RE: Siberian Reinforcements

RE: Siberian Reinforcements (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Commander - Europe at War Gold

Message

Sweeper -> RE: Siberian Reinforcements (7/4/2007 9:59:55 PM)
Ok I see that this debate continues. Too bad. SMK made a strong case for what is in fact the myth of the siberian hordes. I never claimed THEY DID NOT ARRIVE, but I claim the big hord was a myth. This is no news to either historians as David Glantz or the russian researchers. As I said the siberians and far east and transbaikal forces were sent during october and november and not arriving as a hord. What people need to understand is that the whole picture people in the west got of the war on the eastern front is seriously flawed. There are a lot of "myths" that needs to be cleared about the eastern front.

IrishGuards -> RE: Siberian Reinforcements (7/4/2007 11:08:25 PM)
I believe you Sweeper and SMK are correct ... There is quite alot of debate going on beacause of the fact .. fact mind you that certain individuals .. yourself and SMK included are of 1 opinion and 1 opinion only ... This is a very myopic view to take of any situation .. regardless of the fact .. fact that history in itself was long ago ... You or I werent there .. I guess that means everyones perspective of any situation can be wrong .. All it takes is opening your eyes to the possibility .. That's called being objective and not subjective .. To stick on 1 point and to not open ones eyes to other is exactly why certain events happened in history and will continue to repeat themselves .. happens all the time .. If you think you are able to actually judge a discussion on its merits with an open mind .. this is a beginning .. without this there is absolutely no debate or discussion .. Viewpoints are 1 thing .. to sit there and say that he knows best .. or for that matter you do is ... to say the least ludicrous ... [8\|] Anyone who operates in such a vacuum must and always will be less informed not just of history .. but the events that caused history to come about as it did .. As this is to say the least an ahistorical game in actuality ... what is the problem with thinking outside the box a wee bit .. or for that matter playing outside the box no less .. [:D] Its a very simple situation .. Play Allies against a human opponent and just count the amount of units and such that the Polish have on turn 1 .. [&o] I am quite sure the Polish had half the Ftrs that Germany had .. As I am also sure they had so many Corps ... What a riot .. Now I guess someone could say .. well we grouped them together in Corps of 8 or 10 Divisions .. Fine .. then you get to another country and change the dynamic .. use a new baseline and say .. well we will group Corps together for other countries differently .. why .. because they were different caliber [X(] Is this to balance the game .. [&:] Where they there historically .. Is this comparable to other countries ... Strength .. Effectiveness .. ability to inflict damage on the opposition ... The key word here is comparable ... [:'(] This means some semblence of balance or to use another word .. History or a baseline to go by .. Targul has not only made many valid points .. but been on the other end of the situation in actual game terms .. so has my brother .. do I just disregard what they say ... Not very likely considering the amount of experience in Wargaming they have .. which is vast .. games other people would not even begin to play exceptionally well for a long time .. There are lots of areas in History that people play games in .. I happen to be 1 of them and I will continue to play games that have flavor for all who spend time and money to sit at the table so to speak .. I have a great respect for not just history .. but knowledge and events .. You can stick on words like hordes and such .. or Siberians .. fine .. [:-] I will continue to be objective of any and all debates or discussions .. This also means I am not gonna beat my head against a wall trying to enlighten others to there lack of insight or knowledge .. It seems that others are though .. [:-] Seems like some people are trying to keep score .. Why bother .. If thats the case let me know .. And I will take it upon myself to be giving some Irish thoughts and opinions on any and all subjects .. [:D] IDG

IrishGuards -> RE: Siberian Reinforcements (7/5/2007 3:39:59 AM)
Was that my outside voice ... [:'(] Ask a ? .. IDG

SMK-at-work -> RE: Siberian Reinforcements (7/5/2007 8:02:13 AM)
IDG I have changed my ideas - 2 years ago I believed in the Siberian horde story - it is only in those 2 years that I have seen the contrary evidence, and realised that it is a one-sided story we have from the German point of view - to them there WAS a Siberian horde of well equipped Russian troops in December of 1941, and they WERE Siberians. to them. And that is the version we have had for the last 60 years because it is the only version that has been available. The Russians were meticulous record keepers, and now that their records are available we have the story from the people who actually knew what was happening, rather than those who were freezing and surprised by the counter attack and sought some means to explain it.

MengCiao -> RE: Siberian Reinforcements (7/6/2007 7:12:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Warfare1 quote: ORIGINAL: Dave Ferguson A quick trawl of references suggests that: The UK should have 2 additional battleship units The UK should have the same number of fighters as Germany The UK strategic bomber should stay in the OOB, it is really just a very poor TAC air? There should be a UK TAC air in Egypt There should be up to 8 French corps, the best armies were in the Maginot line, not garrisons Italian units should be of low quality compared with UK The UK should have a commander deployed in Egypt The russians should have a commander deployed in Moscow. the russian OOB and pp totals should be checked to see if they give a reasonable replacement rate. Basically the russians replaced everything lost and then added some more. Actually you can build up to 20 russian corps before a historical invasion time. When the editor is released we can playtest these sorts of changes. The performance of the Italian navy should be researched, just why did they perform so poorly when they had at least parity v the UK in the Med? etc etc Good ideas. In many different wargames I have played Italian experience, morale and equipment usually plays a big role. Since Italian ships had equal parity to the UK, then I think training and morale were the deciding factors. Especially morale. After Taranto, the Italians simply refused to leave port. They left port plenty of times after they were blasted in the Port of Taranto. The Taranto raid happened very early: October 1940. As late as 1943 the Italian Battlefleet sailed out (and on that lst occasion the Luftwaffe hit them with TV-controlled guided bombs with rocket engines...ouch!). There were several fleet actions between the RN and the Italians: for example Sirte and Cape Matapan. The naval war in the Med was far more dynamic than most people think.

Warfare1 -> RE: Siberian Reinforcements (7/7/2007 12:33:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MengCiao quote: ORIGINAL: Warfare1 quote: ORIGINAL: Dave Ferguson A quick trawl of references suggests that: The UK should have 2 additional battleship units The UK should have the same number of fighters as Germany The UK strategic bomber should stay in the OOB, it is really just a very poor TAC air? There should be a UK TAC air in Egypt There should be up to 8 French corps, the best armies were in the Maginot line, not garrisons Italian units should be of low quality compared with UK The UK should have a commander deployed in Egypt The russians should have a commander deployed in Moscow. the russian OOB and pp totals should be checked to see if they give a reasonable replacement rate. Basically the russians replaced everything lost and then added some more. Actually you can build up to 20 russian corps before a historical invasion time. When the editor is released we can playtest these sorts of changes. The performance of the Italian navy should be researched, just why did they perform so poorly when they had at least parity v the UK in the Med? etc etc Good ideas. In many different wargames I have played Italian experience, morale and equipment usually plays a big role. Since Italian ships had equal parity to the UK, then I think training and morale were the deciding factors. Especially morale. After Taranto, the Italians simply refused to leave port. They left port plenty of times after they were blasted in the Port of Taranto. The Taranto raid happened very early: October 1940. As late as 1943 the Italian Battlefleet sailed out (and on that lst occasion the Luftwaffe hit them with TV-controlled guided bombs with rocket engines...ouch!). There were several fleet actions between the RN and the Italians: for example Sirte and Cape Matapan. The naval war in the Med was far more dynamic than most people think. Right you are of course [:)] Using the word "refused" was simply short hand for them not wanting to venture out - they did of course - yet they lost consistently to the British fleet (Matapan in March 1941 for example - which destroyed their morale even more). They simply did not want to leave port and engage the British - the Germans had to coax them out. And when they did they met with disasterous results. This was meant to indicate their very poor morale.

IrishGuards -> RE: Siberian Reinforcements (8/18/2007 8:20:01 AM)
Bumpie bump ... Ire was ere .. [:'(] IDG

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.765625