Finn House Rule question

[Mark_BookGuy]

Originally posted by Montenegro
I must say, even the Finn house rules have crossed into debate land. And as far as Swedes being pissed---I am 1/4 Swedish---how could we be with all the beautiful blondes walking around...

To even think that ANY invader could occupy and conquer all the vast Russian lands en masse is impossible. In the context of Barbarossa, sure, the planning was insanely poor, the respect for the Russian will was not there, and the basic recognition of pure logistics by the German High command, specifically Hitler, was way the hell off. They almost won anyway! Hitler rolled the crazy dice thinking Stalin's own personal will was lacking---which it was in the beginning---and assumed his people and infrastructure would follow suit. Moscow was an inevitable target, for all the many reasons mentioned before. Why would you not attempt to take it with the idea that it would be more than a symbolic victory? No matter what the order of objectives, it was on the list.

As far as Directive 21, it was conceived as a blueprint for war in the East and a quite arrogant military manifesto. Did it figure in converting rail lines inside Russia to match European transport modes? No. Did it mention that the Russians had the T-34? No. As the war progressed, the Germans found out these and many other things the hard way. Yes, they bit off way more than they could chew. Yet, there was that window in '41 that they had, but Hitler opted to be a war economist (Kiev) instead of going for the jugular (Moscow AND Lenningrad). These are all what ifs, but in my book, the possibilities existed.

Regards,

Montenegro

I guess things could be worse than being known for your blondes. You could be French!:) Napoleon said the daughter of Louis XVI was the only man in the whole royal family.
Your reasoning on a German victory doesn't make sense to me. You agree the whole Barbarossa plan was "insanely poor... a quite arrogant military manifesto," and that despite the plan being wrong in all its assumptions, the Germans almost won. In other words, did the Germans almost win despite of themselves?

And what did they almost win??? Does anyone have any evidence that the Soviet government considered surrender? [Does anyone have a source for the claim Stalin sent out peace feelers? I've looked in a number of bios and foreign policy monographs and have found no evidence. Any help here?]

IMHO, I just don't buy that they came close to winning anything as long as the Russians refused to quit. If taking a huge portion of the population, land, food, factories, natural resources and beating the bejezzus out of the regular army couldn't do it, what could? How many more cities had to fall? Saratov? Stalingrad? Vladivostok?

The Entrenchment thread went on at great length over the Kiev question so I won't add anything here.

Lastly, as I mentioned in the Entrenchment thread, the claim that Stalin was out of it at the beginning of the war is probably myth. Kruschchev claimed it in his autobiography as part of the general denunciation of Stalin's "cult of personality." Otto Chaney's biography, Zhukov dismisses the stupor claim. Using the unpublished memoirs of Y.E. Chadayev (chief administartive assistant to the Council of People's Commissars) Edvard Radzinsky in Stalin shows that Stalin was in control. Indeed, Stalin may have intentionally dropped out of sight to emulate Ivan the Terrible who used disappearances and fake deaths to find out who was loyal. Stalin was absent for only two days, June 29 and 30.

Perhaps another good story ruined by the truth.

[Montenegro]

Davewolf,

The overall war, no. I think it's safe to say the A bomb could have come into the equation against Germany had situations in history turned out differently. In the East, there are a lot of what ifs I admit. I think it's merely interesting to debate these things. My gosh, scholars get paid to do this all the time. We have a multi cultural forum to do this pro bono and in no way worse for the wear. I think I learn on this board every day---both WIR and history.

Regards,

Montenegro

[Montenegro]

They almost won, in my view, because they had the men in the field to pull it off and the generals to succeed. Just imagine the alternative of Hitler not being an active solvent in the war decisions. Pure imagination without a quote or source or reference. I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when Guderian confronted him at OKH.

[Montenegro]

Originally posted by Mark_BookGuy


I guess things could be worse than being known for your blondes. You could be French!:) Napoleon said the daughter of Louis XVI was the only man in the whole royal family.
Your reasoning on a German victory doesn't make sense to me. You agree the whole Barbarossa plan was "insanely poor... a quite arrogant military manifesto," and that despite the plan being wrong in all its assumptions, the Germans almost won. In other words, did the Germans almost win despite of themselves?

And what did they almost win??? Does anyone have any evidence that the Soviet government considered surrender? [Does anyone have a source for the claim Stalin sent out peace feelers? I've looked in a number of bios and foreign policy monographs and have found no evidence. Any help here?]

IMHO, I just don't buy that they came close to winning anything as long as the Russians refused to quit. If taking a huge portion of the population, land, food, factories, natural resources and beating the bejezzus out of the regular army couldn't do it, what could? How many more cities had to fall? Saratov? Stalingrad? Vladivostok?

The Entrenchment thread went on at great length over the Kiev question so I won't add anything here.

Lastly, as I mentioned in the Entrenchment thread, the claim that Stalin was out of it at the beginning of the war is probably myth. Kruschchev claimed it in his autobiography as part of the general denunciation of Stalin's "cult of personality." Otto Chaney's biography, Zhukov dismisses the stupor claim. Using the unpublished memoirs of Y.E. Chadayev (chief administartive assistant to the Council of People's Commissars) Edvard Radzinsky in Stalin shows that Stalin was in control. Indeed, Stalin may have intentionally dropped out of sight to emulate Ivan the Terrible who used disappearances and fake deaths to find out who was loyal. Stalin was absent for only two days, June 29 and 30.

Perhaps another good story ruined by the truth.

Mark,

On Stalin surrender contemplation:

Although my VCR uncerimoniously ate my tape on the Barbarossa special aired last yr (and again earlier this yr), I will do a bit of digging via the History Channel source I got for this. For myself, I'm interested to see who was present at this meeting. I like the HC's programming, so I'll put my guarded faith in their flair for the truth vs. dramatics.

Regards,

Montenegro

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by czerpak
Hi Ed,
long time since we had anything to argue about

Uh oh, is that a warning?

Nobody was making such a claim. What I actually said was that even with Moscow taken, which happened few times before ( one can argue if 4 is many or not, but thats another issue, not relevant here) those armies still couldnt beat Russians at the end. Never said if it was easy or not.

Yes, but my point was you can't compare modern industrial warfare (WWII) with pre-industrial era warfare (1812).

Polish problem with Russia was mainly we did underestimate them for a long time ( being busy with fighting everybody else who was in range and not being able to use wins to our advantage) and latter it was too late.

LOL!

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Mark_BookGuy

As long as Ivan would not give up (with or without Stalin or some other government) then the loss of Leningrad, Moscow, Kiev, Minsk, Smolensk, Rostov etc ultimately did not matter.

Here lies quicksand. It boils down to what you think Stalin would have done if he did lose all those cities you list. My belief is that short of some massive intervention from outside (perhaps the US?), the USSR would be rendered too weak by the loss of those cities (and all those resources) above to defend itself against further offensives by the Germans in '42 and '43, leading inevitably to a surrender or an outright military collapse.

[jontegrabben]

Hey Mark_BookGuy!

Of course we are still pissed! But thats how it goes when you have a "rommel-leader" like Charles XII!!!!

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Montenegro
To even think that ANY invader could occupy and conquer all the vast Russian lands en masse is impossible.

Why not? Germany doesn't have to occupy every square mile of the USSR. Much of the Soviet Union's population, resources and industry were west of the Urals. If the Germans could have reached the industrial belt just east of the Urals, the USSR would have collapsed because it would have, at this point, lost all of its industrial capacity. The eastern two thirds of the USSR was largely wilderness and could be essentially ignored for military purposes. The Soviets already stripped the Soviet Army in the east to reinforce Moscow in the Winter of '41, there simply wasn't enough forces left out there to make a difference in the west.

Oh boy, I've really stuck my neck out this time.

[czerpak]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn



Uh oh, is that a warning?

Are you kidding ? How can poor trooper warn a BIG MATRIX HERO ?

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir
Give me ONE FACT that says Me 'COULD NOT' produce the FW190.

Bye

Loki

I find your arguments to be pure sophistry.

[Montenegro]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn



Why not? Germany doesn't have to occupy every square mile of the USSR. Much of the Soviet Union's population, resources and industry were west of the Urals. If the Germans could have reached the industrial belt just east of the Urals, the USSR would have collapsed because it would have, at this point, lost all of its industrial capacity. The eastern two thirds of the USSR was largely wilderness and could be essentially ignored for military purposes. The Soviets already stripped the Soviet Army in the east to reinforce Moscow in the Winter of '41, there simply wasn't enough forces left out there to make a difference in the west.

Oh boy, I've really stuck my neck out this time.

Ed,

Well I wont lop it off. You've been very helpful with my WIR questions.

I just wanted to illustrate the point that it would be difficult to occupy all of Russia, but as you mentioned, what more would Germany have needed by then? Certainly Baku and the Caucus region would have to fall. I'm of the steadfast opinion that not driving on Moscow in Aug '41 was a mistake. It MAY have altered the course of the war in the East and certainly would have been a blow to Stalin.

Regards,

Montenegro

[Jeremy Pritchard]

The loss of Moscow would have cut the North-South route of troop redeployment that was so important in winning at Stalingrad. It is quite possible that Moscow of 1941 could be exactly like Stalingrad of 1942 (instead of having their line retreat, they would be forced to stand at Moscow, resulting in possibly an even worse defeat then at Stalingrad).

However, this is just pure conjecture on all parts. The Germans never got to Moscow, so the situation could never come to pass. Many things happen that were not expected. Possibly the fall of Moscow could have raised Russian morale and hopes to drive out the Germans, or it could have possibly destroyed morale completely and led to another set of purges. Both of these are entirely possible.

Back to the important part of the thread, historically changing production...

Messerschmit did have a lot of political clout, as in the late 1930's when Germany was looking for a main fighter aircraft, Messerschmit beat out Heinkel, even though Heinkel had the better aircraft (faster, more manoverable, heavily armed, longer ranged). This was primarily due to politics. It is also why the Me109 remained in production. However, like the Spitfire, the Me109 remained in production primarily because it was a good aircraft, and capable of being improved.

It also takes a lot of time to change a production line from one version of aircraft to another. Stopping all Me109 production would have crippled the Luftwaffe during this period as replacements for lost Me109s could not be fulfilled, and FW 190 production would not be high enough to compensate until it was too late. The Luftwaffe would have lost air superiority in 1943 instead of 1944. As WIR stands it is too easy to change production from one type to another. The game sees the Me109E changing to Me109G/FW 190A as exactly the same, when in reality changing a factory to Me109G would result in a much shorter and less destructive transition time, as much of the equipment is similar, along with the production method.

The same thing goes for tanks. You could not switch over a factory producing Pz II's, to be producing Panthers. Everything in the factory would have to be gutted first, then totally new equipment installed.

This is also what bugs me about aircraft group transfers and loss of experience. Air Groups should lose more experience when switching to a totally unfamilair aircraft (i.e., Me109E to FW 190A) then switching to an upgrade (i.e., Me109E to Me109G).


However, historically the FW 190 did overtake the Me109 in production and useage. However, it was done over a long period of time, and the Me109 was never totally phased out. Does this mean that players cannot remove the Me109? If so, then the Russians should be limited in their use of aircraft as well. If they historically used a certain number of MiG 1's, then should not they be limited to using that number? Where is the fun in that? However, some people might see the game as more challenging in using what WAS historically available, and trying to win with that, while others might want to use every tool available in which to win (with the exception of cheating! ).

So, there should be a rule that ALL aircraft types are limited in numbers due to history, not just the Me109. Otherwize, why limit one side/type without limiting the others to the same restrictions?

Possibly this rule should be that the players are NOT allowed to touch a SINGLE bit of production (i.e., you cannot change what factories are producing) as well as not being able to change a single unit in any air group or tank regiment (only allowing the automatic computer upgrades for Air Groups, Tank Regiments, and Factories). Otherwize, limiting only portions to follow history would not be fair (in my mind, all or nothing!)

[czerpak]

Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard


It also takes a lot of time to change a production line from one version of aircraft to another. Stopping all Me109 production would have crippled the Luftwaffe during this period as replacements for lost Me109s could not be fulfilled, and FW 190 production would not be high enough to compensate until it was too late.

It partially happens when you change whole production in the game. But it is not as devastating as it would be in reality

This is also what bugs me about aircraft group transfers and loss of experience. Air Groups should lose more experience when switching to a totally unfamilair aircraft (i.e., Me109E to FW 190A) then switching to an upgrade (i.e., Me109E to Me109G).

True, it was brought up here before. AFAIK not possible because of WiR limitations, right Ed ?

The same thing goes for tanks. You could not switch over a factory producing Pz II's, to be producing Panthers. Everything in the factory would have to be gutted first, then totally new equipment installed.

True, but does it mean it is impossible ?

In general I support idea of players agree before play if production should be left under computer controll. If not, then players are entitled to change production as they wish.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

I don't think that people are arguing against possibility of things happening, just lack of penalty for these changes.

Sure, a factory could change from PzII to Tiger I, but the game does not penalty the player that reality would have. This is why house rules are implemented. To cover what the game does/can not. It was possible, but is not possible to correctly replicate in the game.

In actuality, I think that everyone is in agreement here. Either you can change everything, or should not change anything. It does go both ways for both sides (each nation has their lemons!)

[Bernard]

There are some interesting points here.
just let me put a few stones.
1. Elefants in Kursk : this is interesting to note that a lot of people still think they were badly used.
Actaully, Elefant in Kursk were of the firts type (calledd Ferdinand) and were nothing more than an adapatation of some frames that weren't ok for Tiger production). Most of the losses of Ferdinand were mechanical failures. they were mostly well used in long range gunnery (and in this respect, didn't need machinegun protection, abeit this could be a plus).
2. taking Moscow and win or not is also interesting. Of course Hitler's plan was not the best but you forget some points :
- war between Germany and Russia was inevitable (they were bot in for dominating the world Stalin did succed fairly well in the end, dominating half Europe). I personlay don't think Moscow fall wouldn't ended the war, but put Hitler in a much better position. He still neded oil from caucasus.
- Allied help (lend lease etc) : does really anyone think it had a key role ? it surely helped but what was the percentage of allied tanks in russians divisions ???
- USSR was unprepared for the war in 1941 : Stalin had killed or imprisoned most of the officers (like 90% of Marcechals, 100% of top Admirals etc), material was **** and badly maintained (how many percent of the total number of planes and tanks were able to fly or roll ?.
- Stalin was a real butcher, not really liked in Russia, and USSR could really have collapsed, if Hitler hadn't been so racist and had trated Ukraine and other USSR provinces better. In the beginning, a lot of russian troops surrendered and a lot of inhabitants of towns conquered considered themselves as "freed" (Ukraine, for one, lost MILLIONS of dead thanks to Stalin starvation policy in mid 20's).
- what made Hitler lose was of course some flaws but surely his hatred of Slavs that made everybody turn against him and enabled Stalin to be seen as the only hope (some kind of lesser Satan.) With that and Stalin reverting to defending the Rodina instead of the soviets, allowing people to go to church a little bit more freely tec made him look like the only alternative. This is why Russians fought back with all strenght and didn't surredner anymore "en masse" after 42. (this and the fact that 1 out of 5-6 prisoner of war survived the camps, I guess didn't make you volunteer for surrender - on both sides).

Back to the thread :
US planes were produced in different locations, different companies - you'll know better than me, so I won't go into details but a lot of Wildcats, helcats and mustangs etc were produced eleswhere than in their other companies. Canada produced Shermans (and Kangaroos) whose designs they didn't invent. So why the same wouldn't happen in germany ? A counntry whose reputation is base among others on discipline, organisation, procedure and highly skilled workers and white collars couldn't do the same?
PzII switching to Tigers is impossible ? what did they do ? remained producing PzII ?

Disruption in production has more to do with politics.
Heinkel HE something were indeed promising better than Bf 109 in 193+ (Bayerisch Flugzeugwerke not Messeerchmidt, that name came later in the war when Willy took over).

Best regards.

[Preuss]

You're talking about the He-100, I believe. A fast and truly aerodynamic machine. It used a system where the wing surfaces were used to cool engine fluids..insteade of bulky, drag creating radiators. I'm not really sure how it worked but would love to see some detailed production diagrams. The He-100 was 47 mph faster that the Bf-109 E4 when it was produced.
I've never found any mention of handling characteristics...but would love to see them, too.
Although politics came into the decision not to build this aircraft, we shouldn't foirget that Heinkel was a huge company with some clout, I'm sure. Their factory at Oberursel was supposed to be the largest in Germany.
The RLM (Reichluftministerum) (spelling?) has been described as a 'rabbit warren' of colonels and other functionaries too full of bureacracy and not very effective in procuring for Germany the best weapons possible. So without documentation...I'm gonna hold out on my vote as to why the He-100 didn't go into production. A large part of me believes though, that extra piping and structures in the wing surfaces would have been a nightmare for the frontline aircraft mechanics.

Cheers!

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
Possibly this rule should be that the players are NOT allowed to touch a SINGLE bit of production (i.e., you cannot change what factories are producing) as well as not being able to change a single unit in any air group or tank regiment (only allowing the automatic computer upgrades for Air Groups, Tank Regiments, and Factories). Otherwize, limiting only portions to follow history would not be fair (in my mind, all or nothing!)

That may be the easiest way to make the rule, but not the most likely rule to be used because it appears to me that a lot of us want to make small, minor changes like shifting a few Stug factories to tanks or an ME factory to FW or all but one T70 factory to T34, but not change the essentals, i.e. ME, Stugs, and T70s are still used. In this case everyone has their own idea about what is reasonable or not. I may prefer to shift only a few Stug factories whereas someone else thinks its reasonable to shift all but one factory. We'd end up having to "research" every category. We might find, for example, that the historical record shows us the Stugs had a high priority right up there with ME aircraft, meaning any shift in Stug factories might be seen as unreasonable. I just don't think one house rule, no matter how its written, will cover this issue to everyone's satisfaction.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Montenegro

I just wanted to illustrate the point that it would be difficult to occupy all of Russia, but as you mentioned, what more would Germany have needed by then?

My opinion is all they needed to take was Moscow. That would have basically lead to a cutoff of all forces north of Moscow (no east-west railroads north of Moscow to keep large Soviet forces in supply), the collapse of aid from Murmansk, and the inevitable fall of Leningrad. The Germans can now concentrate their forces in the center, dig in for the winter and finish the USSR off in '42, regardless of how Stalin handled the loss of Moscow. Like Jeremy said though, this is all conjecture, and doesn't take into account the morale of the Soviets, and what the US/Britian may have done to help the Soviets. For all I know, the Soviets. in smaller numbers, may have continued to fight on indefinitely in the East supported by Western aid coming into Vladivostok, but could they beat the Germans in this case after being driven back so far and losing so much? I don't think so.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by czerpak


Are you kidding ? How can poor trooper warn a BIG MATRIX HERO ?

Actually I should have closer to 2,000 posts, they chopped off my numbers when they had those system problems a few months ago. Don't sweat it though, all you need is a big mouth like me and you'll be a hero in no time at all.

[Ed Cogburn]

This is also what bugs me about aircraft group transfers and loss of experience. Air Groups should lose more experience when switching to a totally unfamilair aircraft (i.e., Me109E to FW 190A) then switching to an upgrade (i.e., Me109E to Me109G).

Originally posted by czerpak
True, it was brought up here before. AFAIK not possible because of WiR limitations, right Ed ?

No, we've talked with Arnuad about this before, its #5 on our issues list. We can put them on the list, but we can't guaranttee Arnaud will do anything about them.