Why Stalingrad?

[Skoshi_Tiger]

50 km isn't just "a few kilometers"

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

 

If you look at a "typical" plane set, I would hot say "huge", Hopefully it will be adequate for our needs.

 

Very roughly -  JU87  Top speed of 410km/h, Ju88  - 450km/h, HE111- 405km/h, PE2 -  480km/h, IL2 - 415km/h, With a 360x230km dimentions we are talking about way less than an hour from one edge of the map to the other.

[JG1_Pragr]

The size of the map is sufficient in my opinion. Except Il-2 all other planes should climb to their operational altitude (around 3km at least). I have no idea about the exact numbers but I'd say they'll need at least 15 minuts to do so with combat load. All of them are also unable to fly at their maximum speed for any prolonged time period. It means the real combat speed will be probably lower than maximum. Maybe I'm really naive but I count with return to base time too. So when I look at the size of the map from this point of view, it results in some 80 minutes flight in case of one way ticket ride. With RTB 2 hours seems like common duration of flight. That's damn long trip.

[Skoshi_Tiger]

Your right, but did you ever played "B17-II The Mighty Eight"? It was possible to fly all the way from England to Berlin and back in real time, I think there was even a number of guys at the old bombs away site that did it!

 

In some cases with planes of similar performance where there may only be a few km/h difference in speed you can get in quite prolonged chases and there is nothing worse than flying off the edge of the map.

 

But in most cases as long as the map is large enough to provide mission builders scope to be creative and build a variety of missions, including ones with extended duration, I'ld class it as adequate.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Skoshi_Tiger

[Freycinet]

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.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing... I can assure you that the Germans and very many others thought the USSR would descend into chaos and be run over by Christmas 1941. This based on the purges of the Soviet officer corps just before the war and the Winter war debacle. Hitler had no idea of the Soviet industrial potential (listen to the surreptitiously recorded conversation with Mannerheim) and in any case considered the Russians sub-humans of little capacity. With the amazing German victories in 1941 and 1942 it definitely wasn't a "done deal", from the perspective of onlookers back then.

[MineFewer]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing... I can assure you that the Germans and very many others thought the USSR would descend into chaos and be run over by Christmas 1941. This based on the purges of the Soviet officer corps just before the war and the Winter war debacle. Hitler had no idea of the Soviet industrial potential (listen to the surreptitiously recorded conversation with Mannerheim) and in any case considered the Russians sub-humans of little capacity. With the amazing German victories in 1941 and 1942 it definitely wasn't a "done deal", from the perspective of onlookers back then.

 

indeed, I have no doubts that many Germans had convinced themselves of the "kick in the door and the whole Rotten structure collapses" theory. But as far as GROFAZ's opinion of the Russians, ask yourself, why was he so hell bent on invading in 1941, before Germany had a chance to replenish its forces from the losses of BoB, the Balkans, Greece & Crete?

[Crump]

indeed, I have no doubts that many Germans had convinced themselves of the "kick in the door and the whole Rotten structure collapses" theory. But as far as GROFAZ's opinion of the Russians, ask yourself, why was he so hell bent on invading in 1941, before Germany had a chance to replenish its forces from the losses of BoB, the Balkans, Greece & Crete?

 

In conversing with several Luftwaffe veterans, they were told the invasion of Russia was a pre-emptive strike to prevent an inevitable invasion by the Russian's.  Oskar Boesch related to me he physically stood at a tank park just on the other side of the border that contained hundreds of Soviet tanks that were being amassed for that invasion of the west during his participation in the first week of the Barbarossa.  He credits Nazi Germany with preventing western europe from falling under the communist yoke.

 

 

From:

 

United States, Department of State, Publication No. 3023, Nazi-Soviet Relations 1939-1941. Documents from the Archives of the German Foreign Office (Government Printing Office, Washington, 1948), pp. 349-353

 

 

 

 

 

The concentration of Russian forces???

[MineFewer]

And how did the German reconcile the "grave danger" of the Russian invasion with the abysmal performance of the Red Army during the Winter War, industrial strength notwithstanding?

[FlatSpinMan]

We don't know, MF, but Crump posted info similar to what I've read in a couple of LW pilot accounts. Whether it was a genuine belief, a statement of fact, or just a convenient fabrication, it is nonetheless something one comes across in some Germsn accounts of the time.

[Crump]

And how did the German reconcile the "grave danger" of the Russian invasion with the abysmal performance of the Red Army during the Winter War, industrial strength notwithstanding? 

 

I don't know...

 

Maybe the notion they might not have to "yield in silence"??        

[Bearcat]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing... I can assure you that the Germans and very many others thought the USSR would descend into chaos and be run over by Christmas 1941. This based on the purges of the Soviet officer corps just before the war and the Winter war debacle. Hitler had no idea of the Soviet industrial potential (listen to the surreptitiously recorded conversation with Mannerheim) and in any case considered the Russians sub-humans of little capacity. With the amazing German victories in 1941 and 1942 it definitely wasn't a "done deal", from the perspective of onlookers back then.

 

Yes but that notion was based on conjecture not fact.. and it was costly.

 

indeed, I have no doubts that many Germans had convinced themselves of the "kick in the door and the whole Rotten structure collapses" theory. But as far as GROFAZ's opinion of the Russians, ask yourself, why was he so hell bent on invading in 1941, before Germany had a chance to replenish its forces from the losses of BoB, the Balkans, Greece & Crete?

We don't know, MF, but Crump posted info similar to what I've read in a couple of LW pilot accounts. Whether it was a genuine belief, a statement of fact, or just a convenient fabrication, it is nonetheless something one comes across in some Germsn accounts of the time.

Yes I know Heinz Knocke mentioned it in "I Flew for the Fuher" Taking Crumpp's post into consideration it makes you wionder if there was something to it.. but I don't think the Soviets were ready for an invasion where they were the aggressors.. They fought as furious as they did because they were invaded.. 

[MineFewer]

According to Alan Bullock, (link to book below), in 1940 both G???

Edited January 23, 2013 by MineFewer

[wiseblood]

Parallel Lives is a great read.

 

I don't know what kind of path we're going to be led down here if we start accepting at face value quotes of Hitler On Hitler's Reasons For Invading Various Places. Which is what that one from the Dept of State earlier was.

 

[NZTyphoon]

Parallel Lives is a great read.

 

I don't know what kind of path we're going to be led down here if we start accepting at face value quotes of Hitler On Hitler's Reasons For Invading Various Places. Which is what that one from the Dept of State earlier was.

Just because Hitler and Goebbels said it...   Hitler's standard MO was to accuse another country of threatening Germany, or German volk:

 

1938: Took the Sudetenland off Czechoslovakia using the pretense that the ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland were being persecuted and were longing to become part of the vaterland.

1939: Took the rest of Czechoslovakia on the pretext that its existence on the borders of Austria threatened the Reich as a whole.

1939: Attacked Poland under the pretext that Poland was persecuting its ethnic Germans; later Poland was preparing to attack Germany evidenced by Polish soldiers regularly raiding German territory...and so on.

 

Kershaw: Hitler: Hubris

[FlatSpinMan]

Look, I don't think anyone here is suggesting that the German invasion of the USSR was actually to prevent an imminent Societ attack. The idea is that that was one claim made by some contemporary Germans to justify the launching of Barbarossa.

[Bearcat]

Look, I don't think anyone here is suggesting that the German invasion of the USSR was actually to prevent an imminent Societ attack. The idea is that that was one claim made by some contemporary Germans to justify the launching of Barbarossa.

Exactly .. but that that was the propaganda used by the Nazis to gain support for this action and many believed it .. How true it was or the extent to which it was true is dubious. Germany screwed the pooch when they attacked the Soviet union.. They lost the war because Hitler was an ass... among other reasons.. Even if some may be "suggesting" that there were legitimate reasons for Germany's invasion of The U.S.S.R. other than the same ones for all the other grabs done in the pursuit of  lebensraum ... that notion is  <_<  even at face value. For me the kicker with 621 was that these guys were so clueless as to invade a country the size of the U.S.S.R. and think that they could get the job done in a few months.. as I said on a previous page.. They didn't even have winter gear.. so they were thinking that this would be a done deal in 6 months or less.. and considering what the Soviets were able to do against them .. technologically, strategically, tactically and with sheer numbers .. it begs the question .. what was the high command thinking in the first place?

 

Personally I think the Nazi cause was doomed from the start if for no other reason based on it's rabid antisemitism ...

[DD_Arthur]

Parallel Lives is a great read.

 

I don't know what kind of path we're going to be led down here if we start accepting at face value quotes of Hitler On Hitler's Reasons For Invading Various Places. Which is what that one from the Dept of State earlier was.

 

 

Agree.  Soviet forces were mustered near the borders in June 1941 to repel a possible invasion.  Tactically bonkers and an invitation to envelopment and destruction.  However, at this time Stalin and the Stavka were incompetent.

 

 

 Hitler invaded Russia for ideological and cultural reasons.  Themes around being surrounded and launching pre-emptive war clouded the judgement of the Kaiser and his staff a generation earlier.

[DD_Crash]

I think that a war between the USSR and Germany would be inevitable. I am sure that I read the Stalin was thinking of attacking in the mid 1940s

[89-]

 

 

 Hitler invaded Russia for ideological and cultural reasons. 

 

You mean for raw materials

[MineFewer]

Parallel Lives is a great read.I don't know what kind of path we're going to be led down here if we start accepting at face value quotes of Hitler On Hitler's Reasons For Invading Various Places. Which is what that one from the Dept of State earlier was.

Thank You!

[Rama]

so they were thinking that this would be a done deal in 6 months or less.. and considering what the Soviets were able to do against them .. technologically, strategically, tactically and with sheer numbers .. it begs the question .. what was the high command thinking in the first place?

The German strategists at OKW were not the only ones to highly underestimate USSR military Strenght ant potential. It was the same for England and French strategists.

Just before the Molotov-Ribententrop pact, England and France were in negociation for a war alliance with USSR. No French or English military believed anything when the Russian told them about the number of division they could mobilize or the capacity of their armor industry.

And worse, in late 1939/early 1940, when Gamelin HQ was tasked to study a French offensive in the Rhenan land... they diverted a few ressources from their other main strategic study of the moment: invading USSR from the south (Bakou area) with an expeditionnary corp.... it sounds crazy today (but Gamelin probably was...)

[NZTyphoon]

Look, I don't think anyone here is suggesting that the German invasion of the USSR was actually to prevent an imminent Societ attack. The idea is that that was one claim made by some contemporary Germans to justify the launching of Barbarossa.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." I wonder how any of us would have coped with living in the Third Reich (or Soviet Russia) while being bombarded with all the cleverly contrived propaganda every single day? It must have been effective to have German pilots still believing that the Russians were about to invade even decades after the war.

Edited January 23, 2013 by NZTyphoon

[Crump]

Personally I think the Nazi cause was doomed from the start if for no other reason based on it's rabid antisemitism ...

 

Agreed.  I would go so far as to say any society that subverts diversity in favor of homogeneity is doomed. 

 

Proverbs 27:17:  As iron sharpens iron, so does one man sharpens another.

 

Diversity provides a broader spectrum of available ideas and the mechanism to sort out the best.

[RickNZRickRuski]

Russia has never been conquered, invaiders have always been beaten by the Russian people's resolve and the winter conditions. All invaiders over history have made the mistake that they thought that quick gains of territory meant that they had won, then winter sets in. Supply lines are stretched, transport lines are broken, machinery that can't cope with the extreem cold fails (not to mention the human factor). The Russian people resolve to destroy the invaiders, regroup and take advantage of the spread out opposition armies and show no mercy. These people aren't going to lie down and take any crap. Stalingrad showed that,  may Russia as a nation survive for ever. 

[Duckman]

The Soviet forward posture in 1941 was in accordance with overoptimistic Soviet doctrine, which emphazised immediate counterattacks and taking the war to the enemy. There was also a need to keep recently occupied and not very friendly territories under control. The end result was of course a disaster that allowed the Germans to encircle a large part of the Red Army at the border and defeat the rest piecemeal. 

 

As for German perceptions it's hard to tell how much is self-justification after the war. The fact that the Germans started planning Barbarossa already after the Fall of France and the very low regard they had (along with most other countries) for the Red Army suggests they were not overly bothered by the short term threat. Long term is another issue, and probably contributed (along with post-Fall of France hubris) to the perception that it was better to get it done sooner rather than later. Soviet strength was bound to increase, and keeping the Wehrmachy mobilized was costly. 

Edited February 3, 2013 by Duckman

[Crump]

 

Russia has never been conquered, invaiders have always been beaten by the Russian people's resolve and the winter conditions.

 

 

The Russians are about as resolved as anyone else to defend their country.  I don't mean to take anything away from them but I would not elevate them either. 

 

Unlike most, they are blessed with vast expanses of barren land combined with harsh winters.  Their traditional defense of burn everything and leave it so the invaders are deprived of food and shelter so the winter can deal the death blow has worked well.

 

Not every country is in such a good defensive position.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Crump

[Furio]

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.

 

Broadly, I agree with CSThor. Reality was, is, and always will be complicated. Nonetheless, in my opinion ???

Edited February 17, 2013 by Furio

[kristorf]

Why Stalingrad?

 

Simple really, to sell to the Russian/Eastern European market.

[Rama]

Russia has never been conquered. 

"Never" is a bit too much. Replace by "has not been conquered in the last 500 years" would be more accurate. Russia was ruled by the Khans until the end of the XVth century.

[SR-F_Winger]

The Eastern Europe block is a huge market and BOS fits right into it perfectly. I would venture an opinion that to the Russians, the defense of Stalingrad would evoke similar feelings as the Brits have regarding BOB. Nothing like a captive enthusiastic audience available to market to.

 

Also, as I understand it, the acquisition of resources from BOM would enable a quicker turn-around in development than starting completely from scratch.

 

BOS is, as was previously posted, more known to the West and therefore marketing would have a leg-up thereby ensuring clients on both sides of the Atlantic.

 

Cheers

I just hope (and am confident) the FMs become realistic compared to the time. Couldnt care less for the scenario itself as long as the FMs are made accoring to historical data rather than marketing aspects.

 

Winger

[FlatSpinMan]

Why not Stalingrad?

This is a WWII flight sim called IL-2.

It is based on a massively successful game set on the Eastern Front. 

That game was also called IL-2.

 

I dunno. This doesn't seem so hard to me.

[DD_fruitbat]

Why Stalingrad?

 

Simple, they inherited lots of stuff from MG development, which gives 777 a head start and therefore its quicker for 1C to start recouping money.

 

Be fairly stupid not to take advantage of that.

Edited March 4, 2013 by fruitbat

[Crump]

4.06 times as many aircraft were lost in combat in the West than were lost in the East, a ratio reasonably close to Groehler's 3.41 for all "losses". The most chilling statistic for the JG 26 pilots appears in the sortie data. An airplane flying a combat mission in the West was 7.66 times more likely to be destroyed than one on a similar mission in the East. It is clear that the burden of sacrifice was borne by the Luftwaffe aircrew on the Western Front and over the Reich, not on the Eastern Front.

 

http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

Edited March 7, 2013 by Crump

[Sim]

http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

 

"The table covers only the period Sept 43-Oct 44"

 

"Most Luftwaffe losses between mid-1941 and mid-1943 were, of course, incurred on the Eastern Front"

 

"There are other peculiarities - Groehler put the Balkans in the west"

[Crump]

 

Sim says:

 

"The table covers only the period Sept 43-Oct 44"

 

 

 

Right, because that is the same data Groehler used. 

 

 

 

In the 1970s Prof. Olaf Groehler, a prominent East German military historian, was allowed to travel to the West German archives and gather data that he combined with his own to produce a major journal article. The article contains 23 data tables, but unfortunately these are in wildly inconsistent formats and categories. We have re-worked Groehler's data into a single table, and present it here.

 

 

 

 

It is clear from his text that Groehler's objectives were: (1) to show that the German-Soviet front was the most significant source of the Luftwaffe losses that ultimately led to Allied air supremacy, and (2) that the Luftwaffe could not afford to weaken its forces in the East, even when pushed hard by the USAAF strategic offensive and the Normandy invasion. Groehler did make these claims, to the undoubted pleasure of his Soviet masters, but his data, when examined carefully, don't back him up. Most Luftwaffe losses between mid-1941 and mid-1943 were, of course, incurred on the Eastern Front - that's where most of the fighting was! But starting in late 1943 the number of losses in the West increased sharply. Half of these losses were day fighters, the single weapon most responsible for the maintenance or loss of air superiority.

 

 

Highlights the data shows that were not presented by Groehler:

 

 

 

1.

During the period in question, a constant 21-24% of the Luftwaffe's day fighters were based in the East - but only 12-14% of the Luftwaffe day fighter "losses" occurred in this theater.

2.

During this period, a constant 75-78% of the day fighters were based in the West. The turnover was enormous: 14,720 aircraft were "lost", while operational strength averaged 1364.

3.

During this period, 2294 day fighters were "lost" in the East; the ratio of western "losses" to eastern "losses" was thus 14,720/2294 = 6.4 to one.

4.

During this period, a constant 43-46% of all of the Luftwaffe's operational aircraft were based in the East. It should be noted that these included entire categories (for example, battlefield recce, battle planes, dive bombers) that were used exclusively in the East, because they couldn't survive in the West..

5.

During this period, a total of 8600 operational aircraft were "lost" in the East, while 27,060 were "lost" in the West; the ratio of western "losses" to eastern "losses" was thus 27,060/8600 = 3.41 to one.

 

 

 

An airplane flying a combat mission in the West was 7.66 times more likely to be destroyed than one on a similar mission in the East.

 

 

 

Sim says:

"Most Luftwaffe losses between mid-1941 and mid-1943 were, of course, incurred on the Eastern Front"

 

 

Do have some hard data?  While I believe you are correct, I think you will find the Western Front was still a much more dangerous place to be a Luftwaffe Pilot even during this time period.  I think you will find that the sortie data as pointed out by Caldwell will be even more telling.  The Luftwaffe flew almost twice the sorties on average on the Eastern front for 1/7th the casualty rate.

 

 

Sim Says:

 

"There are other peculiarities - Groehler put the Balkans in the west"

 

Professor Caldwell is correct.  He is including the Western Allied air data from their campaigns in Italy and the Balkans. 

 

http://www.redstate.com/skanderbeg/2009/08/01/august-1st-1943-the-ploesti-raid/

 

There was a large offensive both in Italy and the Balkans by the Western Allies Air Forces. 

[TJT]

So, this project should really have been European Air War II then... riiiiight.... 

[FlatSpinMan]

While a bit of info on losses is interesting and relevant perhaps, let's not divert this thread into a discussion of factual accuracy concerning sortie/loss ratios. 

With luck, the other theatres will come along once this one has taken off.

[Furio]

While a bit of info on losses is interesting and relevant perhaps, let's not divert this thread into a discussion of factual accuracy concerning sortie/loss ratios. 

With luck, the other theatres will come along once this one has taken off.

 

Agreed.

Numbers and statistics aside, Stalingrad was surely one of the most bloody and epic battles of all times. It???

[NZTyphoon]

Just watched the episode on Stalingrad, "The Cauldron Boils",  in the series  "Blood Upon the Snow:Russia's War".

There are some interesting comments about the VVS having so-called "penal squadrons" to which aircrew under punishment were sent to carry out what were essentially suicide missions (comments by pilot Artyom Anfinogenov starting at about 9 min 37 sec), without being awarded any credits for a combat sortie. Later (starting 22:52) the same pilot talks about how heavy the VVS casualties were around Stalingrad. Allowing for the possibility of embellishment, it confirms Furio's comment:

 

 

Numbers and statistics aside, Stalingrad was surely one of the most bloody and epic battles of all times. It???

[Rigel]

Just watched the episode on Stalingrad, "The Cauldron Boils",  in the series  "Blood Upon the Snow:Russia's War".

There are some interesting comments about the VVS having so-called "penal squadrons" to which aircrew under punishment were sent to carry out what were essentially suicide missions (comments by pilot Artyom Anfinogenov starting at about 9 min 37 sec), without being awarded any credits for a combat sortie. Later (starting 22:52) the same pilot talks about how heavy the VVS casualties were around Stalingrad. Allowing for the possibility of embellishment, it confirms Furio's comment:

Culmination of west anti-propagand . What about some facts and historical documents? "Penals" really was but they were placed on the turret. So german side have that parctics too.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XybDO9gp3d0 much more documented.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Rigel

[707shap_Srbin]

Penalty squadrons at Stalingrad. In Russian. Very interesting.