Things That Would Make SC a Great Historical Sim - Long - Hubert?

[dgaad]

This post is directed at offering suggestions for SC that are in keeping with the scale and general design. The suggestions are largely directed at adding features that would more accurately represent the grand strategic military and economic issues.

1. Looting (change)

Current Function : Upon conquest of a nation, the conquerer is granted MPPs in the form of loot, based on the MPPs typically generated by the vanquished. While not immediately clear what the forumula is, it seems to be roughly equivalent to 7 or 8 turns of production or about 1.5 years.

Proposed function : Looting should be a much lower value, perhaps the equivalent of 3 months production.

History : Looting did in fact occur. Poland, France, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Norway all suffered from varying degrees of it, not to mention Russia. In game terms we would be interested primarily in looting that resulted in enhanced military production capability for the looter. France in particular provides an illustrative example. The Germans captured thousands of French tanks, trucks, and airplanes, many small arms, etc., and incorporated them into their forces rather effectively. Six Char B1bis tanks, for example, served on the Russian Front(!), while approximately 100 Hotchkiss armored hulls delivered to France from the United States were converted to Self-Propelled Artillery. The vast majority of equipment remained in France and wound up being of relatively little use. The tiny Renault tank was used as a gun puller for example.

However, much of this loot cost a great deal of time, money and training to use effectively, and occurred over time. In SC, it happens immediately, and the conquest of Benelux and France gives the Axis player a gigantic one-time infusion of MPPs (on the order of about 1300, enough for 3 airfleets and some rebuilding) which they use to build up research and / or a large airfleet and army to crush Russia. IMHO this is the main reason that 80% of games typically result in Axis victories.

The main problem with this reward is its size and the fact that it comes all at once.

The reality was far less appealing for the Germans. Nearly all of the captured AFVs had to be reconverted in German factories, and it took years to do this. The infantry carriers and trucks were quite useful to the Germans initially, but as the war went on they lacked the gasoline to use them. The main economic advantage to Germany for the capture of France was the ability to continue to provide consumer goods in Germany (from French factories) while German industry continued gearing for war.

The game benefit in terms of loot is far too rewarding, too immediate, and is not justified from my understanding of the economics actually involved at the time.

2. Oil

Current Function : None, there is no Oil resource in the game currently.

Proposed Function : There are a host of ways to incorporate this single most vital resource to WW2.

an example scheme ) limit the total number of air fleets and panzer units to the total number of "oil points" currently owned. Note : you would have to adjust allied and soviet oil points to reflect off map access to oil. If a player has produced more of these units than he has oil points (because he has lost some) he can produce no new ones until the numbers are rectified (he can still replenish existing ones).

History : Oil was *the* critical resource of the war. Several major strategic decisions made by the belligerants during the war were due to oil considerations including but not limited to :

a) The entire Japanese decision to go to war was based on their perceived shortage of oil due to the US embargo.

The Caucasus campaign.

c) The Egyptian / North African campaign (both Allied and German).

d) The Strategic Bombing Campaign targetted oil refineries and synthetic petrol factories with what I am sure was a frequency uncomfortable for the Germans.

e) The Lake Balaton Offensive

f) The Russian invasion of Rumania in 1944

g) The German Crimean Campaign of 1941/42 - and the order to hold the Crimea during 1943 and 44 (to protect the Rumanian oil fields from bombing attack).

In essence, its difficult to find a single year, or even a single major strategic offensive, which was not in some way connected to oil.

In SC under the current scheme the German player can build and use without restriction an unlimited number of air fleets and mobile units, and most German players do build quite a few, which would have impossible historically.

3. Allied Sea Transport to Middle East

Current Function - there is no way to transport units "round the Horn". Units sent to Egypt must do so by the traditional transport method through the Med, which quickly becomes impossible once the Italian Navy and axis airfleets are deployed.

Proposed Function - Allow some kind of operational or strategic movement from Britain or any Allied port in Britain to Egypt. Create a port city at the location of the Suez. It should take either an additional turn or two, additional MPPs, or both.

History : It has been estimated that fully 90% of all men, supplies and equipment arrived in the middle east during the war (after June 1941) by strategic movement either by ship from points south of the Suez, or via the Tadakori Air Route linking the US with Brazil, Nigeria, Chad, and ultimately Egypt.

The ability of the allies to ferry supplies to this area was the major reason the middle east was successfully defended. The way the game currently functions, there is almost no action whatsoever in this area because for the Allies its too risky to get troops there, and for the Germans they gain little or nothing by its capture (see the "Oil" point, above).

4. The Battle of the Atlantic

Current Function : Subs are units, units can't stack, therefore the sub must occupy a hex, sub is easily and almost always detected by moving allied units in the first few turns, subs are easily destroyed. Essentially, subs are just another naval unit which can be easily detected and destroyed.

Proposed Function : Subs should be a ghost unit. Detection based on proximity of allied ships to subs, and the relative detection / evasion technology. Detection results in automatic movement to contact for nearest allied ship at option of player, that player gets a single opportunity to combat the sub. If the sub evades that attack it resumes ghost status. If it does not evade that attack, it suffers the appropriate damage and resumes ghost status. Net effect : it would be almost impossible to destroy a sub unit (which actually represents about 25 subs) with a single detection. It would take several detections over time.

Idea : instead of "ghosting" the sub (or a lend lease fleet, see below) perhaps have a special hex or group of hexes which represent commitment of the unit to its specialized mission (convoy raiding for subs, convoy protection for ship units, or lend lease convoys for MPP transfers). While in that special "box" different routines are implemented to reflect the specialized nature of that type of operation. For example, the German player moves his sub to the group of six hexes representing committment to convoy attack. The Allied player moves one or more ship units into the same group of hexes. This group of hexes or a "box" is symbolic, in reality the subs or ships are ranging all over the Atlantic on their mission. At the end of the turn, a special phase occurs where sub detection and damage are calculated and then graphically displayed in a manner similar to a sea battle. The player has no control once they are committed to the box, except that during his movement phase he can choose to move units OUT of the box, or move additional units into it, but the combat and results happen automatically along the lines mentioned in the proposal. A "detection" event would be symbolic of those periods during the Battle of the Atlantic where the German Naval code was broken, and many subs were lost in short periods of time.

The special "box" would be some distance out from european ports, so the German would still have to move subs normally to and from that box, and they could be interdicted during that movement. This would force the German player to protect his ports with air units, as they did historically, and when that air protection does not exist or fails, the moving German subs could be hit by air power (again, just exactly like the real situation was strategically and operationally) as the game handles it now.

History : I don't think I need to talk about how important this aspect of history was, do I? Churchill rated it as the single greatest threat to England's survival in the war, bar none.

A few notes : if the proposed scheme is implemented, some testing and adjusting might be needed as to their economic effect for balance.

5. Strategic Bombing

Current Function : "Bomber" units can target resources and cities, but these hexes have devastating intrinsic defenses. A sucessful hit usually causes 1-3 MPPs in damage, but a single hit to the bomber causes 20 MPPs in damage.

Proposed Function : Since the hexes repair themselves rather quickly, the hits to the hexes should be triple or quadruple what they are now: that is, the hit to the hex should be 4 times what it currently is. This would generally balance the MPP cost / benefit to more historical levels. Note : the net effect of this scheme would be that IF the allies (or the Russians) invested HUGE amounts of money into researching range for fighters and bombers and IF the allies expended enormous amounts of money on building bombers fleets, it would then be possible to target most industrial / MPP targets in France, Germany and Norway on a rotating basis and severely hamper the German war economy. with 6 bomber fleets and escorting fighters, about 1/5th of the MPP capacity of the Axis could be targetted every turn or every other turn. With the increased damage levels, this would in effect reduce the German MPP output by about 8-15%. Sound familiar? That's because that's exactly the historical sequence that occurred.

History : The Strategic Bombing Campaign has been the source of great debate, and I don't want to start a new one. Let me just say this : the great mis-conception about the SB Campaign was that it was conducted to destroy factories, that it failed to destroy enough factories, and that therefore it was a failure.

The truth is, as I have researched it, is that while the SB campaign DID cause substantial damage to industry, that was not its main effect. The Germans, particularly under Speer, were able to counteract the loss of industrial infrastructure by distributing the means of production more widely, and moving critical tools underground. Rather, the main effect on the economy of Germany was the hit to the Transportation industry.

Industrial targets were usually the locus of transportation nets of various kinds, mainly rail and river. These were devastated by the raids, and actually had a greater impact on the war economy than destruction of the means of production itself. Often entire railyards river channels and ports were completely destroyed, and rebuilt rapidly but with greatly reduced capacity. Factories churned out military goods or parts, but they could not be moved rapidly enough to meet demand. This is why production figures for tanks, for example, remain high until about November 44, but the reality was that it became extremely costly and difficult to move those completed tanks to training centers and the front. Where a single train carrying tanks could be run, it was usually by then sucking up a good portion of transport capability for other things like airplane parts or gasoline, because most of the other transport capacity had been destroyed. These observations are borne out in numerous historical sources.

As the game currently stands, the Allies can never develop anything like a bombing campaign of any import at all.

6. Lend-Lease

Current Function : there is no way to transfer MPPs from one faction to another.

Proposed Function : Allow the transfer of MPPs from the Allied to the Soviet Faction by some means. No more than 10% of MPPs in the sending faction's "pool" (that is what they have sitting around) in any one turn. Transport requires one naval unit (which then becomes non functional and ghosted for the next two turns). There is an additional MPP surcharge cost to the sending player (10% of the total MPPs sent that turn). The Axis cannot interefere with this movement of resources.

History : Again, the effect of the Lend-Lease program was and is a source of great debate. What is not in debate, however is the amount of resources sent to Russia. It is a staggering number. While the Russians did receive some tanks and airplanes, they were not suited to Russian operational doctrine and were of limited utility. What did matter was everything else sent.

Thousands upon thousands of trucks, thousands of tons of medical supplies, bedding, tires, rations, specialized lubricants, even several million rifles, manufactured in Vermont, were sent, along with countless other items.

Many modern historians credit the generally increasing mobility of Soviet armies during the war to the presence of the US 2 1/2 ton truck, which effectively gave the Russian infantry an unprecedented (for Russians, anyway) mobility. Increasing morale, resiliance and combat power were largely due to improving Russian experience levels and tactical doctrine, but the effect of plentiful sundry supplies, particularly the morale effect of combat medical products, can't be underestimated either.

Mainly, though, the US and British support efforts enabled the Soviet industry to concentrate on their main items of war. Without Lend-Lease, more and more of Soviet industry would have been tied up producing the various and sundry items of war needed, as well as reduced manpower pools due to the need to keep minimal food stocks growing and on hand for the population.

Some may take issue with the notion that the Axis cannot interfere with these shipments. The reason I propose it this way is because of the game scale. 7 out of every 8 ships sent in total via Murmansk convoys made it safely. Almost 100% of supplies sent via the Persian Lend Lease route made it to Russia without incident. The facts are that despite significant effort on the part of the Germans to stop these shipments, more than 95% of the supplies sent made it through. This carries the German interdiction efforts into the realm of statistical insignificance.

=====

Well, that's it for now. Intelligent comments from players appreciated. Hubert is listening I hope.

I'm sure there are other suggestions which are both critical to the game's success and possible to implement in the current framework. As I think of more, I will post them here in THIS post -- which will be edited. So, recheck this top post for changes and edits.

Hubert : I don't flatter myself to think that any of these ideas are possible, much less acceptable to your vision of the game. I've been in the IT development world and I know suggestions from the outside are usually treated with contempt, so I understand your situation. You are probably very busy with TCP/IP conn and other matters. However, please give them more than cursory consideration with a view towards a significant patch down the road.

[ October 15, 2002, 06:50 AM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[arby]

Looting works out about right. As you mention, the only problem is that it's too big and comes all at once. If you reduce it substantially, though, you severely hamper the German player, both in their ability to build up forces and in their ability to research. The present system gives the German player a research advantage now, but I think the better way of correcting that would be to give the Allies a few more research chits at start.

I agree with you about the importance of oil, but oil wasn't the only important resource; making it the only resource which affects the game distorts the game. You could bring other resources into play, but then I think the game loses a lot of its playability. Plus you just open up another can of worms; you'll have people complaining that iron ore isn't given enough importance, or wheat, etc.

The Med needs major work; adding at least one more row to it is essential, otherwise, it becomes almost impossible to campaign there effectively. If that's done, yes, there should be transit for the Allies other than through the Med.

The Sub war also needs to be fixed, although I think your solution is unduly complicated. I'd just increase the dive rates: start at 50%, go up 10 for each level of Advanced Subs, down 10 for each level of sonar. Plus have dive chance go into effect for surprise contacts. Other ideas include making subs less expensive and allowing allies to build escort units at a lower cost than cruisers or battleships.

Strat bombing is probably underestimated in the game, I'd agree. I'd start the British off with L1 bombers, and the Americans with L2. Also allow bombers to hit strategic resources that are occupied by a unit. That should solve most of the problems. Keep in mind the Allies can also use fighters to bomb resources.

I'm not sure Lend Lease is necessary, although I don't think it's a bad idea. Hubert has said that it's already taken into account: US and Russian MPP's have been adjusted accordingly. I'm not sure how you include it in the game, since some of it, especially a good bit to Britain, came when the US was officially neutral. If you do it, I'd just as soon do it completely abstractly: the US player designates so much for Lend Lease, and the next turn that amount, less 10%, shows up in the Soviet Mpp total.

You've touched on most of the major points, other than the tech revisions. I'd also like to see a reworking of how experience plays into the game. I'd have both offensive and defensive units acquire the same experience (+.2) for being in combat, and I'd give the defending unit the +.5 for defending against an attack.

[Sol Invictus]

Very good ideas but will have to wait for SC2 I'm afraid.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by arby:

I agree with you about the importance of oil, but oil wasn't the only important resource; making it the only resource which affects the game distorts the game. You could bring other resources into play, but then I think the game loses a lot of its playability. Plus you just open up another can of worms; you'll have people complaining that iron ore isn't given enough importance, or wheat, etc.

Oil was THE strategic resource of the war, and remains the single most important natural resource today, aside from oxygen. There simply isn't any comparison to any other resource. No major strategic military decsions were made about iron ore availability, etc. Even in Grand Strategic games, Oil is usually factored in as a delimeter in some way, even if its abstracted.

The game in its current form is totally unrealistic on this point. Unlimited numbers of air fleets and mobile units can be produced and used regardless of the amount of oil, or even resources, the player has.

The Sub war also needs to be fixed, although I think your solution is unduly complicated. I'd just increase the dive rates: start at 50%, go up 10 for each level of Advanced Subs, down 10 for each level of sonar. Plus have dive chance go into effect for surprise contacts. Other ideas include making subs less expensive and allowing allies to build escort units at a lower cost than cruisers or battleships.

I don't care what solution is implemented, and tend to agree that mine might be too complex. But something must be done here.

Strat bombing is probably underestimated in the game, I'd agree. I'd start the British off with L1 bombers, and the Americans with L2. Also allow bombers to hit strategic resources that are occupied by a unit. That should solve most of the problems. Keep in mind the Allies can also use fighters to bomb resources.

The problem with bombing right now is that you have an equal probability of inflicting a few MPP casualties or sustaining 20-60 MPPs in casualties. This is all mucked up. In the game right now there is absolutely no sense in doing any strategic bombing at all.

I'm not sure Lend Lease is necessary, although I don't think it's a bad idea. Hubert has said that it's already taken into account: US and Russian MPP's have been adjusted accordingly. I'm not sure how you include it in the game, since some of it, especially a good bit to Britain, came when the US was officially neutral. If you do it, I'd just as soon do it completely abstractly: the US player designates so much for Lend Lease, and the next turn that amount, less 10%, shows up in the Soviet Mpp total.

I like the idea of a straight abstraction with no units involved.

You've touched on most of the major points, other than the tech revisions. I'd also like to see a reworking of how experience plays into the game. I'd have both offensive and defensive units acquire the same experience (+.2) for being in combat, and I'd give the defending unit the +.5 for defending against an attack.

This has also bugged me, but I was aiming for the really large issues in this post. Thanks for your intelligent comments, though.

[Hubert Cater]

This post is directed at offering suggestions for SC that are in keeping with the scale and general design. The suggestions are largely directed at adding features that would more accurately represent the grand strategic military and economic issues.

Thanks for the insightful list dgaad, I'll take the post under advisement for future references/ideas!

Hubert

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This post is directed at offering suggestions for SC that are in keeping with the scale and general design. The suggestions are largely directed at adding features that would more accurately represent the grand strategic military and economic issues.

Thanks for the insightful list dgaad, I'll take the post under advisement for future references/ideas!

Hubert</font>

[EB.]

The poster's suggestions for looting, oil, allied sea tranport to Middle East, and subs in the Battle of the Atlantic are absolutely brilliant, and I give them my strongest support. Very intelligent and useful comments to the designers on those points.

However, on bombers, I strongly disagree. I think that the game has the balance of importance with respect to strategic bombing exactly right. To increase the effectiveness of bombing would be quite unrealistic. In general, the Western strategic bombing campaign vs. Germany has been grossly exaggerated. Again, I think that the game has it just right on bombers now.

also, I would disagree a bit with the suggestions on Lend-Lease. I think that the game does it perfectly right now. But if there were a change in the rules to allow for Lend-Lease, then I would state that the proposed limit of 10% seems maybe excessive. Plus, I would think that the limiting factor should be not just the sending nation's production but the receiving nation's as well. For example, during the war, US aid sent to the Soviet Union represented only 5% of Soviet production related to military matters (equipment, supply, food, etc.) and of course this had nothing to contribute to Soviet manpower which of course is also taken into account when determining MPP's, as I have heard anyway. On the other hand, the US sent three times as much aid to UK as to USSR, so nation-specific "giving" limits should apply as well.

Still, these suggestions (except for #5) are very useful and will hopefully be taken into account. What I like about these suggestions is that they tend to make the game more realistic instead of just more politically correct. Now that is a trend that I will always embrace.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

In general, the Western strategic bombing campaign vs. Germany has been grossly exaggerated

EB. again you light a match under my hind quarters. (Dont worry, i enjoy a good debate.) Expect a thread devoted to this.

CvM

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by dgaad:

Proposed Function : Since the hexes repair themselves rather quickly, the hits to the hexes should be triple or quadruple what they are now: that is, the hit to the hex should be 4 times what it currently is. This would generally balance the MPP cost / benefit to more historical levels.

This was discussed quite some time ago, and one line of consensus focused on this very idea.

Some sort of expenditure required to repair damaged cities -- or NOT -- you could let them wither (someone also proposed a damaged city icon, showing various levels of destruction).

In line with other comments, I agree that the damage could occur even if occupied by a unit, and could even be increased slightly so to make the expense of buying the bombers worthwhile.

Strategic Bombing per se does need some fixing, but Strategic Bombers in and of themselves are actually quite valuable offensive weapons.

Not only for reducing entrenchment levels, which can make a huge difference in casualties to the attacker, and ultimate success in taking the target city, but also in anti-ship warfare (posited to be naval torpedo types, since there are not many differentiated units).

However, there remains great and ongoing debate as to whether Allied bombing actually made a lot of difference in the outcome of WW2. I am ambivalent about this topic, and will leave it to others to supply so called "historical facts."

My feeling is that Strat Bombing shouldn't be a DECISIVE factor in this or any WW2 game.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

However, there remains great and ongoing debate as to whether Allied bombing actually made a lot of difference in the outcome of WW2. I am ambivalent about this topic, and will leave it to others to supply so called "historical facts."

My feeling is that Strat Bombing shouldn't be a DECISIVE factor in this or any WW2 game.

Both Feld Marshal Rundstedt and Feld Marshal Kesselring stated, and I quote : "The strategic bombing offensive was one of the main reasons Germany lost the war."

Lets not start a new debate, but lets agree on a few basic things. 1. The Strategic Bombing offensive could not alone have won the war. 2. The significant effects on the German war economy occurred mostly in the last 9 months of the war, when the war was already won at the ground level. 3. During the last 9 months, when average daily tonnage dropped on industrial targets inside Germany was about 10-20 TIMES what it had been in any other phase of the war, on the order of around 90,000 tons of TNT per month (thats the equivalent of 4 atomic bombs). 4. The raid on Hamburg in 1943 created a firestorm which killed 40,000 people and wiped out most of the city center.

Again, don't fall into the trap of thinking that because the German economy continued to function at a basic level that the SBC was of no significance. Many cities suffered Hamburg's fate, and the loss of workers *alone* would have had a serious effect on the war economy, to say nothing of the loss of the means of production and tranportation infrastructure.

[EB.]

Dgaad: you quote Kesselring and Rundstedt to support the importance of strategic bombing, but quite obviously these two poor chaps were just telling their new Western bosses what they wanted to hear. That doesn't make it true at all. There are many, many instances in which a criminal defendant will cooperate with the police and prosecutor to save his own ass. Seems to me that this is exactly a case of that. Now if your quote came in 1943 rather than postwar, then it might have more weight. Of course, I would still say that they were wrong. It is a strong tendency among people in the West (especially in Germany) to never admit that the "subhuman" Russians can do anything positive, much less kick their butts.

So I would not trust the quote by poor Kess and Rund. I am reminded of a situation in Washington DC neighborhood where there is this poor old homeless black man who in return for table scraps and a garage to sleep in tells this ugly old white woman who owns the big house every day "Madam, you are so beautiful, like God's own angel!" He does his part, and she does hers, but don't trust his words.

Poor Kess and Rund were probably in a similar position when making their quotes to support Western bombing.

[Jeff Heidman]

EB is right. You cannot trust German sources, because they just say what the West wants them to say.

You cannot trust Western sources, because they are all motivated by anti-Soviet angst.

The only possible source you can trust about the effects of strategic bombing (or anything else about anything else, for that matter) are the words of the Greatest Man of All Time, Comrade Josef Stalin.

He is clearly the expert on the effects of strategic bombing. Only Soviet era history is objective, and all truth can be found in the pages of Pravda.

Everyone knows that the Soviets were the pre-eminent WW2 scholars, and never, at any point, distorted or lied about any events in an effort to make themselves look better or the make the West look inferior. It seems odd, but it turns out that having the State kill you for not saying exactly what they want you to say is actually a much better way to achieve objective historical scholarship than letting historians say whatever they like.

All thanks to Comrade Stalin for bring Truth and Light to the World! It really is too bad that the Soviet system failed utterly, we would be so much better off if we all spoke Russian and lived on a collective farm...

Jeff Heidman

[dgaad]

Originally posted by EB.:

So I would not trust the quote by poor Kess and Rund.

Oh, that's not all I trust. Their assessment is borne out by almost every other significant study and interview of those in a position to know about the German war economy such as Albert Speer, etc. Have you read Speer's memoirs EB? Have you read the Strategic Bombing Survey? Have you read Harrison's "Accounting for War" book, which is considered the most extensive scholarly analysis available in the English language regarding the war economies of WW2?

[Sol Invictus]

I think the reason some people downplay the effects of the Strategic Bombing Campaign are that it is hard to quantify. It's very easy to list how many Germans were killed on the Eastern Front but not so easy to list the diminishment of German warmaking potential because of the destruction of the Ploesti fields, railroads, port facilities, factories, the German need for air defense, Luftwaffe losses, and the list goes on. Whether the resources used in the air campaign could have been better used elsewhere is a continuing debate but the campaign had a definate impact on the war.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Sol Invictus:

I think the reason some people downplay the effects of the Strategic Bombing Campaign are that it is hard to quantify. It's very easy to list how many Germans were killed on the Eastern Front but not so easy to list the diminishment of German warmaking potential because of the destruction of the Ploesti fields, railroads, port facilities, factories, the German need for air defense, Luftwaffe losses, and the list goes on. Whether the resources used in the air campaign could have been better used elsewhere is a continuing debate but the campaign had a definate impact on the war.

I agree. The assessment problem is a classic logical problem of "proving the negative".

Germany's war economy was expanding at a tremendous pace starting in late 1941 after the Soviet counter-offensive (though not as rapidly as the US war economy would expand starting in 1943).

The growth rate in the German war economy was *slowed*, not reversed, by the SBC. Only after the destruction of infrastructure and transportation reached a critical level in Germany in the Fall of 1944 did Germany's industrial potential begin to decline dramatically.

[ev]

Regarding transport around the Horn... Britain can buy new units in Egypt ...and can reinforce units stationed in Egypt even if Axis occupy Malta and Gibraltar.

[EB.]

I am not a special expert on strategic bombing in World War Two, but my general readings seem to supplement what a real expert in the field taught in a series of military science lectures which I happened to attend. Basic points off of the top of my head are as follows:

strategic bombing was engaged in NOT for the actual, practical effects which were always minimal and well below expectation but because of the overwhelmingly fashionable THEORY of strategic bombing from the 1930's--this theory (as example, Italian writer Duget / Duhet?) became very widespread throughout the western world--basically said that the outcome of the next war would completely be a function of strategic bombing--this became very entrenched not only among military and political leaders but also through mass media into the minds of the general mass of citizens in the West--the idea was so strong that it persisted even when evidence arose to erode it--this seems almost to be an insanity or crazy obsession--only Bombers matter!--that kind of nonsense--military budgets would reflect this fixation to the detriment of other more important branches

the results of strategic bombing are always over-exaggerated by the bomber crews themselves--(this is still the case today, for every country)--damage was often easily repaired--(my own note: "also case in Vietnam and Korean Wars")

the effect over time because of the military impotence of bombers vs. economic targets is that step by step the bombing of CIVILIAN targets became the overwhelming mode of bombing--in other words, "strategic bombing" became nothing more than a "terror weapon"--very important point here

still, in theory, a terror weapon might work to reduce the morale of the civilian population and cause them to either overthrow their government or to engage in mass surrender or sabotage--but that is only THEORY--in the actual war, even the use of strategic bombing as a terror weapon against the Germans also failed, as evidenced by their refusal to surrender and their insistence on fighting to the bitter end

anyway, that is the end of my notes, and those are years old. I would agree with that officer's facts and conclusions still.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by EB.:

strategic bombing was engaged in NOT for the actual, practical effects which were always minimal and well below expectation but because of the overwhelmingly fashionable THEORY of strategic bombing from the 1930's--this theory (as example, Italian writer Duget / Duhet?) became very widespread throughout the western world

OMG you don't even know about Giulio Douhet?

[dgaad]

Originally posted by EB.:

this became very entrenched not only among military and political leaders but also through mass media into the minds of the general mass of citizens in the West

To say nothing of the "Minds of the East".

the results of strategic bombing are always over-exaggerated by the bomber crews themselves--(this is still the case today, for every country)--damage was often easily repaired--(my own note: "also case in Vietnam and Korean Wars")

note : "also case in Soviet War in Afghanistan"

the effect over time because of the military impotence of bombers vs. economic targets is that step by step the bombing of CIVILIAN targets became the overwhelming mode of bombing--in other words, "strategic bombing" became nothing more than a "terror weapon"--very important point here

Gigantic Contradiction : on the one hand you say that bomber damage is overestimated by crews and military / political leaders. On the other hand you say that bombing against economic targets becomes "step by step" bombing of civilians because the damage to economic targets doesn't happen. How do the military or political leaders know that economic damage isn't happening if the damage is always overestimated? Why do they switch to civilian bombing?

Your logic is so perverted it can only be called wish-wash.

still, in theory, a terror weapon might work to reduce the morale of the civilian population and cause them to either overthrow their government or to engage in mass surrender or sabotage--but that is only THEORY--in the actual war, even the use of strategic bombing as a terror weapon against the Germans also failed, as evidenced by their refusal to surrender and their insistence on fighting to the bitter end

What happens at the bitter end? Do they keep fighting to the other bitter end? Like, the bitter bitter end? Or, maybe the really biting sour bitter bitter near term bitter end?

anyway, that is the end of my notes, and those are years old.

Your thinking is also years old. In fact, its proponents are now mostly dead.

Also, look at your own SIG : "we must overcome this lag in 10 years or we will be crushed". This is a Stalin quote from 1931.

You mean, comrade, the lag that Stalin himself introduced into the Soviet Union?

You mean the lag that came about as a result of Comrade Stalin's destruction of the NEP? The NEP which had cause the Soviet Economy to be growing at a faster rate than all Western economies in the 20s? Or, the other lag introduced by "spies and saboteurs" obviously working for the Capitalist Exploiters?

[EB.]

Of course I "know" about the Italian theorist Duget, but unlike you, I will not pretend to be an expert unless I read his own words MYSELF, which I have not done and which you too obviously have not done. What is shocking and funny is that you actually agree with him! The war proved him to be absolutely wrong. You mock me for admitting my limitations but in fact I probably know more about the topics than you. That is truly funny. Typical of community college student, by the way--very typical.

on comment concerning Afghanistan--Soviets did not participate in strategic bombing in afghanistan--Soviet forces were only fighting a few guerrilla forces who controlled no strategic resources--the PDPA Afghan government was Soviet-controlled and it controls all of the cities in Afghanistan during the entire war--so, how dare you talk about "strategic bombing" with respect to Afghanistan--obviously, you do not understand the term as used in military science

on the glories of the stupid NEP system, see my other lengthy and correct post in another area--basically, NEP and Bukharin were terrible--strange how you in the west still cling to these old myths. Even today, you can see that NEP-like policies have absolutely bankrupted Russia--and the same people like you promised in 1991 that Russia would be so wealthy and prosperous by following capitalist paths--wrong then, wrong now, wrong in the 1920's too--don't you all ever learn?

and since you want to bring up the postwar Stalin "paranoia" about doctors' plots and so forth, you can see that Stalin was exactly right about the threat to the Soviet people from within the Party itself--democratic reformist traitors like Khrushchev and Gorbachev did EXACTLY what Stalin had warned of: destruction of the Soviet Union. This fall is embraced in the West, but for Russians, it has been a terrible disaster. Of course it will be reversed, but the lessons have been painful. You want to mock Stalin for finding and destroying enemies of the people, but history has shown that he was right--and if you do not destroy your enemies, then they WILL destroy you. History since 1953 has shown this to be absolutely true.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by EB.:

Of course I "know" about the Italian theorist Duget, but unlike you, I will not pretend to be an expert unless I read his own words MYSELF, which I have not done and which you too obviously have not done. What is shocking and funny is that you actually agree with him! The war proved him to be absolutely wrong. You mock me for admitting my limitations but in fact I probably know more about the topics than you. That is truly funny. Typical of community college student, by the way--very typical.

on comment concerning Afghanistan--Soviets did not participate in strategic bombing in afghanistan--Soviet forces were only fighting a few guerrilla forces who controlled no strategic resources--the PDPA Afghan government was Soviet-controlled and it controls all of the cities in Afghanistan during the entire war--so, how dare you talk about "strategic bombing" with respect to Afghanistan--obviously, you do not understand the term as used in military science

on the glories of the stupid NEP system, see my other lengthy and correct post in another area--basically, NEP and Bukharin were terrible--strange how you in the west still cling to these old myths. Even today, you can see that NEP-like policies have absolutely bankrupted Russia--and the same people like you promised in 1991 that Russia would be so wealthy and prosperous by following capitalist paths--wrong then, wrong now, wrong in the 1920's too--don't you all ever learn?

and since you want to bring up the postwar Stalin "paranoia" about doctors' plots and so forth, you can see that Stalin was exactly right about the threat to the Soviet people from within the Party itself--democratic reformist traitors like Khrushchev and Gorbachev did EXACTLY what Stalin had warned of: destruction of the Soviet Union. This fall is embraced in the West, but for Russians, it has been a terrible disaster. Of course it will be reversed, but the lessons have been painful. You want to mock Stalin for finding and destroying enemies of the people, but history has shown that he was right--and if you do not destroy your enemies, then they WILL destroy you. History since 1953 has shown this to be absolutely true.

This was the best laugh I've had in about a month. I can't wait for a new Stalinist leader in Russia. You will be among the first sent to the Gulag -- if you survive at all.

[EB.]

One more point--on the supposed contradictions between "bomber crews and politicians overestimating effect of bombing" and "shift to terror weapon vs. civilians because of failure of bombing"

This is not a contradiction.

Specifically, the point made in the lecture was that crews returning from missions almost always report successful hits. They are not lying, just mistaken. These mistakes can be discovered by follow-up recon flights in the future, but even these are not perfect and will often report destruction of targets when that is still not the case. By that time, you have new missions, new false reports and so on. The checking can never fully catch up with the reporting, so in terms of analysis, there is always a great differential between the perceived results and the actual results. The lag can never be fully removed. You could plan for such a distortion by having a policy of discounting and disbelieving your crews' own reports, but that is not popular, and nobody does that--at least not in World War Two. Plus, you have administrative structures who would jeopardize their own existence (and salary) by denigrating their own sphere of operations--so this is another reason for this distortion.

The politicians are deceived into overestimating the effects from bombing by these false reports and by their own preexisting biases in favor of strategic bombing--like I said, made popular throughout the West in the 1930's, though not really in USSR at all. Recon and ground intelligence (spies) can help to bring the leaders back to reality by demonstrating incrementally that the bombing just is not working. This assumes that the spies are actually effective and not just reporting what the leaders want to hear. Still, over time, there is a grudging realization on the part of the leaders that the job just isn't getting done. That is when the switch to "terror bombing" begins. Specifically, it doesn't happen all at once (well, it did when the Germans were bombing England, but not for the West)--terror bombing takes over from strategic bombing of military production targets INCREMENTALLY.

Lots of words, sorry. What is the basic point is that there is no contradiction. I do not argue that the leaders think "it works" and "it doesn't work, so let's change" at the SAME TIME. The change from one mindset is slow, stretched out over time, almost imperceptible on a week to week basis, but it is very real. And even then, terror bombing doesn't work either--never has actually. So Duget was a stupid bugger.

also, don't mock me words of "fighting to the bitter end", because that is exactly what the Germans did. Examples of this NOT being the case would be all of Western Europe, especially France in 1940.

You all need to work on your logic and your research. Don't just repeat the old lies from paperbacks books.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by EB.:

This is not a contradiction.

Um, if you say so, comrade.

Specifically, the point made in the lecture was that crews returning from missions almost always report successful hits.

Except Soviet crews, of course, comrade.

They are not lying, just mistaken. These mistakes can be discovered by follow-up recon flights in the future, but even these are not perfect and will often report destruction of targets when that is still not the case. By that time, you have new missions, new false reports and so on.

Of course, you don't mean to imply that a Soviet aircrew would give a false report, do you?

The checking can never fully catch up with the reporting,

Except in the case of Soviet reporting and checking, comrade.

so in terms of analysis, there is always a great differential between the perceived results and the actual results. The lag can never be fully removed.

We Soviets attack, root out and exteriminate all sources of lag, comrade, just as our Glorious Leader Stalin did.

You could plan for such a distortion by having a policy of discounting and disbelieving your crews' own reports, but that is not popular, and nobody does that--at least not in World War Two. Plus, you have administrative structures who would jeopardize their own existence (and salary) by denigrating their own sphere of operations--so this is another reason for this distortion.

Of course, Soviet Air Forces don't need to plan for distortion because our forces don't engage in the capitalist / Western practice of distorting results for monetary gain.

The politicians are deceived into overestimating the effects from bombing by these false reports and by their own preexisting biases in favor of strategic bombing--like I said, made popular throughout the West in the 1930's, though not really in USSR at all.

Very well put Comrade. We in the Soviet Union are completely immune from the weaknessess of the West as you mentioned.

Recon and ground intelligence (spies) can help to bring the leaders back to reality by demonstrating incrementally that the bombing just is not working.

This suggests that some portions of Western military forces are not so prone to distortion and mis-reporting. We Soviets must work to insure that these elements of Western forces are deceived. It should be easy, since the West is essentially anti-humanistic and values life according to the amount of profit.

This assumes that the spies are actually effective and not just reporting what the leaders want to hear.

We are so fortunate to have a system in the Soviet Union that is practically immune from such distortions, aren't we Comrade? Our leaders get absolutely correct reports at all times, except where spies and traitors to the people have sucummbed to Western bribes or threats.

Still, over time, there is a grudging realization on the part of the leaders that the job just isn't getting done. That is when the switch to "terror bombing" begins. Specifically, it doesn't happen all at once (well, it did when the Germans were bombing England, but not for the West)--terror bombing takes over from strategic bombing of military production targets INCREMENTALLY.

I see, so this realization just slowly accrues despite all the weaknesses of the Western system. I suppose things do reach a point where even the corrupt Westerners see the truth of things, even if only in increments. Fortunately, the Soviet Union has not only renounced the use of terror of any kind, but if we did choose to adopt that tactic, ours would be more effective because the people would eventually find out that we kill them only to liberate them. I think. What do you think, Comrade?

Lots of words, sorry. What is the basic point is that there is no contradiction. I do not argue that the leaders think "it works" and "it doesn't work, so let's change" at the SAME TIME. The change from one mindset is slow, stretched out over time, almost imperceptible on a week to week basis, but it is very real. And even then, terror bombing doesn't work either--never has actually. So Duget was a stupid bugger.

Yes, the entire West is almost comical in the faith it puts in Strategic Bombing and Capitalism.

also, don't mock me words of "fighting to the bitter end", because that is exactly what the Germans did. Examples of this NOT being the case would be all of Western Europe, especially France in 1940.

As you have already pointed out elsewhere, Comrade, France did no fighting whatsoever, and collapsed because of the Western conspiracy to destroy the Soviet Union.

You all need to work on your logic and your research. Don't just repeat the old lies from paperbacks books.

I have unfortunately sucummbed to Western influence and bribes. I hope I can be rehabilitated after 20 years in a Labor Camp.

[Jeff Heidman]

The altest claim from EB:

The collapse of the SU is due to the declining willingness of Soviet officials to shoot large quantities of poeple.

he has a point. Staling butcherd some 20 million or so, and the USSR didn't collapse in HIS lifetime...

Putin should consider this carefully. The USSR has some 40 years of killing to catch up on...

Jeff

[Hubert Cater]

Moving this one to the General Forums as well...