ev

Liam, I think there is a mistake in the 50,000,000 figure. The population of Russia was 190 million. The Russian Army was around 5.4 million strong when the purges took place. ...Otherwise, it is true Stalin killed a lot many people, before, during, and, after the war. Stalin not only purged the officer corps, he killed Polish POW's, he declared traitors all russians who surrendered ot the Germans (including his own son). Sfter the war Stalin sent these Russians to force labor camps together with the German soldiers to which once they had surrendered. Millions of this former Russian (and German) soldiers died in Siberia and elsewhere. Stalin excesses are not better known only because of the magnitude of the German holocaust and because Stalin was among the victors.

Kuniworth, I will make a point of quoting my data in the future. One of the sites I used for the above section was: http://www.world-war-2.info/statistics/ and http://www.world-war-2.info/casualties/ Now, remember that in the table above I am adding Deaths + Men in Arms to obtain a Total Demographic Drain. So, for example, if Germany lost 5.7 million dead (6.85 per yout table) and had 17.9 million men in the armed forces, the Total Demographic Drain was 5.7+ 17.9 = 23.6 million or 27.12% of the population.

Great idea Edwin. Force limits create some odd distortions. One of these distortions. For example: using force limits we could find the odd situation in which we cannot make more Infantry Corps but we can make more Infantry Armies! That does not make sense, does it? Edwin's idea would take care of this problem.: Set a limit at a country's total strength, and, let the player choose his favorite force structure. I think this would be much better than the current idea for force limits. Another great idea, and, straight to the point. Germany looses Ploesti, Germany is screwed. Easy, simple, straightforward, deadly, and, true. Right on the mark, Kuniworth. Force limits do not account for reinforcements or lack there off. Both Germany and Russia stretched their manpower to thin. They suffered millions of casualties: Germany 3.25 million, Soviet 12 million. And that’s only military casualties, I am not counting civilian casualties. Russia lost 17 million civilians for a staggering total of 29 million. The death toll of World War II was trully staggering: 36 million civillians and 14.6 million soldiers died thoughout the world. Another 30 million soldiers were wounded. Russia tops the list with 29 million dead. China 9.1 million dead. Poland 6.3 million dead (mostly civilians)! Germany 4.9 - 5.7 million dead, depending on whether you include Austria and other “Germanic” teritorries. Japan 1.9 million dead. Well, I looked up the casualty rates for each country and obtained the following ratios: Country------Population------No. Armed Forces---Casualties------No. Armed --------------------------------------------------------------------------Forces+Casualties --------------------------------------------------------------------------As % of Population France-------- 42 Million -------- 4.6 Million ------- 0.6 Million -------- 1.42% Germany----- 78 Million ------ 17.9 Million ------- 5.7 Million ------- 27.12% UK----------- 47.5 Million ------ 5.9 Million ------- 1.3 Million ------- 13.27% USA---------129.2 Million ---- 16.4 Million ------- 0.4 Million ------- 13.01% USSR------- 194.1 Million ---- 30 Million ------- 29.0 Million ------- 21.64% * Casualties include both military and civilian casualties. Note the staggering numbers for Russia, but also note that as a percentage of its population, the numbers for Germany are even more appalling. We know that Britain felt the manpower pinch at 13.27%. And the US was not that far behind. We know that the level of US mobilization was carefully studied by the Pentagon, targets were set early in the war, and, carefully revised as the war proceeded. It is interesting to note the numbers remained just a notch below the British, which we know faced manpower shortages. Kuddos for Marshall and Co. It gets even worse. Germany had 7.25 million men wounded during WWII. Russia had 14 million men wounded during WWII. These wounded men are part of the men in the Armed Forces listed above. So the percentage in the final column should not be altered by this additional data. But, these wounded men needed medical attention which placed further strains on the system as a whole. For the sake of comparison, while Germany had 7.25 million wounded, and Russia had 14 million wounded, the UK had 369,000 men wounded, and, the US, including both the Pacific and Europe, had 670,000 wounded. 27.12% of Germany’s population was either at arms or killed as a result of the war. This is a huge demographic drain. Germany’s ratio more than doubled the rate for Uk or the US! The manpower shortage was clearly staggering. We know both the German and the Russian economy suffered due to lack of manpower. There is plenty anecdotal evidence. There are accounts of lack of labor to gather the harvest of ‘42! German infantry was detailed to harvest grain. Russian POW’s were used in German factories not only because Hitler was a racist bigot but because Germany’s factories were desperately short of manpower. And, remember the movie Shindler’s List (sp?). Shindler got away with saving the handful of Jews working for him only because there was a real shortage labor in Germany. The above data suggests that 13% mobilization was a critical point for warring countries during WWII. In light of this data, I feel that the soft limit production penalties for Germany and Russia should be revised so that soft force limit production penalties kick in when the military roughly takes 13% of the population base. Of couse we would have to revise upward the MPP production for both Germany and Russia so they can pay up for the units they would have to purchase beyond this 13% mobilization level. Adjusting downward the soft limits for Germany and Russia would encourage players to find ways to fight the war with a smaller demographic commitment. And, it would provide players with a more realistic assessment of how thinly stretched were both Germany and Russia during WWII.

Retributar, thanks for the great examples. I am printing the articles you referenced above. I am sure I will enjoy reading them very much. The Germans would have fared a lot better if Hitler would have allowed Manstein and other great German soldiers to run the show. In operation Barbarosa, Germany pitted 3.3 million soldiers vs. 5.4 million Ruissians. The Germans captured millions of Russian soldiers and occupied hundreds of thousands of square mile of Russian territory. The Germans manage to achive similar great results in the summer of '42. Germany was pretty good at grabbing Russian land, and, encircling Russian soldiers. However, it was not able to hold on to whatever it gained. I urge you to read this article: http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Wray/wray.asp#ted Another article I would like you to read is "Deep Maneuver, past lessons identified for bold commanders." by Ronnie L. Coutts, Maj, British Army. You can get this article in pdf format from the cgsc library (same site referenced above).

True. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Hitler was attempting to do things for which he did not have the manpower. Retreat was the correct strategic option. Retreat of course meant accepting the fact that the German Atmy had stretch beyond its limits. I agree numbers are not necessarily everything. Still, given the technology available at the time, Germany could not man the Russian Front with the available men. During the winter of 41-42 Germany lost a lot of men. Germany had less men in Russia in December 42 than the previous year. And the length of the length of the fontline, from Finland to the Caucasus was mindboggling. In fact, huge sections of the frontline consisted of lone outposts far apart from each other. It was at best an extremely porous (sp?) line. The Germans could not even mount an effective patrol of the frontline, let alone defend it. I will check this numbers for you later, but, I think Russia had something like 2.5 -3 million more men in the eastern front than Germany. ...sometimes too much is just too much.

I am not interested in managing each resource - steel, coal, rubber, oil, and whatever. I am only interested in manpower. And, I have one most important reason for this. Germany did not have the manpower to tackle Russia, Period. Manpower shortage was Germany's first and foremost shortage since 1942. Long before they ran out of anything else, they ran out of able man to man the Russian Front. Allied bombing cut short Germany's oil and steel production. The loss of Ploesti was also a terrible loss for Germany. But long before any of these hurt Germany, Germany was already losing the war because Germany could not man the Russian Front. Some historians argue that Stalingrad was the turning point of the war because Germany could never recover the men they lost in Stalingrad. Well, Germany lost Von Paulus Army at Stalingrad because it needed 100,000 men in each flank to avoid encirclement. And Germany did not have the necesary manpower before the battle for Stalingrad started.

Ah! This makes sense. I need a copy of your data book... Thx.

Well, let us do something about it. After I finish this OOB, I will strat doing some research on demographics. Maybe we can all give Huber a hand on this. We can get some pretty good data for Armored and Infantry Divisions which make the buld of the land forces. It will take a bit more guess work to account for Army and Army Group support staff represented by HQ's in SC2. But we can come up with a reasonable approximation. Again, we can come up with reasonable approximations. Remember MPP's are approximatins also - no one complains about it. As a matter of fact, we have more data available on casualty rates than on equipment loss. For example: Do you know how many rifles were lost during D Day? Or, how many mortars were lost during the battle of the Buldge? If we can make a good enough approximation for MPPs, we certainly have more than enogh data to mak reasonable manpower approximations. Take Germany... We know how many soldiers Germany had in arms each year during the war, and, what units they were assigned to. We also know how many men Germany lost each year during the war. We also know how many men Germany drafted each year. We know how many men Germany would have had if it had not incurred the losses it had. And we know when Germany started facing manpower shortage. Finally, we even know when Germany labor shortages in factories and when Germany strated to make us of less fit recruits to fill in the ranks. All this data is readily available. I believe we could make pretty good manpower models for Germany and Great Britain. It would be slightly more difficult for the US since the US never reach manpoer limits... so we would have to guess where that limit is. There is less information on Russia, France and Italy. But I am optimistic we can pull it off. I really would not bother with the minors. Force limits for minors seems more than good enough for me.

I am no expert on steel and armor, but, from my readings I have gathered the following. The best steel, either in the US or Germany, was not used to make tanks but to make armor piercing shells. The armor of German Tiggers and Panthers was good enough so that regular US armor piercing shells would crack on impact. ...so no matter how good your cannon was, if you did not use the right steel for the shells they would not work. When Germans tried to build supper heavy tanks, the quality decreased because of poor welding, not due to lack of some kind of ore. I guess, Germany's manpower shortage eventually hit the homefront. Finally, all armor improvements in WWII were measured in pounds. Many regard the T-34 as the best light tank of WWII and the Panther V as the best heavy tank of WWII. Neither of these were particularly heavy. However they both shared slopping armor, low profile, very good corss country performance, very good hitting power, and in the case of the Panther V very good optics and excellent rate of fire. As far as high quality ore is concerned, I remember reading the US also had problem getting enough high quality ore to produce the kind of armor piercing shells needed to break through German armor.

Germany had 15 Fallschirmjager (Paratroop) Divisions plus a paratroop training division. These units belonged to the Luftwaffe. The luftwaffe designated two paratroop corps. The first Fallschirmjagger Corps saw action in the Netherlands, Belgium and France. The second Fallschirmjagger Corps was responsible for the Crete operation. In 1944 the Luftwaffe organized a Paratroop Armee under General Student. It served in the low countries duirng 1944 and 45. This Paratroop Armee had several medium size units attached to it including 2 Panzer Batallions, a motor transport batallion, and several motorized supply and support units.

I agree. Nevertheless, I think it is worth researching a bit more about the order of battle of the different countries. For example, until now, I never realized Germany had that many Panzer units. In hindsight, perhaps Germany should have used some of those resources towards building more fighters...

In addition to the Panzer and Panzer Grenadier Divisions listed above, the Luftwaffe had one Panzer and one Panzer Grenadier Division, which I missed to include in the totals above. This brings the totals up to 56 Panzer Divisions, 23 Panzer Grenadier Divisions (4 of which were converted to Panzer Divisions), 15 Motorized Infantry Divisions, 19 independent Panzer Brigades, 4 independent PanzerGrenadier Brigades, and 2 idependendent Motorized Infantry Brigades.

During WWII, the Wermacht fielded 48 Panzer Divisions and 4 Panzer Reserve Divisions. I count Panzer Lehr and 130th Panzer Division as one unit. I count Panzer-Division Feldherrnhalle, Feldherrnhalle 1, and Feldherrnhalle 2 as one unit. And, I also count Panzer-Division Tatra, Panzer-Ausbildungs-Division Tatra, and Panzer Division 232 as one unit. Finally, I count the GrossDeutschland as a Panzer Division. The GrossDeutschland started as a motorized Infantry Division. It was later reorganized as a Panzer Grenadier (Armored Infantry Division). And, finally it was reorganized as a Panzer Division. The Wermacht also fielded 15 motorized infantry divisions and 15 Panzer Grenadier Divisions. However some of the Panzer Divisions cited above were formed from these Motorized or Panzer Grenadier Units - the Gross Deutschland cited above, the 233 Panzer, the Feldherrnhalle, and the Kurmark, all four started as motorize infantry or panzer grenadiers. The Waffen SS would have total of 38 Divisions, 7 Panzer and 6 Panzer Grenadier Divisions. I do not know how many of the remaining 25 SS Infantry Divisions were motorized. All in all Germany would have 55 Panzer Divisions, 22 Panzer Grenadier (4 of which were converted to Panzer Divisions), and at least 15 Motorized Infnatry Divisions (plus an unknown number of SS motorized infantry). In addition, there were 16 Wermacht Panzer Brigades and 3 SS Panzer Brigades, 4 SS Panzer Grenadier Brigades, and 2 SS Motorized Infantry Brigades. (One of the Wermacht Brigades was converted to SS). Germany could have consolidated all the above Panzer Formations in Panzer Corps and Panzer Armies. Assuming a typical Panzer Corps had 2 Panzer Divisions and one PanzerGrenadier or Motorized Infantry Divisions, but tapping on the independent Brigades at a rate of 2 Brigades per Division, Germany could have in excess of 30 panzer corps. Further assuming a Panzer Army is made of 2 Corps, Germany could have consolidated the abover formations in 15 Panzer Armies. As I mentioned above, Germany only designated 7 Panzer Armies throughtout the war. Many Panzer and Panzer Divisions were assigned to infantry armies to act as speaheads, flank guards, or fire brigades. It is probably worth examining whether that was a good decission. But, since SC2 infantry corps and infantry armies represent solely infantry units, and not combined armies, we should devise some way to fully account for all German Panzer Divisions and Brigades in determining the applicable force limits.

Pzgndr, I hear you. Still you are not addressing my concern. The idea of a soft limit assumes that there is an ideal force mix which the economy can sustain, and, that as long as you keep your total force below that limit you do not incurr on a +10%, or +20% or whatever increased cost. First, I don't think there is one such ideal mix. Second, the soft limit places a very strong preasure on the players to mold their forces as per whatever arbitrary force mix the designer chose. Third, soft limits fail to take into account replacements. If your strategy results in heavy losses which you have to replace, that will put a huge preasure on your resources (specialy manpower) even if you stay within force pool limits. Fourth, having less units than the designed soft pool limit should result in an "economy" or eficiency just as much as having too many units results in a penalty. This is why I recomend builiding into SC2 an unpkeeping cost. Anyway, it seems you are committed to the force pool limit. I did not start this threat to challenge you choice. The purpose of this threat is to provide some historical background as to the historical order of battle. I am sure SC2 will be a great game, either way. I may chose to play it without force pool limits ...I don't know.

Thx. Kuniworth. Now back to the order of battle: In 1944 Germany had 347 Divisions. This number dropped to 319 by 1945. As of June 1944, Germany had 4600 planes. However, according to my sources, as of December 1944, Germany had 8,500 planes. This is very strange. Can anyone confirm this data. In 1941, Germany assigned 4 Panzer Groups to Operation Barbarosa. These 4 Panzer Groups combined 17 Panzer Divisions, 11 Motorized Infantry or Panzer Grenadier Divisions, and, one Cavalry Division. As of that time, Germany also had two Panzer Divisions and a Panzer Grenadier Division assigned to the Afrika Corps. The Afrika Corps was later expanded and redesignated first as a Panzer Group and further down the road it was redesignated as a Panzer Army. This found the following definition of a Panzer Group at http://www.lostbattalion.com/FormationFocus/FF_9PZ.html “Panzer groups” are analogous armies in size and scope. They were multi-corps formations with army grade generals assigned to them. Their original function was to be an army group asset that was to be assigned to subordinate to, an army. Using their mobility, they would be switched from army to army providing breakthroughs, and then the army would take over for the follow-up and mop-up operations. In practice, this did not work out. The panzer groups acted mainly as independent armies and were renamed “panzer armies” in late 1941 and 1942. Germany would designate a total of 7 "Panzer Armees". They would be know as Panzer Armee Afrika and Panzer Armees 1 thru 6. Panzer Armee 6 was transferred to the SS in 1945. This is the order of battle for the First Panzer Armee, Spring 1944: VII Armeekorps III Panzerkorps 34. Infanterie-Division 198. Infanterie-Division 1. Panzer-Division 16. Panzer-Division 17. Panzer-Division SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler VIII Flieger-Korps Notice the ratio of two Panzers to one (motorized) Infantry. We often find this ratio in the Panzer Corps, Panzer Groups, and Panzer Armies.

I agree Kuniworth, measuring might in division is very difficult. And the same holds true if you use corps or armies, as your unit of reference. In fact, using corps or armies can be even less fruitfull since divisions were often transferred in and out of corps or armies. As I mentioned earlier, I don´t feel comfortable with the idea of using force limits that follow the historical order of battle. There are many reasons for thisÑ First, you may end up comparing understrength under equipped units with fully equipped and staffed units. Second, the Russian and German economies started suffering from lack of able workforce long before they reached their maximum order of battle. A different mix of navy/air/armor/infantry may have been more efficient for the German economy. Germany was woefully short of infantry replacement, and, badly in need of defending its cities from allied bombing. Perhapps the German high command felt they needed so many infantry divisions to cover the huge Russian Front. But from an ¨economic¨ and demographic point of view, it was probably not the optimum mix. Third, as far as force pool limits is concerned, what is the difference between one infantry army and two infantry corps. Likewise, what is the difference between two halfstrength units and one full strength unit of the same kind. The US planning board self impossed upon itself a 90 division limmit. This number was based on an estimate of what they needed to win the war, and what they needed to allocate for air and navy. I am not advocating that SC2 should use this limit. I rather find some other mechanism to model the increasing cost of fielding more units. Some exampleÑ 1. Setting up a manpower pool. First Germany, and later Russia, scrapped the bottom of their manpower pool. Infantry Divisions and Infantry Reinforcements are high consumers of manpower. 2. There should be an MPP charge associated with the number of units fielded by a country. The more units you field, the higher the monthly charge. This charge could be kept simple - a fixed charge per unit. Or it could be more complex: (a) Units that do not move, do not engage in combat, and are not adjacent to enemy possitions spend less MPPs. ( Different rates of monthly consumptions for each type of unit could be set up for each type of unit based on supply consumption (ordinance, fuel, etc.). © Full strength units should cost more to supply than understrength units. (d) Units furthest away from their industrial centers should cost more to upkeep. So it cost more for the US to operate an army in France than for England, since supplies have to be brought from farther away. Likewise, it should cost more to operate German units in Stalingrad than in Warsaw.

Order of Battle SC2 will have optional Force Limits that are expected to mimmic the Order of Battle in the European Theater. I have concerns about such Force Limits. Frankly, I do not endorse the idea as it stands now. However, I thought it would be useful to get some info on the number of units that fought in the European Theater. I first conducted some research on the US. The US strategic plan allocated 50% of aircraft to Europe, almost 50% of land forces to Europe, but most of the navy forces to the Pacific. The US ended the War with 90 divisions, of which 88 saw actual combat. As of 1943, the US had 10 aircraft carriers 61 battleships, 10 cruisers, 120 destroyers, 112 destroyers escorts and 40 submarines assigned to the European Theater. As of that date the US had, 28 aircraft carriers, 13 battleships, 32 cruisers, 188 destroyers, 123 destroyer escorts, and 57 submarines in the Pacific. As of that date, the US had 11 Army Divisions in Europe, but 13 Army Divisions and 3 Marine Divisions in the Pacific. Again, as of 1943, the Air Force had 3,456 fighters, 1,253 medium and light bombers, and 2,263 Heavy Bombers in Europe. At the same time, it had 1,897 fighters, 723 medium and light bombers, and 716 heavy bombers in the Pacific. I include North Africa as part of the European Theater. I include India/Burma/China as part of the Pacific Theater. During 1944 the US shipped to England, France, and North Africa another 26 Divisions. So a total of 37 US Divisions were in the European Theater by the end of 1944. Of these 37 Divisions, 11 were Armored Divisions, 3 were Airborne Divisions, and the remaining were Infantry Divisions. I do not have data on arrivals to the European Front in 1945, but my educated guess is that another 7 Infantry Divisions probably arrived to the European Front in 1945. As of December 1944, the US had 12,200 combat aircraft in Europe. I do not have a breakdown between fighters and bombers. I do not have Navy data for 1944. In subsequent posts I will provide whatever info I get on other countries.

I am all for making SC2 a three player game: UK/USA/France, Russia, Germany/Italy. In a two player game, I would have the AI play the third party. In a one player game, I would let the AI play two parties, but, the AI should play each side separately. I would define victory conditions so as to promote expasionist moves by the Russians, in whatever direction. VIctory conditions should encourage the Russian player to consider other alternatives than head on confrontaiton with Germany. The Russian player should try to grab land from Finland, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, etc. A Russian player that takes over Finland, Turkey, Iran, and, Iraq, the Baltic States, half of Poland, Besarabia, and does not loose 17 million men, women and children in a devastating war with Germany, is a winner. If the Russian achieves all of the above, and Germany takes over half of Poland, Norway, Sweeden, France, Benelux, the Balkans, and North Afrca... then clearly the Western Allies lost. Victory conditions should be set so that a war of annihilation between Germany and Russia is not a forgone conclussion. But, likewise, the economic model should be set up so that players are discouraged from triggering "Total War" on any of the other players. What could trigger "Total War"? Some ideas: - Repeated bombing of homeland cities. Germany should not reach total war if the Allies only bomb French Ports. But, if US bombers bomb German cities several times, then Germany may reach total war. - Enemy armies occupy 3 homeland cities. Germany occupying Baltic State cities may not qualify as a homeland. But if the Germans take Kiev, Minks, and Sevastopol, then Russia would reach total war. - For England, the loss of France should trigger total war. - For US, the bombing of English cities, the invasion of England by German Forces, or Axis forces getting too close to Suez should trigger total war. If England is not threatened, we assume the US gives priority to Japan. (The US reaches total war due to Pearl Harbor; the issue for the US is whether it gives priority to the Pacific or to Europe.) -For Germany, landings of Allied troops in Italy should trigger total war. -For Germany, landings of US troops in France should trigger total war. -For Germany, Russian occupying any German homeland city should trigger total war (exclude Pague and Warsaw.) -Italy should reach total war only if either the French, British or Russians occupy any homeland Italian city. But Italy should not reach total war if that city is occupied by US troops. The Victory Conditions and Economic Model should be such as to encourage though out strategic powerplay. SC2 should be a game of grand strategy, not brute military force. In hind sight, Mussolini may have been right to attack Greece. Why attack Russia, when there are easy pickings to be had? ...Greece, Egypt, Iraq's Oil...

I also like the idea of putting two units next to each other in the same tile. Now, this raises a number of questions. For starters: These two units combine their defense strength? ...as a sum, or as an average? What happens if one of the two units is destroyed? These two units attack together, or, separately?

Bruce 70, You seem to know more than a bit about game programming. Instead of Eiffel, what game engine would you use for a game like this?

Fine, but we need a next unit press buttom to run through all our units.

I like everything you said, except for this last bit. One of the great ironies of ...the time... the only jump qualified German divisions were Wermacht divisions. The Luftwaffe field divisions were not jump qualified. ...and, the elite paratroopers that fought in Italy were Wermacht, not Luftwaffe. Strange, isn't it?

Care to supply some links for this assertion ? I'm really interested in your "claim" that recent US military reorgs are based on German items from WW2, but the "everyone copied them" is a good one too. </font>

Ah, yes, of course. I have said Germany had enough oil in 1943. That was prior to the loss of the Ploesti Fields. I understand Germany could not wage the war without Ploesti. Once Germany became so weak that it could not defend Rumania, Germany was lost. But, prior to that point, Germany had enough oil to support a larger airforce. Absolutely. I hope SC3 will mark oil resources in the map and will figure out a way to include oil as part of the equation. What I don't want to see is SC2 using Force Limits as a way to mimic oil shortages. I would not want to see an SC2 in which Germany is forced to have a small airforce "because Germany did not have enough oil in WWII to support a larger airforce". That would be crap. Germany did not have a larger airforce because Hitler and his cronies screwed up big time. And Germany lost its oil sources because Hitler and Co. screwed up big time. And one of the things in which they screwed up badly was in not having enough fighters to defend oil fields and refineries. As of 1943, Germany could have had twice as many fighters as they did, if they had started working on it in 1941. I recently read an article explaining that as of 1942 or 43 the Luftwaffe had over 100,000 volunteers for which it had no job. The Luftwaffe had first cut on new recruits. The Army did not get enough men, while the Luftwaffe had excess recruits. Eventually these men were organized into field divisions that performed very badly because they did not have adequate trainning and officers. This quote is from: http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Wray/wray.asp#ted So, as of 41-42 the Luftwaffe had excess men from where to train pilots. The Luftwaffe's predicament in '44 resulted from lack of foresight. At first glance, we are inclined to accept that the Luftwaffe high command failed to raise a larger airforce, because it was pressed to give total priority to the Russian Front. But, that makes no sense when you realize that they kept 170,000 men out of the Russian Front, while the Wermacht divisions were badly in need of reinforcements. In light of the above, infighting, incompetence, and overconfidence seem to be better explanations for not putting to good use the human resources already reserved for the Luftwaffe.

SC Europe could very well be a three player game. Germany-Italy; France-UK-USA, and, Russia. The US-UK player could chose to help Russia if it finds it convenient to do so (the enemy of my enemy is my friend).