This game needs 1942 and 1943 starts

[hkrommel]

I know your forum name is based on Rommel, but if my memory serves, Guderian held the T-34 in some esteem when he first got to inspect them during Barbarossa. Am I correct, or incorrectly remembering?

Guderian didn't personally have a position on them that I can ascertain, but he did order an inquiry into the realities of Soviet armor. The results had frontline officers recommending copying the T-34, but the Weapons Department stated that this was not feasible due to the diesel engine and particular alloy the Soviets used in their steel. The Daimler-Benz attempt to replicate the T-34 anyways met in failure. Instead, MAN modified the existing VK20 project to include an larger gun and more sloped armor, eventually producing the Panther. There were certainly other German generals that praised the T-34 though, I just couldn't find something reliably attributable to Guderian.

 

[Secret Master]

Guderian didn't personally have a position on them that I can ascertain, but he did order an inquiry into the realities of Soviet armor. The results had frontline officers recommending copying the T-34, but the Weapons Department stated that this was not feasible due to the diesel engine and particular alloy the Soviets used in their steel. The Daimler-Benz attempt to replicate the T-34 anyways met in failure. Instead, MAN modified the existing VK20 project to include an overhanging gun and more sloped armor, eventually producing the Panther. There were certainly other German generals that praised the T-34 though, I just couldn't find something reliably attributable to Guderian.

Okay, maybe my senility is acting up. Thanks for the clairification.

 

[Louella]

For all the faults of the AI in HOI4, it's far less idiotic in execution than strait jacketed wars fired by decision or event.

still plenty of complaints about Germany attacking France without having wrapped up Poland though, due to national focuses and so on.

 

[Secret Master]

still plenty of complaints about Germany attacking France without having wrapped up Poland though, due to national focuses and so on.

Which is a product of blindly following the NFs. Which is more or less the whole problem behind the Crimean War script from Vic1.

Although in fairness to the German AI in HOI4, it is actually at war with both France and Poland. The Benelux issue and Denmark issue are a whole other ballgame entirely.

 

[amalric de g.]

Guderian didn't personally have a position on them that I can ascertain, but he did order an inquiry into the realities of Soviet armor. The results had frontline officers recommending copying the T-34, but the Weapons Department stated that this was not feasible due to the diesel engine and particular alloy the Soviets used in their steel. The Daimler-Benz attempt to replicate the T-34 anyways met in failure. Instead, MAN modified the existing VK20 project to include an larger gun and more sloped armor, eventually producing the Panther. There were certainly other German generals that praised the T-34 though, I just couldn't find something reliably attributable to Guderian.

Guderian demanded an inquiry into the realities of tank warfare on the Eastern Front, suggesting that the quickest solution was to produce a direct copy of the T-34. from Hart, Stephen (2003) site 3-4. Panther Medium Tank 1942-45. Osprey Publishing (UK)

 

[Hootieleece]

still plenty of complaints about Germany attacking France without having wrapped up Poland though, due to national focuses and so on.

Which is a product of blindly following the NFs. Which is more or less the whole problem behind the Crimean War script from Vic1.

Although in fairness to the German AI in HOI4, it is actually at war with both France and Poland. The Benelux issue and Denmark issue are a whole other ballgame entirely

If one uses the 1939 start. The German AI does a reasonable Historical War even with the Historical NF's(maybe because of them)for a while. It usually finishes Poland quick. Then takes Around the Maginot and attacks Benelux in January which often allows it to win the Western Front by June. It then takes the detour to Scandinavia beats Denmark in about 3 days and if its Naval Invasion is successful get about halfway through Norway by August.

It loses its navy and can't invade Britain or even pretend to and then starts shipping troops to Africa. It then starts Barbarossa sometime in 1941..........

Problem:all the troops being sent to Africa are needed to defend against British NI Spam.....

which leads to it dragging in the Japanese and screwing that AI as well.

 

[Louella]

Although in fairness to the German AI in HOI4, it is actually at war with both France and Poland.

I once saw the German AI plan something I wasn't expecting, during a game where I was testing things. They were at war with France and Poland, but not against the Benelux (yet). They were also not at war with the UK (I was looking to see what happened if France formed its own faction).

Germany had planned (but not yet executed), a naval invasion of Brittany, with a thrust onto Paris from there.

Well, that does bypass the Maginot Line, heh.

 

[Telenil]

Thanks for the info, I'll have to look into it more. I'm mostly drawing my impressions from books like Julian Jackson's The Fall of France: The Nazi Invasion of 1940 and Joel Blatt's The French Defeat of 1940: Reassessments. Those books indicate that the right wing generals and the left wing government were often at odds, and did not trust each other's decision-making. Weygand, for example, was more concerned with preventing a communist uprising than fighting the Germans because he feared that more! Rampant defeatism was a large part of what contributed to this as well. I'm curious as to your thoughts on the political aspect, as they seem to contradict what I've read. If you have sources in French I'll have to take your word for them though, as I can't speak French yet.

French sources, yes. The main one is Henry Amouroux, Histoire des Français sous l'Occupation.

What you described reminds me more of the time of the Front Populaire,1936-1938. At that time, the communist supported the left-wing governement, and the right did fear some sort of communist takeover. This being the appeasement years, I can imagine conservative generals being more anxious about the left than about Germany.

In 1938, the government changed to center-left and it was not as divisive as the Front Populaire. When the German-Soviet pact was signed, even the other left parties turned against the communist and the party leaders were imprisonned or fled the country.

The communist essentially rooted for the German during the phony war, but they had lost almost all of their support. They only recovered in 1942, when they became gradually more active in the Résistance.

 

[Secret Master]

Well, that does bypass the Maginot Line, heh.

I did that in my peaceful Germany AAR several years ago in HOI3. Except I landed German forces in Normandy, I think.

 

[Rustaveli]

@Rustaveli
You're welcome to provide sources as I did, but I'm not bothering to deal with the mess of half truths, myth and nonsense you call a response until you do.
Edit: YouTube links and random forum posts will not be accepted as sources, just FYI.

I will repeat my question: what sources of information are you interested in?
My English is pretty bad, I read books only in Russian. Consider this.

The Winter War involved almost 1,000,000 Soviet troops against 340,000 Finns at its peak. How exactly does that not qualify as a large number of troops?

November 1939 - 250 thousand Finns against 425 thousand soviets. (12% of the soviet army).
March 1940 - 265 thousand Finns against 760 thousand soviets. (18% of the soviet army).
Numbers for Finns are given according to Finnish sources, so they may be somewhat understated.

Regarding the Soviet experience in this war: this experience concerned, in the main, the breakthrough of long-term fortifications. This country did not have a lot of heavy weapons: tanks, airplanes, anti-tank guns. On the contrary, Germany possessed all this. The war against Germany is defensive (at the first stage). Can the offensive experience in Finland in the defensive war against the Hitler's EU greatly help? I do not think so. In any case, certain conclusions were drawn and reforms began. But time was too short for serious changes: March 1940 >>> June 1941.

 

[hkrommel]

November 1939 - 250 thousand Finns against 425 thousand soviets. (12% of the soviet army).
March 1940 - 265 thousand Finns against 760 thousand soviets. (18% of the soviet army).

Where are these numbers coming from?

Numbers for Finns are given according to Finnish sources, so they may be somewhat understated.

Why would you assume the Finnish numbers are questionable but take the Soviet ones at face value?

 

[Rustaveli]

Where are these numbers coming from?

1. Virrankoski P. Suomen Historia 2. — 2001.
2. Kakela E. Laguksen miehet, marskin nyrkki: Suomalainen panssariyhtyma 1941—1944. — 1992.
These sources are referred to by the Russian Wikipedia.
The Soviet numbers are works edited by Krivosheev.
My mistake: I quoted a number of 265,000 for March 1940, in fact it's November 1939 by Russian sources.

Why would you assume the Finnish numbers are questionable but take the Soviet ones at face value?

The Soviet source considers the Finnish army as: the operating Finnish army + militia units + volunteers from other countries.
The Finnish source is (apparently) only a functioning army. In my opinion, the Russian / Soviet source is more objective.

 

[hkrommel]

1. Virrankoski P. Suomen Historia 2. — 2001.
2. Kakela E. Laguksen miehet, marskin nyrkki: Suomalainen panssariyhtyma 1941—1944. — 1992.
These sources are referred to by the Russian Wikipedia.
The Soviet numbers are works edited by Krivosheev.
My mistake: I quoted a number of 265,000 for March 1940, in fact it's November 1939 by Russian sources.

That's the problem with pulling from Wikipedia, the English Wikipedia has contradicting sources putting peak Finnish strength at 360,000, and the Soviets at 1,000,000 total (including air forces, your 760,000 is correct for the army alone).

The Soviet source considers the Finnish army as: the operating Finnish army + militia units + volunteers from other countries.
The Finnish source is (apparently) only a functioning army. In my opinion, the Russian / Soviet source is more objective.

1. How do you know that from a Wikipedia page?
2. Given Soviet historiography, Soviet historical sources are always suspect. That doesn't mean they're wrong necessarily, but they certainly need outside verification if you're going to be using them without a disclaimer.

On the Soviet historiography note here's a good summary from the wiki page (but you'll find loads more in academic history journals):

Criticism stems from the fact that in the Soviet Union, science was far from independent. Since the late 1930s, Soviet historiography treated the party line and reality as one and the same.[8] As such, if it was a science, it was a science in service of a specific political and ideological agenda, commonly employing historical revisionism.[9] In the 1930s, historical archives were closed and original research was severely restricted. Historians were required to pepper their works with references — appropriate or not — to Stalin and other "Marxist-Leninist classics", and to pass judgment — as prescribed by the Party — on pre-revolution historic Russian figures.[10] Nikita Khrushchev commented that "Historians are dangerous and capable of turning everything upside down. They have to be watched."[11]

The state-approved history was openly subjected to politics and propaganda, similar to philosophy, art, and many fields of scientific research.[11] The Party could not be proven wrong, it was infallible and reality was to conform to this line. Any non-conformist history had to be erased, and questioning of the official history was illegal.[11]

Many works of Western historians were forbidden or censored, and many areas of history were also forbidden for research because, officially, they had never happened.[11] For this reason, Soviet historiography remained mostly outside the international historiography of the period.[6] Translations of foreign historiography were produced (if at all) in a truncated form, accompanied by extensive censorship and "corrective" footnotes. For example, in the Russian 1976 translation of Basil Liddell Hart's History of the Second World War pre-war purges of Red Army officers, the secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, many details of the Winter War, the occupation of the Baltic states, the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Allied assistance to the Soviet Union during the war, many other Western Allies' efforts, the Soviet leadership's mistakes and failures, criticism of the Soviet Union and other content were censored out.[12]

 

[Rustaveli]

1. How do you know that from a Wikipedia page?
2. Given Soviet historiography, Soviet historical sources are always suspect. That doesn't mean they're wrong necessarily, but they certainly need outside verification if you're going to be using them without a disclaimer.

1. This is my guess. Another number of the Finnish army on the border with the USSR can meet as 600 thousand (November 1939). This taking into account the trained reserve.(Krivosheev).
2. This is true for both sides. (The USSR and the West). For example: some Western historians (David Glantz) consider the German army (And her losses) to be:
- An operating land army.
- without SS.
- without the Luftwaffe.
- without the Krigsmarine.
- without the organization of Todt. (Because similar building battalions are taken into account in Soviet statistics.)
- without allied armies.
And the Red Army:
- The active army.
- Plus the air force.
- Plus the naval forces.
- Plus the nkvd.
On this basis, a conclusion is made about the superiority of the USSR in human resources over Germany. Or simply take the number of the land German army for the Barbarossa plan (3.3 million) and compare with the total number of the Red Army throughout the USSR (5.4 million).
2.1 Another example. In the Western historiography it is customary to condemn the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as an act that untied Hitler's hands. However, it is not said that the reason for his conclusion was the policy of the Western powers (lack of clear guarantees and plans) and the position of Poland, which did not agree to let the Red Army through pass the of her territory and help Czechoslovakia. . Thus, the USSR was isolated and agreed to cooperate with Germany.

 

[hkrommel]

1. This is my guess. Another number of the Finnish army on the border with the USSR can meet as 600 thousand (November 1939). This taking into account the trained reserve.(Krivosheev).

So based on pure guessing you're going to evaluate the methodology of sources you've never read? Come on.

2.1 Another example. In the Western historiography it is customary to condemn the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as an act that untied Hitler's hands. However, it is not said that the reason for his conclusion was the policy of the Western powers (lack of clear guarantees and plans) and the position of Poland, which did not agree to let the Red Army through pass the of her territory and help Czechoslovakia. . Thus, the USSR was isolated and agreed to cooperate with Germany.

The whole "USSR had no choice but to invade and annex sovereign states!" excuse doesn't work here simply because they did have a choice. The USSR was hardly entitled to military access to Poland, to name just one common absurd excuse. There's also no comparison (for numerous, painfully obvious reasons) between Soviet historiography and "western historiography." The main reason is that "western historiography" doesn't exist as a category, because there are a multitude of traditions as freedom of thought and lack of political censorship tend to cause. Further, Soviet historiography isn't even a science in the strict sense of the word, it's fundamentally propagandist in nature (indeed there's a debate amongst historians as to whether Soviet historiography is legitimate historiography at all!)

 

[srfcboy]

Game need start in 1930, or 1933 for sure

 

[Rustaveli]

So based on pure guessing you're going to evaluate the methodology of sources you've never read? Come on.

I did not say anything about the methodology. I quoted from Krivosheev's work.

The whole "USSR had no choice but to invade and annex sovereign states!" excuse doesn't work here simply because they did have a choice.

What choice did the USSR have? According to secret protocols to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - Europe was divided into spheres of influence of major powers. (Germany and the USSR). Germany should not interfere in the sphere of influence of the USSR and vice versa. In the text of the secret protocols nothing is said about the occupation of other states.

The USSR was hardly entitled to military access to Poland, to name just one common absurd excuse.

This was the only chance to help Czechoslovakia and stop Hitler. Poland refused, and then - took part in the section of Czechoslovakia. A little later - she started talking about "a blow in the back." Not very logical.

There's also no comparison (for numerous, painfully obvious reasons) between Soviet historiography and "western historiography."

As a citizen of Russia, I can confidently say: this is not true. You need to be part of another civilization (there are three civilizations in the world) and have a different mentality to see the differences in historiography.

The main reason is that "western historiography" doesn't exist as a category, because there are a multitude of traditions as freedom of thought and lack of political censorship tend to cause.

I have two concrete examples of censorship in Western states:
1. There is a good documentary cycle "Soviet storm", there was a series about Stalingrad. In the Russian version of the film it is said about a small percentage of members of the blocking squads and that their main task is to stop the panic and return the soldiers to their units, and not shoot them In the English version - this episode is cut out.
2. Do you remember the war on 08/08/08? One woman with her daughter was invited to an American TV, and then, when she began to speak words in support of Russia - the broadcasting was interrupted.

Further, Soviet historiography isn't even a science in the strict sense of the word, it's fundamentally propagandist in nature (indeed there's a debate amongst historians as to whether Soviet historiography is legitimate historiography at all!)

So, Soviet people - do they turn out complete fools once they believe in her? Or is there still another reason?

 

[Claremont Waltz]

2. This is true for both sides. (The USSR and the West). For example: some Western historians (David Glantz) consider the German army (And her losses) to be:
- An operating land army.
- without SS.
- without the Luftwaffe.
- without the Krigsmarine.
- without the organization of Todt. (Because similar building battalions are taken into account in Soviet statistics.)
- without allied armies.
And the Red Army:
- The active army.
- Plus the air force.
- Plus the naval forces.
- Plus the nkvd.
On this basis, a conclusion is made about the superiority of the USSR in human resources over Germany. Or simply take the number of the land German army for the Barbarossa plan (3.3 million) and compare with the total number of the Red Army throughout the USSR (5.4 million).

You've clearly never read Glantz, as he's easily the most pro soviet western military historian of the Second World War and routinely comes after casualty figures with a goal of presenting a soviet friendly picture that other historians - who work from either German or mixed sources - disagree with. This says nothing about his extensive operational history research which is literally unearthing major soviet operations like Mars and the battles in the Don basin and around Kutloban.

More than anyone glantz is responsible for the massive improvement in the reputation of the RKKA in the west.

2.1 Another example. In the Western historiography it is customary to condemn the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as an act that untied Hitler's hands. However, it is not said that the reason for his conclusion was the policy of the Western powers (lack of clear guarantees and plans) and the position of Poland, which did not agree to let the Red Army through pass the of her territory and help Czechoslovakia. . Thus, the USSR was isolated and agreed to cooperate with Germany.

Wew lad.

You know that the Soviets:

* had invaded Poland in 1919-1920

* maintained imperial Russian claims to Polish territory

* actively conducted espionage and communist recruitment in Poland

* was not willing to guarantee polish sovereignty and territorial integrity before entering polish lands

* was led by a man with a specific animus against Poland after he personally was chased out of the country in 1920

* later conspired to steal large chunks of poland

* conducted ethnic cleansing to remove poles from soviet territory

* conducted extensive war planning against Poland throughout the interwar period

* represented the heir of a state that had occupied and brutally abused large parts of the polish state for centuries

* suggested that Poland be the fighting ground for two states that were both hostile to Poland.

You keep making ridiculous assumptions, playing fast and loose with facts and refusing that source even one of your claims with anything more than Wikipedia or books you found on Wikipedia.

 

[Achim Detjen]

What this game actually needs is a 1938-start, like HoI2 had. Since Paradox seems to actually care slightly about multiplayer with this game (as opposed to statements about previous games that they are not made for multiplayer), a '38 starting point would provide slightly more balance. Back in the day, most HoI2 MP-games started on the '38 bookmark.

 

[Rustaveli]

You've clearly never read Glantz, as he's easily the most pro soviet western military historian of the Second World War and routinely comes after casualty figures with a goal of presenting a soviet friendly picture that other historians - who work from either German or mixed sources - disagree with.

This person is responsible for reducing the number of Axis countries on the Soviet-German front. (Possibly unintentional).
Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II) #Forces
According to his table (June 1942), it can be seen that the total strength of the Axis forces is 3.7 million. The USSR is 5.3 million. Now, the simple question is: how do the Axis countries having 1.6 million fewer start a new offensive in the southern sector of the front? Supermen? No. Simply Glantz does not take into account the Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, SS, the organization of Todt and perhaps something else. The Western man does not think about this (the majority) and believes in the super strength of the German army, which fights with the multiply superior enemy. This is an element of propaganda. Soviet sources give the following cisals:
Germany (without allies) - 5.65 million. The USSR - 5.5 million. It's more like the truth.

You know that the Soviets:

* had invaded Poland in 1919-1920

This war began on the initiative of Poland:

In 1919, after the departure of the German army, the Red Army came to the territory of Belarus and Lithuania. January 10, 1919 Minsk was taken and the Belarusian SSR was proclaimed. On January 27, Lithuania was taken, and the republic became the Lithuanian-Belarusian SSR. On February 3, the republic joined the federation with the RSFSR.

On the other hand, Polish troops were being drawn up, with the aim of restoring Polish borders within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. On February 9 - 14, 1919, the Polish units occupied the Kobrin-Pruzhany line. The Polish-Soviet front was formed. There was a Civil War in Russia, Denikin was in power - and, using the convenient moment, the Poles struck the Red Army, forced to spray forces on several fronts.

On February 28, the units of General Ivashkevich were attacked by Soviet troops on the Shchara River and on March 1 they occupied Slonim.
On March 2, the parts of Listovsky were taken by Pinsk.
On April 19 the Poles occupied Lida, Novogrudok, Baranovichi and Vilna.
On April 28 the Poles occupied Grodno.
On June 25, the Council of Foreign Ministers of Great Britain, France, the United States, Italy authorizes Poland to occupy eastern Galicia.
July 4, Molodechno was occupied by the Poles.
July 25 - Slutsk.
August 9 Poles take Minsk.
On August 29, the Poles took Bobruisk.

Further, a truce was concluded and a diplomatic struggle began with the participation of Poland, the Entente and Denikin.

On December 8, 1919, the Supreme Council of the Entente, as the eastern border of Poland, recommended the Curzon Line. However, the Polish troops were much more east, and the occupied territories refused.

After the Polish-Soviet negotiations began, they also failed.

In early January 1920 the Poles resumed hostilities. Was taken Dinaburg.

On March 6, the Poles launched an offensive in Byelorussia, taking Mozyr.

On April 25, 1920, the Polish troops, possessing threefold numerical superiority over the Red Army, attacked the positions of the Red Army along the entire length of the Ukrainian border and by April 28 occupied the Chernobyl-Kozyatin-Vinnitsa-Romanian border line. The troops of our 12th Army lost their unified command. Poles captured more than 25 thousand Red Army men, captured 2 armored trains, 120 guns and 418 machine guns.

On May 7 the Poles occupied Kiev.

On May 14, the counteroffensive of the Red Army began, the very thing that the mythmakers issued for "aggression against Poland."

On June 10, the Poles left Kiev - and further they were driven almost to Warsaw, where luck turned away from the Red Army. But this is a completely different topic.

maintained imperial Russian claims to Polish territory

This was done after the war broke out and a decision was made to "Sovietise" Poland.

* actively conducted espionage and communist recruitment in Poland

Because the "world revolution" is a way of surviving a weak Soviet Russia surrounded by a hostile capitalist world.

was not willing to guarantee polish sovereignty and territorial integrity before entering polish lands

If Poland violates the territorial integrity of Russia, then why should Russia comply with the Polish one?

later conspired to steal large chunks of poland

With whom did he come to an agreement? With Germany? Read the text of the secret protocols.

* conducted ethnic cleansing to remove poles from soviet territory

The purges were not ethnic (Ussr - international state), but class. They were conducted against anti-Soviet activities.

conducted extensive war planning against Poland throughout the interwar period

Poland does the same. This is normal work for the general staff of any country.

suggested that Poland be the fighting ground for two states that were both hostile to Poland.

If this is the only chance to stop Hitler by "little blood", then why not? Is it better to be occupied (1939-1945)? Ok.

You keep making ridiculous assumptions, playing fast and loose with facts and refusing that source even one of your claims with anything more than Wikipedia or books you found on Wikipedia.

What are my words "ridiculous"? What's wrong with Wikipedia? It's just a source of information.