Eastern Front - What's the attraction?

Steve Clark · October 25, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by wwb_99:

The Russo-German war was the greatest conflict waged in human histoy. For example, in the summer and fall of 1944 the Anglo-Americans were fighting some 20 or so German divisions in the West. 1500 miles to the East, the Russians destroyed 152 German divisions in operation Bagration. 9 of every 10 German soldiers to die died on the Ostfront. It is a shame that American schools nearly completly ignore this conflict, and it would be a travesty not to include it in CM.

That is all quite true but it has nothing to do with CM2! Remember, the scale of CM is a small fraction of a battlefield. You are going to have a handful of infantry, artillery, tanks and mech armors fighting each other. Sure the names are changed and some of the attributes are a little different (big whoop); but other than street fighting in a massive city, I just don't see how this is any different than CM1. Unless BTS can think of some clever algorithm to model a much larger battle than what can be done now...

T34Rules · October 25, 2000

I in no way mean to downplay the attrocity of war on the western front, but short of the american civil war, there has been no greater brutality in the history of man than what occurred on the Eastern Front. To me there is no relationship between CM and interest in the history of the Eastern Front. It is the incredibly interesting relationship between the brutality of war and the realization of what human beings are capable when pushed to the limits. I truely admire the Russian the fortitude of the Russian Army and civilians as well. When i am asked who defeated the Germans in WWII, my answer will always be Russia.

T34Rules · October 25, 2000

I in no way mean to downplay the attrocity of war on the western front, but short of the american civil war, there has been no greater brutality in the history of man than what occurred on the Eastern Front. To me there is no relationship between CM and interest in the history of the Eastern Front. It is the incredibly interesting relationship between the brutality of war and the realization of what human beings are capable when pushed to the limits. I truely admire the fortitude of the Russian Army and civilians as well. When i am asked who defeated the Germans in WWII, my answer will always be Russia first.

October 25, 2000

Steve Clark wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>That is all quite true but it has nothing to do with CM2! Remember, the scale of CM is a small fraction of a battlefield. You are going to have a handful of infantry, artillery, tanks and mech armors fighting each other. Sure the names are changed and some of the attributes are a little different (big whoop); but other than street fighting in a massive city, I just don't see how this is any different than CM1. Unless BTS can think of some clever algorithm to model a much larger battle than what can be done now...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoa boy. So wrong I don't even know where to start I guess I will just have to say "you don't know what you are talking about because you are so very wrong". Not meant as an insult, but you clearly do not have more than a superficial understanding about what tactical warfare was like on the Eastern Front.

I can promise you that CM2 will be totally different, in game terms, than CM1. If it wasn't, we would be doing history a great injustice since the warfare on the Eastern Front was like night and day compared to the other fronts.

Steve

ScoutPL · October 25, 2000

I think the question of whether or not US school children are aware of the question of who "won" WWII is really pretty rhetorical. The allies won WWII. Every US grade school student knows that. US school children (and I bet most children everywhere) arent really interested in the fine points, nor is it really necessary that they know them. I can understand how european children would be more in tune with what happened in Europe simply because of their cultural involvement (for lack of a more appropriate term).

I would be interested in knowing how in depth european schools look at the US involvement in the pacific campaign. Do they know the difference between Tarawa, Pelieleu, or Iwo Jima and the massive sacrifices made on each of those islands? Why should they?

I remember studying WWII in grade school and yes the massive sacrifices made by the russians were in the text. It sticks out in my mind because I've always been fascinated with history, particularly military history, and I was a young historian even then. ( I later majored in History in college.) But even then the numbers meant little to me and even less to my peers. It simply wasnt deemed as that important. We can look back as educated adults and shake our heads. But when do grandiose generalizations, over simplified for school children, become propaganda? Compare a US text book with a German text book circa 1940 and I think you'll see the difference.

October 25, 2000

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

I would be interested in knowing how in depth european schools look at the US involvement in the pacific campaign. Do they know the difference between Tarawa, Pelieleu, or Iwo Jima and the massive sacrifices made on each of those islands? Why should they? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because these were just unimportant battles for unimportant places. I don't suggest that US schoolschildren should learn the ins and outs of Kursk, Stalingrad, Barbarossa and whatever, but the attack on the Soviet Union changed the world we live in today. A basic understanding of what it meant would be very welcome. The cold war, all sorts of things that impact on the US stem from this. To compare the geo-strategic consequences of the war between the Germans and the Soviets with what happened in the Pacific is quite wrong.

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

Andreas

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

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-24-2000).]

dumbo · October 25, 2000

"I would be interested in knowing how in depth european schools look at the US involvement in the pacific campaign. Do they know the difference between Tarawa, Pelieleu, or Iwo Jima and the massive sacrifices made on each of those islands? "

Speaking for England when I was growing up the answer is pretty much, no. The pacific war apart from Singapore and Burma didnt get much press but then again neither did the Russian Front.

This doesnt concern me too much as history teachers tend to avoid the military part of WW2 presumably becuase students actually find it interesting and that wouldnt do at all.

From my own expereince in England, now living in the US and having discussed it with several Russian freinds the answer is always the same regarding each nations "popular" version of WW2.

"We won it pretty much on our own with a little help from others."

There are probably worse sins in the world than to go around beleiving this.

_dumbo

Dr. Osage · October 25, 2000

Steve wrote:

I can promise you that CM2 will be totally different, in game terms, than CM1. If it wasn't, we would be doing history a great injustice since the warfare on the Eastern Front was like night and day compared to the other fronts.

May I ask how it will be different?

Chupacabra · October 25, 2000

Speaking as a history student, I think that most history teachers avoid talking about battles because, in the long run, the battles aren't what're important. In fact, as Andreas said, most battles are extremely inconsequential when it comes to big picture history.

Throughout school, the military history of WW2 which I was taught consisted entirely of "Poland-France-Battle of Britain-Pearl Harbor-Stalingrad-Midway-Normandy-VE-Day-Atomic bomb." Important and interesting militarily, yes, but more importantly, they're turning points which, encapsulated, serve to convey a general sense of how the war progressed without bogging students down in specifics.

I think this is as it should be. Military history is a fringe subject. It happens to be one which fascinates me, but it is not, and it will most likely never be, in the mainstream.

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

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

Tiger · October 25, 2000

The T-34 was not designed by the US in any way shape or form, except that it used a modified version of the Christie suspension. The Christie tank was a 1931 vintage tank, and the Soviets built a modified licenced version of it (Soviet's own turrent & gun), and it was called the BT-2 (37mm gun), BT-5 (45mm gun), BT-7 (improved sloped armor and turrent). One of the features of the christie tank was that you could take the tracks off and run it on the wheels on-road. This was dropped in later development models because it had no use in combat and took up alot of weight for the conversion kit. The Soviets developed a couple of new tank prototypes called the A-20 & A-30 (an up-gunned, up-armored version of the A-20). The T-32 was the next design; a heavier, medium tank without the tracks-to-roadwheels conversion equipment and improvements over the T-30. An up-armored design shown to Stalin was approved and became the T-34, 10 years of Soviet tank design behind it.

-john

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 10-24-2000).]

ScoutPL · October 25, 2000

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

Originally posted by ScoutPL:

I would be interested in knowing how in depth european schools look at the US involvement in the pacific campaign. Do they know the difference between Tarawa, Pelieleu, or Iwo Jima and the massive sacrifices made on each of those islands? Why should they?

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

Because these were just unimportant battles for unimportant places.

Better watch it Germanboy, you're showing off that quality german education....

October 25, 2000

Tiger is correct about the development of the T-34; Christie had nothing to do with the T-34's design, although the T-34 did have a suspension that was developed from the Christie suspension. The main reason that the T-34 became such a good tank is that it was carefully designed based on combat experience, primarily as a result of fighting in Spain. The Soviets learned that T-26s and BT's could be easily defeated by then common 37mm AT guns, so drew up plans for a tank that could resist 37mm AT guns. At the same time, the designers realized that the 45mm guns they had planned on using in the new tanks would not be able to defeat a similarly armored tank from the front, so they decided to mount a 76mm gun on the tank. (The idea for heavily sloping the armor came from some experimental BT tanks). The armor was increased above the original design specification after the Winter War against Finland showed that more was better. The tank used a diesel engine because soviet tanks with gasoline engines had tended to burn when hit, and tankers found this to be bad. Finally, the designers made some last minute changes in the lubrication and hydraulic systems so that they would function in extreme cold weather; something else they learned from the winter war. (All of this is from Zaloga's Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of WWII).

It is interesting that the Germans did not draw the same conclusions from the fighting in Spain as the Russians; when Barbarossa started, the main German anti-tank gun was the 37mm AT gun.

Steve Clark · October 25, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I can promise you that CM2 will be totally different, in game terms, than CM1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We'll see if it'll totally different. But I have no doubt that you will be right.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If it wasn't, we would be doing history a great injustice since the warfare on the Eastern Front was like night and day compared to the other fronts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A bit of hyperbole, eh? Comparing Age of Rifles or medieval warfare to WW2 would be night and day; or as you mentioned before, Pacific Front to ETO. Eastern Front 1941-44 and Western Front 1944-45, at the scale of CM1, would be very similar to many casual wargamers, which makes up a healthy percentage of your customers. And that was my only point. Again, if you were to completely change the game mechanics and scale, then this statement would be prophetic. Sorry to have stepped on your toes.

russellmz · October 25, 2000

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

To compare the geo-strategic consequences of the war between the Germans and the Soviets with what happened in the Pacific is quite wrong.

ummmm, while seeing germany defeated and western europe is cool let's look at the ramifications of a defeated japan:

japan: one of the largest and most prosperous deconomies in the world. a democracy. sixth most powerful military even at military spending capped at 1% GDP.

south korea: democracy, our fifth? largest trading partner. NOT under japan colonialship.

china: NOT under japanese dominion. dictatorship but may or may not be heading towards some reform in the very long term future. also, two certain people born before and during wwii were not killed by the japanese, and i was born some thirty years later. if i was somehow born anyway, i would not have to grow to be some japanese soldier's target practice during his lunch break.

bunch of other asian countries: NOT under japan's thrall.

russia: don't really have to sweat a massive land invasion from a powerful asian country...well the chinese handle that today, but only because of numbers. the japanese army in this alternate timeline would probably be pretty anxious to get some revenge on their former butt whooping against russia and have massive resources. and all that land and new resources of russia would be tempting...

in other words while asia is some far off exotic land that doesn't look like it affects us, a victorious japan would have military bases all over the pacific, basically controlling all the trade routes.

that would have a bit of an adverse effect on our(US) economy and our defensive posture in hawaii, alaska, and midway probably.

harnessing the economic resources of all the asian countries it conquered under its belt, it would have a huge military, meaning the us would have had to face a second cold war front, not just the russians.

if their trend of superships continued, the us would be facing nagumo class supercarriers, missile cruisers that would put the kirov to shame, and some advanced fighters as well.

could japan not turned out to be the military dictatorship colossus i painted here? yeah, but because the allies won, that question will never have to be answered.

so a huge and powerful dictatorship was avoided in the pacific. the chinese of today is probably 1/3 the enemy a victorious japan would be.

oh yeah, and my parents could immigrate over to the us to raise a jingostic american...

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

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

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

October 25, 2000

"would be very similar to many casual wargamers"

Actually Steve, as someone who knew nothing about combat on the Eastern Front a couple of months ago, I would have said the same.

After reading some discussions recently by people whom are far more knowledgable about this topic than myself though, I have been amazed by the difference. Although I wont go into details as I will probably get them wrong, it certainally has inspired me to learn more about the Eastern Front.

October 25, 2000

There are a lot of reasons why the East Front is many WWII gamers favorite location. For one thing, the style of fighting varies a lot with the time frame. In 1941, you have Germans with laughable Mark II and Mark III tanks trying to figure out how to attack T-34s and KV tanks. But there are also T-26's and BT-7's to fight; and perhaps the T-35 land battleship. In 1942, you get Mark IIIJ's that can take a T-34 out with a front shot from as far away as 50 meters. Later you get Mark IVF2's, which are roughly equivalent to T-34's (worse armor,better gun), although not as mobile. You also get the occasional Tiger platoon, which are superior to anything the Russians have...but they are slow. You also start to get some Soviet self-propelled artillery -- SU-76's came at the end of '42. In '43, the Germans have more tigers and they begin getting Panthers in mid-year. Russians get the KV-85, but it's not super, although the SU-152 is good in some contexts. Now it's the Russians who need to look for the flank shots. Also, the Panzerschreck is developed.

Ahh...1944. What's available changes every month. T-34/85's. IS-2's. SU-122's. SU-100's (I think). King Tigers. Infantry with Panzerfaeuste. Etc.

And that's just the armor.

Also, terrain is much more varied than France and Belgium, with some wide open spaces for longer-range tank battles.

dima · October 25, 2000

As a russian it is a releif to find out that at least some americans here realize who played major role in defeating Hitler. It is funny how many professional and educated people in this subject realize it and are not "ashamed" to say it, yet common folks angrily claim that US defeated Hitler.

Dima.

Olle Petersson · October 25, 2000

Let's see if I can interpret this into "Eastern Front - What's the attraction for CM2?"

- New cool vehicles to mod into your liking.

- Extensive small unit winter warfare on the Finnish border.

- Extensive urban combat.

What's not an attraction for CM2 (IMO);

- Large scale battles, especially tank battles.

- Large scale pre-plotted artillery missions.

- Vast minefields.

Cheers

Olle

October 25, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by russellmz:

ummmm, while seeing germany defeated and western europe is cool let's look at the ramifications of a defeated japan:

could japan not turned out to be the military dictatorship colossus i painted here? yeah, but because the allies won, that question will never have to be answered.

My answer to that question would be 'no', BTW. Have a close look at the political system in Japan during the 1930s and you may agree with me.

I was talking about the cold war, and not about now. Japan only became so rich because of the cold war and the potential for a Nato-WP conflict in Europe. Have a look at the Japanese economic miracle and where it started - the Korean war was the trigger. You are not honestly trying to tell me that Japan would have had the potential to become a long-term threat to the US like the Soviet Union?

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.

The main point here is that no matter how many flights of fancy about what Japan could have become anybody entertains, the cold war was reality, and to understand it you have to know some things about the history of Europe. I can sit here and make up alternate timelines all day, but they never did happen. The Cuban missile crisis, the Korean war, the Prague Spring did. End of story.

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

Andreas

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

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

October 25, 2000

Personally for me, having an Eastern Front would be excellent, because that war went over my own country (Latvia, that is (it's a country in Eastern Europe, on a Baltic coast, former Soviet republic), i would find it attractive to fight for my own hometown.

Otherwise, i'd like to fight through a Battle for Moscow (i find it actually more important than Stalingrad, cause if Russians had lost Moscow, it would have caused an enourmous fall in Russian morale. Some historians even states: "Say Russia, think Moscow").

And some nice partisan action will liven up the usual frontal fighting..

T34Rules · October 25, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by dima:

As a russian it is a releif to find out that at least some americans here realize who played major role in defeating Hitler. It is funny how many professional and educated people in this subject realize it and are not "ashamed" to say it, yet common folks angrily claim that US defeated Hitler.

Dima.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As indicated by my previous post, i fully realize that no people paid a greater price in WWII than the Russians. Fortunately for the United States, we do not know what it is like to wage such a war on our own soil, and hopefully we never will.

I guess my interest in the Eastern Front stems from the fact that whenever i read any historical accounts of it i am always drawn to the same questions: How could any human being have possibly endured this, and how could they have survived it. It is the pursuit of the answer to those questions that have always fueled my interest.

The title of a recently published book (not sure of the author) about the memoirs of an infantryman on the Eastern Front sums it up so concisely.....the book is titled "Condemned To Live"....and it says it all!!!!!

Rebane · October 25, 2000

Personally for me, having an Eastern Front would be excellent, because that war went over my own country (Estonia, that is (it's a country in Eastern Europe, on a Baltic coast, former Soviet republic), i would find it attractive to fight along Narva river line and Tartu

October 25, 2000

Hello, eesti brother

October 25, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Steve Clark:

That is all quite true but it has nothing to do with CM2! Remember, the scale of CM is a small fraction of a battlefield. You are going to have a handful of infantry, artillery, tanks and mech armors fighting each other. Sure the names are changed and some of the attributes are a little different (big whoop); but other than street fighting in a massive city, I just don't see how this is any different than CM1. Unless BTS can think of some clever algorithm to model a much larger battle than what can be done now...

These differences have alot to do with CM2.

1) All kinds of new and different equipment, forcing new and different tactics. Now there will be 1500m+ tank duels, true belt type minefields, anti-tank ditches, etc.

2) Russian doctrine: I would (and will) pay to watch a Russian bombardment. Stalin said, "Artillery is the God of war," and he meant it. Just imagine the effects of a Katushtya (SP, 150mm rocket launchers) on a German position. Toss in headlong human wave assualts in regimental strength and you get the idea. The battlefield of CM2 will be a far different place than CM1.

3) Operation Barbarossa was the greatest campaign ever fought, far more decisive than the sideshow in NW Europe. I want to be there. And so do many others.

4) Steve, Charles et al. do have to eat. At some point CM will reach market saturation. What are they to do then? Make CM2: Overlord revisited?

WWB

Bruno Weiss · October 25, 2000

The Ostfront! There IS no substitute.

Eastern Front - What's the attraction?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Germanboy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Andrew Hedges

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest KwazyDog

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Andrew Hedges

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Germanboy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest ciks

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest ciks

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest wwb_99

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Announcements