Patch Plans

[davetheroad]

The Siberians issue has already been covered on the Matrix forums. Do we have to repeat it here?

Dave

[borsook79]

The Siberians issue has already been covered on the Matrix forums. Do we have to repeat it here?

Dave

I assume many people don't visit the Matrix forum. Why would they? It's just US publisher, it seems more logical for those who live and bought the game outside the US to come here.

[Redpossum]

The Siberians issue has already been covered on the Matrix forums. Do we have to repeat it here?

Dave

Yes, we do.

THESE are the official forums. Matrix is just a distributor, albeit a solidly respected one, and their forums have to be viewed as a subsidiary or satellite.

As a general rule, fashion designers in Paris don't care what women are wearing in Des Moines, Iowa. Similarly, people here don't really know or care what is being said at the Matrix forums.

For that matter, S-O and I debated this issue (and many others!) in the beta forums before the game was released. But those discussions are not available to the general public. So if issues crop up here again, and the folks who didn't get to beta express interest, yes we have to discuss it again

One of the problems that comes up again and again is just how much the historical view of the war has been "contaminated" by wartime propaganda.

The USA, USSR, and Germany all made use of grossly distorted representations of truth in their propaganda. All demonised their opponents to a ridiculous degree, and exaggerated nearly everything about the war.

The popular myth of the "Siberian Reinforcements" probably began with masses of soviet propaganda, intended to restore flagging morale by playing up the ferocity and efficiency of the troops.

The story as *I* first heard it was of division after division of hardened siberian veterans, armor and motorised infantry, experienced in endless skirmishes against the japanese, and equipped with the latest and best cold weather gear. I was actually under the impression that the troops themselves were of asian ethnicity.

Well, a little research soon showed that most of what I "knew" was so much hot air. This was an uncomfortable process I went through more than once in the course of beta-testing the game.

So where does the truth lie? We will never know for sure, and the last of the eye witnesses are dying.

post scriptum
Woohoo! Stalins_organ is back! Welcome back, buddy. Where have you been?

[ungers_pride]

The Siberians issue has already been covered on the Matrix forums. Do we have to repeat it here?

Dave

Yes, we do.

THESE are the official forums. Matrix is just a distributor, albeit a solidly respected one, and their forums have to be viewed as a subsidiary or satellite.

As a general rule, fashion designers in Paris don't care what women are wearing in Des Moines, Iowa. Similarly, people here don't really know or care what is being said at the Matrix forums.

For that matter, S-O and I debated this issue (and many others!) in the beta forums before the game was released. But those discussions are not available to the general public. So if issues crop up here again, and the folks who didn't get to beta express interest, yes we have to discuss it again

One of the problems that comes up again and again is just how much the historical view of the war has been "contaminated" by wartime propaganda.

The USA, USSR, and Germany all made use of grossly distorted representations of truth in their propaganda. All demonised their opponents to a ridiculous degree, and exaggerated nearly everything about the war.

The popular myth of the "Siberian Reinforcements" probably began with masses of soviet propaganda, intended to restore flagging morale by playing up the ferocity and efficiency of the troops.

The story as *I* first heard it was of division after division of hardened siberian veterans, armor and motorised infantry, experienced in endless skirmishes against the japanese, and equipped with the latest and best cold weather gear. I was actually under the impression that the troops themselves were of asian ethnicity.

Well, a little research soon showed that most of what I "knew" was so much hot air. This was an uncomfortable process I went through more than once in the course of beta-testing the game.

So where does the truth lie? We will never know for sure, and the last of the eye witnesses are dying.

post scriptum
Woohoo! Stalins_organ is back! Welcome back, buddy. Where have you been?

Well, Matrix Games is well known across the internet, and far more people post there than on most other wargame sites. It should matter a great deal what people think on that forum about games being published, because thousands of people are members there, and many thousands more are lurkers. News spreads fast across the internet, so caring what people think on the Matrix site IS a big deal.

Now, I keep hearing about how the Siberians are a myth. It seems that perhaps two or three people actually believe this to be the case. Yes, 2 or 3 people out of millions. All respected historians (Clark, Glantz, Beever, Erickson, et al) have documented it to be true. Endless books have been written about it being true.

And yet you claim it isn't so.

You say you have evidence that it isn't so. Yes, you, and you only seem to be privy to this "special" evidence.

Well.... let's see this evidence you claim you have that says the Siberian reinforcements are a myth.

Let's have historian names; book references; page numbers; and quotes...

[davetheroad]

The Siberians issue has already been covered on the Matrix forums. Do we have to repeat it here?

Dave

Yes, we do.

THESE are the official forums. Matrix is just a distributor, albeit a solidly respected one, and their forums have to be viewed as a subsidiary or satellite.

As a general rule, fashion designers in Paris don't care what women are wearing in Des Moines, Iowa. Similarly, people here don't really know or care what is being said at the Matrix forums.

Well I hope not caring does not extend to the game developers as the number of posts at Matrix exceeds the number here.

As the siberians have been debated in Area 51 perhaps a shortened version of the arguments presented there plus the conclusion would enlighten the great unwashed who do not have Beta privilages.

Or may I suggest just read the Matrix forum.

Dave

[Stryder]

if the patch looks good and the comments are favorable, I'll be purchasing and downloading almost immediately....

My all time favorite war game is War in Russia and I hope CEAW compares to WIR in the amount of time I was enjoying that game and the re-playability.

[SMK-at-work]

Now, I keep hearing about how the Siberians are a myth. It seems that perhaps two or three people actually believe this to be the case. Yes, 2 or 3 people out of millions. All respected historians (Clark, Glantz, Beever, Erickson, et al) have documented it to be true. Endless books have been written about it being true.

And yet you claim it isn't so.

I don't know anyone who claims that Siberians are a myth. I know of many people who think that the hordes of Siberians pouring across the landscape in December 1941 outside Moscow were, in fact, mostly "normal" Soviet troops, including some troops recently transfered from Siberia.

I know of people who have listed 31 divisions from "Siberia" (meaning anything east of the Urals) that were already in combat by mid 1941, and that more "Siberian" units arrived after that.

I know of historians who state that the Soviet army was relatively well equipped with winter weather gear across all it's formations.

I know of some forum posters elsewhere that think that Siberian tanks were a revelation to the Germans - despite the fact that they'd already encountered T34's and KV-1's months before and there were NONE of either in Siberia......

So IMO there are several aspects of "Siberians" that people think are right and wrong seperately from each other.

[ungers_pride]

Now, I keep hearing about how the Siberians are a myth. It seems that perhaps two or three people actually believe this to be the case. Yes, 2 or 3 people out of millions. All respected historians (Clark, Glantz, Beever, Erickson, et al) have documented it to be true. Endless books have been written about it being true.

And yet you claim it isn't so.

I don't know anyone who claims that Siberians are a myth. I know of many people who think that the hordes of Siberians pouring across the landscape in December 1941 outside Moscow were, in fact, mostly "normal" Soviet troops, including some troops recently transfered from Siberia.

I know of people who have listed 31 divisions from "Siberia" (meaning anything east of the Urals) that were already in combat by mid 1941, and that more "Siberian" units arrived after that.

I know of historians who state that the Soviet army was relatively well equipped with winter weather gear across all it's formations.

I know of some forum posters elsewhere that think that Siberian tanks were a revelation to the Germans - despite the fact that they'd already encountered T34's and KV-1's months before and there were NONE of either in Siberia......

So IMO there are several aspects of "Siberians" that people think are right and wrong seperately from each other.

OK, I think we are mostly on the same page here.

From my research of historians (Clark, Glantz) the number of Siberians amounted to between 15 to 18 divisions that were sent west between Oct/41 to Dec/41.

The vast number of other Soviet reinforcements amounted to between 70-80 worn out divisions that were sent to the Moscow Front from other sectors. These were not Siberians.

The Soviets were definitely better prepared for winter than the Germans. Whether ALL Soviet troops were so well equipped and clothed is another matter.

You are right about the tanks. The T-34 and KV1s were first encountered during the opening weeks of Barbarossa. So by Dec/41 they were not a surprise, except perhaps for the fact that the Germans simply didn't think there were that many in reserve.

EDIT: Hordes of tanks and planes were produced and held in reserve until the big counterattack on Dec 5-6/41.

[SMK-at-work]

I'm under the impression that what the Germans labelled as "Siberians" were formations similarly held in reserve to your edit about tanks and aircraft.

[ungers_pride]

I'm under the impression that what the Germans labelled as "Siberians" were formations similarly held in reserve to your edit about tanks and aircraft.

Clearly, all plane and tank factories throughout Russia were pumping out units. Tanks and planes were being sent to the Moscow Front (mostly T-34s).

There were tank and plane factories in the Far East. In addition, many of the Siberian divisions in the Far East were also equipped with tanks and planes. This does not mean, however, that most of these tanks were T-34s.

Here is what Alan Clark, in his book "Barbarossa", says about the Siberians [page 170]:

"The total brought from the Far East in the winter of 1941 included seventeen hundred tanks and fifteen hundred aircraft, and was made up as follows:

Transbaikalia: seven rifle, two cavalry divisions, two tank brigades

Outer Mongolia: one rifle division, two tank brigades

Amur: two rifle divisions, one tank brigade

Ussuri: five rifle divisions, one cavalry division, three tank brigades"

So here we have 17 rifle divisions and 8 tank brigades that were transferred west to the Moscow area from Siberia. Many of these divisions were at full strength and were experienced

Almost 20 reserve rifle divisions were left in Siberia as a precaution in case Japan made a move into Siberia.

[SMK-at-work]

Yes i've no doubt there wre tank and aircraft transfers from east of hte Urals too - I meant to say that "most" of the Siberians in the Dec counter attacks were possibly "normal" units....not that they all were.

AFAIK there were no tank factories in the "Far east" - there were 1 or 2 small ones at "Tankograd" before the war in the Urals, and a couple shifted there (eg Kharkov factory 183, and the KV-1 line from Leningrad). T-34 output by individual factory by month is listed at http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weap ... on.htm#T34, and KV output at http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weap ... ion.htm#KV

Omsk is officially in "South-west Siberia", but is a lot, lot closer to Moscow than it is to Vladivostok, and you can see that there were only 5-6 factories producing medium and heavy tanks at any one time.

Light tanks (T-60, t-70) were produced at a few more plants - see http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weap ... #tspplants

It's really quite surprising how few tank factories there were IMO - see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_So ... _factories

According to that site there were no T34's or KV-1's assigned to any formations east of the Urals on 1 June 41.

I don't know where the main aircraft factories were, but there's references on the net to factories at Saratov (about 13,000 Yak fighters), Voroneezh (bombers), Tashkent (Aircraft factory 84, evacuated from near moscow), GAZ-1 (State Aircraft Factory No 1 near Moscow)

Soviet airforce strengths on June 1 41 are given at http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weap ... rce_41.xls - the far east military districts certainly have thousands of aircraft, but they're mostly obsolete - of 3100 fighters 1500 are I-16's, 1200 are I-15's and I-153's, and only 150 are Mig-3's and Yak-1's.

bombers are a bit better - 930 are IL-4's, but there's still 1200 SB's, 900 DB-3's and 330 TB-3's out of 3400 total.

And for both fighters and bombers there are many more aircraft actually serviceable than trained crews to man them!

I've resurrected a thread about Siberians on the Battlefront board too - at http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ulti ... 4;t=001658, which is where someone lists 31 divisions sent to the west by mid-November 41, together with brief details of their combat by that stage where appropriate.

Edite: I'm also unsure of hte provence of the claims that the "siberians" were all veterans of the Japanese-Soviet border clashes of 1939. as someone pinted out on the Matrix boards, the war in Mongolia was over for almost 2 years prior to Barbarossa, so most troops in those divisions would have been conscripted after the end of it, and there were NOT on-going clashes - once the war was over there were no more conflicts in that theatre.

[Stryder]

Well, I could not wait any longer to play Ceaw after reading the reviews and some of Possum's account of the game and I have to say they have succeeded in making the best strategic WWII game that I have played bar none... just the right balance and it has the great quality of just wanting to make you keep playing one more turn until you realize that hours have flown by...

[ungers_pride]

Yes i've no doubt there wre tank and aircraft transfers from east of hte Urals too - I meant to say that "most" of the Siberians in the Dec counter attacks were possibly "normal" units....not that they all were.

AFAIK there were no tank factories in the "Far east" - there were 1 or 2 small ones at "Tankograd" before the war in the Urals, and a couple shifted there (eg Kharkov factory 183, and the KV-1 line from Leningrad). T-34 output by individual factory by month is listed at http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weap ... on.htm#T34, and KV output at http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weap ... ion.htm#KV

Omsk is officially in "South-west Siberia", but is a lot, lot closer to Moscow than it is to Vladivostok, and you can see that there were only 5-6 factories producing medium and heavy tanks at any one time.

Light tanks (T-60, t-70) were produced at a few more plants - see http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weap ... #tspplants

It's really quite surprising how few tank factories there were IMO - see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_So ... _factories

According to that site there were no T34's or KV-1's assigned to any formations east of the Urals on 1 June 41.

Hi - thanks for all the links


First, I'm wondering what is the source that the Armchair General has used for its source for these tank figures? Who has put out that literature? How reliable is it?

Second, none of the historians I have read, have indicated that the Far East sent T-34s to the west. Remember, that according to Clark the tanks that were sent west from the Far East were indicated as "Tank Brigades". Before the war, tank production (of various types) would have ensured that these Siberian tank brigades were at full strength.

I wonder what the figures for tank production before June/41 in the USSR would be? Many of the Siberian divisions had been formed in the Far East in 1938 and 1939. A great deal of tank production would have been sent there. Most of the tanks would have been of various types.

Since these Siberian tank brigades would have been at full strength, and since tanks were needed on the Moscow Front, then it follows that seventeen hundred tanks could easily have been sent from the Far East to the west. In addition, as you yourself have stated there were tank factories in the Urals that were no doubt pumping out tanks and sending them west.

So I see no conflict between the historical sources and those figures you have posted.

I don't know where the main aircraft factories were, but there's references on the net to factories at Saratov (about 13,000 Yak fighters), Voroneezh (bombers), Tashkent (Aircraft factory 84, evacuated from near moscow), GAZ-1 (State Aircraft Factory No 1 near Moscow)

Soviet airforce strengths on June 1 41 are given at http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weap ... rce_41.xls - the far east military districts certainly have thousands of aircraft, but they're mostly obsolete - of 3100 fighters 1500 are I-16's, 1200 are I-15's and I-153's, and only 150 are Mig-3's and Yak-1's.

bombers are a bit better - 930 are IL-4's, but there's still 1200 SB's, 900 DB-3's and 330 TB-3's out of 3400 total.

Using your figures, in the Far East districts there were about 11,000 aircraft. So even if many were not of the most modern type, the fact that 1500 were sent west from the Far East districts seems more than reasonable and accords well with the historical sources.

Even less modern planes can strafe troops and drop bombs. Look what the swordfish biplanes did to the battleship Bismarck.

The Siberian divisions would have been fully stocked with air squadrons before June/41 as part of their deployment to deal with the potential Japanese threat.

I've resurrected a thread about Siberians on the Battlefront board too - at http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ulti ... 4;t=001658, which is where someone lists 31 divisions sent to the west by mid-November 41, together with brief details of their combat by that stage where appropriate.

OK, someone in that link is quoting from Zhukov's memoirs.

Let's deal with Zhukov first:

I think we should be careful about everything that Zhukov writes about in his memoirs.

Zhukov wrote his book in 1964 and published it in 1969. This, at a time when the USSR was still under the heavy dictatorship of the Communist Party, of which Zhukov was a prominent member.

As such, Zhukov's book was heavily censored by Soviet authorities on numerous occasions during its 10 printings. It was last printed in 1990.

Due to this heavy censorship we may never truly know the exact extent of true or fabricated information in this book. No doubt Zhukov would want to make himself look good; no doubt the Communist Party would want certain facts and information to be told the way it would like them to be told; and it is highly probable that they would want to downplay the role of the Asiatic Siberians in "saving" Moscow".

It also seems odd that ALL historians of any repute would have been aware of, and read, Zhukov's book. And yet, we do not hear about any NEW revelations by historians from his memoirs; instead, we read about the errors and falsehoods in his book.

Here are just a few examples of why we should be more critical of Zhukov's book:

1) Zhukov professes great faith in communism: "I have forgotten many things, but I will remember the day I joined the Party as long as I live. Since then I have tried to suit all my thoughts, aspirations and actions to the demands made of a Party member."

Here Zhukov is professing great love for communism and has no qualms in having his book and facts edited and altered. Yet surely someone who had witnessed Stalin's purges of the 1930s, to which many of Zhukov's colleagues fell victim, or who had himself been prey to the petty machinations of the Party leadership after the war, would have been far more critical of the Soviet political system?

2) Until the 1990 edition was published, Zhukov's book was subject to myriad revisions by the Soviet censors, including one notorious passage where Zhukov was persuaded to write that he had "wanted to consult" with Leonid Brezhnev (who was the Soviet leader when the first edition of Zhukov's memoirs came out in 1969) during a visit to the North Caucasian Front in 1943, when Brezhnev was a lowly political officer.

3) Zhukov Misrepresents Information and Operations: Operation Mars was a costly failure which in his memoirs Zhukov misrepresented as a diversion to prevent German Army Group Center from assisting their comrades at Stalingrad rather than a major offensive in its own right.

In his recent book, Zhukov's Greatest Defeat, David Glantz exposes Zhukov's falsification and recounts in detail the Mars disaster, which had long been covered up by official Soviet sources.

According to John Erickson, the leading historian of Stalingrad, "the full significance of Stalingrad…cannot be grasped without understanding the role of Operation Mars," which was "deliberately misrepresented by Zhukov himself" and is now the subject of "Glantz's indispensable account."


SOURCES:

http://context.themoscowtimes.com/stori ... 2/105.html

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/142

http://www.russiablog.org/2007/04/did_u ... he_war.php

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-68952101.html

Edite: I'm also unsure of hte provence of the claims that the "siberians" were all veterans of the Japanese-Soviet border clashes of 1939. as someone pinted out on the Matrix boards, the war in Mongolia was over for almost 2 years prior to Barbarossa, so most troops in those divisions would have been conscripted after the end of it, and there were NOT on-going clashes - once the war was over there were no more conflicts in that theatre.

David Glantz is regarded by many as one of the best military historians of the Soviet role in World War II. He is perhaps most associated with the thesis that World War II Soviet military history has been prejudiced in the West by its over-reliance on German oral and printed sources, without being balanced by a similar examination of Soviet source material.

David M. Glantz says in "Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War" that there were 25 'original' Siberian divisions in June 41:

a) 5 were transferred before October/41

b) 8-10 were transferred during Nov/Dec/41

These units that were transferred were replaced by freshly raised troops, keeping the total facing Japan roughly the same.

It would make sense that those Siberian divisions that fought the Japanese in 1939 would have gained valuable experience. Since the Japanese (until late 1941) had the potential for attacking Siberia, then it follows that these divisions would have been fully equipped and continuously trained.

It also makes sense that after the Japanese threat had passed, that the most experienced Siberian divisions would have been sent west. In their place reserve units would have been established.

[SMK-at-work]

What has Zhukov's commitment to the communist party got to do with anything? Or his attempts to minimise his failures? AFAIK that's typical of all wartime commanders and politicians!

Soviet censorship of his memoirs would be an issue - more so if, for example, there is a difference between the 1990 version and the earlier ones.

IIRC Glantz does a summary of Soviet sources somewhere that says that censorship started to come off the various memoirs from about the late 1950's - I think 1958 - I'll see if I can find the article.

The RKKA site gives a full list of its souorces - most of which are wartime official soviet records - not memoirs or publications, but the original records as reported by units to HQ. It also has tables of tank production pre 1941 somewhere close to those links.

I have no problems with hte numbers of Soviet a/c or tanks that may have been transfered from the "Siberian" areas - I'm not sure why you keep mentioning it?

However I do have "Stumbling Colossus", and nowhere in there does it mention any transfer of Siberians at all that I can see - I've been looking closely at it for the last few days - do you have a reference in it? There is a mention on page 78 by a Soviet General in "Siberia" that the units raised to replace those snet west were 2nd rate but that even some of those were sent off, and elsewhere that many "Siberian" units were made up of up to 50% European Russians who usually did not get on well with the local recruits.

I note regarding your criticisms of Zhukov that Glantz uses his memoirs as a source in Stubling Colossus, among many others of course.

[IainMcNeil]

I think starting the new Siberian thread was a good idea - I should have stamped no this earlier and stop the patch thread getting de-railed! Please keep all Siberian mails in the new thread - thanks!

[ralphtricky]

I think starting the new Siberian thread was a good idea - I should have stamped no this earlier and stop the patch thread getting de-railed! Please keep all Siberian mails in the new thread - thanks!

So.... What is the status<g>?

[Stryder]

I think starting the new Siberian thread was a good idea - I should have stamped no this earlier and stop the patch thread getting de-railed! Please keep all Siberian mails in the new thread - thanks!

So.... What is the status<g>?

borrowed from another site (and from Lord of the Rings)and the best official response I have seen from a gaming company (IMHO):

"A patch is never late! Nor is it ever early. It arrives precisely when I mean it to do!"

[borsook79]

I think starting the new Siberian thread was a good idea - I should have stamped no this earlier and stop the patch thread getting de-railed! Please keep all Siberian mails in the new thread - thanks!

So.... What is the status<g>?

borrowed from another site (and from Lord of the Rings)and the best official response I have seen from a gaming company (IMHO):

"A patch is never late! Nor is it ever early. It arrives precisely when I mean it to do!"

Be careful, Johan might sue you for copyrights

[corolor]

i have a little sugestion.

- A confirmation box for end turn. Sometime i hit it accidently. (possibility to turn it off in the option)

- Sometime i move a unit and after a bad click (selection of another unit or a point of the map) i cannot attack with it..

- Possibility to move hex by hex, so i have the choice of my path (good for cut supply line, ship patrol against sub, etc...)

- Something was strange for me is that different unit can not combine for a single attack. Maybe it was a game design...
But in lot of other game when you attack with INF, ARM & AIR you have some bonus

Hope you understand my bad english.

[firepowerjohan]

i have a little sugestion.

- A confirmation box for end turn. Sometime i hit it accidently. (possibility to turn it off in the option)

- Sometime i move a unit and after a bad click (selection of another unit or a point of the map) i cannot attack with it..

- Possibility to move hex by hex, so i have the choice of my path (good for cut supply line, ship patrol against sub, etc...)

- Something was strange for me is that different unit can not combine for a single attack. Maybe it was a game design...
But in lot of other game when you attack with INF, ARM & AIR you have some bonus

Hope you understand my bad english.

Yes, a design decision to not allow combined attacks but it was under consideration. We could do it, but it would be a totally different game. Interesting and nothing says either choice is better or worse just different. Would like to hear more from players if they like the sequential attacks better than combined attacks, we are not sure what ppl like most