Why Stalingrad?

[Black-Hussar]

If you need to designate one specific "turning point", it is 22 June 1941. That is when Germany moved from the "Not Losing" column to "Losing". In fact, there was never a plan to defeat the nation that was invaded on that day, nor any attempt at understanding the USSR forces and capabilities.

 

Disagree completely.

 

The turning point was the Battle of Britain. Hitler hesitated and failed to defeat and invade Great Britian. No doubt that the war was already lost that days as

 

- there would have been no use- and senseless war in North Africa

- there would have been no ressource-intensiv naval war in the North Atlantic

- no bombing on German civilian and industrial areas  

- no invasion of Allied troops in North Arfrica or Western Europe

- no simultaneous war "at two or three fronts"

 

The lost Battle of Britain tied up lots of troops and material in North Africa and Western Europe, Enormous ressources have been wasted to defend Western Europe (Siegfried Line) and the North Atlantic. RAF and USAF bombings heavily affected the German industrial production and civilian moral. Please bear in mind that Russia was also overrun within one year! In late summer 1942 Leningrad was already surrounded by the Heeresgruppe Nord (Army Group North),  the Heeresgruppe Mitte (Army Group Center) stood at the gates of Moscow and the Heeresgruppe S????d (Army Group South) was figthing is the suburbs of Stalingrad and the Caucasus region.

 

Only the overstretched german front due to the lack of ressources safed Russia at that days. 

 

So in my opinion the battle of Stalingrad was not the "turning point". It was only one battle and one of many consequences of Hitlers indecision, military inability and megalomania.... or better "Napoleonic complex". But of course from the Russian point of view (!) maybe Stalingrad was the turning point of their war. 

 

So for me the question "why Stalingrad?" is more than eligible.....

[Kongo-Otto]

Disagree completely.

 

The turning point was the Battle of Britain. Hitler hesitated and failed to defeat and invade Great Britian. No doubt that the war was already lost that days as

 

- there would have been no use- and senseless war in North Africa

- there would have been no ressource-intensiv naval war in the North Atlantic

- no bombing on German civilian and industrial areas  

- no invasion of Allied troops in North Arfrica or Western Europe

- no simultaneous war "at two or three fronts"

 

The lost Battle of Britain tied up lots of troops and material in North Africa and Western Europe, Enormous ressources have been wasted to defend Western Europe (Siegfried Line) and the North Atlantic. RAF and USAF bombings heavily affected the German industrial production and civilian moral. Please bear in mind that Russia was also overrun within one year! In late summer 1942 Leningrad was already surrounded by the Heeresgruppe Nord (Army Group North),  the Heeresgruppe Mitte (Army Group Center) stood at the gates of Moscow and the Heeresgruppe S????d (Army Group South) was figthing is the suburbs of Stalingrad and the Caucasus region.

 

Only the overstretched german front due to the lack of ressources safed Russia at that days. 

 

So in my opinion the battle of Stalingrad was not the "turning point". It was only one battle and one of many consequences of Hitlers indecision, military inability and megalomania.... or better "Napoleonic complex". But of course from the Russian point of view (!) maybe Stalingrad was the turning point of their war. 

 

So for me the question "why Stalingrad?" is more than eligible.....

 

The Eastfront was a meat grinder from the beginning.

The Wehrmacht bled white at the Eastfront, not on any other Front the Wehrmacht suffered such tremendous losses in manpower then at the Easternfront.

Stalingrad was the end of the Offensive, after Stalingrad the last try for an offensive Battle was the Kursk salient and it failed miserably.

So was Stalingrad a turning point?

Yes it was and even more it was the G???

[DD_fruitbat]

I see truth in both posts by Rudel and Kongo Otto.

 

Going into the realms of what ifs, it is not inconceivable that Stalingrad would not of even happened had the Germany defeated Britain (either by invasion or Britain suing for peace) in the summer of 1940.

 

It has always been my understanding that the original plan was to drive to the oil fields of the Caucasus, and that Stalingrad was never the original intention, but we know how that turned out.

 

With Britain out of the war (and therefore almost certainly the USA in europe), Germany would of had oil from North Africa/suez, which was the point of that campaign, rather than sight seeing of the pyramids, and there would of been less urgent need to secure more oil fields, likely leading to a different tactical plan in the east.

 

And again with the what ifs, without the continual bombing and harassment from the western front launched from Britain by the Allies, and operations in Norway, its also not inconceivable that Germany might of developed the A bomb first, in '44. Who knows how Stalin would of reacted to one of them on Moscow..... 

 

Anyway, its interesting to speculate the what ifs from a BoB turning out the other way, and how that would of affected the war in the east.

Edited January 16, 2013 by fruitbat

[csThor]

IMO attributing any battle the title of "turning point" in the grandest sense is overzealous. The sum of all parts - the war in North Africa and the Mediterranean, the Eastern Front, the Battle of the Atlantic, the strategic air war and eventually the second front in France 1944 - all served together to grind down Germany economically and manpower-wise. Alone no aspect can gain enough importance to be considered absolutely decisive (there are far too many interdependencies), only combined and when seen on the timescale they happened they produce the historical outcome.

[DD_Arthur]

.

 

And again with the what ifs, without the continual bombing and harassment from the western front launched from Britain by the Allies, and operations in Norway, its also not inconceivable that Germany might of developed the A bomb first, in '44. Who knows how Stalin would of reacted to one of them on Moscow..... 

 

 

 

Actually it is "inconceivable" that Nazi Germany could have developed The Bomb.  I'm sure it's made for some interesting books and of course realms of speculation but on the time scale involved only the USA had the ability to harness the resources and know-how to in effect deliver a whole new industrial revolution within the space of six years.

[Black-Hussar]

@Kongo-Otto

 

In case of Stalingrad I fully agree the term of "G???

[Crump]

Whilst Kursk was the scene of the largest aircraft concentrations of the war

 

 

Which is why making it the initial release of a WWII aircraft based game would make more sense.  It offers a wider variety of aircraft, maps, and campaigns.  Most of those maps are wide open fields and not resource robbing cityscapes. 

 

That means a more appeal to a larger segment of the market.

 

BTW, The United States is the largest video game consumer in the world.   That may change in the next decade but for now, it is the United States.

 

One thing didn???

Edited January 16, 2013 by Crump

[Black-Hussar]

If the game is to succeed in the market place, it must appeal to the largest segment of what is a very niche market in video gaming.  CloD failed in part because it appealed it a fraction of that niche market by offering a very limited plane set in one specific battle.  IL2 was a success because it reached a larger segment of that market and by the end of its development, ran the complete gamut of WWII era aerial combat.

 

 

Well, we all know that there were "some hundred" more reason why CloD failed, but I agree and fear that this may happen again. So why Stalingrad? Is it because the 1C team brought lots of preparatory work into the marriage?

 

This inevitably leads me to the question "how much CloD will be in BoS?"   :o

Edited January 16, 2013 by Rudel

[DD_fruitbat]

I would be hugely surprised if il2 sold more units in the US than Russia, let alone Russia and Europe.

[csThor]

@csThor 

 

Fully agree, but there are always key decisions, points, events, battles that are more important than others. No doubt that the Battle of Stalingrad was one of those points in the east, but the war was already lost the day it began, but latest when they failed to conquer Great Britain.

 

Simply put I don't attribute that much importance to the BoB, simply because of the german inability to actually pull off a successful amphibious landing. Not to mention that Hitler revealed his true intentions (the "crusade" against the Soviet Union) even before he signed the order for the "versch???

[Black-Hussar]

Simply put I don't attribute that much importance to the BoB, simply because of the german inability to actually pull off a successful amphibious landing. Not to mention that Hitler revealed his true intentions (the "crusade" against the Soviet Union) even before he signed the order for the "versch???

[DD_Arthur]

Sure, but does this change anything? I already explained in my first post why the BoB was a real "turning point" of the 2nd World war. IMO an epic fail...

 

But thanks god that "the private" did not realize this.... 

 

Er.......don't you mean the corporal ?

[Black-Hussar]

Er.......don't you mean the corporal ?

 

No, private (Gefreiter) only.

 

Highly decorated, (02.12.1914: Eisernes Kreuz II. Klasse / 17.09.1917: Milit???

[DD_Arthur]

Well Rudel, I'm indebted. You learn something new everyday.  English translation of Gefreiter is Corporal!

[Black-Hussar]

Well Rudel, I'm indebted. You learn something new everyday.  English translation of Gefreiter is Corporal!

 

Seems that my dictionary sucks.   I apologize for them..... 

[Crump]

I would be hugely surprised if il2 sold more units in the US than Russia, let alone Russia and Europe.

 

 

I absolutely agree that the original IL2 probably sold more in Russia and Europe than it did in the largest video game market in the world, the United States.  Why?  German and Russian conflicts are just not that well known or appealing in that market. 

 

IL2 really took off when Pacific Fighters came out appealing to a larger segment of that market.

[wiseblood]

Yeah it's kind of silly to throw around "video game sales" as an indicator for such a niche genre with such steep requirements as flightsims. When you talk about "video game" revenue over the last say, 5 years - think about what that would mean in NA without the 360 or Wii. When you talk about PC video game sales - think what that amounts to minus World of Warcraft, League of Legends, The Sims and facebook games. If you are not selling something related to one of the above listed items, since 2007 or so, the world has been a pretty cold place.

[MineFewer]

Disagree completely.

 

The turning point was the Battle of Britain. Hitler hesitated and failed to defeat and invade Great Britian. No doubt that the war was already lost that days as

 

- there would have been no use- and senseless war in North Africa

- there would have been no ressource-intensiv naval war in the North Atlantic

- no bombing on German civilian and industrial areas  

- no invasion of Allied troops in North Arfrica or Western Europe

- no simultaneous war "at two or three fronts"

 

The lost Battle of Britain tied up lots of troops and material in North Africa and Western Europe, Enormous ressources have been wasted to defend Western Europe (Siegfried Line) and the North Atlantic. RAF and USAF bombings heavily affected the German industrial production and civilian moral. Please bear in mind that Russia was also overrun within one year! In late summer 1942 Leningrad was already surrounded by the Heeresgruppe Nord (Army Group North),  the Heeresgruppe Mitte (Army Group Center) stood at the gates of Moscow and the Heeresgruppe S????d (Army Group South) was figthing is the suburbs of Stalingrad and the Caucasus region.

 

Only the overstretched german front due to the lack of ressources safed Russia at that days. 

 

So in my opinion the battle of Stalingrad was not the "turning point". It was only one battle and one of many consequences of Hitlers indecision, military inability and megalomania.... or better "Napoleonic complex". But of course from the Russian point of view (!) maybe Stalingrad was the turning point of their war. 

 

So for me the question "why Stalingrad?" is more than eligible.....

 

Very salient points, but something you omitted: Until 22 June 41, Germany was getting the resources it needed from Russia, via normal trade as a result of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, and in fact freight trains loaded with Russian grain, oil, etc were rolling to Germany even as Wehrmacht artillery started the opening bombardments of Barbarossa.

[Black-Hussar]

Very salient points, but something you omitted: Until 22 June 41, Germany was getting the resources it needed from Russia, via normal trade as a result of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, and in fact freight trains loaded with Russian grain, oil, etc were rolling to Germany even as Wehrmacht artillery started the opening bombardments of Barbarossa.

 

So what's your point? Sorry, I can't follow you.

[MineFewer]

OK I'm happy to explain it.

Rudel indicated above that Germany's failure in Russia was due to the lack of resources. that problem became acute in 1942.

In 1941 Germany had access to sufficient resources, for example to clear the British out of Egypt & Palestine, until 22 June 1941, hence the turning point.

[Black-Hussar]

OK I'm happy to explain it. Rudel indicated above that Germany's failure in Russia was due to the lack of resources. that problem became acute in 1942. In 1941 Germany had access to sufficient resources, for example to clear the British out of Egypt & Palestine, until 22 June 1941, hence the turning point.

 

Fully agree, but we talked about "turning points" and I claim that it would have been better to concentrate and finally invade Great Britain already in 1940. Especially in view of the russian resources still available  at that time it was an epic fail not to invade Great Britian. Securing the maritime route to North Africa, and capture of the resources would have been a breeze. And at least just as important; nobody could ever bomb the refineries in Germany or invade the European continent.....

 

Hitlers main intention was the annihilation of  the European Jews and the so called "Jewish Bolshevism" in Russia, regardless of the consequences! He was not a strategist and considerably less a logistician as nobody cuts strategic resources prior to secure alternatives. He was patently deluded and insane.

 

 

Maybe the Battle of Stalingrad was the turning point in the Hilters war against the Jewish Bolshevism, but in my opinion it was not the turning point of the outcome of second world war in Europe. 

[MineFewer]

did Germany possess sufficient amphibious landing capabilities in 1940 to carry out an invasion of England? Had the Wehrmacht ever practiced amphibious landings at the Panzerdivision level?

[nonebrucevonlodi]

Me too which is one of the many things that I will forever be indebted to 1CMG for .. I had no idea that the Soviets had such an airforce.. or that they played such a key role in WWII. IL2 kind of lit that fire and I started looking at 20th century history from a broader perspective.

 

 

Consider how many people in our generation felt about WWI. For me WWII was different.. I grew up with

..

.. 

..

.. and so may other shows.. We had Sgt. Rock in comics.. and Nick Fury and his Howling Commandoes .. That was where I first heard the term "Gott in Himmel!" ... a comic book.. G.I. Joes back then were WWII figures.. and then there were all the Hollywood films portraying WWII that are just too numeroust to go into.. When I was 10 WWII was only 20 years away. My neighbor was a WWII vet ... and even in my 20s.. there was

although I missed a lot of that because I was in the military at the time. So our generation looks at WWII in a totally different light.. From the American perspective even the criminal soldiers as in "The Dirty Dozen" .. were able to redeem themselves .. A lot of the ral dirty aspects of war that all sides are susceptible to were not shown to us until films about Viet Nam .. and Mash came out..

 

Back then schools were different as well.. we had less distractions and the teaching was different.. in my school in The Bronx getting left back was a shameful shame fulthing.. These kids today are different..

 

 

I couldn't agree more... I am really looking forward to a next generation WWII sim that has all the things that made IL2 great.. even if they re different.. There was a mix of things in IL2 that made it as popular as it was .. and I know that this will be different and have different things in different measures.. but I hope it has the same kind of impact.

I agree as a very early Baby boomer (10 years old and 11 years away from the end of the war), school was different and very little was known about the Russian struggles on the East front.

[Bearcat]

If you need to designate one specific "turning point", it is 22 June 1941. That is when Germany moved from the "Not Losing" column to "Losing". In fact, there was never a plan to defeat the nation that was invaded on that day, nor any attempt at understanding the USSR forces and capabilities.

 

I agree. If you look at the long term losses in resources manpower and time to Germany because of this, even if you consider that they might have had to do it anyway later.. the timing was totally wrong.. thank goodness.

 

Disagree completely.

 

The turning point was the Battle of Britain.

So for me the question "why Stalingrad?" is more than eligible.....

 

I disagree... I think that the summer/fall of 1940 was not as significant a turning point as 6/21 or 12/7.

 

IMO attributing any battle the title of "turning point" in the grandest sense is overzealous. The sum of all parts - the war in North Africa and the Mediterranean, the Eastern Front, the Battle of the Atlantic, the strategic air war and eventually the second front in France 1944 - all served together to grind down Germany economically and manpower-wise. Alone no aspect can gain enough importance to be considered absolutely decisive (there are far too many interdependencies), only combined and when seen on the timescale they happened they produce the historical outcome.

 

I agree ............

 

Actually it is "inconceivable" that Nazi Germany could have developed The Bomb.  I'm sure it's made for some interesting books and of course realms of speculation but on the time scale involved only the USA had the ability to harness the resources and know-how to in effect deliver a whole new industrial revolution within the space of six years.

 

I disagree.. The resources and know how to deliver an industrial revolution and the resources to develop an atomic bomb are not the same thing. I think in the end Nazi Germany's antisemitism played a larger role in it's downfall than it did in it's rise.

 

Which is why making it the initial release of a WWII aircraft based game would make more sense.  It offers a wider variety of aircraft, maps, and campaigns.  Most of those maps are wide open fields and not resource robbing cityscapes.

That means a more appeal to a larger segment of the market.

BTW, The United States is the largest video game consumer in the world.   That may change in the next decade but for now, it is the United States.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/us-is-the-worlds-biggest-video-game-market-with-165-million-players/

If the game is to succeed in the market place, it must appeal to the largest segment of what is a very niche market in video gaming.  CloD failed in part because it appealed it a fraction of that niche market by offering a very limited plane set in one specific battle.  IL2 was a success because it reached a larger segment of that market and by the end of its development, ran the complete gamut of WWII era aerial combat.

 

 

I agree to an extent.. but flight sims are different.. they always have been. IL2 was a success because it deliverd in a way that no other sim did at the time.. it had less to do with the market.. in fact I would dare to say that the U.S. market largely snubbed it in the beginning.. It was because it was a good product that it succeeded. It was so good that most Americans who bought it could care less that it did not have a Mustang or a Thunderbolt or a Corsair.. they bought it despite that fact and we loved it for the most part .. once it did have those things it really took off in the U.S... but as stated by another.. CoD failed for more reasons that just the theater. In today's post IL2 market for flight sims the theater is far less relevant that the product. Deliver a good product based on the battle of West Badambadank with historic aircraft modeled well with the potential to expand to more familiar ground and you will have a winner.

 

Well, we all know that there were "some hundred" more reason why CloD failed, but I agree and fear that this may happen again. So why Stalingrad? Is it because the 1C team brought lots of preparatory work into the marriage?

 

This inevitably leads me to the question "how much CloD will be in BoS?"   :o

 

Could be.. as for fears though .. I have none.. I got let down by CFS3 .. I got let down by CoD (the fact that now .. two years later it is a decent product is irrelevant to me.. I am going on at the time of release feelings..) and I am willing to once again place a certain amount of hope in a developer.. and as I sit here in the stands .. watching the windup.. I smell a big hit.. maybe even a home run instead of an out coming.

 

I would be hugely surprised if il2 sold more units in the US than Russia, let alone Russia and Europe.

 

I wouldn't .. it will all depend on the product.

 

I absolutely agree that the original IL2 probably sold more in Russia and Europe than it did in the largest video game market in the world, the United States.  Why?  German and Russian conflicts are just not that well known or appealing in that market. 

 

IL2 really took off when Pacific Fighters came out appealing to a larger segment of that market.

 

Say were not that well known.. Things are different today and I think IL2 began to take off when Forgotten Battles was released because the promise was there to expand to the west... after PF the afterburners kicked in.. The market it is not the same today. Today's market has all the simmers who have been waiting for years for something.. There are simmers who flew AH, WB and FA who held out until relatively recently in the greater scheme of things to even get IL2. If BoS delivers on what matters .. it will sell.. even if all the die hard IL2 fans bought it within two weeks of it's release .. it would do well enough to be able to sustain itself to carry on given the business model that it will be based on.

 

Very salient points, but something you omitted: Until 22 June 41, Germany was getting the resources it needed from Russia, via normal trade as a result of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, and in fact freight trains loaded with Russian grain, oil, etc were rolling to Germany even as Wehrmacht artillery started the opening bombardments of Barbarossa.

Very good points to add to the notion that more was lost for Germany on 6/21 than during the summer and fall of 1940 and than even the German high command realized when it launched Barbarossa. They didn't even have winter gear because they were expecting to be done by the fall.

[Crump]

 

 Bearcat says:

 

I think IL2 began to take off when Forgotten Battles was released because the promise was there to expand to the west...

 

 

I would agree with that. 

 

 

 

after PF the afterburners kicked in..

 

 

Agreed, 777/1c would be well served to pay attention to those market forces.

 

 

 

The market it is not the same today. Today's market has all the simmers who have been waiting for years for something..

 

 

 

The market is not the same because there is nothing out there that is new to replace an aging IL2.  There is no "European Air War" of 2012. 

 

If there was fans would flock to it. 

[Bearcat]

Peecisely. However I think there are enough simmers out here to propel BoS or any other sim that fits the bill to that next level.

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

So what would have greater sales for the next release, the Med or the Pacific?

[Bearcat]

Personally I think the Med but as I said if BoS is done well and the options for expanding are clear and the basic platform is sound any theater will result in sales. With the RoF sales model they could just release several map packs and plane packs and be just as effective. Considering what we now have in IL2 and what we still do not have... the potential is almost endless but again it all depends on the initial release and how viable the base product is.

[Sven]

Why Stalingrad, good question.

 

Especially now that we know that it will be portrayed from the point that the Russians started encircling. I wonder, how much aerial combat activity the Germans had during the encirclement? I was always under the impression that within the encirclement the VVS were ruling the skies and pounding away with ground-sniffing IL-2s.

Maybe the ROF engine can't handle the beginning of the assault of Stalingrad, large bomber formations and such? 

 

Also, preferring a Kursk type of scenario myself, Kursk would also make more sense expansion-wise. There were a lot more aircraft types involved, and the VVS was a lot more competitive with their latest Yak and LA fighters, which should make for better dogfights but also more versatile ground attack missions. ( HS-129 JU87G, IL2M3, FW190F) 

Edited January 18, 2013 by Sven

[Juri_JS]

Why Stalingrad, good question.

 

Especially now that we know that it will be portrayed from the point that the Russians started encircling. I wonder, how much aerial combat activity the Germans had during the encirclement? I was always under the impression that within the encirclement the VVS were ruling the skies and pounding away with ground-sniffing IL-2s.

Maybe the ROF engine can't handle the beginning of the assault of Stalingrad, large bomber formations and such? 

 

I have to agree, the chosen time frame for the initial release and the area of the map will limit the number of possible mission scenarios, especially for the Germans. If the final map will have the size that was announced, there will be no German airfields left outside the Stalingrad pocket after December 1942. Although there were small detachments of JG 3 and Stg 2 based at Pitomnik inside the pocket till mid January 1943, but these weren't more than a handful of planes.

 

On the whole I don't think that Stalingrad is a bad choice, if the time frame is expanded into the summer of 1942 which will require a summer/autumn version of the map. I hope we will see such a map later.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Juri_JS

[EAF19_Marsh]

I have to agree, the chosen time frame for the initial release and the area of the map will limit the number of possible mission scenarios, especially for the Germans. If the final map will have the size that was announced, there will be no German airfields left outside the Stalingrad pocket after December 1942. Although there were small detachments of JG 3 and Stg 2 based at Pitomnik inside the pocket till mid January 1943, but these weren't more than a handful of planes.

 

On the whole I don't think that Stalingrad is a bad choice, if the time frame is expanded into the summer of 1942 which will require a summer/autumn version of the map. I hope we will see such a map later.

 

II and III JG52 were present, much of II/JG3 returned to the East during this period to assist, ZG1 was present and StG2 not to mention the level bombers, transport and Recce. formations plus allied units. The map extends a long way down the Don towards Rostov and south towards Kotelnikovo so it is not simply a question of Luftwaffe units based inside the pocket but all of the supporting aircraft and operations opposing Uranus and [little] Saturn.

 

If there were also a summer and autumn map, you could play out most of the northern part of Operation Blue

Edited January 18, 2013 by EAF19_Marsh

[Juri_JS]

II and III JG52 were present, much of II/JG3 returned to the East during this period to assist, ZG1 was present and StG2 not to mention the level bombers, transport and Recce. formations plus allied units. The map extends a long way down the Don towards Rostov and south towards Kotelnikovo so it is not simply a question of Luftwaffe units based inside the pocket but all of the supporting aircraft and operations opposing Uranus and [little] Saturn.

 

If there were also a summer and autumn map, you could play out most of the northern part of Operation Blue

 

I was only talking about the time after December 1942. Tatsinskaya and Morozovskaya airfield were lost in late December. Salsk, Novocherkassk, Sverovo and the other airfields that were used afterwards are not on the map. Which will limit the types of missions that can be created for the time of January and February 1943.

In my opinion it would be a good idea to expand the map area a few kilometers to the west, so the airfields at Novocherkassk, Sverovo and Shakhty can be included. 

[Rama]

it would be a good idea to expand the map area a few kilometers to the west

50 km isn't just "a few kilometers"

The map is allready huge (more than 400 km from West to East edge).

[EAF19_Marsh]

I was only talking about the time after December 1942. Tatsinskaya and Morozovskaya airfield were lost in late December. Salsk, Novocherkassk, Sverovo and the other airfields that were used afterwards are not on the map. Which will limit the types of missions that can be created for the time of January and February 1943.

In my opinion it would be a good idea to expand the map area a few kilometers to the west, so the airfields at Novocherkassk, Sverovo and Shakhty can be included. 

 

It does certainly curtail the timeframe of the campaign. Thinking again I would suggest a summer and autumn map would add a lot more variation to the missions that can be flown if the map extent remains unchanged.

[Juri_JS]

50 km isn't just "a few kilometers"

The map is allready huge (more than 400 km from West to East edge).

 

According to Loft the size of the map is 360x230 km. If I am not mistaken, this isn't much larger than the ROF map, moreover the area has fewer towns and almost no forests, so slightly increasing the map size shouldn't cause big performance issues.

[Rama]

Viks checked the mission and campaign possibilities before establishing the map area. The choice would have been different if a campaign wasn't possible for both side for the whole period.

And for the Automn and Summer maps, I'm pretty sure they will follow if the game sales good enough.... and even if they don't, modders can allways create summer/automn textures.

 

The map is huge, of course, if you check for mission possibilities, especially with long range bombers, you would allways want to increase it, to all directions, this is basically one endless process. A compromize has to be done to keep the map size bearable for the common PC system/graphic card. I'm confident the dev did a good compromize.

[Bearcat]

So what would have greater sales for the next release, the Med or the Pacific?

14) After the announcement of the list of aircraft, if there will not be a desired plane, is it possible in principle to make a "kickstart" of a unit and expect to integrate it into the game?

Don't worry. If the project is popular enough, it will always be developed and there will be new airplanes. But we would like to do all together in this project. Each aircraft is part of the theater, and so much a part of the gameplay. Therefore, the input sequence of aircraft in the game is just as important. But thanks for such a desire.

[Kongo-Otto]

I think that even when Hitler would have invaded the UK the war would have taken longer - maybe up to 1948 - but events like Operation Husky or Operation Dragoon would have happened anyway and the allies maybe would have to fight their way to germany from there. The UK was vital for the Allied war efforts as an "Aircraft carrier, but an allied invasion of europe would have taken place anyways. Operation Torch also could have been done without the UK as Base. They could have taken the Canary Islands from spain as a Base for such operations for example. Also don't forget the USA had Iceland under control and from there an Invasion of an occupied UK wouldn't be a Problem, also the Faroe Islands could have been used as a base for an Invasion of an occupied UK.

The next major question then is how would the Republic of Ireland have reacted when the UK had fallen?

I highly doubt that Ireland would have stayed neutral in this case.

The big question is how would other neutrals like Portugal and Spain have reacted when the uk had fallen? The allies having the UK as a huge base releaved them from diplomatic actions to find a replacement for the uk as a base.

 

Yes i think they would have made the way to the shores of ireland or Morocco in their LST etc.

LCVP, LCM, LCA, LCPL etc., are only for the short distance transport of troops (6-11 miles max.distance), therefore the distance from the main base to the Invasion point is not an issue for them that's an issue for an LST, LSI, LSM, AKA, APA, AGC.

A long transport distance for an invasion is not such a problem when the weather conditions are right, e.g. the the 7th and the 96th Infantry Division where shipped from the Phillippines (~ 1500 miles) to make an assault landing right of their transports via LCVP at Okinawa April 1st 1945, the 27th Infantry Division was shipped from Espiritu Santo (~6500 miles) to Okinawa, the 6th Marine Divison was transported from Guadalcanal to Okinawa which is a roundabout 6000 mile distance etc, etc.

A Invasion could have taken place in France even without the Uk as a base, there is no doubt about it.

 

@Kongo-Otto

 

In case of Stalingrad I fully agree the term of "G???

[SYN_Haashashin]

 They could have taken the Canary Islands from spain as a Base for such operations for example.

 

Hey Kongo-Otto, I didnt read all the topic but hey, you named my birthplace , Im from Gran Canaria.

Canary Islands, were used by germans during the war (they had a pact with dictator Franco) as an U-boat refuel, repair base. I saw some old pics of couple of U-boats at Fuerteventura, I think, been repair, refuel and resupplied. Also have to remember that Franco keep it simple, he was on Hitler sides at the beginning of the War, Hitler help Franco out in the Spanish Civil war sending the Condor Division. There are pics and videos of Hitler meeting Franco (Hendaya Pact). There is also La Division Azul, spanish division that fought with Germans at the Russian front. But when Germany started losing the war Franco when to speak with the americans, from there they got Rota airbase, if im not mistaken. So I think if that UK invasion happened, Germany will secure canary islands, where they allready have presence and is an "allied" country. In that case I believe, base on what he did for real, that Franco will just keep this friendship with Hitler and defend the canary islands from the allies. Basically it will mean declaring war to spain and having to occupy another country on their way to Germany.

 

That said, I never understood why the allied never took this islands during the war, spain was "allied" (but it was officially neutral) with germany, to use them as an mid-atlantic base.

Edited January 20, 2013 by SYN_Haashashin

[brook]

Really looking forward to the battle of the Kursk when we get fw190 B)