Sailor Malan2

Because they weren't 'removed', they were not included in the new engine. Your statement implies effort was used to degrade the game, but in reality it was a choice of where to put it to best improve the game...

"ASL - World War 2 as seen in the movies"
 
Nuff said...

I agree, economic activity is not the same thing at all as military capability. However nor can you divorce them. I think you are slightly oversimplifying the issue. I will put a few comments in response to some of your points.


You are right at one level - the 'general' effectiveness of a unit of appropriate technology tanks is probably higher than the equivalent bomber of the same cost. However you seem to divorce 'economic' effect from 'military' effect. They are two aspects of the same thing in the medium/long term. Why was Germany defeated (at the very highest level of thinking)? Because they could not stop the advance of the Allies, to occupy Germany, and physically prevent the elimination of their capability to resist. Why was that? Because (ignoring the poor leadership decisions so capably discussed above) their economy could not produce/sustain enough combat capability to resist that of the Allies (I include replacement troops in the 'economy', as you have to in this style of thought - people are 'machine operators' in this way of machines, and the recovery mechanic, repair facility etc are at least as important as the tank driver in this respect). Why couldn't the German economy produce/maintain the combat capability? Because of all aspects of the war. The aim is to render the machines of the enemy ineffective. You can blow them up on the battlefield, behind the battlefield, in the depot or the factory. You can strand them in any of the above, you can prevent them getting spares and ammo, etc etc. The only question in anything other than the short term is who can do all the above most effectively. Note: not efficiently - USSR was not efficient by Western standards, but by goodness it was effective! (I know that the money spent per dead German, by USSR was probably less than the West, but you need to normalise the equation -USSR was a low wage economy. It was damaging its economy far more to kill one German than the West was- the west spent primarily non-human resources that could be sustained in the medium term, the USSR spent finite, though large, human ones)

Completely agree. But in late 1944, the sea mine, whilst economically still efficient, was fast becoming less effective. If Germany put the V1 programme resources in to sea mine production, would it have produced the same effect as the V1 programme? No, because it did not have the means to deploy them, and they are easily countered by sweeping. The V1 programme was not ineffective. Hitler had vastely over inflated expectations, sure, and the pure material effect was not huge, but it distorted Allied air and ground strategy, caused a huge diversion of medium and heavy bomber sorties to launching sites etc. A 'V1 sized mine programme' would have been countered far easier and far less cost, and hence the extra bomber sorties would have been spent doing something to reduce Germany's power faster.



Killing soldiers is not the right measure of success in war. Look at France 1940 and 1914. Far fewer casualties in 1940. So presumably 1914 is the better victory? No - rendering troops combat ineffective is far more efficient economically.



Which is exactly what I am arguing. Military effectiveness is inextricably linked to other factors. If European Russia was like France in terms of road net, would things be different? Yes - I suspect Germany would have got further east, but fundamentally, the Russians still build up faster than being defeated, German Navy still loses the Battle of the Atlantic, the bomber war stays as history.... Germany is able to exert more combat power in to Russia, and the war lasts a little longer, but the ecomonic balance remains unchanged and hence the war remains unchanged in the very highest level.

Here we get out of Total war and in to limited wars. You have to be very careful not to mix the two, and draw invalid conclusions. Political will to pursue a war is a whole other issue, and not really relevant to WW2, with a couple of notable exceptions (France 1940, Japan 1945), where the final prevention of physical ability to continue to resist was pre-empted by a collapse of political will. I do not intend to divert by arguing these, as we could be here for ever debating what actual resistance (e.g.) France could have continued to put up. The point we need to be clear is that modern conflicts have not shown that high tech armies cannot defeat low tech ones. They have shown that the modern myth that high tech armies can do so without significant losses or economic effect is incorrect. Thus the 'low tech side' can lose the battle militarily but because their ability to resist is not eliminated, they can continue until the high tech side gives up.



My view is that it is pointless to argue who won the war more. Which of your two legs helps you walk more? If you take one away you cant move right? No, you just have to move differently. So with the war - USSR undoubtedly suffered more, no contest. But this does not mean they 'won the war', nor does it mean they didn't.

Interesting question, but only in terms of this thread of course. In RL, the question is 'but did it have any tactical effect?' I suggest the answer is probably 'yes- in that no one was going to pass through the beaten zone for 12 hours without losses or severe morale effect... since it sounds like the barrage was at an area behind the lines the biggest effect may well have been on things beyond CM - no ammo resupply, no hot food, no casevac, etc. Things that after 12 hours in combat would have an effect on the front line.