Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/15/2018 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    God help us all if those "experienced combat soldiers" ever have to deal with an actual Russian force, Russia will be at the Rhine in 72 hours. As @Rinaldi has said, most NATO forces are in pitiful states, but Germany is singled out for being in an especially poor state. I'm pretty sure the spinning corpses of Frederick and Blucher could power all of Europe if they were to see the state of today's German "army."
  2. 2 points
    How can they be well-trained when the Bundeswehr quite literally can't even afford to keep its vehicles functional or its guns shooting? A few years ago, one of the Germans' highest readiness units literally showed up to a massive joint international training exercise with broomsticks painted black strapped to their vehicles because they didn't have enough machine guns that worked. This is the culmination of German training. Going "bang bang" with broomsticks at a massive pan-European defense exercise because they can't afford real guns. Now, to be honest, going "bang bang" is fine in something like in-unit exercises, even the Americans probably do it to save money. But while the Americans then go to train for real at the NTC with main battle tanks and IFVs and helicopters and fighter jets... the Germans still train with broomsticks at international NATO exercises. Because they can't afford to do better. Because the American battalion is backed by the DOD, which keeps enough money around that when necessary, the Americans can get the spare parts and ammunition and fuel to get all their equipment in action and ready to go. Which is how the National Guard can go from "we drive half our tanks" to "YEE-HAW BOYS LET'S GO" in so many months. The Germans can't even do that with their highest-readiness units. They ran out of money in the spare parts budget, and had to strip the rest of the army for spare parts to rush to PzGrenBtl 371 (the German contribution to NATO's VHRJTF) for NATO exercises a few years back. They still couldn't manage to get the battalion to its paper strength. 180,000 personnel and a budget of 40 billion euros a year, and they can't even manage to field one battalion at full strength despite borrowing equipment from the entire rest of the army. Like @Rinaldi said, the Bundeswehr is an utter mess. Even the SPD acknowledges it, and they're the people who complain about "NATO saber rattling" and see the BW's budget as a piggy bank to be hacked away.
  3. 2 points
    No, its sign of sloppy discipline and lax grooming standards. There are no 'experienced combat soldiers' in the Bundeswehr; just some geared-up fellows from one of the quietest areas of Afghanistan. The Bundeswehr is a mess, and has been for a long time. On the one hand its a good sign of a healthy pacifist movement in Germany, on the other hand its a worrying sign about funding problems (beyond the usual) for the military and for piss-poor retention rates for enlisted men. They are dealing with less of what they should be dealing with materially and in terms of manpower; and they aren't getting the pick of the litter.
  4. 2 points
    General Jack Ripper

    This guy is worth a watch

    U.S. Lend Lease became law in March 1941, and the first shipments of over 300,000 tons of supplies (in 1941) began on June 22. Granted, the total amount of Lend-Lease to the Soviets in 1941 was very small, only about 2% of the total wartime shipments; 1942 amounted to about 2.5 Million tons, or about 14% of total. The British delivered weapons in 1941 on the back of American credit, in fact, almost all British supplies sent to the USSR were paid for with American credit. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ssd?id=mdp.39015004950914 1. I've heard it took until early 1942 (February or March) to get production up to the levels of 1941 before the factories moved, but I haven't seen anything specific yet. (Citation Needed) 2. Post-war, the Soviets had an almost fanatical censorship campaign in place which systematically devalued the contributions of the other nations in WW2. It got so bad that battle records of campaigns were literally burned in order to cover up the full scale of Soviet defeats early in the war. David M. Glantz has written extensively on this topic, and an interesting yet abbreviated lecture for the U.S. Army War College is on YouTube: 3. I think the evidence is conclusive that Germany did not plan for a campaign against the Soviet Union lasting longer than one year. I'm reminded of an anecdote from Vietnam I once heard: In the basement of the Pentagon, the Department of Defense wanted to know how long it would take to win the Vietnam War. So they compiled all statistical data they had available, fed it into a supercomputer, and went home for the weekend while they waited for it to spit out the answer. When they arrived Monday morning, the computer had spat out a card with one sentence on it: "You won the war in 1965, but the enemy also gets a vote." 4. I think it's relatively simple. Hitler and the Nazis did not possess a rational worldview. In fact, Dan Carlin recently released a video where he speculates the overall reason Germany lost World War Two is because of the Nazis themselves: I know Dan Carlin is not a historian, but he makes a very compelling argument. Based on my own reading of Mein Kampf, I have to agree. Hitler was not a rational individual. It has been said elsewhere in this thread, but I agree completely. Wars are not fought by individuals. If they were, we could simply mobilize our wargamers to command legions of unmanned weapon systems and conquer the world... > I disagree. The Germans acted quickly to secure the Balkan oil fields specifically because they knew the blockade would not end. After their experience with the British blockade in WW1, I refuse to believe they would not anticipate such an eventuality from happening again. Things like "The Turnip Winter" will stick in the memory of people for generations. > Indeed, and when you see things like the Detroit Tank Arsenal ALONE out-producing the entire German Tank-Building Industry during WW2, you realize oil alone is not the deciding factor in that equation. Overall, the Germans did not fully mobilize their economy and industry towards war production until 1942. Hitler was adamant about not encumbering the German population with things like rationing and shortages like they faced in WW1. Like I said, "The Turnip Winter" tends to stick in the minds of the people who went through it. As far as manpower goes, where do you get the idea the Axis and Allied manpower were close? They weren't even in the same hemisphere. Even a simple wiki search shows the extraordinary gap: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#Historical_context > Is it oil, or is it the fact the United States had vast amounts of natural resources, food, strategic minerals, steel production, etc. and simply gave it all away with the understanding that the cost for everything would only be counted after the war was over? It wasn't just war materiel that got sent through lend-lease, but things like raw steel, coal, oil, gas, food, etc. Meanwhile, Germany had a chronic inability to fully mobilize and take advantage of the strategic resources and production facilities they took over. Not planning for a long war led them to simply disregard the ideas of re-tooling captured factories for war production until it was too late. French factories mostly sat idle in the occupied territories, and while Germany did take over the entire Czech tank force, they made relatively little use of the excellent arms production facilities available. If every scrap of resources had been put towards the war fighting effort from the very beginning... well, we'll never know the answer to that question... > From June 1941, to the end of 1942, the Soviets produced some 30,000 tanks, and received several thousand lend-lease tanks. Which is at least four times as many as the Germans produced in the same time period. Just because your enemy doesn't have as many tanks, is no reason to not produce them in staggering numbers. Even in June 1941, the Soviets had a 2:1 advantage in tanks, and made ruthless efforts at increasing production all throughout the war, to the point they used substandard metals and far looser tolerances than were seen as standard in the western nations. "The Red Army categorized tank readiness in five categories, from 1 to 5, with 1 being new and 5 being retired for scrapping. In the western military districts that bore the brunt of the 1941 fighting, there were 12,782 tanks, of which 2,157 (17 percent) were new (Category 1), 8,383 (66 percent) were operational with minor maintenance issues (Category 2), and the rest (18 percent) in need medium maintenance or capital rebuilding." - Zaloga, Steven. Armored Champion: The Top Tanks of World War II (Kindle Locations 1491-1494). Stackpole Books. Kindle Edition. Weapons production is a question of DOCTRINE, not statistical analysis. Soviet doctrine emphasized the use of light, highly mobile artillery, and so they built large numbers of mortars. Soviet doctrine also emphasized the breakthrough role of tanks and mechanized infantry, and so they build many thousands of them too. http://armchairgeneral.com/deep-battle-the-vision-of-marshall-tukhachevskii.htm > When the vast majority of your major industrial base is powered by coal, which the Germans had in abundance, then the lack of production of war materiel cannot be summarized as: "They didn't have enough oil." The Germans needed oil for OPERATIONS, not PRODUCTION. If World War Two is a battle of production (as has often been stated), then the Germans did not lose it because of a lack of oil. They lost it because they didn't want to work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in a fully mobilized wartime economy. At least, not until it was clear they were losing, and then their utilization of forced labor tells a clear and understandable story. Not only did they lack production, but they also lacked manpower. They couldn't meet the manpower needs of the military, and also run their factories at their maximum rate. They had to utilize forced labor to ensure their production could meet it's goals, and even then, a chunk of their dwindling production capacity was spent on projects that would not prove to be of any benefit. Vengeance Weapons for example. Their incompetence in the realm of strategic planning is obvious. Compare Germany to the United States, which had a clearly defined production plan, immediate and effective national mobilization, a well-organized industrial base, and highly competent businessmen and army personnel in charge of planning, design, development, and production. But this brings me back to the Dan Carlin video I posted up above: Why were such incompetent people in charge of the German war effort? Because of the Nazis... Anyway, that's all I have to say about that. Thanks for the thread, it went down well with lunch.
  5. 2 points
    Marwek77 aka Red Reporter

    The patch?

    Another question - if Steve is silent, other testers are silent... Maybe they all are victims of some kind of digital Novichok poison and we all just dont know it...
  6. 1 point
    SpetsNaz, I think, vs muj in 1986. Russians are desperately trying to interdict Stinger shipments and capture a sample. Lots of war toys, including Mi-24V HIND/D. Really well done show, with real characters, not caricatures. Am finding this more than a bit surreal, for I was at Rockwell then and can well recall the electric sense of excitement we all felt in Operations Analysis when we got DOD Betamax footage of a muj downing a MI--17 HIP with a Stinger, We knew this would have a profound impact on Russian ability to use air power, especially helos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXo0ILflfYs Regards, John Kettler
  7. 1 point
    IanL

    The patch?

    Yep, that's it.
  8. 1 point
    "Micheal Emrys is Innocent" sung to the tune of "George Davis is Innocent" by SHAM 69
  9. 1 point
    danfrodo

    This guy is worth a watch

    When discussing the lack of forceful answers to Hitler in the mid to late 1930s, one must also recognize the context of the lives of the men involved. They had all watched in abject horror the greatest slaughter in human history, perpetrated by the much vaunted 'western civilization'. WW1 was in all their minds as they desperately, yet obviously quite naively, tried to avoid a replay of 1914-18. While it's fun to laugh at how foolish Chamberlain et al were, we should also recognize that restraint and diplomacy (especially in Germany & Russia) in 1914 would've made Hitler's later rise to power impossible. His rise was only possible in the post-apocalyptic world left by WW1. And if one wants to look at our own time, compare current US psychopath John Bolton to the one of the greatest, most incompetent warmongering criminals of all time, Conrad of Austria, who more than any other pushed the Europe into WW1 (my source for Conrad comment, A World Undone, by Meyer, a great book on WW1). And when looking at Churchill, I'd say he's good when there's a war -- but war was always the answer for him. So when diplomacy IS the right answer, he is not the one you want. His meddling and micromanaging actually hurt the British war effort in so many ways, so many times, but overall he did provide the leadership that was needed at the time it was needed. In 1914 he's not the type you want. In 1938 he is.
  10. 1 point
    Michael Emrys

    This guy is worth a watch

    I did not write this, as a retrospective reading of the relevant posts will show. Erwin, you need to be more careful how you quote. Michael
  11. 1 point
    Were we? Given our failure to create an anti-Nazi alliance before 1939, I'd say we were pretty crap at diplomacy.
  12. 1 point
    The Steppenwulf

    The patch?

    I've got to admit I now have more than two games (as of this evening) on hold because of poor AI behaviour that have stopped play. When veteran troops (and +2), rested and OK are in cover behind bocage but come under pinning fire, they do not run out from the bocage into the exposed field of fire - unless they first panic or at least become nervous. Pinned does not mean panic, it means pinned! Infuriating stuff!
  13. 1 point
    No. This is T-80B/BV. GTD-1000 engine is substituting on 6TD. Possibly like on upgraded T-64BV will mount digital radio, GPS and thermal sights. As If in Ukraine T-64 and T-80 have the same modernization program. These tanks more probably for 36th Marines brigade, which tank battlion will change own T-64BV on T-80B(V)
  14. 1 point
    usgubgub

    The patch?

    I must admit that I am getting worried about this. The long silence and inactivity is unusual. Perhaps there is a deeper problem behind all of this that cannot be resolved. That would be a great shame. I find it difficult to explain what we are seeing (or not seeing) as just a bit of a sulk. I can't remember a patch taking this long after the new version release.
  15. 1 point
    Lethaface

    This guy is worth a watch

    Well, opinions of researchers differ on this subject but that doesn't really matter in the end: how much comes down to a few. Edit: in the (recent) version of Achtung Panzer I have read, the liddel Heart issue is addressed and the outcome is different to your view. Anyway Guderian doesn't claim anymore than just building further on idea's of others. Personally I don't care, idea's dont have 'owners' (apart from legal fiction). At the same time they are often only grasped by a few.
  16. 1 point
    Rinaldi

    This guy is worth a watch

    I won't say I have a hand in this discussion, but it's worth noting that 3 to 3.5 million of the Red Army's "casualties" were murdered, worked-to-death or starved-to-death POWs. Try to remember that a racially and politically charged war of annihilation was being fought. The losses were always going to be heavier, and the fatality figures almost certainly take that into account (re.: Civilians). As for lend lease, yes; I am in the party that believes it was decisive to the Soviet Union's survival. No one can convince me that a nation can re-locate and re-organize its industry under fire and have provision of non-lethal and lethal aid 'merely be a help.' That the Russians even recognize it is admirable, but the typical language ("we dont really know how helpful it was" or "it was helpful, but....") is to me, shoddy post-war revisionism.
  17. 1 point
    Mad Addy always considered the western part of the old Russian Empire as a "bread basket" for German "Lebensraum". Hence his emphasis on it's importance. Also, the plonker thought that he "only had to kick in the door for the whole edifice to come crashing down" i.e. the war in the East would be over by the autumn of '41, and there would be no reason to capture the southern oil fields as they would pass to him on the surrender he envisaged. The need for more oil than he could get from Romania only came after the Russian counter-attack in the winter of '41/42. As the old saying goes, never trust a man who spends all his time in Bierkellers, and only drinks mineral water.
  18. 1 point
    That's one humongous 'if'!
  19. 1 point
    The main reason that Germany did not have more mechanized divisions was that Germany's automotive industry (in the broadest sense) simply could not come close to producing the necessary number of the various vehicles required. Michael
×