Andreas

That is directly at odds with the Golodnikov interview linked to above. SO is right (much as it pains me to say that), you need to subtract out losses to non-combat and AAA/other ground forces before being able to make a straight comparison of claims vs. losses. To my knowledge, nobody has ever investigated German AAA claims on the eastern front (or anywhere else for that matter). I have been led to believe that they claimed roughly similar numbers as the pilots. Which would mean that together they probably destroyed twice as many planes as the VVS ever fielded. All the best Andreas

Dook Quite amusing to read that post after heaving read the interview on 'lend-lease airforce'. The same notions are expressed in both, just not about the same side. All the best Andreas

OT - but ISTR that is a myth. They may have had 8-9 hours flying time on type, but not total. The situation simply never got that dire. The guys were still extremely green though. Don't know anything about the way the Soviets managed their fighter pilots, but I would not be surprised for it to have been a lot smarter than they are given credit for. All the best Andreas

You are wrong to think so. Non sequitur. Assuming Holocaust deniers are untrustworthy liars does not equal assuming people not denying the Holocaust are always right. Regards Andreas

The same goes for the US and British pilots by comparison to the Germans. I think your logic is inverted - the Germans had a few real aces simply because they left them at the frontline for far too long, instead of withdrawing them into school units where they could pass on their experience. The only way you could retire from being a frontline pilot in the Luftwaffe was to die or be incapacitated. BTW - the average German pilot did not last long either. The attrition information in "Strategy for Defeat" shows that quite clearly. All the best Andreas

Now, regarding the other stuff you found: 1) Nizkor seems to disprove what was said in the Progressive article, thereby neatly proving my point on the trustworthyness of denial websites. 2) Jewish Virtual Library - copy of Scrapbookpages article, apparently not giving the whole story of the Roden investigation (misses the follow-on according to Nizkor and the Senate hearings). 3) VHO - if they told me the time I would get a second opinion. 4) tonyh is (as usual) being taken to task for his misguided notions about the war, guilt, and everthing. What else is new? Also, it was not the Bishop of Worms, but Bishop Wurm of Stuttgart, and there is no information on where he got his evidence of mistreatment from. So where does that leave the original claim made on the basis of an article on a denial website? Pretty much exactly where I thought it would end. Your time would be more profitably employed following Wisbech_Lad's suggestion. Regards Andreas

John I see you still have trouble getting the point I was making. Here it is again, shorn of all personal remarks: Holocaust deniers = liars Liars = not to be trusted Conclusion: if it's from a Holocaust denial website I don't trust it. If somebody (you, or anyone else) posts info from a Holocaust denial website trying to use it as an argument, but does not mention its origin, I will point out the origin of the information, to allow others to draw their own conclusions on its veracity, and I will disbelieve whatever it says unless it is confirmed by a trustworthy source. End of story. In German we have a proverb: 'Wer einmal lügt, dem glaubt man nicht, auch wenn er dann die Wahrheit spricht.' I find that a good maxim to live by. I hope that is clear now. Regars Andreas

So why the need to blame Google? Or was it just a cheap attempt to gloss over the fact that you knowingly posted another Holocaust denier link? Unlike you calling me a goon, which is obviously your idea of polite conversation. Okay, so you are going to believe serial liars if they post something on the internet that confirms your views. You can call pointing out that you get your info from Holocaust denier websites board tyranny for as long as you want. I call it a public service. As long as you continue to rake in the muck, I'll continue to point out that your evidence stinks. That sounds fair to me. If you don't like it, tough. Find better evidence. Regards Andreas

John The spoiler alert is in the first line of Jason's first post. But I'll make it clearer. Count d'Ten - I will revise the scenario, maybe even this weekend. All the best Andreas

Please, nobody in here mention politics. All the best Andreas

I agree with the conclusion. It was however not supposed to be scripted, but supposed to be very difficult for the Soviet commander. The scripting is the result of flaws in design, not of a conscious decision to make the scenario unbalanced. All the best Andreas

As the designer (I believe you are referring to the CD operation of that name which I created), I am going to take the opportunity to comment. I would like to mention in advance a couple of points that I think are required to understand what went on in the design process. But in any case, your post is extremely useful feedback, and I would like to thank you for taking the time to explain at length what is wrong with the scenario. - '21st Army Counterattacks' is one of the first CMBB scenarios I did, and I was never quite sure it would work the way it was intended. I also did not then know as much about the whole topic as I do now. I see it as a learning exercise. - At the time it was designed, a code switch made the Stug B impenetrable to the 45mm ATG. I am not sure if I took account of that during the design, it may have been simply me overlooking things. I am also not an armour buff, so it took me a while to learn all these things. - The scenario has a historical setting in oeprational terms. It is supposed to portray one of the many STAVKA attempts to cut off the advancing German forces in the AGC sector. While it was powerful enough to give the Germans a fright, it failed in the end. I agree. Correct. That is correct, and is an error I would not make again. That is one thing that for an early war scenario I would do again. I do not think this is completely unrealistic for a late-summer 41 scenario. Two things - first I agree with you, and maybe today I would do things differently. Secondly, you have to remember that this scenario is just part of a larger battle. It is entirely possible that this is just a secondary effort, and that the heavy weapons company is used elsewhere, or has its own line to cover. There is a logical disconnect between my previous answer to the HMGs, and the presence of lots of AT. Again, today I would give the Germans less AT. I still would not give the Russians better tanks. I think giving them craptacular light tanks is realistic for the setting, and is a nice tactical challenge for the Russian player. Agreed. Clearly a mistake. In an ideal world the Russians would have the 76mm ATG (I agree they should have the mortars). Just not necessarily in this scenario. That analysis is partially correct, but not the whole story. Part of the stacking was intentional, not for Nazifanboy reasons, but because historically, the attack failed. If everything had been perfect on the Russian side, that would not have been the case, against the opposition they were facing. But all in all you are correct, and the scenario could be improved. I'll see if I find some time to do that, in between goose-stepping in my basement. All the best Andreas

I copied this out of the traffic accident masquerading as a thread, since I think it is an interesting discussion (must be, I participated in it). SPOILER ALERT!!!!! [ April 16, 2006, 02:19 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

Hi Joachim While I don't disagree with your point, Jason did not actually accuse me or the authors of the other scenarios of that. At least that is how I read his preface (which I discovered on second reading of his post - it was disguised by excessive verbiage ). All the best Andreas

Cheap excuse. You claim you were an analyst. Did you never check the quality of the sources? So, sorry since Google did not post the link to a Holocaust denier website here, I won't blame it. Maybe, maybe not. Since all we have to go on is a text on a Holocaust denier website, I withhold my judgement on whether he even existed. Well, if it is such important and good information, I am sure you'll be able to find it on a website that is not espousing a lie. I like the use of the term 'nonPC' by you. So the only thing wrong with Holocaust denial then is that it is not PC? True - but then again, the site you linked does a bit more than just being able to recite Mao. So your analogy is irrelevant. Yeah, and I get awfully tired of you posting Holocaust denial links and then pretending you did not know about it. Here's a novel idea - stop doing it. Regards Andreas

Shurely you meant to say 'goosestepped'? If you drop me an email I give you some feedback on Destination Lodz. Thanks for the compliment above. All the best Andreas

If you can find independent confirmation that the text available there is a correct quote of what van Rodin wrote, I have a closer read. Until then it is text on a website dedicated to spreading a lie. That maybe a moot point for you, it is not for me. I see no reason to trust people running those websites when it comes to providing any info. All the best Andreas

http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmak_comp/cmak_comp_scenarios.html

I agree with the conclusion. It was however not supposed to be scripted, but supposed to be very difficult for the Soviet commander. The scripting is the result of flaws in design, not of a conscious decision to make the scenario unbalanced. All the best Andreas

More Holocaust denial website linking. I have to hand it to you John, you certainly do know how to find them. Well done. Regards Andreas

As the designer (I believe you are referring to the CD operation of that name which I created), I am going to take the opportunity to comment. I would like to mention in advance a couple of points that I think are required to understand what went on in the design process. But in any case, your post is extremely useful feedback, and I would like to thank you for taking the time to explain at length what is wrong with the scenario. - '21st Army Counterattacks' is one of the first CMBB scenarios I did, and I was never quite sure it would work the way it was intended. I also did not then know as much about the whole topic as I do now. I see it as a learning exercise. - At the time it was designed, a code switch made the Stug B impenetrable to the 45mm ATG. I am not sure if I took account of that during the design, it may have been simply me overlooking things. I am also not an armour buff, so it took me a while to learn all these things. - The scenario has a historical setting in oeprational terms. It is supposed to portray one of the many STAVKA attempts to cut off the advancing German forces in the AGC sector. While it was powerful enough to give the Germans a fright, it failed in the end. I agree. Correct. That is correct, and is an error I would not make again. That is one thing that for an early war scenario I would do again. I do not think this is completely unrealistic for a late-summer 41 scenario. Two things - first I agree with you, and maybe today I would do things differently. Secondly, you have to remember that this scenario is just part of a larger battle. It is entirely possible that this is just a secondary effort, and that the heavy weapons company is used elsewhere, or has its own line to cover. There is a logical disconnect between my previous answer to the HMGs, and the presence of lots of AT. Again, today I would give the Germans less AT. I still would not give the Russians better tanks. I think giving them craptacular light tanks is realistic for the setting, and is a nice tactical challenge for the Russian player. Agreed. Clearly a mistake. In an ideal world the Russians would have the 76mm ATG (I agree they should have the mortars). Just not necessarily in this scenario. That analysis is partially correct, but not the whole story. Part of the stacking was intentional, not for Nazifanboy reasons, but because historically, the attack failed. If everything had been perfect on the Russian side, that would not have been the case, against the opposition they were facing. But all in all you are correct, and the scenario could be improved. I'll see if I find some time to do that, in between goose-stepping in my basement. All the best Andreas

Cook food. Make soldiers happy. All the best Andreas

I have added three CMBO/CMAK conversions made from my old CMBO scenarios '49th Recce', 'Maltot', and 'Le Plessis Grimoult' by Kingfish. I also added a new page for Cory Runyan's scenarios (four of them). The descriptions are not corrected yet, but I will try and do that over the next few days. Suffice to say they are all large CMBB scenarios. If you have more of his scenarios, please email them to me. Remember that the screenshots have no relation to the battle. They are just there to tart the pages up. Enjoy! All the best Andreas