I'm inclined to agree. But, if that were the system the cost has to be balanced so that as you spend toward increasing experience you'll get diminishing gains.
Tomo
Elites.....
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
I posted a reply already yeasterday, but I quess forum went down then and it newer reached this post.
OK, using the ammount of surrendering men as some sort of yardstic for how good the soldiers are is a bit narrowsighted. There are so many factors involved in the happenings that making such suggestion even if as a joke is ridiculous. Early in the war Germans had better training and more experience(from Spain for example and Chechkoslovakia). Then they gained experience in France and again in Russia. Later that knowledge declined as casualitys increased and more green guys came to the units and also the opponents gained experience.
The reason why US and some others did not surrender in great quatities to Germans was simply that they did not meet early in the war. If US troops had been in France in large numbers, I bet they would have surrendered in hordes too. And if I remember correctly, of those US forces in Pacific, Japanese got quite a lot of prisoners even if they were not having that much more men.
And the marines. If I remember correctly the fighting was not mano a mano, but marines had something the Japs did not have to counter the dug in positions. Aple amounts of arty, planes, ammo, food, medical supplies(how well does sick people fight), better equipement etc. The marines were good, do not take me wrong, but they were not elite. And the ones that landed in France were green I think. The ones that got experience in North africa with superiour numbers and not with being so much better continued in Italy, I believe.
And us Finns. Most of our guys were not elite, but they knew the terrain and conditions, which the game can not simulate. If the same units that annihilated those poor Ukrainians in Raate road had met the same opponents in Ukrainian Pusta, the outcome might most likely have been the opposite. The ukrainians were not able to use the arctic wildernes as well as those Finnish troops that had spent a good part of their lives in similar forests and in such harsh conditions. It is a hell to be in those forests in -35 Celsius even without fighting if you do not have experienced it before.
Also important considering Elite forces is that usually they collect the fysically best men in those units, and thus they are able to take more strain and their ability to fight does not decline so fast as the battle continues. Again game is not able to simulate this. If I remember correctly, when the war progressed also the SS dropped the must be long, blond and Nazi to simply get the fysically better men even if they were dark haired.
OK, using the ammount of surrendering men as some sort of yardstic for how good the soldiers are is a bit narrowsighted. There are so many factors involved in the happenings that making such suggestion even if as a joke is ridiculous. Early in the war Germans had better training and more experience(from Spain for example and Chechkoslovakia). Then they gained experience in France and again in Russia. Later that knowledge declined as casualitys increased and more green guys came to the units and also the opponents gained experience.
The reason why US and some others did not surrender in great quatities to Germans was simply that they did not meet early in the war. If US troops had been in France in large numbers, I bet they would have surrendered in hordes too. And if I remember correctly, of those US forces in Pacific, Japanese got quite a lot of prisoners even if they were not having that much more men.
And the marines. If I remember correctly the fighting was not mano a mano, but marines had something the Japs did not have to counter the dug in positions. Aple amounts of arty, planes, ammo, food, medical supplies(how well does sick people fight), better equipement etc. The marines were good, do not take me wrong, but they were not elite. And the ones that landed in France were green I think. The ones that got experience in North africa with superiour numbers and not with being so much better continued in Italy, I believe.
And us Finns. Most of our guys were not elite, but they knew the terrain and conditions, which the game can not simulate. If the same units that annihilated those poor Ukrainians in Raate road had met the same opponents in Ukrainian Pusta, the outcome might most likely have been the opposite. The ukrainians were not able to use the arctic wildernes as well as those Finnish troops that had spent a good part of their lives in similar forests and in such harsh conditions. It is a hell to be in those forests in -35 Celsius even without fighting if you do not have experienced it before.
Also important considering Elite forces is that usually they collect the fysically best men in those units, and thus they are able to take more strain and their ability to fight does not decline so fast as the battle continues. Again game is not able to simulate this. If I remember correctly, when the war progressed also the SS dropped the must be long, blond and Nazi to simply get the fysically better men even if they were dark haired.
I do not necessarily disagree with any of your points. You may not have caught the gist of my point. It is ludicrous to think that all of any nation's army are elite.(except maybe your country-no sarcasm)Originally posted by JTGEN:
I posted a reply already yeasterday, but I quess forum went down then and it newer reached this post.
OK, using the ammount of surrendering men as some sort of yardstic for how good the soldiers are is a bit narrowsighted. There are so many factors involved in the happenings that making such suggestion even if as a joke is ridiculous. Early in the war Germans had better training and more experience(from Spain for example and Chechkoslovakia). Then they gained experience in France and again in Russia. Later that knowledge declined as casualitys increased and more green guys came to the units and also the opponents gained experience.
The reason why US and some others did not surrender in great quatities to Germans was simply that they did not meet early in the war. If US troops had been in France in large numbers, I bet they would have surrendered in hordes too. And if I remember correctly, of those US forces in Pacific, Japanese got quite a lot of prisoners even if they were not having that much more men.
And the marines. If I remember correctly the fighting was not mano a mano, but marines had something the Japs did not have to counter the dug in positions. Aple amounts of arty, planes, ammo, food, medical supplies(how well does sick people fight), better equipement etc. The marines were good, do not take me wrong, but they were not elite. And the ones that landed in France were green I think. The ones that got experience in North africa with superiour numbers and not with being so much better continued in Italy, I believe.
And us Finns. Most of our guys were not elite, but they knew the terrain and conditions, which the game can not simulate. If the same units that annihilated those poor Ukrainians in Raate road had met the same opponents in Ukrainian Pusta, the outcome might most likely have been the opposite. The ukrainians were not able to use the arctic wildernes as well as those Finnish troops that had spent a good part of their lives in similar forests and in such harsh conditions. It is a hell to be in those forests in -35 Celsius even without fighting if you do not have experienced it before.
Also important considering Elite forces is that usually they collect the fysically best men in those units, and thus they are able to take more strain and their ability to fight does not decline so fast as the battle continues. Again game is not able to simulate this. If I remember correctly, when the war progressed also the SS dropped the must be long, blond and Nazi to simply get the fysically better men even if they were dark haired.
There seems to be no problem with some players thinking that it is great that Germany has such large advanatges in the early war years. These same people who do not want Germany to get its just desserts at the end of the war for the most part.
The massive artillery advantages for the US have been removed. We also did not do too shabbily in the other phases of combat as the war progressed. It seems as though some players want to act as if the US never engaged in small arms combat.(that is fantasy land, or does the Battle of the Bulge ring a bell?)
The whole point of my posting this thread was to get a dialog going on what constitutes elite status. I think I have accomplished this. My own opinions on elitehood may not match what my initial posts were.(no problem making myself look dumb to prove a point)
I do believe that some German units were elite. I also believe that some Americans were elite. I know that some Finns were elite.(hell I would say to simulate the Finns home court advantage they should all be)
just my two cents,
sven
[ June 19, 2001: Message edited by: sven ]
-
General Mayhem
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Country of six thousand lakes and one truth
- Contact:
I think there was no one Waffen-SS troops.Originally posted by Tombstone:
I really think its because of the opportunities for experience that the first three SS PzDivs got. If anything, experience aside, SS units would wage war less intelligently than their heer counterparts. However, and this makes a big difference, the SS unit would have far better morale and courage (or foolhardiness). That would probably more than make up for the tactical mistakes, but there would be more casualties.
Tomo
Which makes evaluating them difficult.
Among Waffen-SS were also foreigners. Infact
considereds atleast second best(if not best) SS Division Wiking was compromised mostly of non germans who were not politically indoctrinaded.
On the other hand, composition of
SS troops varied considerably diffrent
times and many of them propably were marginal use only.
I think SS troops were not at averge elite units what comes battle skills, valor and tactical ability, altough there were Waffen SS troops that fighted better than average Heer units.
That is, when training and human material meeted each other.
-----------------------------
Sex, rags and and rock'n roll!
------------------------------
Sex, rags and and rock'n roll!
------------------------------
-
Charles2222
- Posts: 3687
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am
The way I lookm at it, elites have one or more of the following qualities, and as long as you have regular units who don't have those qualities, the elites will exist. To me, off the top of my head, those qualitites are in not necessarily any order: better tactics, better success in general, better equipment, better conditioning, better pool, better commanders, stronger will to do what others would hesitate or fail to do (advance under heavy fire etc.), but not necessarily ever need to use it and better cohesion.
Good points Charles,Originally posted by Charles_22:
The way I lookm at it, elites have one or more of the following qualities, and as long as you have regular units who don't have those qualities, the elites will exist. To me, off the top of my head, those qualitites are in not necessarily any order: better tactics, better success in general, better equipment, better conditioning, better pool, better commanders, stronger will to do what others would hesitate or fail to do (advance under heavy fire etc.), but not necessarily ever need to use it and better cohesion.
sven
please drop by chat soon...
When I'm talking about the early Waffen SS units I'm really only talking about 1st, 2nd, 3rd SS, and 5th SS. Past that there's a lot of ammunition to debate against the overall quality of the SS units. These are the same four SS divisions that went through the most combat. They got good solid experience early in the war as motorised divisions and got a lot of non-desperate fighting in (eventually they had plenty of desperate fighting too). I agree that only some of the SS troops could even be considered better than standard wehrmacht... and by the same token there were many units out there (GD being the outstanding example) that were really experienced and effective as well. I'm with Sven on the pay for quality increase, regardless of unit type.
Charles, I agree with you. But I think in the context of the game things are more limited.
Tomo
Charles, I agree with you. But I think in the context of the game things are more limited.
Tomo
From what I've read - Elite troops went through vigorous training for tactics, physical and mental conditioning. Those that didn't pass went BACK to the regular ranks.
A Russian GUARDS unit was not designated that unless it had won a major victory. I don't consider them elite but definately better than average.
Also, the typical German infantry and Tank unit at the beginning of WW2 were better trained than most countries. Better but not elite. The British could have been elite if they'd had better leaders.
In the British training the troopers that didn't make it ended up in Reserve battalions - so they seperated their men from the beginning.
The Marines had better training and troopers that didn't make it had to go to the Army. And After Tarawa the Marines as a whole were an Elite fighting force. I've read accounts of not only WW2 but in Korea were the difference between Army and Marine units was very big. Nothing against the Army, it's just not an Elite Force.
Figmo
A Russian GUARDS unit was not designated that unless it had won a major victory. I don't consider them elite but definately better than average.
Also, the typical German infantry and Tank unit at the beginning of WW2 were better trained than most countries. Better but not elite. The British could have been elite if they'd had better leaders.
In the British training the troopers that didn't make it ended up in Reserve battalions - so they seperated their men from the beginning.The Marines had better training and troopers that didn't make it had to go to the Army. And After Tarawa the Marines as a whole were an Elite fighting force. I've read accounts of not only WW2 but in Korea were the difference between Army and Marine units was very big. Nothing against the Army, it's just not an Elite Force.
Figmo
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, f
Nothing against the jar heads they are all hype!Originally posted by Figmo:
From what I've read - Elite troops went through vigorous training for tactics, physical and mental conditioning. Those that didn't pass went BACK to the regular ranks.
A Russian GUARDS unit was not designated that unless it had won a major victory. I don't consider them elite but definately better than average.
Also, the typical German infantry and Tank unit at the beginning of WW2 were better trained than most countries. Better but not elite. The British could have been elite if they'd had better leaders.
The Marines had better training and troopers that didn't make it had to go to the Army. And After Tarawa the Marines as a whole were an Elite fighting force. I've read accounts of not only WW2 but in Korea were the difference between Army and Marine units was very big. Nothing against the Army, it's just not an Elite Force.
Figmo
The Army is a better force than the corps...
regards,
sven
Nothing personal Sven - but you must have a bios. Now I can only go by what I've read - so take it for what it's worth - but from what I've read one thing stands out as an example.Originally posted by sven:
Nothing against the jar heads they are all hype!
The Army is a better force than the corps...
regards,
sven
In Boot camp the army marches - which is good but the Marines don't march - they run - and this while carrying a telephone pole as a squad unit. That not only gets them physically fit - it teaches them right away how to work as group. Just one small example.
Again, I haven't seen it first hand but it's this kind of thing I've read about elite units that makes it understandable to me.
I know also that many people and commanders don't like elite troops - but when they need a cliff scaled by elite troops to sneak up on the enemy after losing many many regulars trying to capture it their way - they'll become believers.
Figmo
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, f
Figmo: The Army conducted twice the amphibious assaults gaining three times the land as Uncle Sam's Misguided Children. The Army has always handled amphibious logistics better than the corp. Playing really tough is a part of being elite, but following a better doctrine more closely is a bigger part.Originally posted by Figmo:
Nothing personal Sven - but you must have a bios. Now I can only go by what I've read - so take it for what it's worth - but from what I've read one thing stands out as an example.
In Boot camp the army marches - which is good but the Marines don't march - they run - and this while carrying a telephone pole as a squad unit. That not only gets them physically fit - it teaches them right away how to work as group. Just one small example.
Again, I haven't seen it first hand but it's this kind of thing I've read about elite units that makes it understandable to me.
I know also that many people and commanders don't like elite troops - but when they need a cliff scaled by elite troops to sneak up on the enemy after losing many many regulars trying to capture it their way - they'll become believers.
Figmo
nothing personal,
sven
p.s. I am biased I am ex USA Infantry, but I have Marines in my family that know what I just typed is the truth also. Marines are better at the initial assault, but not as good at Island clearing.
Sorry....
Respectfully I must disagree. Even though one of my sons is in the US Army Bootcamp in Georgia right now.
I feel there is more to it than Beach Assaults but if you must use this as an example lets look at it.
The Army used Rangers - elite troops - as the lead troops and in almost every assault had paratroopers - more elite troops - land inland to hold back reinforcements. The Marines had non of these advantages plus they were fighting Japanese on an island that didn't surrender - they fought to the death - much harder than fighting Germans on open land that have been out flanked by Paratroopers. Look at the number of prisoners the Army has been able to capture Assaulting beaches - because the Germans didn't fight to the death. And Jungle fighting is worse than the Hurtgen forest - how did the Army do in the Hurtgen forest - very bad!! Entire Army divisions had to be pull out of the line - one after only a few weeks.
I still feel my son is in a fine fighting unit - I'm not sure I would like him to be in an Elite force because their casualties are usually higher.
Figmo
I feel there is more to it than Beach Assaults but if you must use this as an example lets look at it.
The Army used Rangers - elite troops - as the lead troops and in almost every assault had paratroopers - more elite troops - land inland to hold back reinforcements. The Marines had non of these advantages plus they were fighting Japanese on an island that didn't surrender - they fought to the death - much harder than fighting Germans on open land that have been out flanked by Paratroopers. Look at the number of prisoners the Army has been able to capture Assaulting beaches - because the Germans didn't fight to the death. And Jungle fighting is worse than the Hurtgen forest - how did the Army do in the Hurtgen forest - very bad!! Entire Army divisions had to be pull out of the line - one after only a few weeks.
I still feel my son is in a fine fighting unit - I'm not sure I would like him to be in an Elite force because their casualties are usually higher.
Figmo
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, f
Figmo: The Army conducted more amphib in the Pacific also fighting the same Japanese. The Japanese were not even anywhere near the same league as the Germans as opponents. It sounds as though you have bought into the glamour, and that is your right.Originally posted by Figmo:
Respectfully I must disagree. Even though one of my sons is in the US Army Bootcamp in Georgia right now.
I feel there is more to it than Beach Assaults but if you must use this as an example lets look at it.
The Army used Rangers - elite troops - as the lead troops and in almost every assault had paratroopers - more elite troops - land inland to hold back reinforcements. The Marines had non of these advantages plus they were fighting Japanese on an island that didn't surrender - they fought to the death - much harder than fighting Germans on open land that have been out flanked by Paratroopers. Look at the number of prisoners the Army has been able to capture Assaulting beaches - because the Germans didn't fight to the death. And Jungle fighting is worse than the Hurtgen forest - how did the Army do in the Hurtgen forest - very bad!! Entire Army divisions had to be pull out of the line - one after only a few weeks.
I still feel my son is in a fine fighting unit - I'm not sure I would like him to be in an Elite force because their casualties are usually higher.
Figmo
Try reading dirty Little Secrets of WW2, or go visit the infantry school down at Benning and look into the Official History of WW2. The Army forgot a few things the Marines had as standard issue in the Pacific. 1) A reporter with every platoon, and 2)A cameraman with every squad.
I respect the Corps for what it is, and not what the hype is. I have fought the Corps out at the NTC. You know what their biggest weakness is? They do not learn how to retreat.
If you would like I will explain that to you, and how we routinely use it to throttle them on Joint FTXs. Drop by the chat room and we can jaw it over. I have shared both beer, and knuckles with Marines.
regards,
sven
p.s. we'll just have to agree to disagree...
[ June 19, 2001: Message edited by: sven ]
Originally posted by Figmo:
Respectfully I must disagree. Even though one of my sons is in the US Army Bootcamp in Georgia right now.
I feel there is more to it than Beach Assaults but if you must use this as an example lets look at it.
The Army used Rangers - elite troops - as the lead troops and in almost every assault had paratroopers - more elite troops - land inland to hold back reinforcements. The Marines had non of these advantages plus they were fighting Japanese on an island that didn't surrender - they fought to the death - much harder than fighting Germans on open land that have been out flanked by Paratroopers. Look at the number of prisoners the Army has been able to capture Assaulting beaches - because the Germans didn't fight to the death. And Jungle fighting is worse than the Hurtgen forest - how did the Army do in the Hurtgen forest - very bad!! Entire Army divisions had to be pull out of the line - one after only a few weeks.
I still feel my son is in a fine fighting unit - I'm not sure I would like him to be in an Elite force because their casualties are usually higher.
Figmo
Figmo: The Marines had ParaMarines. It is not my fault they did not utilize the superior doctrine. God Bless them and I am glad they were on our side, but the Army did it better in both theatres. If you do not measure 'eliteness by what is done by the force what is it a measure of?
Were some Marines 'Elite'?
Absolutely!
Were all?
Absolutely not!
Were a higher percent of Marines elite than the US Army?
Maybe...
But they were not all elite.
sorry
That is my opinion and I am sticking to it,
sven
p.s.:I am not saying that all the USA was elite... just find you comparing the hurtgen to any Pacific Island funny...
we beat Tojo with about 20% of our ground forces...
take that for what it is worth.
-
Charles2222
- Posts: 3687
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am
From what I've seen commented on German forces of WWII, the SS was in "somewhat" the same elite terms as US marines (For example the marine training described above is comparable to SS training in that SS men were placed in front a tank coming their way and had to dig a ditch before it ran them over. Screwball kind of stuff, but such determination might really be needed). With the similarities, I think you would find that both regular armies cut them down, because the elites regarded themselves as better. I think the doctrine for the SS and marines was largely similar in basically refusing to retreat. Now whether they retreat or not has more to do with them trying to establish that they're better then the regulars, or that it's actually part of their ethos I don't know. Which came first, the elites saying they don't retreat, or their refusal to retreat being a reaction to the regulars regarding them as not elite? I suppose you would've had to be there when those elites were formed back decades ago to really know.
In any case, I can see how the regulars would regard the elites as non-elite, because they don't retreat, whereas the elites might regard the non-elites as weaker because they do. It's a toss-up as to which strategy is better. The regular armies are depending on teamwork within the entire framework of the nation to allow retreats, whereas I think the elite formations are trained to regard themselves as self-sustaining, so that retreat wouldn't work often enough. There's times when an army, such as the German 6th in Stalingrad, has to learn how to fight when cut-off and there's others when just holding so much turf gets stupid, particularly when the commander knows there'll be a relief force fully capable of throwing the enemy back, on it's way.
All in all, I think both the SS and marines are/were taught to pretty much not expect any help and that they'd have to get themselves out of their own mess. The marines, maybe more because of their amphibious role, the SS more because of their closer ties, generally, to the political role.
Having a higher loss rate doesn't necessarily indicate weakness, as indeed that may be true in many instances of both the SS and marines. Fiercer fighting usually results in higher loss rates. Just ask the enemy of any given nation out of who they feared going up against the most, whatever the reason, and you will also find it's because they fight the fiercest. It's likely that the cut-off 6th Army in Stalingrad (not that they were SS) inflicted more losses on the enemy than the retreating BEF in '40 and of course it probably had more losses (before the surrender).
In any case, I can see how the regulars would regard the elites as non-elite, because they don't retreat, whereas the elites might regard the non-elites as weaker because they do. It's a toss-up as to which strategy is better. The regular armies are depending on teamwork within the entire framework of the nation to allow retreats, whereas I think the elite formations are trained to regard themselves as self-sustaining, so that retreat wouldn't work often enough. There's times when an army, such as the German 6th in Stalingrad, has to learn how to fight when cut-off and there's others when just holding so much turf gets stupid, particularly when the commander knows there'll be a relief force fully capable of throwing the enemy back, on it's way.
All in all, I think both the SS and marines are/were taught to pretty much not expect any help and that they'd have to get themselves out of their own mess. The marines, maybe more because of their amphibious role, the SS more because of their closer ties, generally, to the political role.
Having a higher loss rate doesn't necessarily indicate weakness, as indeed that may be true in many instances of both the SS and marines. Fiercer fighting usually results in higher loss rates. Just ask the enemy of any given nation out of who they feared going up against the most, whatever the reason, and you will also find it's because they fight the fiercest. It's likely that the cut-off 6th Army in Stalingrad (not that they were SS) inflicted more losses on the enemy than the retreating BEF in '40 and of course it probably had more losses (before the surrender).
-
General Mayhem
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Country of six thousand lakes and one truth
- Contact:
Whatever the case, I think that gettingOriginally posted by Charles_22:
I think the doctrine for the SS and marines was largely similar in basically refusing to retreat. Now whether they retreat or not has more to do with them trying to establish that they're better then the regulars, or that it's actually part of their ethos I don't know. Which came first, the elites saying they don't retreat, or their refusal to retreat being a reaction to the regulars regarding them as not elite? I suppose you would've had to be there when those elites were formed back decades ago to really know.
(before the surrender).
situation where one must consider retreating
against preplanned plan, is bad tactics itself. If some troops contiously finds
themselves in such situations, is it
fault of how troops are lead or some
general problem that put's them to such
desperate situation?
Also my view is that elite troop as a
concept should be reserved only troops
that have lot of actual combat experience
and who have fought well.
I think for example special troops, should not be considered elite, but more a veteran
, unless they have fough a lot and
well. Personally, do me it seems while
Special Forces have been sexy, they have
not many times succeeded what is expected
of them.
As I see it, regular troops that have fough
expectionally well with lot of experience should be considered elite too.
What comes to game, it may have diffrent
way to interprenet what is elite and
it may have diffrent meaning. But above
is how I'd understand a concept of a elite troops and how it relates to real life
armies.
I sort of see that actual Elite troops
should be pretty rare, and theyc could
be almost any branch. Certainly not
be privilige of some branch on some armed forces. Atleast it doesn't seem right to me.
-----------------------------
Sex, rags and and rock'n roll!
------------------------------
Sex, rags and and rock'n roll!
------------------------------
Originally posted by Charles_22:
From what I've seen commented on German forces of WWII, the SS was in "somewhat" the same elite terms as US marines (For example the marine training described above is comparable to SS training in that SS men were placed in front a tank coming their way and had to dig a ditch before it ran them over. Screwball kind of stuff, but such determination might really be needed). With the similarities, I think you would find that both regular armies cut them down, because the elites regarded themselves as better. I think the doctrine for the SS and marines was largely similar in basically refusing to retreat. Now whether they retreat or not has more to do with them trying to establish that they're better then the regulars, or that it's actually part of their ethos I don't know. Which came first, the elites saying they don't retreat, or their refusal to retreat being a reaction to the regulars regarding them as not elite? I suppose you would've had to be there when those elites were formed back decades ago to really know.
In any case, I can see how the regulars would regard the elites as non-elite, because they don't retreat, whereas the elites might regard the non-elites as weaker because they do. It's a toss-up as to which strategy is better. The regular armies are depending on teamwork within the entire framework of the nation to allow retreats, whereas I think the elite formations are trained to regard themselves as self-sustaining, so that retreat wouldn't work often enough. There's times when an army, such as the German 6th in Stalingrad, has to learn how to fight when cut-off and there's others when just holding so much turf gets stupid, particularly when the commander knows there'll be a relief force fully capable of throwing the enemy back, on it's way.
All in all, I think both the SS and marines are/were taught to pretty much not expect any help and that they'd have to get themselves out of their own mess. The marines, maybe more because of their amphibious role, the SS more because of their closer ties, generally, to the political role.
Having a higher loss rate doesn't necessarily indicate weakness, as indeed that may be true in many instances of both the SS and marines. Fiercer fighting usually results in higher loss rates. Just ask the enemy of any given nation out of who they feared going up against the most, whatever the reason, and you will also find it's because they fight the fiercest. It's likely that the cut-off 6th Army in Stalingrad (not that they were SS) inflicted more losses on the enemy than the retreating BEF in '40 and of course it probably had more losses (before the surrender).
Charles not being able to conduct a good withdrawl is not cool, it is stupid. The Marines do not know how to do a good fighting withdrawl(Rangers and SEALS both manage to pull it off somehow)and this is not a flaw in their doctrine. or tactics? I think in order to be elite you should be able to conduct all phases of the operations you are 'elite' at.
The Marines are like rabid pit bulls. That is fine for an op where your back is against the sea. There are situations where being able to conduct a fighting withdrawl with skill and elan can eventually turn the tide.
The regulars are not mistrustful or jealous of the 'elites' in my experience. I have nothing but respect for those men. Trying to absolve an 'elite' force of indictments to its tactical ability by attributing them to jealousy is intellectually lazy.
The US Army routinely deploys quicker than the USMC, outfights them in joint FTXs, and is much more apt to reason out new doctrine. The Marines are the supreme beasts at an amphib assault, but does that make them any more 'elite' than the combat engineers who are specially trained assault men?
I am not denigrating the USMC. I mean no disrespect to them. I know that Force Recon is elite for example, but saying a line Marine Platoon could smoke or equal a Ranger Platoon is ludicrous.
I like Tomos idea of purchasing elitehood with a special buy extra exp/morale button. I know it will not make it into SPWAW, but maybe the CA/CL games can have it. The average marine is neither more experienced or more technically proficient than the average soldier out of boot camp. The whole we run with logs thing while cool(my unit in the Cav did the same)does not make you a better marksman, tactical mind, or Camo artist.
If you run with logs but don't learn basic tactics you wind up with a bunch of pretty corpses. I am not saying that with spite towards the USMC. I think that that is where the ARMY is heading.
regards and best wishes,
sven
[ June 20, 2001: Message edited by: sven ]
Not to put the Army down here at all folks, but just the facts. Look at the PT qualifications for the Marines, and Army, the distance to run alone is more than the Army, and entrance exams alone are more demanding. I wouldn't say elite per se, but we do have a more demanding standard than the regular army. We are called the "Presidents own" ;)If you want to argue it, just get the entrance exam tests, and pt tests, also, in boot camp, we didn't have no stinking soda machines!!! But hey, think what you want to think, all services have there best!!! There are exceptions to all, like Green Berets, Rangers, among others, so....
Semper Fi!!
Semper Fi!!
Warhorse what does the extra PT standard have to do with the price of TEA in China? You ignore the fact that the First Cav routinely kicks the Marines butts in joint FTXs. God bless them for their better physical shape, but they just are not the tankers, Infantryman, or artillerymen that the army are.Originally posted by Warhorse:
Not to put the Army down here at all folks, but just the facts. Look at the PT qualifications for the Marines, and Army, the distance to run alone is more than the Army, and entrance exams alone are more demanding. I wouldn't say elite per se, but we do have a more demanding standard than the regular army. We are called the "Presidents own" ;)If you want to argue it, just get the entrance exam tests, and pt tests, also, in boot camp, we didn't have no stinking soda machines!!! But hey, think what you want to think, all services have there best!!! There are exceptions to all, like Green Berets, Rangers, among others, so....
Semper Fi!!
Sven
p.s. If they are supposed to be 'SUPERFAST HIGH DEPLOYMENT BEST OF THE BEST SUPER HOOAH GUYS' why has the Army consistently been the first to deploy and arrive to all of the world's hot spots in the last 10 years?
I am a little confused here....