Haig tactics win again!!!

[PimpYourAFV]

ORIGINAL: 264rifle

Haig and Tokyoboy ate both correct. If you have more men and horses than the enemy has bullets you will win everytime ( as long as your men don't figure out what is going on and mutiny).[:D]

Don't forget... melting barrels, weapon jamming, confused orders, wrong sizes of ordance issued, interferrance by the United Nations etc etc...

[PimpYourAFV]

ORIGINAL: 264rifle

Tokyoboy: The snipers counted kills, the beltfed boys didn't bother. Carlos Hathcock (great marksman that he was) was in veitnam for how many tours???? 2 and starting a 3rd??? One Marine Captain (medical doctor defending hospital) is credited with 600 Japanese in a few hours using a water cooled browning. He had to move the gun 4 times so he could shoot over the piled up bodies. THe Japanese won in the end and did kill him. In other words, a successful operation was had. Wonder what would have happened if there was another belt fed gun and crew nearby?? They would have been killed too.

264rifle, can you provide more info on this interesting action you described, either a name of the medic or a location & date.

Speaking in general, the Japanese could have radically reduced their casualties and inflicted many more on the allies in the Pacific War had they regularly used cavalry in their operations to speedily overwhelm the enemy positions. It is well known among military strategists that Japan lost the war due to not using cavalry in the island battles. [8D]

[FlashfyreSP]

ORIGINAL: TokyoBoyTensai

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

TokyoBoyTensai

Ah-ah-ah...you are using the example of a single Marine sniper to refute my statement about infantry battalions armed with bolt-action rifles; bad rebuttal, my friend, You missed my point FlashfyreSP, as this case amply demonstrates what a well-trained marksman can do with the simple but practical bolt action rifle. A whole company of riflemen like Hathcock could lay waste to any 'modern' army. As for the overrated machinegun, note that almost all 93+ kills Hathcock performed were of AK47 toting North Vietnamese. Their machineguns didn't do them a spot of good, did they? since the majority of the Vietnam conflict was fought with automatic weapons, on both sides. [;)] Since snipers operated in the bush under different ordersTotally wrong. Snipers operate ANYWHERE., they are the exception to the rule. Show me a modern battlefield, manned by soldiers from recognized nations, where the common rifle is a bolt-action single shot rifle, and where horse cavalry thunder across the field to engage their enemies? [:'(]

Recent events in Afghanistan and other remote locations show only that horses are still valuable as a transport unit, with the trooper dismounting to engage his enemy; massed cavalry charges of the sort favored by Haig are suicide in the face of automatic weapons, regardless of the bravery and courage of the cavalry. This was amply shown in the Crimea by the Light Brigade during their charge into the Turkish position; today, they wouldn't have gotten half as far as they did under similar circumstances. [:-] Thanks for mentioning one of Britain's most glorious moments in military history. The charge of the light brigade is an excellent example of cavalry charging a well-prepared position and not only took the objective, they also killed the enemy leader Surat Khan. As for 'today, they wouldn't have gotten half as far as they did under similar circumstances' you are finally demonstrating some good tactical sense because Haig would simply have moved up riflemen with scopes and high powered rifles under the cover of darkness. Once the cavalry began their charge the next day, the Turks would man their 'modern' guns and all be shot off and the cavalry would not need to advance any further.

Haig was hide-bound There's no record of Haig wearing animal skins besides those he trode on. and stiff-necked; he couldn't see the future of warfare when it stared him in the face, and he refused to listen to those who could. So send your cavalry my way!

I'm really not sure if you are being serious about all this, or are joking around...
If you are serious, then you really need to read up on your history; the Light Brigade did not 'take' their objective. In reality, they broke through the first lines of the Turkish defense, routed the massed Russian cavalry behind, but failed to capture the redoubts at the far end of the valley that they were ordered to take. Oh, and by the way...there never was a 'Surat Khan', there is no place called 'Chukoti', the '27th Lancers' were disbanded in 1819 and weren't reformed until 1941, and all of this is fictional by way of the Errol Flynn movie, "The Charge of the Light Brigade". Hollywood makes lousy history movies...this one even came with a disclaimer stating that many of its characters and locations were fictitious. Believing what you see in the movies is dangerous...

You missed my point that a sniper operates in the bush under different orders...the 'bush', a Vietnam-era slang term, refers to the field, not a shrubbery, and when a sniper is 'in the field', he works differently than the regular infantryman. And it is not possible to train each and every soldier to the level of marksmanship needed by the sniper; that has been proven time and again. The reason Hathcock was successful is because, as a sniper, he hid and waited for the 'best' shot at an unsuspecting target. He did not engage them in a stand-up firefight, nor did he fire wildly in the general direction of his enemy; he hunted them as any game hunter does, stalking them and firing from blinds.

Suffice to say that, if you truly do believe that Haig's ideas are right and that 90 years of modern warfare have been totally incorrect, then I really pity the education you may have received. If all this has been in jest, then please indicate so in any further postings, because I take your words to be what you truly believe.

[azraelck]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4

Simo Hayha (I don't know how to set up those notations used in the actual language), a Finnish sniper in the Winter War; had a confirmed 505 kills against the Soviet Red Army using a non-scoped M28 Finnish Mosin Nagant bolt action rifle. However, he also had over 200 kills using a submachine gun. This was over the span of three months.

Sulo Kulkka was another Finnish sniper, credited with more than 400 kills; using the same Mosin Nagant with iron sights. He too, inflicted over 200 kills with a Submachine gun.

The SMG is a close up weapon, requiring exceptional reflexes to utilize properly. The sniping allowed careful, aimed shots from well concealed positions. Both were very vulnerable while using the SMG, not only in firing, but in the short ammo capacity. Sniping doesn't matter; but when it comes to sustained fire weapons, a lack of ammo and having to reload can prove deadly. Situationally, I'd say the SMG was more effective, as both were exposed to enemy fire while using it, including any enemies that they could not reach due to range limitations; and the small ammo capacity meant frequent reloading in intense situations.

[PimpYourAFV]

Thanks for your informative feedback Flashfyre. I made a few notes again. [:)]

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

I'm really not sure if you are being serious about all this, or are joking around... As serious as a shot through a major artery.
If you are serious, then you really need to read up on your history I am no history buff, that's for sure. the Light Brigade did not 'take' their objective. In reality, they broke through the first lines of the Turkish defense, ...successful Haig tactics at work... routed the massed Russian cavalry behind, ... further proof of the effectiveness of a cavalry charge... but failed to capture the redoubts at the far end of the valley that they were ordered to take. Perhaps they forgot to bring a map and compass and thus lost their way. That's the only way that attack could have failed. Oh, and by the way...there never was a 'Surat Khan', there is no place called 'Chukoti', the '27th Lancers' were disbanded in 1819 and weren't reformed until 1941, and all of this is fictional by way of the Errol Flynn movie, "The Charge of the Light Brigade". Hollywood makes lousy history movies... I think it is quite a good movie, having just seen it this week by coincidence. They only problem is the romantic triangle could have been edited out. this one even came with a disclaimer stating that many of its characters and locations were fictitious. Beats being sued. Believing what you see in the movies is dangerous...

You missed my point that a sniper operates in the bush under different orders...the 'bush', a Vietnam-era slang term, refers to the field, not a shrubbery, and when a sniper is 'in the field', he works differently than the regular infantryman. And it is not possible to train each and every soldier to the level of marksmanship needed by the sniper; that has been proven time and again. Just like every soldier cannot be taught to be an expert machinegunner or ballet dancer. The reason Hathcock was successful is because, as a sniper, he hid and waited for the 'best' shot at an unsuspecting target. He did not engage them in a stand-up firefight, nor did he fire wildly in the general direction of his enemy; You should have given this talk to the trigger happy marines in Vietnam who relied heavily on spray and pray with little to show for it. What one cannot see, one cannot kill... unless in a B52. he hunted them as any game hunter does, stalking them and firing from blinds.

Suffice to say that, if you truly do believe that Haig's ideas are right and that 90 years of modern warfare have been totally incorrect, then I really pity the education you may have received. We again find something to agree on. Not once in high school has the name Haig even been mentioned. I have to learn about Haig doctrine from reading war books as a hobby. Young people could so much better understand WW1 and the fundamentals of military tactics if they could learn about Haig in school. If all this has been in jest, then please indicate so in any further postings, because I take your words to be what you truly believe.

[azraelck]

We again find something to agree on. Not once in high school has the name Haig even been mentioned. I have to learn about Haig doctrine from reading war books as a hobby. Young people could so much better understand WW1 and the fundamentals of military tactics if they could learn about Haig in school.

This I agree on. School history sucks; prior to homeschooling the only things in WWII you heard about were the attack on Pearl Harbor (and a different version than what military journals, news reports from the day, and Military Channel documentaries show) and a little about the D Day landings. The Eastern Front was ignored completely. It's sad to say, but at the time I was there, I knew far more about the War than my teacher did, and proved it in class.

Of course, when I hit homeschooling, there was a bit more, but still the books I was given weren't adequet at all. And WWI was little more than a foot note; just to let people know that there was a world war prior to WWII.

[Einar Fridgeirs]

Yeah, the Eastern Front was systematically downplayed for political reasons in US highschools from the 1950´s onward. It´s a shame the average western schoolkid never heard abouy Kursk, the largest battle of the war.

Most american kids think D-Day was the largest battle of the war, or if they are smart and paid attention they name te Battle of the Bulge.

[azraelck]

The Battle of the what? [8|] That wasn't in the history books either. What I'm saying is that according to the history books I had, WWII was Germany killing Jews, and the US landing on Normandy Beach (no mention of Utah or Omaha, or even the Brits or Canuks), and killing the whole of the German army. Then they went and liberated europe, only for the Soviets to influence things and create a bunch of puppet states afterwards. I only read about the actions of the 101st Airborn, the Battle of Britain, The campaign in N Africa against the Desert Fox outside of school. And only because WWII has always been a favorite subject of mine.

[forgorin]

Yes I do agree that schools teach little to nothing about "the real" history. Not to mention everything else it does. Modern school has been changed from a free learning environment to an indoctrinating institution. It teaches people that learning something is not only not fun but down right boring. Those that happen to rebel and go their own way "not the indoctrinated fascist form that the government wants us to go" are cased as outsiders or even worst geeks with a deluded sense of history, even modern tactics as we see here.

Well to stop ranting about the our education and what it has done and what it will do to us peons. I have to gree with the the smart Japanese boy. Haig was never proven wrong. So what he lost a few battles. That does not mean that you should give up and call it quits. Unfortunately that’s what they did. They sat down and came up with a new strategy. They just stopped using Haigs theories. They have not been used since then either. Now who is to say that if they were not brought back that they might win with them. Look at the Americans in Vietnam. They got crushed by massed attacks. Its a shame that they didn’t have any cav. They probably could have won the war earlier.

[stevemk1a]

Haig was never proven wrong. So what he lost a few battles. That does not mean that you should give up and call it quits.

While I would agree that Haig was unduly demonized after WWI, I think it's a stretch to say that he was in any way capable of breaking the deadlock on the Western front. In addition those "few battles" cost Britain over 400,000 casualties during the battle of the Somme alone (a battle agonizingly prolonged past any hope of gain because Haig felt the German army was on it's "last legs")!

Haig wasn't quite the uncaring, incompetent buffoon he was made out to be, but at the same time he wasn't any kind of military genius.

It make a great sig-line though! [:'(] [:D]

[Colonel von Blitz]

ORIGINAL: 264rifle
Overrated? I don't think so. Overpowered? I do think so. I am only speaking from experience in SPWaW using a armored force in Poland consisting mainly of Panzer Ib and Panzer IIc Light tanks; with a few Panzer IIIes to back them up against Polish tanks. The Panzer I was a terror against infantry and calvary; one of which wiped out an entire platoon in a single round. The Panzer II was worthless; three of them took several turns to destroy one immobilized Pole tank, and they didn't seem to put out the casualties that the PzI did against soft targets.

True, what you say about Panzer I...it's a true killing machine. But, I disagree when you're talking about Pz II. IMO Panzer II is underrated weapon in SPWaW. I also made this mistake of thinking that it's useless, but then, in one PBEM game, I discovered the strength of this little tank.

5/40 France vs. Germany Meeting Engagement, I was playing as german. Of course there was a huge pack of Char B1 bis tanks coming to my way and I had Pz Is, Pz IIs and Pz 38(t)s. Pz Is were of course useless (well, you could try to take out the tracks, but that's way too risky), so I pulled them out, next it turned out that Pz 38s were taking helluva beating without making true damage to french monsters...only a truly lucky shot from higher grounds was able to penetrate the top armor, but you really cannot rely on pure luck if you want to win.

While thinking what to do, I happened to check out the ammo load of my tanks...hey, there is some APCR ammo on Pz IIs!! I quickly build up my tactics and started implementing it: distract Chars by firing flanking shots with Pz 38s, then after Chars had used their Op Fires and were suppressed, I took my Pz IIs VERY CLOSE (1 hex) to french tanks and opened fire. 50 metres away and you can fire 6 shots with each Pz II, without any return fire, well you can guess what happened. Yep, I eventually took victory.

This proved me that early in the war, Panzer II has it's uses and can actually do the killing instead of medium tanks. Also, if your opponent does not know this strength of Pz II, he may actually concentrate his firepower against targets that he thinks is more dangerous (Panzer III and Pz 38(t))!!

-Colonel von Blitz-

[azraelck]

Hmm. I'll have to try them against some harder targets then. I was not impressed with the 20mm, the Panzer IIIs would knock off the Polish tanks in a turn, the IIs would take multiple turns. The Panzer I's TMG did better against soft targets, inflicting 3 and 4 and occasionally even 8 caualties a volley, whereas the II did 1 most of the time, with the 20mm doing nothing against them. It doesn't matter because I'm upgrading my Panzer IIIs to Panzer IV, and the II's to III. Though this recent battle in that campaign has left my armored core decimated, so I'll likely be rebuilding more than upgrading. But I have a poor core choice anyways, so I'm probably going to restart later.

[PimpYourAFV]

forgorin, it sounds like you have a sound understanding of military strategy. Note how the human wave attacks of the North Vietnamese defeated the technological advanced Americans with their powerful air support and modern tanks. The only thing more powerful than a mass of infantry charging down on an enemy position is a mass of charging infantry and cavalry. The US unfortunately had neither of these attack options in the Vietnam War.

ORIGINAL: willy

Haig was never proven wrong. So what he lost a few battles. That does not mean that you should give up and call it quits.

While I would agree that Haig was unduly demonized after WWI, I think it's a stretch to say that he was in any way capable of breaking the deadlock on the Western front. In addition those "few battles" cost Britain over 400,000 casualties during the battle of the Somme alone (a battle agonizingly prolonged past any hope of gain because Haig felt the German army was on it's "last legs")!

Very few people understand Haig's grand strategy in WW1. The purpose of the Somme battles was to provide a diversion to distract Germany from Verdun which was being hammered hard and the Frensh in danger of losing it. Verdun was the main pillar of support holding up the French line where they had retreated to and dug in. Had Verdun fallen, more of France would have been churned up in the artillery barrages, more resources lost, morale fallen further and likely a major breakthrough for the Germans who were improving their assault tactics over time. Haig saved Verdun and thus put an end to all these worries and also put an end to several hundred thousand German soldiers in the process, critically weakening Germany. Mission complete.

Haig wasn't quite the uncaring, incompetent buffoon he was made out to be, but at the same time he wasn't any kind of military genius. Geniuses are often considered idiots cause their brilliant ideas clash with stubborn, and often wrong, ideas. Haig is a good example of this unfortunate pattern.

It make a great sig-line though! [:'(] [:D]

[264rifle]

Game realty vrs real life reality.

Discussions over at the DEPOT on these two tanks. Historically the MK II didn't get APCR untill after the French campaign. It's single belt (150 rnd) fed MG should have been at least as effective as the MK I's TWO magazine (25 rnd) fed guns if not more effective. Both tanks had ONE man turrets with very limited visability ecxept in refitted MKIIs with cupola. MK I tank radio was receive only, no transmitter.

oh well, it's a game[;)]

Tokyoboy might want to look up General Green from the American revolution. The man never won a battle and never lost a campaign. Drove the British (actually they gave up) from the Carolina country side into Charlston by losing every battle he fought against them. In every battle the British would drive him from the feild (some worthless cross road in the middle of nowhere) only to find that they lost more men than he did. After a while they couldn't take the losses anymore and retreated back to Charlston.

Haig was not the only General to fight in the past and not realize that different weapons call for different tactics. Look at all the American generals on both sides of the civil war that tried to use the tactics of the Napolionic wars against muzzle loading rifles. Bayonet Charges worked when niether side would fire their guns much beyond 100yds. Given the loading rates of those weapons the "Charge" could cover the 100yds or so in the time it took to fire maybe TWO shots. Muzzle loading rifles firing minie balls extended effective range (massed vollies against a massed target) to around 500yds giving the defenders up to TEN unanswered shots while the charging men tried to run that distance (sometimes in full feild pack).
While Haig was not alone in making these mistakes it does not make him right.

[PimpYourAFV]

264rifle, I will look up this General Green you speak of. The bayonet charge is even used today sometimes by the most well-trained and committed soldiers of elite units but is most effective when used in a leapfrog fashion with half of the men providing coverfire for those charging and taking turns. This tactic is an improvement on Haig's original brave charges on the Somme and I'm sure were this hero still alive today he would fully support the leapfrog upgrade.

As for the Panzer I & II tanks, they are the best of the German tanks with their excellent mobility and rapid fire. These tanks were intelligently designed support units for the infantry and made up the bulk of the tank forces under Rommel's command in France and in North Africa. Once Germany started building the heavier panzers and tank destroyers, it doomed itself to a lost war which is clearly evident if one compares the evolution of German tanks to its results in the overall war. [8D]

[azraelck]

Germany doomed itself when it made so many major tactical blunders in invading the soviet Union. They attempted to use the same tactics that carried them through France, Belgium, and the rest of the Western Front, yet failed to take into account the huge size of the SOviet Union, plus the numbers that they could pull. Their supply lines were stretched too thin with inadequet security; inadequet communications, and an idiot managing it refusing to realize that the Eastern front required altered tactics. But their greatest tactical blunder was to not coordinate their efforts with their allies.

[Puukkoo]

Not every nation was ever able to use 'human wave' attacks. A nation to go into war with sheer numbers also needs an autocrate ruler. Democracies can't bleed blood in such manners as for example Ancient Persians.

[azraelck]

The Sheer numbers tactic only works if you have the numbers. Only China and India have the numbers to match up to the Soviet Union.

The Soviets too had problems with that tactic. At the end of the war, they were so short on manpower that Stalin ordered that battlefield casualties be kept to a minimum, because otherwise they would run out of men. The post-war era would have be a good bit different if The Germans had held on a bit longer, and focused their efforts at repelling the russian hordes.

[Puukkoo]

It was a deliberate measure from Stalin to show Russian resources to be endless. Mass tactics were also part of Marxist-Leninist-Trotskist-Stalinist military doctrine where victory was pre-calculated on large scale. The doctrine was based on von Clausewitz, but it was further developed by Soviet leaders.

Later in the war mechanization and increase in firepower was used to replace human masses, but basically Soviet doctrine remained the same.

[PimpYourAFV]

Doubters and tankers as well as intelligent tacticians looking to sharpen their game....

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1075631&mpage=1&key=&#1075647