pap

Yeah, it's not exactly the same shot Think I jumped the gun on the second video. Re: backward compatibility. Always sounds like a nice idea, and is actually practical for year one. Tends to be less important after that, once games have started flooding in for the new platform. I'll be donating my PS3 to Juvenile Unit #2. It's tons easier swapping them in and out with HDMI now anyway.

£65 as well, more if you were importing it before it launched in the UK. A mate of mine paid close to a ton for the US version, but damn we had some fun one summer.

Problem is, not many of my peers have a powerful gaming PC, whereas most of them will be locatable on a PS4 or XBox at some point in the future. There's also the small matter of console exclusives. I very much enjoyed Uncharted and Infamous last generation, which simply weren't available anywhere else. Same thing goes for the likes of Flower and all the Pixel Junk stuff. The other thing to consider is a level playing field. I'm really not that great on FPSs on PC, but I can handle myself on a console.

English is a wonderful language. Say this thread title out loud, and it sounds like we've a nonce down at the training ground.

It should have done. It was designed to beat them, and widely recognised as one of the most effective weapons of war. I like this quote:-

The boy scored a hat-trick versus Pompey Yoof yesterday. The Echo reckon he's banging on Pochettino's door with "statements" like these. http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/10868224.Gallagher_fires_hat_trick_reminder_to_Pochettino/?ref=mr He's already warmed the bench on a couple of occasions. Ready to be a big part of the first team?

You're arguing against a point I never made. At no point have I suggested that Stalin planned to invade Germany at exactly the same time. Indeed, I argued that Hitler ruined Stalin's plans by attacking first. I'm not sure how you've arrived at your point of contention, but you're in agreement with me. I think it likely that Stalin would have continued to re-arm until he had technical and numerical advantage, attacking thereafter.

Right, so you agree with me that the USSR had pre-existing plans to assault German forces irrespective of Barbarossa? I don't want to put words in your mouth, mate. "That" isn't too specific when I'm asking two questions. Clarity would be cool.

Let's get back to the question. Would the USSR eventually have attacked Germany if Germany had not launched Operation Barbarossa? How does the proportion of T-34s in relation to the rest of the Russian tank force affect that question in any way?

Yup. The fallout from the purges, in both terms of "men lost" and "men fearing for their lives afterward" is almost incalculable. The position of Soviet forces certainly didn't help. They were on new and largely unfamiliar frontiers. If Stalin wanted to fight a purely defensive war, he was going the wrong way about it. His strategy was f**ked the moment the German armour got behind their extended Western frontier. Almost inviting encirclement. Stalin never wanted to fight the Germans in Russia, but knew a war with Germany was inevitable. Put those two facts together, and you're left with the conclusion that Stalin meant to fight them in the West. Given Stalin's "directness" in dealing with other issues, my take is that they were attempting to re-arm to the point where a westward invasion was possible. Hitler simply acted first. Whatever Stalin's motives, he made a huge mistake by arraying his forces on the frontier.

Yeah, unimportant figures like German generals and Hitler. I can see you're trying to add to the debate, Barry. Kudos for that. However, when people are saying that this is a "good thread", it's probably down to people like Chapel End Charlie and VFTT laying down relatively substantive portions of their expertise for the rest of the forum. Just guessing here, but I'd file much of our recent exchange, particularly the one-liners from yourself, as being very much the opposite of this. In the interests of keeping the thread interesting, I'd invite you to reference and back up your points with something approaching insight. You began this particular series of posts with the assertion that technical obsolescence was the key reason for initial German gains. I think it's a factor, definitely - but nowhere near as much as Stalin's tunnel vision when it came to the Germans.

Yes, I acknowledged that in one of my posts. I appreciate that I'm backing some of my opinions up with evidence, which therefore makes them longer and harder to read, but it's all there.

There is no one place, Barry. Sub assemblies were created in Kharkiv (engines), Leningrad (guns), Moscow (electrical components). Actual tank assembly took place in Stalingrad. So yep, T-34s built in the West prior to Barbarossa. Bad move. The Germans got to nearly all of those locations in short order.

Disagree. The T-34 was in active, if not widespread service in 1941. Guderian and von Kleist both referred to it as "the deadliest tank in the world". It was so superior to the German's tank-killer, the Panzer III, that the Germans were forced to reverse the roles of their tanks. The Panzer IV was reassigned to take on the T-34's - the Panzer III shifted to infantry support, largely because the III didn't have a big enough gun to compete with them. The only way in which you're correct is the number of T-34s available in 1941. The vast bulk of Soviet tanks were the older models you refer to, so on the ground, what you say has some merit. That said, Soviet tank tech was already beyond the German capability and it could be argued that Stalin's 1930s purge of the officer corp, complete inaction in the opening hours and location of forces were bigger factors for heavy Russian losses than technical obsolescence. Indeed, Hitler later said "If I had known about the Russian tank's strength in 1941 I would not have attacked".

This is well worth a look:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#Soviet_preparations From 1939 to 1941, the Soviets relentlessly re-armed. They had four times the number of tanks than the Germans at the outset of Barbarossa, and tanks constituted the smallest area of military growth. Production was initially based in western parts of the Soviet Union, but was moved to the Urals after the Germans invaded.

In 1994 I paid £65 for Mortal Kombat II on the SNES. Around the same time, Neo Geo games cost anywhere between £150 and £300 each. In 1996, the market was a lot smaller than it is now. To provide a bit of context, at the end of 1996, there were 2.9 million Playstation units in the wild. That's after two years of being on release. The PS4 has confirmed figures of 2.1 million already, and will exceed 2.9 million within two months. The point is moot anyway. If a better version of the game is going for sub-40 quid on a PC, there's no way that a price north of 50 for the console version can be justified.

I'm still intrigued by Soviet intentions toward Germany. I think it likely they were planning to strike against Germany in an offensive war, despite the disputed nature of the evidence to support it. Just from a logical point of view, it makes sense. Though Stalin was surprised at the initiation of Operation Barbarossa, almost to the point of disbelief, I don't think it was because he thought the Germans lacked capability or will. It just didn't fit with his preferred version of reality, one in which the Soviets had been re-arming for two years, had forces along its frontiers that would presumably, never be attacked by the Germans. A deadly case of tunnel vision. The first link that badgerx16 posted was interesting, providing some support to the idea that the USSR was going to attack first. If Stalin knew that conflict with the Germans was inevitable, where's the preferred place to do the fighting? Your own soon-to-be-devastated country or someone elses? Hitler had several reasons for invading the USSR. His desire for German autarky meant that it was always a question of "when", not "if", but the timing of Barbarossa was largely determined by Stalin. It didn't happen in 1940 because of the non-aggression pact and might not have happened in 1941 without the Soviet build-up of forces on its frontiers. Hitler remembered the starvation blockade of 1914-1919 and was adamant it wouldn't happen again. Germany was reliant on the USSR not only for the security of its Eastern frontiers, but also for a lot of its supply chain. Any Soviet attack would end both; Hitler took the threat seriously.

This is possibly the worst multi-poster identification thread going. Even the UI gets down and dirty and names names pretty quickly. What conclusions have we reached so far? That 110persaint and Nelson Mandela are both valid political icons? That bletch sees us all as little corporations going around projecting our brand? Where's the dirt, yo?

I've been meaning to reply to this for a bit. In a sense, you can't really get away from a comparison - mostly because it's such a delicious contrast. Do you spend upwards of a grand on a PC and then reap the benefit of £5 games in Steam sales, or do you outlay a more modest 350 knicker and get yourself a PS4 and spend over fifty quid on full price retail for each game you buy? Pricing on PS4/One games is presently ridiculous and unjustified. Many of the multi-platform games can be had for much less on a PC, despite the fact that in almost all cases, the PC version will look better on a gaming rig. The argument that companies have to do more doesn't really wash with me. They're already doing high resolution assets (for the PC) and the new crop of consoles have been declared "easier to code for". I reckon this is a permanent move to a £50 price point. Finally, I'm not down on the PS4. Wouldn't have written it such a glowing review if I was. It's a fantastic machine for the price, but to suggest that there is very little difference between that and a custom-built PC is wide of the mark, imo. It's a great 1080p machine; that doesn't make it a gaming leviathan. My motor is a great all-round car for getting about the UK, but I'm not going to pretend it's a Ferrari. If you've got a PS4, be happy - it looks like it's going to dominate the console space for the next 6 years.

I've always been impressed with the fact I don't have to maintain an independent password for my second account. Whether I log in as pap (OG) or pap (reversed), it remains the same. My case clearly indicates tacit approval from the mods that multi-posting is A-OK. Why else would they have this brilliant password synchronisation feature?

"pap", with the letters reversed from back to front. It's very easy to remember.

I've been cunning when it comes to my second login. It's simply my normal login reversed.

Depends on your perspective. I'm sure the Japanese would disagree - they entered Manchuria in 1931 and were at war for the next 14 years.

I was more referring to the fact that no American ever had to endure the bombing of cities or invasion, etc.

I think I'd be as cynical as yourself when considering US motives for getting involved. In short, their people really didn't want to get involved. Roosevelt and other administration figures did. Interwar Americans felt like they'd been tricked and jipped over the First World War - that American blood was used to secure colonial gains. The post-war settlement left Britain with the biggest incarnation of its empire ever. The Yanks got nowt, territorrially speaking. There was also the matter of unpaid war debt from the Great War. Western European powers borrowed from the US, and didn't pay it back. When Churchill and Roosevelt met before Pearl Harbor in 1941, Winston remarked upon Roosevelt's "astonishing depth of Roosevelt's intense desire for war". Roosevelt knew that "the American people would never agree to enter the war in Europe unless they were attacked within their own borders". The intent to go to war already existed. Pearl Harbor merely provided Roosevelt with the casus belli he needed for the American public. If Churchill is to be believed (and Roosevelt was being sincere when they met), FDR had designs on dragging America into the war anyway. Now as Charlie says, this desire may have stemmed from a love of democracy and the distant horror of it falling away in Europe. FDR certainly made enough speeches about the principles of democracy at this time. I tend to be a little more cynical, particularly when it comes to statesmen. I think it likely that from the outset, the US had specific aims about what it wanted to achieve in the war - which took the desperate plight of European nations into account. Lend-lease gave them tremendous power when negotiating with their Western European counterparts, and it's no surprise that the US ended the war as one of the two genuine winners, the other being the Soviet Union. The Soviets lost around 10 million military personnel. The US total military losses amount to less than half a million. While it's reductive to talk about pure numbers, it does demonstrate how well the US did out of the war. The conflict never came to the continental US, and for half a million lives, the country made unprecedented gains in soft and hard power. While I'm very grateful for US assistance in both conflicts, they didn't get involved purely on principle.