"People like MAJ Timothy Wray (and others) have written thesis papers stating that von Mellenthin and von Manstein's observations of the Soviet Army were incorrect or flawed, so why are the Russians in the _Alt scenarios rated C and D? They should be much higher!"

The simple answser is: if you don't like the approach I made then simply don't play it. I must make it clear that I don't mean that in a bad way, I just mean it that the _Alt is an optional experience. I am not going to retool it because this Maj Wray wrote his head turning paper to graduate the war college about his thesis that von Mellenthin's observations are total nonsense. But I will at least make a lengthy answer on why the _Alt design decision was made to answer the question once and for all.

The fact of the matter is, who says this Maj Timothy Wray is correct? Who says his observations are incorrect? For all we know Wray is a Russophile. That is of course most likely not the case, and for all we know maybe it is true that von Mellethin was making faulty or biased observations. It certainly is an interesting thesis, which is the whole point of a thesis paper to begin with, and we all know how people love to prove or attempt to prove how common belief up until this point is incorrect in order to turn the world upside down, because the source material or person was "too close" to the topic and was somehow biased. However, no disrespect to Maj Wray, Glantz, or anyone else, but I tend to put a more credit in von Mellentin's and von Manstein's observations than someone who lived some 50+ years after the fact. The truth of the matter is, "everyone with a book" has an opinion. As mentioned, the whole purpose of these earth shattering theses is to make an interesting and intellectual argument that challenges the preconceived notions and the common understanding up until this point. Does that mean they have any facts behind the thesis? Sure, but does it mean that they also present any facts that disprove their thesis? No. Does it also mean that von Mellenthin's and/or von Manstein's observations are invalidated? Hell no. I am sure you can find plenty of papers saying how von Mellenthin's observations are spot on.

Surely too, you have to know that von Mellenthin was writing those final observations in the 1950s as an advisement to how to fight the Soviets. For what reason does he have to make them seem less capable than they were and, in reality he did not "trash" them in his observations. Ironically, or truthfully, the Soviets had these same basic traits throughout the Cold War, so I doubt that they were something reinvented after the war ended. Interestingly enough, in my time in the US Army we trained along the very lines that the Soviets / a Soviet style force adhered to doctrine and had no creativity or flexibility at the tactical level. Was that a bad thing? No, it was just one of their many traits which is primarily what von Mellenthin was stating.

But anyway, all that is useless text. What it really comes down to (why the change was made and why von Mellenthin's observations were used as means to justify the end and why the thesis/observations from Glantz and Wray are meaningless here in this context) is quite simple: In the _Alt, the Russians have quality in their tanks and artillery and other units, quality of assault ratings in almost all of their units, and quality in their quantity of force. With that being the case, something had to be done to make them a bit less powerful *because the ratings used for their tanks, guns and other units is made them much more powerful than the stock game* so the common quality approach was initiated to give them a flaw, but also a trait in that they are this huge homogeneous and uniform entity, which is very effective but is otherwise not some sort of "western" type force in the traditional sense (quality versus quantity). If they have both quality in, well, their unit quality then they end up with a simple formula of:

quality (in morale and unit quality) + quality (in equipment and combat ratings) + quality (in quantity) force = much better than anything the Germans have

In other words, the Germans have absolutely no way that they can somehow be a numerically inferior force and in any way hope to have a chance at resisting the Russians when they are outmatched in every single way. This somehow doesn't seem to be historical.

All that said, if you think that means they are ineffective, then you probably need to try out Kursk'43_Alt, Korsun'44_Alt, Stalingrad'42_Alt, Minsk'44_Alt (and others) and see if you think differently after you try it. If I took any other approach and we take Maj Wray's word on how it was, then I guess these _Alt games wouldn't turn out in any way shape or form historical with B+ quality Russians effortlessly stampeding over the Germans in every campaign. Did the Russian's change from what they were in 1941 to what they were in 1943 and 1944? Of course they did, but the _Alt already represents this with increasing unit ratings, increasing numbers, and more Guard formations. Do Wray and Glantz make good points? Yes, but it doesn't exactly invalidate Wray's, Glantz's, von Mellenthin's or von Manstein's observations with what I have done in the _Alt. I could arguably go lower with the quality from von Mellenthin and von Manstein's observations, and I could go higher with Wray and Glantz's theses, instead it is more or less in the center.