Couple of questions about Stalingrad battles . . .

[Gpig]

I'm reading STALINGRAD; The Fatefull Siege. 1942,43. By Antony Beevor.

There is an interesting bit about some Russians holding out in a 4 story house for over 50 days. The book describes how a platoon of Russian's would defend the house from the Germans by running into the cellar when tanks approached. And also, by staying in the 4th floor because the panzer's could not elevate the main gun high enough to engage the 4th floor windows.

Will buildings in CM:BB have cellars? (I'm guessing NOT, seeing as I've seen nothing about it during all this BONE throwing.)

Also, I'm assuming guns on tanks will still have unlimited elevation and depression abilities.

I'm sitting here beside myself awaiting the glorious arrival of CM:BB and I just can't help but blab about it.

Gpig.

P.S. Also, will there still be assualt boats in CM:BB. The Volga has to be crossed somehow.

P.P.S And assualt boats should be available to both sides, right?

(pesky pesky questions)

[SuperTed]

Gpig,

What is this CM:BB of which you speak? :confused:

[Auggy]

Gpig, I agree on the idea of boats except for the germans unless they are captured russian. They were a mighty ways away from the homeland and supplies were scarce already so how could they afford to bring those boats with them. If stalingrad is done in the winter vehicles & troops will be able move across the ice.

I'm aslo guessing celars are out of the question because it would be too hard on the game engine.

I'm only guessing on these. My predictions are probably not right but might be close.

[RCHRD]

When I actually saw Pavlov's house (Or what's left of it)I was surprised to see how close to the river it was. I had thought that it was more in the middle of the downtown area. The only thing between it and the embankment is the mill that Beever writes of, so it can really be surrounded on only three sides.

[Gpig]

Ha ha, Ted. You very funny-man. Ha ha

Sir Agustus. I believe the Germans had plenty of assualt boats. They used them often in the crossing of rivers across the Russian front. (Maybe they never had any river crossings under fire, or with historical significance. Thus they might be outside the scope of CM:BB.)

Too bad about no cellars, and all. That would be a neat feature. But I guess, since the buildings are abstractions as it stands, I can imagine that the 1st floor also includes a cellar. (Just not quite as fun.)

Sewers are still in, right? (At least an abstraction of sewers.)

Hey RCHRD, thanks for that info on Pavlov's house. Kind of takes away some of the drama from the story of the Russian defense of said house. If they were that close the the Volga, shouldn't they have been able to recieve resupply? Or maybe they were in a part of Stalingrad where the germans had reached right to the river.

This version of CM is going to be SO AMAZING.

[KNac]

Originally posted by Sir Augustus:

Gpig, I agree on the idea of boats except for the germans unless they are captured russian. They were a mighty ways away from the homeland and supplies were scarce already so how could they afford to bring those boats with them.

Well, I would like to model scenario of the initial river crossing when Operation Barbarossa was launched on 21 June 1941, It would be cool, as I´ve played Lost Victories mega-campaing for SP:WaW the initial river crossing would be very cool with the CM engine.

[Skipper]

Pavlov's House was not fully encircled, in fact. Together with that mill, it was a very important forward position in the defense of Rodimtsev's division. There was re-supply and reinforcements, too.

28 people took part in this episode, but at any moment there were not more than 15.

"This small group, defending a single house, has eliminated more german soldiers than hitlerites lost while capturing Paris"

© V.I. Chuikov, "Battle of the Century"

[ May 02, 2002, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: Skipper ]

[GillFish]

Gpig,

What is your opinion of the book? Is it a high level look at tactics and strategy, or does it focus on individual stories within the grand operation (David Glantz vs Cornelius Ryan)? Is it slanted toward any one side? In short, is it worth adding to my library, which currently lacks a definitive book on Stalingrad.

[Skipper]

Not worth. It's a mix of horror stories and fisherman's tales.

[RCHRD]

That mill is divided into three parts, internally, by concrete partitions. On the top floor the southern partition has a perfectly round hole about six feet in diameter, six feet up, which I was sure could only have been made by a placed charge. For me, it really brought to life the stories of German and Russian soldiers in adjacent rooms and on adjacent floors. What else could have made such a perfect breach?

[Gpig]

What is your opinion of the book? Is it a high level look at tactics and strategy, or does it focus on individual stories within the grand operation (David Glantz vs Cornelius Ryan)? Is it slanted toward any one side? In short, is it worth adding to my library, which currently lacks a definitive book on Stalingrad.

Hey Gillfish.

Well, this particular Stalingrad book (being the only one I've read) is pretty good. (Despite what Skipper says.)

It does NOT go into much detail about tactics or operational level descriptions of the battle. It is more of an entire overview of the battle, kind of like a 60 minutes documentary. (Detailed and informative enough, and still entertaining.)

There are some amazing stories, and stirring descriptions of human suffering. But there are only 3 maps, and none of the CM-level descriptions/AAR's that I was kind of hoping for.

So I'd say it's somewhere inbetween the two authors you've mentioned (though I can't say for sure, as I've read neither.)

All's I can say is that I enjoyed the read. It was not too deep, and expanded my knowledge about the battle about 99%.

Gpig

Edit: And it is DEFINITELY even-handed. Not slanted to either side in anyway. I found it very interesting to read about the high-level meddling that went on by both supreme leaders. Stalin and Hitler sort of made it their own little spat. Turned out Stalin was the one to finally put trust in his generals opinions. Hitler never clued in.

[ May 03, 2002, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Gpig ]

[GillFish]

Gpig,

Thanks for your response. FYI, Glantz has written numerous books on the Russian front. Two that come to mind are 'When Titans Clashed', a great overview of the entire Russian front, and 'The Battle of Kursk' a detailed day by day look at that famous battle. He tends to write from a 'high level' or tactical and strategic viewpoint; lots of 'on day 5, unit xyz advanced 2.3 km against determined enemy resistance'.

Cornelius Ryan writes about large events (D-day, Market Garden, the fall of Berlin) from a man-in -the-trenches point of view. I recommend both very highly. Check amazon.com or http://www.sonic.net/~bstone/index.shtml for reviews.

[Skipper]

> Well, this particular Stalingrad book (being

> the only one I've read) is pretty good.

> (Despite what Skipper says.)

I am not saying it's bad. Like I said in another thread few days ago, as medieval legend it's quite enjoyable reading. As long as you take whatever yarns the author spins with a huge grain of salt (like, divide everything by the factor of pi squared).

The question, however, can it be a definitive book on the battle. The answer is a big no - like The Ballad of Roland cannot be a definitive book about crusades.

I'd say, the best "human perspective" book I've read about Stalingrad was "In Stalingrad Dugouts" by V.Nekrasov. Written just a few years after the battle, and the author didn't care much about political correctness, and he was there from July till December, as sapper platoon commander. Finally, he was a damn good writer. Don't think it was ever translated into English though.

http://militera.lib.ru/prose/russian/nekrasov1/index.html

[Skipper]

Oh, yeah, as far as english-speaking community is concerned, it's Glantz, Glantz and Glantz.

[Londoner]

Oh Skip I think thats abit harsh mate. The research Beevor did was simply amazing, good enough for the Institiute of Strategic Studies(London) and the KCL War Studies dept to call it the most significant work by a western author concerning Stalingrad. I'd agree it could have ben more focused, but in a way thats the beauty of it IMO. You get a pretty decent operational overview of the situation(plus some spot on analysis) fleshed out with some highly orginal and well organised "horror stories". I was lucky enough to meet him when he gave a guest lecture at KCL, he is a very uncoventional historian, IRRC he doen't have any A levels let alone a degree! he's a jolly affable bloke to boot!

[ May 03, 2002, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Londoner ]

[Skipper]

> The research Beevor did was simply amazing.

Compared to what was before him - probably. On top of usual sources (Guderian, Rudel etc) the guy read some russian high school textbook, few pages from the Great Patriotic War encyclopaedia and perhaps even some divisional "Combat Page" issues.

> he is a very uncoventional historian, IRRC he

> doen't have any A levels

> he's a jolly affable bloke to boot!

Oh, I'd imagine this is probably true. Doesn;t make him a pro though.

Look, as long as the book sticks to widely known facts, it's OK. But somehow when I was readng it, on every second page or so there was something to chuckle about.

So, nevermind, the book is better than nothing, but plse don't take it for what it is not.

[The Vyrdolak]

Originally posted by GillFish:

Cornelius Ryan writes about large events (D-day, Market Garden, the fall of Berlin) from a man-in -the-trenches point of view. I recommend both very highly.

Cornelius Ryan was dying at the time he wrote "A Bridge Too Far" (1974). He died in 1976. I also recommend his books.

[Grey Hunter]

C. Ryan's books are all good, but "The Last Battle" (about the fall of Berlin) is mainly about the politics of who would take it, and how to devide the country up afterwards.

the definitive Stalingrad book in my mind is "Enemy At The Gates" by William Craig. (yep, the one they made a film about)

this book give a good overview of the battle, but is mainly told from the interviews the author made with many of the veterens, and from german records.

Antony Beevors book is more overview, and he seems to have taken his records from the Russans, who were not known to keep as accurate records.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Skipper:

I'd say, the best "human perspective" book I've read about Stalingrad was "In Stalingrad Dugouts" by V.Nekrasov. Written just a few years after the battle, and the author didn't care much about political correctness, and he was there from July till December, as sapper platoon commander. Finally, he was a damn good writer. Don't think it was ever translated into English though.

http://militera.lib.ru/prose/russian/nekrasov1/index.html

Has that maybe been translated into German at some time for the benefit of the socialist brethren in the home of the workers and peasants aka the German Democratic Republic?

[Skipper]

> Has that maybe been translated into German at

> some time for the benefit of the socialist

> brethren in the home of the workers and

> peasants aka the German Democratic Republic?

Hardly. It was not in sync with the party line at the time.

For the benefit of socialist brethren there were different books. Like, Winzеr Вrunо. Soldat In Drei Armeen. — Berlin, Verlag Der Nation, 1969.

[Skipper]

> Antony Beevors book is more overview, and he

> seems to have taken his records from the

> Russans, who were not known to keep as accurate

> records.

Apparently, Beevor used anecdotes from both sides, and never looked at real documents - daily combat reports or anything like that. Maybe he did, but it doesn't show in the book.

In the battle of Stalingrad the whole german 6th Army was encircled and eliminated. Army HQ was captured. I doubt that german records of that particular event are somehow more accurate.

Saying that soviet records are not as accurate (which is probably true, but it doesn't mean they are unusable) is, IMHO, mostly used as an excuse for not getting access to them. Since about 1989 this is a lame excuse, by the way. Central Archive of MoD is accessible to the public.

[Grey Hunter]

the Russian records tend to overestimate casulties on the German side, and are impossible to find on the Russian side.

at Kursk they claimed to have knocked out 145 Tigers, three times the number deployed to the battle, the German records state 33

thats the truth, Beevors book seemed lifless to me compared to enamy at the gates or any of C. Ryans books.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Grey Hunter:

Beevors book seemed lifless to me compared to enamy at the gates or any of C. Ryans books.

I don't think anyone would disagree with this, but bear in mind you are discussing apples and oranges. Ryan and Beevor represent two very different styles of writing - neither is "better" or "worse", just different. Both are valuable to understanding the past.

[Skipper]

> the Russian records tend to overestimate

> casulties on the German side

Usual story. German combat reports were not exemplary in that respect, either. I remember reading in some german memoir that OKW was dividing all divisional kill claims by some factor to estimate more accurately actual conditions of soviet combat formations.

> and are impossible to find on the Russian side

Impossible? Tell me more about it. There are accurate reports of soviet combat losses for almost all operations, on a daily basis. Since late 80-s they are available to public. German archives were available to public since late 40s.

> at Kursk they claimed to have knocked out 145

> Tigers, three times the number deployed to the

> battle, the German records state 33

1. See above about overestimating kill claims.

2. Ever seen "Tiger?" on the CM battlefield?

3. There is a difference between knocked out and destroyed/captured. German armor formations had outstanding recovery/repair service.

[Londoner]

Skip, unless I'm very much mistaken Beevor got access to a huge amount of Soviet AARs, previously unseen by western academics. At least thats what he told us.