Profile of DasDoomTurtle

1941 work around is interesting...why not just create own units in a mod for this rather than messing around with existing units? Furthermore why not just play the ToW lol

I agree Swede. In the end every side of the war committed countless acts of evil. That being said Stories of good (like your grandfathers) are needed to remind people evil wasn't the only thing that was enacted by those whom lived during that time. I look forward to maybe hearing more mate

Wars are won at the Strategic level. The allies and the soviets were on the ball on this one. However, other things points out to operational art at the tactical and operational levels- basically the W.Allied armies aren't aggressive, effective, or ambitious enough. Basically the West Front armies and airpower may have needed a different configuration and doctrine other than variations of 'methodical' battle. It would be an attempt to replicate blitzkrieg, although in West. Allied terms.

Part of your response I feel the need to speak on. The Allies and Soviets were not really "On the Ball". Let me explain:
Italy -> Allies continually lost much more resources because of the Germans ability to enact a defensive war on their terms. Allied solution? Land further up the coast. This achieved little success for months because the German ability to contain the landing zones. By wars end the Allies had yet to break out of Italy into southern Europe. While yes they lost the "WAR" the Germans had managed to stand firm within Italy against allies who were "On the Ball".
France -> Most initial Allied success was because of thier ability to war from the air. Without Air Power the war in France would have lasted significantly longer thus who knows what it would have looked like. The Air power was not due to Strategic Level but due to Resource Level and Technical Level. The P-51, Typhoon, Spitfires not only out numbered German Aircraft but they were replaceable and often had more technical advantages.
Russia -> Russia is a bit harder. Strategically Both sides were in the equal. The difference was that Russia had much more resources at thier dispolesl coupled with the fact that they had intel. Intel wins more wars than "Plans". Furthermore, German had good strategies through out the war but were hampered by military structure (Hitler in command etc.).

My point being: Wars are not won on the strategic level. Battles are won on the backs of the men whom fight it and the War is won on the backs of the home front whom continue to support and supply the needs of war. As Ike said "Plans are worthless, but planning is everything."

I have to disagree with that notion. A source is either good or it isn't, either accurate or not. If 9 are wrong and one is correct getting the average of all ten will give you a wrong number.


A jigh quality source(s) is what you want to look for. (True I never do care for numbers other than a ballpark figure.) If the study is well made and the eventual figure is what seems to be the consensus of most experts on the subject that is probably closest to the truth, (Not the same as THE TRUTH, you won't find that without a time machine) and will give you a good estimation of whatever it was the numbers tell you.

I hate when people go 10-15 thousand if they have one source saying 10 and another saying 15. Well one or both are wrong. Someone counted and came up with 10 thousand, another one counted in another way or using different material and came up with 15. Nobody made a study and came up with 13 thousand.

I understand your point but look at it from mathematical prospective. While 1 number could be right and another wrong the chance between right and wrong is a % chance. Now if you take the average your chance of being "closer" to the right answer is now higher. I have formula for this somewhere from back in my college math days but while no answer can be 100% correct we can still mathematically find a number with the % that is the closest to 100 with an average. (An average of realistic numbers lol, cant take an average of crap and get closer to crap and call it a flower). I hope my rambling make some logical sense.

Also Turtle I think he means this book: The Red Army handbook It isn't a book by the Red army, but a study of the Red Army by Zaloga.

Still my opinion stands. To get an acurate number There should be a compilation of atleast 10 sources and the average of those numbers taken

I am not in favor of this practice. It makes it more likely that threads and topics will be lost. There are some history buffs here but not enough to make a dynamic thread on every topic.

I say let us grognards discuss the war freely in any thread that seems to be alive. There aren't a whole lot of children involved in these discussions and things that go too far afield can be policed.

Not sure Sir. Bloodnok will approve of such a thing. He likes his forums neat