Originally posted by czerpak quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other combatants had to be more efficient with their resources, and did so, but that doesn't mean the US could not have accomplished the same thing had we been without resources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You hit the point - I think whole discussion goes around this question. But thats something we will never known for sure and it seems that our opinions on that issue are slightly different. I dont see any point in going any further into it, unless you really want to.
Czerpak
Quite right. The only motivation to continue this IMHO is that 'hurt patriotic pride' thing.
Maybe the Germans, fully armed and supplied as mentioned by Rasputitsa, were the best soldiers of both World Wars. So what?
Is this aynthing I, as a German, should be proud of or what?
The only 'good' thing resulting from that was the 1871 unification (including all its problems). So what was it worth, guys?
Dave
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.
Originally posted by czerpak quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nazi's may not have won the war with the U.S. neutral, but they sure wouldn't have lost...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think they would
Czerpak
My opinion too. Remember the Napoleonic Wars. Even if both (N. and H.) would have beaten the Russians/Soviets they (French/Germans) would never have been able to control their conquests permanently.
Dave
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.
Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir As a matter of interest i have just finnished a work on the Korean conflict where ironically, superior quality British/Cw formations stood firm as many US formations 'bugged out' to the rear in panic.
Much of the fault here is also poor leadership from above as it was'nt untill Ridgeway took over that the US forces got a decent and determined commander.
Loki
Is it possible to read your work? I'm definitely interested.
BTW Welcome to the 'animals club'.
Dave
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.
Originally posted by Muzrub I go away for a few days and I miss all the action!- how unfair!
Bugger- is there chance I can say something to someone now who could find it offensive- or have I missed the boat?
You missed best part, but you can start your own fight. It's enough to say e.g. that austrialian coke is better then american one, or that you have nicer landscapes .....
I'm sure somebody will fight about it or anything else. You know, they traditionally love to fight
(just joking, guys)
Maciej
Originally posted by czerpak Dave, I believe german people really suffered from that war. And all nations have something in history they would rather forget about. As I observe german attitude to what happened ( obviously if we forget such idiots like neonazis etc. and we have them here as well, amazing) I wish we had similar attitude to our history.
BTW have you heard about JEDWABNE ? thats small town where Poles murdered quite a lot of Jews, kids being burned out alive and such staff.
Czerpak
Sorry, never heard about JEDWABNE before. Things like that happened and noone wants to remember that.
It is known that in late 1945 there were no more Nazis on earth, only Anti-Nazis remaining... Most Austrians still think they had nothing to do with the Nazis, the Holocaust and so on... Of course I don't want to offend any Austrians!
If you look at map you find a city called Czerkasy.
IMO every WWII wargamer should know the Czerkasy (Korsun) pocket battle, right?
Dave
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.
Originally posted by czerpak
These are well known facts. But I really didnt expect anybody here to cry on what my nation suffered in WW2. I would never argue who suffered more. I believe that even if any nation suffered just a single live because of war it is already one to much. I really do.
They're not well known facts in the US. In textbooks for WWII, Poland only gets a footnote as the first victim of war by Germany.
My response wasn't directed at you, it was directed at the statement that Poland was just a recent (post-WWI) amalgamantion of German and Soviet territory, without any history of its own.
I don't get it, someone takes your side on some issue and you complain its an overreaction? Lighten up Czerpak, you and I don't often agree on things, so take advantage of the situation when we do.
Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir As a matter of interest i have just finnished a work on the Korean conflict where ironically, superior quality British/Cw formations stood firm as many US formations 'bugged out' to the rear in panic.
Much of the fault here is also poor leadership from above as it was'nt untill Ridgeway took over that the US forces got a decent and determined commander.
The US wasn't ready for that war, its true, I would however like to point out that later on American forces fought without any 4 to 1 advantage in logistical support against a more numerous enemy, and also fought for awhile with mediocre WWII tanks (Sherman Jumbos) against T34/85s, and held their own. The implication that US forces won in WWII soley because of a better logistical system, and outnumbering the enemy, is bogus I believe, but of course I can't prove it.
Ed, you're changing my opinion about Americans knowing nothing about european history. Are you particularly interested in Eastern Europe history or it's just a part of your wide-spread knowledge ?
I've held an interest in European history due to my interest in military matters. You Europeans have been , until the end of WWII, doing a wonderful job in conquering and killing one another for nearly 500 years, there is a rich mititalry history there.
As for Poland, it always seemed to be in the worst place possible, between Germany and Russia, its hard not to empathize with its situation. I remember reading that the first Polish nation state was mainly in response to the formation of a German (Prussian) nation state, so you guys have been on the defensive from the very beginning.
Originally posted by Ed Cogburn The implication that US forces won in WWII soley because of a better logistical system, and outnumbering the enemy, is bogus I believe, but of course I can't prove it.
Ed
Noone wrote 'soley'. Neither Czerpak, nor me or anyone else. So why do you understand it this way? Are now you taking that personally? Hmmm???
Anyway the implicated question was would the U.S. (and allies of course) have won the war without their material superiority, in a 1:1 situation, when idividual soldiers' and commanders' skills decide battles? I cannot prove that they wouldn't - it's anyway out of my interest to do so - and you can't prove they would.
Most interesting IMO regarding this discussion is that you couldn't left that point uncommented.
Dave
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.
Originally posted by davewolf IMO every WWII wargamer should know the Czerkasy (Korsun) pocket battle, right?
Damn, I missed that connection, even after talking about Korsun recently, sorry Czerpak. Maybe I am just a redneck, but at least I know the importance of Prohorovka.
Originally posted by davewolf
Noone wrote 'soley'.
why did US army had to use 4 times more war material to get the same result.
This is what I responded to. Do you now want to argue whether there is a "solely" in that sentence?
Most interesting IMO regarding this discussion is that you couldn't left that point uncommented.
Surely there are more interesting aspects to this discussion than my kneejerk reaction to an unflattering remark about my country? I'm surprised you would find this interesting, considering your statement
The only motivation to continue this IMHO is that 'hurt patriotic pride' thing.
Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
why did US army had to use 4 times more war material to get the same result.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what I responded to. Do you now want to argue whether there is a "solely" in that sentence?
Ed
This wasn't the context you used. However I accept that explanation. No problem.
Surely there are more interesting aspects to this discussion than my kneejerk reaction to an unflattering remark about my country? I'm surprised you would find this interesting, considering your statement
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only motivation to continue this IMHO is that 'hurt patriotic pride' thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So why are YOU continuing this discussion? Hmmmm?
I'm not continuing the discussion. I only commented your reaction. I didn't add any argument I didn't post before. Thought you would notice that.
And you also didn't add any new argument (at least regarding to the WWII thread). That's why I focussed on the 'personal' thing. I'm always interested in understanding people who I'm talking (or posting) to. So I just tried to understand your reaction.
At last if I really would want to continue arguing there would be a lot more I'd have to say. But I don't so what were you going to say?
Dave
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.
Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
Sad to say, but most rednecks from Tennessee couldn't find Poland on a map if their lives depended on it!
Ed
Most people in the world could'nt find poland on the map. In Oz (dont know about the rest of the world) geography holds a very low position on the education ladder. (a few rungs below History, how sad)
Also the comment on Korea was to point out the tragic results of poor higher command. The US army performed very well after the Idiots like Almond and dare i say his Imperial Magesty MacArthur were dumped. Any army put in the position of the last UN drive towards the Yalu in Late '50 would have suffered heavily to the well organised and lead Chinese counter attack that ensued. The US troops however, poorly trained and operationally misplaced by the dolts at the top paid a very heavy price.
MacArthur made the tradgic mistake of gathering toadies to build his satrapy centred on Japan. When it came to actually fighting a war those toadies did more harm than good.
Nick
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
They're not well known facts in the US. In textbooks for WWII, Poland only gets a footnote as the first victim of war by Germany.
Right, I should have remember you are not like average redneck. Thanks for reminding.
My response wasn't directed at you, it was directed at the statement that Poland was just a recent (post-WWI) amalgamantion of German and Soviet territory, without any history of its own.
I know, thats how I understood it.
I don't get it, someone takes your side on some issue and you complain its an overreaction? Lighten up Czerpak, you and I don't often agree on things, so take advantage of the situation when we do.
Sorry, I went thru my post again and cant find any complaints. You got me wrong, thats all. Only thing I wanted to say was I didnt like discussion to go in this direction. Simple.
I think we do agree on many things
Maciej
I've held an interest in European history due to my interest in military matters. You Europeans have been , until the end of WWII, doing a wonderful job in conquering and killing one another for nearly 500 years, there is a rich mititalry history there.
As for Poland, it always seemed to be in the worst place possible, between Germany and Russia, its hard not to empathize with its situation. I remember reading that the first Polish nation state was mainly in response to the formation of a German (Prussian) nation state, so you guys have been on the defensive from the very beginning.
500 years ? Dont underestimate us Make it double. First documented battle between Poles and Germans took place in 972. After that we went on and on and on....
Regarding Poland : it wasnt that bad, we were doing quite well until 18th century. Germany was divided for a long time, nobody even heard about Russia yet. I dare to say that for at least 100 years (15/16 century) Poland was one of main megapowers in Europe - if not the first one. In that time it was 2 countries union with Lhituania.
Have you tried by any chance Norman Davies "God's playground" ( I'm not sure about english title) ? Thats about polish history from a western prespective - quite objective I would say.
regards
Maciej
I bet you feel some sympathy for Eisenhower having to moderate and manage a multi-national force like us. You are quite right that the defence on Omaha and Utah was much stronger, but my point was that if the US higher command had accepted the gift of ‘Hobarts Funnies’, the collection of British specialised armoured vehicles, the loses may have been much reduced. There was some friction and misunderstanding between the Allies at the time, but no two armed forces have ever been combined so closely between independent nations. Montegomery often gets criticised, but as you said he was using the last reserves of British manpower and had to be cautious. Generals of any nation are rarely stupid, but they are pressured by politics, supply, misinformation and the need to do something while other people die. The presence of the SS PZ Divisions at Arnhem was probably well known. The Allied Airborne Divisions had been stood down several times, as the pace of advance through France constantly jumped ahead of operations that they had planned. The front had stopped moving in September and they would have gone, whatever the situation was. The plan called for the Arnhem bridge to be held for 2 days, even with the PZ divisions there, it was held for 5 days. What killed the operation was the strong German reaction in the whole area, making the plan for a thrust into Germany unfeasible. The German recovery surprised everyone on the Allied side.
One reason for the sensitivity on these issues is the attitude portrayed by the movie industry in mixing history and entertainment. ‘A Bridge too Far’ showed most British officers as idiots, verging on criminal negligence. The airborne forces had not been used that much and may hve suffered from inexperience. ‘U-571’ has stolen the story of the Royal Navy driving a U-boat to the surface and, as it sank, a party went aboard to retrieve codes and coding machine. Three men didn’t make it out in time and their families are saddened by their courage being hi-jacked in this way, with only a footnote at the end of the movie.
Still, armchair hindsight is a wonderful thing. War is chaos and everyone makes mistakes, you hope your enemy makes more of them. The value of something like WIR is that is puts you in the hot seat. How many attacks, which should have worked, go wrong with terrible casualties. This General business is tough work. I defer to those who know more about the internal functions in WIR than I do, but I am more than satisfied with what we have. Any more improvements are a bonus, but my vote would be to keep it as historically accurate as possible and use the game 'Help' and scenario edit features to adjust the balance to each person’s requirements.
"In politics stupidity is not a handicap" - Napoleon
“A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything” - Napoleon
“Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress" - Napoleon
Originally posted by Rasputitsa Ed
Generals of any nation are rarely stupid, but they are pressured by politics, supply, misinformation and the need to do something while other people die.
Raputitsa
I beg to differ. They may not be stupid but many are also pressured by self importance, power, status within the military/political hierachy.
Also many were simply not very good at their jobs, thus the 'need to do something while other people die' is probably the reason those people are dying
in the first place.
Respect must be earned by correct action, not because of a star or two stuck on a hat.
Loki
PS. Are you saying Monty did not engage heavily in power plays within the allied command to elevate his 'power/political' position?
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
Hello All
(A small Possum wanders onto the live fire range )
I'm not sure how well known this following information is. So please excuse if I'm posting the obvious...During WWII the U.S.Army operated under two large, self imposed handicaps. One of them so mind numbingly stupid that no other nation in WW2 ever had to cope with it.
1st) "Common Manpower Policy"
With this policy, the U.S.Army personnel department hoped to acheve a high standard and avaliability of manpower.
Basicly, the policy was that any given soldier belonged to the U.S.Army, and was therefor avaliable for service as the U.S.Army required.
In practical terms this meant, as soon as a soldier left his assigned unit for any reason, be it training, sick leave, whatever; He was immediately re-assigned to the general manpower pool, and a replacement soldier of the same speciality was despached from the general manpower pool to take over the soldiers place in that unit.
Thus the chance of that soldier ever returning to that unit was remote. While the policy did lead to a ready avaliabilty of replacement personnel; It did so at the cost of unit morale and efficency.
Consider the combat performance of U.S.Army divisions in WW2. You see a general trend of initialy excellent to good performance rapidly falling off to mediocer to poor performance.
This can be highlighted by the following example.
The U.S.Army 25th Infantry Division.
This division was formed from Pennsylvania National Guard units, and spent a year in training befor being federalized (I.E. it became a U.S.Army division.) and deployed to england. The personnel of this division had therefor known each other for many years, and had had a year to learn how to work together and build trust amongst themselves.
In England the division excelled at the wargames, leading to it being rated Excellent, and equal to the combat hardened british infantry divisions.
In it's first combat, the division, as expected performed well, although it took about 30% casualties doing so. Now if this had been anyone else's division, the vast majority of these casualtied would have gone back to their original units. Especially as the great bulk of the casualties were only unfit for combat for a period of less than a week. (IIRC the division only lost about 200 dead and another 500 severly wounded.) But thanks to the Common manpower policy, every one of these men was returned to the manpower pool, and the division was issued approximatetley 5000 new warm bodies to replace them! The result? The division lost its "Edge" as a combat formation, especially the infantry, which had taken 50% casualties. Gone was the trust and easy affinity that had caracterized the working relationships of it's component formations.
In the Infantry formations, there was now a definite split into "newby" and "Old buddy" camps
as the remaining veterans were now mainly concerned with covering each other, and the "newbys" being excluded from this support.
This effect was amply demonstrated in the next combat fought by the division, where it fought poorly and was just about destroyed as a combat formation.
The other major effect was to promote a high rate of desertion. However, most of these deserters where merly trying to return to their original unit, rather that go to an unfarmiliar, new unit.
2nd) The U.S.Army Personnel department greatly underestimated the % casualties that would be suffered by the Infantry specialists. As a result, the U.S.Army througought WW2 experienced a shortage of trained Infantrymen. The shortage was particulary chronic after D-Day. In fact many Divisions raised in 1944 where broken up on their arrival in England , just to supply trained infantry replacements for the divisions already in France. This further exaberated the effects of the common manpower policy, as specialists from other fields where sent foward as infantry replacements.
I.E. a infantry formation that had just come out of combat could look foward to seeing all of it's veteran, temporarilly unfit personnel dissapearing into the manpower pool, and they get back in exchange a whole lot of warm bodies that in many cases don't even have infantry training! or were veteran's that didn't want to be there. (in that particular unit.)
BTW I beleive that it was General McArther who was the General responsible for both of the above decisions when he was Chief of Personnel?/Army? prior to WW2.
"We're having a war, and we want you to come!"
So the pig began to whistle and to pound on a drum.
"We'll give you a gun, and we'll give you a hat!"
And the pig began to whistle when they told the piggies that.
