OT: WW2 Documentary

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Buckrock
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:10 am
Location: Not all there

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by Buckrock »

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Part of the mis-management is that no one seemed to actually understand the state of the French Army (despite knowing that war may result from Hitler's increasingly avaricious claims), and that having a BEF with barely three corps as the British help, wasn't going to cut it.

Which is why I said that the British and French plan to use their greater economic muscle and build up and take the offensive in 1941 (and in the meantime hoping that Hitler would be taken out) was not actually that off the wall. Your last sentence seems to be agreeing with that? Yes?

The fact that adventures elsewhere were palatable to the French (in particular) does not mean they needed to be handled, 'planned' and executed so appallingly.
Coalition Warfare sucks.

That's probably why the handling, planning and execution of Britain's operational adventures improved in leaps and bounds once she was on her own.
This was the only sig line I could think of.
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20312
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: Buckrock
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Part of the mis-management is that no one seemed to actually understand the state of the French Army (despite knowing that war may result from Hitler's increasingly avaricious claims), and that having a BEF with barely three corps as the British help, wasn't going to cut it.

Which is why I said that the British and French plan to use their greater economic muscle and build up and take the offensive in 1941 (and in the meantime hoping that Hitler would be taken out) was not actually that off the wall. Your last sentence seems to be agreeing with that? Yes?

The fact that adventures elsewhere were palatable to the French (in particular) does not mean they needed to be handled, 'planned' and executed so appallingly.
Coalition Warfare sucks.

That's probably why the handling, planning and execution of Britain's operational adventures improved in leaps and bounds once she was on her own.
I think that is too broad a statement. Sure, when you throw together various countries units with little prior planning and no joint exercises it is going to be chaotic. But NATO and other coalitions have proven to be effective if you have proper planning, coordination and standard practices. For example, the Air Campaign against Iraq before the ground phase of the first Iraq/Coalition war went very well, mostly because the strike-involved air forces were all NATO trained.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 17897
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Buckrock
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Part of the mis-management is that no one seemed to actually understand the state of the French Army (despite knowing that war may result from Hitler's increasingly avaricious claims), and that having a BEF with barely three corps as the British help, wasn't going to cut it.

Which is why I said that the British and French plan to use their greater economic muscle and build up and take the offensive in 1941 (and in the meantime hoping that Hitler would be taken out) was not actually that off the wall. Your last sentence seems to be agreeing with that? Yes?

The fact that adventures elsewhere were palatable to the French (in particular) does not mean they needed to be handled, 'planned' and executed so appallingly.
Coalition Warfare sucks.

That's probably why the handling, planning and execution of Britain's operational adventures improved in leaps and bounds once she was on her own.
I think that is too broad a statement. Sure, when you throw together various countries units with little prior planning and no joint exercises it is going to be chaotic. But NATO and other coalitions have proven to be effective if you have proper planning, coordination and standard practices. For example, the Air Campaign against Iraq before the ground phase of the first Iraq/Coalition war went very well, mostly because the strike-involved air forces were all NATO trained.

Which shows that some people actually do learn.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child
Image
Buckrock
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:10 am
Location: Not all there

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by Buckrock »

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I think that is too broad a statement. Sure, when you throw together various countries units with little prior planning and no joint exercises it is going to be chaotic. But NATO and other coalitions have proven to be effective if you have proper planning, coordination and standard practices. For example, the Air Campaign against Iraq before the ground phase of the first Iraq/Coalition war went very well, mostly because the strike-involved air forces were all NATO trained.

Not worth worrying about really. The term was used in a relative context not an absolute. Coalition warfare sucks when compared to the strategic and operational freedom of unilateral action. That doesn't then mean a coalition can't conduct successful joint operations or that a unilateral approach must therefore be the way to achieve the best outcomes in a war.
This was the only sig line I could think of.
User avatar
Cpl GAC
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2021 6:38 pm

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by Cpl GAC »

Germinal truths get twisted on all sides but the overall arcs we know are true. It's good that stuff like that is out there to temper our perspectives and weigh their influence on how things actually developed.

Fun fact - in the video game Epic Mickey, the evil scientist has a Russian accent. In the Russian version, he has an American accent.

That right there says quite a bit.
If you're STILL making Panzer IIs after seeing your first T-34... you're probably going to lose.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42118
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Cpl GAC

Fun fact - in the video game Epic Mickey, the evil scientist has a Russian accent. In the Russian version, he has an American accent.
warspite1

....and in Hollywood, the bad guy is (nearly) always sporting an English accent [;)]
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42118
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Buckrock
ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I think that is too broad a statement. Sure, when you throw together various countries units with little prior planning and no joint exercises it is going to be chaotic. But NATO and other coalitions have proven to be effective if you have proper planning, coordination and standard practices. For example, the Air Campaign against Iraq before the ground phase of the first Iraq/Coalition war went very well, mostly because the strike-involved air forces were all NATO trained.

Not worth worrying about really. The term was used in a relative context not an absolute. Coalition warfare sucks when compared to the strategic and operational freedom of unilateral action. That doesn't then mean a coalition can't conduct successful joint operations or that a unilateral approach must therefore be the way to achieve the best outcomes in a war.
warspite1

Swings and roundabouts. If you are the junior partner you can be relied upon to be the fall guy when things go wrong, and not getting the credit when things go right. Doesn't matter the country, doesn't matter the war, that is repeated time and again in history. [:)]

On the other hand of course being in a coalition could be the only way of going to war, staving off defeat or whatever.

I agree though. As a general rule being in a coalition and not having freedom of action and always having to consider the feelings of x y and z can be a bore.



Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Buckrock
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:10 am
Location: Not all there

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by Buckrock »

Nothing wrong with having battle buddies if the situation demands it, especially if they're bigger than you and even better, bigger than your enemy. Unfortunately it wasn't exactly clear to the French and British in 1939/40 as to how they stacked up to each other or to Germany in that respect.

I'd agree their "hold in the middle but spar on the flanks" through 1940 must have seemed a reasonable strategic choice knowing they were expecting to only get stronger over time. I even think their planned Scandinavian adventures held some merit in the circumstances.
This was the only sig line I could think of.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42118
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

I even think their planned Scandinavian adventures held some merit in the circumstances.
warspite1

I completely agree that 'sparing on the flanks' was a sensible idea. But what form that sparing took was the problem.

To be fair there was only one thing wrong with the Allied (largely British) plans for Norway; they were complete, total and utter sloblocks.

One of life's great ironies, Chamberlain lost his job, and Churchill became PM, because of the total horlicks that Churchill (the driving force behind action in Scandinavia) made of Norway. Who ever said life was fair?
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Buckrock
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:10 am
Location: Not all there

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by Buckrock »

ORIGINAL: warspite1
To be fair there was only one thing wrong with the Allied (largely British) plans for Norway; they were complete, total and utter sloblocks.
Sloblocks, as in the dog's sloblocks?

The Brit leadership had a fair idea it was a stinker of a plan. The Chiefs of Staff effectively told them that in March '40. The reason they were considering going ahead with it was not because they really thought it had a good chance of achieving its operational end goal but rather that simply by trying it may well trigger any number of positive events for the Allies. Built into what was a fairly adaptable plan was a series of phases at which the operation could be paused and assessed in light of what had been achieved vs what the reaction was of Norway, Sweden, Germany or even Russia at each point.

It's primary goal (for the Brit leadership) was really to throw some chaos into the German war plans. Who knows what would have happened if they'd actually tried it as intended but I give them full marks for at least attempting to seize the initiative and make the Germans react instead. Ironic that the Germans turned the tables by getting in first with their own stinker of a plan.
One of life's great ironies, Chamberlain lost his job, and Churchill became PM, because of the total horlicks that Churchill (the driving force behind action in Scandinavia) made of Norway. Who ever said life was fair?
Fair or not, the world was at least saved from a lot of very dull speeches.

This was the only sig line I could think of.
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20312
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

I even think their planned Scandinavian adventures held some merit in the circumstances.
warspite1

I completely agree that 'sparing on the flanks' was a sensible idea. But what form that sparing took was the problem.

To be fair there was only one thing wrong with the Allied (largely British) plans for Norway; they were complete, total and utter sloblocks.

One of life's great ironies, Chamberlain lost his job, and Churchill became PM, because of the total horlicks that Churchill (the driving force behind action in Scandinavia) made of Norway. Who ever said life was fair?
Hey! Churchill sent your namesake to Narvik and devastated the German Destroyer force for the rest of the war! The RN also damaged virtually every big ship the Germans had at the time, and persuaded the Germans to damage a couple of their own (Prinz Eugen vs Leipzig). The FAA sank Königsberg and the Norwegians sank Blucher. It was no picnic for the Germans either.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by rustysi »

....and in Hollywood, the bad guy is (nearly) always sporting an English accent

Ah, in Hollywood everyone sports an English accent.[:D]
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42118
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

Sloblocks, as in the dog's sloblocks?

Fair or not, the world was at least saved from a lot of very dull speeches.
warspite1

No. The dog's sloblocks is a good thing. The Norwegian Campaign was simply sloblocks, which is a bad thing [:)]

As for the speeches yes, you are probably right [:)], although not that many, as poor old Nev succumbed to cancer not long after.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42118
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

I even think their planned Scandinavian adventures held some merit in the circumstances.
warspite1

I completely agree that 'sparing on the flanks' was a sensible idea. But what form that sparing took was the problem.

To be fair there was only one thing wrong with the Allied (largely British) plans for Norway; they were complete, total and utter sloblocks.

One of life's great ironies, Chamberlain lost his job, and Churchill became PM, because of the total horlicks that Churchill (the driving force behind action in Scandinavia) made of Norway. Who ever said life was fair?
Hey! Churchill sent your namesake to Narvik and devastated the German Destroyer force for the rest of the war! The RN also damaged virtually every big ship the Germans had at the time, and persuaded the Germans to damage a couple of their own (Prinz Eugen vs Leipzig). The FAA sank Königsberg and the Norwegians sank Blucher. It was no picnic for the Germans either.
warspite1

Yes but a few operational successes don't mask the fact that the whole affair was one of muddle, confusion and indecisiveness. Yes the Germans lost a lot of their navy in undertaking an operation to obtain bases for their navy [:)] (as Buckrock says it was a stinker of a plan).....but it could - and should - have been so much worse for the Germans.

But let's stick with the British stinker for the moment.

I won't bother to go into the tortuous diplomatic process from start to finish - it's too long and frankly at times absurd, genuinely absurd (coalition warfare at its finest). But by the time action was decided upon, the winter was over (so iron ore would be travelling through the Baltic) and Finland had surrendered anyway (Daladier wanted to help the Finns purely to aid his chances of staying in power and Churchill wanted to pretend to help the Finns so he could occupy the Swedish ore fields - the Swedes apparently had no say in this)....

As said the French wanted the operation to happen and so the British (who would take on the bulk of the operation) asked the French to mine the Rhine. The French said no to the latter because... the Germans might retaliate (fair enough as obviously France and Germany weren't at war at that time - no wait [8|].... and Churchill didn't push it because he wanted the landings in Norway - so Norway went ahead but not the mining of the Rhine....

So what happened? Well the allies were told to **** off by the Norwegians and the Swedes (strange that) but thought lets do it anyway. And here is the really ahem... 'clever' bit. The British would mine Norwegian waters so that the Germans would react. Then, when the Germans had reacted - and so were the aggressors - the British would land in Norway....

Except.... If the Germans didn't react (and no one actually laid out what a 'reaction' was) then the British would land anyway. The orders given to the commanders as to how to deal with any Norwegian reaction was - like the operation itself - confused, muddled and a receipe for disaster. If anyone is still following this cobblers, then its pretty clear by now that the allies would have invaded a neutral country....

The troops chosen for the operation were largely territorial troops, insufficient in numbers, ill-equipped and without air cover or AA weaponry... or skis.... or maps.... good job there is an all-weather highway into Sweden..... no wait (part II [8|]). The lack of aircraft and AA weapons would really come home later.

When the allied troops were eventually landed they had been beaten to it by the Germans who had time at least some to deal with the Norwegians and prepare. Allied landing orders were changed at the last minute for some troops which were diverted to different destinations... but some of those ships still had the equipment and supplies for the original destination, leaving the troops landed at that original destination somewhat in the lurch.

But there's more....

The British mining operation was all about getting a German reaction. But as soon as the Admiralty knew the Germans were actually at sea, they assumed a breakout into the Atlantic and seemed to forget that the Germans might be heading for Norway themselves.... so what did they do? Well they CANCELLED the landing operation and positioned for a breakout..... numerous chances to smash at least three of the troop packed Marinegruppen, BEFORE they had landed, came and went. So the British got the reaction they wanted from the Germans, but they were in no position to take advantage because their troops were still in the UK when, with the Germans having just landed, the Germans could otherwise have faced a pretty nasty reception.

A total balls up literally from start to finish.... and we haven't even got to the land and air operations and the poor RN having to put itself in harms way (it would not be the last time) to help the army. The land operations went as well as could be expected with ill-equipped, ill-trained and understrength troops. Then there was the spiffing wheeze, belatedly and hurriedly put in place, to provide air cover. What did the top brass think would be a sensible force to hold back the Luftwaffe? Well how about a squadron of Gloster Gladiator biplanes? Er...right... And where shall we base them? Well how about a frozen lake with no cover or facilities?.... Mmmm I wonder how long they lasted?..... That was a rhetorical question - it was two days.






Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Buckrock
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:10 am
Location: Not all there

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by Buckrock »

ORIGINAL: warspite1
No. The dog's sloblocks is a good thing. The Norwegian Campaign was simply sloblocks, which is a bad thing [:)]
Ah, OK. You meant total sloblocks, as in the British handling of her Far Eastern defence against Japan. Got it now.

Alternatively, you could have just said Churchillian.[:)]
This was the only sig line I could think of.
Buckrock
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:10 am
Location: Not all there

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by Buckrock »

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Except.... If the Germans didn't react (and no one actually laid out what a 'reaction' was) then the British would land anyway. The orders given to the commanders as to how to deal with any Norwegian reaction was - like the operation itself - confused, muddled and a receipe for disaster. If anyone is still following this cobblers, then its pretty clear by now that the allies would have invaded a neutral country....
That does not seem to match the historical records I've seen of the leadership discussions. The landings did not appear to have been locked in regardless. They were still being described as conditional right up to the point the Germans beat them to the punch.

What evidence had you seen?
This was the only sig line I could think of.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42118
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Buckrock
ORIGINAL: warspite1
No. The dog's sloblocks is a good thing. The Norwegian Campaign was simply sloblocks, which is a bad thing [:)]
Ah, OK. You meant total sloblocks, as in the British handling of her Far Eastern defence against Japan. Got it now.
warspite1

Indeed, or total sloblocks, like the US handling of Pearl and The PI. Glad we are on the same wavelength. [:)]
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42118
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Buckrock
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Except.... If the Germans didn't react (and no one actually laid out what a 'reaction' was) then the British would land anyway. The orders given to the commanders as to how to deal with any Norwegian reaction was - like the operation itself - confused, muddled and a receipe for disaster. If anyone is still following this cobblers, then its pretty clear by now that the allies would have invaded a neutral country....
That does not seem to match the historical records I've seen of the leadership discussions. The landings did not appear to have been locked in regardless. They were still being described as conditional right up to the point the Germans beat them to the punch.

What evidence had you seen?
warspite1

I'll let you know later. Sadly work calls first.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 17897
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Buckrock
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Except.... If the Germans didn't react (and no one actually laid out what a 'reaction' was) then the British would land anyway. The orders given to the commanders as to how to deal with any Norwegian reaction was - like the operation itself - confused, muddled and a receipe for disaster. If anyone is still following this cobblers, then its pretty clear by now that the allies would have invaded a neutral country....
That does not seem to match the historical records I've seen of the leadership discussions. The landings did not appear to have been locked in regardless. They were still being described as conditional right up to the point the Germans beat them to the punch.

What evidence had you seen?
warspite1

I'll let you know later. Sadly work calls first.

Oh, that dirty four letter word!
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child
Image
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42118
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: OT: WW2 Documentary

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Buckrock
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Except.... If the Germans didn't react (and no one actually laid out what a 'reaction' was) then the British would land anyway. The orders given to the commanders as to how to deal with any Norwegian reaction was - like the operation itself - confused, muddled and a receipe for disaster. If anyone is still following this cobblers, then its pretty clear by now that the allies would have invaded a neutral country....
That does not seem to match the historical records I've seen of the leadership discussions. The landings did not appear to have been locked in regardless. They were still being described as conditional right up to the point the Germans beat them to the punch.

What evidence had you seen?
warspite1

I'll let you know later. Sadly work calls first.
warspite1

I have noted the work of Haarr who highlights the buggers muddle very well.

- Within parts of the military it appears R4 was expected to go ahead without waiting for the Germans (see Mackesy’s orders below)
- R4 would be activated when the Germans took the bait and ‘set foot on Norwegian soil, or there was clear evidence they intended to do so’ – although what evidence of German action was needed was not specified
- Churchill said he personally doubted whether the Germans would land a force in Scandinavia….but wasn’t going to call off the operation…..

But the real doozy is that Chamberlain demanded that if faced with other than token opposition, the landing forces should withdraw and the operation be called off [but neutrality would have been breached because wouldn’t the troops have landed first?…. But as per below, they can only land first if they have the co-operation from the Norwegian Government?]

Mackesey’s instructions (5 April) provided crystal clear clarity…

..It is the intention of HMG that your force should land only with the general [?] co-operation of the Norwegian Government… It is not the intention that your force should fight its way through Norway. If Norwegian troops or civilians open fire on your troops [why? They can’t have landed without Norwegian permission apparently] a certain number of casualties must be accepted. Fire in retaliation is only to be opened as a last resort. Subject to this, you are given discretion to use such force as may be required to ensure the safety of your command, but no more [FFS]…….

The whole thing was just an absolute farce. So ships full of troops would be off Norway waiting for the Norwegian Government to sanction a landing… for how long do they sit as sitting ducks off the coast waiting authority? – and what if the Norwegians had fired first and asked questions later and a ship laden with troops was sunk?

How would it have played out if the Germans had not been at sea and R4 wasn’t cancelled? The troops were going to go to Norway, hang around, hope not to get shot at and wait for the Germans to do ‘something’ that gave clear evidence they would land in Norway… They would what? Then try and convince the Norwegian Government that those big nasty Germans are on their way (honest).

Who knows? Maybe Chamberlain and Halifax still felt they had control of the situation. But I can’t see the landings not happening if the ships had got to Norway. After all, by this point the mining of Norwegian territorial waters had happened so…. In for a penny, in for a pound….

But then, nothing is surprising about the whole sorry episode, so maybe no one would have fired on anyone, and they would all have turned around and come home for tea and medals.

You have just entered…. The Twilight Zone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y

Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”