Jump to content

Ivanov

Members
  • Content Count

    1,020
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    Ivanov got a reaction from kinophile in Bundeswehr trains for a new deployment in the Baltics   
    I think we need some meditation and spiritual healing 


  2. Upvote
    Ivanov got a reaction from Rinaldi in The Future MARINE RIFLE SQUAD   
    Looks more like SOF.
     
     
  3. Like
    Ivanov reacted to The Steppenwulf in 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!
  4. Like
    Ivanov reacted to Amizaur in KSA Patriot PAC-2 vs. Houthi's BMs   
    That "warhead like object" mentioned  is just a reflection on camera lens...  Which is obvious when the video is wached at normal FPS rate.
    Reading above text further thatn that is just waste of time. 
  5. Like
    Ivanov reacted to SgtHatred in The patch?   
    Only stopping along the way to commit as many warcrimes as they could. Mad respect over here.
     
     
    Anyway, it took Battlefront 3 versions to add a toggle for music independent of the sound toggle. 1+ years to correct a real bug is in the correct ballpark.
  6. Like
    Ivanov reacted to slysniper in The patch?   
    if one thing is consistent with this site, its the announcement that something is coming out soon and it seems to come out way later than what everyone is hoping for.
  7. Like
    Ivanov got a reaction from Lethaface in This guy is worth a watch   
    Yesterday, I stumbled upon an impressive series of books dedicated to Operation Barbarossa. Here the author takes one of TiK's videos. Pretty impressive stuff if you ask me:

    http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/an-essay-on-why-i-believe-a-tik-u-tube-presentation-is-incorrect-in-regards-to-losses-and-strengths-on-the-east-front/

    http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Essay-alt-view-TIK-presentation.pdf
     
    Pretty good summary of TIK:

    "Overall, the video made some good points. However, on its own it definitely gives the average person (who may have a cursory, or no significant, knowledge of the War on the Eastern Front) the completely wrong impression".
     
  8. Like
    Ivanov reacted to Bulletpoint in This guy is worth a watch   
    Also, this:
    "The last section, and perhaps the most interesting, is why the presenter shows a complete lack of understanding of what it actually means to be outnumbered (by even 2 to 1) in a modern war and where both sides have very similar levels of technology"
  9. Like
    Ivanov got a reaction from Bulletpoint in This guy is worth a watch   
    Yesterday, I stumbled upon an impressive series of books dedicated to Operation Barbarossa. Here the author takes one of TiK's videos. Pretty impressive stuff if you ask me:

    http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/an-essay-on-why-i-believe-a-tik-u-tube-presentation-is-incorrect-in-regards-to-losses-and-strengths-on-the-east-front/

    http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Essay-alt-view-TIK-presentation.pdf
     
    Pretty good summary of TIK:

    "Overall, the video made some good points. However, on its own it definitely gives the average person (who may have a cursory, or no significant, knowledge of the War on the Eastern Front) the completely wrong impression".
     
  10. Like
    Ivanov reacted to usgubgub in This guy is worth a watch   
    Germany lost the war because of a combination of factors, but in my view the most important was the poor quality of its political leadership, starting with Hitler himself. The German leadership operated on assumptions that had no basis in what was the real strategic situation of the nation they were leading. There were plenty of leaders in high positions who were aware of some or all of the discrepancies between what efforts the nation could be asked to produce and what it would eventually find itself having to produce to cope with the situation brought about by the leadership's choices, but they were not high enough to matter and the key decisions were made by a small coterie whose blind ambitions and instincts for gambling with their people's futures knew no bounds. They were a bunch of chancers, blinded by initial good fortune.
    The Soviet Union had an appalling beginning of hostilities in 1941, and its experience only began to turn around at the end of 1942, but its general strategic situation was always better than Germany's so they could afford to take losses that would have crippled Germany many times over. I include support from the UK and the US in that strategic situation, as well as Japan's decision not to attack the Soviet Union (they recognised that they had their hands full having to cope with an enraged US). 1941 was a close run thing, but close run is good enough. The Soviet Union, and Stalin, also enjoyed better luck.
    With all of his faults, Stalin was a better leader than Hitler, and better suited to the peoples he was leading.
    The German people have enormous potential, but their strategic situation is poor, stuck as they are in the middle of a continental mass with borders that are hard to defend. Twice in the past century, it has been proved that no matter how superior their land forces may be in like for like combat power compared to their adversaries, this vulnerability puts them in a bad place to start and win a war that they can't finish quickly.
    The lack of oil, which by the way affected Japan, too, was just one given at the beginning that should have featured more in the leadership's calculations. Their strategy should have been very different from the outset, in 1933, when they seized power. Hitler, alas, was a man in a hurry. He wanted to finish the whole project while he still enjoyed vitality. He bent the whole nation's timetable to his own. He was not of sufficient stature to understand that what he wanted to accomplish might be achieved only if he was prepared to allow more time than what he had left to live to be taken, and built a political machine instead which would have stood a chance to continue to the objective long after he was gone.
    The USA have done a better job of achieving and maintaining a dominant position globally than the Third Reich or the Soviet Union, at least so far. We are now witnessing China attempting something similar. So much for the "end of history".
  11. Like
    Ivanov reacted to Lethaface in This guy is worth a watch   
    My 'decisions win wars' comment was a little tongue in cheek (as denoted by the smiley), although with a touch of seriousness. The problem I perceive in TIKs movies is mainly in reasoning. I'm a bit of allergic to his type of reasoning, because I see it a lot these days. In my opinion his videos are compromised with root cause attribution errors. I will try to explain why:
    The most easy way of going about this, is by reversing the statement or removing the factor from the equation:
    So, would having 'enough' oil have won the war for Germany? The answer to this is not obvious yes (possibly even a simple 'no'), from which I conclude that oil is not 'the' reason Germany lost the war. It's a gross oversimplification, like Ivanov has very meticulously explained in his posts.
    So, another tongue in cheek: I call TIK's oil and raise it with aircraft carriers: Germany lost the war because they didn't have aircraft carrier strike groups.
  12. Like
    Ivanov reacted to Michael Emrys in This guy is worth a watch   
    Now here's the thing: Although I can't quote exact figures, I'm pretty sure that most of the energy needs of German industry were supplied by coal, like with most other industrial powers. And Germany had coal in abundance, more than it could use. They had so much that they were even turning all they could into synthetic petroleum, not primarily to fuel industry but to try to train pilots for the Luftwaffe and for other tactical uses.
    Michael
  13. Upvote
    Ivanov got a reaction from HerrTom in This guy is worth a watch   
    Nah - while I appreciate his efforts, the video is full of errors and he comes to the wrong conclusions. You have to be very careful with all those Youtube prophets. While invading the Soviet Union in 1941, Hitler wasn't that preoccupied with oil as the author suggests. Hitler was formed by the WW1 experience of hunger caused by the naval blockade, so his main goal was to create an agrarian empire. So he was mainly going for the black earth of Ukraine. At the beginning of Barbarossa, Hitler's main objective was not Caucasus but Leningrad. Then in the second place Ukraine and Caucasus and on the third place Moscow. The 2nd Panzergruppe was turned south not to capture Caucasus but to liquidate the Soviet forces around Kiev ( which was a sound decision ). As to the 4 months fuel stocks theory, the operation Barbarossa failed not because the Germans ran out fuel. Actually none of the major German defeats like Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Ukraine 43 or Bagration was caused by this reason. The main reason why Germany lost the war, was that Wehrmacht bled to death in the Eastern Front and eventually got defeated by the Red Army. The oil shortages were severely affecting German war waging capabilities from the second half of 1944, when the war was already lost. As to the inability to access the the main world oil sources of USA, Wenezuela, Middle East and Soviet Union, it meant that the Third Reich never had a chance to win a global war, but the reasons why they actually lost, were different. 
  14. Like
    Ivanov got a reaction from umlaut in This guy is worth a watch   
    Nah - while I appreciate his efforts, the video is full of errors and he comes to the wrong conclusions. You have to be very careful with all those Youtube prophets. While invading the Soviet Union in 1941, Hitler wasn't that preoccupied with oil as the author suggests. Hitler was formed by the WW1 experience of hunger caused by the naval blockade, so his main goal was to create an agrarian empire. So he was mainly going for the black earth of Ukraine. At the beginning of Barbarossa, Hitler's main objective was not Caucasus but Leningrad. Then in the second place Ukraine and Caucasus and on the third place Moscow. The 2nd Panzergruppe was turned south not to capture Caucasus but to liquidate the Soviet forces around Kiev ( which was a sound decision ). As to the 4 months fuel stocks theory, the operation Barbarossa failed not because the Germans ran out fuel. Actually none of the major German defeats like Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Ukraine 43 or Bagration was caused by this reason. The main reason why Germany lost the war, was that Wehrmacht bled to death in the Eastern Front and eventually got defeated by the Red Army. The oil shortages were severely affecting German war waging capabilities from the second half of 1944, when the war was already lost. As to the inability to access the the main world oil sources of USA, Wenezuela, Middle East and Soviet Union, it meant that the Third Reich never had a chance to win a global war, but the reasons why they actually lost, were different. 
  15. Like
    Ivanov reacted to BletchleyGeek in This guy is worth a watch   
    From probably the most boring book ever on WW2, and via my collection of bookmarks on WW2 "numbers" (many links broken, though :-( )
    World War II: A Statistical Survey: The Essential Facts and Figures for All the Combatants
    by John Ellis https://books.google.com/books/about/World_War_II.html?id=T72aQgAACAAJ    
    Figures given in 1,000s of tons, so 888 = 888,000 tons of oil. For an indirect confirmation of the above there's this short article from a journal published by the University of  Kentucky 
    http://www.caer.uky.edu/energeia/PDF/vol12_5.pdf
    that cites a total synthetic fuel production of 18,000,000 tons for the period of 1939 to 1945. There used to a huge site devoted to document German synthetic oil  production, but it seems to be down these days. So the above may be a bit off, but it is in the same order of magnitude.
    You can see that total net production of fuel - both from inside the Reich own oil wells and its synthetic fuel plants. You can see a very clear dip between 1943 and 1944 due to the Romanian fields being goners as Romania switched sides, and the contraband of Venezuelan oil through Spain stopping due to the liberation of France. The Reich production declined due to the very active aerial campaign against the fields and the synthetic fuel plants.  No data I can found on 1945, but my guess is that the collapse of German railroads as the Allied air force focused on the German bridges and rolling stock during 1945 pretty much rendered irrelevant any production by the Spring.
    We can see that oil production at the peak of the Axis war fortunes was significantly smaller than during  1943, the actual turning point of the fortunes of the Axis.
    It's still a tiny volume compared with the production of the US or the Soviet Union even, but certainly it was sufficient to clobber into submission Western Europe, and almost cripple the Soviet Union.
  16. Upvote
    Ivanov got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in This guy is worth a watch   
    @Bozowans Hitler wasn't preoccupied with the oil because the war with USSR was supposed to be over by the end of 1941. The only mention of oil during the planning of Barbarossa, was curiously enough in the context of Crimea, which was supposed to be captured in order to prevent Soviets from bombing of the Romanian oilfields. I'm not saying that oil was unimportant. I'm just opposed to a simplification, that it was the main reason why Germany lost the war. And yes, I've watched the whole video and I think the author contradicts himself. The source he quotes most often is: "The First War for Oil: The Caucasus, German Strategy, and the Turning Point of the War on the Eastern Front, 1942", which I think is an article. To me it seems like a "one source syndrome": an enthusiastic amateur gets excited over one, maybe a little revisionist source and starts constructing his own narration. 
    Back to Hitler - Kershaw or Snyder write at length about his aims for the upcoming war. It was an autarkic, agrarian empire in the east, that would allow Germany to be immune to the British or US naval blockades. He was too chaotic to be seriously preoccupied by some practical considerations, like getting enough of oil for his armed forces. Again, in the long run lack of oil was one of the biggest issues, that were affecting war waging capacity of the Third Reich. But there were few other, at least equally important issues. They assured German defeat, long before the oil shortages became critical. For example at least equally serious was the small pool of trained reserves, caused by the fact that until 1935 ( only 4 years before the outbreak of a major, world war against major powers ), there was no conscription in Germany. This lack of trained reserves ( especially in comparison to the Soviet Union ) was at least equally crippling as the lack of oil. Hell, I think I should grab now my camera now and make a video, claiming that Hitler lost the war because of insufficient reserves of trained manpower: "TIK destroyed - the shocking, real reason why Germany lost revealed" 
  17. Like
    Ivanov got a reaction from Lethaface in This guy is worth a watch   
    He starts the video with a sentence: "why Germany lost the war? It can be summed up with one word: oil". This is a gross oversimplification. I understand that Youtube needs simple, catchy answers, but in reality the lack of oil was one of few significant reasons why Germans couldn't win. Incoherent German leadership, bad management of it's available resources and industry, strategic and operational errors, logistics and vast material superiority of the Allies, were equally important. Selecting one decisive factor ( in this case oil ) is absurd and naive.

     
    In theory taking the Caucasus could be a decisive problem for Soviet Union. The thing is, that the Germans could never succeed in this task, because they had never enough forces, to seriously contemplate a success there. The forces forces of Army Group A were absurdly small for the task. A quick look on the map reveals it all. Caucasus offensive failed, because there were insufficient forces allocated to the task and because of the logistics. Not because the panzers didn't have enough of fuel. Another issue is bad management of the conquered resources. In theory by 1942 the territories that Nazis had under their control, could allow them to match the production of United States ( Tooze, The Wages of Destruction ). They never came close.

     
    Unfortunately what Hitler thought was decisive. Many of modern commentators apply a hindsight and current day, rational thinking to the Nazi leadership of the WW2 period, which is a mistake. Nazis were shooting and gassing Jewish women and children, because according to their ideology it was acting "in self defence". Jurgen Stroop said, that he had to liquidate the Jews "for honey and milk of Ukraine". How could anyone expect a rational thinking from that kind of people? From the other hand, in theory the food supplies and oil were both indispensable for waging a prolonged war. Bad management of the war effort and atrocious policies towards the conquered peoples, assured that the Nazis could never get hold and take a full advantage of either.
  18. Like
    Ivanov reacted to Michael Emrys in This guy is worth a watch   
    Exactly. While he seems to have gotten better as he has gained experience in this field, his earlier efforts are hobbled by all the things he doesn't know. This leads him to make shallow and misguided conclusions at times. As is sometimes said of books about the war, these shows are okay as an introduction to their subjects for those new to them, but should not be relied on as an authority.
    Michael
  19. Like
    Ivanov got a reaction from Bulletpoint in This guy is worth a watch   
    Nah - while I appreciate his efforts, the video is full of errors and he comes to the wrong conclusions. You have to be very careful with all those Youtube prophets. While invading the Soviet Union in 1941, Hitler wasn't that preoccupied with oil as the author suggests. Hitler was formed by the WW1 experience of hunger caused by the naval blockade, so his main goal was to create an agrarian empire. So he was mainly going for the black earth of Ukraine. At the beginning of Barbarossa, Hitler's main objective was not Caucasus but Leningrad. Then in the second place Ukraine and Caucasus and on the third place Moscow. The 2nd Panzergruppe was turned south not to capture Caucasus but to liquidate the Soviet forces around Kiev ( which was a sound decision ). As to the 4 months fuel stocks theory, the operation Barbarossa failed not because the Germans ran out fuel. Actually none of the major German defeats like Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Ukraine 43 or Bagration was caused by this reason. The main reason why Germany lost the war, was that Wehrmacht bled to death in the Eastern Front and eventually got defeated by the Red Army. The oil shortages were severely affecting German war waging capabilities from the second half of 1944, when the war was already lost. As to the inability to access the the main world oil sources of USA, Wenezuela, Middle East and Soviet Union, it meant that the Third Reich never had a chance to win a global war, but the reasons why they actually lost, were different. 
  20. Like
    Ivanov reacted to Miller786 in The patch?   
    A rotten argument, just because you can use other tactics i doesn't mean that single shot bren guns aren't a big deal, if i wanted a close range weapon i would have 2 sten guns in my sections...
  21. Like
    Ivanov got a reaction from Blazing 88's in Happy Valentines Day   
    Yeah, Happy Valentine's Day!


  22. Like
    Ivanov reacted to IICptMillerII in The patch?   
    @Kuderian @slysniper
     
    If you watch this video and still think there is absolutely no problem, you're either high, delusional, or both. 
    The fact is, there IS an issue, and Steve has already acknowledged it and said there will be a patch that addresses it. Again to reiterate what I've already said, I would like it if the patch was out sooner rather than later, but I'm not all butthurt that it hasn't been released yet. 
  23. Like
    Ivanov reacted to Hardradi in The patch?   
    Rightly or wrongly I am with CptMiller and Bozowans here. Millers video is very telling and mimics what I have seen in battles vs the AI.
    I have been waiting for a fix to continue my Road to Nijmegen campaign since April last year. To me the change to 4.0 was like chalk and cheese for the desperate Airborne in the later battles of this campaign.
    Not hating just saying.
     
  24. Like
    Ivanov reacted to Miller786 in The patch?   
    Try fighting german squads with mg42s firing bursts with your good old british sections with single shot bren guns, i'd say that's pretty game breaking in certain scenarios... after 14 months and no patch people will complain, like it or not, and they do not care how marginal you think the issues are. 14 months are a long time.
  25. Like
    Ivanov got a reaction from Pete Wenman in Is Combat Mission BS worth the steep 60$ US?   
    CMBS is worth every penny. It's a deep, immersive and realistic gaming experience, that you would enjoy for years to come. It's has a great value comparing to other types of entertainment  I'm not sure if you could even call it an entertainment. It's rather a lifestyle choice 
×
×
  • Create New...