Andreas

Yes.

Certainly trucks helped. They made a tremendous difference in Bagration, both in keeping the frontline troops supplied during the build-up, and during the initial break-in. They were not the only reason, or even the main reason why the Soviets won though. That is the same as arguing that only air superiority was the reason why the Allies won in France, or the Americans in Iraq. To focus on one narrow aspect of the rather complex modern warfare is almost always going to be wrong. The Red Army did not by-pass German defences in Byelorussia. They focussed on the weak spots (there is an indication for superior skill right there), but they still had to fight, and fight they did. In the battle with Northern Ukraine, as has been pointed out, they did break straight through the German main line. In the breakouts from the Vistula and Oder bridgeheads, they did it again. Manstein failed at Stalingrad. If you read first-person accounts from the German side such as 'Bis Stalingrad 48km', you will notice that the attack had run out of steam by the time it was cancelled. It was then in danger to be encircled in a wider envelopment, and had to be broken off. The railway rebuild numbers are from the Soviet general staff studies on Bagration and L'vov-Sandomierz. They are criticised there as insufficient. They refer to main lines. BigDuke6 has it exactly right. Objectivity is about looking at what both sides say. If you believe that you can understand what the Red Army was like by viewing it through the looking-glass of the German experience 'German officers said...' 'German platoon commanders commented...', then your views on the Red Army and your analysis of its battles is worth exactly the amount of time you have invested in also reading Soviet sources. I guess in your case that is either '0', or very close to it. You do not get correct views on the US Army from only talking to the insurgents in Iraq today. WW2 is no different in that respect. When you quote the German officers calling the Soviets 'mongol hordes', I can quote back Soviet officers calling the Germans 'adventurous (that is a slur) fascist nazi invaders'. Both quotes tell you more about the person they come from, then about the persons they refer to.

Rubbish - the railroads were rebuilt at a rate of 0-30km per track a day during advances. Since there were pauses during advances lasting months, there was enough time to rebuilt all of them up to the supply points. Of course concentration was done primarily by railroad. How else do you move tank armies about? By taking the T34s apart and putting them on trucks? Oh look, a real historian telling us that the Red Army only won the war because of trucks. I recommend reading some books other than the tripe you have read so far. Start with Dunn "Soviet Blitzkrieg". You may learn something.

DrD - I tend to agree with you. Hence my previous post on the matter. As a scenario designer, I would only very very rarely use this feature if it was not much more sophisticated than the current reinforcement feature.

Examples for tanks buggering off: a) open almost any page in 'Roll me over' by Ganter. Well, any page after the Ardennes battles. Stug support for 101. Jaeger decided to not want to participate in the divisional attack during the May 1942 Kharkov battle when one Stug ran on a mine when moving out. The unit commander decided that he could not risk his Stugs in a minefield, and left the infantry to do the job by themselves (they later captured a few T34s and immediately pressed them into service). One presumes there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the part of the infantry. c) Nashorn SP ATG repulsed a Soviet tank brigade attacking GR683 while it was moving back towards the Dnestr river. After the battle they were withdrawn, because they were needed elsewhere, despite strong indications that the Soviets would not take 'no' for an answer at GR683's position. The next day, with no AT support worth mentioning, the regiment was overrun.

Regarding loss of units. While I am agnostic on the loss of units during a battle. While it happened, it probably would have depended on the dynamics of the battle - 'sorry mate, we have lost half a platoon already, you're on your own'; 'sorry mate, there is an uncleared minefield, you are on your own'; 'sorry mate, we are US tankers, and that's what we do, you're on your own' (if you believe Ganter 'Roll me over'). So to predetermine it may not be as great or realistic as it sounds where battles are concerned, unless it can be tied to the dynamics of the battle. Where it is absolutely required though is in operations. Inbetween battles, assets would be reassigned, sometimes with catastrophic consequences (see e.g. Kissel 'om Dnjepr zum Dnjestr. Rückzugskämpfe des Grenadierregiments 683'). So, to sum up - what is needed for realistic settings is a tie-in with the dynamics of the battle. E.g. Germans have Kingtiger = tanks bugger off. German KT taken out by air attack (German or allied) on turn 1 = tanks stay. Or, attacker loses four tanks to hidden ATG = tanks bugger off. Attacker loses one tank, IDs ATG and kills it = tanks stay. That's what you get for asking us to think bigger BTW, Steve.

Speaking as a former beta tester for BFC's CM products, TCP/IP testing is the way to go. It beats PBEM due to the speed with which you get through turns - more turns = more of a chance to see how it works. For anything that needs serious consideration, you do solo-play anyway. There never was a problem finding another beta tester for CMBB or CMAK, ready and willing to give you a game. This whole argument clearly comes from someone who has zero clue what he is talking about.

There is such a thing as good and bad cleavage though Good cleavage - Salma Hayek, Gisele Bündchen, Heidi Klum, Buffy Bad cleavage - Boo, builders, Boo, Boo

Boo's posts remind me of builders' cracks. Deeply unappealing.

Jentz has them in Italy from June 44 to the end. Lexikon der Wehrmacht states that only 1.Kp was sent to Vienna to be re-equipped with VIB in August. No info where it went afterwards.

In 501 in NA, on 16th Dec, eight Tigers were available, seven operational. For December, 30 were in the Wehrmacht inventory in total, 68 had been produced in total (43 by end November), and 3 total losses. All according to Jentz.

'Married with children' was a documentary of US middle class life, wasn't it? I always think of Al Bundy when I read a post or email by Hakko.

Following three episodes of series one, I sense that I almost, but not quite fully understand US youth culture. Well, there is one more to watch.

Send me the address. The good life. Iron your shirts, while watching Buffy Season I on DVD. I'll get back to it now.

5th DCLI. One destroyed, one captured I believe. Pictures are here: Tan Museum Library

I bet that if God does not feel like cooking, he shops at Fauchon. In fact, I think I saw him there yesterday.

Yes. And just for your artsy french-loving insistence to give the word the proper accent, I will never ever share a crepes with you. So there.

Joe still seems to labour under the delusion that someone gives a f*ck. Sad.

I just made Crepes with an Orange juice and Fauchon Cognac dressing in my new Le Creuset Crepes pan. Crepes are a funny-sounding food. They were yummy.

Because it is infinitely preferable to me coming over for a drink at your place?

It has now been established that v42below and I work in the same industry. Scary. But I am better paid. That makes it somewhat bearable.

Which one was that? Not 1.PD? Because they were sent there for R&R more than anything else, and equipped with mighty French booty tanks.

[Yoda voice]So, not just stupid, but a bit violent too, are we?[/Yoda voice]

So, the Keas have some schizophreny issues then? You should let your mates in the Kiwi-Birdwatcher society know about that. You'd be a star. It would keep you away from here. Now, can anyone name the movie in which birdwatching gave the basis for a rather witty exchange featuring Halle Berry (for it was her)? Hmmmm?

That's a relief. For a short moment I was terrorised by the thought that it may say 'Has gone to Paris'. Phew.