Wolfshanze, you could sell the unwanted pieces on the market pages of the forum. You may be able to recoup some of your losses that way. Who knows, you may find some one who will want to trade some OOB pieces that they have for your HBG sculpts.
Yea, I know… it’s not like I just said “meh”, and tossed them in the trash!
You think that’s sad? I nickled and dimed myself to death over the past few weeks and didn’t even realize it. I’d look at my bins, and say “gee, I could really use more of [insert A&A miniature of your choice here] for my nation bin”… and I’d hop on HBG’s site and order a few of this and a few of that… a day or two later, same thing… I’d order a few of this and a few of that. Never seemed to spend more than $15 here or there, so no big deal, right?
I just totaled up all my orders from HBG since I started adding to my bins and… I spent like $300! :-o
If that isn’t bad enough, I’ve probably retired at least a third of those new units I just bought into a ziplock bag that isn’t going into my bins… based on the discussion in this very thread, I have since decided to pull all the custom HBG miniatures from my bins because of scaling and/or color issues and stick to strictly OOB units (which of course forced me to buy more OOB units to replace the HBG units I decided not to use). So ya, out of the $300 I spent in the last few weeks, I probably got about $100 worth of custom HBG units sitting in a ziplock bag that I won’t be using! Oh well, at least I got the bins filled the way I want and now I’m done (I think… maybe I should just order a few more units… lolz).
P.S.
Once again… great paint job on your units cyanight… that’s really impressive work.
cyanight, I guess my humor is too dry… sorry about that… I know the difference between an F4F Wildcat and an F6F Hellcat… what I’m saying is… On HBG’s website, they have ONE plane, and it’s called the “F4F Hellcat”. I was inferring there’s no such thing as an “F4F Hellcat”… It’s either an F4F Wildcat, or an F6F Hellcat… but HBG has the plane on it’s website named incorrectly (either the #designation, or the nickname).
Huh? Did you say something? Sorry, I’m still drooling over your super awesome painted units… nicely done cyanight! :-D
Here’s the final pics of my five national storage bins with stickers (the 6th is the Neutral Armies/Sundries bin).
Those are awesome… well done… nice detail for so little room to work with. :-D
I got my bin stickers back from Vistaprint… lookin good… now to spruce up my five nation storage bins…
Edit:
With one overall pic of the 6 bins with stickers…
I noticed the same thing today and over the weekend… site down for hours in the morning.
IMO it all makes sense and it serves as a good visual distinction between the levels of equipment as they are represented in pieces… That appears pretty consistent to me. They do not scale exactly with OOB units, no. But if you are only going to be playing Spring 42 with people who cannot tell a destroyer from a cruiser, let alone tell you what class a ship is… it may be best to stick with OOB units. That simplicity fits much better with the scale of Spring 42.
I pretty much concur with everything you said… in general, I find that the HBG units are definitely detailed and/or more accurate than the A&A OOB units… the scaling to each other (BBs to other BBs, Tanks to other tanks) is more accurate. A good example of detail is the OOB Sherman tank vs the HBG Sherman tank. The detail and accuracy comparison is massive (in favor of HBG)… the problem I have with using HBG (and once again, this is opinionated preference, certainly not saying everyone else should think the same), is that the scale of HBG doesn’t match OOB (HBG tanks are almost always smaller than OOB, ships are all over the map on scale compared to OOB)… and this is where a design philosophy has to come in… HBG units are MORE ACCURATE… in that an Iowa BB is definitely bigger by a considerable margin than a Nevada BB, and HBG shows this difference. Yamato’s are bigger than Iowas, Iowas are bigger than Royal Oaks, etc, etc, etc… in the OOB units, all of these BBs would be the exact same size (historically incorrect), but GAMEPLAY WISE, it makes for an easy distinction at a glance as to what any class of ship is from any nation. In HBG units, you’re going to have multiple cases where BBs are the same size as Cruisers and so on and so on… which, to some, may be very confusing in game.
Equipment history is a specialty of mine… I have tons of books on all the tanks, ships and planes of all the powers in the war, and can recognize almost any of them at a glance… and I imagine a lot of others on this forum can do the same… but similarly, sometimes ease of identification and conformity is preferable, especially when playing a rapid game with people not so brushed up on the difference between an Iowa, Nevada, Baltimore and Portland class ships. I love the detail in the HBG models, and I’ll be the first to admit, they are superior to the OOB models in that regard… but I give a nod to the instant class distinction and uniformity of size for purpose of gameplay in a game to the OOB units (unrealistic as it may be), it makes the game easier to teach and understand for newer or less equipment-focused players of the game.
As has been said by myself and others in previous posts in this thread… I think someone putting a set of units together either has to focus on HBG units or OOB units, because mixing the two together almost looks like you’re merging two units from completely different games together… they just don’t look good together IMHO. If you want detailed units that are properly scaled, focus on HBG units… if you want simpler units on a uniformity of scale based on class in-game (for speed of play and/or recognition), not by historical reality, then go with OOB units.
Custom painters and hardcore Global 40 players probably should (and do) go HBG custom units… and as much as I love the historical accuracy of HBG, I hate mixing them with OOB (they contrast badly) and I’m surrounded by a bunch of people new to the game that I will have to teach… so FOR ME, the best move forward is to stick with the OOB units (and i’m getting as many different OOB units as I can, and plenty of them so I don’t have to run short on any game). I can certainly appreciate anyone who pushes forward with the HBG units… many of them are quite beautiful.
P.S.
While HBG ships and Tanks have a very noticeable size-of-scale clash with OOB units, I find most of the HBG aircraft size well with OOB units and can freely be mixed without much difference at all… the only exception to this rule would be Japan, which HBG’s “Pumpkin Orange” is a very noticeable different color tone than the OOB Pumpkin Orange (and of course, this wouldn’t be an issue to painters), but this color difference bugs me with Japan… to others, this may not be an issue at all… but overall, HBG planes merge well with OOB units.
I just want to mention this, I ordered combat dice from FMG a week ago (last weekend), I was charged immediately… nothing heard since… this weekend (literally 7 days later), I just received a tracking number for shipment from FMG… so, kinda in-keeping with what has been previously said… looks like they’re not swift with orders, or talky with e-mails, but it would seem you do eventually get what you ordered… so many people say bad things about experiences, just want to say its not all bad… looks like I will be getting my combat dice! (eventually).
I think most of us are in agreement here that Moscow was a very important target, both militarily and politically, and should have been more of a focus of Nazi Germany than dabbing around the northern and southern fronts… which while important for not making a linear drive to Moscow without securing the flanks, doesn’t hold as much importance as Moscow itself. We may all have slightly different opinions on what makes Moscow the important target and why it failed, but in the end, back to the original point of this thread, it would seem most of us agree that Moscow was indeed very important, and aiming only for Leningrad and Stalingrad/Caucasus, would have been a mistake.
The correlation isn’t correct, but the fact that Moscow was critically important on multiple levels is… 1812 and 1941 are very different years with very different circumstances, and cannot be compared equally. Napoleon made a straight drive for Moscow… he didn’t invade all of Russia, he didn’t even really bother holding anything other than the immediate vicinity around his army… when he finally did reach Moscow… nobody was there… they all packed up and left, including the Tsar of Russia. Napoleon occupied a few buildings, didn’t hold any part of Russia, beyond a toehold on a supply line (that was usually broken) and didn’t capture the Tsar. This just is NOTHING like the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Germany invaded with millions across a very wide front from the Baltic to the Black Sea, and it was an invasion to sieze, destroy and hold territory. Entire armies were annihilated, cities across all of Russia were being captured, the Germans had a pretty solid control of what they were seizing (certainly in comparison with Napoleon), and Moscow was not going to be an empty trophy if captured… it was more than just a symbolic seat of power, it was the most important rail hub, it was an important industrial and communications center, it had stocks of food and munitions and supplies for the Russians, and, as previously mentioned, Stalin was there… and it is my firm belief, that he would not have fled. When Moscow was under fire and looked doomed, and Stalin was begged to leave for safety, he had the same attitude Hitler did about Berlin and refused to leave… I don’t think Stalin would have left if the Germans had arrived earlier and with a better chance to capture the city… in that case, Stalin most likely would have been captured or killed, and the Soviet Union was very much STALIN’S RUSSIA… as much as the Third Reich was HITLER’s GERMANY.
Moscow was not the only objective of Barbarossa… it was not going to be taken in a vacuum like Napoleon did to Tsarist Russia in 1812… The Soviet Union was being dismembered by Nazi Germany… they were encircling and destroying entire armies, seizing vast swathes of land and capturing city after city from the Baltic to the Black Sea, and Moscow would have been the final piece of the jigsaw puzzle, with Stalin likely to go down with the city… this is an entirely different scenario than Napoleon, and they simply cannot be compared in the same light.
There are tons of books, claiming tons of things… even more so with websites… but just because somebody writes a book or puts something on the internet and calls it “Fact” doesn’t make it true.
Was war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union inevitable… most certainly… was the Soviet Union about to invade Germany two weeks after Barbarrossa launched? Not a chance. It’s very well documented that Stalin was in shock that Hitler invaded in June 41… and not because he was upset it threw off his planned invasion two weeks later. He honestly (at that point in the war) thought of Hitler as an ally at best, co-conspirator dictator in divvying up Europe between the two of them at worst. Stalin, really didn’t see it coming, because he was convinced war was not coming to blows in 1941. Obviously there was tons of data coming to Stalin that the Germans were preparing for invasion, and many inside the Soviet Union were alarmed and panicking of Germany’s troop movements and intentions, but Stalin was not one of them… he continually thought people were just trying to get them to turn on each other and it was a conspiracy, Stalin honestly felt war was not going to occur in 1941… would Stalin have eventually turned on Germany if Germany didn’t invade? Probably… but it certainly wasn’t happening in 1941. There’s so many first-hand accounts of Stalin’s plans and intentions prior to and immediately after Germany’s invasion in 1941, and it’s crystal clear, Russia had nothing in store for Germany in 1941…
Base on this, it is obvious that if Stalin was killed, then all Russians would surrender. And I don’t think Stalin would survive losing Moscow. So the conclusion is, that Moscow was the decisive object that needed to be taken to win the war. I say that to take Moscow was the only victory condition for Germany. Hitler did not have to beat the Red Army in the battlefield, or capture the Baku oilfields, or bomb Russian industry. He just had to take Moscow. Simple as that. Hitler failed doing this, just because he found it more important to kill Jews.
Agreed with everything you said about Hitler, Moscow and Stalin, up till the “more important to kill Jews” line. Hitler, of course, was a terrible man in regards to his treatment and extermination of the Jews under his control, but his failure to take Moscow in 1941 had little to do with prioritizing the killing of Jews over seizing Moscow. The Final Solution had not yet been in play in 1941 (certainly terrible treatment of military and civilians on the Eastern Front was occurring in 1941, but the full blown, all hands on deck, lets kill every jew and tie up every rail system moving Jews about, was not in play in 1941). Moscow was not seized during Barbarossa because of multiple military blunders, mostly caused by Hitler’s constant meddling in priorities over what OKW had planned. I really think 1941 was Germany’s best shot at taking Moscow… much had changed in the defense of Moscow by Spring 1942 and the sideshow in the Caucasus in 1942 ended up costing Germany the war in Russia. Germany’s best chance to take out Moscow was in 1941… so much had changed by Spring 1942, I think few realize just how much stronger Russia was, and the defense of Moscow just a few months after Germany failed at the gates of Moscow, I think by then, seizing Moscow was a slim-to-nil affair no matter what Germany did… regardless, the failure to seize Moscow in 1941 was attributed directly to military and strategic blundering by Germany… not by the Holocaust.
Similarly, putting up maps of proposals of what the lines could have looked like after 1941 had come and gone is fine and all, but I honestly think by then, the war in Russia was lost. I agree with Narvik, Moscow was indeed the key… and that opportunity was ripe for taking in 1941, and could have, with the right mistakes having not occurred, or had been avoided in 1941, Moscow would have fallen. I sincerely believe, by 1942, the war in Russia was lost by all accounts… oh sure, they could have done better here or there, prolonged the war they could, but by 1942, the writing was on the wall… Germany’s chances of seizing Moscow in 1941 were far greater than most people assume… and similarly, no matter where the front lines were drawn up, Germany’s chances of seizing Moscow in 1942 or beyond were far less than most people assume.
I’m firmly in the belief that Barbarossa as initially planned had obtainable goals, including Moscow, which to be honest, was really about the only part of Barbarossa that didn’t come to fruition in historical terms. Yes, Russia had issues to be dealt with, but none were insurmountable. I am also a firm believer that just because you invade Russia, doesn’t mean you’ve automatically doomed your country to failure… no nation is impossible to conquer, and yes, this includes Russia.
I’ve read tons on the 1941 invasion… things that impacted it, variables that could have changed things, timetables, troop positions, defenses that were or were not in place… simply put, there were many mistakes made on the German’s part, that, under the right set of circumstances, could very easily have been avoided or dealt with in a manner that would have allowed Barbarossa to succeed on all levels. Russia is not invincible simply because one invades Russia… it could have been done, and Germany had favorable conditions for a successful campaign… in the end, they blew it, and it eventually led to Germany’s defeat… but just because Germany invaded and eventually failed, does not mean that was the only outcome that could have come from invasion.
Well, as I said, i’m going back to the consistency of scale with official A&A sculpts… i’m pulling out some/most of the custom HBG sculpts I got because of scale (and/or color) issues. I like uniformity in games (at least with easily recognizable pieces). Like I enjoy having both Panther and Tiger I tanks for Germany, they look different, but both are of the same quality and scale in size as any other tanks in-game. However, when I looked to expand Japan’s tanks from just Type-95 Ha Go light tanks to the bigger, more robust Type-97 medium tanks from HBG… upon arrival, they were both of a different shade of “pumpkin orange” and actually SMALLER than the Type-95 light tanks… this bothered me.
I did order some Churchill custom tanks from HBG because I didn’t want “just Matilda’s”, but if they have the same issue as other HBG custom tanks (which they probably will), they too will be cast to the side in favor of Matildas… I did score a bag of Tan Shermans from A&A D-Day off E-Bay, so hopefully that will give me some British tank variety with official A&A sculpts.
It was worth trying out the custom sculpts though… I just don’t like the style and mostly the size difference from official A&A sculpts. I would never know until i had them in front of me… looking at pics on the web got me interested, but it was impossible to know for sure how i’d like them until I had them in front of me. Oh well, lesson learned… HBG is still a great source for getting extra “official” A&A sculpts, and I have abused that aspect of HBG quite a bit.
As for my kids and others eventually learning enough of the game to move on to custom sculpts… I’d still have the issues I already have (of style and size) bothering me whether my kids were A&A pros or not… I think i’ll just be sticking with official A&A sculpts for the foreseeable future… lesson learned.
Was just curious if anyone else felt the same way I did or just mixed both official and custom units willy-nilly. Apparently (if I get the prior posts right), i’m not alone in my thoughts.
Well, I love diversity and reality in regards to that if I can have Pz-III, Pz-IV, Panthers and Tigers for Germany, i’m all for it (even if they all roll the same)… thing is, i’m also for smoothness of gameplay (like uniformity of units being easily recognizeable in a game)… After attempting to mix a lot of A&A sculpts with HBG custom sculpts, aside from the aircraft (which merged pretty good), the custom tanks and ships just stand out in quality, color and mostly size… and this is bothering me (personal tastes, i know)…
I have begun walking-back some of my custom HBG sculpt purchases and putting them back in baggies in my “maybe some day” storage, and just sticking to the default A&A sculpts… though, if I can get my hands on DIFFERENT A&A sculpts, I will (like Tan Shermans from D-Day and mixing them with Tan Matildas from 1942SE).
Most of my HBG orders have been more of the default A&A units and a few of the custom sculpts… looks like I will abandon the custom sculpt route and just favor more of the default A&A sculpts, with as much variety as I can get my hands on.
Hmmm… well, I have now received the lion’s share of my orders from HBG… which included both extra A&A sculpts from their lineup of games (like more units from A&A 1941, 1942 and 1940P&E), to the custom sculpts that HBG offers that don’t exist in the A&A games (like 7TP & Type-97 tank models, to custom naval ships like Nevada’s, South Dakotas, Fuso’s and the like).
Now, if you really couldn’t give a hoot about scaling sizes… if unit #1 is a lot bigger/smaller than unit #2, then move along, nothing to see here…
I already see what’s going on… HBG’s custom sculpts are properly sized and scaled to each other and to reality. Which, normally, you would think is a really good thing. For example, in reality, the Iowa BBs were a good bit larger than the South Dakota class of BBs, which themselves were significantly larger than the Nevada BBs. Same with tanks… a KV-2 was larger than a T-34, which was larger than a 7TP… HBG’s custom sculpts reflect this to each other.
The problem is, with few exceptions, HBG’s custom sculpts aren’t on the same scale as A&A’s default sculpts… at least with what I’ve run into so-far. A&A has tried to standardize scaling for ease of recognition on the game board. A&A’s default sculpts all run the same size per class regardless of what it is they’re covering… an IS-2, a T-34, a Sherman, a Tiger or Panther… they’re all roughly the same size on the game board… same thing with all Battleships… a Royal Oak, Hood or Iowa are all the same size, just to avoid confusion over what is a BB or what is a CA (even though in reality, they all differ in size considerably). While it may not be historically accurate, it serves a purpose on a crowded game board.
Now comparing A&A’s default sculpts with HBG’s custom sculpts, I’ve come to the following observations:
HBG’s custom tank sculpts are mostly on a smaller scale than the game’s default sculpts… or at least shrink considerably with older tank models. The Japanese Type-97 Medium tank from HBG, is smaller compared to the Type-95 light tank default sculpt. HBG Shermans are smaller than A&A default Shermans (though clearly more accurately detailed), while Pershings are bigger than either (once again, properly scaled to each other, but not to A&A standardized sculpts)… the HBG ships are in the same boat (pun intended?). The South Dakota BB is roughly the same size as a default BB, but actually is larger than the default A&A Iowa (which is off to scale to each other), while considerably larger (accurately) to a HBG Nevada, which in-game is about the size of a Cruiser… while properly scaled to the HBG SD class, it could cause confusion in-game being the same size as a Cruiser.
As a HUGE fan of military equipment of all nations, I can immediately spot out a Nevada or Iowa or South Dakota silhouette from other ships, but I know my kids and friends probably cannot… and they would probably get confused in-game as to why some battleships are the size of cruisers while others are not (the same occurs with tanks, a default Sherman or Panther is easily three or four times the size of an HBG 7TP tank). I know in reality, size difference between classes is quite common, but it’s a sacrifice the designers of the game made for simplicity and easy spotting in-game (if all BB’s were the same size for example).
Oddly enough, the HBG custom aircraft seem to be immune to this issue… HBG custom fighters and bombers seem to be well-scaled to A&A default unit scaling… the scaling issues mostly seem to effect Tanks and Ships.
On a totally different note, the “pumpkin orange” of HBG custom units for Japan does not seem to be the same shade as “pumpkin orange” of current 2nd Edition default Japanese units… its close, but noticeably different… once again, I know some won’t care for the slight change in color, but it bothers me for some reason (not a complaint, so much as an observation).
Once again, I know HBG is catering to more than just A&A players… their custom units can be used for many games, A&A is one of them, and to their own credit, they are scaling units to each other properly, while A&A default units are not properly scaled, but rather “class scaled”… that all tanks are one size, all battleships are one size, etc, etc… this is done for ease of recognition in-game vs reality to unit scale… this is a purposeful design decision that one may, or may not agree to.
In the end, if one is mixing HBG custom units with default A&A units, you’ll end up with the following things occurring: Tanks and Ships will vary wildly in scale to each other and to the default A&A units… sculpt detail will also be obviously different… I have found HBG sculpts to generally be in greater detail than more generic A&A sculpts, and while at first, this may seem like a plus, it makes both the default A&A units the custom HBG sculpts stand out from one another on the game board.
If someone is bothered by uniformity and or game scale, then a few choices come down to this:
1) Stick strictly to A&A default units, they will all be the same detail and same scale by class in-game
2) Use only HBG sculpts for ships and tanks so they properly scale to one another, realizing that tank sizes will vary considerably and ships won’t always be size = class, as some battleships will be no bigger than cruisers.
3) Mix them altogether, noticing wildly different scaling and quality of sculpts… to some variety trumps scaling and color issues.
Now let me make this clear… I’m NOT COMPLAINING about HBG custom sculpts… I kinda had a feeling this would be an issue when I started ordering them… I’m merely pointing out some observations that I’ve noticed after getting my hands on some… and mind you, I don’t think I could have had a proper feeling for the differences until I had them in my hands and could compare them with the default units, so I kinda had to do this to “see for myself”.
Personally, of the three options I listed above, I’m not a fan of #3, mixing default sculpts with HBG sculpts, it just bothers me to see things like South Dakotas bigger than Iowas and Type-95 tanks bigger than Type-97 tanks, which is something that happens when you mix two different lines of units… so that leaves me with either Option #1 or Option #2… I’m probably going to just go back to using mostly default A&A sculpts (and I have already ordered extra of most default sculpts) because it has the added benefit of keeping things simpler on the game board, especially with people less fanatical about unique equipment than me, and I don’t want to have to explain why some battleships or tanks are vastly different in size than others.
Once again, I want to stress, this is not a complaint post… I think the HBG site is awesome, they ship quickly and deliver what they promise. Their custom sculpts are very cool and have more detail than the default sculpts in A&A (just look at the Sherman difference). I’m simply pointing out my observations, especially in regards to scaling issues, that if size does or doesn’t matter, and you’re thinking about custom HBG sculpts, this is something to consider if it’s important to you or not… if size matters.
Finally, assuming the Germans did split north and south while ignoring the center – would the hypothetical territory they conquered be a useful staging ground for a 1942 assault on Moscow, or would it leave the Germans out of position?
As I briefly pointed out in my initial response, I believe Germany more or less came out of Barbarossa with a large AG North/AG South push, because AG Center was bungled badly by Hitler’s interference, making an otherwise capture-able Moscow an unobtainable objective. In the end, AG Center’s panzers were mostly misused because of a lot of wasted travel back and forth uncalled for except for Hitler’s interference.
For the sake of your argument, lets say AG Center’s panzers and extra formations were more evenly split between AG North and AG South and Center was left more or less to “hold” or “stay a tad behind” advances in the North and South. I really don’t see anything to gain for Germany with this strategy… lets say with more forces in the North Leningrad would have fallen instead of being surrounded and besieged… what does that give Germany? Not much really… Leningrad was for all intents and purposes completely taken out as a factor in the war as a result of the siege which began in 1941… so not much gained there… had they pressed on further after sacking Leningrad in your scenario, what then? Maybe the Soviet ports to the NE of Leningrad? In 1941, that would have mattered little as there wasn’t any real Lend/Lease occurring at that time, so the Northern push ends with a fizzle after Leningrad is taken… the elimination of Leningrad as a factor happened in 1941 with or without actually taking the city.
If Moscow is not a factor, that leaves us with a pronounced push in the south… with little change in the center or north… hmmm… this sounds familiar… Case Blue anyone? So the Germans push further in the south in 1941 then historically happened… given their starting position for a southern push would have been the Balkan/Soviet border in 1941, and not hundreds of miles further in as was the start of Case Blue in 1942, I don’t really see the Germans succeeding in pushing to the Caucasus oil fields in 1941 (or Stalingrad, not that it held any real importance to the war). Personally… I just don’t see your proposal of focusing North/South at the expense of Center being a viable strategy to end the war in 1941 against Russia (or give them a vastly superior position in 1942).
Your final argument would be to put them in a great position to take Moscow in 1942… I don’t see this as an option… a LOT changed over the winter of 1941 into 1942… massive fortifications and defenses around Moscow that did NOT exist in the summer/fall of 1941 were by the spring of 1942 massively improved and prepared… Extra armies and divisions of tough soldiers from Siberia that were not present in summer/fall of 1941 were by the spring of 1942 in place. Production of the T-34 tank, which was in very limited numbers in 1941, were far more greatly available by the spring of 1942. Finally, Soviet strategy, at the behest of Stalin, who was OBSESSED with Moscow, made sure that almost everything the Soviets had to spare was sent to the defense of Moscow to prepare for the assured attack on Moscow that was to happen in 1942… this in large part was why the Germans chose Case Blue into the Caucasus instead of going for Moscow in 1942 as it was… and because of Russia’s drive to protect Moscow, was why Case Blue was so successful at its launch because most Soviet forces were committed to the defense of Moscow.
Simply put, the best chance (and maybe the ONLY chance) the Germans had at seizing Moscow was in 1941, and preferably before the fall mud and winter frost set in. This could have occurred in two different scenarios, #1, the delay of Barbarossa caused by the German invasion of the Balkans in spring 41, and #2, as I had mentioned earlier, the interference of Hitler with AG Center’s panzers during Operation Barbarossa. Either alone or both combined spelled doom for the chance of taking Moscow before it was too late. I don’t see your proposed change in strategy bearing any fruit for Germany in 1941 or 1942.