SeaWolf_48
-
Posts
304 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by SeaWolf_48
-
-
To Liam
They look Russian to me!
Let me state that:
"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in france, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or any large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the sea, armed and guarded by the British fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World , with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old."
[ May 07, 2003, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]
-
Knight
Good point about "Enemy at the gates". A year ago I read the book Stalingrad by Kramer, and he stated that Moskow spent 1,000,000 russians to take the city. That was 4 Ivans for one Fritz. He sights the same military tactics that are shown in the movie. Mindless Ivans screaming hurah and rushing at Fritz without a rifle, done enough times and Johann is out of bullets. Who cares about human life! One of Stalin's famous quotes is " One mans death is a tragedy, a million men's death is a statistic".
-
Very good point Jersey.
When the English discovered penicillin it changed battlefield fatalities in England and America, also Army Medical Surgery Units so close to the front lines save thousands of lives. As you have said, it probibly saved double of the ones wounded to any other country. So then now we have over a million American and English dead. This will really kick the beehive!
If you want to look at the big picture, The United States and The British Empire were much larger, in both people and land, and in industrial strenght than their Russian ally. To site marshal deaths as the only factor for commitment and sacrifice is simplistic.
The static troops mentioned above were important in keeping order, and in defending the huge Fortress that Hilter built. Britian and The US tied down 25 divisions in the Balkans, 27 Divisions in Italy, 22 Divisions in Norway, 57 Divisions in france because of the fear of INVASION . Most all of the Divisions on the Eastern front would rotate to these areas to be refitted and rested, 4 months of constant combat was the limit of most WW2 divisions, either in Germany, US, or Britian. So troops would constantly be moving to keep them fresh, thus the necessity of quite zones.
[ May 07, 2003, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]
-
Dear Stabber.
I welcome your comment, we all have to be thick skinned when we post on the forum.
I think that the Submarine analogy is a little cavil. Building, testing, supporting, campaigning a submarine fleet is a huge undertaking. Much larger than equiping 10 Panzer Division. Germany also had four battleships and three battle cruisers, nine cruisers, and 30 destroyers, 70 torpedo boats, 30 escort boats, 280 minesweepers, 150 patrol boats, and 137 submarine chasers, 189 recon boats, 200 auxiliary boats, long with the 1100 submarines (u-boats).
-
The Russian casualties for Russia look really light. Last night on the internet I looked at about 10 different Military sites with Russian, German, and US/BR killed.
The mean number for all above were:
Russia, 9 to 10 million military dead.*
German, 3.5 million (including 1.5 mia's from Russia)
England, .32 million.
Us, .29 million.
*Russia spent their soldiers lives like they were potatoes. They didn't keep records because they were afraid that the people would get mad if they knew how horrific and pernicious they had become.
-
Not 25 million Soldiers, it was only 10 million.(lol)
And because of the waste of trading men for bullets it should have only been around 4.0 million.
[ May 07, 2003, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]
-
This has been a fun exersize, picking the brains of so many devoted history buffs.
Terry's sumation that Germany's defeat was an allied coordinated effort is very insightful:
Jersey John has made the point from the East coast:So I'd say it Churchill's will, Rosevelt's wallet and Stalin's soul that won the war for the allies. Take anyone of those out of the equation and there was a serious, almost likley, threat of a New Order in Europe.
Night has given us some light and is quoted here by saying:I'd have to say it was this scattering of her army and air force that caused her defeat. He also has said: First, I'm certain that Germany lost it's war by being bled white in the Soviet Union.
Our well-kept friend Disorder is making the point that Poland is never considered when the subject is discussed:Draw your own conculsion's, but all of them were needed to defeat Germany if you ask me.
Noted friend, Komrade, and scholar Konstantin is quoted here by saying:contributed the most combat dead--russiacontributed the most equipment and money-us
contributed absolutely everything-poland
and later a very truly touching comment:The Soviet Union of course
Liam our destinguished Irish guest and speaker has so eloquently spoken:Allied victory in WWII was a combination of the USA, USSR and Britian. Each played an important role and all deserve to be remembered with honour.
A little quote from Hol-zem-frum-floppenThe Russians were the brawn and that's a fact. Though Definitely without Britian holding it's shores in 1940 and allowing for a dagger in the Theird Reich's back it wouldn't have been possible for Russia to have such an easy victory after Stalingrad.
Shaka and Trapp have said:And yes, the trucks, metals, supplies and canned "Spam" we sent them were important.... but it doesn't hold a candle to the lone Russian soldier who still had to pull the trigger. They did their job well and -- as terrible as it may be to our own fragile egos -- so did the Soviet leadership.
Piumarobaleno "Mr Alphabet" says:Major contributor? ... Soviet Union. And, I agree......Soviet Union
Leopard is quoted here by saying:With the surrender of England in 1940, Germany would probably have eaten Urrs in the sequent years
Wow, great statements, with gusto and deep pathos.At some point during WWII someone had to stand and fight the German army. No strategic retreats, or fighting withdrawls. The Red army did face the German army and defeated it.For the most part we all feel that the Soviet Army took the brunt of the German sword, so let's look at the stat's.
After france's fall in June of 1940 England stood alone for one year against Germany with approximately 7.0 million Military men, and Italy with about 1.5 million, a total of 8.5 mil men. They fought the Axis in four main areas of conflict: 1) The Mediterranian 2) The North Atlantic 3) The Skies over Europe, and 4) Western Europe including Norway. Help did not come to them until Germany attacked Russia in June of '41, and later in December when Japan attacked the US and American became her best ally (giving England, food, arms, fuel, and men ,for free).
Germany after losing the Battle of Britian turned her intrest to Life-Space in Russia. She attack the USSR with 3.0 mil soldiers, and .5 mil allies. Germany had another 1.0 mil soldiers in the rest of Europe (Balkins, North Africa, France, Norway, Home Guard, and Occupied countries). She had another 1.5 mil men in uniform with the Luftwaffe and the Kreigsmarine, plus the ever growing Anti-Aircraft Divisions. Most of the Luftwaffe was fighting against England until Barbarrosa, then 75% were sent to support the Eastern Front. As the Bombing campaign increased over Germany, by 1943 80% of the LW was protecting Western cities in Fusteng Europa (that was 1.0 men).
In the Atlantic Germany and Great Britian and later the US were fighting a gigantic battle for control of the sea's. Half a million Germans were imployed with the Navy. 1200 Submarines built, several surface ships (mostly all sunk at the end of the war), and Navel Reccon of the Atlantic Wall shoreline by small ships and airplanes.
Also in 1944 40% of German production was for Anti-Aircraft Guns. That was a huge strain on their economy, and obviously wasn't helping in Russia.
So as you can see England and the US were tying down 2.5 Million German Military in the four areas I mentioned above, while 3.2 Million Germans were in Russia. Of the 2.5 million men that OHW had to have in the West and Med Theaters, most of the said above military were specialized with special training and high-tech expensive equipment. Submarine crews were the cream of the german crop, Luftwaffe air crew for night fighters and day interceptors were the young and talented (all with perfect eye sight). The industry that supported the Navy, Air Force and Anti-Air Defence in Germany was taking a majority of it's defence economy (some military writers like H. A. Jacobson estimate that the Western Allies were tying up 70% of German products of military industry to used against them).
Here my point, although we all agree that Russia was a meatgrinder, chewing up large numbers of young germans, at the same time the western allies were holding down 2.5 million Germans and 1.5 million Italians, that's 4.0 million combatants, more than the Eastern front. Also the majority of Germany's military economic output was going toward the west and not the east. This is not to mention the horrific bombing that Germany recieved from Allied Strategic Bombers crippling hugh resources,industry and civilians; and the huge resources involved in scientific research and espionage used primarilly against the Western Allies.
Summary: Germany turned east for an easier target after being defeated by British Air Forces and seeing that invading England was imposible because of The Royal Navy, the Western allies faced equal amounts of Axis Combatants, and Germany's biggest economy strained was caused by fighting the Air, Sea, and Land battles in the West (after Normandy Germany's attention was with france and not Russia, proved by the quality of Divisions used in both Theaters).
Okay, I done, finished, then who was more of an opponent? Pretty much equal in my estimation! For Germany, Russia took more blood, and in the West it took more Industrial Manpower. As Konstantin has said about the Big Three, "all deserve to be remembered with honor".
[ May 07, 2003, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]
-
Ha Ha Ha, very good. Don't forget Sunday is Mother's day.
-
I've been doing analysis about German statics during WW2, and your going to be surprised. Will complete posting tomarrow.
-
To Santa Bear
Thanks for the respond about the book. And you are right about the feeling that the book gave you when reading it. That the russian people stood up for Mother Russia, it was good in that aspect!
I know when I stick out my neck and say I endorse something on this forum, it's not fun too have it stepped on, I didn't mean that. But I hope here when we are all truthful and honest with eachother, without bias, or malice toward eachother, that we can mature as men, How about those BEARS!
-
Okay this may turn out too be our forum, but who cares. Had a copy of Josephus years ago, but only used it for reference, and not as a enjoyable history reading book. It was Okay at best, but that's just my dull mind. I have some of the works of Plutarch, the chopped up versions, I enjoyed his greek mind looking at Rome. Even Herodotus was just marginal reading for me, even though very important and considered the father of history (history his an english word for "his story" speaking of our Lord Jesus). You have a better gift for history than I if you can suffer thru the dry stuff.
Come to think of it my favorite history book is the Bible . It is historic, truthful, shocking, exposing, and compassionate. The Old Testement stories of David are great stories, with lots of military tactics. Joshua, Daniel, Genesis by Moses, and the Book of Acts, fantastic 1st century history, are all great stories of man and his journey here on earth.
Of coarse this is my humble view as a Pre-tribulation, Pre-millenial, Five Point Calvinist.
The only other books that I like are the ones that I'm reading right now, my favorties are usually the ones that I'm reading at whatever time I'm asked. e.g. when I was reading the book about the sinking of the Bismark, it was the best book, later when reading about Patton, that was my favorite, and so on and so forth.
But I do have an opinion on everything, as we all have, and there are some books that I don't like. Sorry to say that book "War in Russia" was so full of commie garbage about the great Soviet army killing millions of germans, and actually losing less men! I threw the book in the garbage, of coarse I bought it used.
Probibly my favorite writtings are short stories by military men who are right at the battles. WW2 Magizine and Civil War Magizines spend a lot of time next to the John (hardy har har).
-
Very interesting Night (Knight) you have done what many historians have suggested france should have done in 1939. It's funny that here with this game, and all the possibilities, number of gamers, and ways to change history, it took this long for someone too try this scenario.
I give you an honorary Knight Of SC award.
-
This is a posting to poll we band of brothers , of which I believe are some of the most knowledgeable men about WW2 that I have ever had the pleasure to correspond with.
Which of Nazi Germany's opponents lead her to it's final demise (who contributed the most). The Soviet Union with it's huge army, or England/America with their large Navies, Air Forces, and Logistics. Which of the Allies took more of Germany's resources (soldiers, workforce, industry, and logistics).
According to some postings of Konstantin, he has said that The USSR took on 3/4 of the German Army and therefore took the brunt of the German wrath. I contend that, although neither Russia or England/America could have defeated Germany alone, the Western Allies destroyed the German Air Force, Navy, and Industry thus causing Germany too fall.
Which one was the major contributor to the Fall of the Third Reich? I will defend my position later.
-
To JJ
Yes, I meant "The World at War". All the brain cells have been written on once, and when you have to write over them again because there is no space left, they don't work as well. And my service in the Hippie Corps in the sixties didn't help.
[ May 06, 2003, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]
-
Okay JJ here it is, you will probibly be disappointed, but my litmus test is how many times I have read or used the book in my life, in other words how many times have I gone back to the work.
The number one book hands down is Thucydides written in 401 B.C. by Thucydides. This book opened my eyes and started my love of history. I have read the book twice, and it's thick. It picks up history right before the Peloponnesian Wars from about 431 BC to 404 BC. I have been a big Antiquity history buff ever since. But no one writting history during that era holds a candle compared to him, Julius Caesar and many other Roman writers are so inaccurate and exaggerate so much it's laughable, but Thucydides is very accurate. This is the classic war between the greatest sea power and the greatest land power city-states of Hellas (Greece). Has a tragic ending, like a novel.
Athens vs. Sparta and her allies, the Ionians against the Doric greeks, the Doric's being the newcomers in Hellas. Great speeches by Pericles, good stuff!!! Coming to your theaters soon...
The second book of history written before electricity that has impressed me is The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara. After you read his historic novel about the 20th Maine at little Round top, or really the whole story of Gettysburg you will have to travel to Gettysburg and see the classic battlefield, I had too.
These two works are about the classic struggle of mankind, who's way of life is right, idealogical wars. Not just the aggressor taking (Nazi thugs with the heretical teaching of Ayianism which spond from Darwinism (which if believed says that eventually we will all become gods, the same old lie that Satan told Eve, "if you eat it, you will become like god")), but people fighting for there belief system, Athens the first democracy against Sparta the Despot Kingdom, and the South the real Republic against the Federal Giant ever wanting to grow more controlling and powerful, even listenning to the phone and looking at your bank account, trying to take your guns (out of my cold dead hand).
JJ haven't read The Sea Power book but will make an effort to get it, didn't care for Sun Tsu that much, too preachy and "I'm so smart" for me, although I don't disagree with what he/they wrote about strategies of war. Funny thing is that I don't think that the Chinese ever read his works or understood it because they sure lost a lot.
-
From Santa Bear
My approach to wargames is my history of board games which used dice and the calculation of the odds. Lots of PC wargames after that used the same system as a basis for starting their games. That is my point of reference. From that, like chess, I or possibly we have built our experience in wargaming. Attacking a position or unit with the best odds, best chance of winning, is the best way of generaling (is that a word). This is what I miss.I for one prefer NOT to know all of the details behind the resolution of combat. When a commander orders an attack he should have a good idea of the outcome, but there is never a way to KNOW what will happen. One of the excellent things about SC is that the only way to learn some of the nuances about combat, supply and cetera is through hard-won experience. This approach is actually preferable to me than to introduce some kind of "dice roll" into the combat system.It seems to me that in WW2 Generals attacked the enemy at a weak point, or where they felt that they had superiority, or at the very least they knew that they could exchange man for man or machine for machine, attrition. Few attacked when thay didn't understand or know the odds (intellengence), unless in desperation. Also smart Generals used the least amount of men and material to get the task done, to minimize casualities. Of coarse sometimes you want overwelming odds to ensure victory (Normandy landing), and don't care about the waist.
As stated before, I miss knowing the odds or intellengence of my attacks. Or am I just paranoid!
-
To Jersey
As always I enjoy your responce, the Victory at Sea sound track is alway awesome, and their is real drama in the World in Flame stories, with the first 3/4 of series narrated by Sir L Olivier. Why he did not complete the last ones is a mystery, I would like to find out why he didn't finish them?
As I was writting the last posting I was thinking about Churchill and Enigma and how I wish he could have revealed it's importance, that's werd that you brought it up!
Please start the new topic of the pre-twentyth centry (pre-electric) history. I've got a lot to say about that era and their writers. Antiquity, dark ages, age of sail exploration, gun powder and colonial expansion, and Eighteenth and Nineteenth century military warfare.
-
Very good idea for posting....
I'm going to pretend that none of you have ever read the books that I'm listing, all though I know that it's not true.
Of my book selection, I would have to list Winston Churchill's Six Book Master Piece Of WW2 number one, have read the set three times. Of the big three he was the only one to record WW2, and they are very well written. Must Read for young and old.
The set of World War 2 by Time Life Books is second on my list. Each book of which there are 39 do a great job of telling each theme. e.g. The Battle of the North Atlantic, great job of telling each side, with lots of statistics.
Next I like stories about Divisions in WW2. Hard to find but very rewarding. e.g. Night Drop Normandy by S.L.A. Marshal.
Lastly books about Generals and Leaders, Two volumn set about A. Hitler by Toland very well done. Panzer Leader about Guderian, and Knight,s Cross about Rommel, are top drawer, spot on, rude air!
On DVD World in Flames, number one, Victory at Sea Second. Lately several good war movies which don't distort history to badly have been produced, e.g. Band of Brothers, Saving Pvt Ryan, Pearl Harbor, and for the older group that can watch B&W, Battleground (whcih won an oscar), D-day, and A Bridge to far(color).
The US Army books of Maps from West Point are very good, Two book set. My dad bought them when I was young and they have always shaped my understanding of WW2. You can find them in used book store's for around $75, as you can for any books listed above. I've counted over two hundred History and Military books in my humble colection, halve are used, and are really the way to collect books, although I do belong to the Military Book Club.
I only list the above to give ideas to and to help younger future marshal loving eggheads, battle butt kicking nerdy history know-it-alls, no social life deprived buttheads, societal sick morbid strategy wargamers.
-
S-Bear, read that book, don't get mad, I respect your opinion and have learned a lot from your forum postings, but I hated it, thought that it's stat's were commie BS. Very ideaistic toward Communism and their leadership. Luckily I found it at the used book store and only paid 9 bucks of it, read the whole thing however.
The poem is nice, but you didn't want to know Stalin personally, you usually wound up dead.
[ May 02, 2003, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]
-
S-Bear and J-John, I hope that the Scenario Editor will become more powerful as you have suggested John. Would solve a lot of my problems, well not my problems, twenty years of theropy and five years of golf lesson would help.
My hadicap has gone from 9.1 to 11.6, aaargh, and well the other problems........
-
SHAKA behave yourself!
-
Transporting armies was a great logistical problem for most countries. When the 101st Airborne (screaming eagles man) left No. Carolina to go to England it took them one month , three weeks in ports and on the water. When the 6th Panzer Division left france in Nov of 1942 to releave the 6th Army surrounded in Stalingrad, it took them three weeks by train to get southwest of the Stalingrad pocket.
How well does SC do the same. Armies take two to three turns to go from the US to England, takes way to long, transports traveled from 12 to 20 Knots depending on the ship. 12 knots times 24 hours is 288 KM's (knotical miles) per day. 7 days is 2016 KM's, the distance across the No. Atlantic (zigzag may have added 1/3 more distance, but that would still be only a couple days).
How about the German example. With operation movement you can go from france (purposely left the f lower case) to Western Russia in one turn, but then you have to travel at normal movement the rest of the way to Stalingrad whaich could take three more turns, again way to slow.
Monthly turns are difficult for ship battles (2 to 3 thousand KM's is a long way every month), and why can you place a brand new unit next to an enemy unit, but can't place an existing unit next to the same unit.
Maybe we need some work done on movement?
-
Posting From Bill
Wow, Bill, you guys do listen! Can't wait, well, I can wait, but if you are going to make these changes, SC2 will become the best Strategy game to date.There seems to be a concensus that air is a bit too powerful and armor not powerful enough, air ranges may be a bit too much, submarines not survivable enough, etc. A few very minor tweaks to the combat tables for SC2 could smooth out some of the rough edges without introducing any additional complexity. Other development work for SC2 - like a larger map, improved scenario editor, improved political model, and AI enhancementsTo bad about the odds not being shown, but hay, can't have your wife and your girlfriend too!
[ May 02, 2003, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]
-
I missed this posting the first time, but nonetheless an important one.
The limit of how many ships, planes, artillery and tanks was a matter of industry, defense of the industry, moral, natural resources, technology, and manpower, and yes also time (schedules). Units should be developed in home country cities. These cities should be protected and suplies by owned natural resource hexes (mines and coal, oil, and factories). No oil no planes or tanks, no resources no steel, no steel no nothing. Italy aways clamered that it did not have enough steel, and Hilter was aways stingy with his steel supply.
I can't bomb Berlin now because it's suicide to bomb it from England, plus bombers can't travel that far until way late in the game, bombers can't defend themselves because it's aways daytime, no night bombing.
Getting back to limits on units, I agree Jersey John there should be unit limits. The other problem is how many planes is a fighter unit? bomber? Battleship? Panzer? Sub? This makes them a like a chessman!
SC has the best plaibility of any strategy wargame yet, still there is a ways too go!
SC2 - Comments for the Future of SC
in Strategic Command 1
Posted