To TheHumanMage Re: Leningrad

[Inigo Montoya]

TheHumanMage seems displeased with the scenario descriptions for the Leningrad scenarios. Let us review them and see if there are any areas we as a group agree need adjustment.

Leningrad 1942:

"On 8 September, 1941, the German offensive code named “Barbarossa” reached the outskirts of Leningrad. What was to transpire was one of the most horrid chapters of World War Two. The inhabitants of Leningrad not only endured what can only be described as massive bombing and artillery barrages, but also faced a cruel fate of starvation and conditions that were so cold, it’s a wonder anyone survived."

I cannot see anything in this introduction one might find fault with.

QUESTION #1 for TheHumanMage: Do you agree the introduction for Leningrad 1942 is perfectly acceptable?

Leningrad 1943:

"The siege of Leningrad continued throughout 1943. The Wehrmacht was suffering from shortages and the bitter elements, but it was nowhere near the extreme conditions the people trapped in Leningrad were going through. There were a few things that made life more tolerable, including a road of ice that during winter was the primary form of re-supply. The rest of the year ships brought in needed relief.

By this time, the Soviet pilots were getting more numerous and much better in combat. The Germans on the otherhand while still excellent were becoming fatigued and were having much more difficulty in replacing quality pilots and aircraft.

By the end of 1943 the Soviets would start to exact their revenge…"

The only area of contention I can foresee here is the second paragraph where it says the Soviet pilots were getting more numerous. I personally believe this is unassailable, but I can see why TheHumanMage might be confused. I interpret the phrase "more numerous" to mean "the Soviet pilots were increasing their numbers over the number of Soviet pilots flying the previous year." There's really no room for debate about this fact. Numbers are numbers and facts are facts. On the other hand, if one argues that "more numerous" means "the Soviet pilots outnumbered the German pilots at this time" then perhaps someone can look up the numbers and prove or disprove this.

QUESTION #2 for TheHumanMage: Are you interpreting "more numerous" to mean a) more than previously or more than the Germans at that time?

QUESTION #3 for TheHumanMage: Other than the phrase "more numerous," do you agree the introduction for Leningrad 1943 is perfectly acceptable?

Leningrad 1944:

"With the siege lifted in January 1944, the Soviets were now on the offensive. The retreating Germans not only had to deal with the crushing numbers the Soviets were throwing at them, but also the unforgiving winter with equipment that wasn’t designed for such harsh conditions.

The Luftwaffe, while still superior in pilot skill and better quality aircraft, would eventually succumb to the massive onslaught that the V-VS was unleashing. In the year that followed, the Germans would not only be pushed out of Russia, but would also realize that they had lost the war and were now going to be the ones under siege."

From our prior posting/conversations, it seems you are now willing to admit there is nothing wrong with this introduction, so at least we've come to a consensus on that.

Please answer questions 1, 2 and 3 and we can begin to sort out any remaining differences on this topic.

[TheHumanMage]

"By this time, the Soviet pilots were getting more numerous" During winter 42-43 the Luftwaffe still heavily outnumbered the VVS

The Wehrmacht was suffering from shortages and the bitter elements WRONG!

The Wermacht during 42-43 was very very very very very prepard for winter they had gone to the HARD school the last year and did not make the same mistake twice

The Wermacht still had many times more men and material AVALIBLE to them and many times more FOOD so any shortages they suffered are still less then the Soviets since the Soviets were low on everything except death

"but also the unforgiving winter with equipment that wasn’t designed for such harsh conditions.

" WRONG

Upgrades and adoptations had been made by winter 43-44 many new planes have been designed and produced the winter played ZERO part it affected the Soviets more then it did the Germans

"while still superior in pilot skill and better quality aircraft"

Also wrong by winter 43-44 The Soviets had equall to or better pilots and equallt to or better planes

There was no RUSSIA there was only the Soviet Union, Russia was one out of 15 Soviet republics

[Inigo Montoya]

So to answer the three questions for you:

-1942-

#1) You agree the introduction for Leningrad 1942 is perfectly acceptable.

-1943-

#2) You are choosing to interpret "more numerous" to mean "more than the Germans at that time." You are confused about the meaning of this sentence and nothing needs to be changed.

#3) You have two complaints about the second sentence in the introduction to Leningrad 1943. To wit:

a) You disagree with phrase "The Wehrmacht was suffering from shortages" You assert the Wehrmacht was not suffering from shortages because they may have had more supplies than the Soviets. While that assertion is debatable, it matters not. The Wehrmacht *was* suffering from shortages. Fact: any occupying army in the history of the world suffered shortages. Let's say I'm short $100 on my rent this month and you are short $200 on your rent for the month. By your analysis, I'm NOT short on my rent because I am experiencing less of a shortage than you are. That is illogical. The truth is, we are both short. Similarly, both the Germans and Soviets experienced shortages. I don't think a change needs to be made here.

You disagree with phrase "The Wehrmacht was suffering from... the bitter elements..." You assert the Wehrmacht was "very very very very very prepard for winter they had gone to the HARD school the last year and did not make the same mistake twice." It will take more than five very's to prove your claim that the Germans didn't suffer from the bitter elements. I am willing to agree to disagree with you here. I am fairly confident you won't get a single other poster to agree with you on this point, but if you do, I will then begin to debate it with you. Until that happens, the consensus remains the Germans *did* suffer from the bitter elements in 1943.

-1944-

You write, "Upgrades and adoptations had been made by winter 43-44 many new planes have been designed and produced the winter played ZERO part it affected the Soviets more then it did the Germans." Let's say the Germans did indeed produce a miracle plane completely unaffected by the Soviet winter. Still, the Germans were using plenty of other equipment which was affected by the winter. For example, a portion of the German logistical supply line was horse drawn wagons. The fact that the Germans had halftracks which helped support a portion of the supply line and were better equipped to operate in the winter does not negate that the horse drawn wagons carrying supply to airbases were indeed affected by the unforgiving winter. If logistics are in anyway affected, the operational strength of your fighting force declines. There is not enough ammunition or fuel for your planes. Although Germany may have had enough food or heavy winter coats, they couldn't deliver everything needed in winter. Your claim the winter played ZERO part demonstrates ignorance. To be blunt, it is preposterous. You know nothing of war if that is your position.

You contest the phrase, "while still superior in pilot skill and better quality aircraft..." This may actually be your strongest point yet. I do not actually know the truth in this matter and would appreciate input from others in this regard.

You write, "There was no RUSSIA there was only the Soviet Union, Russia was one out of 15 Soviet republics." Russia was part of the Soviet Union. There still was a Russia, just as there was Ukraine, Georgia, Siberia, etc. Thus, the phrase, "...the Germans would not only be pushed out of Russia..." still makes sense and does not need to be changed.

[ September 26, 2006, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Inigo Montoya ]

[Sixxkiller]

Mr Montoya wrote,

You contest the phrase, "while still superior in pilot skill and better quality aircraft..." This may actually be your strongest point yet. I do not actually know the truth in this matter and would appreciate input from others in this regard.

The Germans were much better in skill and the planes were a far cry better than the Soviets. The campaign actually reflects this in 42 and 43 with the Soviets catching up a bit in 44. If only this guy would play a campaign to see this.....

[TheHumanMage]

Inigo Montoya Stop puting words in my mouth by defacto i dont agree with anything you said

No the leningrad 1942 is not pefectly fine because were is the mention that the Lufftwaffe was 3 times bigger then the VVS And vastly nummericaly outnumered the VVS

And to asume that German pilots were better is wrong when fact is fact even though the Luftwaffe outnumered the VVS by 3 to 1 over Leningrad Losses are comparable

So when the VVS outnumbers the Luftwaffe and the Luftwaffe is crushed then it is only because of Soviet ant numbers but when the Luftwaffe outnumbers the Soviets 3 to 1 and fails to inflict more then equall losses then there is no mention of Soviet skill

The whole text is geard wrong because it plays on history as told by losers of the soviet ant theory

But fact is fact the Germans had more Nataurla resources and Labour and what ever shortages they suffered was still less the the Soviets. The whole text just plays on that the only reason why the Germans lost was because it is winter minus 50 C every day in "russia" and that the "russians" only one because they were able to send in billions of men Vs thousands of Germans.

The germans were pushed out of "russia" in 1943 and out of the Soviet Union in 44

And Sixxkiller No the Germans did not have better pilots but did have some beter planes but this was just because German Natural resources outnumbers the Soviets by 5 to 1! Do you see that the Axis had mroe then 5 times aluminium then the Soviets do you see that?

Coal (million tonnes)

1941 315.5 - 151.4

1942 317.9 - 75.5

1943 340.4 - 93.1

1944 347.6 - 121.5

Steel (million tonnes)

1941 28.2 - 17.9

1942 28.7 - 8.1

1943 30.6 - 8.5

1944 25.8 - 10.9

Aluminium (thousand tonnes)

1941 233.6 - –

1942 264.0 - 51.7

1943 250.0 - 62.3

1944 245.3 - 82.7

Labour

1941 16,400,000 - 11,000,000

1942 16,200,000 - 7,250,000

1943 16,800,000 - 7,700,000

1944 18,000,000 - 9,000,000

[Inigo Montoya]

TheHumanMage,

You are beyond comprehension. Many of us have tried to provide enlightenment to you, but your mind is closed up tight. You do not allow light to enter and sweep clean your misconceptions. You are lost to us and I pity you. Socrates said the first step to wisdom is admitting your ignorance. In regards to this topic, you are never going to achieve wisdom. You will persist in your view that the winter weather in the Soviet Union only affected the Germans in 1942. You will persist in your view that the Soviet forces were not numerous. You will persist in your view that the Wehrmacht was not suffering from shortages after 1942. Sixxkiller, Stalin's Organist, Rune, Zanadu, Rastakyle(rastak), Lakespeed, and I have all tried to point out your errors in reasoning. You seem incapable of admitting you are wrong on anything so you are not worth my time. I am forced to ignore any further postings from you.

Civilly,

The Bride

[TheHumanMage]

Yes they were not numerous this has been proven by fact.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/soviet_german_war_01.shtml

It is the history of the losers that has been told but fact is fact the Germans outnumberd the Soviets untill 1943 this is fact do you understand it is you who are ignorant who refuses to understand this.

It were the Axis who had numerous vastly times more natural resources but failed to match Soviet production this you ignore and choose not remark upon because it does not fit your ant theory

For example By Richard Over when he wrote to for the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/soviet_german_war_01.shtml

The idea that the USSR had limitless manpower, despite its heavy losses, is inadequate as an answer. Germany and her allies also possessed a large population, and added to it the peoples of the captured Soviet areas - men and women who were forced to work for the German army or were shipped back to work in the Reich. Soviet armies were always desperately short of men.

Nor did the USSR enjoy an advantage in economic resources. After the German attack, Soviet steel production fell to eight million tons in 1942, while German production was 28 million tons. In the same year, Soviet coal output was 75 million tons, while German output was 317 million. The USSR nevertheless out-produced Germany in the quantity (though seldom in the quality) of most major weapons, from this much smaller industrial base

You can not argue with this so ofcurse you call me ignorant when it is you who are ignorant.

You are the one incapable of admitting you are wrong on anything so you are not worth my time. And now when I have proven that you are wrong you run away and cry.

You ignore what Prof Overy says because it does not Fit your ant thoery you can not argue with it so ofcurse you will not argue at all because this above all else proves that you have been wrong in everything you have ever done in your life and everything that you will ever do.

[ September 27, 2006, 06:27 AM: Message edited by: TheHumanMage ]

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by TheHumanMage:

Yes they were not numerous this has been proven by fact.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/soviet_german_war_01.shtml

That source says nothing at all about the relative numbers of combatants on land, sea or air.

Certainly it makes a point of the Axis's greater production of raw materials, as you have repeated as nauseum.

but then the Axis was not fighting against the Soviet union alone.

To compare the Axis's production to the Soviet unions is not valid - not even comparing Germany's to the Soviet Union is valid.

You need to compare the totals on both sides.

The Soviets received an awful lot of material from the Western Allies for example - 230,000 tons of Aluminium and Aluminium alloys, 300,000 tons of Brass, 100,000 tons of copper, hundreds of tons of trace alloying elements such as zirconium and manganese, thousands of tons of nickel, over 500,000 tons of steel (I haven't totaled it - looks like it may be as much as 2 billion pounds - almost 1 million tons - including various "iron" materials and types of wire), and lots, lots more.

A list taken from Russian manifests is available at this site. . Note the site author seems to have a beef against lend-lease.

[TheHumanMage]

Stalin lend lease didnt kick in for real untill late 42 early 43

Before that only 8 shipments had arrived which added very little to the balance

During 1941 and 1942 the Soviets stod alone in production VS Axis production

And the numbers I have posted are of only Germany to get full axis vs the Soviets you need to factor in Hungarian And Romanian production as well by the way both countries Gave around 1 million soldiers each towards the Soviets

And even when you factor in lend lease which only kicked in for real during mid 1943 the combined effect is still many times less then German Production numbers

[Guest Mike]

I am pretty sure the British Comonwealth was still fighting the Germans in 1941, and the US joined in late 41 - didn't they help invade Nth Africe in 1942?

Certainly lend lease was better in 42 and 43 - did I ever say anything else?

but that's still with 2-3 years of war to go, and the materials are still sent, received and used.

Raw material production is unimportant - you have yourself said that he Soviets produced more than the Axis - even if they did have less of many raw materials.

It is guns and tanks and planes and ammunition that is important - and oil - and you admit that the Soviets had more of all of these.

So yet AGAIN - what is your point?

[Guest Mike]

Oh and just to point out the effect that lend lease even from 1943 had....that was when the Soviets started designing their a/c with a lot more aluminium replacing he wood of earlier years.

The Yak-9U and the La-7 are both examples of this - existing airframes rebuilt (and cleaned up a bit for the La-7) with aluminium replacing wood, resulting in better performance. Other examples of increased us of aluminium in aircraft production are the Tu-2 (viz the Pe-2), and the Il-10 viz the Il-2.

Lack of Aluminium isn't so important when you can design good a/c without using much of it. Lack of coal doesn't matter if you have enough oil. Lack of iron ore doesn't matter if you are not building a lot of ships/u-boats and you use all you do have on tanks and guns.

[TheHumanMage]

My point that you miss is that the Axis chose to build high cost expensive items

The Soviets built cheap and chearfull low cost items

The axis built very expensive items the soviets built very cheap items

If the Germans would have built the exact same items as the Soviets then the Germans would have had 5 times as many items as the Soviets

That is why the Germans were able to inflict more casulties because they built many times more expensive items

BUT the cost in producing the expensive items did not match the kill ratio the items provided!

So the axis wasted their resources

[ September 28, 2006, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: TheHumanMage ]

[Guest Mike]

OK - so what has that got to do with down in Flames and your criticism of the campaign introductions?

Edit:

does anyone have info on exchange rates in WW2? the cost of a T34 is given in wikipedia , and I'm pretty sure I've seen the costs of Panthers, tigers & Mk IV's published somewhere too in Reichmarks & I'm wondering how they actually compare?

Edit again:

The average cost of a Tiger was 250,000 Reichsmarks. In comparison, a PzKpfw III cost RM 96,200, a PzKpfw IV RM 103,500, and a PzKpfw V Panther RM 117,000; all these figures are exclusive of weapons and radios. The Tiger cost $100,000 in 1941 U.S. dollars. Adjusted for inflation, a Tiger I today would cost approximately $1,282,051. By comparison, the United States current M1A1 Abrams tank costs $4,300,000.

From http://www.alanhamby.com/history.html

I'd be interested in the exchange rate between Reichmarks & Roubles ....the cost of the T34/85 was about 130-160,000 roubles in 1944-45, the 76 was somewhat cheaper. In 1941 the T34/76 cost about 250,000 roubles AFAIK.

Edit again again - found US-German exchange rates for 1941 (to June) at http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/bms2/page/265/60/download/265.pdf

Still looking for any Soviet ones.....

[ September 28, 2006, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[TheHumanMage]

You cant compare in money!

money meant nothing back then

You need to compare in materials spent in kilograms and man hours spent to build and item

This is how you compare cost

You look how many kilograms, Steal, Coal, Iron, etc went into an item

Then you look how many hours were spent on building that item

Only then do you have a real comparison, comparing in money means nothing

Comparing in money means absolutely ****

Why dont you compare how much a car costs to buy in France and then compare that very same car to how much it costs to buy in china

comparing in money means nothing!

[ September 28, 2006, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: TheHumanMage ]

[Guest Mike]

you are the one who saud the Axis built "high COST expensive items"........what else could you mean except money?

A 25 ton Pz 4 has about as much iron as a 25 ton T34 - the resources are the same - a 45 ton Panther has 80% more iron than both (roughly) - that is simple......

Now why don't you stop swearing and answer the question - what has it got to do with Down in Flames?

[TheHumanMage]

No a PZ 4 is many times more expensive in materials you need to look at all items

The engine the gun the track the shells the wheels etc

Then you also need to look at hours spent

Same things goes for air craft and that is what it has to do with down in flames

You need to compare how many hours an air craft took to build and how many kilograms of different materials went into it

And you need to calculate total man hours includeing how much it took to build every piece such as the engine the guns and so on

Only then can you compare costs

[Sixxkiller]

Well lets see, I used a Remmington M24 when I was in the Army and it costs about 1/20th to produce as another rifle I used, the M82A1. Oddly it still killed even though its effective range is only 2/3rds of the pricer one. And the bullets are about 1/50th of the same price....

Originally posted by TheHumanMage:

My point that you miss is that the Axis chose to build high cost expensive items

The Soviets built cheap and chearfull low cost items

The axis built very expensive items the soviets built very cheap items

If the Germans would have built the eact same items as the Soviets then the Germans would have had 5 times as many items as the Soviets

That is why the Germans were able to inflict more casulties because they built many times more expensive items

BUT the cost in producing the expensive items did not match the kill ratio the items provided!

So the axis wasted their resources

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by TheHumanMage:

No a PZ 4 is many times more expensive in materials you need to look at all items

The engine the gun the track the shells the wheels etc

They all add up to 25 tons of iron - or are you saying 25 tons of Soviet iron isn't the same as 25 tons of German iron?

Then you also need to look at hours spent

which COST MONEY to pay, feed and nhouse people to perform oddly enough.....

Same things goes for air craft and that is what it has to do with down in flames

You need to compare how many hours an air craft took to build and how many kilograms of different materials went into it

And you need to calculate total man hours includeing how much it took to build every piece such as the engine the guns and so on

Only then can you compare costs

And so what?

What has this got to do with Down in Flames? Sure it applies to aircraft too.......but bloody hell I am at eh end - I can't be bothered any more - you are rude, offensive, you will not answer questions, you post truckloads of irrelevant stuff, and I am sick and bloody tired of being polite!

offensive commetn deleted

[ September 28, 2006, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[TheHumanMage]

Stalin's Organist the conversation has since long ago mutated far away from down in flames sorry if you have gotten pissed off

Money between 2 countries can never be compared only hours spent.

Compare prices between 2 countries today for the exact same product and you will see major differences.

Sixxkiller

Sixxkiller ofcurse it can still kill that is the whole point which you are missing

There comes a time and a place when it is better just to build a new item then continue to improve the same item

That is what the Soviets understod and the Germans Faild to understand

What you sixxkiller have done is take high cost german aircraft and then compared kill ratios with low cost soviet air craft and come to the conclusion that german pilots were btter.

It would be the same if I took M82A1 and compared them with M24 and then said well the M82A1 inflicted more hits so the user of the M82A1 must be better then the user of the M24 just because the user of the M82A1 inflicted more hits. Ignoreing the fact that the M82A1 cost many times more!

The question you need to ask yourself is:

Is 1 M82A1 better then 20 M24?

Finally you sixxkiller understand that you cant compare high cost items with low cost items!

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by TheHumanMage:

Stalin's Organist the conversation has since long ago mutated far away from down in flames

Then take it to an appropriate forum!!

[TheHumanMage]

Dont worry, be happy