New Projekt: Phcas & AKRebels "PAK"-Mod - RELEASE v3.30

[phcas]

This looking great, where is the "main" download for the game?

First page of this topic are the download links. Scroll the first page.

This?


Update v0.53 Update (17,63 MB) https://www.mediafire.com/file/tdscxwmz ... 3.rar/file

Update v0.53 Full (2,80 GB) https://www.mediafire.com/file/pt1edwu5 ... l.rar/file

Yes you only need "Update v0.53 Full" this is the complete PAK MOD latest version

[uzbek2012]

The Fascists ' plans to conquer Africa and America
https://profidom.com.ua/stati/arkhitekt ... zej-v-mire
https://www.mirf.ru/science/esli-by-git ... natsistov/

[ajs81]

Even if Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito turned upside down, their Gross Domestic Product was still only 40% in the USA. The United Kingdom (India, Canada, Australia with Oceania) should also be added. The Western Allies had such production capacity that they were still able to send Leand Lease aid to the USSR via Alaska, Iran, and by northern convoys to Murmansk and Arkhangelsk. If we add to this the millions of Red Army soldiers who died by the thousands because no one took the casualties into account, the defeat of the Axis was obvious and matter of time.

[Colleague_Boyd_From_The_CIA]

Even if Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito turned upside down, their Gross Domestic Product was still only 40% in the USA. The United Kingdom (India, Canada, Australia with Oceania) should also be added. The Western Allies had such production capacity that they were still able to send Leand Lease aid to the USSR via Alaska, Iran, and by northern convoys to Murmansk and Arkhangelsk. If we add to this the millions of Red Army soldiers who died by the thousands because no one took the casualties into account, the defeat of the Axis was obvious and matter of time.

There just wasn't a realistic way in which the Axis powers could have won the war. All these what if scenarios take away far too many variables to the point that it turns into fanfiction. Although it does makes for a fun Panzer Corps campaign .

[uzbek2012]

Even if Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito turned upside down, their Gross Domestic Product was still only 40% in the USA. The United Kingdom (India, Canada, Australia with Oceania) should also be added. The Western Allies had such production capacity that they were still able to send Leand Lease aid to the USSR via Alaska, Iran, and by northern convoys to Murmansk and Arkhangelsk. If we add to this the millions of Red Army soldiers who died by the thousands because no one took the casualties into account, the defeat of the Axis was obvious and matter of time.

You're telling us about the USA that missed the uppercut in Perharbor )) And those countries that the Japanese drove like children in Burma and so on )))
https://en.topwar.ru/72837-doroga-na-ma ... rvaya.html
Power is good but sometimes the power of the spirit is stronger ) France in 1940 also had one of the largest and strongest armies in Europe but fell like a house of cards within 6 weeks )) And delaying the opening of the second front in Europe UNTIL 1944 is generally a song ))) Now imagine all the forces that fought on the eastern front were transferred to fight on the western front ) Then D-Day would just be a bloodbath with a kick and a Yankee go home cry ! But this is just reasoning and arguing here proving that someone is ungrateful work !
https://maxpark.com/community/8211/content/6827653
https://warhead.su/2019/04/30/alternati ... u-mirovuyu
https://en.topwar.ru/105236-podgotovka- ... ckrig.html

Percival goes under a white flag to negotiate a surrender
15.02.1942 G. A. Percival surrendered Singapore to the Japanese General Yamashita. The largest and most humiliating surrender in English history resulted in the capture of 80,000 British, Malays, Australians, and Indians. The Japanese tried to create the appearance of their strength. The forces of the "Malay Tiger", exhausted after 2 months of battles and transitions through the tropics, were three times less than the British troops. They have completely run out of fuel and ammunition. If Percival had been brave, it would have been the samurai, not the British, who would have been defeated. However, the Singapore garrison surrendered.
Source: https://militaryexp.com/chudesnaya-pobe ... -singapur/

Planes and uniforms of Japanese aces
http://wunderwafe.ru/Magazine/AirWar/04 ... /index.htm

P.s.
Similarly from modern Vietnam and Afghanistan the great mighty power cannot cope with the partisans )))

[ajs81]

You're confusing the concepts. The Anglo-Saxon countries, unlike the Soviet Union, cared for their soldiers and their losses throughout the war were minimal. USA with Great Britain max. 790,000 killed during 6 years of war (of course the USA from December 41). In the encirclement near Kiev alone, the Red Army lost 500-600 thousand soldiers. The Anglo-Saxon countries, and the USA in particular, had a fire advantage tactic. With such a huge advantage in bomber aviation, the war would have probably lasted much longer, but Germany would have been defeated anyway. For the Anglo-Saxons, such massacres as the Kiev in 41 ', Operation Mars near Rzhev and the next hundreds of thousands of deaths were impossible to swallow. When the plans to conquer Japan by the invasion were estimated at 100,000 losses, it was decided to use nuclear weapons. If someone in London or Washington found out that a general was doing what Marshal Zhukov did on the Oder in April 45 ', when he shot an officer who slowed down the passage of tanks across the Odra River and then these tanks ran over a column of wounded, such a general would be judged. Russia today may be proud of its veterans, but they have gone through hell. No one has wasted human life more than the Red Army. The example of Afghanistan is well known, it is a mountainous country. The fights there were always tough, for the British, the Soviets and the Americans. As for Vietnam, Vietnam's losses were so great that there would be no soldiers on the side of Vietnam for another decade of fighting. The Americans, i.e. the public did not want war, the pilots could not bomb North Vietnam, and the soldiers themselves did not know what they were really fighting for.

[Turtler]

You're telling us about the USA that missed the uppercut in Perharbor )) And those countries that the Japanese drove like children in Burma and so on )))
https://en.topwar.ru/72837-doroga-na-ma ... rvaya.html

Yes (as well as the matching anti-US uppercuts in the Philippines and Guam). But you're largely making ajs's point. And in particular that the Japanese High Command could go through all of these victories- many of them unprecedented or at least shocking (such as the largest surrender of American Union and British armies in the history of ever) and STILL recognize it was in a war it had slim potential to win. Hence Yamamoto's famous "Six Months' prediction.

The Axis succeeded massively in the early war- in some cases Significantly beyond what they anticipated- and still faced the issue of being hemmed in by Allied dominance of the oceans and inability to link up over Eurasia, let alone strike deep into relative "Safe Areas" like the Caucasus and Urals or North America.

I'm one of those hacks that still makes Devil's Advocate arguments about how I do think the Axis were not COMPLETELY, 100% doomed to lose the war, but even I have to admit the odds were loooooonnnng indeed.

Power is good but sometimes the power of the spirit is stronger )

Sometimes.

But if the power of the spirit cannot translate into material power, it's not likely to do you that much good. Just ask the Japanese how Bataan and Singapore worked out for them in the long run.

France in 1940 also had one of the largest and strongest armies in Europe but fell like a house of cards within 6 weeks ))

Correct, but it was also facing an enemy roughly on par with its own materially. And it fell largely out of a combination of military incompetence and obsolescence (meaning that it could not direct the substantial forces it did have where they were needed like at Sedan) and the decision of the French leadership after Reynaud to throw in the towel in spite of the significant forces in West and Southern France, let alone in the Empire.

And that was largely abetted by extremely favorable conditions for that which- to make a long story short- aren't likely to be repeated, given how differently the Nazis treated France from-say- their actions in the USSR.

And delaying the opening of the second front in Europe UNTIL 1944 is generally a song )))

Oh don't even get me STARTED on "Muh Second Front."

Firstly: The Eastern Front was the Second Front. The UK and Minors had been fighting alone with tactic Western Hemisphere support since late 1940, at a time when the Soviet Union was if anything a pro-Axis neutral that was backstabbed in Barbarossa.

Secondly: Italy in 1943 says Hi. Especially since it saw the collapse of Hitler's most important European Axis ally, the effective collapse of the Italian Military (even dispersed across occupied Europe), and the need by Germany to divert substantial troops to parry even the (frankly in a lot of ways incompetent and poorly managed) Western Allied landings.

So when people usually talk about the "Second Front in 1944" they mean the Trans-Channel invasion of France rather than Any Second Front.

Thirdly: This ignores WHY the "delaying the opening of the so-called Second Front until 1944" happened. Including one crucial reason: namely that when told that preparations

TL:DR, when told that preparations for invading France would require substantial diversions of Allied shipping for the buildup and reductions to Lend Lease, a lot of the US and UK's continental allies- particularly the Soviets through Molotov- consistently begged off the matter and muted the rumbling demands for a second front when they did pop up. Now you can argue that even if the Soviets hadn't done this the Western powers would have acted similarly (somewhat doubtful, especially since at least one of these was a reaction to FDR offering expedited Trans-Channel operations in 1943), but the point is: The Soviets at the time knew quite a bit on how important Western shipping was to the global war effort (including playing a secondary but important role supporting their own front) and the demands that Overlord would impose. After the fact chest thumping is a poor substitute for logistical reality.

Now imagine all the forces that fought on the eastern front were transferred to fight on the western front ) Then D-Day would just be a bloodbath with a kick and a Yankee go home cry !

We don't have to imagine.

Start counting the number of Axis- and particularly German- forces in coastal or near-coastal rear area postings prior to D-Day, from Northern Norway to the Dalmatian Islands.

Go on, I'll wait.

Protip: when you have ALMOST half a million (specifically 400,000ish) German and collaborator troops tied up in Norway alone waiting for a repeat of Plan R4 that never comes, you're already investing a huge proportion of your military guarding against the Atlantic.

And Festung Norway was just one- albeit one of the single largest- parts of the Atlantic Wall. Add that the 58ish or so divisions plus collaborators that were in the Channel-facing Western European countries by Spring 1944 and you start adding these up.

So rather than asking "if all the forces that fought on the Eastern front went to the Western Front" we should if anything be focusing on what would have happened if all the forces tied up in defensive work on the Western Front (or otherwise not tied down dealing with partisan war) got shifted East, which a lot of them probably would have been without the knowledge that the Western Allies could and would launch amphibious attacks ranging from solo sneaking to commando raids up to the giant extravaganzas of Husky, Avalanche, and Overlord.

Especially when you realize that basic force dissipation and disinformation means that unless Allied intelligence has screwed the pooch *so much worse* than it did IOTL, the Western Allies will NEVER have to face the full might of the European Axis at the point they land, for the simple reason that as long as the Axis don't have superior naval or air power the Axis will have to try and cover every strip of beach, at least passively. While the Allies can choose the time and place they can land, Especially if they are not facing political or strategic pressure to help the Eastern Front and capitalize on what develops there.

But this is just reasoning and arguing here proving that someone is ungrateful work !

There's plenty of ingratitude to go around, starting with the Soviet government collaborating with the post-WWI Reichswehr to try and revitalize and rearm the single greatest existential threat it faced short of a major, no holds barred Western Allied invasion (that was unlikely to happen in the age of Lloyd-George and Wilson after WWI) and moving on to shortcharging for Operation Hula (essentially the largest naval giveaway in human history).

Percival goes under a white flag to negotiate a surrender
15.02.1942 G. A. Percival surrendered Singapore to the Japanese General Yamashita. The largest and most humiliating surrender in English history resulted in the capture of 80,000 British, Malays, Australians, and Indians. The Japanese tried to create the appearance of their strength. The forces of the "Malay Tiger", exhausted after 2 months of battles and transitions through the tropics, were three times less than the British troops. They have completely run out of fuel and ammunition. If Percival had been brave, it would have been the samurai, not the British, who would have been defeated. However, the Singapore garrison surrendered.

The issue is that even if Percival had stood strong, Thailand had entered into the Japanese camp and the IJN had naval superiority, meaning that they could resupply while the Allies could not (indeed).

But I'm not here to try and defend the track record of Percival or British Malaya Command, or that of most of the ABDA Command in the first months after Pearl Harbor. There is incredibly little to defend. But it's telling that in spite of these historic victories, -with the Western Allies having stripped Pacific resources to the bone to feed the war in Europe and continually prioritizing the former over the latter, having dealt with such shattering defeats and more follies, and dealing with a Soviet Union that was studiously neutral in the Pacific War and tuning down its support of the Chinese in order to fight for its life against the Euro Axis- the Japanese High Command *still* recognized that victory by their own force of arms in the larger war was either impossible or all but.

That shows you some idea of how much of an uphill climb the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Pact and Friends had to make.

P.s.
Similarly from modern Vietnam and Afghanistan the great mighty power cannot cope with the partisans )))

Except actually studying "Modern Vietnam and Afghanistan" render the opposite verdicts, particularly if you've studied things like the highly successful French Union clearing actions in Cambodia and what would become Southern Vietnam in the First Indochinese War (Waddell's In the Year of the Tiger is one of the best focuses on it), the generally successful British Royal attempts to maintain hegemony over Afghanistan, and the still largely successful attempts by the Soviets to sustain a similar hegemony over Kabul and the lowlands.

If "modern Vietnam and Afghanistan" were primarily a matter of whether a mighty power could cope with Partisans, Vietnam would've ended with a shattering bang after the VC blew up during the Tet Offensive and Afghanistan probably would've seen similar after Operation Magistral (which in any case saw the anti-government rebels seriously kneecapped, with the legendary and highly successful defense of Hill 3234 being the most famous).

The issue is less dealing with partisans so much as dealing with Partisans *and their great power backers* and lawless or neutral territory that allows them to shelter or restock. If they don't have those then the odds are seriously against them and they typically fail, even if it takes a long time (anybody hear about the Tamil Tigers lately? And they were some of the most shockingly successful "Indie" Guerilla movements in recent history). If they do then you have bigger issues. If you successfully deal with them (as the British largely did in Afghanistan during the mid 1910's) then victory still favors the "house"; it's if you can't that you run into B I G problems.

It's probably not a coincidence that of the Four big Great Power influence periods in Afghanistan during the 19th and 20th centuries (Britain 1880-1919/1948ish, USSR 1918-1926 ish, USSR 1978-1991, NATO/ISAF 2001-Now(?)) only one came even Close to managing tight control over the crucial Southeastern Frontier between what's now Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that was with large conventional garrisons and mobile forces along with so many conflicts and asterisks it would be remarkable. And it's not like these powers didn't recognize the importance of the area; I do think the high point of the Soviet war was from about 1985-1988, when both conventional operations and the strikes on the caravan routes through Afghanistan ramped up and were putting serious hurt on the assorted Mujahadeen Groups and their great power backers.

But in any case, as for the reference of PHCAS, the main side dealing with guerillas in the relevant conflicts is going to be the Axis. The Allies generally guerillas from Tito to the and the KLA to Ho with whatever they thought could be spared and with scant concern for politics beyond "are these factions hurting the Axis?" Even a lot (not all but a lot) of guerilla movements that were otherwise inclined to take potshots at the Allies such as the Burmese and Filipino Communists and Algerian Nationalists *generally* said "Nah, let's wait" because they assumed (usually correctly) that the defeat of the Axis would give them better operating conditions.

Hence why you had so many Axis troops playing "Whack-a-Mole" or "Burn-the-Village" in reprisal killings and garrison work, on top of those already tied up in stationary garrisons worrying about major raids.

The closest comparison to what the Axis faced were the issues on the plates of the Soviet Union and to a lesser extent the European Colonial Powers after WWII, with the Soviets fighting a bunch of somewhat interconnected guerilla wars from the Baltics to Romania and the UK, Dutch, and French fighting anti-imperial rebels from Kenya to Vietnam to Indonesia (in addition to the utter disaster that was the Indian Partition fallout).

And even then it's not PARTICULARLY close, because the Axis had fewer resources and more pressing commitments to deal with it.

[uzbek2012]

You're confusing the concepts. The Anglo-Saxon countries, unlike the Soviet Union, cared for their soldiers and their losses throughout the war were minimal. USA with Great Britain max. 790,000 killed during 6 years of war (of course the USA from December 41). In the encirclement near Kiev alone, the Red Army lost 500-600 thousand soldiers. The Anglo-Saxon countries, and the USA in particular, had a fire advantage tactic. With such a huge advantage in bomber aviation, the war would have probably lasted much longer, but Germany would have been defeated anyway. For the Anglo-Saxons, such massacres as the Kiev in 41 ', Operation Mars near Rzhev and the next hundreds of thousands of deaths were impossible to swallow. When the plans to conquer Japan by the invasion were estimated at 100,000 losses, it was decided to use nuclear weapons. If someone in London or Washington found out that a general was doing what Marshal Zhukov on the Oder in April 45 ', that he shot an officer who slowed down the passage of tanks across the Odra River and then these tanks ran over a column of wounded, such a general would be judged. Russia today may be proud of its veterans, but they have gone through hell. No one has wasted human life more than the Red Army. The example of Afghanistan is well known, it is a mountainous country. The fights there were always tough, for the British, the Soviets and the Americans. As for Vietnam, Vietnam's losses were so great that there would be no soldiers on the side of Vietnam for another decade of fighting. The Americans, i.e. the public did not want war, the pilots could not bomb North Vietnam, and the soldiers themselves did not know what they were really fighting for.

You're getting hysterical again buddy and you're looking for the ghost of communism )) Of course, the Anglo-Saxons can be proud of themselves because they did all the wars with someone else's hands , and hid their wealth in their pocket ! So if it wasn't for the USSR, what D-day wouldn't have happened and the Yankees would have turned back ! On what you here losses tell obsche voiskovye or consider together with civilians ! There is a difference when soldiers are killed, and when the punishers deliberately destroy the civilian population ! Stop telling your democratic myths here ! Operation Unthinkable also did not start because after counting in the preliminary calculations it became clear that you would have washed your face with bloody snot faster ) Stop talking your nonsense here America and Europe have never attacked an equal opponent ) At the expense of Vietnam you lie that you did not drop tons of bombs and toxic substances ) Yes, and before America, the Vietnamese gave the neck of France! So leave your stories to science fiction writers !

P.s.
Let's get back to the game ,and you tell your snotty fantasies to the girls about the barbarians from the east who beat you and will beat you ) Not what kind of policy only the game what to add, fix, and so on

[Turtler]

You're confusing the concepts. The Anglo-Saxon countries, unlike the Soviet Union, cared for their soldiers

Whaaaaa?

Like, I am a pretty big Westaboo and American patriot with no great love for the Soviet system or government, but there's that and then there's this. In general most factions through the war (even the really, REALLY abusive ones like the KMT and IJA) tried to care for their troops to some degree, after all if they didn't who would do the fighting and dying? The Western Allies did have the benefit in this in a lot of ways, but they also were dealt a much more favorable hand.

and their losses throughout the war were minimal.

Sure, and that was no mean feat, but they also had much greater ability to choose their battles after the first years of the war and were generally treated much better as prisoners- even by the really, really brutal Japanese- than-say- Soviet or Chinese prisoners were.

USA with Great Britain max. 790,000 killed during 6 years of war (of course the USA from December 41).

Not likely; those are pretty much exclusively counting Military Deaths, and only for the "Metropoles", which distorts the figures. Especially for the UK with its large Empire (for instance, nearly 90,000 Indian soldiers died serving) but also the US (see the toll in the Philippines).

It was still remarkably low for what was at play (and the fact that it is largely on par with the overall losses from WWI (especially for the British Empire ) is a hell of a feat, but the vast, VAST gulf between even Western Allied POW mortality rates in Europe or even the Pacific compared with those of Soviet or JapaChinese ones should show you.

In the encirclement near Kiev alone, the Red Army lost 500-600 thousand soldiers.

In large part because they were caught flat footed by a massive combined arms force hitting them over a land connection.

ANd even then a lot of the reason so many Soviets DIED because of that was because they were treated as Literally Subhuman and so summarily executed or otherwise intentionally mistreated to death in Axis captivity.

IIRC of the 2.7 Million Soviet Prisoners' captured in the first half year of the war, something like 2.4 Million or 2.5 Million died?

Don't quote me on that, but it given any case the numbers are absolutely horrifying, an. And if you look at things like the big Axis advances against the Western Allies in 1940-42 (and especially the Battle of France in 1940) the total number of casualties isn't that different for a given engagement's size. What really shakes things up is not just the larger scale of the battles in the East (well, mostly) and the fact that Soviet troops were killed (whether after capture or as a result of going down fighting after realizing what would happen to them if they did surrender) while a Briton, Dutch, or American would more likely be captured- wounded or unwounded- and ultimately live through captivity.

Had even the Japanese treated the Western Allied POWs as badly as they did Soviet or Chinese ones, you'd see a BIG jump in the death toll, not because of anything wrong with Western or Soviet leadership compared to ITOL but simply from how many are getting killed after being captured.

The Anglo-Saxon countries, and the USA in particular, had a fire advantage tactic.

More debatable, especially when you get down to the tactical level. In particular the Soviets took the lead in modernizing and codifying what we now recognize as modern urban combat, with Chuikov himself laying down some pearls of wisdom. So

With such a huge advantage in bomber aviation, the war would have probably lasted much longer,

Probably true and I do think the mod gives a good portrayal of what a pita Western Allied bombing runs (and later Soviet ones) were for the Reich. And it likely would've happened even sooner had the Western Allies not screwed up as badly as they often did with bombers in the ETO, hence the truly atrocious casualties Bomber Command and the Mighty Eighth suffered.

but Germany would have been defeated anyway.

Probably agreed.

For the Anglo-Saxons, such massacres as the Kiev in 41 ', Operation Mars near Rzhev and the next hundreds of thousands of deaths were impossible to swallow.

The best counterpoints I can show to this were A: WWI, and B: the early years of WWII.

The Western Allies were generally much more squeamish about manpower losses than most of their enemies and allies and this often led to really bad outcomes (such as the Belgian and Dutch capitulations ), but the idea that they flat out Couldn't swallow these kinds of losses is unlikely, especially since they absolutely did in battles like the Luzon campaign, the Bulge, Gazala, and so on. Indeed, the method they fought the war was largely one adopted because on some level they could Afford to, but if faced with-say- a larger Axis threat on the homeland or the need to cmmit more troops to a war theater to make up for-say- China or the USSR going under, I am sure they were capable of it (even if they might not actualy Do it).

W

hen the plans to conquer Japan by the invasion were estimated at 100,000 losses, it was decided to use nuclear weapons.

The truth was more prosaic. Had the Atomic Bombs been ready, they would have been dropped on the Third Reich. But they weren't, so they were redirected to the Pacific and dropped on Japan.

And operational plans for Olympic and Downfall that include Atomic Bomb drops *in conjunction with* conventional invasion shows that it was not because the Western Allies could not fathom dealing with a campaign on the Japanese Home slands.

If someone in London or Washington found out that a general was doing what Marshal Zhukov did on the Oder in April 45 ', when he shot an officer who slowed down the passage of tanks across the Odra River and then these tanks ran over a column of wounded, such a general would be judged.

I haven't heard of this prticular story about Zhukov. Any sources?

Russia today may be proud of its veterans, but they have gone through hell.

QUite true and I'll freely admit a lot of that was due to the actions of the Soviet Leadership.

But hardly all of it

Hitler and his henchmen were mass murderoing, aggressive, two faced butchers after all.

No one has wasted human life more than the Red Army.

The Third Reich and the Japanese Empire would at least contest that.

The example of Afghanistan is well known, it is a mountainous country. The fights there were always tough, for the British, the Soviets and the Americans.

Indeed. Now add that to tough, dogged resistance along with hard to control frontiers.

As for Vietnam, Vietnam's losses were so great that there would be no soldiers on the side of Vietnam for another decade of fighting. The Americans, i.e. the public did not want war, the pilots could not bomb North Vietnam, and the soldiers themselves did not know what they were really fighting for.

Firstly, it was hard to say there was a "Vietnam's side" in what wasu ltimately a civil war with foreign involvement, as the assorted Indochinese Communists largely helped tear their countries apart and fight non-communists or at least opposing factions (not that the non-communists were oftswell guys or not pouring salt in the wound, as Lon Nol can attest, but that's anther time)

Also you're largely referencing the bad old Rules of Engagement under LBJ and MacNamara, and even THOSE got heavily toned down before being replaced by something saner (if more brutal) under Nixon. Hence the repeat bombings of Northern Vietnam by the USAF.

[Turtler]

You're confusing the concepts. The Anglo-Saxon countries, unlike the Soviet Union, cared for their soldiers

Whaaaaa?

Like, I am a pretty big Westaboo and American patriot with no great love for the Soviet system or government, but there's that and then there's this. In general most factions through the war (even the really, REALLY abusive ones like the KMT and IJA) tried to care for their troops to some degree, after all if they didn't who would do the fighting and dying? The Western Allies did have the benefit in this in a lot of ways, but they also were dealt a much more favorable hand.

and their losses throughout the war were minimal.

Sure, and that was no mean feat, but they also had much greater ability to choose their battles after the first years of the war and were generally treated much better as prisoners- even by the really, really brutal Japanese- than-say- Soviet or Chinese prisoners were.

USA with Great Britain max. 790,000 killed during 6 years of war (of course the USA from December 41).

Not likely; those are pretty much exclusively counting Military Deaths, and only for the "Metropoles", which distorts the figures. Especially for the UK with its large Empire (for instance, nearly 90,000 Indian soldiers died serving) but also the US (see the toll in the Philippines).

It was still remarkably low for what was at play (and the fact that it is largely on par with the overall losses from WWI (especially for the British Empire ) is a hell of a feat, but the vast, VAST gulf between even Western Allied POW mortality rates in Europe or even the Pacific compared with those of Soviet or JapaChinese ones should show you.

In the encirclement near Kiev alone, the Red Army lost 500-600 thousand soldiers.

In large part because they were caught flat footed by a massive combined arms force hitting them over a land connection.

ANd even then a lot of the reason so many Soviets DIED because of that was because they were treated as Literally Subhuman and so summarily executed or otherwise intentionally mistreated to death in Axis captivity.

IIRC of the 2.7 Million Soviet Prisoners' captured in the first half year of the war, something like 2.4 Million or 2.5 Million died?

Don't quote me on that, but it given any case the numbers are absolutely horrifying, an. And if you look at things like the big Axis advances against the Western Allies in 1940-42 (and especially the Battle of France in 1940) the total number of casualties isn't that different for a given engagement's size. What really shakes things up is not just the larger scale of the battles in the East (well, mostly) and the fact that Soviet troops were killed (whether after capture or as a result of going down fighting after realizing what would happen to them if they did surrender) while a Briton, Dutch, or American would more likely be captured- wounded or unwounded- and ultimately live through captivity.

Had even the Japanese treated the Western Allied POWs as badly as they did Soviet or Chinese ones, you'd see a BIG jump in the death toll, not because of anything wrong with Western or Soviet leadership compared to ITOL but simply from how many are getting killed after being captured.

The Anglo-Saxon countries, and the USA in particular, had a fire advantage tactic.

More debatable, especially when you get down to the tactical level. In particular the Soviets took the lead in modernizing and codifying what we now recognize as modern urban combat, with Chuikov himself laying down some pearls of wisdom. So

With such a huge advantage in bomber aviation, the war would have probably lasted much longer,

Probably true and I do think the mod gives a good portrayal of what a pita Western Allied bombing runs (and later Soviet ones) were for the Reich. And it likely would've happened even sooner had the Western Allies not screwed up as badly as they often did with bombers in the ETO, hence the truly atrocious casualties Bomber Command and the Mighty Eighth suffered.

but Germany would have been defeated anyway.

Probably agreed.

For the Anglo-Saxons, such massacres as the Kiev in 41 ', Operation Mars near Rzhev and the next hundreds of thousands of deaths were impossible to swallow.

The best counterpoints I can show to this were A: WWI, and B: the early years of WWII.

The Western Allies were generally much more squeamish about manpower losses than most of their enemies and allies and this often led to really bad outcomes (such as the Belgian and Dutch capitulations ), but the idea that they flat out Couldn't swallow these kinds of losses is unlikely, especially since they absolutely did in battles like the Luzon campaign, the Bulge, Gazala, and so on. Indeed, the method they fought the war was largely one adopted because on some level they could Afford to, but if faced with-say- a larger Axis threat on the homeland or the need to cmmit more troops to a war theater to make up for-say- China or the USSR going under, I am sure they were capable of it (even if they might not actualy Do it).

W

hen the plans to conquer Japan by the invasion were estimated at 100,000 losses, it was decided to use nuclear weapons.

The truth was more prosaic. Had the Atomic Bombs been ready, they would have been dropped on the Third Reich. But they weren't, so they were redirected to the Pacific and dropped on Japan.

And operational plans for Olympic and Downfall that include Atomic Bomb drops *in conjunction with* conventional invasion shows that it was not because the Western Allies could not fathom dealing with a campaign on the Japanese Home slands.

If someone in London or Washington found out that a general was doing what Marshal Zhukov did on the Oder in April 45 ', when he shot an officer who slowed down the passage of tanks across the Odra River and then these tanks ran over a column of wounded, such a general would be judged.

I haven't heard of this prticular story about Zhukov. Any sources?

Russia today may be proud of its veterans, but they have gone through hell.

QUite true and I'll freely admit a lot of that was due to the actions of the Soviet Leadership.

But hardly all of it

Hitler and his henchmen were mass murderoing, aggressive, two faced butchers after all.

No one has wasted human life more than the Red Army.

The Third Reich and the Japanese Empire would at least contest that.

The example of Afghanistan is well known, it is a mountainous country. The fights there were always tough, for the British, the Soviets and the Americans.

Indeed. Now add that to tough, dogged resistance along with hard to control frontiers.

As for Vietnam, Vietnam's losses were so great that there would be no soldiers on the side of Vietnam for another decade of fighting. The Americans, i.e. the public did not want war, the pilots could not bomb North Vietnam, and the soldiers themselves did not know what they were really fighting for.

Firstly, it was hard to say there was a "Vietnam's side" in what wasu ltimately a civil war with foreign involvement, as the assorted Indochinese Communists largely helped tear their countries apart and fight non-communists or at least opposing factions (not that the non-communists were oftswell guys or not pouring salt in the wound, as Lon Nol can attest, but that's anther time)

Also you're largely referencing the bad old Rules of Engagement under LBJ and MacNamara, and even THOSE got heavily toned down before being replaced by something saner (if more brutal) under Nixon. Hence the repeat bombings of Northern Vietnam by the USAF.

[ajs81]

uzbek2012 You start telling your myths, don't be surprised that players like me and Turtler answer you with examples. And you don't have to offend or sulk us. Nobody is talking about the barbarians from the east. Also, don't confuse the concepts. I did not write about the barbaric approach of the occupants to the Belarusian, Ukrainian or Russian nations and millions of civilians, but I wrote about millions of victims on the side of the Red Army resulting from ineffective command and not caring for soldiers, an example of which is Rzhev. If you want to believe in propaganda your case and nothing to do with it, but once again please don't push it on us.

[Akkula]

Hahaha, oh my.... are we still spreading the cold war concepts of "Soviets won by using zillion of soldiers", "Soviets generals sent their soldiers to the slaughters", etc, etc?.
And you even dare to compare the British/US losses vs the Soviet losses in absolute numbers? Dude, come on, srlsy. Even a 5 years old child can see the difference.... The Allies had direct combat against the Germans for 10 months or so, while the Soviets fought for 4 years in the largest theater of operations in history. Are you really comparing the absolute numbers?. I dunno, it seems you are the one spreading propaganda to me....

[Turtler]

You're getting hysterical again buddy and you're looking for the ghost of communism ))

Well said

Of course, the Anglo-Saxons can be proud of themselves because they did all the wars with someone else's hands , and hid their wealth in their pocket

A: WWI called, it wants your lunch money. Unless you think Erich Ludendorff et. al. were beaten by the BEF or F, French, or Italians "hiding their wealth in their pockets" (presumably that must have made them quite useful against machine gun bullets?).

and

B: Soviet Policy since *at least* the replacement of the Foreign Affairs Minister with Molotov was to see Europe plunge into a war (preferably between the "Imperialist" camps of the Fascist Axis and the "Capitalist Western Allies) in a long, bloody war where the Soviets would support whoever they thought were the underdogs (in this case mosly the Axis) in the hopes that both sides would wear each other out and leave things

! So if it wasn't for the USSR, what D-day wouldn't have happened and the Yankees would have turned back !

Again, supremely unlikely for the reasons I laid out.

Simply put, the Western Allies can make the Germans defend a lot of coastline and then choose where and when to strike, they can bring much greater resources to absorb the punishment, an from an Axis that can reinforce from the East (and indeed were already dealing with defenses reinforced from the 1941-42 peak of Euro-Axis-Strength-as-proportion-of-overall-Euroaxis-power) , and ha were also able to misdirect the Axis with sizable amounts of success, as Operations Mincemeat and Bodyguard show.

That doesn't mean it would have been EASY. Far From It, and it likely would've been even bloodier than the projections for Operation Downfall. But we saw comparable situations i(at least in terms of overall resources) in WWI and we know how that ended.

Hence my belief that the Axis HAD to crush either the Soviets (more likely) or the British in order to have even a chance of winning the war, but that the Allies could endure and ultimately win- over much logner time and with much greater cost, in which butcher bills into the hundreds of thousands become common- without one or even both of them (at least assuming morale does not collapse, which is quite possible).

On what you here losses tell obsche voiskovye or consider together with civilians ! There is a difference when soldiers are killed, and when the punishers deliberately destroy the civilian population !

Exactly, and on this much I wholeheartedly agree.

The simple fact is, the death toll would look MUCH MUCH different if the Germans and Japanese starved 57% or more of the Western Allied prisoner counts to death, as they did with gusto in the USSR.

The US alsod didn't have to face an enemy force the size of the EuroAxis on Barbarossa launching a massive invasion across the Canadian-US Border.

Stop telling your democratic myths here ! Operation Unthinkable also did not start because after counting in the preliminary calculations it became clear that you would have washed your face with bloody snot faster )

*Sigh*

A yes, Operation Unthinkable again....

A few key pointers.

A: Operation Unthinkable was, first and foremost, a Contingency Plan (and one I might add drawn up after it became very, Very clear that Soviet forces were persecuting pro-Western forces like the Polish Home Army in Vilnius), meaning there was an entirely justified reason to distrust the Soviets or and their willingness to abide by the terms agreed at Yalta. And even then it was significantly unpopular and not supported, especially in the US State Department and Britain's new Labour government under Atlee.

It did not start primarily because nobody is obliged to go through with a contingency plan (and why if/when you do plan to go through with it, you generally convert your contingency plan into something more solid).

B: Unthinkable primarily covered the first few weeks and months of a Soviet v western conflict (whether in the form of a Western attack on the USSR or Vice Versa).I t did not talk about the long global war that would probably break out, including many factors that would probably favor an ultimate Western victory (such as strategic bombing from Southern Persia and the suffocating impact of blockade).

C: Furthermore, since Unthinkable was made with suthe data on hand at the time, the Western Allied planners most likely overestimated Soviet strength and underestimated their own, in particular overlooking the brewing guerilla conflicts throughout Estern Europe that would tie up hundreds of thousands of Soviet personnel (mostly NKVD but lso regualr military) and drag on for years. As well as things such as several shortfalls in Soviet R&D and manufacturing such as of trucks (though this is somewhat undercut by them underestimating the effects of Soviet intelligence being able to crib notes).

Stop talking your nonsense here America and Europe have never attacked an equal opponent )

"NEver"'s a long arse time and you probably don't want me to get too closely into that.

At the expense of Vietnam you lie that you did not drop tons of bombs and toxic substances )

Correct, as I noted when I took ajs to the chopper for that. While there were a lot of asinine and strange restrictions during the LBJ era, those eventually got watered down and by the Nixon years the U was repeatedly carpet bombing Vietnam. And this is before I talk about "Neutral" Cambodia and Laos, which got pounded even harder.

Yes, and before America, the Vietnamese gave the neck of France!

Half-true, as I mentioned before.

Not only in the fact that "the Vietnamese" were not this unified hive mind under Uncle Ho but at war with each other (and inreasingly hostile to Ho's attempts to beat them into submission), and the fact that Ho mostly won the war in Northern Vietnam and to al esser extent Laos, but ost thoroughly in Southern Vietnam and Cambodia. Hence why South Vietnam was even a thing, because of intelligence coups like the drug dealing pirates of the Binh Xuyen Cartel realizing their former "business Associates" the Viet Minh were trying to Borg them into the VM structure, leading the BX to come to the French to cut a sordid deal where the BX would give them the names of all the Communist cells they knew of in the South and the French gave them a monopoly on the Opium Market.

So leave your stories to science fiction writers !

P.s.
Let's get back to the game ,and you tell your snotty fantasies to the girls about the barbarians from the east who beat you and will beat you ) Not what kind of policy only the game what to add, fix, and so on

Fair point.

So on that note, perhaps a few points.

A: If the war drags on for that much longer, perhaps new events? Like maybe the Manhattan Project goes to nuke Berlin? Or the oviets pull more forces out of the Central and Eastern Military Districts to help for the reconquest in Ukraine? Obviously this'd make things more difficult...but perhaps a bit more colorful!

[Turtler]

Hahaha, oh my.... are we still spreading the cold war concepts of "Soviets won by using zillion of soldiers", "Soviets generals sent their soldiers to the slaughters", etc, etc?.
And you even dare to compare the British/US losses vs the Soviet losses in absolute numbers? Dude, come on, srlsy. Even a 5 years old child can see the difference.... The Allies had direct combat against the Germans for 10 months or so, while the Soviets fought for 4 years in the largest theater of operations in history. Are you really comparing the absolute numbers?. I dunno, it seems you are the one spreading propaganda to me....

Point of order Akkula, but "the Allies had direct combat against the Germans for 10 months or so" needs to be taken out and shot dead.

The British (and friends) fought through the length of the ETO, with direct combat with the Germans for at least 48 months. The US- though Johnny Come Latelies by any stretch- had it for about 18. But people seem to forget that the Tunisia Campaign and especially Italy were a thing.

These are obviously much much smaller and less bloody than the USSR's front, but the British in particular fought for longer. Especially when you remember that they pullthe Western Allies did the Yeoman's work as the maority contributors in the Air and NAval Wars.

And this is before I get into the Pacific War, which the Soviets stayed largely neutral in (and for undertandable reasons).

Yah, the "The Soviets won only using zillions of expendable Soldiers" is nonsense that needs to be shot, as I tried to do in my response to ajs. Especially since I have every reason to believe that if push came to shove the Western Allies would act similarly, especially if the fall of the Soviets meant they have to put their infantry and ground forces into overdrive

[ajs81]

Turtler - You are absolutely right, the Soviet POWs were treated tragically by the Third Reich. An example would be the 10,000 Soviet POWs who were to build the Birkenau camp (originally for themselves). They arrived to Auschwitz on September 41, and in January there were fewer than 100. During the entire war, 5.7 million Red Army soldiers surrendered, a minimum of 3.3 million were killed or died. And there is no discussion here, a British, American, Dutch, Polish or French prisoner had great chances of survival when the Soviet prisoner was minimal. For most Russians, World War II began on June 22, 1941 and ended on May 9, 1945, that is, 1417 days. About 10 million soldiers died during this time, which is 7,057 killed a day. Okinawa - 12,500 killed, Iwo Jima 6,800 killed, Omaha Beach - about 3,000, Battle of the Bulge - about 90,000. All these battles are symbols, even appearing in games, and from the Eastern Front perspective, it's only 16 days of fighting.

[ajs81]

Hahaha, oh my.... are we still spreading the cold war concepts of "Soviets won by using zillion of soldiers", "Soviets generals sent their soldiers to the slaughters", etc, etc?.
And you even dare to compare the British/US losses vs the Soviet losses in absolute numbers? Dude, come on, srlsy. Even a 5 years old child can see the difference.... The Allies had direct combat against the Germans for 10 months or so, while the Soviets fought for 4 years in the largest theater of operations in history. Are you really comparing the absolute numbers?. I dunno, it seems you are the one spreading propaganda to me....

Really? Then tell me why Russian television creates a documentary Soviet Storm: WW2 in the East, one of the episodes titled "Rzew - meat grinder"? Have you read the German diaries? Memories of Belgians, French who fought on the side of the Wehrmacht in the east? Wave after wave. This is how they saw the Soviet attacks 1941-42. What did Halder say in his journals? We destroy several divisions and a dozen new ones appear. Who sent the cadets during the Battle of Moscow? Who sent soldiers with one rifle and the other only had bullets at Stalingrad? I am not questioning the bravery of the Red Army soldiers. It deserves eternal memory. But unfortunately no one cared about the losses. Idiotic Second Battle of Kharkov - huge losses, 170,958 killed, missing or captured, 106,232 wounded. The tragic mistakes of several chief staff officers and the mistakes of Stalin, who had inaccurately estimated the potential of the 6th Army and overestimated their newly trained units, led to a successful German counter-attack that cut off the front attacking Soviet units from the rest of the Soviet front. There are many such examples.

[Turtler]

Really? Then tell me why Russian television creates a documentary Soviet Storm: WW2 in the East, one of the episodes titled "Rzew - meat grinder"?

Because Rzhev was a meat grinder that has received remarkably little attention even in Eastern Europe (let alone outside of it) that was still bloody on par with the fighting for the Somme or even the Isonzo.

Have you read the German diaries? Memories of Belgians, French who fought on the side of the Wehrmacht in the east? Wave after wave. This is how they saw the Soviet attacks 1941-42.

Sure, but a few points.

A: These were troops fighting on the German side, and so they only saw part of the picture. Add that to the fact that a bunch of them were predisposed to hate the Soviets (since these units tended to attract hard core Fascists and whatnot) and I'd suggest not taking them as TOO gospel.

and

B: You're talking about 1941-2. Which was when the Soviets were by and large caught flat footed and were struggling to make up deficiencies in most things, especially trained officers and NCOs. And who were often facing hugely superior (qualitatively, quantitatively, or Both) Axis forces.

There's a reason why the Soviets ironed out a LOT of their difficulties in late '42 and '43 and generally performed much better, even if from the viewpoint of this or that soldier serving in the Wehrmacht it would certainly seem to be wave after wave.

(Nor is this uniquely Red Army. I think General Charles "the Butcher" Mangin of the WWI French Army said it quite well: "Whatever you do, you lose a lot of men.")

What did Halder say in his journals? We destroy several divisions and a dozen new ones appear.

A: Halder was a stone face liar who "selectively edited" his war diaries after the conflict in order to make himself appear better by disguising his screwups as someone else's. So again, Reader Beware.

and

B: This if anything indicates more about the failures of Axis intelligence to detect the size of the Soviet military accurately than anything about the Red Army's performance. Simply put they crucially underestimated the pre-war Soviet Army's size, as well as the capacity for it to expand even under *serious* pressure and losses. The Axis as a whole also underestimated the fighting abilities of the Soviet soldiery and how committed they would be to not getting massacred along with those they knew as the invasion went on and occupation got even nastier.

I'll happily talk about Soviet incompetence, waste of manpower, and so on, but these sources are hardly that great for it.

Who sent the cadets during the Battle of Moscow?

Sending cadets into battle is a desperate but old and well established tradition; indeed in WWI the Whites were often called "Junkers" both due to their (supposed, often mythological) aristocratic or middle class backgrounds and how many Military Cadets fought on their side (such as during the desperate attempts to roll back Lenin's coup in November 1917).

Offhand I know the French, Romanians, Australians, Japanese, and Germans all did it (with the Yugoslavs getting "partial credit" because they resisted when the Germans rolled into their academy).

So the idea that this is some kind of show of how uniquely brutal or incompetent or wasteful the Soviet Military was doesn't stack. After all, these WERE trained or at least partially trained troops who were usually well motivated, fit, and equipped. Sending them into battle as infantry might not be IDEAL but it's hardly the height of human brutality.

Who sent soldiers with one rifle and the other only had bullets at Stalingrad?

That was apparently an urban legend based on mangled memories of what happened to one Guards Rifle Division that had been newly formed, and didn't have its FULL compliment of armaments (especially MMGs/Medium Machine Guns) but was sent across the river with a reduced compliment of small arms during a desperate part of the early battle in order to be resupplied later.

I still don't know the full details (especially since I do not natively speak either German or Russian) but TIK addresses this at the start of this video as well as what the sources say actually happen. He's by no means infallible but it's one of the better distillations of it in English I've seen so far. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjRQEg-SXGE

I am not questioning the bravery of the Red Army soldiers. It deserves eternal memory. But unfortunately no one cared about the losses.

I mean, to be fair like General Mangin said, whatever you do you lose a lot of men, especially on a war of this scale against a deeply ruthless enemy. And the Soviet leadership might not have been composed of humanitarians, but they clearly were concerned about the supply of manpower and the losses their troops and civilians suffered (if only because it meant they had to intensify conscription in retaken areas and balance supplies). And why wouldn't they be?

Logistics and personnel bookkeeping are hard at the best of times and the Soviets were far from the best at it, but they usually weren't That incompetent.

Idiotic Second Battle of Kharkov - huge losses, 170,958 killed, missing or captured, 106,232 wounded. The tragic mistakes of several chief staff officers and the mistakes of Stalin, who had inaccurately estimated the potential of the 6th Army and overestimated their newly trained units, led to a successful German counter-attack that cut off the front attacking Soviet units from the rest of the Soviet front. There are many such examples.

Sure, but you can also find a lot of similar examples elsewhere, such as in the Chinese Land War or the Western Desert (Such as the utterly shattering Gazala Offensive, or later when the Axis misjudged and got hit with Bagration).

The Soviets MIGHT have received the shortest stick in the metaphorical fasces (and even then considering how the IJA and IJN had hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of soldiers literally rotting away after being cut off and isolated on islands I'm not sure of even THAT), but it's not like the Western Allies or the Axis were immune to it. Especially since for the Western Allies they could afford to play it safe and build up in a way the Soviets couldn't after Hitler's backstab.

So I'd suggest seriously looking at Soviet sources for the matter- really any ones- for some balance. It'll at least help show what the other side of the battlefield saw and thought (with its own misconceptions and biases).

[cw58]

So, to change the subject, thank you PAK-mod team for the latest update. You all do great work and it is much appreciated.

[uzbek2012]

So gentlemen-comrades well, this is someone that is closer finish your jokes here to create about the evil empire of the USSR and grandfather Stalin ( here you are again trying, fighting with a corpse, calm down Mr. Kukruza Khrushchev did all this before you and he lost)) Stalin despite all the lies invented about him is still respected and revered in Russia)) I can throw links here that the Yankees did their vassals with Italian women and German women , Flip flops ) How whole cities were wiped out in the dust but as usual Is the glass half empty or half full ) ( but I don't want to laugh at your arguments about the holy army of the Allies and rapists of the Red Army).

By the way, Eisenhower himself, despite the huge advantage of the Allies-in manpower twice, in aviation 23 (!) - did not fully believe in the success of the "Overlord". Just in case, he prepared an appeal — fortunately, not useful-in case of failure. It read: "Our landing in the Cherbourg-Le Havre area did not lead to the retention of the bridgehead, and I withdrew the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the information I had. The troops, the air force, and the navy did all that bravery and loyalty to duty could do. If anyone is to blame for the failure of this attempt, it is only me…»

That each participant wants to be the first glass in a bucket of vodka ))) What else can I say about the great D-day ))
https://svpressa.ru/post/article/234775/

The Normandy landings - "the greatest operation" or a terrible disgrace?

No wonder – after all, as it turned out later, the vast majority of American Marines who sank into the waters of Lyme Bay either did not know where the life jackets were on the ship, or... they didn't know how to use them at all! And that's right: on the fig goat bayan, and the Marine-a life jacket?! This episode is especially recommended for reading to those who like to talk about the "lawlessness" that reigned during the war in the Red Army, "filling up with corpses" and "silencing the true scale of losses in the USSR".

https://sovsojuz.mirtesen.ru/blog/43855 ... zhutkoe-po

Oh how they took care of their soldiers that even in the camps in captivity they demanded to separate them from themselves )) For now the world is watching the show get down on your knees in front of a colored guy )


https://movie-rippers.livejournal.com/165054.html
Only an idiot can judge the USSR by the films The Enemy at the Gate and the Death of Stalin )))
http://battlefield.ru/enemy-at-the-gate ... tsa-2.html


Any politician has blood on his hands - there are no saints there, and there will never be any ) So let's sum up your opinion I listened, laughed and now let's go back to the game or rather the mod pack )))



You only need to remember one thing Russia whatever flag and coat of arms is depicted there ) , you will come with a sword again you will lie down and you will be offended for 100 years telling legends about the strange war of 1939 -1940)) And no you have something to tell you heroically sank the fleet of the French allies ! Let's not quarrel and try to avoid the hot topics ! Good luck to all and warm communist greetings )))
https://zen.yandex.ru/media/two_wars/ed ... 1423848543



It's great to ride a motorcycle through the territories of neutral Turkey capturing their cities and easily gaining prestige for it ) but it seems that we are all more involved in the search for the evil empire here and the comments already with their correction are drowning in the footcloths from our valiant democrats )))

Full version of screenshots here
http://radikal.ru/users/uzbek_1#alb=Stalingrad

To be continued....

http://radikal.ru/users/uzbek_1#alb=Kursk

[HHT1]

So, to change the subject, thank you PAK-mod team for the latest update. You all do great work and it is much appreciated.

That's right cw58.
It is also extremely daring to judge history on the basis of GAME FILMS. No matter by whom they were made.