Andreas

Haven't come to a conclusion yet, I have only been thinking about it for a few years now.

I don't think that is quite correct. Major German offensive periods (no pun intended): June 22 through Dec 6th 41 - 5.5 months mid-May through mid-November 42 - 6 months February 43; July 43 - 2 months Total 13.5 months Major Red Army offensive periods (ditto): December to January 41 - 2 months May 42 - 1 month November to February 42/43 - 3 months August to December 43 - 5 Months january - February 44 - 2 Months July to October 44 - 4 months January to March 45 - 2 months April 45 - 1 month 20 months total Rough calculation, of course, also ignoring that the initial Barbarossa offensive was across the front, while later offensive periods on both sides were not.

I'm hopeless

Frustrated. I'd still buy the game.

But that is far too much of a blanket statement to have much value. The whole war as your unit of analysis will not tell you something about an army's performance that ranged from stellar (say Norway, Fall Gelb, early Barbarossa) over mediocre (say Italy, Normandy, Kursk) to the downright abysmal (say, Lorraine, Ardennes, Arctic 1941, Stalingrad). There is just too much variation, and too many influencing factors.

Kip is not a scenario designer. He is just unhinged.

Sorry, can you explain what you mean by 'man for man they were the superior army'?

Err, please read what you quoted again. In both cases the desasters that really related to strategic factors are substracted in order to understand better what really went on when they met under 'fairer' conditions, and to get an idea of operational capabilities.

I am not going to answer any questions relating to my sources until Mr. 'trucks were wot won it' has at the very least shared his sources, and in particular on what his analysis is based. Deeply concerned and cared are interchangeable, for all I care (no pun intended). Blue Division is just trying to troll, because he realises he is losing the argument, so he has to shift it.

Niepold: Mittlere Ostfront 44 Dunn: Soviet Blitzkrieg Adair: Hitler's greatest Defeat Glantz/Orenstein: Belorussia 1944 - Soviet General Staff Study & L'vov-Sandomierz Soviet General Staff Study Ziemke: Stalingrad to Berlin Zaloga: Operation Bagration TM 30-430: Handbook of the Red Army Zaloga/Ness: Red Army Handbook 1939-45 Dunno, seem on topic to me. What about yours?

Sources from you? None. Quel surprise. Mine are Ziemke, Niepold, Glantz, Adair, and various other stuff. You are making all this stuff up, right? In particular the part about Goebbels caring about what happened to people in Hamburg. Troll.

And before you come back with more tripe, let us know what your sources for it are. It always help to know whether one debates someone who has read serious books, or someone who is just rehashing Manstein. So far, you have been long on opinion, and short, or better non-existent on anything to back it up. not good enough.

There is a pub in the village, about 500 yards from the railway station, and they do decent food. if you are an eskimo, you can sit outside and enjoy it. When you come back from Bovington, walk past the railway station and follow the main road.

Irrelevant. The Germans managed to have hundreds of thousands die from aerial bombing while rampaging around Russia, because they were incapable of protecting them. I don't see any talent for war in having people be bombed in your own country because you can't protect them.

They moved them with manpower, trucks, horses, and railways. depends on the piece, the unit, where it was located. What is your point, if you have one? Where is the evidence for your point? Sources please.

That's funny - your opinion is that lots of materiel was needed, so they could not do it. My sources say that the first half of the statement is irrelevant, since they did manage to do it. What are your sources for the 'facts' that they did not?

Since you know so much, I am sure you can let us in on your sources?

I think any numbers on how many people play which way belong in the stats thread. Truth is we all don't know, but it is reasonable to assume that most games are solo games. Then there are the unhinged like me or Kip Anderson, who spend 85% of game time in the editor, 5% in solo-testing, and 10% in PBEM. But I am quite sure that BFC realise that PBEM is important enough that they should try to make it work. BTW - you can design games in the current engine that will lead to PBEM files that are outside most mail servers' acceptance limit. Very easily. Those are outliers of course. My guess is BFC's worry is that they become the norm with increasing complexity and realism of the game. What happens after BFC have sold the game is really not something they can do anything about.

That might be based on Dupuy's figures. I dimly recall that towards the end the Red Army and the Wehrmacht inflicted similar numbers of casualties on each other. Kip Anderson would be the person to ask. He pointed out to me that once you substract the 1941 loss figures for the Soviets, the whole efficiency question takes on a very different perspective, because that was when the bulk of Soviet casualties was inflicted. For the rest of the war (until March 1945) it was much more even.

My guess is that he does not miss your point. He does not accept it. Neither do I, since it has nothing to do with what really happened. So, instead of wild handwaving, some facts: 1) The Germans did not manage to destroy everything. They managed some destruction close to the front where they started the retreat, but the further they got, the less they managed. 2) The Soviets rebuilt railroads at a speed of 4.1 - 19km/day in the 3rd Belorussian Front sector. 3.7 - 15.5km in the sectors of 2nd and 1st belorussian fronts. Whether they needed heaps of materiel to do it is irrelevant. They managed. If there is one thing communism is good for, it is organising big projects, and running a war properly. 3) All three of the main fronts were based on rail axis, and followed these. The supply to them was undertaken by rail, truck and horse cart prior to the beginning of the offensive, by truck and horse cart while the railways were rebuilt after the start, and then again by rail, truck and horse cart. 4) Each front had a railroad directorate with 1-4 brigades working on rebuilding the railways. 5) The main destruction of Bagration was wrought during the first few days. After that German losses probably fell off sharply, while those of the Soviets increased, and the speed of their advance reduced. The overall depth of the advance was still governed by logistical constraints, and here the presence of trucks made a critical difference. The overall success of the offensive is however not just the depth, but also the destruction of enemy formations. This is an aspect where trucks helped, but by themselves would not have changed much. Badly led and trained troops in trucks tend to not do much better than badly led and trained troops on foot.

Nope, totally wrong. They bogged down before the rasputitza because they had outrun their logistics, and they were all suffering from pretty severe exhaustion and materiel wastage. They were beaten fair and square at Yelnia a long time before autumn, during the height of summer. They needed an operational pause to sort things out. Then they made the mistake of wanting to end the war before Christmas with operaiton Taifun. The weather did not beat the Germans. Stupid decisions on their part and the Red Army did.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. What I was saying was that you are overly focussed on one narrow aspect of logistics. The allies did beat the Germans in Normandy, and they would have done so without trucks too. They beat them so comprehensively west of the Seine that they would probably have been in Belgium and Lorraine at pretty much the same time anyway.

Ah, you had me confused. Comes with age, confusion does. Where am I?

Forgot to add: According to this link, the Ford Edsel did not fail because of trying to be the ultimate car. That must be the Simpson's episode you were thinking of then. Now what really bothers me is that I have yet to find a TV channel in France that broadcasts 'Buffy' in English.

Are you talking to me?