At first I'd like to thank you, Para, for your efforts spent on writing all these AAR - I am reading them with great interest.

And then I am adding some historic perspective. I am sure taking Moscow comes with a great satisfaction and performing better than an Austrian apprentice painter is certainly a great thing. But there is a certain Frenchman who already took Moscow several hundred years before and who finally had to understand that the Russian's resources in men, material and, most important, simple vastness are larger than everything what the greatest army at that time could destroy during one year or any military planner could really grasp until today. I mean, could any other nation lose the most decisive battle, burn its own capital and still win the war ?

Best of luck to your undertaking Para, but from a historic and geographic perspective taking Moscow is little more than poking the Russian Bear and his thick fur with a ridiculously small straw - not even a needle

Prove me wrong