Eastern Front - What's the attraction?

[Steve Clark]

Thank you, Steve, I liked your last response alot better than the first one. I will pass the word along elsewhere about CM2. There will be some who have bought CM1 and will not buy CM2 (regardless of the enhancement - primarily, no Americans); but I believe more will buy CM2 that did not buy CM1. Keep up the quality work.

[Tiger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1. Different weapons systems - we are not talking about minor differences, but major and radical ones.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

soviet sled powered by surplus airplane motor/propeller with a light mg

[Warren Peace]

A few thoughts on the Russia vs. Western Allies winning WW2 topic. Com'on guys, on this board everyone recognizes who did the majority of fighting and dying in WW2. However, it is foolish to think that Russia would not have won without help from the Western Allies. The west tied down about 1/4 German resources before D-day and about 1/3 after D-day. In addition lend lease supplied approximately 10% of Russia's material requirements in the war. Western strategic bombing clearly had an effect on German production (although it is a little scary to think what production levels would have been like in the absence of bombing). Clearly the West played a KEY role in WW2, even if much of it was simply to help the Russians.

I also find it annoying that some people equate America's role in WW2 with the fact that we suffered the fewest casualties of the major combatants. Just because our military chose to use our Material Superiority to kill and not be killed should in no way be taken to mean that the US did not do the bulk of the fighting with regard to the Western Allies. Our forces did do significant fighting and inflicted significant losses on the Germans and their allies. One only needs to look at 3rd Armies figures to realize how much damage the Americans actually did.

In terms of CM2 I am looking forward to the Russian front primarily because of the greater time span involved. It will be very interesting to play early war scenarios before shaped charges had been developed.

[DrAlimantado]

Germanboy - I can clearly see your point. To say that something is important (USA winning the PTO) because it prevented hypothetical situation x (Japan becoming a large post-war public menace), is problematic. But then on the other hand Russel may have a point. You also have to look at the probability of this hypothetical scenario. (I have scientifically calculated this to excactly be 78,65%) Of course it is important to learn how the Soviet help to defeat the Third Reich structured the cold war. But it may also be important to remember that the US victory in the Pacific may have stopped a likely scenario that would have altered the outlook of the coldwar.

Anyway, enough of this feel good hippie stuff. Gotta embrace myself for another day of stuffing envelopes and talking about Communism. Oh, the wonders of temporary work.

Mattias

ps. I do not intend to take any responsebility for having misread any posts or for having gotting things wrong, or for being plain wrong.

[MikeT]

So cool, sorry had to say it.

Bet you this was taken during the siege of Leningrad. At that lake, sorry cannot remember its name. But couldn't you just see the battle here. Sled teams and ski units fighting to stop the trucks along the run on the frozen lake. Arty strikes breaking holes in the ice, units sink to their deaths. Now there is a unique battle. Literally a frozen desert type battle with level terrain and massive sweeping encirclements.

MikeT

------------------

"Quando omni flunkus moritati"

- Motto of Possum Lodge

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thanks Steve

As for the debate about who won the war... the answer is that everybody that pitched in against the Nazis and Japanese did Hell, even the Italians helped defeat Nazi Germany. At first because they were allied with them, and then because they were allied against them Seriously, all kidding aside there is much truth in this statement.

I remember when I was a student in London. My history professor there said something very interesting about Britain's contribution to the war. He said the most important thing they did was to simply not surrender. Britain's military contribution to ending the war was not insignificant, but if the island had surrendered where the heck would all those US forces built up for an attack on Europe? North Africa? Uhmm... judging by how well we (I am American) did in Operation Torch and shortly thereafter, I doubt we could have established a base there. And if we did, then what? Attack Italy? If you recall, we tried that along with our Allies and it didn't work out so hot.

My point is that every little bit helped and in the end it was combo of a huge number of factors that defeated Germany. The Soviets were, in my opinion, the most significant factor, but they weren't the only one. If they had folded up in 1941 I doubt we would have ever made it into France. But if D-Day had failed, I can assure you that Germany would have been defeated very soon in any case. Operation Bagration was launched 2 weeks BEFORE D-Day and that pretty much did the Germans in for good.

As for the PTO... I don't think there is anybody that would argue that Japan could have won the war against China. And since China has been the West's biggest adversary in Asia since WWII, one must imagine that with or without an Allied victory over Japan we would have been faced by China's power in any case. In fact, one could argue that the defeat of Japan in 1945 left China free to consolodate power and grow into the force it is today SOONER than it would have if Japan had been left unmolested.

But in any case, this is not what happened, and therefore there isn't that much point arguing over it. The present is a result of the past that actually happened.

Steve

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeT:

So cool, sorry had to say it.

Bet you this was taken during the siege of Leningrad. At that lake, sorry cannot remember its name. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lake Ladoga

------------------

Andreas

Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-25-2000).]

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

I remember when I was a student in London. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where'd you study, out of curiosity?

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Disaster@work]

Regarding China, Japan was pretty much floundering in China due to its immense size leading to overstretched communications. As long as the Generalissimo and Mao refused to surrender and kept on the run or out of reach, China was big sink hole for Japanese military resources that were needed elsewhere.

China was supposed to be the fuel for Japanese ambitions elsewhere and although Japan held the coastal cities, it couldn't harbour ambitions against India or against Russian Siberia without eliminating the various resisting forces (Mao, Nationalists, warlords) in the south and northwest.

Japan regularly wiped the floor with their opposition whenever they were encountered in the field but where there was no fighting, its troops sat, ate up resources and became very demoralized due to guerilla tactics and deprivations. America's biggest fear was that Chiang Kai Chek would make a deal with Japan for power sharing so that he would have a free hand against Mao, who he always saw as his prime enemy. At the same time, that could never have happened because America was propping up Chiang and his own cronies would have fallen out over such a decision.

If for some reason Chiang was eliminated, then some or all of the warlords who made up his cabinet might have made peace with the Japanese in exchange for power or at least detente so they could deal with Mao. Then the Japanese would have been free to consolidate some of their gains in SE Asia.

That said, I don't think there was anything Japan could have done vs American sea power and of course the bomb. Even if they had removed the distraction of Chinese opposition they still would have been isolated on each island in the Pacific and ground down.

------------------

----

To download my scenarios: go to

http://www3.telus.net/pop_n_fresh/combatmiss/index.htm

[Jagdcarcajou]

Hey,

Just to throw in here, since no one else seems to be looking at this angle, I believe Germany was defeated by Adolf Hitler.

Takes a German to beat a German!

All kidding aside though, Hitler did more to set Germany up for defeat than the Allies ever could have hoped for. Constant sociological and political misjudgements (and a dash of complete lunacy), coupled with non-stop military blunders starting with Dunkirk and continuing until his death, broke Germany's back before the soldiers driving toward Berlin could have any effect.

The decision to attack Russia in and of itself sealed Germany's fate. Otherwise, they easily could have held all that was taken in 1939-40. Blunder after blunder (Stalingrad, the entire mismanagement of the Eastern Front, the "no retreat" edicts, failure to commit the 12th SS at D-Day, etc...). These caused irreparable damage to Germany's ability to sustain a war, let alone win it.

The incredibly vast web of events that is collectively looked at as the second world war can not be unwoven in a vacuum to find a single causal factor for victory/defeat. If I had to place one factor as a priority though, it would be Adolf Hitler.

It took me years of reading in college, and a few enlightened professors, to make me aware of the significance of the Eastern Front. But those same years also exposed a mass of cause and effect relationships dating all the way back to the beginning of the first world war. I always look upon "The Americans were the best" or "the Russians won the war" with bemusement, because there is an entire world of events excluded from those arguments. Politcial and economic factors always seem to be dismissed in the interests of "my tank could kill your tank" types of discussions.

Anyway, just wanted to throw in here.

Chris

------------------

What the hell is a Jagdcarcajou?

[This message has been edited by Jagdcarcajou (edited 10-25-2000).]

[T34Rules]

No one wins wars........there are just diferent degrees of suffering.

[T34Rules]

i should first learn to spell..........different (jeesh)

[Guest Big Time Software]

Chupacabra,

A US school in London staffed by British professors that generally taught at various other colleges and universities in London. Only did a semester there. As can be expected, I got more out of the non-classroom experiences than in class. Pubs being a great source of education

Steve

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Chupacabra,

A US school in London staffed by British professors that generally taught at various other colleges and universities in London. Only did a semester there. As can be expected, I got more out of the non-classroom experiences than in class. Pubs being a great source of education

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bah, wanted to see if I could get on the CM2 beta list through the old boy's network. Guess not

But yes, pubs are a wonderful place to learn how far a tenner will go...

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[russellmz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Sorry about my tone earlier, I get a bit upset if someone says that I am insinuating that he is stupid (normally if I think it I either say it directly or not at all). I think there is just a misunderstanding on what we were talking about. My fault for not being clearer to start with.

And before I forget to clarify - I do not think you don't know what you are talking about and I do not think that your opinion on what could have happened is stupid or wrong.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

great, glad we cleared the air.

------------------

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[dumbo]

"But yes, pubs are a wonderful place to learn how far a tenner will go..."

Your round, mines a bitter...

_dumbo

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dumbo:

Your round, mines a bitter...

_dumbo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You come along on Monday, the first round is on Dr. Alinoncomprehendo

------------------

Andreas

Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-25-2000).]

[ScoutPL]

German boy wrote:

"ScoutPL - Just to make this clear: the Bulge is another unimportant battle for an unimportant place, or Arnhem, or the Vosges. I am perfectly aware of what happened in the Pacific, my point is there is no point in studying things in such detail, because the only thing that will happen then is that you don't see the forest for the trees."

I realize this post has progressed some since I read it last but do me a favor and expand on this quote a little. I want to make sure I understand so I dont have to get involved in a hugging session like you and russel before I let loose.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutPL:

I realize this post has progressed some since I read it last but do me a favor and expand on this quote a little. I want to make sure I understand so I dont have to get involved in a hugging session like you and russel before I let loose.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure - the way I understood your orginal post was that it was quite understandable the US kids don't get taught about the German-Soviet war b/c after all European kids would not know what happened at Tarawa. Hmm, and now just proved that I am a moron, and should really not post while at work. After re-reading your post I think we are prety much in agreement... Well there you go.

My point is also that these finer points are irrelevant to them. As is any detailed knowledge about the Bulge, the Vosges or Arnhem (inserted that it is clear I am not looking down on the Pacific theatre - I have a degree in Japanese studies, so I have more than just a general inkling of what went on there). What is important is to understand in very general terms (Pearl Habour-Midway-Hiroshima-surrender) what happened, and much more so what it implied. In Europe that would probably be (Czechoslovakia/Poland-France/Battle of England-Barbarossa-Stalingrad/Overlord-Berlin-surrender). Everything else is just guys shooting at each other. Not particularly nice if you are directly involved in it, but not exactly relevant either to the understanding of the bigger picture. And that is what ought to be taught in high school history classes, both theatres of war and the consequences of the war for the world we live in today. Obviously there are some major differences in those consequences for someone living in Seattle and someone living in Berlin, so the focus could and should shift accordingly, but the basics should still be taught for both IMO. And teaching these basics is something at which the German education system is actually quite good. The detailed stuff (as Chubacapra pointed out) is very interesting to us here on the board, but really of no larger concern.

------------------

Andreas

Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-25-2000).]

[russellmz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutPL:

I want to make sure I understand so I dont have to get involved in a hugging session like you and russel before I let loose.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

TOO LATE!

(- hug -)

(pause)

what's the hell's that smell?

------------------

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[ScoutPL]

Ok. Glad I asked for clarification. Because you're right we do agree.

[Warren Peace]

<<But if D-Day

had failed, I can assure you that Germany would have been defeated very soon in any case.

Operation Bagration was launched 2 weeks BEFORE D-Day and that pretty much did the Germans in

for good.>>

Steve this statement is not true. Operation Bagration started two weeks AFTER D-Day according to Both Seaton and Glantz.

Also, according to Seaton on June 1, 1944 the distibution of German Divisions was as follows:

164-East Front and Finland

47-West

27-Italy

25-Balkans

15-Scandinavia

Thus in terms of Divisional numbers 40% were tied down by Western Allies. Now some may say that these non-eastern front divisions were merely garrison divisions with little equipment strength. Well then lets look at deployement of Tanks and Assault Guns.

According to Hart and Hart in "German Tanks of WW2" the deployments were as follows (6/15/44):

Eastern Front: 2513

Western Front: 2223

Italy: 984

Thus only 43% of German Armor was committed to the Eastern Front at the Time of Bagration.

I think these numbers suggest that people need to think twice before saying "Germany would have been defeated in any case"

Warren

[gunnersman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daveman:

The early T-34s had a 76mm gun, but late war (43-44?) T-34s had a larger turret to accomodate an 85mm gun. Better, but the 76mm turret was really slick.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[gunnersman]

I like your quote. I about died laughing when I read that. Is that yours or did you get that from somewhere. If it is yours, that was clever.

[Grisha]

Warren Peace,

Glantz also says in his book, Clash of Titans, that Germany would have lost with or without the Normandy invasion. The results would have been that the war would've ended in the late '40s, and that the Soviets would've reached the French shores of the Atlantic.