Is swamp defense being looked at?

Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: The German-Soviet War 1941-1945 is a turn-based World War II strategy game stretching across the entire Eastern Front. Gamers can engage in an epic campaign, including division-sized battles with realistic and historical terrain, weather, orders of battle, logistics and combat results.

The critically and fan-acclaimed Eastern Front mega-game Gary Grigsby’s War in the East just got bigger and better with Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: Don to the Danube! This expansion to the award-winning War in the East comes with a wide array of later war scenarios ranging from short but intense 6 turn bouts like the Battle for Kharkov (1942) to immense 37-turn engagements taking place across multiple nations like Drama on the Danube (Summer 1944 – Spring 1945).

Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21, elmo3

User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: Is swamp defense being looked at?

Post by TulliusDetritus »

Here is an except of what Halder had to say about combat in the Russian swamps and forests.

the Russian was able to move about in these impenetrable forests and treacherous swamps with the certain instinct and sense of security of an animal, whereas any soldier reared and trained in a civilized country of the West was severely restricted in his movements and thereby placed at a disadvantage.

There are no effective tactical remedies to compensate for this disadvantage. Even the most thorough training applied to troops from the West cannot replace the natural instinct peculiar to eastern Europeans who were born and raised in a region of forests and swamps [yeah, Soviet metrosexuals too, eh? [:D]]. In the course of several generations the Soviet policy of concentrating masses of workers in large industrial areas will certainly have the effect of eliminating these natural instincts, even among people of the eastern type [what are they? Insects? [:D]], but this is still far in the future [aka I know I sound like a moron so here's my half-ar** retort. Yes, you're an utter moron. Amen].

Plainly racist, therefore irrelevant and ignorant stuff. I am NOT talking about you, El Hefe, ONLY about this Halder. Who's that guy? Is he into some aryan brotherhood perhaps...? [8|]
Interesting comments by Halder considering the Russians got a big dose of that from the Finns in the pristine woods during the winter war where the Finns moved through the woods with grace and the Russians were more or less road bound

You hit the nail on the head, Klydon. Looks like this Halder thing missed that one, eh? [:D]
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Is swamp defense being looked at?

Post by Flaviusx »

Yeah, I gotta say that after reading that bit from Halder, he was deeper into the untermensch koolaid than I thought. I get what he's trying to say here, but the way he is saying it is pretty revealing.

His diaries don't contain anything like that. Or maybe they were polished up.



WitE Alpha Tester
squatter
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:13 pm

RE: Is swamp defense being looked at?

Post by squatter »

Very true. Halder scrabbling around with racist fantasies to basically save from admitting up front that the Russians are outwitting the Germans in the bad terrain.
B455
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 8:07 pm

RE: Is swamp defense being looked at?

Post by B455 »



Well I think we should not consider every "swamp" hex actually a swamp...there are so many different types of them out there in the nature. I consider it just difficult terrain area with non-existent or very sparse/poor roadnetwork. Hard to go through with motorized force, especially if there is enemy to defeat as well. So, I am kind of satisfied with the current way it is in Wite. Particularly I like how the Leningrad region's primeval forests and peat bogs halt down German panzers.
User avatar
budman999
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 8:54 pm

RE: Is swamp defense being looked at?

Post by budman999 »

Some of my reading indicates that the Germans simply were not comfortable fighting in woods, swamps, etc. because they had no (or very few) areas where they could effectively practice this skill - the forests in Germany being 'new' forests (ie. planted, spaced out, little undergrowth, etc.). As well they were jealously protected by the German administrations responsible for maintaining the forests.
Ubique
elmo3
Posts: 5797
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 10:00 am

RE: Is swamp defense being looked at?

Post by elmo3 »

ORIGINAL: squatter

I may have exaggerated slightly. It's been known.

I was not taking your comment literally. [;)] I'll be testing to see if swamp defense is giving the results we want.
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
Jakerson
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:46 am

RE: Is swamp defense being looked at?

Post by Jakerson »

ORIGINAL: el hefe

Personally, I don't know why people would be assaulting a swamp with a entire infantry corps. I treat swamps like a level five fortification in that I find somewhere else to go. No sense beating your head into the wall. Cut em off and leave them. If someone could provide a historical instance in which a German division or even a corps assaulted a 10 mile swamp area in Russia and cleared it out in less than a week, I might support some changes.

Trey
Same to me I do not understand why people hit their head on the brick wall and attacking where enemy has strongest natural fortresses helping them to defend. Of course attacking against bad terrain delay operations and advance as it should be and it should take a longer to clear swamp from enemy troops than other terrain. It is just realistic. Choosing correct time table and attacking lines is important aspect for German player in this game and I do not want this aspect of game to cripple by allowing very unhistorical game play. Germans having problem with Swamps adds historical accuracy to game.

I love the fact that this game forces people to plan how they attack and where instead of just mindlessly attacking everything that move without taking any note about terrain.

Mehring
Posts: 2473
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:30 am

RE: Is swamp defense being looked at?

Post by Mehring »

ORIGINAL: Klydon
The airfield bombing issues revolve around the Red Air force bombing the crap out of Luftwaffe airfields and at the end of the day, achieving a 1:1 loss ratio when in fact they would be slaughtered by German ME 109's in 1941. 
Wow! Can the LW destroy 6000 planes in T1 and the Russian airforce still bite back? On T1 or a few turns later?
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky
squatter
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:13 pm

RE: Is swamp defense being looked at?

Post by squatter »

ORIGINAL:  Jakerson
ORIGINAL:  el hefe
Personally, I don't know why people would be assaulting a swamp with a entire infantry corps.  I treat swamps like a level five fortification in that I find somewhere else to go.  No sense beating your head into the wall.  Cut em off and leave them.  If someone could provide a historical instance in which a German division or even a corps assaulted a 10 mile swamp area in Russia and cleared it out in less than a week, I might support some changes. 
Trey
Same to me I do not understand why people hit their head on the brick wall and attacking where enemy has strongest natural fortresses helping them to defend. Of course attacking against bad terrain delay operations and advance as it should be and it should take a longer to clear swamp from enemy troops than other terrain. It is just realistic. Choosing correct time table and attacking lines is important aspect for German player in this game and I do not want this aspect of game to cripple by allowing very unhistorical game play. Germans having problem with Swamps adds historical accuracy to game.
I love the fact that this game forces people to plan how they attack and where instead of just mindlessly attacking everything that move without taking any note about terrain.
Yes, that's exactly how I play. I head straight for the nearest swamp or heavy forrest, and throw everything I've got at them. It's actually a priority for me. If you cant control the wilderness, how can you control yourself?
B455
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 8:07 pm

RE: Is swamp defense being looked at?

Post by B455 »

ORIGINAL: Budman

Some of my reading indicates that the Germans simply were not comfortable fighting in woods, swamps, etc. because they had no (or very few) areas where they could effectively practice this skill - the forests in Germany being 'new' forests (ie. planted, spaced out, little undergrowth, etc.). As well they were jealously protected by the German administrations responsible for maintaining the forests.

They were afraid of vast forests and total wilderness that exists in Russia. It certainly wasn't their home ground. And Germans always kept noise - a lot of noise. Russians could hear them coming and ambush accordingly.
Jakerson
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:46 am

RE: Is swamp defense being looked at?

Post by Jakerson »

ORIGINAL: Mehring
Wow! Can the LW destroy 6000 planes in T1 and the Russian airforce still bite back? On T1 or a few turns later?

Yes it can and that is historical too. Luftwaffe surprise strike on Soviet airfield at start of operation Barbarossa was probably one of the largest successes in known military history.

"The Luftwaffe claimed to have destroyed 1,489 aircraft on the first day of operations.[16] Hermann Göring, Chief of the Luftwaffe distrusted the reports and ordered the figure checked. Picking through the wreckages of Soviet airfields, the Luftwaffe's figures proved conservative, as over 2000 destroyed Soviet aircraft were found.[16] The Germans claimed to have destroyed only 3,100 Soviet aircraft in the first three days. In fact the Soviet losses were far higher, some 3,922 Soviet machines had been lost (according to Russian historian Viktor Kulikov).[17] The Luftwaffe had achieved air superiority over all three sectors of the front, and would maintain it until the close of the year, largely due to the need by the Red Army Air Forces to maneuver in support of retreating ground troops. The Luftwaffe would now be able to devote large numbers of its Geschwader (See Luftwaffe Organization) to support the ground forces."

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent ... Barbarossa
notenome
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:07 pm

RE: Is swamp defense being looked at?

Post by notenome »

Funny thing about Halder is that after the war he worked in the US Army Historical Division, and was awarded the Meritorious Civilian Service Award. As for swamps, in fact Vlasov made sixth army's life a living hell raiding them continuously from the Swamps as they stalled near Kiev, so much so that Vlasov bears the dubious honor of being the only general deliberately targeted for destruction by Hitler (especially ironic since he latter defected). That said, having armored units in swamps not project ZOCs makes some sense, but I think what would make more sense would be for any armored unit in a swamp to have a much increased percentage of its vehicles become damaged.
User avatar
Great_Ajax
Posts: 4924
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Oklahoma, USA

RE: Is swamp defense being looked at?

Post by Great_Ajax »

That quote from Halder actually comes from the US Army publication "Combat in Russian Swamps and Forests".

Trey
ORIGINAL: notenome

Funny thing about Halder is that after the war he worked in the US Army Historical Division, and was awarded the Meritorious Civilian Service Award. As for swamps, in fact Vlasov made sixth army's life a living hell raiding them continuously from the Swamps as they stalled near Kiev, so much so that Vlasov bears the dubious honor of being the only general deliberately targeted for destruction by Hitler (especially ironic since he latter defected). That said, having armored units in swamps not project ZOCs makes some sense, but I think what would make more sense would be for any armored unit in a swamp to have a much increased percentage of its vehicles become damaged.
"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer
User avatar
pompack
Posts: 2585
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 1:44 am
Location: University Park, Texas

RE: Is swamp defense being looked at?

Post by pompack »

ORIGINAL: el hefe

That quote from Halder actually comes from the US Army publication "Combat in Russian Swamps and Forests".

Trey
ORIGINAL: notenome

Funny thing about Halder is that after the war he worked in the US Army Historical Division, and was awarded the Meritorious Civilian Service Award. As for swamps, in fact Vlasov made sixth army's life a living hell raiding them continuously from the Swamps as they stalled near Kiev, so much so that Vlasov bears the dubious honor of being the only general deliberately targeted for destruction by Hitler (especially ironic since he latter defected). That said, having armored units in swamps not project ZOCs makes some sense, but I think what would make more sense would be for any armored unit in a swamp to have a much increased percentage of its vehicles become damaged.

One of my reference books has this beautiful color picture of an entire platoon of T34s sunk up to their turrets in a swamp.
notenome
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:07 pm

RE: Is swamp defense being looked at?

Post by notenome »

Yes I remember when I was playing lost victories there's a reference to a comissar who ordered a company (I think) of T-34s into a swamp, and after realizing his mistake, shot himself.
User avatar
Zebedee
Posts: 535
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 11:52 am

RE: Is swamp defense being looked at?

Post by Zebedee »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Yeah, I gotta say that after reading that bit from Halder, he was deeper into the untermensch koolaid than I thought. I get what he's trying to say here, but the way he is saying it is pretty revealing.

His diaries don't contain anything like that. Or maybe they were polished up.

His 'diaries' are really just notes he kept from the war and then polished up post-war. Even in the polishing, the odd little thing is let slip with regards to his feelings on various races (IIRC one such comment which slipped through redaction is related to Hungarian demands just prior to Barbarossa). Interesting to note is the similarities between what the post-war Halder attributes to the Soviets and what certain British general officers attributed to the Japanese during the war. Also of interest are the lacunae in the OKH survey of the marshes, especially in light of the German operations there in WW1.
Image
User avatar
PyleDriver
Posts: 5906
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:38 pm
Location: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas

RE: Is swamp defense being looked at?

Post by PyleDriver »

In my tests, which were after the last changes regarding swamps, seem that they reflected the problems with swamps. Yes there a bitch, plan around them...
Jon Pyle
AWD Beta tester
WBTS Alpha tester
WitE Alpha tester
WitW Alpha tester
WitE2 Alpha tester
User avatar
henri51
Posts: 1151
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 7:07 pm

RE: Is swamp defense being looked at?

Post by henri51 »

If you forget the racist overtones, what Halder was saying was that the Russians were better than the Germans in fighting in difficult terrain, especially forested swamps,because they knew how to use it to their advantage. The US soldiers faced the same type of problem in Vietnamese jungles, not to mention the British in the American Revolutionary War. ("Vat are those American soldiers doing behind our lines and attacking before daylight? NO FAIR! Is that any vay to fight a var"?)

Henri
B455
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 8:07 pm

RE: Is swamp defense being looked at?

Post by B455 »


Also consider the numerous Soviet Siniavino offensives to raise the Leningrad blockade that took place in swamps... Or Staraya Russa area offensives or Volkhov... In all these battles terrain that was mostly marshlands greatly favoured the defender and Soviets took terrible losses for basically getting nowhere.
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: Is swamp defense being looked at?

Post by TulliusDetritus »

ORIGINAL: henri51

If you forget the racist overtones, what Halder was saying was that the Russians were better than the Germans in fighting in difficult terrain, especially forested swamps,because they knew how to use it to their advantage.
Henri

Yes. And from the brutal combats in Stalingrad we should therefore conclude that the Russians were good at figthing in cities... because after all the Russian landscape contained some cities [:D]

This clown (Halder that is) could not see the truth simply because he was looking through a racist glass... And the truth was simply that the Soviets would NOT surrender, they would fight to the last man or woman. Ergo the place of the combat per se IS totally irrelevant: marshes, cities, plains, rivers or mountains... If the Germans want it, they will get it. End of the story. It is also called the will to resist. A competent military guy should know this.

And one more thing, as far as I know the Japanese don't have jungles (Malaysia and Burma campaigns). And they were reputed jungle warriors. Just like the Australians in New Guinea [;)]
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series”