Caspian Crusade

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

On reflection, my vote for worst German General of the last century goes to von Brauschitsch. He was a disaster and made possible Hitler's take over and corruption of the army. He was compromised from the start by Hitler's bribes. Maybe not as dramatic as the battlefield failures of a Paulus or Busch, but here is the core of the institutional failure.

How can you blame one man for the corruption of an institution which objected to the Nazis only on grounds of snobbery over their leader's social origins and rivalry with their paramilitaries? The Nazi program, both social and military, was otherwise in full accord with the social and political aims of the officer caste. That's why, when Hitler's popularity was declining and militancy among German workers rising again, Hitler was given dictatorial powers by the traditional German Conservatives and Liberals. An important and highly relevant warning from history.

[Flaviusx]

Mehring, I blame von B for for compromising the professionalism and independence of the German army. In doing so the institution was corrupted, and lost its way. In the end, he was fired anyways, Hitler took the job directly and would wind up micromanaging the army more and more as time went on, evolving it along Stalinist lines. (While Stalin managed to pull away just enough from his paranoid delusions to allow some rational military professionalism to emerge in the Red Army, ironically.)

Hitler chose him precisely because von B could be his sock puppet and would never ever oppose him. Brauchitsch was literally indebted to Hitler for hundreds of thousands of Reichsmarks and his new and younger (and very pro nazi) wife. Straight up bribery. He was the first of the purely political generals and set the tone for later non entities such as Paulus and Busch.

Leadership does matter. Imagine a Hans von Seekt in this same situation.

[Mehring]

Curious you should refer to independence and professionalism and cite von Seeckt as an example.

He was, as head of the German army, not loyal to the Wiemar Republic he was supposed to serve. His opposition to the various right wing putsches in the 20's was purely tactical as he correctly saw them as premature. He became an ardent Nazi and as a politician, supported giving Hitler dictatorial powers. But are you saying armies should be independent of civilian political control?

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Mehring

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

On reflection, my vote for worst German General of the last century goes to von Brauschitsch. He was a disaster and made possible Hitler's take over and corruption of the army. He was compromised from the start by Hitler's bribes. Maybe not as dramatic as the battlefield failures of a Paulus or Busch, but here is the core of the institutional failure.

How can you blame one man for the corruption of an institution which objected to the Nazis only on grounds of snobbery over their leader's social origins and rivalry with their paramilitaries? The Nazi program, both social and military, was otherwise in full accord with the social and political aims of the officer caste. That's why, when Hitler's popularity was declining and militancy among German workers rising again, Hitler was given dictatorial powers by the traditional German Conservatives and Liberals. An important and highly relevant warning from history.

This is a gross simplification. Especially when talking about the tradition Prussian officer aristocracy the congruency was only superficial. They were in accord when it came to stopping the Communists, or revision of the Versailles Treaty. But in no way were the majority of them supporting the "Lebensraum im Osten" conception of Hitler or a full-scale world war. Nor were they supportive of Hitler's new society. Hitler despised the Prussian officer aristocracy, while they had no love for his radical societal change.

[Flaviusx]

As a citizen of the American Republic in good standing, I absolutely insist on civilian supremacy over the military. But that does nobody any good if it is taken to the point where the military is being ordered around at a level where it cannot exercise its own professional judgment and is merely a toy of the civilian leadership trying to do something outside its own core competence. Hitler and Stalin are both examples of civilian supremacy over the military a la outrance that should give us pause.

Whether or not Seekt's support of the Weimar Republic was merely tactical is immaterial. He did support it. He wasn't in love with it. Sadly, neither were most other Germans. This may have ultimately doomed the venture, she had no defenders when the crunch came (on either the left or right, note. The communists did as much to sink it as the nazis, where indeed positively thrilled at the chance to strike against the "social fascists" as they termed the SDs.) The present Federal Republic is enormously more respected by Germans, curiously enough, and is far more stable as a result. Somewhere along the line, they decided to give democracy a fair chance.

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

This is a gross simplification. Especially when talking about the tradition Prussian officer aristocracy the congruency was only superficial. They were in accord when it came to stopping the Communists, or revision of the Versailles Treaty. But in no way were the majority of them supporting the "Lebensraum im Osten" conception of Hitler or a full-scale world war. Nor were they supportive of Hitler's new society. Hitler despised the Prussian officer aristocracy, while they had no love for his radical societal change.

I disagree. Hostility to communism and the Versailles Treaty (against which, for different reasons, communists were also hostile) is the essence of their position. The one represented the interests of a hostile social class threatening their privileges, the other represented a hostile external coalition which constrained the German ruling class's expansionist ambitions.

The German officer caste were every bit expansionist and their outlook reflected the need of German industry for unrestricted access to raw materials and land. Hitler probably had the details of where to expand and why better worked out but there was no principled opposition within the German officer caste to expansionist wars of aggression. Any differences between Hitler and the mainstream German conservatives and liberals were over tactics and details. The Wehrmacht went on to draw up plans, not just for the many invasions that followed, but for the starvation of millions of Russians and are complicit in all the crimes of Nazism.

The Junkers undoubtedly loathed Hitler's vulgarity and feared the seething mass of disgruntled, panic stricken lower middle class from which most of his support came. Hitler doubtless envied the officers' 'breeding' which took the inverted appearance of contempt. That is superficial, and they worked pretty well together for a long time, given their unwinnable situation. Hitler curbed the brown shirts in large part to get the army on side, in part to remove the military rivalry and, more importantly, to remove the threat of any egalitarianism suggested in the party's name. Interestingly, there was no small amount of membership transfers between the brown shirts and KPD.

Hitler was not made dictator by popular vote, he was made dictator by a vote of the German parliament in which the traditional parties of the German ruling class gave him the power. Seeckt and others like him argued and voted for Hitler to be 'enabled.' They saw what was happening in Germany all around them. Of the inner forces of Germany, they are directly responsible for all that followed.

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

As a citizen of the American Republic in good standing, I absolutely insist on civilian supremacy over the military. But that does nobody any good if it is taken to the point where the military is being ordered around at a level where it cannot exercise its own professional judgment and is merely a toy of the civilian leadership trying to do something outside its own core competence. Hitler and Stalin are both examples of civilian supremacy over the military a la outrance that should give us pause.

Whether or not Seekt's support of the Weimar Republic was merely tactical is immaterial. He did support it. He wasn't in love with it. Sadly, neither were most other Germans. This may have ultimately doomed the venture, she had no defenders when the crunch came (on either the left or right, note. The communists did as much to sink it as the nazis, where indeed positively thrilled at the chance to strike against the "social fascists" as they termed the SDs.) The present Federal Republic is enormously more respected by Germans, curiously enough, and is far more stable as a result. Somewhere along the line, they decided to give democracy a fair chance.

I asked the question because you appear to equate corruption of the German army with allowing civilian meddling in its professional business. Your answer, which makes sense providing you acquiesce to the military/political status quo, omits mention of corruption. I would agree that professionals need to be allowed to do their job for a civilian government, but this corruption business troubles me a little.

I have to disagree with your pragmatic approach to Seeckt's politics. As history unfolded, his tactical support for Weimar turned into agitation and voting for Hitler's dictatorial powers. Seeckt didn't change, but the situation did, and his support for Hitler in the '30s was contained in his attitude towards the putschists in the '20s.

Stalin's ultra left 'social fascist' policy and infamous 'red referendum' are among his cruellest crimes and remain text book examples of how to divide a social force in the face of the enemy. The subsequent 'popular front' policy achieved the same results by way of subordinating the working class to the very currents, and worse, that had previously been determined 'social fascist.' That said, neither the SPD or KPD voted to enable Hitler as a dictator. They accepted the vote, failed to mobilise the working class, there and then, to topple the new dictator, and that was the greatest crime of all. The unions, of course, approached Hitler, to see how they could work together. Didn't save them from 're-education' in the camps.

[Seminole]

No, No, Yes, Yes.

Empty cities are a sin within 20 hexes of the front line.

BTW the Mot unit north of Chernigov came from AGC.

The re-assignment to 1st Pzr Grp is what confused me. Glad to see the result makes sense, and that you hadn't found Mrs. Todd's shortcut.


Guys, the sidebar is great, but I think it would be courteous to start another thread for it and not clutter the AAR...

[Michael T]

Just done my T8, full report soon. But Kalinin is safely back in Soviet hands. He can keep the damn place if he wants it that bad! The map is a mess. One of the most fluid and crazy games I have played. Its a hoot of fun [:)]

[Michael T]

Sorry, I screwed up the screenies so no map till T9 now [:@]

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

I find these advances quite unrealistic; I find some of the recent blizzard porn shown elsewhere equally problematic.

I called it porn because it struck me as essentially a fantasy scenario. Axis stymied with convenient landmarks (the Dnepr bend salient and Peipus-Pskov Lakes for encirclement anchors), a huge Soviet Army that had suffered practically no significant losses (I think I had lost 18 rifle divisions at that point - I had over 20 Guards units before December and 10 tank divisions hadn't been converted (this formed 1st Shock Army's exploitation force that reached the Gulf of Riga)).

I presented it in no small hope that a German player would show how they actually handle the blizzard. Is the _only_ choice to just run like the devil? In my ongoing game with AGame I allowed a bunch of pockets in '41 as Soviet (continually misjudged the range of the panzers), and I think this led him to conclude the blizzard would be weak, but I still had spectacular results (at one point I had AGC and OKH in a pocket!). I have the saves and screens and will resume the AAR at some point (probably when/if our game gets into '43 and I can talk more freely about my strategy).

I'm hoping M60 hangs in long enough, and with enough of an army, so we can see MT execute an Axis blizzard defense. I feel there must be a middle ground between running for 8 weeks and standing to be devoured in 6. From what I've see so far (only playing First Winter against humans as Soviet and once as Axis against AI) I do think the December blizzard rules for Axis combat power are too punishing.

No need for screen shot I did same to smoken, its easy to cut off hole army gruops as SHC if GHC doesn't start running the last turn of snow.

Also Flaviusx if your fighting someone who knows how to exploit the current rules set, even if GHC kills off 4+ million russians they can still pocket 50+ units.

TDV 2x pocketed 30+ units (German) and I had inflicted over 4 million loses on him.

Thats why I laugh now when SHC players have 5 million men and are not pocketing 20+ GHC units.

SHC players simply are ignorent of the tools they have in the tool kit.

[KamilS]

Pelton


TDV 2x pocketed 30+ units (German) and I had inflicted over 4 million loses on him.

Thats why I laugh now when SHC players have 5 million men and are not pocketing 20+ GHC units.

SHC players simply are ignorent of the tools they have in the tool kit.

At them moment blizzard is very unrealistic, but regardless of that fact I really don't see how competent German player can loose significant amount of troops.

[Seminole]

Thats why I laugh now when SHC players have 5 million men and are not pocketing 20+ GHC units.

The Soviet manpower isn't the requisite, Germans holding fast is the requisite.

At them moment blizzard is very unrealistic, but regardless of that fact I really don't see how competent German player can loose significant amount of troops.

I think the keyword is experienced, not competent. They have to have seen firsthand that they're weak as kittens in December and January, and taken it to heart. My question, and I hope this games lives to that point so we can see, is how should a 'competent' Axis player handle the blizzard? Is the only real choice to carve as far east as possible and then backpedal in Dec-Jan? I'm not saying run everyone to Poland, but even a fighting withdrawal seems like it would be more punishing to the Germans than just flat out outpacing the steamroller.

I have only played 1 blizzard as Axis, and it was against the AI. I had mauled them as Flavius suggests, but the AI really isn't going to be able to run a blizzard offensive with the strategic and tactical insight of a human. I think more than one Axis player has been lulled into a false sense of security by constructing and conducting a decent blizzard defense against the AI, only to get their butts handed to them by a human.

[Ketza]

The best Axis move in the Blizzard is a slow retreat keeping a few hexes between themselves and the Soviets. It is wise also to be wary of areas where a "fast" stack of Soviets can pinch off bends in the line.

It is very surprising how fast a Soviet army made up of refitted tank divisions and Cav corps can be. Of course eventually those tank divisions go "poof" but having 40+ mps during the blizzard causes extreme chaos.

[Balou]

Seminole
I have only played 1 blizzard as Axis, and it was against the AI. I had mauled them as Flavius suggests, but the AI really isn't going to be able to run a blizzard offensive with the strategic and tactical insight of a human. I think more than one Axis player has been lulled into a false sense of security by constructing and conducting a decent blizzard defense against the AI, only to get their butts handed to them by a human.

Same here. I haven't seen a reasonable Sov-AI blizzard offensive yet. To get some sense what blizzard might be I recently switched an AI game from "challenging" to "hard" in Dec.41. Very impressive.

@Ketza:
This buffer zone tactic worked better than anything else when playing against an improved AI.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Kamil

Pelton


TDV 2x pocketed 30+ units (German) and I had inflicted over 4 million loses on him.

Thats why I laugh now when SHC players have 5 million men and are not pocketing 20+ GHC units.

SHC players simply are ignorent of the tools they have in the tool kit.

At them moment blizzard is very unrealistic, but regardless of that fact I really don't see how competent German player can loose significant amount of troops.

Bobo has a very very good blizzard also.

I started running 2 hexs per turn last turn of snow and your still running for your life in february because of the snowball effect.

I think the person thats not "competent" here is you Kamil because your simply not seeing how easy it is to run down and pocket masses of GHC units.

I have only played one game as SHC and its easy. I did not even know how to merge cav divisions to Corp unit Jan.

The best SHC blizzard players are the ones who use the same strategys as GHC.

I never played Semi, but I am guessing by his games he understands how to exploit the system

[Ketza]

If you wanna get real nasty use paratroops as well as fly fuel or use HQ build ups with your "mobile armies" as the Soviets during Blizzard. The results are spectacular but I must point out a bit unhistorical.

[Flaviusx]

I'm very surprised that so few players use paras, tbh.

The blizzard has problems. I tend to think that a lot of Axis players do things to magnify these problems (like strip the front of too many divisions in order to preserve their morale) but even so. Op tempo is just too high. In reality it ought to be much much harder to sustain the blizzard counteroffensive than it is. The penalties involved are too global and too artificial on the Axis while at the same time the Soviet has the ability to push along the entire front with hardly a pause. It shouldn't be necessary, for example, to rely on the Finns to hold a static line up north near Leningrad. In reality the Soviets did not get much accomplished up there even fighting against the Germans once they repulsed the final push on Tikvin. It seems impossible for the German defense to create strongholds and salients in the center based on cities and lines of communication as happened in real life. Doing this in game amounts to a death sentence. Ditto for the Demyansk pocket.

[KamilS]

Pelton

I think the person thats not "competent" here is you Kamil because your simply not seeing how easy it is to run down and pocket masses of GHC units.

Well.

I lost several games as Axis and didn't lose more than equivalent of 2 divisions during blizzard. I played as a Soviet and managed to bag some units during winter operations. (Against you as well or have you forgotten?).

And my conclusion is, that Soviet mobile units do not have enough punch and mobility to break through heavily defended line or flank it before German player withdraws.


German can move their counter-attacking forces along the front and Red Army once committed in certain area cannot redeploy its troops elsewhere. So once main axis of advance are identified it is necessary to commit best units there - including mountain divisions used not for defensive but counter attacking purpose. Additionally deploying panzer units when necessary - both as a relief force and defending units. Their high mobility is the key - makes it possible to conduct fighting withdrawal even under heavy pressure.

Moreover linear defence is invitation for trouble. I go for strong-points tactics - 2-3 hexes long and 2-3 units strong formations supported by paners withdrawing as fast as is possible untill mid of January, then it is time to make the stand and let Soviet try to commit himself (herself?) to flanking manoeuvre.

Obviously to achieve necessary density of troops majority of front needs to be defended with token forces only. In won't matter in the end, because Soviet player will abandon these salients once blizzard is over.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Kamil

Pelton

I think the person thats not "competent" here is you Kamil because your simply not seeing how easy it is to run down and pocket masses of GHC units.

Well.

I lost several games as Axis and didn't lose more than equivalent of 2 divisions during blizzard. I played as a Soviet and managed to bag some units during winter operations. (Against you as well or have you forgotten?).

And my conclusion is, that Soviet mobile units do not have enough punch and mobility to break through heavily defended line or flank it before German player withdraws.


German can move their counter-attacking forces along the front and Red Army once committed in certain area cannot redeploy its troops elsewhere. So once main axis of advance are identified it is necessary to commit best units there - including mountain divisions used not for defensive but counter attacking purpose. Additionally deploying panzer units when necessary - both as a relief force and defending units. Their high mobility is the key - makes it possible to conduct fighting withdrawal even under heavy pressure.

Moreover linear defence is invitation for trouble. I go for strong-points tactics - 2-3 hexes long and 2-3 units strong formations supported by paners withdrawing as fast as is possible untill mid of January, then it is time to make the stand and let Soviet try to commit himself (herself?) to flanking manoeuvre.

Obviously to achieve necessary density of troops majority of front needs to be defended with token forces only. In won't matter in the end, because Soviet player will abandon these salients once blizzard is over.

Your simply totally ignorant of what SHC forses can do.

I am being nice.

You are a very skilled SHC player over all as we have played and you defeated me as SHc, but you are really ignorant of what SHC can do during blizzard.

Also ignorant does not mean u have a low IQ, just you have not figured out what SHC can do during blizzard.

Which is kinda amazing as you are a very smart person.