Economics in SC--Exactly right!

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Melchett:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by EB.:

In France, the US basically fought old men, little boys, and Eastern European political refugees (Osttruppen) who cared only to surrender as fast as possible.

Offhand, If I recall the divisional numbers correctly, I believe that in the roughly eight weeks between D-day and the Cobra breakout, the toothless old men faced by the Allied Expeditionary Force included the doddering octagenarians of:

Five SS Panzer divisions (1st, 2nd, 9th, 10th, 12th)

Three Wehrmacht Panzer divisons (2nd, 21st, and the elite Panzer Lehr)

One SS Panzergrenadier division (17th)

Two elite parachute divisons (3rd, 5th)

Four front-line infantry divisions (91st, 352nd, 353rd, 77th)

All of whom surrendered without firing a shot when the Allies offered them free dentures and afternoon naps. </font>

[Zeres]

(EB) On what Russians believe today, it is in fact the case that Soviet patriotism is making a strong comeback as the population sees what disaster the democratic reformers have created. If you do not believe this, then you obviously do not travel to Russia. Stalin, for example, has the highest popularity now than at any time since his death. Ordinary Russians have exactly what one could call the "unreformed Stalinist" view of history, especially concerning the war years.

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

I have to concur with Jeff on this one. Save it for your next "Stalin Booster Club" meeting... I love how you make yourself an authority on Russian popular opinion because you travel there. I guess that makes me an authority on Brittish views on Churchill because I travel there. Frankly this kind of discussion has nothing to do with the game and glorifying someone like Stalin makes many of us sick. I think it's funny because a pseudo-intellectual like yourself would have been in the first wave shipped to the gulag.

[Norse]

Wow, you guys are really passionate about this! I don't recall witnessing any other thread growing this fast. Thank you Hubert for your words to keep this from going out of hand. It is good to be passionate about things, but like Hubert said, please keep civilized.

The way I see it, everybody is alittle right. The second world war was of such grand scale, that you can look at it from many different point of views, and still be alittle right. There are no easy answers to very complex questions :"who defeated the Axis?", and "could the Axis have won?"

I'll get back to this

~Norse~

[James Ott]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

[QB] Actually, I think it can be explained away quite easily exactly as that. If you claim that the SOviet effort was greater, tehn prove it. Define some criteria for evaluating ALL resources expended, not just dead bodies, and then show that the Western contribution was significantly less.

*I* am not the one claiming that one side was sitting on their hands or not kicking in as much as the other, hence the burden is not on me. I think that the West contributed as best they could, just as the USSR contributed as best they could. The USSR was the ultimate target of Germany, and the war was largely fought on their territory, hence they had the opportunity to inflict the greatest damage, and the misfortune of bearing the brunt of the killing.

The only axe I ahve to grind is refuting the Soviet era propgaganda that claims that WW2 was basically a Soviet-German war with some trivial help thrown in by the West, that didn't amount to much. Read EBs posts, this is a growing perception.

OK, I get it, you want me to hunt down a bunch of data so that you can sit back and dismiss it based on some spurious and non-justifiable comparisons of the different “value” between things like subs and infantry platoons.

The data is well known, troops deployed, AFV's deployed, aircraft deployed, casualties caused, terrain taken, etc. You apparently have some sort of alternative analysis that places a proportionately higher value on western originated equipment/troops/etc. than eastern originated. If you would indicate to me the exact proportionate “value” that sinking a sub is "worth" compared to destroying an infantry platoon (5.6 times? 10.2 times?) then I’d be glad to hunt down the data you are looking for.

Absolutly, if they didn't have the guns, tanks, artillery, planes, etc., etc., to fight with. Modern war is not fought and won by lining up men to get mown down by artillery and machine guns.

I am not making any claim that the West could have invaded France without the Eastern Front; nor have I amde any such claim. I am not even claiming that the Western Fron was decisive, that is not the case.

ALl I *AM* claiming is that the contribution of the Western Powers to the defeat of Germany was within the same order of magnitude as that contributed by the USSR, when measured in what counts in modern warfare, which is more than just dead men.

Within one order of magnitude? That would be between one-tenth the contribution to ten times the contribution. I think pretty much everyone would agree with you there. You ask me to provide data but you have yet to define the term “when measured in what counts in modern warfare”. You have erected a very ill defined, straw man of an argument that cannot be proven nor dis-proven. So I guess the argument is over.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by James Ott:

The data is well known, troops deployed, AFV's deployed, aircraft deployed, casualties caused, terrain taken, etc. You apparently have some sort of alternative analysis that places a proportionately higher value on western originated equipment/troops/etc. than eastern originated. If you would indicate to me the exact proportionate “value” that sinking a sub is "worth" compared to destroying an infantry platoon (5.6 times? 10.2 times?) then I’d be glad to hunt down the data you are looking for.

How much high grade steel does it take to make a type VII or type XXI sub?

How many tanks could you produce for each sub that you decide not to produce?

[James Ott]

Originally posted by Melchett:

Offhand, If I recall the divisional numbers correctly, I believe that in the roughly eight weeks between D-day and the Cobra breakout, the toothless old men faced by the Allied Expeditionary Force included the doddering octagenarians of:

Five SS Panzer divisions (1st, 2nd, 9th, 10th, 12th)

Three Wehrmacht Panzer divisons (2nd, 21st, and the elite Panzer Lehr)

One SS Panzergrenadier division (17th)

Two elite parachute divisons (3rd, 5th)

Four front-line infantry divisions (91st, 352nd, 353rd, 77th)

All of whom surrendered without firing a shot when the Allies offered them free dentures and afternoon naps.

The data that I have is for 1945, but it shows that the German Army deployed 176 infantry division and 31 Panzer divisions. I agree that the Allies faced some pretty fierce opposition, and that EB's point was over-stated, but the vast majority of the German's combat power was still facing East.

[daystrom]

Mr. EB. I feel that debating Soviet military impact on the war is fine. As with many others here in this form, we have an interest in World War 2 and military history in general. I do feel that this is no place for a pro-Soviet diatribe.

My grandfather emigrated to Canada from Poland following the war. Two of his brothers were killed within the first week of fighting against the Nazi invasion in Sept 39 while wearing the Polish uniform. The time of occupation that followed, as is well known, was a terrible hardship for the people of the country. My grandfather told me he developed an intense hatred for the Nazi invaders, and he carried it to his death. In 1944, the "liberation" of Poland began by the Red Army. The Soviets called for all Polish partisans (the Home Army) to rise up to fight the Germans where they could. The Soviets rewarded the Polish Home Army that aided in the ousting of the Germans with accomodations in Siberia, accusing them of "collaboration" with the Nazis. Mobs of Russian soldiers committed horrendous crimes upon the Polish citizenry - rape, looting, and pillaging was the order of the day. Many Poles felt betrayed by the Western Allies for leaving them to the tender mercies of their new "liberators". As a result, my grandfather also carried a deep hatred for the Soviets to his grave as well.

I asked him once what he felt was worse, German or Soviet occupation? He said they were very different and hard to compare. The German occupation was a systemic and orderly rape of the nations resources. But he said that most (Christian) civilians did not overly fear the German soldiers as they were disciplined and not prone to disorderly outbursts. The Russian "liberation" was different in that the Soviet soldiers conducted themselves like animals, raping women, stealing, murder - the complete lack of discipline was present throughout the Red Army as the officer corps did nothing to discourage it.

My point is this, both the Nazi and Soviet systems were terrible evils in world history. The world is poorer for having experienced them and in my opinion, the yanks should have let their General Patton have a go at the Soviets after the Nazi menace was defeated.

Ray

[husky65]

Originally posted by dgaad:

In 1944 there was a Fuehrer Conference in which US production was discussed.

we now know that these figures were almost completely accurate.

No it wasn't.

For example, the report stated that in 1943, the United States, alone, produced 40,000 aircraft.

1943, the USA produced 81,028 a/c

This number exceeded the total of all German aircraft production since Hitler came to power ten years earlier in 1933.

Between 1939 and 1943 alone the Germans produced 60098 a/c

[ October 15, 2002, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: husky65 ]

[husky65]

Originally posted by EB.:

Arby is correct; Heidman or Heidberg is not. This is not a question of believing baseless propaganda but of real history and the real statistics.

Real Staistics

a/c produced in WW2

USSR 146,445

USA 283,230

Total crude steel produced in WW2

USSR 57.7 million metric tons

USA 334.5 million metric tons

Total Aluminium produced in WW2

USSR 283000 metric tons

USA 41232000 metric tons

Trucks produced in WW2

USSR 197100

USA 2382311

Tanks and SP guns produced in WW2

USSR 105251

USA 88410

(Hooray the USSR wins one!)

until we factor in-

UK 27896

Canada 5678

Basically the USSR took massive losses, to a large extent this was due to poor doctrine and bad leadership coupled with poorly trained troops.

They had to trade bodies with the Germans at a ruinous rate (this is NOT a noble thing, it is a disgrace that the USSRs leaders neglected their military to such an extent).

The western allies tended to achieve much better exchange rates - had the western allies not helped prop up the USSR through lend lease, then opened a second front in the skies (IIRC a rough guide for that is 40,000 88mm guns that could have been used as AT guns), then opened a third front in Italy, then a fourth in France - the USSR would not have survived.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by husky65:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by EB.:

Arby is correct; Heidman or Heidberg is not. This is not a question of believing baseless propaganda but of real history and the real statistics.

Real Staistics

a/c produced in WW2

USSR 146,445

USA 283,230

. . . </font>

[Melchett]

I'm trying to suppress the "significant figure twitch" that I get when I see industrial production figures like "one hundred five thousand... two hundred fifty... and ONE" or "two million... three hundred eighty two thousand... three hundred TEN... and ONE"

[Norse]

Originally posted by husky65:

Tanks and SP guns produced in WW2

USSR 105251

USA 88410

(Hooray the USSR wins one!)

until we factor in-

UK 27896

Canada 5678

NOT BAD for the nation USSR, considering that they managed to build almost equally as much as USA, when they had the Germans stomping all over the place, and bore the brunt of the axis juggernaught, on Sovjet soil. Alot of their factories were simply burned to the ground or bombed to pieces.

Roosevelt on the other hand, prepared the American factories for war, ahead of time. The Americans never hadto struggle with moving their factories away from Chicago and Washington, because the cities were getting shelled to hell.

Remember that.

When you guys are saying they ran out of manpower because they used 16 year olds in their military.... duud, heh. Please read the story of Leningrad. There you see that the entire civilian population, was vital to the defence of the city. My grandfather showed me pictures of grandmothers wearing AK-47's, of children throwing molotov cocktails, and little girls digging trenches.

Thoose of you here, who read some book, disregad some facts and emphazise some others....it does not appear that you know what kind of war was waged there.

It was total war in every sence, and the USSR contribution to the war cannot be underestimated, even if USA produced 50.000 more planes or whatnot.

You guys want to compare USA to USSR, to prove that the USA ment so much more towards the goal of victory, and USSR didn't mean that much. You say "compare crude steel production so we can find out who contributed the most, and hurt the enemy the most". And you ( I can't be bother to look for nicks )try to laugh away the human contribution.

Compare this.

When the Germans attacked the Caucasus mountainrange in the summer 1942, unarmed Sovjet factory workers, volentarily strapped mines on their backs, and jumped in front of the German tanks as they approached their homes.

How the hell can you compare that to anything?

The axis juggernaught were blown up by some untrained, unarmed factory workers. Civilians who resisted. How much "production power" did you need to get thoose guys to actually stop the German tanks, and blow up the German crew? How can you claim that "nah they didn't produce X number of planes, so that doesn't matter...."

Here are some figures for the lend lease.

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

Lend Lease Aid; major recipients 41-45

Brazil:---------------- 230.957.000$

China :------------- 1.729.333.000$

Free French :------ 2.039.472.000$

USSR : -------------5.516.412.000$

Commonwealth : 14.296.120.000$

Think about the figures for awhile.

~Norse~

[dgaad]

Norse : No offense but you've missed the point entirely. These figures were put up to *counter* the notion by one of the thread posters that the ALLIED contribution to the war was practically nil.

Putting up production figures was not meant to imply or infer that the Soviet war effort was inconsequential in either monetary or human terms. It was in fact a great accomplishment.

Advise you to read the entire thread to provide proper context for the posts.

[ October 15, 2002, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[EB.]

Norse: you make good and intelligent points here, and I am sorry that they are being so mean to you. One big problem is that the war is taught so badly in American schools that you simply cannot talk sense to most Americans on this topic. It is very unfortunate. Europeans and Asians, from my personal experiences, are far more educated and intelligent people. I myself have become too embroiled in the emotional debates here, but I cannot allow fools to slander my people and to steal credit for things that they were not responsible for. I started this thread with helpful criticism, praise, and suggestions for the game, but I was immediately attacked in a most rude manner by ill-informed persons simply because I refused to repeat old American lies. I tried to respond appropriately, but I will not allow myself or my people to be attacked without fighting back.

[Norse]

Ups, Im stirring up a hornets nest

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Its great isnt it!

[EB.]

Agreed with Mannerheim on this last point.

[dgaad]

Here's a point to consider :

The reason that the Soviet Union was almost crushed by Nazi Germany, and as a consequence suffered enormous human and economic damage from which they have yet to recover fully, was because of

The policies of Josef Stalin himself

It was Josef Stalin who made an agreement with Hitler that allowed Hitler to concentrate his full economic and military power against France, and drive the English off the Continent.

It was Josef Stalin who cravenly attacked Poland pursuant to that agreement, simply to gain territory -- like so many of Hitler's allies during the prewar period he was fooled into believing that he would gain something out of Hitler's triumph.

It was Josef Stalin who, during the attacks against Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland, France, England, Yugoslavia, and Greece, sent Hitler's Germany enormous amounts of critical raw materials which funded Germany's continuing effort to conquer Europe.

Eventually, Stalin and Russia found themselves in the same position of every other nation that had facilitated Hitler : betrayed and fighting for their lives. They had no one but themselves to blame. Stalin's foreign policy gave Hitler the freedom and power to completely isolate Russia on the Continent in the first place.

[Zeres]

USA!!! USA!!!!! USA!!!!! ( just kidding)

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Norse:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by husky65:

Tanks and SP guns produced in WW2

USSR 105251

USA 88410

(Hooray the USSR wins one!)

until we factor in-

UK 27896

Canada 5678

NOT BAD for the nation USSR, considering that they managed to build almost equally as much as USA, when they had the Germans stomping all over the place, and bore the brunt of the axis juggernaught, on Sovjet soil. Alot of their factories were simply burned to the ground or bombed to pieces.

Roosevelt on the other hand, prepared the American factories for war, ahead of time. The Americans never hadto struggle with moving their factories away from Chicago and Washington, because the cities were getting shelled to hell.

Remember that.

When you guys are saying they ran out of manpower because they used 16 year olds in their military.... duud, heh. Please read the story of Leningrad. There you see that the entire civilian population, was vital to the defence of the city. My grandfather showed me pictures of grandmothers wearing AK-47's, of children throwing molotov cocktails, and little girls digging trenches.

Thoose of you here, who read some book, disregad some facts and emphazise some others....it does not appear that you know what kind of war was waged there.

It was total war in every sence, and the USSR contribution to the war cannot be underestimated, even if USA produced 50.000 more planes or whatnot.

You guys want to compare USA to USSR, to prove that the USA ment so much more towards the goal of victory, and USSR didn't mean that much. You say "compare crude steel production so we can find out who contributed the most, and hurt the enemy the most". And you ( I can't be bother to look for nicks )try to laugh away the human contribution.

Compare this.

When the Germans attacked the Caucasus mountainrange in the summer 1942, unarmed Sovjet factory workers, volentarily strapped mines on their backs, and jumped in front of the German tanks as they approached their homes.

How the hell can you compare that to anything?

The axis juggernaught were blown up by some untrained, unarmed factory workers. Civilians who resisted. How much "production power" did you need to get thoose guys to actually stop the German tanks, and blow up the German crew? How can you claim that "nah they didn't produce X number of planes, so that doesn't matter...."

Here are some figures for the lend lease.

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

Lend Lease Aid; major recipients 41-45

Brazil:---------------- 230.957.000$

China :------------- 1.729.333.000$

Free French :------ 2.039.472.000$

USSR : -------------5.516.412.000$

Commonwealth : 14.296.120.000$

Think about the figures for awhile.

~Norse~</font>

[pzgndr]

I'm seeing a lot of quotes about numbers of personnel, tanks, aircraft, steel production, etc. There is no direct correlation between any of this historical data and MPPs in the game, or with unit costs for builds and reinforcements. The game abstractions are not exact simulations, nor will they ever be. We cannot analyze SC with a magnifying glass; we must take a much broader view and look at general trends over time and multiple games.

There is room for improvement in SC and future versions to better model the economics. But I doubt we'll see the detail currently modeled in WiF or other games. Hearts of Iron will probably provide the mind-numbing detail some crave based on some of the recent screenshots. SC fills a market niche as a fun and easy-to-play game of WWII grand strategy. Make some tweaks and adjustments to add a little more realism and a bit more historical accuracy, but don't get too complicated.

[Norse]

dgaad, I would like to say, that I in no way underestimate the US contribution to the war.

USA was our lifeline. Alright, so how about we get back to the original question at hand?

~Norse~

[ October 16, 2002, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: Norse ]

[Jeff Heidman]

I think I have made my point, and there is not much more to say, excpet for this:

I by no means have ANY intention of dismissing or trivializing what the Soviets accomplished in WW2, and the almost inconceivable cost associated with it.

My demand that we evaluate this based on more than the pure "emotional" appeal of comparing dead is NOT meant as an attempt to minimize the impact of losing some 20-30 million of your citizens resisting an invader; that is a price that is literally beyond the ability of anyone in the US to even rationally comprehend.

Dead people do not win wars, but they certainly do create grief and pain. The USSR bore the vast majority of the pain and grief of WW2, and the brutal *human* costs in lost loved ones and destroyed families. That is debt that no number of tons of steel or gallons of gas can ever possibly offset.

Jeff Heidman

[vonManstein39]

One thing we can all agree on: Both the USA and the USSR each, individually, far outproduced Germany. As long as both the USSR and USA stay in the war, Germany is doomed.

And Britain outproduced Italy and Japan combined - true when you take into account that Japan chose to build many warships and only a few hundred tanks, unlike Britain which built a balanced military. So Italy and Japan didn't stand a chance either, not in a long war.

My simplistic view is:

The USSR did most to defeat Germany.

Britain did most to defeat Italy.

The USA did most to defeat Japan.

The USSR could have beaten Germany without British help.

Britain could have beaten Italy without US help.

The USA could have beaten Japan without Russian help.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by vonManstein39:

The USSR could have beaten Germany without British help.

But, they did receive British help.

Britain could have beaten Italy without US help.

But, they did receive enormous amounts of US help for two years prior to Italy's surrender.

The USA could have beaten Japan without Russian help.

The USA received NO help from Russia in the defeat of Japan.