Profile of Death's Head

Comparing dictatorship and the modell of totalitarism you can come to the conlcusion that Stalin in relation to Hitler did it ironically the "right" way. After Stalin eleminated nearly his whole officer corps especially from 1937-1939, as already mentioned, his officers left had to gain experiece in operational warfare. The key point is that Stalin let them doing throughout the war not intervening in major operational decisions made by his staff, but so did the almighty Führer.

Again, ironically, you might call Hitler "the devil you know", whereas Stalin was something much more dangerous than a mere devil.

Hitler was in many ways a sentimental; he believed strongly in personal loyalties which often ended in him being betrayed and deserted. Stalin on the other hand refused to lift a finger for his own son was captured as a PoW by the Germans and offered back in a prisoner exchange.

Not to be crass, but even in the xenophobic police-state that was Nazi Germany, you could still enjoy more freedoms and rights than in the Soviet Union, at least if you were a high ranking military officer or businessman. Many of Hitler's generals, the most respected and distinguished (Guderian, Rudtstead, etc) were virtually untouchable to Hitler himself dude to the respect they garnered from others in power. Such a thing was unheard of in Stalin's regime.

Well you can also use the word "strategy" in its traditional definition of meaning an organized plan. For instance, German generals favoured conceding some sector if the end result was a shorter front line, which would allow them to have deeper and stronger formations consistent across the front. This is strategic brilliance conducted through tactical levels of command.




Regarding the Soviet Unions' advantages in attrition...the Germans were well aware of that before Barbarossa was even idea. The whole gamble was in whether or not they could subdue the Soviet Union before the effects of attritional war ravage their forces. Of course they lost that gamble but they didn't having much of a choice, between Hitler's insistence on an invasion and the Soviet Union planning their own surprise declaration of war for 1942...the German high command could have done little differently. Perhaps not going ahead with the Kiev distraction.

Hogwash and bullsh-t.

This is not the way to open a dialogue.

They succeeded spectacularly early in the war because they were both starting from their "home base" (zero length lines of supply) and against both the French and the Russians they weren't just better trained and lead but were veterans of real warfare.

There are many reasons for the early successes of '39, '40. and '41. Vague oversimplifications like "starting from their home base" is neither an explanation for their success, nor is it a good basis to discredit military accomplishments.

The French, British and Russians (to a lesser extent) all had their share of WWI veteran commanders and command staff, no different than the Germans. It was their inability to anticipate and respond to the new wave of fast moving/motorized warfare, among other things, that led to their early humiliations.

Neither was the case for their opposition by 1944. Once the Allies broke through in Normandy They kept those supposedly defensively brilliant Germans on the run ... until they ran out of gas. They neither attacked from some home base since they had to transport everything over the channel and onto beaches or through distant and inadequate ports (Cherbourg).

I hope you realize than the whole of England was essentially the world's largest military base leading up to mid 1944. The massive buildup and organization of the invasion forces was done covertly...but in relative safety and the English channel was really no great obstacle for the Allies as they had full navy and air superiority in Western Europe at that time.

Likewise the Russians moved the Germans some 600 miles during Operation Bagracian and since they had already made progress they were not starting from some built up home base nor was it against something like the non-veterans, poorly lead Russian Army of 1941. They too had to stop once in a while to rearm and reequip.

My point was that Germany nearly captured Moscow in much less time, through continuous outmaneuvering of Russian garrison forces and entire armies. The Russians however continued to grind their way through every battle including Berlin itself, suffering atrocious casualties despite being well-supplied, well-equipped and facing inferior forces.

Germans aren't ubermencsh. Quite fooling yourself.

Really?! I am quite sure they are. Just look at Arnold. If he isn't ubermencsh, who is. /sarcasm.

In team games avoid US and Wehr...avoid Wehr period.

OKW stronger than ever.

It should not just be about how much a unit costs, but also how you use it. You can't expect an A-move Kubelwagen to kill a ZiS 3, so why should A-move blobs kill Machine Guns?

I agree 100% but the trick is finding that sweet spot between making HMGs too powerful and spammable vs. being ineffective in their only role: suppression. Back in July 2013 the MG42 was a godsend to Ostheer, it was reliable, pinned Cons for fun but yet still very defeatable by flanking. The problem was when they were overlapped it was just too effective for 480MP deploy-and-forget.

Nowadays we have the complete opposite situation, you have to babysit MG42 even through head-on charges for it even to survive, let alone be cost-effective.