MickeeMao
-
Posts
27 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by MickeeMao
-
-
Hi All -
I recently saw a book for sale titled 'The Battle for Budapest - 100 days in WWII' - does anyone own this book or know if it's any good? The reason I ask is that I'd like to create some scenarios for CM:BB that take place in Budapest, but there is unfortunately a lack of English titles on the subject - this is one of the first I've seen.
Another title is 'Budapest - Stalingrad of the Waffen SS'. Can anyone vouch for this one? Or perhaps recommend a good source for this subject?
Mostly I'm looking for a book that a) contains a good map of the city with the positions of the formations of both sides and
has a good order of battle for the units involved.Thanks!
M.Mao
-
Good point!Originally posted by MikeyD:People on this board never seem to mention armor techie books, just histories. If you want some interesting reading on the Russian Front you should check out Jentz's "Tiger Tactics" hardcover, as well as his "Panther" hardcover.
For a great overview of the organizational development of Soviet forces during WWII, try Zaloga's 'Red Army Handbook'. This book also gives a basic, but highly informative overview of Russian weapons development during the war.
-
The books you saw were probably 'The Road to Stalingrad' and 'The Road to Berlin' by John Erickson. They're both excellent operational studies of the conflict - I'd highly recommend them.Originally posted by MAsta_KFC:I was just looking through the book store the other day but I saw 2 thick, hardback books regarding the east front by the same author. I think one was titled Stalingrad and the other something to do with Berlin. They were both thick and had a whitish cover. Forgot the author's name, does anyone know which ones I'm talking about? Do you recommend? They are quite recent.
Also on that note, I was wondering does anyone have any recommendations for good reads regarding Operation Barbarossa and the east front? I find my lack of knowledge disturbing and I'd like to know more about what transpired.
Thanks guys!!
If you're looking for another good introduction to the Eastern Front, try 'When Titans Clashed' by Glantz.
-
Oops, looks like another R&D specialist has escaped from RAND - get back to work, you!Originally posted by SeaLion:The back blast from the launch would be shunted through an S-shaped exhaust panel and thus wouldn't harm the plane. The weight would be no problem if they used my patented turbo liftfan technology. And to give the missiles ground clearance, you obviously mount them above the airplane and have them firing downward. This is not vapid -- it's just as good as my idea to mount the Iraqi super gun on the space shuttle Columbia.
As for those of you who happened to read the above posting, you're all under arrest, as you've been made aware of future US weapons development plans. Report to the Donald Rumsfeld Recreational Gulag immidiately!
-
Hi -Originally posted by Andreas:If someone owns a history or somesuch of 8.PD, can you please email me? I need some info on the action of 8.PD in combat during the first attacks of the L'vov Sandomierz Operation in July 1944. I have a Soviet map that places 8.PD at the entrance to what would become the Koltov corridor into which 3rd Guards Tank Army was inserted later. I would be interested in AARs, and any other info that maybe available.
Thanks a lot in advance.
There's a book out by Glantz called 'The Battle for L'Vov July 1944' - have you checked this out yet? There's currently a used copy of it at Amazon.com.
M.Mao
-
I've already explained in previous posts why I didn't think Russia should be punished (co-belligerent).
I may have mis-read the part of your post where I said you were speculating. I'll leave it at this -Poland started the war with Russia in 1920 by attacking the Red Army. The Poles drove far into Soviet territory before they were stopped. The Red forces counter-attacked and drove the Poles back to Warsaw. Poland started the war.
I get the feeling, however, that our discussion is beginning to bog down - it's getting circular in nature with us making the same points over and over - no doubt we'll soon be arguing over what the defintion of 'is' is (to quote an American ex-president).
I applaud your stamina and, feeling that I've made my point, respectfully yield the field to you.
Ofcourse it does, if the new government has made peace agreements that define its borders. So in your opinion FE Germany is entitled to her pre-WW1 borders, although there have been many regime and border changes?Originally posted by Keke:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MickeeMao:
**So you're saying that because a country changes its style of government, its no longer entitled to its former borders? That doesn't make any sense.**
And what was the speculation part?Originally posted by MickeeMao:**You're indulging in speculation**
The history of the Continuation War is not very well known outside Finnish borders and Russian archives.Originally posted by MickeeMao:**If this is all you have to offer, you'll have to forgive my skepticism.**
Certainly in my 'must-read' list also.Originally posted by MickeeMao:****I was going to pick up this one anyway - I'll give it a read**
.**
Now you have to define what is and what is not unfair in power politics of the world... </font>Originally posted by MickeeMao:***They were trying to get land back that was unfairly taken from them.**
-
Baltic states, Eastern part of Poland, Karelian Isthmus and Bessarabia for starters. Soviet Union was formed after 1917, remember? Stalin dreamed about restoring the borders of Russian empire, but it doesn't make your question any more relevant.Originally posted by Keke:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MickeeMao:
*Hmmm - okay, how much territory did the Soviet Union acquire before 1941 that wasn't part of their national territory in 1914?*
**So you're saying that because a country changes its style of government, its no longer entitled to its former borders? That doesn't make any sense.**
Yes you are right, Poland attacked first before Red Army troops, that were trying to conquer Poland and spread the revolutionOriginally posted by MickeeMao:*You've got it backwards - Poland invaded the Soviet Union in 1920 and was driven back to Warsaw. What justified this Polish 'back stabbing' of Russia?*
**You're indulging in speculation**
Go to Russia and find war diaries (and other documents I can't remember just now) of the Leningrad Front and the 30th Guards Rifle Corps, or learn Finnish and get hold of Niilo Lappalainen's book "Ihantala kesti" (in which those documents and others were used).Originally posted by MickeeMao:*I've never seen it documented that the Soviet Union's goal was to occupy all of Finland. This could just be my ignorance - where could I find this documentation?*
**If this is all you have to offer, you'll have to forgive my skepticism.**
Edit: During my correspondence with Mr Glantz, he told that his new book about Leningrad has a chapter of Soviet operations against Finland 1944 (at Karelian Isthmus only though), and occupation of Finland in his view was one of the goals of Soviet Union. I haven't read the book myself so I cannot give any details.
**I was going to pick up this one anyway - I'll give it a read**
How the hell the fallen empire should be rewarded for its actions during WW1, and how did it legitimize aggressive foreign policy of Soviet Union? :confused: </font>Originally posted by MickeeMao:**If a new Poland was to be created, I believe it would have been more just to create it from Germany - to reward Russia for its help in WWI by taking its land was unjust*
-
Originally posted by Keke:
Russia/Soviet Union was not always just a hapless victim of foreign invasions. In fact Tsarist Russia had always been a very expansionistic empire.*Hmmm - okay, how much territory did the Soviet Union acquire before 1941 that wasn't part of their national territory in 1914?*
How come WW1 borders were so holy and 'legitimate'? Poland had defeated Red Army troops at the gates of Warsaw in 1920, and had advanced as far east as possible before the peace. Didn't Poland deserve its new borders (and independence)? Where ever the borders were before WW1, it didn't justify the 'back stabbing' Soviet Union did to Poland in 1939, in cooperation with Nazi Germany.*You've got it backwards - Poland invaded the Soviet Union in 1920 and was driven back to Warsaw. What justified this Polish 'back stabbing' of Russia?*
Argghh, here is so much ingnorance that my head explodes!Soviet Union (not Russia) used the same scheme with Finland and Baltic States in 1939. First some border adjustments, then military bases and then assimilation to Soviet Union by various means. Finland was the only one of the four countries who didn't accept any major concessions, and that led to the Winter War.
*I'll reiterate - all of this territory once belonged to Russia. The Soviet Union was taking back what they felt belonged to them.*
Soviet Union's goal in 1944 was to occupy Finland (it is documented), but with limited resources (naturally), and after failing to do so contented itself with some major border changes and significant reparations.
*I've never seen it documented that the Soviet Union's goal was to occupy all of Finland. This could just be my ignorance - where could I find this documentation?*
I really don't understand why 'new' Poland should have made out of German territory alone.*If a new Poland was to be created, I believe it would have been more just to create it from Germany - to reward Russia for its help in WWI by taking its land was unjust*
-
As for Glantz, I don't think he is unbiased. He seems to have quite an axe to grind with Zhukov. I read his book on Mars, and I still don't get what his problem is.
*In all honesty, I haven't read his book on Mars yet. I have read 'When Titans Clashed' and attended some of Glantz's lectures (one of which, on 'Hube's Pocket', was a facinating operational study of that battle)*
Germany wasn't the only country that got screwed after WWI. A well known German spy by the name of Lenin (the JEWS bombed the WTC, and CIA shot Kennedy), gave quite a bit of Russia away. And Stalin wanted to restore the Russian empire to it's former borders. [/QB]
-
The massive industrialization could have been to prevent the sort of invasions Russia suffered throughout its history. In the 20th Century alone, they were invaded by Germany, Austria-Hungary, Poland, the United States, Japan, Turkey, Britain and France (I may be leaving a few out here). Given such a history, it seems natural that they would want a large army.Originally posted by Walpurgis Night:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Soddball:
Again you are obscenely presumptuous Soddball. I have been to Auschwitz severals time. Straw arguments are nothing more than trolling.And yes, as I said I am only an amatuer . . . some good reason to shame me for that? I think not. I'm sure many of the people in here are only amatuers that are fascinated with history, as I am.
Suworov may well be some nazi-apologist-revisionist. I am certainly not an expert on this matter. But it would appear that the Russians were preparing for war. Why the massive industrialization leaning on muntions and tank factories? Why invade Finland? Why invade Poland? These are not the acts of a peaceful, non-aggressive nation. Again, this Suworov may be nuts, but I think the idea that Russia was preparing for an aggressive war is not so outlandish based on their actions leading up to Barbarossa. </font>
The part of Poland taken by Russia during their invasion used to be part of Russia (I'm not sure of the exact borders, but I believe it adheres to Russia's pre-WW1 border fairly closely), but was taken away from them just after WWI ended.
Finland was also part of Russia when WWI began. Russia offered Finland a land-swap for the territory they wanted (Russia wanted a buffer zone next to Leningrad), but the Finns refused.
The Russians didn't even want all of Finland back - just the buffer zone (if they had wanted all of Finland, they could've taken it in '44).
For the record, I support an independant Finland - if a new Poland was to be created, however, it should have been taken entirely from the territory of Germany (I believe this is what ended up happening when WWII came to a close).
I'm always suspicious of historians who too closely identify with one side or the other. This is why I like historians like Glantz and Erickson - they seem to lay blame where it is warranted and give credit where it's due. I don't see why I should waste my time political ideologues from either side - this is true from any period of history, not just WWII.
-
Potential decisiveness of ME-262 has surely been overrated, because German war economy simply lacked resources to produce it in large numbers. I don't have Hannu Valtonen's book "ME-109 and the German War Economy" with me right now, so I can't give accurate enough answer, but i do remember that there were certain specific materials that were not properly available (I'll check this one later). </font>Originally posted by Keke:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MickeeMao:
7. Failure to understand the role of advanced technology in his wartime strategy. (He ordered ME-262s to be used as bombers instead of fighters, and directed the V-1 and V-2 missiles at civilian rather than military targets -- imagine the havoc they could have caused had they been fired at the beachheads and vital ports the Allies to receive supplies for the Western Front during the last half of 1944!)
* I'm pretty sure the V weapons weren't accurate enough to be used against specific military targets. Many V-2s were launched later in the war against Antwerp because of its status as a major resupply port - I'm not sure how successful they were. Anyone have any info on this?
I think the potential decisiveness of the ME-262 is overrated - while an excellent anti-bomber weapon, my impression is that allied fighters came up with tactics to counter them*
-
A lot of these points have all ready been addressed by other members, but there's a few I would like to offer my opinions on. If any of these notions are ill-conceived, please enlighten me with your opinions
1. Stopping the panzers at Dunkirk.
*Was this really such a big mistake? Goering said he'd be able to smash the English bridgehead with airpower, and I'm sure at the time it seemed possible. Who knew that the English would send such a huge armada to rescue their troops?
Given the unbroken line of successes for the Luftwaffe at this point, I would think that Goering and his officers would be justified in thinking they could decisively interdict any attempt at evacuation or supply, forcing the trapped Brits and French to surrender without having to expose the precious panzers to a city fight.*
5. Failure to understand the importance that a navy plays in global strategy, as evidenced by Germany's failure to build a navy of any consequence before WWII.
*For Germany, the construction of any surface fleet was sheer folly - given their limited resources, it would have been wiser to build more submarines than was historically the case or more panzers.*
7. Failure to understand the role of advanced technology in his wartime strategy. (He ordered ME-262s to be used as bombers instead of fighters, and directed the V-1 and V-2 missiles at civilian rather than military targets -- imagine the havoc they could have caused had they been fired at the beachheads and vital ports the Allies to receive supplies for the Western Front during the last half of 1944!)
* I'm pretty sure the V weapons weren't accurate enough to be used against specific military targets. Many V-2s were launched later in the war against Antwerp because of its status as a major resupply port - I'm not sure how successful they were. Anyone have any info on this?
I think the potential decisiveness of the ME-262 is overrated - while an excellent anti-bomber weapon, my impression is that allied fighters came up with tactics to counter them*
Cheers! [/QB]
-
"DUUUUUUUDE! It's right OVER THERE!" <points out the window>Originally posted by demoss:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> About 11 percent of young citizens of the U.S. couldn't even locate the U.S. on a map. The Pacific Ocean's location was a mystery to 29 percent
That probably accounts for a good chunk of those able to locate the Pacific.
</font> -
......bump.....
-
Does anyone know of a good East Front Military Atlas, or failing that, a WWII atlas that does a decent job of covering the East Front?
Thanks!
-
Mr Einstein I presume?</font>Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MickeeMao:
You can debate the reasons for this happening, or you can specualate as to what might have happended had different decisions been made, but in the end, the Germans lost.
-
Did the Russians win at Kursk? Let's have a look at a few simple facts.
Strategic objectives obtained by the Russians: Some
Strategic objectives obtained by the Germans: None
The Russians won. Not only did they win, but they were able to follow up their victory with successful offensive opertations that continued to drive the Germans back.
You can debate the reasons for this happening, or you can specualate as to what might have happended had different decisions been made, but in the end, the Germans lost.
As far as Russian operational superiority goes, it was good enough to beat the Germans, and in the end, that's what mattered.
-
Why doesn't everyone head on over to the site and make their opinions known? There's a 'comments' section at the bottom of the article . . . or maybe we should just sick MasterGoodale on em. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
Another great book is 'The Red Army Handbook' by Zaloga. This books charts the organizational development of the Soviet Forces during WWII, as well as some brief write ups of their major ground weapons systems.
Lots and lots of TO&Es and great photos to complement the text.
Hey, CBB! Got my turn ready yet?
M.M.
-
ASL (Advanced Squad Leader for the uninitiated) has a scenario in the 'Beyond Valour' module on this very topic called 'Mila 18'. This scenario also uses 'Russian' partisans (the counters are colored like Russian squads), but I've never heard any sort of outcry against the scenario despite it being one of the oldest ASL scenarios produced, and I don't see any reason why there should be. It is, after all, only a game.
Please do release it - I'd be interested in examining the tactical challenges it offers.
-
Originally posted by Zitadelle:
I know that this is not quite the right home for this forum question, but I thought I would start here and discuss it with the real Red Army grogs. I'm sure that one of the BFC folks will assist me and eventually move the message to the General Forum....
Here is the question-
I am traveling to Moscow next February for a vacation, and while I have been able to arrange visits to the Kremlin and the Mueseum of the Red Army (or whatever it is called now), the travel company does not know how to get me to Kubinka.
So, I am wondering if anyone has any advice for arranging access to Kubinka. Also, I know it is relatively close to Moscow, but how close, and what is the best way to get there (or are there dedicated tour services connected with the site that can get me from Moscow to Kubinka).
Thanks for your help.[/quote
Kubinka is on a working military post, which makes it difficult to get in to see the vehicles. However, St. Petersburg Travel regularly sends tours there and they might be able to give you a hand getting in.
Here's their website:
http://www.trips2russia.com/grouptol1.html
These guys are real pros - I went on their tour just over a year ago and I can't recommend them highly enough.
They can either send you on their normal chartered tour of Russian military sites (which I went on) or can assist you in going anyplace you might be interested in seeing.
Let me know how it goes!
M.Mao
-
Thanks! I'll go check that out.Originally posted by Panzer Leader:800 ghz? Maybe a geforce3 ought to do it. I'd also get another stick of ram.
PS- my previous reply was to redwolf - just figuring out how to navigate this forum - your patience is appreciated.
-
Hmmmmm - okay, if the perfect solution doesn't exist, how about the optimal one? Again, just in terms of graphics cards.
-
Hey Everyone-
I need some advice - I'm going video card shopping - can anyone recommend a card that runs CM:BB scenarios of any size (and supports all graphics including fog/mist in CM:BB and CM:BO) without a hitch?
Here's my current system:
800 MB processor
128 MB RAM
Running Windows ME
Thanks for your help!
M.Mao
has a good order of battle for the units involved.
</font>
Battle for Budapest
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
*bump*