von Churov

Might be! But also, you want to sell the game to that people...so you might want to comply with what their wishes. This is a sort of market research for you... ...and the results are quite clear. Anything else than WWII would be a quite failure. You see what people want, so it will be what they will get. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!! Also, WWII offers a widest variety of troops and theaters, historical battles, weapons, equipment, etc. In the begining the WWI tankettes were common thing in all the armies...It (WWII) ended up with t34's which were stil used in the exYugoslavia conflict. Or...It started with biplanes, and it ended up with jet planes... So, the variety of equipment is stunning and challenging. And good for selling the game too And the historical accuracy is one of the most atracitve things in this game...In WWII there are the battles that everybody knows about, and it's much gamier to play the game where you know the historical context. (How many are there to name 3 major battles in Korea within a minute without use of external aid?) It's definitely the WWII. The only question is which timeframe and which theater. Poland-Norway-France 39-40 would be an interesting bundle pack. But Normandy is the most probable result...trust me!

Poles were doomed the very moment Engaland and France omited to intervene. They were enveloped from three sides by the enemy superior in everything (exept maybe in motivation), and they had a hostile rear (the Soviets). Not even a stronger military country could resist in such circumstances. Concearning the retreat...In fact, with ongoing Soviet intervenion they had nowhere to retreat. Had they retreated behind the Vistula and Narew, Germans could still make a lethal blow from East Prussia down to the south, or from Slovakia up to the North. Poles had to many approaches to defend. Had they retreated behind they would have shortened the front line, but the fronline would have been shortened for Germans too, making even easier for Germans to conduct the mass concentration of arms, which was the art they were best at. Add a Soviet stab in the back... Add a lack of military support by Allys... They were done. All that Poles could have achieved was a prolongation of a bitter end that was sure to come, since they were left behind by their allies.

Russia is vast teritorry. The swamps there are not an ordinary swamps...it's miles and miles of marshes and water. It is (theoretically) possible to attack with infantry there, but very difficult to realise that in practice. The attacking side is supposed to have forces massed and it's just not possible in the marshes. It's not only a matter of movement. Infantry goes on in foot anyway. But there's an issue of logistics. They are supposed to bring on the tons of provisions there to supply the attacking troops. And sufficient suppling requires sufficient road capacity. Russian roads in the swamps. I believe you have seen the pictures or the footage of the Russian roads at the time. Even in the southern stepe those roads look almost like swamps. Now can you imagine how the russian swamps look like when that "swamp" we all saw on those pictures the Russians called "road". Now imagine the Russian road through the swamp. Also, infantry never attacks without sufficient artilery support. How the Germans were supposed to transport their standard heavy support howitzer (150mm SFH) through the marshes? I just can't imagine those monsters being towed through the swamps. For example, notice that Pripyat marshed were left almost without a frontline by both sides. because there was no possibility to arrange any adequate kind of defence or attack there. Later, the partisans and remains of bypassed soviet troops that escaped destruction in number of pockets fleed there for cover. Anyway, my point is: had the Germans managed to take the Leningrad it would be hard to them to exploit that for attack on the Moscow. As of your other points. I don't think that Leningrad would have been entirely destroyed. Hitler would have ordered that, but soon enough, after few major buildings were destroyed, (and of course after Herman Goering have taken his share of artwork from Leningrad museums)the destruction would have stopped. I supposed that it would have been pillaged anyway. Like in the medieval times. Maybe even the population would have been relocated in order to make it a ghost city...but here I'm just speculating. Leningrad was also a big industrial center so it is possible to have it included in German war production. Part of the population would have been engeged in the factories,a part would have been sent to camps, a part of population would have been sent back to Germany to slave labour...and so. But this is speculation too. Hitler was a lutantic and it hard to guess what lunatic could do. As of Soviet loses...Well the logics says that the Sovets couldn't stand the loss of Leningrad and it's manpower and industry production, and the Germans should benefit from their 16th and 18th Army being disengaged form the combat and ready to be engaged elswhere...But...BUT... The same logic says that the Soviets couldn't have standed the loses of Kiev, Kharkov, Minsk, Smolensk, Rostov etc...and all their manpower and industry production. But they did. They withstood all those blows and fought on. They were a sort of Hydra. The more heads you chop off, the more new heads appears. So...maybe a loss of Leningrad wold have been just another number in their statistics sheets. But in the other hand ...could it be just a blow too many? The one that could turn the tides ireversibly??? Nobody knows. Today, all we can do is speculate.

Congratulations Bogdan! All the best, to you and your family. Greetings In serbian, croatian, bosnian, and montenegrian (MULTILINGUAL HUH?) that would be: Svaka cast Bogdane! Sve najbolje tebi i tvojoj porodici.

The Nothern area of operations was unsuitable for mobile warfare. Too much of forests and swamps, marches and all kind of combinations of those.(Take a look at the map of Northern Russia and you'll have a clearer picture on this) So, the employment of large armoured troop masses was disabled by the terrain itself. Theres a huge marshy area going in an arc from Tikhvin-Lake Ladoga-Novgorod-lake Imlen-Staraya Rusa-Demyansk-Kholm-Velikie Luki protecting aproach to Moscow from the North, and denying the passage to any larger armoured units. So had Leningrad fallen in German hands they still could have a problem of taking advantage of this. AG North's area of operation was simply not suitable fora attackin operations. Since both of the sides attacked by massing of armour, large attacking operations were next to impossible to be conducted there. Therefore, that part of the frontline didn't move that much. None of the sides could attack in a big way. Notice, while in the south front moved back and forth every couple of months, in the Northern front changes were minor.Lastly, AG North although being weakened, was rather encircled and cut off than pushed back. The forntline there was almost still in place for 2 years. It was not before early '44. the siege of Leningrad was lifted.

Well,maybe Frenchmen had none of it. My mistake! But the funny one. Nice alternate piece of WWII history. Ghosts and Gobilins vol 16.

De Gaulle was promoted acting Brigadier-General with effect from 1st June. He held a high-level command before that as commander of tank forces of 5th Army. Apart from Gamelin, which French generals qualify for worst, and why? Names, appointments, reasons please. It is very easy for you to show you are not talking out of your arse. Just answer the question. </font>

Oh yeah! Did you know that in '40 de Gaulle was a colonel, not a general? And later he was not in direct command of the troops? He became a politician. Or shall we say an Ally puppet? Anyway, what was the great battle he won? Or great military performance he had? A counterattack with his armoured brigade in June '40? His main succeses was political not military. So, politicans not included in the competition. Colonels eather. Just a word on ignorance my friend. Have fun. And all the best. P.S. I LOVE France and I hate to say these kind of things but...you provoke.

No. They have been UTTERLY defeated in the battlefield. So it was not a political capitulation. It was a complete military capitulation first of all. The Germans didn't want to waste any more bullets, so they established a puppet government. That's it.

Regardless, It's a nuclear weapon, and it's a heart of Europe. I think that US would have thought twice to do that. But, who knows...

One more thing. I AM NOT AN ANTI-FRENCH! It's only you seeing it that way. I don't pose to know everything, or to be an expert. Moreover, I might be an ignorant... But that doesn't change the fact that Franch Generals in '40 were absolutely incompetent. At least MOST of them. And that they lost a war in few weeks, against all odds. It takes no expert to see that. Figures tell everything. And you may go mad as much as you want, you can hate me as much as you want, and you can call me the names if that makes you happy, and whatever...But you can't change the facts. And I'll stay polite. Despite of you. Greetings Mister! With love, von Churov

Sorry, was Fosh in charge of defining French defence docrine post WWI, therefore planting the seed of French defeat in May '40? In some cases you don't have to be present (or alive)...you know. Your deeds have to. He was dead, but his deeds were what brought (among other things) France to defeat. Have fun too, my friend. P.S. Don't call me names, PLEASE. I know that some parts of history hurt...but we are supposed to be polite anyway.

So, you named four of them? Out of forty? Out of hundred? Its still a mainority. So it the majority is on the other side... Majority means MOST OF

Maybe! But I know that they had all the requirements for WORST general met in May '40. At least most of them. Fighting the opponent who was outnumbered, out gunned, and out almost everything, from defence positions...and loosing. Just like in CM giving the deffender 1700 points opposed to atackers 1000. And still loosing as defender. Wow! You have to be talented for something like that. Few are those who can achieve that. In CM you just have to click GO! to win such a battle. SO it's AI is the more advance opponent than the French generals of the time could have been. Of course, they met Germans and their new approach, (somebody mentioned blitzkrieg, Sorry Michael) and Manstein in his moments of being inspired...but still, they could perform much better. MUCH MUCH better. So...settle the score... All the best to you to.

I suspect that it would rather transpire that Hiroshima might not hav been the first city to see an Atomic weapon in that situation. Or at the very least Hiroshima would have forced a surrender from the Germans as well as the Japanese. [/QB]</font>

Ok, guys. Anybody heard of France participation in WWII? Anybody heard of them having some generals in the process of the War? So? NOBODY SAID A WORD ON NUMBER OF FRENCH GENERALS!!! And you could point the finger at any of them. From Gamlain and Fosch downwards, down the chain of command. Or you just find them being out of cometition in order to enable some other countries generals to win the title? If it's so I agree. Having them in the competition for the WORST, general strips everybody esle a one milionth piece of a chance to win the title. And it's not fair. Viva la France!!!

With a shortened front line in the East, with several Russians crack armies destroyed (i.e. Russians weakened significiantly) the Germans could create a number of reserves. So, the reserves could have been transfered to the West to meet the forthcomming invasion. So, the Western allies would have been delayed too. Maybe even more than the Russians. Maybe Overlord could have been a failure in that case? What if the Normandy was defended by some of the Infanterie division of series 70 (78. Inf Div. for example) instead of division of serie 700 (718, 716 etc.) What if GD was stationed in Caen of June 06. '44? And those thing could have happened had the Germans won the Kursk battle resulting the Russian being stripped off their best units, and therefore weakened to such an extent that they pose no serious threat for a time. The Berlin could have fallen in 1949 or so.

I pretty much agree with this. I've passed through the ex-Yugoslavia civil war fall appart and have seen how ordinary man turns to a killer and vice versa. So, I realised that there is no difference in between them...they are the same,("...the Ring and the Dark Lord...") Two faces of the same coin. Of course we shouldn't whitewash...but we shouldnt moralize too much eather. It could have happened to us. We're not better than average SS trooper. We were just lucky to be born in better time and place.

I'm not comparing US in Iraq with SS deeds...I just pointed that there might be more than one side of a story depending on the point of view, and that things are not always black and white. And that some people are overreacting, trying to do some witchunt around . So, I just gave them something to think and to do witchunt about. To keep them busy. No one should generalize the judgament! I was just trying to be impartial and mentioned both sides equally. The battle is not fought by itself, but by the soldiers who participated, and you cannot speak about the battle without mentioning them. And what should I say: "To all the russians that died. **** the Germans!" No. That's where liberal in me comes up. I just want to be impartial. They all fought for dictatorships. Two different ones. But so similar. And the things that they fought for wrong cause should not neglect the fact that they died, and that we should remember their death. There were all humans. And they were dying... My compassion...regardless to ideology. A corpse is not a corpse of a Nazi or a corpse of a Commie. It's a something that used to be human, and it's a tragedy. They were all fooled but...still, no matter how fooled you are it takes a lot of guts to rush down the battlefield into almost certain death. I don't think that I could do so. No matter how indoctrinated I could be. And that's what I admire. After all, all I said is that the soldiers who fougt there were brave (and that's what nobody can deny) for having guts to die for something that they bellieved in, and for that I saluted them. Another topic please! :cool:

But you're right! Infantrymen are generaly stupid...or shall we say low life. All the smart ones go to signal troops, radio recon, radars, air force, calculation units of artilery, etc. Scum good for nothing else but for eating dust goes to infantry. I don't know about tank crews. The commander is supposed to be smart, radio operator and gunner to some extent...but the driver and reloader may be at the IQ level of an average plant.

According to another version, he was simply misguided. I.e. stupid. </font>

This is insane! I haven't used a word HERO! Simply, because SS weren't heroes. I did not dub the SS heroes, I just said that they were brave, and that they died what they believed for. I didn't say that they were goodies. And a brave man that dies for a cause (no matter how stupid the cause is) in such a big battle, a battle that created and changed the history, deserves some respect. He had guts. And he found something more valuable than his own life to fight for. I am really tired of this bull****!

Well, if every man who was in SS were potential thug, than it makes Germany nastiest nations of all, since they have the highest percentage of thugs within the population. And that's just not true. Remember Pope Benedict, he was in Hitler Jugend. Does this make him a thug. Or shall we say this way if he was not a thug that's only because in the wartime he was too young to join 12th SS Division,or he wasn't fit enough. So, we have a thug Pope. Or shall I say it this way: Were American soldiers thugs in WW2? If they were not, that's only because they were born in free country and not in Nazi Germany. If some of those brave Americans were accidently born in Germany, many of them would have joined SS. It's not the Germans that were only liable to joining SS troops.It's in the human nature. Our hearts are easilly corrupted. And it's not on us to blame Witmann and Barkmann of being thugs only because they joined SS.Since, personally they did nothing that labels them as thugs. Or, they did but no more than any other tank commander in any nation in WW2. Had all of us been born in Germany in 1920's, could we swear that we wouldn't have joined SS. I bet that many of us would have joined. It's human nature. It's not the Germans being extra talented for being thugs. Some of those Americans were members of Q Klux Clan. And fighting SS in Normandy does not abolish them of their moral burden. You should observe thing in the context. And Jason, next time you hear American anthem think of hundreds of thousands of Indians, think of 2 million of Vietnamies, think of Abu grab...and then you come to teach me moral lessons. Are you so consistent in condemning those things? If you're so pissed off by even a hint of respect to anything connected to SS, are you equally pissed off with what Americans did in Vietnam, for example? Those Americans soldiers did not fight the righteous war...they believed that they fight for their country...and they did. Because, one always fights for what he believes he fights for. Just like in law...the subjective feel is what matters. And they were drafted and sent to jungle. Does that make them less brave? NO! Now we all know that they fought in vain, they fought the war that wasn't right at all. But does this make their sacrafice lesser. NO! Do you shout "Uaaaaa!" listening to the anthem. Sure you don't!And you shouldn't! OR, according to you, now we all should blame all the Americans for what happened there? And whenever someone speaks of Nam Vets we should shout (just like you did): "NO, those were thugs who fought imperialistic war of occupation, and we shouldn't be celebrating their victims...for the cause they fougt for was wrong". The world is not black and white. And you're not on the white side. And since you're not, you shouldn't be giving moral lessons around. We all have our burdens, and "the one without a sin should cast a first stone"...since there are no one such around...LET IT BE!!! You were so "easy on the trigger" to judge SS, and you were so quiet on some other things... "Do not judge lest thee be judged yourself!" It's all just shades of gray, and we all should have that in mind. Greetings to all, (although I'm a bit pissed off by some of you) and please calm the things down. If I only knew of what the emotional turmoil would my Prokhorovka notice would cause...I wouldn't have posted it. [ July 19, 2005, 04:06 AM: Message edited by: von Churov ]

Thanks Michael, My mistake.Mistyping. I often misstype things. And that what happenes when one doesn't use numpad. But speaking of SS Prinz Eugen. I believe that no other SS Waffen unit did more war crimes than this one. These were really bunch of headchopers. Small example. In October '41. in punitive expedition in Kragujevac (town south of Belgrade), they wiped out entire school. They took the kids and the teachers straight out form the class and executed them all. No surviors. Only because few of their soldiers were killed that day. Or in punitive expedition in May-June '43 near Sutjeska river (border of Montenegro and Bosnia) they executed entire column of wounded, sick and refugees. 4000 men, women and childred killed in the most brutal way. No mercy showed. And some of my relatives were in that column. And now im being labeled as SS promoter? Some kind of dark humor? Is this? I'm a liberal actually...and that's what prevents me from seeing things black and white. And what some of you did here is witchunt. Trying to find something to burn.