dbsapp
-
Posts
592 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by dbsapp
-
-
11 hours ago, Artkin said:
Great video, thank you.
Subscribed to the channel.
-
11 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:
With the same reasoning you can indeed condemn the whole red army, but let's end this argument and return to Fire and Rubble.
Please, don't compare Red Army which saved Russian people from slavery and Jewish people from extermination to German army which killed 27 mln Soviet citizens.
It's better to return to Fire and Rubble indeed.
-
22 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
Here are the figures. According to Fullbrook a professor of German history. 140000 charges have been laid between 1946-2005 of whom 6656 were convicted of war crimes. A total of 13.6 million of German served in the armed services. The statement that most German soldiers were found not guilty of war crimes is based on fact. Found not guilty doesn't have the same meaning as innocent in a court of law. Well over 95% of members of the German armed services are presumed innocent. Not taking prisoners every army has their Ronald Speirs in Band of Brothers to prosecute them is just hypocritical.
By 1945 there were 8,5 millions members of Nazi Party. How many of them were found guilty in a court of law?
Just for starters:
As for professor Fullbrook, that you quote to whitewash Wehrmacht, her massage was quite opposite to what you are trying to prove. She complained that the numbers of convicts were too low:
"Fulbrook, professor of German History and Dean of the Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences at University College London, notes that “perhaps 200,000 people, and possibly closer to a million, were at one point or another actively involved in killing Jewish civilians. And the ranks of those who made this possible were far wider.”
She adds that “The total number of persons convicted under the Federal Republic for Nazi crimes was in itself fewer even than the number of people who had been employed at Auschwitz alone.”
-
11 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
That is for sure part of it. But it's also about what is in wider popular culture. Western Europeans understandably also focus on things like Normandy and Arnhem rather than Brest-Litovsk or Zhytomyr. Until recently most of the books, TV shows, movies, etc. involved Westerners talking about Western Front because that is not only what they were most directly involved in but also because they had easy source materials to draw from. Especially 1st hand accounts from people who fought there.
I can say from first hand experience it used to be VERY difficult to get good stuff on the Eastern Front. Glanz was one of the first, and for a time pretty much the only, English speaking historian digging deep into what happened on the Eastern Front. Recently it's become a lot easier, but culture changes much more slowly.
You'd think the Germans might have made up for that, but collectively it seems they almost wanted to forget it ever happened. I've had many conversations with German wargamers over the years and they preferred the Western Front as well. The Eastern Front had a lot more emotional baggage for them. Understandable.
One of the best books on this issue I've read recently was "The Myth of the Eastern Front".
It depicts precisely what you talked about: how the memories of the Eastern Front and Russian participation in WW2 were effectively erased from the public memory in US and Western countries.
Moreover, the authors argue, that the American popular culture to the large extent adopted what was initially the German wartime view on Soviet Union, e.g. Wehrmacht soldiers were flawless knights that used superior tactics and weapons to defend European civilization from Eastern barbarian hordes. Wehrmacht war crimes were politely put under the rug in favor of building the image of anti-Bolshevik fighters.
Americans put Franz Halder, the man who designed plan Barbarossa, in charge of the network of German generals who prepared hundreds and hundreds of materials on Eastern front to consult US military. Many guys like Adolf Heusinger seamlessly moved from Hitler's bunker to the chair of NATO Military Committee. Manstein and Huderian wrote popular memoirs that reinforced German variant of Eastern front history in Western public opinion. Sure, they omit "the bad parts", like their involvement in genocide, and claim that they lost only because they were outnumbered and Hitler gave unprofessional orders.
Surprisingly enough, recently I witness the revival of interest towards Eastern front. Not only the large number of related history books hit the shelves, but many PC games exploited the topic. Maybe I'm wrong, and its my subjective evaluation biased because of my own interest in the subject.
-
7 hours ago, MikeyD said:
Usually if CM gameplay doesn't meet your expectation its more often the fault of the expectation than the game mechanics.
It's not reality, it's not the game that perfectly captures reality (even if we suppose that we know what's reality and how to translate it into game).
It's just a game.
-
How Fire and Rubble is technically different from Red Thunder?
It would be great to hear from the developers.
I bought Black Sea on Steam and was fascinated by the game. So far I completed 3 campaigns and several missions. It's not absolutely perfect, but definately do the job.
I expected something similar from Red Thunder, so I purchased it on Battlefront site. Frankly, I hoped that there will be more free from precise artillery infantry-oriented game:) As far as I understand it, it's more or less the same game with the same engine in different time setting, but I got much worse impressions.
I will definetely buy Cold War, although I'm not so excited about upcoming Fire and Rubble.
-
Infantry in Red Thunder seems to be completely impotent.
It doesn't shoot back, it's too vulnerable and it stops to implement order after the first shots from the enemy. Moving slow make soldiers exausted in 2 minutes after they crouched 10 meters.
The single machine gunner can wipe out the squad in a matter of seconds. Soldiers can't assault buildings or fortifications or woods no matter what type of order you give them.
It requiers a lot of micromanagement, including orders to shoot particular area or units, to make them do something except of dying.
Like in some ancient games, e.g.Sudden Strike, the infantry single role is to observe and find the enemy positions. It is the tanks that do the killing.
Actually, it's quite frustrating and unrealistic. Graviteam's games made much better use of infantry with substantially less micromanagement and greater survivability of the infantry.
Burning bunkers mission is the great example of infantry negligible role in the game. You have hundreds of soldiers, but the only things you need are the tanks with flametowers, which you have to direct manually, because they don't see German machine guns firing under their nose. Infantry can't make it even close to German positions. For the whole time playing the game I saw my men firing at the enemy maybe twice, despite I tried to place them at the locations with line of sight on their foe.
Would Fire and Rubble make improvements to TacAI and infantry behavior or it would be repackaging of the same Red Thunder with new units and maps?
Fire and Rubble
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted · Edited by dbsapp
Somehow I missed this brilliant post.
Thank you for commemorating 27 millions Soviet people who died fighting Nazi Germany.
Unfortunately, while destroying 90% of German forces during 4 year bloody combat, Russians were not as humane and gentle as Allies, who deliberately bombed cities and killed 600,000 German civilians, including 76,000 children.
Indeed, they merely exchanged one tyranny for another. Soviet tyranny came with free education and free healthcare, while German rule came with depopulation, eradication of national intellectuals and elimination of the education system.
It was a real tragedy for Eastern Polish Jews to be under Soviet occupation, because they didn't share the joys of German treatment in Western Poland.