Endman posted:

David Glantz's book When Titans Clashed is still the go-to single volume on the Nazi/Soviet war imo. It can be very dry, however, but his use of Soviet sources is matchless and it even came out before Beevor's Stalingrad (but has since been updated in a new edition)..

David Stahel, whom I mentioned previously, mostly only deals with the German side of the conflict, but thankfully doesn't fall into the trap that most historians that write books for the mass market do: believing that German sources are inherently more "truthful" than others. Turns out the Germans lied all the time just like everyone else, and German command during Barbarossa was a constant slapfight between senior officers who hated each other's guts.

Class Warcraft posted:

Beevor was the go-to for a long time but since the fall of the Cold War a lot of soviet primary sources have become available that have given historians a much more balanced perspective. Beevors book is very readable, but bear it mind that it fundamentally represents a German point of view, because that was the material that was available at the time.

I have a list of books I’d recommend that I’ll come add later when I’m home from work. There is some awesome stuff that has come out recently.

Edit: just realized he was asking about the eastern front in general and not just Stalingrad, but regardless I have some book recommendations I’ll post later!

JcDent posted:

Yes, please!

Endman posted:

David Glantz's book When Titans Clashed is still the go-to single volume on the Nazi/Soviet war imo. It can be very dry, however, but his use of Soviet sources is matchless and it even came out before Beevor's Stalingrad (but has since been updated in a new edition)..

David Stahel, whom I mentioned previously, mostly only deals with the German side of the conflict, but thankfully doesn't fall into the trap that most historians that write books for the mass market do: believing that German sources are inherently more "truthful" than others. Turns out the Germans lied all the time just like everyone else, and German command during Barbarossa was a constant slapfight between senior officers who hated each other's guts.

Arquinsiel posted:

I'd say that he was fundamentally critical of the German point of view, because he does identify the points where their thinking was wildly out of touch with reality even with regards to their allied formations, but it's fair to say that it's an older book that treats the Soviets as kind of a force of nature revealed via contact with German troops rather than giving their agency in the fight equal airing.

David Glantz posted:

Although death or captivity denied many senior Wehrmacht commanders the opportunity to compile their own memoirs, other authors filled the void by presenting the German perspective on the fighting. Until very recently, however, since the combat records of many German units that fought at Stalingrad were either destroyed in the war or captured by the Red Army, these accounts lacked a sound archival base.

Western historians began introducing the battle of Stalingrad to their audiences in the early 1970s, synthesizing materials from these and other Soviet and German sources. Leading the way were the seminal works, Enemy at the Gates, written by William Craig in 1973 [...] and the gripping, best-selling popular social history of the battle, Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege, 1942-1943, written by Antony Beevor in 1998. As successful as these books have been, however, they suffer from the same problems that marred the work of their predecessors, in particular, a lack of fresh military documentation and an over-reliance on Chuikov’s flawed memoir. They maintain a context of ‘old’ history, repeating many of the same details and perpetuating the mistakes present in Chuikov’s work.

As this important new book shows, this state of affairs has now drastically changed for the better. During the past few years, the Russian government has finally released the main archival records related to the battle for Stalingrad, specifically, the daily operational summaries of the Red Army General Staff and the war diaries of the 62nd Army and its subordinate divisions and brigades, all in unexpurgated form. At the same time, Russian historians such as Aleksei Isaev and V V Beshanov have penned candid and detailed histories of the fighting during this period based on these newly released materials.2 Finally, thanks to the work of the Australian historian, Jason Mark, who has “trawled” German records to an unprecedented extent and produced magnificently detailed studies on Wehrmacht combat operations in Stalingrad, we now have accounts of the fighting from the German side comparable to those from the Soviet perspective.3 Michael Jones’s book, Stalingrad: How the Red Army Triumphed, represents a milestone in the treatment of the battle.

Class Warcraft posted:

Glantz is definitely the gold standard for Eastern Front material. He's very much a military historian writing for other historians/academics which explains his dry tone. Believe it or not, When Titans Clashed is one of his more accessible books. No one can match him for research thoroughness though. Look at these beauties:

Class Warcraft posted:

Look at these beauties:

LatwPIAT posted:

Beauties? Beauties? Two separate volumes are labeled “Volume 3”. That’s obscene.

Jobbo_Fett posted:

Its okay because they are also books 1 and 2, unlike the other books 1 and 2 on the right.

Edgar Allen Ho posted:

Those are volumes, can you even read??

lilljonas posted:

When a triology has four books, your editor got creative.

lilljonas posted:

When a triology has four books, your editor got creative.

Edgar Allen Ho posted:

Those are volumes, can you even read??

Jobbo_Fett posted:

What?

Major Isoor posted:

Italian Alpini, versus the Romanian army.

Major Isoor posted:

In the end, I took only EIGHT casualties, while he lost 45 men and the vehicles+weapons mentioned above. I think my main takeaway is that indirect weapons like my howitzer and mortar aren't all that good (both combined killed one man, right at the end), so I'd be better-off with an AT gun or something. Veteran units are also very good, seems like!

BaronVanAwesome posted:

Major Isoor posted:

In the end, I took only EIGHT casualties, while he lost 45 men and the vehicles+weapons mentioned above. I think my main takeaway is that indirect weapons like my howitzer and mortar aren't all that good (both combined killed one man, right at the end), so I'd be better-off with an AT gun or something. Veteran units are also very good, seems like!

Edgar Allen Ho posted:

It's funny that the final books are labeled "volume three book one" and "volume three book two" after two books just labeled volumes one and two

The YA cash in film trilogy of history books.

Beerdeer posted:

Played some BA today that wound up grossly one-sided. Tabled the Germans while losing only a couple minis. It didn’t feel good.

Beerdeer posted:

Played some BA today that wound up grossly one-sided. Tabled the Germans while losing only a couple minis. It didn’t feel good.

JcDent posted:

Maybe you got the rules wrong or your friend sucks? Vets are good, but not that good

TheDiceMustRoll posted:

my friend casually revealed to me he collected the entire Axis and Allies miniature game on a whim, has never played it and has just waited around for years for someone to express interest in it. Hd
e then opened his closed...and yeah, I think he has all of it.


He said he'll play with me if I want. Is it any good?

Arquinsiel posted:

it was impossible to lose by just taking basic Soviet infantry.

Class Warcraft posted:

My first game of BA I decided to take as many inexperienced soviet squads as possible thinking more men = better, right? we also played on a mostly empty table because we didn’t have any terrain yet. Did not go well.

JcDent posted:

Props to your friend for playing the dark horse faction, as it where.

And yeah, mortars w/o spotter hit on 6s and it only improves if you fire at the same, unmoving target again, which is w<devolves into a rant against on-table artillery>ommand needs a second edition.

Class Warcraft posted:

[arty+mortar talk]

Major Isoor posted:

Oh, so how come Romania is a bit of a dark horse, if you don't mind me asking? Are you referring to its lack in popularity but good access to German vehicles, etc? (From memory - I'm not 100% on the things it gets)

quote:

Good stuff! I didn't think about it as a pin-making machine. I still kinda think I should ditch either my mortar or my howitzer for an AT gun (light AT sounds like) since I don't think doubling-up is particularly effective, given my track record last game. I definitely got lucky with being able to rush a squad and my tank to an objective overlooking a field (with a ruined house/objective in the middle) on turn one, which enabled me to hold that entire flank super easily. If I had to rely on my arty, I would've been doomed.

Not sure which of the two I should ditch for the AT gun though. Maybe the howitzer? I'm at work, but I think that's more expensive than my medium mortar, for effectively the same result. Light AT guns do look like good value though

quote:

Also, last night I found a George Patton mini Warlord chucked in for free, when I made an order ages back. Are higher-level officers worth taking, in BA? My Jr Lt didn't see much use last game, since he always ended up being in the wrong place - so a second officer might be handy.
And if that ends up being the case, I'm very tempted to paint my Patton mini in Italian colours (maybe adding in the black Alpini feather on his helmet, for good measure) and cunningly disguise him as Georgio Pattini, a high-profile officer who proved to be essential to the Italian war effort

Class Warcraft posted:

Romania has very little model support and gets mostly ignored in the various campaign books so they're not very popular - although their national traits are actually pretty decent. I would actually call the Italians the dark horse army because their main national trait can be a huge liability.

Class Warcraft posted:

I think it would depend on the scenario you'll be playing. If there are good sightlines and/or you're planning on mostly staying put I'd take the howitzer. If there is a decent amount of intervening terrain or plan on having to advance often the mortar might be better.

Class Warcraft posted:

Generally you want at least a Senior Lieutenant so their Snap To action can activate two other units. Higher level officers are a must if you're taking a lot of inexperienced troops, otherwise you wouldn't really need one. You should do Italian George Patton regardless and can just call him whatever rank you need.