Entrenchment!- A solution to soviet manpower!

[Muzrub]

That pretty much sums things up Muzrub. You have problem with the US and Americans, your own statements reinforce this, and I'm not the only one who noticed. You want to start this all over again, I'm more than ready to oblige. Fire at will.

THIS IS WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT!!!!!!!!

You think I have a problem with Americans Ed and your the WHITE KNIGHT who will save the day.

lol

1) I'm not Anti-American- though I have argued with some American posters on the other forum- but when such posters are Sven and doggie who can blame me!

2) Beware Ed the black knight alway triumphs! (lol)

3) GET A LIFE AND STOP ACCUSING PEOPLE OF FLAMING WHEN THEY DISAGREE WITH YOU!!!!!!

You remember this Muzrub? At the end there I actually agreed with you about tariffs! Where's the flame from me to you about tariffs Muzrub? You couldn't quit either, you just kept ranting along until some posts later you said

We agreed! thats insane!

Ed you came out and attacked me about what I said about tarriffs- when I was posting about Mcdonalds with another poster (who was an American and felt the same I did about Mcdonalds). I said after my post which was a civil discussion with the other poster something like "Tarriffs but thats another issue".
Now I did not say that to flame or anger anyone, it was a simple statement at the end of a paragraph- harmless!

BUT YOU! Well you got annoyed by that!

I love that tactic! Bring it up out of the blue, state your position, then claim you don't want to pursue it. Ok, you're somewhat wrong, but I won't pursue it either.

So you accused me of using some underhanded tactic! Of which there was no intention! So I confronted you with the evidence of the tarriffs and that should have been it.
I remember saying the reason why I said I didnt want to pursue it was because I could not bothered!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT WAS UNIMPORTANT!!!!!!!! BUT YOU MADE IT AN ISSUE LIKE YOU ARE DOING NOW!!!!!!


Now once and for all- GROW UP, ACT YOUR AGE or do whatever you feel is right (which I hope is to forget what a twat you have made yourself into again)- but either way you have reconfirmed my opinion that you are a twit!

Once again I am not ANTI-AMERICAN but I am fast becoming Anti-Ed!!!!!!

[mammoth_9]

oh no !

settle this like adults ! that is, over a game of WIR !

just a suggestion.

mammoth

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Muzrub
GET A LIFE AND STOP ACCUSING PEOPLE OF FLAMING WHEN THEY DISAGREE WITH YOU!!!!!!

I didn't accuse you of flaming, I just proved your claim that I flamed you over tariffs was completely false. I noticed you never attempted to dispute that, you just went off on a strange rant about White Knights and Black Knights.

We agreed! thats insane!

No it isn't. Anyone who can read English can see that for themselves.

Ed you came out and attacked me about what I said about tarriffs

Prove it Muzrub, point us to posts in that old thread that supports your claims. I think I've made it clear I wasn't attacking you about tariffs, the issue was the tactic of bringing an issue up and then claiming you've no wish to pursue it. I also note that I actually made use of smilies in several places in those posts trying to keep things from getting out of control like they are here, so its hard to say I was doing all the flaming, and you weren't. So far all you're doing is ranting on without proving or disproving anything.

Now once and for all- GROW UP, ACT YOUR AGE or do whatever you feel is right (which I hope is to forget what a twat you have made yourself into again)- but either way you have reconfirmed my opinion that you are a twit!

Let's just consider for a moment which of us has resorted to excessive use of exclamation marks, ALL CAPS YELLING, and name calling. I think I'm acting my age, so what's your age Muzrub, 12?

Once again I am not ANTI-AMERICAN but I am fast becoming Anti-Ed!!!!!!

You've already proved the former without any help from me, and I could care less about the latter.

[Muzrub]

You've already proved the former without any help from me, and I could care less about the latter.

Ed- You created this situation.

You have created the arguement!

And you continue to keep this arguement going!

I just proved your claim that I flamed you over tariffs was completely false. I noticed you never attempted to dispute that, you just went off on a strange rant about White Knights and Black Knights.

Aright Ed- this is what happend!

A discussion was taking place over American companies buying Australian owned companies. I was chatting to Rick Bancroft
who made a good point about Mcdonalds in America- at which point I said.



Good solid post Rick. People are not the problem- its the companies.

Then said:

Australia and the US have other issues ie agriculture. Which is a battle of subsidiesed US farmers V's non-subsidiesed Aussie ones. But thats another issue and one I do ot wish to pursue.

That was not a flame or a tactic as you have called it!

Here you say!!!!!!!

I love that tactic! Bring it up out of the blue, state your position, then claim you don't want to pursue it. Ok, you're somewhat wrong, but I won't pursue it either.

Ok, you're somewhat wrong, but I won't pursue it either.

See that Ed!!!! You said I was wrong what I said about Subsidies!!!!

So I replied!!!!!

Tactic? Ed you have a paranoid mind my friend.I dont consider the statement wrong at all. Maybe you should go to the Art of War forum you seem to enjoy a fight.


Then you said!!!!!


No, nothing been's said serious enough to warrant a fight. Paranoia? Bring a new issue up, state your opinion on it, then declare you don't want to pursue it, and move to something else. Its an old, often-used tactic, Muzrub, my paranoia doesn't change that fact.
First I was overreacting, now I'm insane, this latest because of a comment on agricultural subsidies. Agricultural subsidies? Insane? What's next?




Then I posted on the Agricultural subsidies!!!!

THE END!

You invited the fight and have continued it here months later!!!

Now can I have an apology from Ed so we can move on with a beautiful friendship?

[Mark_BookGuy]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn



No, the original plan was to do both. From Directive #21, "Operation Berbarossa":

"Only after the fulfilment of this first essential task, which must include the occupation of Leningrad and Kronstadt, will the attack be continued with the intention of occupying Moscow, an important center of communications and of the armaments industry."

Directive 21 makes clear that the destruction of the Russian armies was the primary goal of Barbarossa. As noted in the Halder war diary, Hitler said "Moscow is of no great importance." My point is that while one can argue whether AGC should have been sent north and south, rather than towards Moscow, the decision was a logical extension of the original campaign plan. Following the original logic, Moscow could not be taken unless the Russian armies were beaten in the field first. Despite their overall poor performance, it must be remembered that the Russians were not pushovers. German infantry losses were very high, and AGC was hard hit in the Smolensk battles, 6th Army stopped at Kiev, and a crisis brewed at Staraia Russa which required XXXIX Motorised Corps to shift towards Leningrad, halting Third Panzer Group. Directive 33 of 19 July essentially assigned AGC the duty of protecting AGN's right flank, with only infantry forces to move towards Moscow. The Addendum to Directive 34 of 12 August stated "Only after the threatening situation on the flanks has been completely eliminated and the panzer groups refitted will conditions be conducive for an offensive [toward Moscow." Please take a look at David Glantz's analysis in "Barbarossa" on pages 135-136.

Lastly, what would the fall of Moscow have meant? Another great "what if", but IMO it would not have been a strategic loss to the Russians.

Ciao.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Mark_BookGuy

Lastly, what would the fall of Moscow have meant? Another great "what if", but IMO it would not have been a strategic loss to the Russians.

The loss of Moscow would have hurt badly considering how much population and industrial capacity was present in the Moscow area. If Leningrad had fallen too, it would have been a disaster in '41. Politically, a fall of Moscow would have hurt at any time, so I would definitely call the fall of Moscow a strategic loss.
The thing that always gets me whenever this debate comes up is the assumption by the Germans then, that the "Soviet Army" could be completely defeated without taking Leningrad and Moscow, The "Soviet Army" includes the mobilization in the military districts and the forces coming from Siberia. In other words the "Soviet Army" was streaming in constantly to the area. It was impossible to destroy the "Soviet Army" without destroying the industry that supported it, and occupying the population centers that provided it manpower. After all, the "Soviet Army" that launched the counterattack in the winter at Moscow didn't exist in the west in June of '41. It was units formed since the beginning of the campaign, some reconstituted units, and units from Siberia. The focus on destroying the Army on the field at the expense of taking valuable territory, was a fatal mistake, I think.

[mammoth_9]

Agreed. In addition, all the Soviet Armies north west of Moscow all the way to Lenningrad get supplied from Moscow and Murmansk.

The latter is frozen, hence, no supplies, for half a year (no prizes for guessing which months). If Moscow had fallen, all those armies would have had to live off the land and I don't this they would have stood any chance against the Wehrmacht.

[Mark_BookGuy]

The fact remains that the original German plan, upon which all of Barbarossa was based, was to eliminate the existing Russian armies west of the Dnepr and Divna (sorry, I'm sure I got the second river name wrong - it's the one in the northwest), which would force the Soviets to surrender quickly.

Personally, I think the egregious error was not whether to go for Moscow, Kiev, Leningrad, etc., but in the unbelievable prewar error of intelligence and understanding of Soviet capabilities. The Germans so grossly miscalculated their opponents they might as well have been targeting someone on the moon. The whole reason the Germans thought they could win quickly by defeating the field armies was because their estimates were so faulty. They didn't expect to face endless new armies (albeit mostly infantry in '41).

The Kiev decision must be taken in context. AGN had stalled (which required Panzer Group 3 to swing north); German losses were high across the board; Smolensk had been a very tough fight for AGC; AGS was finding resistance to be unexpectedly tough; and 6th Army had been ground to a halt in front of Kiev.
OKW went after the Soviets around Kiev because there was no way they could leave 600,000 men sitting on an exposed right flank of AGC. They knew the Soviets counterattacked whenever possible (those nutty counterattacks at the beginning of the war ultimately paid off), and that any drive on Moscow with that size enemy force invited very serious trouble.

Let me see... Germans making a long drive to capture a strategic Russian city with really long flanks exposed.... sounds familiar.
If only Guderian had the Italian Motorised Corp when he needed it.....

Ciao.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Mark_BookGuy
The fact remains that the original German plan, upon which all of Barbarossa was based, was to eliminate the existing Russian armies west of the Dnepr and Divna .... which would force the Soviets to surrender quickly.

But this is exactly my point, because the Soviets didn't surrender when the Germans did nearly succeed in destorying the western forces of the Soviet Army. In 1813, the Russians backed up and actually let Napolean take Moscow but they never surrendered. Same thing here, destroy most of the western forces but no surrender, the Soviets just retreated and fought again, trading space for time.

Personally, I think the egregious error was not whether to go for Moscow, Kiev, Leningrad, etc., but in the unbelievable prewar error of intelligence and understanding of Soviet capabilities.

True, but despite this they nearly succeeded anyway. As we all know there are several strong arguments, mainly having to do with how the AGC was used, which suggest the Germans could have won despite their underestimating the enemy.


Their biggest miscalculation was believing Hitler's claim that kicking the door in would cause the whole rotten ediface to implode, a mistake similar to the one Napolean made. In this case, Hitler's "door" was the Soviet Army of the western frontier, but destroying that did not lead to a collapse.

[Mark_BookGuy]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn


But this is exactly my point, because the Soviets didn't surrender when the Germans did nearly succeed in destorying the western forces of the Soviet Army. In 1813, the Russians backed up and actually let Napolean take Moscow but they never surrendered. Same thing here, destroy most of the western forces but no surrender, the Soviets just retreated and fought again, trading space for time.

Yes, we agree. The bottom line is that the actual German plan for Barbarossa was based on a false assumption.

True, but despite this they nearly succeeded anyway. As we all know there are several strong arguments, mainly having to do with how the AGC was used, which suggest the Germans could have won despite their underestimating the enemy.[/QOUTE]

I think we largely agree here too. Personally, as long as the Soviet government kept its head and refused to quit, I don't think the Germans could have won, regardless if Moscow, Leningrad, or any other city fell. Things might have taken longer, but the general outcome would have been the same. When you lose 20 million, what's a few million more??

Their biggest miscalculation was believing Hitler's claim that kicking the door in would cause the whole rotten ediface to implode, a mistake similar to the one Napolean made. In this case, Hitler's "door" was the Soviet Army of the western frontier, but destroying that did not lead to a collapse. [/QOUTE]

We agree again! My point originally (somewhere back in this thread) was that the Kiev decision was a logical one, if one keeps in mind the Barbarossa gameplan BUT that the plan itself was fatally flawed.

BTW, does anyone know what the record is for beating the German AI in the WIR campaign game? I've rolled into Berlin in January 1943 and was just wondering how that compares to everyone else. We all know the AI isn't stellar in WIR. But isn't it fun picking on those poor Rumanians and Hungarians?

[Josans]

Originally posted by Mark_BookGuy


BTW, does anyone know what the record is for beating the German AI in the WIR campaign game? I've rolled into Berlin in January 1943 and was just wondering how that compares to everyone else. We all know the AI isn't stellar in WIR. But isn't it fun picking on those poor Rumanians and Hungarians?

In a PBEM game I managed to conquer all the map by November 1942.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Mark_BookGuy

Yes, we agree. The bottom line is that the actual German plan for Barbarossa was based on a false assumption.

Agreed.

Personally, as long as the Soviet government kept its head and refused to quit, I don't think the Germans could have won, regardless if Moscow, Leningrad, or any other city fell.
I think we largely agree here too.

Oh, I don't know about this. History doesn't really give us a clue, but if wargames like WIR and 3R are any guide, losing Leningrad and Moscow in '41 tends to cripple the Soviets, leading to their collapse in '42 or '43. This of course is probably the intent of the game designers, so its basically just their opinion, but its an opinion I can't argue against. Leningrad and Moscow were important industrial and population centers. Losing them hurts.

When you lose 20 million, what's a few million more??

That's true.

BTW, does anyone know what the record is for beating the German AI in the WIR campaign game? I've rolled into Berlin in January 1943 and was just wondering how that compares to everyone else. We all know the AI isn't stellar in WIR. But isn't it fun picking on those poor Rumanians and Hungarians?

Its so easy its just not fun. The last time I tried this I kept the Germans from getting east of the Pripet Marshes in '41. After that I just quit playing.

[Mark_BookGuy]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
Oh, I don't know about this. History doesn't really give us a clue, but if wargames like WIR and 3R are any guide, losing Leningrad and Moscow in '41 tends to cripple the Soviets, leading to their collapse in '42 or '43. This of course is probably the intent of the game designers, so its basically just their opinion, but its an opinion I can't argue against. Leningrad and Moscow were important industrial and population centers. Losing them hurts.

Yikes! I had an old history prof say that wargames are to war what Monopoly is to real estate. About the last source I'd use for this are the games. Losing Leningrad and Moscow in WIR is usually fatal, but I just don't believe it would have been in reality. The Soviets were just too disciplined, ruthless, and determined not to give up. Heck, they probably would have turned the loss of either city into a great propaganda tool.

Anyway, the moral of the story is to trash the frogs in 1940; chase the Brits out of Africa in 41; get the Turks and Japanese on board in 42 (forget Pearl Harbor); promise the Poles, Ukranians et al everything to get cooperation (shoot them after you've won, dummy); and stonk Uncle Joe in 43.

Ciao.

[Montenegro]

I personally don't think that the ENTIRE Russian army would have said "we're done, you won Adolf" if Moscow would have fallen. I do think that if you look at those desperate November days in the Kremlin, Stalin openly suggested suing for peace with Germany on a couple of occassions. Let's not forget Brest-Litovsk in 1918. In other words, their scorched earth policy of falling back in the field was also a political option in the Soviet hierarchy. If not for Zhukov, I don't think Stalin would have had the mettle to continue. Look how long he was in a stupor at the beginning of the campaign, and when his top aides and generals went to visit him at his dacha, Stalin thought they were there for his head. The fact remains to be speculated that losing Moscow, the seat of Soviet power and government, would have spelled doom for Stalin's regime, but not the army or the populace as a whole. Could you imagine the battle to take Moscow, though? Talk about conflict! As far as Lenningrad, well Uncle Joe thought they were all Royalists in bread lines posing as Soviets. Read the book (if you haven't) "900 Days" about the Lenningrad seige and aftermath.

Montenegro

[Mark_BookGuy]

The claim that Stalin was in a dazed stupor is probably myth. The claim was originally made in Kruschchev's autobiography as part of the general denunciation of the Stalin "cult of personality."

Unfortunately, Aleksander Kekrich's great "June 22,1941" doesn't delve into the issue.

Molotov states that the delegation to see Stalin at his dacha was to propose a State Defense Committee, headed by Stalin. Otto Chaney's new 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 (whom Stalin called, "The Teacher" -- yikes!), who used disappearances and fake deaths to find out who was loyal. Stalin was absent for only two days, June 29 and 30.

[Montenegro]

Correct me if I'm wrong---and I often am---but wasn't Stalin the same guy who ordered district/regional commanders not to retaliate in the initial hours of the campaign? Wasn't he the same leader who effectively grounded most of the Soviet air force in the early stages of Barbarossa? The guy didn't even address his people until July 6th on national radio. The fact is, much confusion ran from Stavka to the front, but I dare say, control was not the norm in June and July. What I will give Stalin is that he mandated fear into the Red Army, and that more than anything, kept some mighty beleagured men fighting. His leadership really didn't show in my opinion until he refused to leave Moscow in Nov '41, a truly gutsy move for a truly paranoid freak.

Regards,

Montenegro

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Mark_BookGuy

The Soviets were just too disciplined,

Disciplined? In '44 and beyond, yes, but not in '41. The command situation was to chaotic and out of control.

Heck, they probably would have turned the loss of either city into a great propaganda tool.

Whatever propaganda they could get out of losing Moscow would not make up for the loss of industry the Moscow region represented.


As Montenegro points out, Stalin did talk of surrender, so the idea that the Soviet Union was prepared and psychologically ready for a fight to the death is a myth. Surrender was a possibility.


As for wargames, it depends on the game. Some I've found to be helpful in understanding the ebb-and-flow of the conflict and what was and wasn't possible, while others are too flawed to provide a reasonable simulation.

[Mark_BookGuy]

The situation at the early stages of the invasion were terribly unclear. Noone in Moscow knew the extent of the attacks or reliability of information (fog of war kind of stuff). Every memoir I've read agrees that it took some time to figure out exactly what happened. Paranoid or not, they were afraid of being provoked into war or bamboozled into it by the Brits, and thus slow to initially act.

The Red Army performance in 41 was better than it is usually given credit. It didn't fold up like the worthless French or British. It's units were poorly prepared (especially at the beginning), but most units fought well as long as they were supplied. The mass surrenders came usually when food, fuel, and ammo were out. The Germans did the same thing when the roles were reversed. Let's not forget that the reason AGC was diverted north and south was that AGN and AGS were stalled.

The Russians were disciplined -- and not always in a positive sense. Their tactics may have been poorly coordinated (compared to 44), but many units fought to the bitter end. Discipline may come at the end of a pistol, but whatever works...

[Montenegro]

I agree 100% on the oft buried performance of the Red Army. Just a look at those pictures of the German infantry after Smolensk gives you a clear idea of what "winning" a battle meant from Aug onwards. Pure unending numerical logistics don't hurt, though. Soldiers were mere fodder to Stalin.

As fate would have it, I abide in Chicago. Perhaps we can WIR upon your arrival. I need a tad more tutorial before I go PBEM.

Regards,

Montenegro

[Mark_BookGuy]

Originally posted by Montenegro
I agree 100% on the oft buried performance of the Red Army. Just a look at those pictures of the German infantry after Smolensk gives you a clear idea of what "winning" a battle meant from Aug onwards. Pure unending numerical logistics don't hurt, though. Soldiers were mere fodder to Stalin.

As fate would have it, I abide in Chicago. Perhaps we can WIR upon your arrival. I need a tad more tutorial before I go PBEM.

Regards,

Montenegro

It must have sent shivers up the spines in Berlin when they compared the losses in France versus the first months in Russia. As I recall, the Germans had about 280,000 casualities by September?? I use David Glantz as my source, but his book is not in front of me right now. It would be interesting to see how many of these were accidents rather than combat losses. Halder knew by the end of July the Germans had bitten off more than they could chew.

I'd be happy to WIR. There's nothing like wiping out fictitious generations to sooth the soul.