Eastern Front Campaign for CM?

[T-34\85]

This question has ALMOST DEFINITELY already been asked but hey I'm new to the glory of CM (I WANT I WANT I WANT) and have to know if the REAL war against Germany will be represented.

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

"The best way to clear a minefield is to send a squad of infantry across it"

[s bakker]

CM2 is going to be about the eastern front. I advice you to use the search function if you want to know about CM2 or the rest of the planned sequels.

Grtz S Bakker

PS: or you could mail guachi about when the heck the new FAQ will arrive .

[Boris Balaban]

T-34\85

They are starting a Western front campaign. It will start no sooner then 2 months after BTS ships the GOLD CM1.

You will have to wait until BTS releases the GOLD CM2 and I believe it will be about 2 years.

Can any body confirm this?

[Guest PeterNZ]

The FAQ is being worked on and people are compiling! So far it's Guachi and Elvis doing lots of donkey work and i'll hopefully be helping with final tidying and compiling.

i'd give it.. two weeks

PeterNZ

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

For quick reference, BTS plans to do CM2:Eastern Front, CM3:Mediterranean theater (North Africa, Italy, Balkans, Mid-East), CM4:Early War (Poland, Low Countries, France). Each hopefully within a year apart, now that they've established the basic game engine.

[killmore]

Why should it really take a year? Unless they are doing some major engine modifications.

I would buy all of CMs if they woulf be spaced by at least 3 months.

Mediterrenian will be probably least interesting for me.

East front the most interesting

[Schrullenhaft]

They ARE going to do MAJOR engine modifications. From what I gather CM2 is going to have a lot done to it in order to support new terrain types (for Eastern Front battles). Plus there will be a whole slew of new AFV's (earlier German models and the entire Russian collection).

I'm hoping it will only take them a year, but it may take quite a bit longer than that. Plus there are the eventual patches for CM1 - TCP/IP, linked movie viewer and possible new AFV's.

[Kurtz]

Why should it really take a year?

Because it´ll take at least a year before you get bored with the previous versions!

[DEF BUNGIS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T-34\85:

I WANT I WANT I WANT) and have to know if the REAL war against Germany will be represented.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the real war was represented by the Americans.

Being that the Sovets recieved most of thier supplies in the early part of the war from the US. And continued to give the USSR equipment on a LEND / LEASE basis.

The Americans also fought a TRUE WORLD WAR,

meaning we had front's all over the world.

Not just in one or 2 countries.

Even with the vast size of the USSR.

No country even came close to amount of areas the US was fighting at one given time.

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

Better to make the wrong decision than be the sorry son of a bitch to scared to make one at all

[risc]

DEF BUNGIS, you are just joking right ?

Peter

PS: Western Front was just a side show.

[This message has been edited by risc (edited 03-31-2000).]

[Schrullenhaft]

American forces participated in more theaters of combat than any other allied army (though the British MAY have been in just as many).

However the bloodshed and scale of conflict on the Eastern Front did dwarf the Western Front and Pacific theaters. IIRC the Russians claimed to have lost 20 - 25 MILLION people (combatants and non-combatants). I'm not sure what the German losses were on this front, but I'm sure it was probably at least twice the total of their losses on all other fronts combined.

US Lend-Lease to Russia was of primary benefit in getting them trucks and half-tracks. AFV-wise the Russians despised/tolerated most Western Allied designs (with the exception of the Churchill !). Most of the Lend-Lease didn't benefit the Russians until the last few years of the war (but I'm unknowledgable about these details). I'm not sure what else the Western Allies actually provided to Russia that was considered hugely beneficial (we gave them some aircraft early-on, but not a whole lot). It is hard to say just how desparate the Russians would have been without our material help. They primarily just wanted the "Second Front" to start up to take the heat off of them.

Uh... but as usual, most of my opinions are subject to conjecture.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Three months to make CM2? HAHA The textures alone will probably take about 1 man year. The scope of the Eastern Front is very scary from my point of view! Just for starters, all German vehicles prior to 1943 have one paint color and all after another. So even IF the same vehicle type made it unmodified through the whole war (and none did, which is a whole nother problem ) I'd at least have to change the coloring. And that takes about one solid day per model at best.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 03-31-2000).]

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

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

However the bloodshed and scale of conflict on the Eastern Front did dwarf the Western Front and Pacific theaters. IIRC the Russians claimed to have lost 20 - 25 MILLION people (combatants and non-combatants). I'm not sure what the German losses were on this front, but I'm sure it was probably at least twice the total of their losses on all other fronts combined.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC, the total casualties of WWII were ~55 million, and you're right, the Russians suffered ~25 million. So do the math, the Russians suffered almost 50% of the total casualties! BUT that's what you get for using wave tactics with conscript soldiers.

[guachi]

There is a thread entitled After CM1... posted to just yesterday (March 30th) that I posted five or so links to some threads about future versions. The answers others gave above are correct, though...

I can understand not wanting to use the search function to search through 37,000+ threads...but not to look at a thread that is only a day old...

About Lend-Lease. In addition to all the transportation, the US also shipped large quantities of food and clothing to the Soviet Union. Not particularly sexy things, but vital nonetheless.

2,000 locomotives

11,000 rail wagons

3,000,000 tons of gasoline

540,000 tons of rails

51,000 jeeps

375,000 trucks

15,000,000 (!) pairs of boots

Jason - must get FAQ done to save my sanity.

[This message has been edited by guachi (edited 03-31-2000).]

[Major Tom]

Oh man, this is just too good to pass up.

American fronts.

North Africa 1942-43

Italy 1943-45

South France 1944

France and Germany 1944-45

The Pacific 1941-45

British fronts

France 1940

Norway 1940

North Africa 1940-43

Italian East Africa 1941

Madagascar 1942

Syria 1941

Iran 1941

Greece 1941

Italy 1943-45

France and Germany 1944-45

Pacific 1941-1945

Greece 1944-45

Canada

France 1940

France 1942

Pacific 1942, 1943, 1945

Italy 1943-44

France and Germany 1944-45

Australia

North Africa 1941-43

Syria 1941

Greece 1941

Pacific 1941-45

USSR

Finnish War 1940

Great patriotic war 1941-45

Iran 1941

Pacific 1940, 1945

The winner, Great Britain, tied for second, Canada and the US. This even includes the multipe fronts in the Pacific (South East Asia, South Pacific, Central Pacific, North Pacific)

Now, about the lend lease, sure, allied tanks weren't as good as the Russians (those BT-5 and BT-7's were just kickass! , but, the Red Army could not have reached Berlin by 1945 without American, British, and Canadian manufactured trucks and jeeps. There would have been NO way in which to supply the Russian armies on such a quick advance. Even with the lend lease the Russians suffered similar supply problems as the Allies did on the Western Front. Also, it was the Valentine tank that the Russians really liked. It wasn't just "US" lend lease, but British and Canadian. Thousands of vehicles built in Canada were sent over to the Russians, including most of the much liked Valentine tanks. Also, HUNDREDS of Allied aircraft were constantly being sent into Russia, and not just obsolete types!

I would say that America was important to the victory of the allies, but, not the most important. Lose any one of the big allies, the British, Americans, Canadians, Russians, Australians and Indians and you could quite possibly lose the war. Half of WWII was fought without the Americans being involved! The situation in at the beginning of 1942 was not as desperate as history books make it out to be. The German offensive into Russia and Egypt were both checked, and the Germans pushed back. Even still, America was not able to effect many changes in the European theatre until early 1943, when the situation was well sorted out, and victory was assured. All that was the main concern was how much longer the war would take.

Personally, I think debates stating that just one nation was the key to the defeat of Germany are pointless. Just because NO ONE nation was primarily responsible for Germany's downfall. Germany lost due to attrition in Russia, defeats in North Africa, defeats in Italy, defeats in France, defeats in the Atlantic and defeats in the skies over Europe. Not one of these is more important than the other.

[Major Tom]

Almost forgot Poland!

Poland 1939

Norway 1940

France 1940

North Africa 1941-43

Italy 1943-45

France 1944-45

Russia 194?-45

[guachi]

1942 1943 1944

183.9 199.6 222.5 US

7.7 8.9 6.4 Germany

The above numbers are millions of metric tons of fuel available including imports and synthetic production. Unfortunately, I don't have figures for other nations, but the above figures show that the Germans were clearly outmatched in their ability to move equpment and men. No wonder the Germans left equipment where it was when units were transferred. They simply couldn't afford to move it all.

The Americans NEEDED all that fuel as I can't think of any combat (outside of some sub warfare) that ocurred within 1,000 miles of any American state.

Jason

[This message has been edited by guachi (edited 03-31-2000).]

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

Oh man, this is just too good to pass up.

American fronts.

North Africa 1942-43

Italy 1943-45

South France 1944

France and Germany 1944-45

The Pacific 1941-45

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Saying "The Pacific" is rather like saying "Europe". Break it down a bit -- i.e., to the level of "Norway" -- and American fronts in the Pacific become:

-- China

-- Attu and Kiska (hey, if Norway is a front...)

-- The Phillipines

-- Australasia/Coral Sea

-- Western Pacific/The Island Campaigns

-- Iwo Jima and Okinawa

Also, don't neglect the Battle of the Atlantic, in which American and Canadian participation were as important as British.

Oh yeah, does Indiana Jones taking on the Nazis in Egypt count?

Ethan

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

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Major Tom]

You can do the same with the British...

China 1941

Burma 1942-45

Malaya 1941-42

Sumatra 1942

Java 1942

If you are talking about individual engagements, then the British will still outnumber the Americans. How small are we going to get? Theatres of action, actuall battles? Frankly, I am starting to wonder the point to this discussion, so what if someone fought in a few more battles, does this make their commitment to the whole more important? I am wondering where this discussion is really heading. I really don't like it when someone states that the war was won primarily due to the actions of one nation or group of people. This just isn't true.

[This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 04-01-2000).]

[Thomas Norton]

By the middle of 1942, according to the War Department, almost 70% of all the Russian radios had parts (tubes) made in America. This number actually increased up to the last year of the war.

There was no other supplier, so without American supply, the T-34 was in for a long game of follow the leader.

While all the other equipment was nice, it was the small radio parts that made the most impact on the day to day Eastern front.

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

"The Legitimate object of war is a more perfect peace."

[DEF BUNGIS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Norton:

so without American supply, the T-34 was in for a long game of follow the leader.

While all the other equipment was nice, it was the small radio parts that made the most impact on the day to day Eastern front.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most of the American tanks were supplied with radios.

However, if you look at the Command and control of the Soviet armor doctrine, you will find that most tank platoons were not equiped with radios. In some units, radios were issued to commanders only.

So the follow the leader thing was actually part of the soviet doctrine.

It was this way thru the cold war, for just the shear numbers of tanks the Soviets had, they could not afford to supply all of them with radios.

Most of the Soviet armor command and control consited of hand and arm signal from the platoon leader, or it was just follow the leader.

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

Better to make the wrong decision than be the sorry son of a bitch to scared to make one at all

[T-34\85]

Hmmm seem to have kicked up a hornets nest. Indeed I didn't say straight out that the USSR didn't need any help but it was the Red Army that defeated the vast majority of the Wehrmacht, and although the average Soviet infantryman was poorly trained compared to his German counterpart it was not simply a matter of 'human waves' that carried Russia to Berlin.

Aid from the other allies was important to the Soviet war effort yes, but to say it allowed them to win the war is a stretch. Shortened the war? Definitely. And I think there's little dispute that a tanker would rather have a T-34 or JS-2 over a Sherman (damn popguns! Add on some firepower!)

[Speedy]

Just to add a bit of fuel to the fire

Quite a few years ago I read in a book (forget title) that 9 out of every 10 German casualties suffered during WW2 occurred on the Eastern Front. I am not sure if this was just ground forces or if it included air and naval forces as well.

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

If you are talking about individual engagements, then the British will still outnumber the Americans. How small are we going to get? Theatres of action, actuall battles? Frankly, I am starting to wonder the point to this discussion, so what if someone fought in a few more battles, does this make their commitment to the whole more important? I am wondering where this discussion is really heading. I really don't like it when someone states that the war was won primarily due to the actions of one nation or group of people. This just isn't true.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maj. T.,

I certainly wasn't trying to stir the pot on this. I merely wanted to point out that the Pacific War was far too big to be considered one front, especially if one wants to count Iraq and Norway as front yet still compare 'apples to apples'.

Take out any one of the Big Three Allied powers and the course of the war is altered considerably. The same holds, to a lesser extent, for the "second tier" powers as well.

It is a false conclusion to equate casualties suffered with importance to the war effort.

Ethan

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

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Guest Big Time Software]

As someone who has studied the Eastern Front more than any other topic (war or otherwise) throughout my life, I can safely say agree with Ethan. The Germans lost the war because they fought on three fronts more than anything else. Remove the threat from 2 out of 3 (Wesetern and Southern Europe) and the war in the East would have been totally different.

Imagine what would have happened if the Germans hadn't diverted all the divisions they did to defend Norway, North Africa, Italy, France, and the rest of the coast from Denmark to Greece. In June of 1944 the Germans had 11 pz/pzg divisions, mostly up to strength, in France not in Russia. This left a huge gap in armored coverage that directly aided the huge Bagration offensive. Had Britain surrendered or the US not become involved those resources would have been available to go against the Soviets. And do not forget that it was the Western Allies that decimated German industry and its supplies of vital minerals, not the Soviets.

As for losses, the Western Allies managed to deal bigger losses to the Germans in each of the battles of North Africa, Normandy, and the Bulge compared to Stalingrad. Perhaps not in terms of headcount in two of these cases, but in the quantity of AFVs certainly. Also, the Germans were in no position to absorbe those sorts of losses, either in material or in men, at that late a point in the game.

My point here is that the Soviets took on the brunt of the fighting, suffered huge losses and dealt out a lot as well, but the contributions of the Western Allies was not insignificant. I still think the Germans would have lost the war against the Soviets EVENTUALLY if the Western Allies were out of the picture, but it would have been drawn out for more years. German occupation policy and utter lack of comprehensive planning (economically or militarilly) doomed the invasion of the Soviet Union before it even began.

I will also state that if the Germans HAD beat the Soviets militarilly (totally unlikely) the Western Allies would have been in a far worse position than the Soviet Union would have been had Britain surrendered or the US not become involved. An invasion of Europe would have been impossible in the short term if the East was secure. Eventually the Third Reich would have self destructed (as did the Soviet Union), so I think that point is moot.

Steve

Steve