thunder looks good but MMO is not my thing...wish it had SP.

It does.  It's not very good but it exists.

Red Orchestra 2 also has an SP component but it's really bad.

Quote from: Gusington on February 04, 2015, 10:08:34 PM
Have you read this?

http://www.amazon.com/When-Titans-Clashed-Stopped-Studies/dp/0700608990/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

I would recommend: http://www.amazon.com/The-Tigers-Burning-Martin-Caidin/dp/B000HZJSMO

Its not as rigorous as more modern books, but its entertaining.

I think Tiller's Campaign Series and Panzer Battles are also worth a mention.

What about the ultra-realistic Tigers Unleashed?
http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/Products/TSS/TU/TU.asp

No I'm not recommending it but has anyone here have anything good to say about it?

Combat Mission BB, Combat Mission Red Thunder, Decisive Campaigns Case Blue, Graviteam Tactics Op Star and DLC, GGWITE (had to throw that one in due to it's ambition), Squad Battles Red Victory and AOTR, Steel Panthers WW2 or WaW, Red Orchestra 2  and coming along slowly is Tigers Unleashed.

All the above I highly recommend except maybe TU as it's still being worked on by Scott, Jeff, Joe and myself, it will get there though.

Thanks all...ultimately leaning towards CM Red Thunder, but it's a bit pricey at 55.00.

Good choice, if you decide on it. :)

Quote from: GDS_Starfury on February 04, 2015, 08:31:00 PM
please dont read that Kursk book Gus.  just dont!

read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Kursk-Modern-War-Studies/dp/0700609784/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1423099800&sr=1-2&keywords=kursk

  Yes, try to read books by Glantz if possible.  He can't write very well (House seems to have helped him on this one, but I think House is dead these days), but he does try to get to the bottom of what happened.

  A more analytic and very well-written book is:

  http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/absolute-war-by-chris-bellamy-462704.html

I thought there was a demo for Red Thunder but there isn't. They got one for everything else but RT even CMBB still. You can always come to Fla. and play my RT and see what you think. Just as long as you're not better at it than I am, which would be almost impossible not to be. There's also some good user made scenarios at the BF site.

Correction. There is a demo for Red Thunder with 2 scenarios. It's not listed in the "Demos" section rather go directly to the Red Thunder page at BF and scroll down to you see it. Guess you won't have to come to Fla. after all.

Red Thunder is a can't lose proposition if you've got the Ostfront itch. Yeah, $55 ain't cheap, but it's a fantastic game -- better than Gravteam Tactics Op Star, and I say that as someone who loves GTOS.

Quote from: sandman2575 on February 05, 2015, 12:16:30 PM
Red Thunder is a can't lose proposition if you've got the Ostfront itch. Yeah, $55 ain't cheap, but it's a fantastic game -- better than Gravteam Tactics Op Star, and I say that as someone who loves GTOS.

Better in what ways? Not just the UI?

Again, not dissing GTOS because it's among my favorite games -- but I have to give the edge on a few key points to CMRT. Overall it's much more challenging.  Fun as GTOS is, it's a pretty forgiving game that's hard to lose. CMRT will punish you for shoddy tactics. Yes, that's party a function of highly scripted AI (and overall GTOS probably has more replayability than CMRT b/c of its more dynamic AI), but I played countless hours of Achtung Panzer: Kharkov and GTOS before moving to CMRT, and the difference in challenge seemed night and day to me.  Lots of bad habits I'd formed in GTOS were exposed in CMRT, and I had to start thinking a lot more carefully.

Biggest thing for me is the difference in how infantry is modeled. Infantry combat in GTOS is still kind of an afterthought. You don't have a lot of tactical flexibility with infantry -- it's really all about AFV's in GTOS. (and German infantry can't do squat on their own against Russian armor in GTOS.).  In CMRT, infantry tactics are crucial, and they're flexible enough that you can use them in all sorts of interesting ways that are simply not part of the picture in GTOS.

Biggest thing GTOS has over CMRT is its dynamic campaign -- which is huge, and miles ahead of what CMRT offers. 

In all, I wouldn't chose between the 2 games -- I need 'em both. But I find myself playing tons more CM these days than GTOS (partly burned out on GTOS, but partly frustrated by some of its limitations.)

Cool. Thanks.  O0

sandman..I agree. CMRT comes out on top for me because 1. WEGO and 2. Not in a position where two Tanks can wipe out all your German troops and you don't stand a chance. My major gripe with the series.

Quote from: Swatter on February 04, 2015, 10:38:06 PM
I would recommend: http://www.amazon.com/The-Tigers-Burning-Martin-Caidin/dp/B000HZJSMO

Its not as rigorous as more modern books, but its entertaining.

Wait... Martin Caidin?

THE GUY WHO INVENTED THE SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN!!?  :o :o :o

Stay away from Glantzs book on Leningrad though. Lots if info, vetty detailed and possibly the worst written book I've ever read.  I think its unique in that ita the only book I can think of that I never finished and didnt want to.

Currently Im reading Decision in the Ukraine, another Stackpole book.

The Stackpole 'Kursk' book is ok as well.

you'll get on any pole Bawb.

Quote from: Swatter on February 04, 2015, 10:38:06 PM

I would recommend: http://www.amazon.com/The-Tigers-Burning-Martin-Caidin/dp/B000HZJSMO

Its not as rigorous as more modern books, but its entertaining.

Damn! Martin Caiden, author of Cyborg and Whip. The former book is the basis for the TV show Six Million Dollar Man and the latter a great fictional account of being a B-25 Heavy Gunship Variant pilot. Never knew he wrote a Zitadelle book.

Red Orchestra 2 is fantastic.  I know you said you're not into MP, but if you get into a good match with decent players it is quite an experience.

I find the players in RO2 a bit more skilled and professional than in Rising Storm as well.  It can be fairly brutal.

Quote from: GDS_Starfury on February 05, 2015, 07:10:25 PM
you'll get on any pole Bawb.

...the Pirhana Brothers are going to pay you a visit........

 Caiden's book about Kursk is very good, not long on details, but very good.

Glantz's books have a lot of details, but his almost adoration for the Soviets shows through all of them.

Germany's war aims and it's armed forces actions were utterly detestable, but to me the Soviets were just as bad. The German army for more than half the war was a first rate fighting force.

Glantz comes across as the Germans were inept fools and the Soviets were war masters.

I just saw posted somewhere ( SimHQ? ) some numbers that were interesting. The Germans had a AFV kill rate of 2.95 to 1.If there had been no western front and all of Germany's AFVs were available for Russia, their kill ratio would only need to 2.45 to 1 to destroy all of the Soviet AFVs.

I was brought up learning that the western powers had won the war and then with all my reading swung toward the Soviets could have defeated Germany on their own.

I now believe Germany could not have been defeated without the western powers. In fact if Kursk was allowed to continue without the loss of German troops to Italy it may well have succeeded.

Quote from: magnus on February 06, 2015, 06:47:20 AM
  Glantz comes across as the Germans were inept fools and the Soviets were war masters.

  I suppose Glantz is on a mission.  It's hard to tell.  There are weirdly profound moments in Glantz, wherein after hundreds of pages of Germans obliterating Russian armies (I'm re-reading the first book of the 5-book Stalingrad "Trilogy") a lot of stuff starts happening under
the German strategic radar.  Glantz has the data there showing some Russian attacks taking crucial bridgeheads over the Don in September and the Germans are just too busy to notice.  At about the same time the Russian 64th and 62 Armies manage an accidently perfect delaying action and get back to Stalingrad.  I'd never noticed how all those little, almost unnoticeable, shifts in fortune start building up.

  So yes, Glantz is hard to read and he does spend a lot of time dismantling German accounts ( this is especially true in End Game at Stalingrad...but the end at Stalingrad or more exactly Wintergewitter really does seem to have triggered some unusually unreliable German narratives), but overall I think he is a very reliable source.

  Which brings up another point: how close were the Germans to winning in 1942?  They could not win in 1941 due to logistics and they could not win after Stalingrad due to all sorts of things including the Western Allies -- but they really had all of 1942 to win (unless it seems the defeats of early 1942 were the real beginning of the end).

Quote from: MengJiao on February 06, 2015, 09:57:35 AM
  Which brings up another point: how close were the Germans to winning in 1942?  They could not win in 1941 due to logistics and they could not win after Stalingrad due to all sorts of things including the Western Allies -- but they really had all of 1942 to win (unless it seems the defeats of early 1942 were the real beginning of the end).

Interesting question. My own sense is that victory in Russia was never really in the cards for the Germans, owing to its increasingly (by '42) dysfunctional military hierarchy, the needlessly convoluted politics of OKH vs. OKW, and probably above all, Hitler's profoundly misguided meddling. There's a nice sentence I recall from Max Hastings -- "War made Hitler a fantasist, but it made Stalin a realist" -- which nicely captures an essential difference between OKH/OKW and Stavka.  Stalin was willing to allow his top generals (above all Zhukov) to direct strategy. Of course, if they failed, their lives were at risk. Hitler by contrast increasingly took it upon himself to direct strategy, with predictably disastrous results. Hitler never gave a damn about logistics -- he was obsessed with ideas of esprit de corps and the uniquely German Will to fight -- these were dangerous illusions.

I think the Germans could have won the Eastern Front in 41/early 42.

Quote from: sandman2575 on February 06, 2015, 10:36:48 AM

Quote from: MengJiao on February 06, 2015, 09:57:35 AM
  Which brings up another point: how close were the Germans to winning in 1942?  They could not win in 1941 due to logistics and they could not win after Stalingrad due to all sorts of things including the Western Allies -- but they really had all of 1942 to win (unless it seems the defeats of early 1942 were the real beginning of the end).

Interesting question. My own sense is that victory in Russia was never really in the cards for the Germans, owing to its increasingly (by '42) dysfunctional military hierarchy, the needlessly convoluted politics of OKH vs. OKW, and probably above all, Hitler's profoundly misguided meddling. There's a nice sentence I recall from Max Hastings -- "War made Hitler a fantasist, but it made Stalin a realist" -- which nicely captures an essential difference between OKH/OKW and Stavka.  Stalin was willing to allow his top generals (above all Zhukov) to direct strategy. Of course, if they failed, their lives were at risk. Hitler by contrast increasingly took it upon himself to direct strategy, with predictably disastrous results. Hitler never gave a damn about logistics -- he was obsessed with ideas of esprit de corps and the uniquely German Will to fight -- these were dangerous illusions.

   Of course, Glantz somehow makes it seem like the German apologetic narrative is always misleading: either in the Kursk book none of it was really Hitler's fault or in the Stalingrad series -- it was mostly Hitler's fault.
   Chris Bellamy (Absolute War) thinks the Soviets were defeated for all practical purposes sometime in 1942 and staged a comeback based on the level of ruthlessness they somehow attained -- winning by being overall much more effectively nasty than the Germans.  Winning by being Worse.  Or more systematic in their nastiness.   This sort of makes it not Hitler's fault, though you could argue that ideologically the Soviet methods of terrorizing their own population were less squeamish and ultimately more effective than the Nazi policy of selective terror.  Which The Wages of Destruction ( a book on the problems of waging war using Nazi economics) argues were so obviously counter-productive that by 1943 the need for slave labor began to outweigh the need to selectively kill off Slavs and Jews  (see
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2006/aug/12/featuresreviews.guardianreview16 ).   

 The biggest choice was where to attack in 42.

I believe a concentric attack on Moscow was their best bet.

In the south they could trade space and make the lines ultimately too long for the Germans.

With an attack on Moscow they would not have been able to trade space and would have to fight the whole time.

Would the Soviets have been able to overcome their deficit in training and men and equipment before the end of a campaign for Moscow?

That is the big question.

Quote from: magnus on February 06, 2015, 01:31:06 PM
The biggest choice was where to attack in 42.

I believe a concentric attack on Moscow was their best bet.

In the south they could trade space and make the lines ultimately too long for the Germans.

With an attack on Moscow they would not have been able to trade space and would have to fight the whole time.

Would the Soviets have been able to overcome their deficit in training and men and equipment before the end of a campaign for Moscow?

That is the big question.

   It is a close thing no matter how you look at it.  For example, suppose the Germans had built up their forces in the north rather than the south.  They didn't have the resources to do both and the Russians did.

   Some come May 1942, the Russians attack at Kharkov and there aren't enough Germans there -- because they are all up north getting ready to take Moscow.  The Germans shift to belatedly block the Kharkov mess and then the Russians start mopping up all the pockets up north.

   Not pretty, but of course better than Stalingrad.

Quote from: sandman2575 on February 06, 2015, 10:36:48 AM
Interesting question. My own sense is that victory in Russia was never really in the cards for the Germans, owing to its increasingly (by '42) dysfunctional military hierarchy, the needlessly convoluted politics of OKH vs. OKW, and probably above all, Hitler's profoundly misguided meddling.

Ditto here; reinforced by Eisenhower's judgment: this was his after-action evaluation in his autobiography Crusade in Europe, that the greatest reason the Allies won and the (western) Axis lost was due to organizational solidarity vs freaky organizational chaos. The Allies had the supplies and the will to win, too; but the Germans, by the time of Fortress Europa, also had the will to win and enough entrenched supplies to shatter a disorganized Allied will to win.

Admittedly, one might expect this from Ike since he was a big proponent of the Supreme Commander concept (not necessarily with himself at the top but objectively no one else seemed able to do that particular organizational job). But then, one could argue this was exactly why he was such a strong proponent of it.

In essence, the key reason the Germans lost the war was by being Nazis, with the heads of the hydra tangling up and snapping at each other. Put another way, they got as far as they did thanks to Rommel and his crew inserting enough congruent organization for a while.

Quote from: sandman2575 on February 06, 2015, 10:36:48 AM
There's a nice sentence I recall from Max Hastings -- "War made Hitler a fantasist, but it made Stalin a realist" -- which nicely captures an essential difference between OKH/OKW and Stavka.  Stalin was willing to allow his top generals (above all Zhukov) to direct strategy.

Eventually, after killing almost all his other generals. Sure, by the time the Huns were at the gate Stalin was desperate enough to give Zhukov and any surviving competent generals a free enough rein to save the day. But it was largely thanks to Stalin's murderous meddling that things came down so close to the wire for the Soviet Union. (See for example the Russian WW2 documentary Russia's War: Blood on the Snow.)

One thing Glantz definitely contributes to, is an appreciation of JUST HOW MUCH ASSKICKING went on during the Eastern Front which has never properly been accounted for, and probably never will be thanks to the insane governments of each side trying to ignore and distort inconvenient facts. Whole armies worth of divisions and corps, two or three armored operations larger than Kharkov, several more of comparable size. Had Stalin not been interfering so much, the eastern Wehrmacht would have had a much tougher time in Barbarossa, and might have been stopped with a brick wall despite unit quality disparity.

QuoteOf course, if they failed, their lives were at risk. Hitler by contrast increasingly took it upon himself to direct strategy, with predictably disastrous results. Hitler never gave a damn about logistics -- he was obsessed with ideas of esprit de corps and the uniquely German Will to fight -- these were dangerous illusions.

That's true, but also describes Stalin from early on; the main difference is that though Hitler was imposing goofy ideas from early on in the war, he had enough sense to reward and promote competent generals and incorporate them into his public relations machine with himself at the top. Stalin was too crudely paranoid and competitive (having come through a wild round of revolutions, to be fair).

Hitler could generate a real morale, perverted though it was. Stalin couldn't until things got super-desperate. Stalin indiscriminately killed as many of his own people as the German Armed Forces did. Hitler sacrificed scapegoats for national morale in the Holocaust, but really did (in his own way) believe in, and promote, the positive value of his people.

And yet, the Nazi ideology so affected and infected their military organization, that as tensions mounted (41/42 winter and being unable to crack Moscow and the grads; Torch liberating North Africa; Med invaded; Overlord coming) the handicaps compounded.

One of the things I do like about GG's War in the East (a game I have lots of reservations about) is that it makes very visible the deficiencies of the German OOB on the eve of Barbarossa. Huge reserves of manpower and infantry, yes, but the panzer divisions are relatively few, with highly variable TOEs -- some not outfitted with anything better than the captured Czech tanks -- reflecting highly variable quality. Army Group North is almost laughably unimpressive -- "they really hoped to capture and hold Leningrad with just this?"

It says a lot about German generalship and quality of the officer corps (as well as the wretched organizational state of the Red Army in '41) that they succeeded as amazingly as they did in the opening months of Barbarossa -- almost managing to fulfill Hitler's prediction that "we need only kick in the door and the whole rotten edifice will collapse."

In the end, though, I find it hard to believe that Germany could have decisively defeated the USSR. They came awfully close in some respects. But when you consider the reserves of men and material (enhanced by Lend Lease) that the Soviets had at their disposal, it just doesn't seem credible to me that the Wehrmacht possessed the fighting strength to prevail. The Russians took massive losses, but they could afford it.

If the Germans had managed to capture Moscow before winter set in in '41 -- would that have ended the war?  Would the Soviets have capitulated?  It's unclear. It's easy to imagine a scenario in which loss of Moscow would not have meant Russian capitulation -- after all, sacrificing Moscow is precisely what Katuzov did against Napoleon.

EDIT -- good points, Jason.  Indeed, Stalin deserves all the blame for the parlous state of Russian officer corps, through his paranoia-fueled pogroms of the 30s. Still, at the moment of truth, he had presence of mind enough to let Zhukov go to work. Hitler was not as paranoid as Stalin in the sense that he didn't see all his generals as potential political rivals (at least, not until the Stauffenberg attempted assassination), but he increasingly distrusted and overruled the judgments of his best generals as the war wore on, and that proved disastrous.

I was just about to type something similar. It was amazing that the Germans did as well as they did at the beginning of Barbarossa at all. It was by far Hitler's greatest mistake. If Germany and Russia remained allies, they would have ruled Europe together.

I think there's almost no chance Germany and USSR could have avoided war -- the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a cynical ploy by both sides, far from an alliance. I'm not sure USSR would have launched a war against Germany (at least one Russian historian argues USSR was gearing up for just that -- I find it incredible to say the least), but I think a Nazi invasion of USSR was all but inevitable -- for ideological and geopolitical reasons.  It was a catastrophic mistake, but I think it was 'baked into the cake' of national socialism from the beginning, even if it was suicidal.

^^ Quite true (both Gus and Sandy).

Ultimately, there was only one way the Nazi regime could win, whether on the East or on the West: convince the opponent to stop fighting.

Which of course played exactly into the Nazi ideology of cultural and genetic supremacy, the will to power. They had the will, they DEMONSTRABLY had the will. The only problem was that the British Commonwealth (who could beat them on the sea if not in any other regard at first), Russia, and America (and the French Resistance, in a limited but real tactical sense), also had the will to keep going to the bitter end, and this was something the Nazi ideology simply could not account for.

That being said, what saved Russia (aside from some crippling German organizational problems thanks to Nazi internal competition and domination) wasn't primarily Stalin finally figuring he had nothing left to lose between eating a bullet and letting his generals do their jobs; but the Motherland itself (geographical size and rivers plus Russian winters) and the Russian people. Caught unsavably between the grinding stones of Hitler and Stalin, they damn well stepped up and showed why YOU DO NOT MESS WITH RUSSIA PERIOD. (Brutally stepped up, too, but those were the circumstances.)

Do not forget about Lend-Lease.

The sheer volume of all the material was staggering and left Russia able to build only armaments.

I thought we're talking about games here.

The Pirahana  Brothers would have sorted it - vicious but fair

Great post sandman. A new book on relations between Germany and Russia from 1939 to 1941 was just released...I'm on my phone so I can't link it...but I wonder if this new book's thesis is similar to what you said above.

Quote from: Father Ted on February 06, 2015, 07:02:03 PM
The Pirahana  Brothers would have sorted it - vicious but fair

Now we'll see who really knows their Monty Python, Ted. ;)

Sarcasm: worse than foot-nailing.

^LMAO

Quote from: GDS_Starfury on February 05, 2015, 05:57:56 PM
Stay away from Glantzs book on Leningrad though. Lots if info, vetty detailed and possibly the worst written book I've ever read.  I think its unique in that ita the only book I can think of that I never finished and didnt want to.

I have his "Before Stalingrad" - fantastic research, but a dull read IMHO. As a historian, Glantz' research is superlative - 10/10, but as a writer he needs to develop a style that will engage his reader rather than boring them to sleep. It kind of undermines his outstanding research when you appreciate the facts but you find yourself glazing over at the presentation of them.

I really thought that Antony Beevor's Stalingrad book was very good - quite harrowing in parts.

Quote from: bob48 on February 07, 2015, 05:31:28 PM
I really thought that Antony Beevor's Stalingrad book was very good - quite harrowing in parts.

+1 -- Beevor's a terrific writer, as is Hastings.

His book on the Spanish Civil War is an incredible piece of work - highly recommended.

@Gus :)

You could try John Tiller's Campaign series published by Matrix, or Panzer battles Kursk for combat at the platoon level (each unit is a platoon). If you want to go even further back to the East Front, Revolution under Siege by AGEOD is interesting (Russian Civil War 1918-23).

BTW a really good Eastern Front read is Penalty Strike: The Memoirs of a Red Army Penal Company Commander, 1943-45 (Stackpole Military History Series) by Alexander V. Ply'cyn. It's a good read despite the title, which sounds like something out of a soccer game... ;)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Penalty-Strike-Commander-Stackpole-Military/dp/0811735990

^Thank you, Sir.

If we're talking books...

Vasily Grossman's "Life and Fate" and Guy Sajer's "The Forgotten Soldier" should be on your list

while not strictly Eastern Front I highly recommend Hans Von Luck's Panzer Commander.
possibly one of the best WW2 reads ever.

All of Jason D Marks books are must reads\owns.

gonna have to pick this one up:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1906033897/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d3_i4?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=desktop-2&pf_rd_r=0HF9E5GFPX092D9SE118&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=1970566762&pf_rd_i=desktop

"Lost Victories" by E von Manstein with a strong second to "Panzer Battles" by Hans von Mellinthin.

those are excellent for the "bigger picture".
but Hans Von Luck is the James Bond of the panzer corps.
imagine being a German panzer commander thats so cool the French resistance tell you to split before shit goes off?
or taking a LSD fueled road trip across Russia, during winter, in a convertible Mercedes to take a mandated vacation.

I would also add to the list;

'Barbarossa' by Alan Clark, and 'The Russo-German War' by Col. Albert Seaton. And Guderian's 'Panzer Leader' is worth a read.

My mind is spinning. So many titles to choose from  :D

Quote from: Boggit on February 07, 2015, 05:37:39 PM
@Gus :)

You could try John Tiller's Campaign series published by Matrix

Crap, I totally forgot about East Front 2 (which is the relevant title there). We even had a good campaign AAR on that a year or two ago, or was it from the Wargamer site? (Must've been there, can't find it here.)

When was that released?

Quote from: Gusington on February 09, 2015, 12:42:42 PM
When was that released?

Which version?

The original East Front 2 was around 1998.  But the Matrix re-release of the whole series (West Front, East Fronts, and Pacific) was somewhere in the mid '00s.

Still been hoping to see the modern one reworked off the old buggy Divided Ground for some Arab-Israeli and Cold War stuff.  Not sure if still alive and progressing..  :-\

Jeez that long ago? It doesn't feel like it was that long ago...

Quote from: Nefaro on February 09, 2015, 06:32:07 PM

The original East Front 2 was around 1998.  But the Matrix re-release of the whole series (West Front, East Fronts, and Pacific) was somewhere in the mid '00s.

And charge you lots of $$$$$$  :o

With little to no support at times  >:(

Quote from: Nefaro on February 09, 2015, 06:32:07 PM

Quote from: Gusington on February 09, 2015, 12:42:42 PM
When was that released?

Which version?

The original East Front 2 was around 1998.  But the Matrix re-release of the whole series (West Front, East Fronts, and Pacific) was somewhere in the mid '00s.

Still been hoping to see the modern one reworked off the old buggy Divided Ground for some Arab-Israeli and Cold War stuff.  Not sure if still alive and progressing..  :-\

Yeah waiting for that one as well.  From what I hear it is Arab-Israeli War and Vietnam.

Quote from: magnus on February 06, 2015, 06:47:20 AM
Caiden's book about Kursk is very good, not long on details, but very good.

With the current crop of books about Kursk you will find that Caiden's book is about 95% fictional. At the time it was written it was all there was. Now, you can get books that are written with archival support, both from the Soviet and German side and can get a much clearer picture of how the battle was conducted.

Quote
Glantz's books have a lot of details, but his almost adoration for the Soviets shows through all of them.

Germany's war aims and it's armed forces actions were utterly detestable, but to me the Soviets were just as bad. The German army for more than half the war was a first rate fighting force.

Glantz comes across as the Germans were inept fools and the Soviets were war masters.

When you read a book by an author, any author, you should remember they have a bias. Some are better at keeping that out of the book than others but they all have one.

Quote
I just saw posted somewhere ( SimHQ? ) some numbers that were interesting. The Germans had a AFV kill rate of 2.95 to 1.If there had been no western front and all of Germany's AFVs were available for Russia, their kill ratio would only need to 2.45 to 1 to destroy all of the Soviet AFVs.

I was brought up learning that the western powers had won the war and then with all my reading swung toward the Soviets could have defeated Germany on their own.

I now believe Germany could not have been defeated without the western powers. In fact if Kursk was allowed to continue without the loss of German troops to Italy it may well have succeeded.

The Soviet Union was well on it's way by the time the Western Powers showed up on the continent to winning the war without us. The Germans were never going to win at Kursk. The northern thrust was stopped and thrown back almost before it started. The southern thrust could have gone further but the Soviets were capable of replacing their losses. At best the Germans could have won a tactical victory at Kursk. The Soviets won and were always going to win a strategic victory there. Look at how fast the 5th Guards Tank Army was sent back into action after being almost completely destroyed in the battle at Prokhorovka.

Good Hunting.

MR

Meanwhile speaking of the early 00s, Matrix, and the Eastern Front:

Korsun Pocket (http://www.matrixgames.com/products/238/details/Korsun.Pocket) or its semi-remake Kharkov: Disaster on the Donets (http://www.matrixgames.com/products/358/details/Kharkov:.Disaster.on.the.Donets), each with an Across the Dneiper add-on.

Quote from: Mad Russian on February 10, 2015, 12:42:39 PM
The Soviet Union was well on it's way by the time the Western Powers showed up on the continent to winning the war without us. The Germans were never going to win at Kursk. The northern thrust was stopped and thrown back almost before it started. The southern thrust could have gone further but the Soviets were capable of replacing their losses. At best the Germans could have won a tactical victory at Kursk. The Soviets won and were always going to win a strategic victory there. Look at how fast the 5th Guards Tank Army was sent back into action after being almost completely destroyed in the battle at Prokhorovka.

Good Hunting.

MR

  Yep, the idea that the Germans were close to wiping out the Kursk salient at any time seems to be very misleading.  Not only was the northern attack stopped pretty quickly, but there were big soviet offensives just waiting to get underway both north (taking Orel) and south (not quite as effective, but could have been used in defending the Kursk salient).  Strategically, the battles around Kursk played out as the Soviets expected them to, judging by the subsequent Soviet offensives.

Have to agree. Like "Wacht am Rhein," the Kursk offensive seemed an act of desperation more than anything else. It's hard to believe it had ever had a chance of succeeding. The Russians were well prepared for it -- there was no element of surprise (unlike the Bulge, interestingly). The fact that the Germans went through with it smacks of a military leadership that had run out of ideas and was hoping luck would pull them through. Guderian and Model (?) argued for calling the whole thing off.

Quote from: Mad Russian link=topic=12608.msg330648#msg330648
The Soviet Union was well on it's way by the time the Western Powers showed up on the continent to winning the war without us.

Winning without our troops, not so sure they would have won without Lend-Lease and the material aid we provided. Certainly it would have taken considerably longer to reach Berlin.

Complete agreement about the outcome at Kursk.

Quote from: sandman2575 on February 10, 2015, 01:44:01 PM
Have to agree. Like "Wacht am Rhein," the Kursk offensive seemed an act of desperation more than anything else. It's hard to believe it had ever had a chance of succeeding. The Russians were well prepared for it -- there was no element of surprise (unlike the Bulge, interestingly). The fact that the Germans went through with it smacks of a military leadership that had run out of ideas and was hoping luck would pull them through. Guderian and Model (?) argued for calling the whole thing off.

  Weirdly enough, Hitler seems to have managed the whole Kursk thing well up to a point.  Sure the delay looks bad if you assume attacking earlier would have worked -- but even there Hitler was probably right to delay.  After all, a few months of not much happening on the Eastern Front was worth a lot to Germany at that point in itself.  After Kursk though, Hitler seems to have given up on anything other than defending on the Eastern Front -- the Panther-Wotan line order came out in August and envisioned a substantial withdrawal -- though of course that even that line was blown through in a few months as well.

 In answer to MR.

I said Caiden's was a good book, so is Gone with the Wind, but I wouldn't use it for studying the Civil war.

I think you didn't understand my post. It was about just Germany and it's Allies at war against the Soviet Union.

Historically, you are correct about the Soviet Union doing well until the Normandy landings.

I was talking about Germany not having a second front at all and 100+- divisions to throw into the fray.

The consensus was for a while that the Soviet Union would have won without any western allied help whatsoever.

I do not believe that. They could have, but I can see it going the other way also.

Quote from: bob48 on February 08, 2015, 06:17:55 AM
I would also add to the list;

'Barbarossa' by Alan Clark,

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/dominic-lawson/alan-clark-was-not-wonderful-he-was-sleazy-and-cruel-1787343.html

I have a copy of his Barbarossa book, and it is not egregious, if memory serves, but Clark's First World War revisionism certainly was - it was he who fabricated the lie about "lions led by donkeys," including the quote that never existed. Better historians than Clark have been trying to demolish the myths he created, for decades, thanks to his witty invention.

Barbarossa has the advantage of being easy reading, but if the tabloids are correct about Clark being as "admirer of the Führer," one wonders how much he managed to fabricate in that one, too.

For straight nuts-and-bolts, Glantz is the way to go, though he certainly gets few style points.

A more unconventional route might be the two-part Hitler biography by Ian Kershaw. The books ("Hubris" and "Nemesis") are actually more of a Third Reich history than a straight biography, and the second volume may serve as a very high-level Ostfront overview.

The translation of Hitler's military conferences is also interesting, particularly the detailed footnotes, though they are fragmentary.

 Have you ever heard the supposed conversation between hitler and Mannerheim?

It is quite an eye opener if true.

I have Hubris by Kershaw, waiting to be read. About to start reading his 'The End' about the fall of the Third Reich.

Quote from: magnus on February 10, 2015, 08:05:09 PM
Have you ever heard the supposed conversation between hitler and Mannerheim?

It is quite an eye opener if true.

Link?

Quote from: magnus on February 10, 2015, 08:05:09 PM
Have you ever heard the supposed conversation between hitler and Mannerheim?

It is quite an eye opener if true.

Didn't Bruno Ganz, the actor who played Hitler in Downfall, repeatedly listen to this so he could the part right?

http://civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com/19880/transcript-of-a-recording-of-adolph-hitler-and-carl-mannerheim

The Hitler and Mannerheim Recording in Finland, June 4, 1942 (Subtitles)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oET1WaG5sFk

Quote from: magnus on February 10, 2015, 04:46:47 PM

The consensus was for a while that the Soviet Union would have won without any western allied help whatsoever.

I do not believe that. They could have, but I can see it going the other way also.

  I think the Germans could have managed a stalemate at least against the USSR if England had surrendered in 1940, but given the blockade of Germany and more or less free supply flow into the USSR thanks to the Royal Navy and later the USA, coupled with Germany's rapidly collapsing industry and lack of basic  necessities for war such as copper and oil, as long as there was any pressure at all from the West, Germany was not going to even get a stalemate in the East.  But you have to read The Wages of Destruction to see how terminally bad off the
Germans were in industrial terms even before the war started.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2006/aug/12/featuresreviews.guardianreview16

when playing East Front wargames its important to keep in mind what you can do that the Germans didnt.
you have a unified command structure, a unified industrial base and  hopefully a single strategic vision.  under those conditions its fairly easy for Germany to get quick victories.  historically none of that existed.

 +1 GDS

Sorry for not giving a link. I was also running late so I didn't add why exactly I thought it was relevant.

During the conversation, he says something to the effect " if I had known, they had 10,000 tanks I would never have invaded".

I have seen it written several times that the planning officers did say that the SU did have that many tanks.

Quote from: magnus on February 11, 2015, 12:42:59 PM
+1 GDS

Sorry for not giving a link. I was also running late so I didn't add why exactly I thought it was relevant.

During the conversation, he says something to the effect " if I had known, they had 10,000 tanks I would never have invaded".

I have seen it written several times that the planning officers did say that the SU did have that many tanks.

   I looked at the site with the transcript.  It claims Finland won the Winter War, which seems odd.  I think they surrendered more territory than was in the original demand.

   Also Hitler says if he had known the Russians had 35,000 tanks, he would not have attacked them.  Then he maunders on until somebody faints from boredom and shuts off the recording.

   When did the Russians have 35,000 tanks?

they had gobs of those little fuckers but not a lot of T-34s and Kv's when Germany invaded.

Quote from: GDS_Starfury on February 11, 2015, 03:45:22 PM
they had gobs of those little fuckers but not a lot of T-34s and Kv's when Germany invaded.

  Of course by the time Hitler was talking in 1942, the Germans could easily have knocked out 35,000 -- say 20,000 in 1941 and another 15,000 in 1942.  Total Russian AFV production would have been say 20,000 leaving them with around 10,000 and climbing fast in late 1942