TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑19 Jul 2019, 06:36
Hanny continues with his course on how NOT to do alternate history.
Nope, i again pointed out your ATL is an example of how not to do it, by referring to OTL and how far you are from it. You appear confused that i offered an ATl, i have not.
TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑19 Jul 2019, 06:36
Once again he can't conceptually distinguish OTL fuel deficits from the deltas to fuel deficits arising from the ATL delta to existing forces.
My post however did however show your 6 Pzr Groups with im going to supply them from production is a strategic error thats cost the wargame (HOI) your playing and you opponents laughs ( because your strrtergy is based on not being able to count) and points at the basic errors you have made, which cost you the game, when you sent your 6 PZR groups expecting enough fuel from production to meet their consumption turned out not to be the case, and you ran out of all fuel in month 3 for the entire military.
TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑19 Jul 2019, 06:36
In order for his argument to succeed, he'd have to show that the extra divisions would exacerbate fuel shortages to such an extent that something like German collapse would ensue (i.e. Ostheer running completely out fuel).
Wrong. Im taking the piss out of your ATL, due to your inability to think, and ignorance of actual history and economics, which has produced a childish OTL.
All i need do is show the most probably outcome of the changes you made, more formations consuming fuel means the pre war planning of we can do this for 2 to 2.5 months before we run out, you seem unaware the plan was expected to fail from lack of resources, means you have less time to achieve a better outcome because you increased consumption, from more formations with fewer assets. Only someone as mthamaticly challanged as your, thinks combat efficiency improves by having fewer assets.
FM Bock ( amongst others) ordered that “further advances should be temporarily suspended” until supply problems could be overcome.
TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑19 Jul 2019, 06:36
In order to make that argument, he'd have to explain why it's impossible for Hitler/OKW to have shifted something like an additional 1% of Germany's fuel budget towards Barbarossa.
He'd be able to make that showing if, for example, total collapse of LW/KM operations or the economy would result from the ~1% shift. But nobody can possibly believe that.
Nope, all need show is that the pre war planning showed when they expected to run out, and how much quicker it would have been under your changes, secondly, you cant purchase what is not there to purchase no matter how much you want to pay for it. As i posted, you cant purchase what is not available to purchase.
TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑19 Jul 2019, 06:36
In either case, I don't see fuel being the strategic constraint on how many forces are deployed in Barbarossa.
Because your incompetent, cant count of think critically.
TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑19 Jul 2019, 06:36
I wrote that "even IF you're right that 2PzGr need 300,000t fuel, it's still worth it."
Now you're triumphantly proclaiming that your own figure was too high!
Yes you did. Three times i have pointed out i referd to total suopplies, and you refer to that as being fuel, and i am also correct that you not only cannot do math, you cant comprehend the written word. My figure not for fuel, its for all supplies and is not to high for fuel, not least because i have not given it.
TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑19 Jul 2019, 06:36
For other readers capable of grasping conditional logic, note why I do conditional framing of the issues
Learn how to read and count before trying anything more complex. Your trying to hard to sound clever when you actually not.
TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑19 Jul 2019, 06:36
I missed this remark earlier but it's perfectly illustrative of everything you've written in this thread.
Its another fact, there was no more oil for AH to acquire. There is no strategy of spending more to acquire it, he was paying 4 times the barrel price in 40, and another 15% over that in 41 to get all Rom could produce and all Rom it had stockpiled, Rum went short because of it, to get it to the Reich was a further massive expense of RR infrastructure etc.
TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑19 Jul 2019, 06:36
Strategy is simply beyond your capacities, Hanny.
It is?, how odd, i pointed out your strategy of spending more to purchase what is not for sale is flawed, and doomed to fail. Is pointing out constraints in reality to your magic bullet a flawed strategy?, no, will it succeed to convince you, probably not.
Your the one that gambling on a strategy with more MOT to win, only to find out you got the maths wrong, not me.
TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑19 Jul 2019, 06:36
Not sure that's even true. HIstorical evidence of Hitler's pre-war strategy/intent regarding UK is messy, not least due to self-serving memoirs. Best evidence suggests Hitler didn't place high priority on actually conquering Britain and wanted its empire to survive a war.
Nothing you post is worth the time to read. Pre Dunkirk AH did not want a war to end the UK/Empire, after it refused to quit, he changed his mind, because he was now in exactly what he wanted to avoid, a war with no exit strategy opening to him a war of attrition over the long term, he planned therefore to reduce UK population by a third after conquest.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.