What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by Hanny » 17 Jul 2019 13:15

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
17 Jul 2019 13:13
Hanny wrote:It was not designed to be maintained, it was designed for max efficiency to put in place
God your writing is bad. You're spinning a fantasy explanation of Soviet labor deployment but your argument is with Barber and Harrison, not me:
No problem with whats in the book, its what you did with it thats the problem, coupled with you inability to understand whats in the book.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 17 Jul 2019 13:29

Hanny wrote:
17 Jul 2019 13:15
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
17 Jul 2019 13:13
Hanny wrote:It was not designed to be maintained, it was designed for max efficiency to put in place
God your writing is bad. You're spinning a fantasy explanation of Soviet labor deployment but your argument is with Barber and Harrison, not me:
No problem with whats in the book, its what you did with it thats the problem, coupled with you inability to understand whats in the book.
Everyone can read the quote you joker. It says exactly what I said it did: SU mobilization rates in 1942 could not be sustained for long. That's probably difficult for you to understand because you think Russia has infinite people and resources and it wouldn't matter if Germany encircled 6,000 Russian divisions; tomorrow they'd field 9,000 divisions.

Whatever you rambled about in your reply isn't what happened. What Barber and Harrison said happened happened.
The "ignore user" function is essential to AHF/internet sanity and I use it liberally. Feel free to raise another poster's point if I've ignored them.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2473
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by MarkN » 17 Jul 2019 14:47

I see TheMarcksPlan has now resorted to insulting those who challenge his fantasy.

8-)

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 17 Jul 2019 14:58

I went back the truck shortfall post you complained about me ignoring. It reminded me why I didn't address it.
Hanny wrote:1941 141952 more produced, less 15% 120659 sent for export, 60% of that is in the military, 72395 added to the military stock of 84172 in 2 years under the schell program, so has a military stock of 156567 and a military and civilian stock of (355074 + 120659) which is 475733. ( plus the 40% of production to civilian in last 2 years) Military has a requirement of 330430, so is 170000 under requirement to fill TOE, it only filled its requirements by taking from industry ( see link above civilian % dropped and never recovered and was largely replaced by horse drawn see Evanshttps://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002IPZJ60/re ... bl_vppi_i2) and gaining from taking allied trucks and using them, because it could not build enough of its own, or replace what was lost which was 90k from 39 to 40 at 45k a year and continue its expansion.

Building an extra 34000 trucks fo 20 more PZR/MOT simply reduces the under equipped level, or produces more under equipped formations with reduced combat power.
All of this word salad and you can't focus on the point. Who cares what the TOE shortfall is? This is like saying getting 10 extra divisions from thin air wouldn't have mattered in 1941 because some other divisions were below their TOE strength. Not even arguably relevant. This is why I remind you that the clarity is correlated in thinking and writing. You can't make a relevant argument because you can't order your thoughts properly - and vice versa.

The relevant figure is 34,000 extra trucks for the 20 divisions.

And for Pete's sake are you allergic to commas to as well as apostrophes? 141592 is much easier to read as 141,592. Get with the middle ages man.
Hanny wrote:the bottleneck was not lack of trains but track in Poland,
That's one bottlneck for one condition. Shall we list every single bottleneck imaginable?

You're forgetting - or just don't know (quelle horeur!) that rolling stock shortages caused/exacerbated the economic crisis of winter 41-42. That happened in part because of no planning to supply a large Ostheer past the fall.
Hanny wrote:you just addedd 2 more pzr groups each with 1500 tons a day requirement
Even taking your figures as true that's 300,000 tons of oil given 100 days of active fighting.
Which is ~3% of German/Romanian fuel production.
3% of fuel for success in the east?**
Only you and your anti-ATL crowd will be daft enough to attempt to argue against that tradeoff.

**I may be ingoring the ability of Russians to nest armies within armies within armies within armies. You think you're fighting 6th Guards Army but then 2nd Shock Army pops out of it; 134th Cavalry Army out of 2nd Shock; 987th Lunar Command Army out of 134th Shock; then 14,812,932nd Guys-Who-Do-That-Kick-Squat-Dance Army finally emerges – Russia’s last army. Germany has to destroy nearly 15,000,000 separate armies to reach the final level...

...but that's only the FIRST RUSSIA. Once you open up FIrst Russia...

For that reason I'll concede that Germany can't beat Russia ever any circumstances imaginable. I guess I’ll go back to playing Risk.
The "ignore user" function is essential to AHF/internet sanity and I use it liberally. Feel free to raise another poster's point if I've ignored them.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 2515
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by Richard Anderson » 17 Jul 2019 16:14

TheMarcksPlan wrote: God your writing is bad...

I went back the truck shortfall post you complained about me ignoring. It reminded me why I didn't address it...

All of this word salad and you can't focus on the point...

And for Pete's sake are you allergic to commas to as well as apostrophes? 141592 is much easier to read as 141,592. Get with the middle ages man.
So now you're substituting rudeness for actual answers? You might do well to consider that many of the other posters on this site are NOT native English speakers or writers. Others are unable to type and are using various voice-to-text systems. Others are using phones to respond with that built-in layer of difficulty in being precise in typing. So focus on the response rather than the way it is written. At least Hanny responds to direct questions, which is an accomplishment you should strive for.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 2515
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by Richard Anderson » 17 Jul 2019 16:35

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
16 Jul 2019 23:04
Is anyone confused by the names on the quotes and comments in this post?
That is one of the reason's I finally decided to put ljadw on ignore, while his content is usually understandable (with some careful parsing), his inability to properly use the quote function (something way too many frequent posters suffer from) and refusal to edit truly goofed up posts, often makes the who is responding to who in his posts inexplicable.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by Hanny » 17 Jul 2019 17:04

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
17 Jul 2019 14:58
I went back the truck shortfall post you complained about me ignoring. It reminded me why I didn't address it.
I did not complain, i pointed out you do ignore what you feel like ignoring.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
17 Jul 2019 14:58

All of this word salad and you can't focus on the point. Who cares what the TOE shortfall is? This is like saying getting 10 extra divisions from thin air wouldn't have mattered in 1941 because some other divisions were below their TOE strength. Not even arguably relevant. This is why I remind you that the clarity is correlated in thinking and writing. You can't make a relevant argument because you can't order your thoughts properly - and vice versa.
The point was your ignorant of the facts, namely that Germany was 170k short of truck production for existing force levels, you now want to add another 20 MOT divs making the shortfall 200k, so its relavent to your ignorance of the level of motorisation German industry achieved in real life and utterly incompetent enough to think asking it to build another 30k is going to mean more will end up in the formations you increase by 20. They wont, you end up with more formations with less TOE.

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
17 Jul 2019 14:58
That's one bottlneck for one condition. Shall we list every single bottleneck imaginable?
It was however, the answer to your uniformed incorrect opinion.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
17 Jul 2019 14:58
You're forgetting - or just don't know (quelle horeur!) that rolling stock shortages caused/exacerbated the economic crisis of winter 41-42. That happened in part because of no planning to supply a large Ostheer past the fall.
Fact free nonsense, they existed, they left the Reich, they just sat waiting to get to the East and could not also supply a Heer without 20 extra MOT Division with a disproportionate logistical requirement. In Oct-Nov 41 724 train load were sent from the Reich, 195 made it to the eastern front in the month.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
17 Jul 2019 14:58

Even taking your figures as true that's 300,000 tons of oil given 100 days of active fighting.
No, its not.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
17 Jul 2019 14:58
Which is ~3% of German/Romanian fuel production.
No, its not.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
17 Jul 2019 14:58
3% of fuel for success in the east?**
Only you and your anti-ATL crowd will be daft enough to attempt to argue against that tradeoff.

Stock levels in Germany
1940 1941
aviation fuel 613,000 254,000
motor vehicle fuel 497,000 225,000
motor diesel 280,000 157,000
marine diesel 256,000 91,000
heating oil for navy 521,000 280,000


Not 3% of domestic production ( its 30% of total domestic production) and imports, but more than the Germany had in stock, for the eastern front the stocks were in Poland, and moving from there to the front.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
17 Jul 2019 14:58

For that reason I'll concede that Germany can't beat Russia ever any circumstances imaginable. I guess I’ll go back to playing Risk.
Sorry thats a game whose rules are beyond your ability to grasp.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23261
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by David Thompson » 17 Jul 2019 21:31

TheMarcksPlan -- Our forum rules read:
2. Civility

The first rule of the forum is: "No insults are tolerated (that includes serious national and religious insults)." Personal remarks in posts are strongly discouraged, and personal insults are forbidden here.

There has been a lot of stimulating information exchanged on this forum, and some excellent discussions of controversial points. With few exceptions, the participants are thoughtful, serious people. If you find an argument is flawed, point out the flaws and the evidence to the contrary, and leave it at that. There is no need to resort to insults which do not prove your point. If you disagree with a contributor, please use your energy to show why his argument is mistaken. This will improve both the tone and quality of our discussions.

National and religious insults are forbidden by this first rule of the forum, and the third rule of the forum prohibits racist remarks and slang expressions for ethnic, national, religious or racial groups. Posts containing insulting generalizations about nationalities, ethnic groups, societies or religious groups and practices are not permitted here. This includes remarks about collective responsibility.

Nonconforming posts are subject to deletion without warning. Serious breaches of these rules are punishable by banning the poster.
app.php/rules

The rule is non-negotiable. Be civil or be gone.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 17 Jul 2019 22:54

David Thompson wrote:Be civil
Hi David Thompson, welcome to the thread. You might have missed a few things so far:
Hanny wrote:its your weheraboo
Hanny wrote: your a dishonest weheraboo
Hanny wrote:Given your posting history as weheraboo trol
Hanny wrote: More revisionist crap
antwony wrote: Stick to playing Hitler, democracy's a bit beyond you
antwony wrote: You'd look less of a **** if you just ignored the UK
ljadw wrote:Maybe that is so in a War Game,but not so in reality
antwony wrote:I particularly like how an ostensibly right wing American poster
MarkN wrote:Oh dear! Yet another diversion from real world into gaming fantasy.
This is just a sample of insults and personal comments directed against me. Is calling someone a wehraboo, accusing them of playing Hitler with right wing views civil? (perhaps Hanny has intentionally mis-spelled wehraboo to get around a search for this plainly inflamatory accusation?) Is mocking someone as a wargamer civil? Is calling someone a troll civil?

I'm all for a civil, substantive discussion. Clearly one doesn't invest the time and effort of several thousand words along with links to content unless one is so invested. With certain posters here I've had disagreements but none of the above-quoted insults. With others, I've recently started to have a bit of mocking fun - good for the goose/gander.

If you want a civil discussion you can't arbitrarily single out one poster; civility is reciprocal. Despite your statement the rules have been highly negotiable in this thread; if they're only applied against a newcomer like me the other option
David Thompson wrote:or be gone.
won't even have to be enforced by forum staff.

Several posters have found my ideas here interesting and stimulating. That's presumably the community you want to create. I hope that can continue. Whether that's under lax moderation and exchanges of personal insults, or under more stringent moderation and civil exchanges I don't particularly care. Just apply some uniform standard, please.
The "ignore user" function is essential to AHF/internet sanity and I use it liberally. Feel free to raise another poster's point if I've ignored them.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 17 Jul 2019 23:09

Hanny wrote:Stock levels in Germany
I said German Production; you respond with stocks. You're conflating stocks and flows.

German oil production (Domestic+imported+synth) is 1941 was 8.3 million tons.
The 300,000tons required to supply 2 panzergruppe with 1,500t/day for 100 days of active fighting is 3.5% of Germany's 1941 oil production - you'd have to adjust that figure somewhat for crack spread between weight of oil and finished gasoline. Either way it doesn't rise to even 5%, let alone a figure at which one wouldn't trade the fuel for victory in the east.
Hanny wrote:Germany was 170k short of truck production for existing force levels,
The intellectual structure of a "what if" is to consider the impact of a change (delta).
The delta is to "existing force levels;" it's irrelevant to the ATL whether those existing forces lacked trucks, bubble gum, or self esteem.
If you can't isolate a delta from the noise around it you can't do alternate history.
Hanny wrote:Sorry thats a game whose rules are beyond your ability to grasp.
Good one. I'm still studying the rules but I do know that in Risk the Ukraine is weak. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzLtF_PxbYw
The "ignore user" function is essential to AHF/internet sanity and I use it liberally. Feel free to raise another poster's point if I've ignored them.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 6833
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 18 Jul 2019 04:04

Hanny wrote:
17 Jul 2019 08:39
Carl Schwamberger wrote:
16 Jul 2019 23:04
Is anyone confused by the names on the quotes and comments in this post?
As i mentioned, he is arguing with himself.
Indeed, & more so than it initially appears here.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9786
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by ljadw » 18 Jul 2019 07:21

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
17 Jul 2019 23:09
Hanny wrote:Stock levels in Germany
I said German Production; you respond with stocks. You're conflating stocks and flows.

German oil production (Domestic+imported+synth) is 1941 was 8.3 million tons.
The 300,000tons required to supply 2 panzergruppe with 1,500t/day for 100 days of active fighting is 3.5% of Germany's 1941 oil production - you'd have to adjust that figure somewhat for crack spread between weight of oil and finished gasoline. Either way it doesn't rise to even 5%, let alone a figure at which one wouldn't trade the fuel for victory in the east.
Hanny wrote:Germany was 170k short of truck production for existing force levels,
The intellectual structure of a "what if" is to consider the impact of a change (delta).
The delta is to "existing force levels;" it's irrelevant to the ATL whether those existing forces lacked trucks, bubble gum, or self esteem.
If you can't isolate a delta from the noise around it you can't do alternate history.
Hanny wrote:Sorry thats a game whose rules are beyond your ability to grasp.
Good one. I'm still studying the rules but I do know that in Risk the Ukraine is weak. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzLtF_PxbYw
About the 300000 tons of fuel : it is questionable to use production figures . While in the OTL there were no production problems, there were already transport problems,which would increase if the railways would have to transport more oil in the ATL .
Between mid October 1941 and mid March 1942 the Ostheer consumed 667000 tons of fuel = daily 4500 ton or 11 trains,in September 1942 it was daily 5000-6000 tons.The big problem,which is mostly avoided by posters, is the distance : it would take a train 14 days to transport 400 tons of fuel in the winter of 1941,thus 14 trains would be needed,thus for the whole Ostheer 154 trains to transport every day 4500 tons of fuel . In the ATL the additionaL 20 mobile divisions would fight much more to the east, thus bigger distances and more trains.
And this is without ammunition ( 90000 tons monthly in the first year for the whole Ostheer = daily 136 trains in the winter ) ,other supplies, trains with wounded, replacements, trains with goods from Russia to Germany, with goods from Germany to Russia, etc,..
The QMG of 6th Army calculated that his 22 divisions would need between August 1942 and May 1943 1452 trains (each of 600 tons )of supplies, without ammo and fuel .In October 1942 6th Army asked for 850 tons of fuel a day,while there were not much mobile operations at Stalingrad during that period .= 2 trains a day, for which there were 30 trains needed .The local railway stations could not handle this .
It is very dubious that the local railway stations east of Moscow could handle the additional trains that would be needed by the additional 20 mobile divisions from the ATL.

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by Hanny » 18 Jul 2019 08:23

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
17 Jul 2019 23:09
Hanny wrote:Stock levels in Germany
I said German Production; you respond with stocks. You're conflating stocks and flows.
Nope i pointed out you are unable to understand how wars are conducted, and how economies work. Forces in the field consume stocks of materials ,draw re supplies from stocks held in depots, stocks in depots are replaced from production. Domestic production and foreign imports are for the entire national use, take time to be delivered when imported, converted into stocks of the several forms of fuel and moved to stocks.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
17 Jul 2019 23:09
German oil production (Domestic+imported+synth) is 1941 was 8.3 million tons.
The 300,000tons required to supply 2 panzergruppe with 1,500t/day for 100 days of active fighting is 3.5% of Germany's 1941 oil production - you'd have to adjust that figure somewhat for crack spread between weight of oil and finished gasoline. Either way it doesn't rise to even 5%, let alone a figure at which one wouldn't trade the fuel for victory in the east.
The Armed forces do not get all of that, nor is all of that fuel for motor vehicles/planes.

German Military Fuel consumption in 41 was 4,567,000 tonns. In Nov the military motor fuel allocation was cut by 20,000 tons a month ( month before imports dropped by a third and no way to meet current demands from stocks,)( Halder complained it meant the end of operational freedom). You just increased consumption by 150k a month, from June, what do you think that would mean?.

It does not require 300,000 tons of fuel, for 2 Pzr Groups. You have read me write" you just added 2 more pzr groups each with 1500 tons a day requirement.)" many times, when using how many tons of total supplies a Pzr Group requires, you change that in your head to mean fuel. If it did mean fuel, you increase consumption of fuel the Heer by 13% in 41, with all that comes with doing so.

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
17 Jul 2019 23:09

The intellectual structure of a "what if" is to consider the impact of a change (delta).
And when those levels move from plausible changes, to those beyond belief, its not a what if, but lets pretend.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
17 Jul 2019 23:09
Good one. I'm still studying the rules but I do know that in Risk the Ukraine is weak. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzLtF_PxbYw
Bad one, situations may arise where Ukraine is weak, but its not a certainty, it may even be strong. Best not to get your understanding of strategy from watching comedy programs.
Last edited by Hanny on 18 Jul 2019 09:05, edited 3 times in total.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

antwony
Member
Posts: 162
Joined: 30 Jun 2016 09:14
Location: Not at that place

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by antwony » 18 Jul 2019 08:37

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
17 Jul 2019 22:54
This is just a sample of insults and personal comments directed against me. Is calling someone a wehraboo, accusing them of playing Hitler with right wing views civil? (perhaps Hanny has intentionally mis-spelled wehraboo to get around a search for this plainly inflamatory accusation?) Is mocking someone as a wargamer civil? Is calling someone a troll civil?
Presume the underlined part is directed at me. I didn't say with, I said playing Hitler and ostensibly right wing in two seperate comments.

You should ask Hanny to explain what I wrote, he seems to be able to fully comprehend English language texts and reply to them with a coherent argument.
antwony wrote: Stick to playing Hitler, democracy's a bit beyond you
The Hitler comment was due to;

A) 99% of the content you've posted is about what you do in Hitler's place.

B) I was directly replying to your comments about Mannerheim's political opinions which would only make sense/ be of any relevance if he was a dictator.

C) I saw your (hopefully now deleted) comments about Chamberlain, Daladier (??? some French dude anyway) and the bizarre comments you wrote about pre WW2 diplomacy. You seem to view history as (apologies to the universe for the following s**t phrase) His story i.e. An egotistical tale of dead white guys.
antwony wrote: You'd look less of a **** if you just ignored the UK
I was replying to you claiming that the UK was ”actively bombing Finland”. As Orwell pointed out, there was one carrier raid, of about 2 dozen planes, on German shipping in Petsamo Harbour. Possibly, you were just lying, alternately you should ask Hanny what actively and putting an -ing on the end of a verb means.

As I was saying, I saw your deleted comments. You claims that Chamberlain was a right wing extremist (dubious), out of touch with the electorate (dubious/ lack of understanding of democracy), the UK and France were responsible for WW2 (pretty sure you said WW1 too), only concerned with Poland because they were white and mentioning some post WW2 ”genocides” was just standard internet silly.

When you used the phrase (once again hopefully deleted) ”tell it to the Jews” about UK/ France's failure to win the War in 1940 (or whatever), you crossed over into **** territory. I was trying to be polite when I was replying earlier in the week, but there's a level of dumb/ offensiveness which discounts everything else a person says.
antwony wrote:I particularly like how an ostensibly right wing American poster
How's that offensive? Ask Hanny what ostensibly means.

I have no idea what you are and I really don't care. For me, you'll always be the ”tell it to the Jews” guy.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 18 Jul 2019 09:37

Hanny wrote:Forces in the field consume stocks ,draw supplies from stocks, stocks are replaced from production.
Stocks come from production and are set - not just replaced - according to strategic decisions. Change the strategic decisions and you can change the stocks.
Hanny wrote: i pointed out you are unable to understand how wars are conducted, and how economies work.
Great argument.
Fact remains you responded to a point about production with statistics about stocks.
Because you don't understand - maybe can't understand - the ability of strategy to alter flows into and out of stocks.
This is one of your core intellectual failings thoughout the thread: you assume that OTL end states (stocks) are a given that can't be changed based on up-stream strategic decisions about flows, whether of oil or other resources like labor, investment, and raw materials.
This intellectual failing causes/enables you to assert that it's impossible for Germany to shift 0.1% of GDP to building 34,000 trucks because... stocks and TOE's or something. Brilliant.
Hanny wrote:German Military Fuel consumption in 41 was 4,567,000 tonns.
So now it's 7% of the Wehrmacht's annual fuel budget to win the war? Hmmmmmmm when it was 3% of total national budget it was an easy choice; now that it's 7% of Wehrmatch budget I have to think about it...


...OK so I thought about it and actually anyboy'd trade 7% of the military fuel budget to win a war. Turns out winning is better than losing.
Hanny wrote:you increase consumption of fuel the Heer by 13% in 41, with all that comes with doing so.
all those terrible consequences such as [.....] victory.
Hanny wrote:Ukraine is weak


You not say Ukraine is weak; I take your board and smash!
Hanny wrote:Best not to get your understanding of strategy from watching comedy programs.
I'd take Kraemer's advice over yours actually. Newman's as well.
antwony wrote:For me, you'll always be the ”tell it to the Jews” guy.
But we'll always have Paris.
The "ignore user" function is essential to AHF/internet sanity and I use it liberally. Feel free to raise another poster's point if I've ignored them.

Return to “What if”