Was the Soviet Union beatable?

In present days is like then?
Soviet Union/Russia was not 100 % defeat, but now? They don't have a good economy, but when they had a good one? Etc.... Etc.... Etc.....

It have SU/Russia a desinity like no other country of the world?

Iama

Let's stick to WW2 realated discussions in this section.

Are you suggesting that if the Germans did not win in 1941 (or winter 41-42), then they would lose?

Personally I consider 1942 to be the more decisive year, and the last time Germany could have won.

BTW, what was the game?

The game was Operation Typhoon (SPI) a 3 map monster with 800 pieces at regiment/battalion level.

http://www.bggfiles.com/bggimages/pic69081.jpg

I think the Germans shot their bolt in 41. I don't believe that even a succesfull Stalingrad campaign in 42 could have kicked Russia out of the war. Sure it could have helped drag the war a few years more, who knows. But a single army group sized offensive had no chance of forcing a surrender with lend lease in full effect. Also too much of the Soviet production capablity was already safe in the Urals.

I remember Operation Typhoon. I never owned it or played it, but I do remember being in SPI's office in New York when it was being play-tested. My first-edition War in the East (4 maps, 2000 pieces) is still sitting in the back of a closet at home. I don't know if it will see daylight again -- I don't even know where I would set up the map. My parent's ping-pong table didn't see much actual ping-pong playing, but it was great for wargaming.

Agree with you about Stalingrad. Another Russian city reduced to rubble and captured -- so what? I guess this answers whether or not you think the effort expended at Stalingrad could have been decisive if applied to a push for Baku and the Caucasus. I don't have strong feelings about this myself, but I tend to be suspicious of the "strategic materials" theorists. Somehow the other side always finds a way to keep fighting. It reminds me too much of the thinking that led to the US raids on Schweinfurt and Ploesti. Certainly the US submarine campaign against Japan had the effect of strangling Japan for oil (among other things) but that was an attack against a whole transport network, not just one target.

Yes, a too often overlooked example of sucessfull submarine warfare campaign. Well, perhaps the only one we have. Started lately but gathered incredible momentum in face of insufficiently equipped and traind ASW forces.

Did you ever play that "War in the east" wargame ? I decided to pass on that one : I didn't have the ping pong table

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on May 26, 2005 10:03 pm

I agree. It's certainly overlooked in the US, even by followers of military history. The carrier war, the B-29s, and the Marines get the glory, but the submarines made an incredible contribution. I remember my father had a reference book on the Japanese WW2 navy, which listed all the classes of ships, their characteristics, and the names and details of each ship in the class. Looking at the "fate" column was really a revelation... so many of them began: "Sunk by submarine USS something-fish...". And this did not even cover the merchant shipping lost.

I never played the full 1941-45 campaign game, but I did start it several times. I also played each of the 1-year scenarios at least once. The mechanics of the game were quite simple, it was just so big.

One thing I remember disliking was how much of the Russian and German combat effectiveness was built into the combat results tables. There were 4 of them (I forget which was highest and which was lowest, it doesn't really matter). The Germans started attacking using the most effective in 1941, then went down each year until they were on the lowest in 44-45 (I think). For the Russians it was the reverse -- they improved each year. Also the weather affected which table you used... I think the Germans were on the lowest table during mud and snow weeks, while the Russians one of the better tables. The effect of all this was that you had long stretches of time where you could not attack at all. You just had to sit and get punished. Attacks that would look very viable (for example, 3 Russian tank corps attacking 1 German infantry division in open terrain in summer 1942) would go nowhere

But there were some things I liked about the game too:

-- the railroad repair units really forced the German player to think about where he wanted to focus his attacks, and made it hard to shift because you would outrun your supplies

-- I love games where I get to choose what type of units to build, and War in the East had this for the Russians (the German units just appeared)

-- the Russian infantry divisions could fortify themselves, which increased the defense value of one other Russian unit in the space. This forced the Germans into the dilemma they faced historically -- you want to take some time to prepare your offensive, but if the Russians are fortifying, this can be a big mistake. But the Russians had to make decisions too -- are you expecting an infantry attack? Better to fortify an infantry corps (regular or guards) Are you expecting a panzer attack? Better to have an antitank brigade.

-- the campaign game had some cool options, such as "Better German Treatment of the Ukraine" which allowed the Germans to raise infantry divisions (10-15) from anti-Communist Ukrainians

Thats's great Jeff ! I drool with envy I always wondered if people really played those titan games with 2000+ pieces. I agree with you about production schedules that's one of the most fun parts because you really feel in command.

Biggest simulation I ever played was Pacific War from VG. I'm an absolute fan of Pacic war simulations because they present the greatest challenge you can dream with the complex integration of ground, naval and air warfare.

...boys and toys.....

Let's get back to the original topic. There is already a thread dedicated to war games. You can continue the discussion there.

Maybe more action bombing against supply lines of Red Army can change this "happy end"?

Iama

well, considering the fact that those lines go back more than 2000 miles....hard to bomb that....

No. Not so far. Those lines are at an end at far distance, but they came near the front line for supplyng troops. So, i reffer at an more tactical action, not to a strategical one.
More action against supply lines, tactical.

Iama

What you ask of Hitler, Iama, is quite over his power of reasoning. A man that loves his big guns, big projects and big defeats would never go for something as trivial as supply line attack...

Offtopic: I am currently engaging in a War in the Pacific mega campaign with Japan and I would say it's one heck of a warsimulation. If it wasn't for the AI sometimes ineffectual behaviour, I might have thought myself of being in the game myself

What is the name of that game?

Hitler spend his chances to conquer the world on his hand...

Iama