Jump to content

Glez_

Members
  • Posts

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About Glez_

  • Birthday 11/08/1982

Glez_'s Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (1/3)

0

Reputation

  1. The Russian skill lay in the strategic field? IMHO the Russian skill lay in his numbers and his disregard for human life. Using the Operation Mars as a reference, give me the name of one Western General or leader that would suffer such a devastating defeat and whose reputation would go untarnished. They would be inmediatley relieved of command. Now keeping in mind that the Russians lost more men in operation Mars than the Germans lost at Stalingrad, (300,000 Germans lost at Stalingrad,-400,000 Russians lost at Mars) the Russians seemed to have an inexhaustable force. The simple fact that the "main" Operation was Mars and NOT as we are led to beleive Uranus, is I think reason enough to rethink many ideas and concepts that for many years were beleived popular amongst the most renouned scholars.
  2. Just read about Operation Mars, the Soviet attack on Army Group Center. I am surprised as I had never heard of this operation and only read about a so called "diversionary" offensive in preparation for Uranus. I think we have to rethink Zhukov's rating given this finding. Possibly an 8 rating is too much as it puts him with the likes of Rommel and others who triumphed under what were at times very unfavorable conditions, material, logistical and numerical. For those of you interested this is a great read.:http://www.battlefield.ru/library/battles/battle12_04.html
  3. Can there be an option for a historicaly correct economy?
  4. I would have to say that after all the posts Rambo has made about ww2, especially about the Germans being so evil and we Americans being so rightous, he is wrong most of the time. Quite simply the war lasted as long as it did because of the allied incompetence at the command level. As far as the Japanese being an equal to the US, no way! Check the industrial capacity and the resources at the time. US strategy of the entire war: 1.Build more than them, 2.build more in case you "screw things up", 3.build even more in case you "screw up again". No superior strategy here.
  5. Liam, what we have to remember is that above all else, these men are politicians. Sure FDR let his generals do their work but what good did it do if he made political decisions like the "Unconditional Surrender", that only gave Hitler more propaganda to fuel his already desperate situation. Let's not forget FDR agreed to partition Germany when the US could have taken Berlin, because for all the Germans the real enemy lay in the east, not in the west. He may have been a great President,recruiter, economist, that however does not make him a great politician. Now back to Hitler,remove Hitler and you remove Mansteins brilliant plan through the Ardenes,among many other events. Don't get me wrong, Hitler made some very grave mistakes, but he put himself in a position to be able to make those mistakes. The allies gave him nothing he took it all from them. Sudetanland Czechoslovakia, Austria, Rhur industrial area, these were all his victories, through diplomacy and politics, therefore he was a great politician. On a side note I ask you the age old question: Who was worse Stalin or Hitler? Take into account cruelty, # of murders, etc. etc. [ May 21, 2004, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: Glez_ ]
  6. Let me see, FDR with the worlds greatest industrial power behind him and the largest navy, not much strategy there, just build build build , and build untill you out build the Germans. Oh, and let's not forget that his diplomatic actions made his military victories useless. ( Teheran, Casablanca etc.) Stalin, here you may have a point. If not for Stalin's brutality, his country would not have survived, and also because of his brutality,( purges) his country almost did'nt survive. Churchill, here I see the best of the three. Although he is responsible for gearing Britains economy completley toward war. A great setback after the war as it took Britain much longer to recover, and arguably unnecesary as once the US entered it was all decided. Mussolini, Italy was in no way shape or form ready for war in the 40's, make of that what you will. Hitler, responsible for many of the Germans victories and defeats. Without him the German people would'nt have had the guts to enter a second world war, much less be on the verge of winning it. IMO, I see his greates fault in not gearing the German economy for total war sooner, and when he did they never reached ww1 figures.
  7. I think what Manstein pressed for at Kursk was for the Germans to eliminate the Soviet mobile formations, then to turn and face other threats. I guess he felt it might be the last chance the German army might have of destroying the Soviet, as it proved to be.
  8. As far as I remember, Kluge had to keep Guderian on a leash, else he would outrun his infantry support and leave vulnerable flanks. Guderian resigned his command of his panzer division and he was latter urged back by either Von Rundstet or Hitler, don't exactly remember which one. Von Kluge was a real "professional", and accepted Guderian back without any problems.
  9. I owned them all, sold them on ebay and Vicky was the last game I purchaed from Paradox. I have come to the conclusion that it indeed is the same game. Not only I think so but many game reviewers are in accordance with me. http://www.pcgamer.com/reviews/review_2004-02-16r.html
  10. That's just it right there. Paradox makes the same game over and over, only changing the map, graphics and timeframe. Why did'nt they ever get the AI right in HoI but got the AI better in Victoria? Because once they sucker you into buying their game, they begin to devise a new plan for you to buy their newest game. Hence concentrate more on making another rather than fixing the old.
  11. To be honest, I was a bit angry at the thought of Paradox making HoI2, simply because they never got HoI right in the first place! Why not finish the first one and then go for the second. What makes me even more angry, is the fact that all they'll do is add new graphics, new map, and maybe a few more techs and the latest version of HoI and call it HoI2 and charge you $50 US for it. To think I used to enjoy Paradox games.
  12. With these three developing a WW2 Grand Strategy game, my money is on Battlefront to come up with the best from what I've seen so far. Matrix- GG World at War: Looks like an advanced axis and allies type of game. Paradox- HoI2: We all know Paradox likes to milk their titles for all their worth. Looks like nothing more than a glorified and might I say expensive($40-$50) patch. Battlefront- SC2: Innovative and new it looks to build upon SC with many new additions that will undoubtedly make for a better game. The "Wargamers" game choice.
×
×
  • Create New...