Ivanov

Where did I say something contrary to your statement? According to what is leaking to the media, the main issue is the low readiness of the equipment. The most important question is what caused this situation? Some here have been arguing, that it's because of too low military expenditure. What I've been saying, is that given the size and it's mission, the German military budget is not too small. This issue have been puzzling me, that with a military budget a little smaller than the one of UK, the German army is in such a poor state. Also it's worth reminding my American friends here, that not every problem can be solved just by throwing cash at it. In case of Germans, it has to be due to the bad management of available resources. Give those 40 billion euros from German budget to the Baltic States or Czech Republic and apart from conventional the forces, they'll manage to build Death Star from it.

That's kind of the direction I took it too.   If you looked at my old Company at a few weeks into a gunnery/training exercise, we'd only be slightly better shaved (because the US Army is still pretty serious about that, although tanker mustaches wouldn't be uncommon), a lot of our gear would look pretty trashed (well worn, but also knocked around/we'd wear our most torn up stuff to the field).

Simply a lot of dirt, lowered hygiene, some unbuttoned pouches doesn't make for a non-functional unit.  The German solider has a highly inflated opinion of his own capabilities from my experience, but it's in the way they're within the realm of being "very capable" just they look around the room and believe themselves to be a few dozen steps above their peers because Deutsche! * but I'd still put good money on them in a fight if it came down to it.

*Take his all with a grain of salt, but working with other countries:

French: The most frustrating mix of very component and very relaxed you will encounter.  Like I imagine a French pilot in a crashing plane would do everything reasonable to keep it from crashing, once that had happened mutter "merde" to themselves, shrug and have a smoke waiting for the plane to explode while the American would die trying to fashion a new engine from the gum wrappers in his pocket and some duct tape up to the point of impact.

British: They're very tired.  Like they're professional but they're really quite sick of whatever nonsense you colonials/continentals are rousted up about.  It doesn't matter if the field itself was invented last week, somehow they'll act as if Wellington himself had an Electronic Warfare Company at Waterloo, and the British have been doing it forever.  In the event they are incorrect this will rarely be acknowledged.  Whatever kit you have is also entirely too much for the job.  You have two radio nets available in your tanks?  We get by with one.  You have only one radio?  Our tanks are connected by no 4 wire and a Lance Corporal or something.  

Poles:  Less exposure, but they seem constantly a little amused.  Americans have tanks?  Who knew?  These computers you have, they turn on when you want them on?  Magic!  Your food, has it caused anyone to explode.  No, I don't mean in the bathrooms I mean literally, do not ask.  Fascinating!  May I have?  You're never sure if they're taking the piss or actually impressed.  Generally good dudes though, if absolute murder to get their names right.

German: Thinks they're the legacy of the Prussian military machine that made Europe quake, is the legacy of social welfare state that has money for post kindergarten's omni-sex bathroom and masseuse for teachers, not for fuel for tanks.

Japanese: Everyone is in total agreement with this plan we made two weeks ago for the operation we are committing to in two hours.  The movements of the enemy are inconsequential to this fact, we are all in agreement, this is where we are going to go because we are in agreement (this is where I had to add in one caveat.  The Japanese are aware of this, and getting a lot better at working on the fly, it's just when they're not a "good" unit they default a lot to "this is the plan we follow because it's the plan we agreed on" vs "this best meets the intention")

Russian: I'm a spy.  You know I'm a spy, I know I'm a spy, I'm going to pretend to be sneaky about this because we are playing a game about it, but we all know why I'm here.  Yep, I just took out my camera and took some shots.  Oh bother the Chinese guy is in the way again.

Chinese: YOU STUPID AMERICANS DO NOT KNOW I AM SPY.  I AM CLEARLY NOT AN INTELLIGENCE AGENT I AM JUST A CHINESE PERSON MYSTERIOUSLY APPEARING IN A PLACE WITH NO CHINESE PEOPLE.  I AM SNEAKILY TAKING A MILLION PICTURES OF EVERYTHING YOU HAVE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO ME.  I AM SO SNEAKY.  I AM THE ONLY PERSON IN THIS ****TY AFRICAN VILLAGE IN PERFECTLY CLEAN KHAKIS, MY SHOES ARE NOT DUSTY, AND HAVE THREE THOUSAND DIFFERENT SENSORS HANGING OUT OF MY BACKPACK BUT YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO SEE ME BECAUSE I AM A SPY.  HAHA DUMB AMERICANS WHY ARE THEY ALL LOOKING AT ME SO MUCH?
Thai: WE ARE ALL GENERALS PLEASE DIRECT US TO THE ONE PRIVATE IN THE THAI ARMY SO HE CAN CARRY OUR BAGS.

Korean: It's a lot of solid, squared away soldiers with a generous helping of weird people hiding out in weird corners (the ROKA captain showing up with a Gucci tote and an umbrella to a field exercise was a major wtf) and a dose of semi-subversive conscripts ("Hai, Mr American Captain Man, please allow me to tell you how terrible my chain of Command is and are you in needing of a KATUSA by chance?")

Americans: WE ARE HERE TO HELP BY IGNORING WHATEVER WISDOM YOU MAY HAVE AND ATTEMPTING TO AMERICAN OUR WAY OUT OF ALL PROBLEMS WITH MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY, EXPLOSIVES, OR BOTH WHICH WE WILL FLAGRANTLY LORD OVER YOU WITHOUT REALIZING IT ON ALL OCCASIONS.  

I mean @AtheistDane has shown us to both be wrong, so I agree, the discussion is pointless. 

I think we need some meditation and spiritual healing 

I think we need some meditation and spiritual healing 

Looks more like SOF.
 
 

I've got to admit I now have more than two games (as of this evening) on hold because of poor AI behaviour that have stopped play. When veteran troops (and +2), rested and OK are in cover behind bocage but come under pinning fire, they do not run out from the bocage into the exposed field of fire  - unless they first panic or at least become nervous. Pinned does not mean panic, it means pinned! Infuriating stuff!

That "warhead like object" mentioned  is just a reflection on camera lens...  Which is obvious when the video is wached at normal FPS rate.
Reading above text further thatn that is just waste of time. 

Only stopping along the way to commit as many warcrimes as they could. Mad respect over here.
 
 
Anyway, it took Battlefront 3 versions to add a toggle for music independent of the sound toggle. 1+ years to correct a real bug is in the correct ballpark.

if one thing is consistent with this site, its the announcement that something is coming out soon and it seems to come out way later than what everyone is hoping for.

Yesterday, I stumbled upon an impressive series of books dedicated to Operation Barbarossa. Here the author takes one of TiK's videos. Pretty impressive stuff if you ask me:

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/an-essay-on-why-i-believe-a-tik-u-tube-presentation-is-incorrect-in-regards-to-losses-and-strengths-on-the-east-front/

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Essay-alt-view-TIK-presentation.pdf
 
Pretty good summary of TIK:

"Overall, the video made some good points. However, on its own it definitely gives the average person (who may have a cursory, or no significant, knowledge of the War on the Eastern Front) the completely wrong impression".
 

Also, this:
"The last section, and perhaps the most interesting, is why the presenter shows a complete lack of understanding of what it actually means to be outnumbered (by even 2 to 1) in a modern war and where both sides have very similar levels of technology"

Yesterday, I stumbled upon an impressive series of books dedicated to Operation Barbarossa. Here the author takes one of TiK's videos. Pretty impressive stuff if you ask me:

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/an-essay-on-why-i-believe-a-tik-u-tube-presentation-is-incorrect-in-regards-to-losses-and-strengths-on-the-east-front/

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Essay-alt-view-TIK-presentation.pdf
 
Pretty good summary of TIK:

"Overall, the video made some good points. However, on its own it definitely gives the average person (who may have a cursory, or no significant, knowledge of the War on the Eastern Front) the completely wrong impression".
 

Germany lost the war because of a combination of factors, but in my view the most important was the poor quality of its political leadership, starting with Hitler himself. The German leadership operated on assumptions that had no basis in what was the real strategic situation of the nation they were leading. There were plenty of leaders in high positions who were aware of some or all of the discrepancies between what efforts the nation could be asked to produce and what it would eventually find itself having to produce to cope with the situation brought about by the leadership's choices, but they were not high enough to matter and the key decisions were made by a small coterie whose blind ambitions and instincts for gambling with their people's futures knew no bounds. They were a bunch of chancers, blinded by initial good fortune.
The Soviet Union had an appalling beginning of hostilities in 1941, and its experience only began to turn around at the end of 1942, but its general strategic situation was always better than Germany's so they could afford to take losses that would have crippled Germany many times over. I include support from the UK and the US in that strategic situation, as well as Japan's decision not to attack the Soviet Union (they recognised that they had their hands full having to cope with an enraged US). 1941 was a close run thing, but close run is good enough. The Soviet Union, and Stalin, also enjoyed better luck.
With all of his faults, Stalin was a better leader than Hitler, and better suited to the peoples he was leading.
The German people have enormous potential, but their strategic situation is poor, stuck as they are in the middle of a continental mass with borders that are hard to defend. Twice in the past century, it has been proved that no matter how superior their land forces may be in like for like combat power compared to their adversaries, this vulnerability puts them in a bad place to start and win a war that they can't finish quickly.
The lack of oil, which by the way affected Japan, too, was just one given at the beginning that should have featured more in the leadership's calculations. Their strategy should have been very different from the outset, in 1933, when they seized power. Hitler, alas, was a man in a hurry. He wanted to finish the whole project while he still enjoyed vitality. He bent the whole nation's timetable to his own. He was not of sufficient stature to understand that what he wanted to accomplish might be achieved only if he was prepared to allow more time than what he had left to live to be taken, and built a political machine instead which would have stood a chance to continue to the objective long after he was gone.
The USA have done a better job of achieving and maintaining a dominant position globally than the Third Reich or the Soviet Union, at least so far. We are now witnessing China attempting something similar. So much for the "end of history".

My 'decisions win wars' comment was a little tongue in cheek (as denoted by the smiley), although with a touch of seriousness. The problem I perceive in TIKs movies is mainly in reasoning. I'm a bit of allergic to his type of reasoning, because I see it a lot these days. In my opinion his videos are compromised with root cause attribution errors. I will try to explain why:
The most easy way of going about this, is by reversing the statement or removing the factor from the equation:
So, would having 'enough' oil have won the war for Germany? The answer to this is not obvious yes (possibly even a simple 'no'), from which I conclude that oil is not 'the' reason Germany lost the war. It's a gross oversimplification, like Ivanov has very meticulously explained in his posts.
So, another tongue in cheek: I call TIK's oil and raise it with aircraft carriers: Germany lost the war because they didn't have aircraft carrier strike groups.

Now here's the thing: Although I can't quote exact figures, I'm pretty sure that most of the energy needs of German industry were supplied by coal, like with most other industrial powers. And Germany had coal in abundance, more than it could use. They had so much that they were even turning all they could into synthetic petroleum, not primarily to fuel industry but to try to train pilots for the Luftwaffe and for other tactical uses.
Michael

Nah - while I appreciate his efforts, the video is full of errors and he comes to the wrong conclusions. You have to be very careful with all those Youtube prophets. While invading the Soviet Union in 1941, Hitler wasn't that preoccupied with oil as the author suggests. Hitler was formed by the WW1 experience of hunger caused by the naval blockade, so his main goal was to create an agrarian empire. So he was mainly going for the black earth of Ukraine. At the beginning of Barbarossa, Hitler's main objective was not Caucasus but Leningrad. Then in the second place Ukraine and Caucasus and on the third place Moscow. The 2nd Panzergruppe was turned south not to capture Caucasus but to liquidate the Soviet forces around Kiev ( which was a sound decision ). As to the 4 months fuel stocks theory, the operation Barbarossa failed not because the Germans ran out fuel. Actually none of the major German defeats like Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Ukraine 43 or Bagration was caused by this reason. The main reason why Germany lost the war, was that Wehrmacht bled to death in the Eastern Front and eventually got defeated by the Red Army. The oil shortages were severely affecting German war waging capabilities from the second half of 1944, when the war was already lost. As to the inability to access the the main world oil sources of USA, Wenezuela, Middle East and Soviet Union, it meant that the Third Reich never had a chance to win a global war, but the reasons why they actually lost, were different. 

Nah - while I appreciate his efforts, the video is full of errors and he comes to the wrong conclusions. You have to be very careful with all those Youtube prophets. While invading the Soviet Union in 1941, Hitler wasn't that preoccupied with oil as the author suggests. Hitler was formed by the WW1 experience of hunger caused by the naval blockade, so his main goal was to create an agrarian empire. So he was mainly going for the black earth of Ukraine. At the beginning of Barbarossa, Hitler's main objective was not Caucasus but Leningrad. Then in the second place Ukraine and Caucasus and on the third place Moscow. The 2nd Panzergruppe was turned south not to capture Caucasus but to liquidate the Soviet forces around Kiev ( which was a sound decision ). As to the 4 months fuel stocks theory, the operation Barbarossa failed not because the Germans ran out fuel. Actually none of the major German defeats like Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Ukraine 43 or Bagration was caused by this reason. The main reason why Germany lost the war, was that Wehrmacht bled to death in the Eastern Front and eventually got defeated by the Red Army. The oil shortages were severely affecting German war waging capabilities from the second half of 1944, when the war was already lost. As to the inability to access the the main world oil sources of USA, Wenezuela, Middle East and Soviet Union, it meant that the Third Reich never had a chance to win a global war, but the reasons why they actually lost, were different. 

From probably the most boring book ever on WW2, and via my collection of bookmarks on WW2 "numbers" (many links broken, though :-( )
World War II: A Statistical Survey: The Essential Facts and Figures for All the Combatants
by John Ellis https://books.google.com/books/about/World_War_II.html?id=T72aQgAACAAJ    
Figures given in 1,000s of tons, so 888 = 888,000 tons of oil. For an indirect confirmation of the above there's this short article from a journal published by the University of  Kentucky 
http://www.caer.uky.edu/energeia/PDF/vol12_5.pdf
that cites a total synthetic fuel production of 18,000,000 tons for the period of 1939 to 1945. There used to a huge site devoted to document German synthetic oil  production, but it seems to be down these days. So the above may be a bit off, but it is in the same order of magnitude.
You can see that total net production of fuel - both from inside the Reich own oil wells and its synthetic fuel plants. You can see a very clear dip between 1943 and 1944 due to the Romanian fields being goners as Romania switched sides, and the contraband of Venezuelan oil through Spain stopping due to the liberation of France. The Reich production declined due to the very active aerial campaign against the fields and the synthetic fuel plants.  No data I can found on 1945, but my guess is that the collapse of German railroads as the Allied air force focused on the German bridges and rolling stock during 1945 pretty much rendered irrelevant any production by the Spring.
We can see that oil production at the peak of the Axis war fortunes was significantly smaller than during  1943, the actual turning point of the fortunes of the Axis.
It's still a tiny volume compared with the production of the US or the Soviet Union even, but certainly it was sufficient to clobber into submission Western Europe, and almost cripple the Soviet Union.

@Bozowans Hitler wasn't preoccupied with the oil because the war with USSR was supposed to be over by the end of 1941. The only mention of oil during the planning of Barbarossa, was curiously enough in the context of Crimea, which was supposed to be captured in order to prevent Soviets from bombing of the Romanian oilfields. I'm not saying that oil was unimportant. I'm just opposed to a simplification, that it was the main reason why Germany lost the war. And yes, I've watched the whole video and I think the author contradicts himself. The source he quotes most often is: "The First War for Oil: The Caucasus, German Strategy, and the Turning Point of the War on the Eastern Front, 1942", which I think is an article. To me it seems like a "one source syndrome": an enthusiastic amateur gets excited over one, maybe a little revisionist source and starts constructing his own narration. 
Back to Hitler - Kershaw or Snyder write at length about his aims for the upcoming war. It was an autarkic, agrarian empire in the east, that would allow Germany to be immune to the British or US naval blockades. He was too chaotic to be seriously preoccupied by some practical considerations, like getting enough of oil for his armed forces. Again, in the long run lack of oil was one of the biggest issues, that were affecting war waging capacity of the Third Reich. But there were few other, at least equally important issues. They assured German defeat, long before the oil shortages became critical. For example at least equally serious was the small pool of trained reserves, caused by the fact that until 1935 ( only 4 years before the outbreak of a major, world war against major powers ), there was no conscription in Germany. This lack of trained reserves ( especially in comparison to the Soviet Union ) was at least equally crippling as the lack of oil. Hell, I think I should grab now my camera now and make a video, claiming that Hitler lost the war because of insufficient reserves of trained manpower: "TIK destroyed - the shocking, real reason why Germany lost revealed" 

He starts the video with a sentence: "why Germany lost the war? It can be summed up with one word: oil". This is a gross oversimplification. I understand that Youtube needs simple, catchy answers, but in reality the lack of oil was one of few significant reasons why Germans couldn't win. Incoherent German leadership, bad management of it's available resources and industry, strategic and operational errors, logistics and vast material superiority of the Allies, were equally important. Selecting one decisive factor ( in this case oil ) is absurd and naive.

 
In theory taking the Caucasus could be a decisive problem for Soviet Union. The thing is, that the Germans could never succeed in this task, because they had never enough forces, to seriously contemplate a success there. The forces forces of Army Group A were absurdly small for the task. A quick look on the map reveals it all. Caucasus offensive failed, because there were insufficient forces allocated to the task and because of the logistics. Not because the panzers didn't have enough of fuel. Another issue is bad management of the conquered resources. In theory by 1942 the territories that Nazis had under their control, could allow them to match the production of United States ( Tooze, The Wages of Destruction ). They never came close.

 
Unfortunately what Hitler thought was decisive. Many of modern commentators apply a hindsight and current day, rational thinking to the Nazi leadership of the WW2 period, which is a mistake. Nazis were shooting and gassing Jewish women and children, because according to their ideology it was acting "in self defence". Jurgen Stroop said, that he had to liquidate the Jews "for honey and milk of Ukraine". How could anyone expect a rational thinking from that kind of people? From the other hand, in theory the food supplies and oil were both indispensable for waging a prolonged war. Bad management of the war effort and atrocious policies towards the conquered peoples, assured that the Nazis could never get hold and take a full advantage of either.

Exactly. While he seems to have gotten better as he has gained experience in this field, his earlier efforts are hobbled by all the things he doesn't know. This leads him to make shallow and misguided conclusions at times. As is sometimes said of books about the war, these shows are okay as an introduction to their subjects for those new to them, but should not be relied on as an authority.
Michael

Nah - while I appreciate his efforts, the video is full of errors and he comes to the wrong conclusions. You have to be very careful with all those Youtube prophets. While invading the Soviet Union in 1941, Hitler wasn't that preoccupied with oil as the author suggests. Hitler was formed by the WW1 experience of hunger caused by the naval blockade, so his main goal was to create an agrarian empire. So he was mainly going for the black earth of Ukraine. At the beginning of Barbarossa, Hitler's main objective was not Caucasus but Leningrad. Then in the second place Ukraine and Caucasus and on the third place Moscow. The 2nd Panzergruppe was turned south not to capture Caucasus but to liquidate the Soviet forces around Kiev ( which was a sound decision ). As to the 4 months fuel stocks theory, the operation Barbarossa failed not because the Germans ran out fuel. Actually none of the major German defeats like Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Ukraine 43 or Bagration was caused by this reason. The main reason why Germany lost the war, was that Wehrmacht bled to death in the Eastern Front and eventually got defeated by the Red Army. The oil shortages were severely affecting German war waging capabilities from the second half of 1944, when the war was already lost. As to the inability to access the the main world oil sources of USA, Wenezuela, Middle East and Soviet Union, it meant that the Third Reich never had a chance to win a global war, but the reasons why they actually lost, were different. 

A rotten argument, just because you can use other tactics i doesn't mean that single shot bren guns aren't a big deal, if i wanted a close range weapon i would have 2 sten guns in my sections...

Yeah, Happy Valentine's Day!