Winterclothes - As support material in winterwars

[Mjarr]

I'm sorry, but I cannot find it right now. The problem is that German winter clothing is scientifically far less superior to Russian great cloaks. There was a very interesting part then in a documentary a ''soldier'' was filmed in infrared camera and in this way, it was calculated how much each soldier emitted energy to the outside. German uniform had many ''weak spots'' while Russian winter clothes were barely visible. It's not surprise that Russia would be accustomed to winter climate in more ways than one, but it does not excuse a fact that German winter gear was inefficient even if they received one. In addition, it looking pretty just made matters worse, highlighting Germans focus on aesthetics rather than practicality.

I'm myself from northen climate zone and do you have any idea how fucking it can get? Especially during the early mornings after you wake up? I would fucking shoot a person responsible for designing my clothes myself and would take as much additional clothing as possible. During the winter, good clothes make the difference between having a pleasant walk in cool and beautiful environment and of constantly shacking and searching for warmth. Germans obviously did not knew how to design winter clothes and as you had said, a lot of nations were deluded and lacked wisdom to properly design their equipment.

Fact still remains, German military uniforms back then were not designed purely for aesthetic purposes. This is not an excuse to ignore the fact they were not necessarily the best winter uniforms because they certainly were not. Nothing to really disagree there. The claim they were more with fashion than practicality in mind however, is utterly false. It is akin to saying musket era tactics was due human retardation and inability to comprehend "proper" tactics.

 

[jcd000]

Not true, Hitler was at the second highest point of his power back then and debt incurred modernizing his army could be easily repaid in decade to come and that's without actually going into austerity budget. Allies hoped that this would buy them peace, Germany was returned almost everything it considered as robbed off and Stalin would not had a chance to invade Europe. Actually this is the point I love to stop playing aggressively as Germans since I know when to stop pushing my luck against decedent and weak powers. You cannot ever to push them into corner if you wish them to bend. This was first grand miscalculation of Hitler fortunately or sadly.

Politically he could back down, i agree.
But as far as i understand, his economy needed war to sustaint itself. You should read this and this and this (famous book).

I cannot go into legth as to the why, but it boils down to this:
If you are dramatically increasing government spending for a long time and goverment income stays the same, you got problems.
If in doing so, you devote a large proportion of that spending into turning your economy into a war economy, you got more problems if there is no war. With a big portion of the country devoted into weapons and training, you'd need to constantly export weapons and army in order to sustain that situation, or expand with war or threats.

So, even if there is war and you get the means to continue into that path, you will have to completely change that policy or do more wars in order to sustain yourself.

At Danzig-or-War time, Germany needs territorial expansion in order to not quickly implode due to its economy being what it is, backing down at that point would either mean war 6-12 months later, or German economic collapse.
Of course, this only my take on it, based on the literature i've read. The HOI series always failed to simulate this, but then their focus always were wartime, not economics.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

One then does not understands history. Thinking that you can just march into Soviet Union was simply wrong. In addition, splitting your focus to Leningrad also was pointless. If Hitler would had taken important lessons from it, he would understand that it's not first time then Russians managed to beat down far superior foe and that they will try to drag out conflict as long as possible and if anything they are famous for is tenacity.

Well, actually it worked pretty well in WW1.
And connecting the german and finnish lines is a solid reason to occupy Leningrad.

Motivating them to fight to the end against nazies genocidal march was just like pointing loaded gun to your head... Secondly, underestimating your foe is one of the gravest mistakes that you could have done. This cannot be excused and it's not an advantage of hindsight. Germans knew fell that it will be the largest operation yet and still they had failed the very first principle of war: know against whom you are fighting. They let their arrogance, hubris, ideology and bias to get first of clear thinking and careful planning.

That sounds as if you don´t know that not only Germany expected the Soviets to quickly fall at the time.

Btw: you might point to certain expectations of Germans, but you forget one crucial thing: Hitler. He declared from the start that this will be a total war with only total victory for them. He literally burned all bridges before him and he would not had signed anything less than a total annihilation of USSR like he had planned to.

Absolutely. No more USSR, no more Stalin - however Russia would still have been a viable state to negotiate with, just with a more eastern border, simiilar to WW1.

 

[Ernestas]

Fact still remains, German military uniforms back then were not designed purely for aesthetic purposes. This is not an excuse to ignore the fact they were not necessarily the best winter uniforms because they certainly were not. Nothing to really disagree there. The claim they were more with fashion than practicality in mind however, is utterly false. It is akin to saying musket era tactics was due human retardation and inability to comprehend "proper" tactics.

No, I would disagree on that point. German winter clothing was inefficient at keeping warm compared to Russian great cloaks. It is understanable, asking Germans for decent winter clothing design is like asking South Africa to be prepared for winter war. Germans were ignorant of that they will be facing and dictatorship has a tendency to suppress tat they do not want to hear. They did not had to encounter real cold in majority of their seasons and thus they made poor winter clothing. Did it done that was asked? Yes and no. If being huddled for warmth is an example of effective clothing then you sir have no idea how decent clothing looks. Like Russians love to say: there is no such thing as cold, just inappropriate clothing. This is just the truth. I'm from northen climate zone and rolling on the snow, sitting in one place or doing anything is just a peace of cake. Why? Since I know how many clothes of which quality is needed for that kind of temperatures. It's not like Germans who thought that they can survive -10 degrees with shorts... Heck, not even bringing gloves for autumn? I'm sorry, but you cannot defend Germans on this issue. Their behavior are either idiotic or reckless. Pick one.


Btw: Yes, they weren't not designed just for aesthetic reasons. I agree on that point, but I'm arguing about terrible situation of winter clothing in general. Finally getting your winter clothes who are poorly designed and on top of that: looks pretty, is just insult to injury.

 

[Loke]

Well, actually it worked pretty well in WW1.
And connecting the german and finnish lines is a solid reason to occupy Leningrad.
That sounds as if you don´t know that not only Germany expected the Soviets to quickly fall at the time.
Absolutely. No more USSR, no more Stalin - however Russia would still have been a viable state to negotiate with, just with a more eastern border, simiilar to WW1.

Russia also got beaten by Poland in the Polish-Soviet war.

 

[Ernestas]

Politically he could back down, i agree.
But as far as i understand, his economy needed war to sustaint itself. You should read this and this and this (famous book).

I cannot go into legth as to the why, but it boils down to this:
If you are dramatically increasing government spending for a long time and goverment income stays the same, you got problems.
If in doing so, you devote a large proportion of that spending into turning your economy into a war economy, you got more problems if there is no war. With a big portion of the country devoted into weapons and training, you'd need to constantly export weapons and army in order to sustain that situation, or expand with war or threats.

So, even if there is war and you get the means to continue into that path, you will have to completely change that policy or do more wars in order to sustain yourself.

At Danzig-or-War time, Germany needs territorial expansion in order to not quickly implode due to its economy being what it is, backing down at that point would either mean war 6-12 months later, or German economic collapse.
Of course, this only my take on it, based on the literature i've read. The HOI series always failed to simulate this, but then their focus always were wartime, not economics.

Thank you, I will read that you had sent to me as long as they are not entire books. I knew that Hitler's modernization program made immense damage to German economy and programs extent was far smaller than was boasted. I was not sure if he had a way back if he would have used resources gained in annexed regions like capture of gold and foreign factories.

HOI should simulate war's damage on country's economy and resources, but I'm a player which sees Victoria's 2 resource management as primitive and would introduce it to HOI series. I also want to point out that Great Britain had lost its position in the world despite winning both wars. It was pyric victory for them since immense military build up had drained their financial reserves. Even worst, they were forced to order a lot of supplies from foreign producers, this is why USA had become a superpower in a first place: always profiting from others misfortune.

On the other hand, I want to point out that for great nations, having military spending of 3-4 percents of GDP is actually beneficial for its economy. The point is to have consistent progress and sustainability. This is why military budgets must be holy and above politicians. They had inflicted massive damage over the world to their own armies during the great depression thus cutting R&D short, making a lot of inadequacies in many sectors and having to catch up with governments who are never willing to go even half the way. Look for example to modern Russia. They know that they must have first grade military. Because they have more wisdom than us, they actually saved large part of their income and now are funding their massive armament effort despite having 6 percent budget hole.
Now look to western military. USA armies are heavily outdated since they lack wisdom and will. Europe is even in worst condition, their militaries are just good on paper, inadequate military spending forces armies to cut a lot of corners, result: paper military. Same with everything, see how much pain Russia has to endure just for two decades of inadequate support for its military? To build up from scratch or to suddenly realize that you need armed forces is unrealistic. Military is something that you must nurture. Allow it to grow over very long period of time. It's most precious country's asset and it can not ever be half-assed.

 

[Ernestas]

Well, actually it worked pretty well in WW1.
And connecting the german and finnish lines is a solid reason to occupy Leningrad.



That sounds as if you don´t know that not only Germany expected the Soviets to quickly fall at the time.



Absolutely. No more USSR, no more Stalin - however Russia would still have been a viable state to negotiate with, just with a more eastern border, simiilar to WW1.

And from a historic standpoint you will know that every time is our ingenuity who won the war. During WW1 Russia had made every German to crap their pants due to how competent they were at mobilizing. Again, failing to take a lesson from history in not to underestimate Russians, especially then during WW1 they literally had destroyed German's allies and started free advance back to Germany. They had forced Germans to draw in their reserves and result was another stalemate which they did not won. Russians just decided that they are tired of everything far before Germans were even close in winning.

I do not know from where you draw conclusions that Stalin had declared total war upon fascism. Stalin merely wanted to protect its own interests thus interests of the state from foreign aggressors which we can see was ultimately true at how defensive his military deployments were during cold war. Striking first is merely an act of genius. A genius who understands that weakness and allowing your potential enemies to have their way would result in.


In the end, I know that USSR had poor reputation during that period, but I place more responsibility at the hands of leaders. Anyone who had studied history relating to Russia would had knew that it was not a first time then they had poor reputation.They would had known how they fight and how resilient they can get. In addition, they should have known that intelligence plays a major war in the war and without it, you are just gambling. All this was ignored due to sheer hubris. Well, I cannot blame them. Their were intoxicated with quick victories and a lot of them were too stupid to realize or too cowardly to speak out against Hitler. There were few of them who did had some common sense left in them, but it only shows how deluded Nazi leadership was at the time that it had failed to listen to such simple things as common sense and pragmantism.

 

[Ernestas]

No, Leningrad had little importance. Connecting lines with whom? Finland? They are better as distraction than an ally. This resulted only in massive splitting of Hitler's forces, having to occupy far more land than they were capable to handle and thus exhaustion of their reserves at critical points before Moscow and Stalingrad. To begin with, they were so lucky that Stalin did everything in his power to loose and Nazies had every little bit of luck going with them. Yet, they still managed to loose which shows at how far they actually were from victory.

 

[Ernestas]

jcd000,

I have read all that you had sent to me and this is just terrible. A white man should never fight among itself, such damage done to us for what? For silly ideas that one is better than another? Without WW1 there would had been no Great depression. There would had been no lack of resources to upgrade and to continue development of military. I bet that we would have a good chance to still control our colonies. WW1 and WW2 should be understood in most crucial way possible: why conflict among ourselves had become futile and we should apply this lesson in our every day politics. Most notably at trying to compete with Russians and finally embracing them as our friends and allies, fully giving them all guarantees of safety they desire and stop our never ending offense against them. Mark my words, if we will have to endure another such madness, we either destroy rest of the world or we yet again will have to endure being a backwater and foreign invaders pushing their will upon us.

Btw: this is just off topic of that I think. If you have an issue with it, PM me or make another thread. I won't reply to it here.

 

[Loke]

Hey,
what do you think about implementing a demand on winterclothes - for fighting a winterwar.
Like for Germany - If you want to conquer russia

Returning to the original... I say yes implement it, if you want winterclothing research it.
Someone will actually forget to reasearch in a multiplayer or singleplayer game.

 

[Ernestas]

Well, developers told that it will be no brainer research that everybody will do thus it was no point in even putting in it. Winter clothing is a silly research as a separate slot. Winter fighting is appropriate one, knowing how much preparations actually is needed to fight in winter climate.

 

[Mjarr]

No, I would disagree on that point. German winter clothing was inefficient at keeping warm compared to Russian great cloaks. It is understanable, asking Germans for decent winter clothing design is like asking South Africa to be prepared for winter war. Germans were ignorant of that they will be facing and dictatorship has a tendency to suppress tat they do not want to hear. They did not had to encounter real cold in majority of their seasons and thus they made poor winter clothing. Did it done that was asked? Yes and no. If being huddled for warmth is an example of effective clothing then you sir have no idea how decent clothing looks. Like Russians love to say: there is no such thing as cold, just inappropriate clothing. This is just the truth. I'm from northen climate zone and rolling on the snow, sitting in one place or doing anything is just a peace of cake. Why? Since I know how many clothes of which quality is needed for that kind of temperatures. It's not like Germans who thought that they can survive -10 degrees with shorts... Heck, not even bringing gloves for autumn? I'm sorry, but you cannot defend Germans on this issue. Their behavior are either idiotic or reckless. Pick one.


Btw: Yes, they weren't not designed just for aesthetic reasons. I agree on that point, but I'm arguing about terrible situation of winter clothing in general. Finally getting your winter clothes who are poorly designed and on top of that: looks pretty, is just insult to injury.

Care to clarify what exactly I am defending? I never said German winter clothes were the best thing evar made from pure Aryan moustaches that shrugs off glorious physics of thermodynamics because they were that awesome and blessed by Hitler too. Not at all. I have absolutely nothing to argue against that point because I fucking agree that Germans did not exactly have the best foresight when it came to some winter issue. Crystal enough? Second, I only argued against the point they were purely aesthetic. That is false. That is still false. If they were cut like Dressman or latest fashion models, they would tear apart very soon in any rigorous combat movement. They would be the worst field uniforms ever made and the Heer would have had massive issue with potentially nonstop flood of torn tunics and constrained shoulders that for starters, means throwing grenades further away is rendered very difficult and plethora of other things that require raising arm above certain level.

Third, what does the "I live in cold so I know" matters? What if I also live in place where winters can get cold and have pretty good idea that yes, T-shirt and boxers won't help you when it is -25 degrees celsius outside with howling gale on top of it?

And fourth, yes, this is prickly situation of arguing for the sake of arguing but let me iterate it once more: I did not touch the issue of how well they performed in certain situations because, shockingly, I actually agree on the point. I am still not arguing against the point, simply noted the fashion part is utterly false. Amsel Striker is mechanically pretty sound and sturdy yet it also happens to be perhaps the worst shotgun ever made. Does a positive (or neutral) comment imply ignorance to the other side of the coin? We could also make it a point that clothing that won't give you immediate frostbites in -40 degrees will sweat anoter Atlantic ocean in +20 degrees. 60 degrees change in dry temperature is not exactly minor leap either. Stating the obvious and all.

 

[Ernestas]

Relax and re read that I had wrote:

''Btw: Yes, they weren't not designed just for aesthetic reasons. I agree on that point, but I'm arguing about terrible situation of winter clothing in general. Finally getting your winter clothes who are poorly designed and on top of that: looks pretty, is just insult to injury.''

 

[Gethsemani]

Relax and re read that I had wrote:

''Btw: Yes, they weren't not designed just for aesthetic reasons. I agree on that point, but I'm arguing about terrible situation of winter clothing in general. Finally getting your winter clothes who are poorly designed and on top of that: looks pretty, is just insult to injury.''

Maybe we should get this misconception out of the way, then? The German winter equipment was not poorly designed, it was just designed for different conditions then Finnish or Soviet winter equipment. German equipment was designed to be effective in the relatively mild winters of western and central Europe, where an extra liner and a great coat is pretty much all you need and where anything more insulating or warmth providing just becomes needlessly restrictive. German equipment worked very well down to some -15-20 degrees Celsius, which was the lowest you could expect in and around Germany. Soviet winter equipment (just like Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian) was designed to withstand much more extreme temperatures, down to -40 Celsius or even lower. This also meant that this equipment was much heavier, more restrictive and less suitable for mild winters (where the perspiration from wearing too much clothing will cool you down).

In the end, it is not about better or worse, it is about suitability in different conditions. Early German winter equipment was disastrously unsuited to the Russian winter, but adequate for the German conditions it had been designed for.

 

[Loke]

Research of winter clothing AND equipment could be a three step rocket or something....

"How far north into Scandinavia or deep into Russia will i send my MVSN divisions and will it be so cold so I really need that level three winter clothing researched"

 

[Ernestas]

Of course, those pretty uniforms were designed for mild mid-European winters of -15 degrees. Then Germans were faced with Russian winter, whole hell broke loose. Even their winter clothing just saved soldiers from freeze bites. The great Wehrmacht felled down by a simple season. It was not the problem of Hitler not sending winter clothes to Russia, it was his arrogance in not properly investigating climate there and preparing your troops for the worst. If he would had done that, he would had seen that his current winter clothes offer insufficient protection against typical winters in Russia and would had ordered to upgrade their winter coats.

But that we can say, Hitler was a gambler. More smokes and mirrors and insane portion of luck rather than anything else. To say that he was doing statistical planning would be an insult to history. Unless of course you defend an idea that expecting USSR to collapse in a few months was a reasonable expectation. Then you commit even a greater crime in war: underestimating your enemy and I think we should be above such idiocity.


I also cannot see that kind of movement advantage you can see in German winter clothing. Russian clothes did not impeded movement in any real way. I was in one of those robes and while they are bulky and limit your movement, it won't matter much then you are throwing grenades or firing your weapon. Energy saved from actually having a chance to sleep translates to far higher combat efficiency than German lighter clothing. In addition, Russians did had zero problems in surrounding Wehrmacht outposts and destroying them one by one. So, it is obvious that there was no real disadvantage in mobility from these clothes.