Operation Barbarossa

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Operation Barbarossa

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: nate25

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

ORIGINAL: nate25

Ah, the S.A.I. 207. All wood construction, fast, well armed . . . if only Italy would've had one more year. [:)]


An airplane made of wood? I never knew such a thing existed. [X(]

There was quite a lot of it during the World Wars. Initially most aircraft were wood and fabric, later it became a matter of saving strategic materials. [:)]

The Mosquito, for example, was mostly wood. Good aircraft, too.
Warspite1

Good aircraft? Oh natester (shakes head) - the Wooden Wonder [&o][&o] was, if I may make so bold, the dogs dangly bits [;)]
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Lieste
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:50 am

RE: Operation Barbarossa

Post by Lieste »

Hell yeah! Wood is a fantastic structural material. Unlike metal which tears from a small crack propagating, wood cared for properly (i.e. don't deploy Mosquitos to the Far East) will resist damage and wear much better. It is also lighter for it's strength than most materials, the only disadvantage being relative bulkiness and skill required to work it.

Most Soviet fighters had plywood (or their weird Shpon - which being resin impregnated was much heavier and also more brittle/less damage resistant than normal structural plywood in the Mossie etc. I think the Mosquito also used Balsa as a component of the ply-sandwich to add thickness and thus stiffness without as much weight.)
User avatar
nate25
Posts: 1190
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:17 pm
Location: Fishers Indiana

RE: Operation Barbarossa

Post by nate25 »

My favorites are the FB marks, but my mostest favorite is the B.IV, purely a fast bomber. [:)]
I have a subtle and cunning plan.
Lieste
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:50 am

RE: Operation Barbarossa

Post by Lieste »

..Forum hiccup
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Operation Barbarossa

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Lieste

I was (mistakenly) thinking of Glorious, which was Norway (right area, wrong purpose and year).

However we did have two carrier casualties from the Russian Convoys - Dasher (lost during working up in UK immediately after repairs) & Nabob (damaged and laid up - scrapped).

Also other losses in NA convoy escort.

It might not be easily quantifiable, but the opportunity cost of any operation is an important - no ...vital consideration.
Warspite1

Lieste! Nabob was damaged during the Operation Goodwood strike against Tirpitz and as you say, Dasher was sunk due to an internal explosion in the UK!

I think you are mixing two issues

a) what was the received / lost % - which is straightforward; what was lost / what was sent - this is simple maths.
b) the cost of an operation(s) or campaign given the advantage you are seeking to gain. This is subjective and depends on a whole host of factors - not least of which is to what extent you can take losses in pursuit of your objective. As I say, in the case of the Arctic convoys, that was for the British/Americans to decide - the Russians couldn't care less so long as they got their supplies. 1% is total and utter nonsense.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
parusski
Posts: 4789
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Jackson Tn
Contact:

RE: Operation Barbarossa

Post by parusski »

mostly wood

HUHHUUUHU You said "WOOD"!!
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman
User avatar
nate25
Posts: 1190
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:17 pm
Location: Fishers Indiana

RE: Operation Barbarossa

Post by nate25 »

HMMMHMMHMMM YEAH HMMHMMMM
I have a subtle and cunning plan.
User avatar
parusski
Posts: 4789
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Jackson Tn
Contact:

RE: Operation Barbarossa

Post by parusski »

ORIGINAL: nate25

HMMMHMMHMMM YEAH HMMHMMMM

A photo of warspite1 and nate25



Image
Attachments
beavis_and..dbanging.gif
beavis_and..dbanging.gif (21.76 KiB) Viewed 136 times
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Operation Barbarossa

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: parusski

ORIGINAL: nate25

HMMMHMMHMMM YEAH HMMHMMMM

A photo of warspite1 and nate25



Image
Warspite1

Yeah - I heard nate was AC/DC (allegedly)
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Operation Barbarossa

Post by warspite1 »

Anyways - can we get back to the subject in hand please?

(snigger, snigger, pfnarr, pfnarr)
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
nate25
Posts: 1190
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:17 pm
Location: Fishers Indiana

RE: Operation Barbarossa

Post by nate25 »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: parusski

ORIGINAL: nate25

HMMMHMMHMMM YEAH HMMHMMMM

A photo of warspite1 and nate25



Image
Warspite1

Yeah - I heard nate was AC/DC (allegedly)

Well, it is true I enjoy both AC/DC and Metallica. But I can assure you my current does not alternate.
I have a subtle and cunning plan.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Operation Barbarossa

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: nate25

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: parusski




A photo of warspite1 and nate25



Image
Warspite1

Yeah - I heard nate was AC/DC (allegedly)

Well, it is true I enjoy both AC/DC and Metallica. But I can assure you my current does not alternate.
Warspite1

[:)]
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Operation Barbarossa

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

I am currently reading Operation Barbarossa. One thing I am not clear on is why Hitler attacked Russia in the first place. If anyone can enlighten me I'd be grateful.

The book is detailed but seems a little biased. It makes the Germans seem like a bunch of infighting buffoons and I know that even though they had their issues they were not as incompetent as the book makes them out to be.

The Stalin purges of 37. Dang, that was brutal! [X(]

you might try "Ostkrieg. Hitler's War of Extermination in the East" for a serious fleshing out of the reasons why.

An interesting aspect of this work is that while many other histories tend to paint Barbarossa as a blunder and/or an unnecessary gamble, this book argues the case that Hitler was compelled to attack eastward for economic and geopolitical reasons. Way too much in the book to adequately summarize, but several key points discussed were the German economic picture which was stunted and arguably further burdened by the very lands it occupied (particularily Northern France), Ideological drives....the Lebansraum expansion that would make Germany a global power. A third factor was geopolitical. Hitler was well aware that eventually the US would come into the picture and if it joined with England and other powers before Germany could increase it's power base they would be at a disadvantage.

It certainly made me think and question some "givens" i had held true for decades...the hallmark of a good book. It also confirmed in my mind the basic premise of the war itself.

A depressing read, but worth it if you can get through it.
User avatar
parusski
Posts: 4789
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Jackson Tn
Contact:

RE: Operation Barbarossa

Post by parusski »

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

I am currently reading Operation Barbarossa. One thing I am not clear on is why Hitler attacked Russia in the first place. If anyone can enlighten me I'd be grateful.

The book is detailed but seems a little biased. It makes the Germans seem like a bunch of infighting buffoons and I know that even though they had their issues they were not as incompetent as the book makes them out to be.

The Stalin purges of 37. Dang, that was brutal! [X(]

you might try "Ostkrieg. Hitler's War of Extermination in the East" for a serious fleshing out of the reasons why.

An interesting aspect of this work is that while many other histories tend to paint Barbarossa as a blunder and/or an unnecessary gamble, this book argues the case that Hitler was compelled to attack eastward for economic and geopolitical reasons. Way too much in the book to adequately summarize, but several key points discussed were the German economic picture which was stunted and arguably further burdened by the very lands it occupied (particularily Northern France), Ideological drives....the Lebansraum expansion that would make Germany a global power. A third factor was geopolitical. Hitler was well aware that eventually the US would come into the picture and if it joined with England and other powers before Germany could increase it's power base they would be at a disadvantage.

It certainly made me think and question some "givens" i had held true for decades...the hallmark of a good book. It also confirmed in my mind the basic premise of the war itself.

A depressing read, but worth it if you can get through it.

I read this book a few months ago and enjoyed it immensely.
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman
User avatar
nate25
Posts: 1190
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:17 pm
Location: Fishers Indiana

RE: Operation Barbarossa

Post by nate25 »

To put it very simply, the two biggest kids on the block are gonna fight. Sooner or later.

For me, all we've hashed out is that ALL information is very subjective.

I just need a vehicle to try my theories out. (A re-worked WitE [:D])
I have a subtle and cunning plan.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Operation Barbarossa

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: parusski

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

I am currently reading Operation Barbarossa. One thing I am not clear on is why Hitler attacked Russia in the first place. If anyone can enlighten me I'd be grateful.

The book is detailed but seems a little biased. It makes the Germans seem like a bunch of infighting buffoons and I know that even though they had their issues they were not as incompetent as the book makes them out to be.

The Stalin purges of 37. Dang, that was brutal! [X(]

you might try "Ostkrieg. Hitler's War of Extermination in the East" for a serious fleshing out of the reasons why.

An interesting aspect of this work is that while many other histories tend to paint Barbarossa as a blunder and/or an unnecessary gamble, this book argues the case that Hitler was compelled to attack eastward for economic and geopolitical reasons. Way too much in the book to adequately summarize, but several key points discussed were the German economic picture which was stunted and arguably further burdened by the very lands it occupied (particularily Northern France), Ideological drives....the Lebansraum expansion that would make Germany a global power. A third factor was geopolitical. Hitler was well aware that eventually the US would come into the picture and if it joined with England and other powers before Germany could increase it's power base they would be at a disadvantage.

It certainly made me think and question some "givens" i had held true for decades...the hallmark of a good book. It also confirmed in my mind the basic premise of the war itself.

A depressing read, but worth it if you can get through it.

I read this book a few months ago and enjoyed it immensely.
Warspite1

How much was made of the German economic situation? I recall reading previously that the eceonomy was becoming a real issue for the Nazi leadership - but I was too young to fully appreciate the arguments and have never seen a book since that covers this aspect.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
nate25
Posts: 1190
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:17 pm
Location: Fishers Indiana

RE: Operation Barbarossa

Post by nate25 »

The Germans were on a peace-time basis until what? Late '43? Early '44? I think that's significant.

Raw mat'l is another matter.
I have a subtle and cunning plan.
User avatar
parusski
Posts: 4789
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Jackson Tn
Contact:

RE: Operation Barbarossa

Post by parusski »

"Ostkrieg. Hitler's War of Extermination in the East"

The author went beyond what is normally written about. One example is Operation Typhoon. We all know about the horrible winter conditions, mud, Siberian divisions. But here is an analysis of the enormous physical and mental exhaustion of German troops, the lice and the filth, all connected with what is usually discussed. Also reviewed is Hitler's idea to be on par with or exceed the United States' economic capability(odd considering Hitler thought America decadent?). Hitler thought he could achieve this with the vast resources in Russia. There is a great analysis of the German home front as the war progressed, which led to unthinkable things such as Hungarian Jews being imported into Germany for labor.

Finally, Dr. Fritz shows how the Germans never had the logistic capabilities or the strategic resources to defeat the Russians. Fritz does an outstanding job of showing that the Germans just were not strong enough to win if Russia did not simply give up at some point. And he contends the Germans lost the war by December 1941. This is a must read for most of us on this forum.
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman
User avatar
nate25
Posts: 1190
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:17 pm
Location: Fishers Indiana

RE: Operation Barbarossa

Post by nate25 »

I'll read it, for sure.

But for me it's never been about the Germans "winning" the whole thing. It's always been about an exhausted standstill, given some variables.
I have a subtle and cunning plan.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Operation Barbarossa

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: nate25

I'll read it, for sure.

But for me it's never been about the Germans "winning" the whole thing. It's always been about an exhausted standstill, given some variables.
Warspite1

Yep - just ordered it [:)]
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”