Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Speedy

I won't chime in too much here being a Brit myself but what I would say on the various quoted battles above I don't think (other than Far East 1941/early 42 debacles) you could call any of the 'poor' performances of the British due to low morale. Maybe poor strategic planning, low experience, poor leadership etc but not low morale. The Brit's were and are one of the most stubborn resolute people as a whole so morale was not the problem in the majority of cases IMO.

My point exactly. Trouble is, Brits have been the standard issue Hollywood baddy for some time now:)

Lol Pav. If that's the case then why have individual exp levels of elements and leader skills....?[;)]

I think Pavel is referencing issues of doctrine which are a big part of what morale covers in WitE.

Ah. Doctrine I can understand how that would factor in National Morale. I would still say British National morale should be higher than stated above. The battle examples above can be attributed to poor leadership, exp, strategy more so than doctrine IMO (except east Asia)

if that's the case then why have individual exp levels of elements and leader skills

We speak about the lower tactical levels (including doctrinal things), which are mostly represented by the unit's morale.

Edit: I'm not saying that is should be set to any particular value, I'm just saying that you are using wrong arguments to convince that it should be set higher. [;)]

Note that much of this volume and the subsequent volumes are available online here:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA ... index.html

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA ... index.html

And for what it's worth, I have now found the book as a free download for Kindle (or any other reader)

http://www.archive.org/details/logisticalsuppor11rupp

http://www.archive.org/details/logisticalsuppor02rupp

Ah... the WitP AE porn page:)

I think the thing to remember here is despite despite several disasters brought on by a whole host of differing reasons the British system did not collapse on the contary it improved as the war went on. An army that retreated across Belguim and left its equipment became an Army again, The Army that managed the longest retreat in British military history through Burma became an army again. An army that suffered a huge defeat in the desert became an army again. No Commisars, No Chain Dogs lynchings required the system worked in WWI it works today. People talk nonsense about Alemain, tell me when did these other super men breakthrough a front that could not be outflanked, that was mined and defended in depth. If it was so easy why did Tobruk not fall in 1941?

Seconded. Also, while I do concur that anyone looks rather good against WW2 Italian troops (and I am NOT concluding anything about Italy or the Italian army due to this - when properly equipped and lead they fought as well as anybody), the doubters should read about the 1940 desert offensive: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/time ... 6469.shtml

Look it up on a map... a truely major achievement in anyones book... Sidi Barrani to Benghazi is hundreds of miles, in desert conditions.

I am not trying to be nationalistic, rather to attempt to get some evidence into what became a rather judgemental (and cliched) discussion. BTW, for what it's worth, I pretty much agree with where we started (Q-Ball's first post on this thread...)

Canadian Army: Suffered 100 percent casualties from Juno beach to the Netherlands. Since not everyone who started was a casualty, you can imagine the casualty rate amongst replacements. Whittaker's books cover it nicely. Little known logistics facts like forward deploying one million units of blood (and fridge units) in support of the Normandy breakout.

I predict whatever the final decision there will be people who know the National Morale Rules determined is broken, unfair, or ruins the game.

Interesting discussion!

I would pitch in to say I think the Finns are somewhat overrated in the game. They were good and well motivated, no doubt about that, but they weren't all super troops comparable to other nations elites. 70 would be good enough I think.

As for the Greeks I think 50 is good. They need to be better than the Italians but sufficiently worse than the Germans to reflect the outcome of the balkan campaign.

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

Seconded. Also, while I do concur that anyone looks rather good against WW2 Italian troops (and I am NOT concluding anything about Italy or the Italian army due to this - when properly equipped and lead they fought as well as anybody), the doubters should read about the 1940 desert offensive: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/time ... 6469.shtml

Look it up on a map... a truely major achievement in anyones book... Sidi Barrani to Benghazi is hundreds of miles, in desert conditions.

I am not trying to be nationalistic, rather to attempt to get some evidence into what became a rather judgemental (and cliched) discussion. BTW, for what it's worth, I pretty much agree with where we started (Q-Ball's first post on this thread...)

Warspite1

+1. One of history's great what-if's. What would have happened if Churchill ignored Greece and made a concerted effort to kick the Italians back to Tripoli and out of Libya altogether. Could Britain have succeeded? What would the Italians have done in response? Interesting stuff....

Interesting topic for discussion Q-Ball. My conclusion is that every country would have a stock morale number, and this would go up or down depending on a number of factors. E.g. look at the generally great Aussie performance during the war, and then look at Malaya/Singapore. One size cannot fit all.

And while we are discussing national characteristcs and performance: the last successful cavalry charge was by the Italians... http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... ntent;col1

Stopping to put on white gloves is worth 10 pts of 'morale' any day

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

And while we are discussing national characteristcs and performance: the last successful cavalry charge was by the Italians... http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... ntent;col1

Stopping to put on white gloves is worth 10 pts of 'morale' any day

Warspite1

[X(][X(]

Guys with nicks HMSWarspite and warspite1 discussing English morale, and - what a surprise - agreeing that it should be set pretty high: priceless [:D]

I am sorry, I know this post is not a meaningful contribution to the discussion, it was meant as comic break, please continue.

On topic, I still think that rating Brit morale higher than Soviet is just plain wrong.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Guys with nicks HMSWarspite and warspite1 discussing English morale, and - what a surprise - agreeing that it should be set pretty high: priceless [:D]

I am sorry, I know this post is not a meaningful contribution to the discussion, it was meant as comic break, please continue.

On topic, I still think that rating Brit morale higher than Soviet is just plain wrong.

Warspite1

Oleg - one slight problem with your comic break - it was not funny.....

Where in my post did I say English(?) Morale should be pretty high or indeed comment upon British morale?

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Oleg - one slight problem with your comic break - it was not funny.....

It was to me [:D]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Oleg - one slight problem with your comic break - it was not funny.....

It was to me [:D]

Warspite1

Fair enough [;)]