Well..in my campaign for example...I had taken Leningrad and Stalingrad both, while the Soviet (AI) kept a steady stream of spoiling attacks in the middle, and defended Moscow quite well. My losses were from 1941-1944 only about 30% of what they were historically, and only about 17% of what Soviet losses were. Somehow the Soviet side, despite that I held most of the population centres and had almost immediately in 1941 overrun the factory areas for most of their T-34 production areas, etc..still kept enough in front of me, not to beat my side on offense, but enough to stop my otherwise powerful juggernaut from taking Moscow..and the campaign still goes on to the end.
The really poor argument(sorry, no offense) that we should have already won, or that the tanks would have been used in the west, etc etc..all are conjectures that have nothing to do with the original posting, which IS an issue...if your side does better than the historic record the game is set to play, there should be a way to keep the game from assuming that you lost those battles at Stalingrad, Leningrad, or even Moscow.
For myself, I have already changed it in the editor, and it works great now. Without changing it, I would have put the game down, and not played it anymore, as I do not like a game that just assumes I will lose battles, and automatically punishes me for it, while at the same time assuming that the other side will win the battles, and keeps helping them keep up the manpower, etc, that if you do well, they also should lose.
Still..I do not intend this as a complaint, I love this game..but mostly, I hope they still look at some items like this...but I love that they did give us the ability to make changes in it, to give each of us a game we like.