Matrix Games Forums

The least fascinating war is one fought in turns on a board of hexes.

deleted

We now live in the age of the H bomb & the A bomb and if you think that the danger has passed and warfare with such weapons is not something that could happen .... think again.
The thought has passed through my head that in the study of history we seem to strive better and more deadly ways to kill off our fellow man and we now have the ability to do but will we? Lets hope not

A sound point, and that is another way in which WW1 was a ground-breaking war: it featured the first use of weapons of mass destruction. (The gas attacks.)

Perhaps even more interesting was the so-called "Paris Gun". It was an amazing feat of engineering, but also one of the most immoral weapons made up to that point. For the first time, the people using the weapon had no idea who or what they were shooting at. All they knew was that they were killing people and destroying buildings. In this humble amateur historian's opinion, the failure of the Allies to hang the Germans responsible as war criminals opened the gates to the massive bombing of cities during WWII. It also opened the way to ballistic missiles: the Versailles Treaty prohibited the Germans from developing any more such cannon, so they researched rockets instead. When Hitler came to power, he scrapped the treaty, but he kept the rocket research going.

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

... failure of the Allies to hang the Germans responsible as war criminals opened the gates to the massive bombing of cities during WWII.

I'm afraid that would not have done any good-unless perhaps the the rules were applied evenly and a few British were hung for their bombing attacks on Germany. If the war (WW2) was going to happen, there was not much that would be held back.

Killing prisoners of war is never a good thing to do.

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

The least fascinating war is one fought in turns on a board of hexes.

What is wrong with board games?[&:]

Matrix Games sells many great computer games, representing many different eras of human conflict. Yet every one of their games is either derived from or strongly influenced by a turn-based boardgame with hexagonal maps.

You see, this is exactly what I mean.Obviously Andrew was joking, but someone just has to get mad and go on a rant.

LOL... thanks V22

That's it, now you've done it. I declare war unto you, heathen dog. You shall pay for your criminal actions.

BTW; least interesting conflict; prehistoric battles; Men vs. Dinos. What can I say, I like them all [;)]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
Then on the opposite extreme for me is WWI. To me the most uninteresting, pointless war of them all. A whole bunch of countries sucked into a war of attrition, just feeding men to machine guns. WWI just didn't seem to have the same dynamic quality of battle or the same epic stories like the Midways, Stalingrads, Operation Market Garden, or Normandy.

I feel the urge to defend the Great War. [:D]

I used to think as you did, but now I find WW1 absolutely fascinating. There are tales of heroism the equal of WW2, easily, if you find them. Here's a few.

Radomir Putnik, the Serbian commander in chief, was dying and in an Austrian spa at the start of the war in 1914. As people were civilised back then, the Austrians put him on a train back to Serbia rather than locking him up when hostilities opened. Whereupon Putnik opened the proverbial can of whup-ass on poor Conrad. When things went south for Serbia in 1915, he had to command from a stretcher as he was literally on his last legs. He did a pretty good job, too.

Then theres the tale of the raider, SMS Emden. She cruised around the Far East in disguise - her crew added a fake funnel to make her look like a British cruiser - and she had a truly epic voyage. She shelled Madras, sunk three dozen merchants, torpedoed a Russian cruiser, ran into the neutral Dutch - all sorts, its like something out of Horatio Hornblower. [:D] She was finally caught and sunk by HMAS Sydney, but even that wasn't the end of the tale, as she had put ashore a landing party just before the Allied cruisers showed up, and that landing party had an epic journey of their own, eventually making it from the Far East all the way back to the Ottoman Empire and a heroes welcome.

Or the Battle of Beersheba? A cavalry charge across six kilometres, like something General Pickett or Raglan might be up for, except they didn't face rapid fire breechloading artillery with shrapnel shells, and machine guns. Except the 4th Light Horse actually pulled it off against the odds. Panzers, meh, you'd need cojones of titanium to do that on a horse.

Never mind Jutland - I read a book on the WW1 North Sea battles, Dogger Bank, Heligoland Bight and Jutland and was immediately hooked - first WW1 era military history book I ever read, actually. I can't actually think of any WW2 naval engagement that even comes close to it in terms of my own interest. Midway, two carrier fleets groping in the Pacific half blind, waiting for the lucky search plane, with the main deal over in a few devastating minutes. At Jutland they were at it all day, with outnumbered Brits initially fleeing to the main fleet, then Jellicoe intercepting the Germans not once but twice, followed by the 'death ride of the battlecruisers', and then night skirmishes. Fascinating stuff, plenty of controversy and fateful decision making on the part of the admirals, plenty of drama, even a bit of comedy - there was a fishing boat between the two fleets when the action got really going, they must have been a harrowing experience, sitting in a trawler surrounded by nigh on 40 battleships having a go at each other...

Even the Western Front has its tales of heroism if you look for them. Of course, here everything is overlaid with a patina of tragedy. But war is a tragedy. WW2 killed more people than WW1 managed. I don't find WW1 any more hopeless or futile than WW2 was, if anything the contrary, as you didn't have Turks throwing cigarettes into Australian trenches at Gallipoli, or holding up targets for the Aussies to shoot at, or football matches in no mans land, or German gunners letting the retreating Tommies go at the Somme.

The Eastern Front of WW2, on the other hand, strikes me as a cold and pitiless battle between two totalitarian antagonists which I find real hard to empathise or sympathise with in any way whatsoever. It's probably the part of WW2 I find the very least interesting of all.

Yup, WW1 is a huge treasure of military history.  My favorites are Gallipoli, Somme, Marne, Tannenberg, Vimy Ridge, Kaiserschlacht, and all the cool battles using tanks in Guderian's Achtung book.

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro
Now why would the Bible writers of the most ass kicking army in the world use a study of a battle from a boring and stupid war to set an example of correct thinking in dire times. The answer, of course, is that they wouldn't do that. Those battles were chosen because of the shear brilliance, daring, and vigorous clear thinking displayed by the soldiers during that time.

Yes, Tannenburg was a textbook example of what happens when a numerical advantage is used poorly, with the larger force being split up and defeated in detail.

BTW, there was only the one battle analyzed for the successful defense.

I heard legend that the Winter War defensive battles are still studied today in military circles?

... and the air war too with all the early plane models.  I like the book about the Red Baron.  He was a real dedicated hero.

And as I mentioned the Winter War, I'll tack that in there too for fascinating war.  That was real David and Goliath stuff, and the good guys even won, sorta.  In real life David usually gets the beatdown, it's nice to see that there is occasionally some justice in history. 

I can even remember how you spell "Suomassalmi", so something must've rubbed off from reading that stuff...

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

And as I mentioned the Winter War, I'll tack that in there too for fascinating war.  That was real David and Goliath stuff, and the good guys even won, sorta.  In real life David usually gets the beatdown, it's nice to see that there is occasionally some justice in history. 

I can even remember how you spell "Suomassalmi", so something must've rubbed off from reading that stuff...

I love the Winter War too and read that book at least twice, but what amazes me is how easily Russia rolled over Finland in late WW2. It seems that the heroic bravery and skills of the Finns were no match for a properly organized Soviet army.

ORIGINAL: SS Hauptsturmfuhrer It seems that the heroic bravery and skills of the Finns were no match for a properly organized Soviet army.

Nah.

The Russians allocated the most artillery to the army group attacking Finland. Stalin remembered the Finns from 1940. He was more worried about Finland than Berlin, going by where he put his troops.

Also the Russian war aims in 1944 were Finlands complete annexation. That didn't happen. And not because of diplomacy - Finland was looking for a way out diplomatically for some time before the Russians started storming in. I had to dig into Wikipedia for the name as I forgot it ([:(]) but the Battle of Tali-Ihantala is what stopped Finland from being annexed. So really, they didn't roll over, they bloodied Stalins nose yet again.

PS "Tali-Ihantala", any wars in Finland win on the fascination front just because of the names. [:D]

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro
The Liberian Civil War.

Surely not. That war gave us legendary internet phenomena thanks to pictures like this :-

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: SS Hauptsturmfuhrer It seems that the heroic bravery and skills of the Finns were no match for a properly organized Soviet army.

Nah.

The Russians allocated the most artillery to the army group attacking Finland. Stalin remembered the Finns from 1940. He was more worried about Finland than Berlin, going by where he put his troops.

Also the Russian war aims in 1944 were Finlands complete annexation. That didn't happen. And not because of diplomacy - Finland was looking for a way out diplomatically for some time before the Russians started storming in. I had to dig into Wikipedia for the name as I forgot it ([:(]) but the Battle of Tali-Ihantala is what stopped Finland from being annexed. So really, they didn't roll over, they bloodied Stalins nose yet again.

PS "Tali-Ihantala", any wars in Finland win on the fascination front just because of the names. [:D]

Okay I didn't know this. I've never read about the second invasion of Finland so I'll put it on my to read list. It's heartwarming to know the Finns delivered the goods again.

deleted

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

We now live in the age of the H bomb & the A bomb and if you think that the danger has passed and warfare with such weapons is not something that could happen .... think again.
The thought has passed through my head that in the study of history we seem to strive better and more deadly ways to kill off our fellow man and we now have the ability to do but will we? Lets hope not

A sound point, and that is another way in which WW1 was a ground-breaking war: it featured the first use of weapons of mass destruction. (The gas attacks.)

Perhaps even more interesting was the so-called "Paris Gun". It was an amazing feat of engineering, but also one of the most immoral weapons made up to that point. For the first time, the people using the weapon had no idea who or what they were shooting at. All they knew was that they were killing people and destroying buildings. In this humble amateur historian's opinion, the failure of the Allies to hang the Germans responsible as war criminals opened the gates to the massive bombing of cities during WWII. It also opened the way to ballistic missiles: the Versailles Treaty prohibited the Germans from developing any more such cannon, so they researched rockets instead. When Hitler came to power, he scrapped the treaty, but he kept the rocket research going.

Morality has a way of adapting to the technology at hand. As long as something is perceived as 'war winning' or 'helping the war effort' it will be used if one side has a capability the other lacks. Only deterrence (i.e. a close approximation of capabilities) has ever prevented the use of what are usually in hindsight termed morally questionable weapons.

I wouldn't be so hard on the "Paris Gun". The battlecruiser and Zeppelin raids had preceded the gun by a couple of years. The Central Powers and the Entente were also engaged in strategic bombing prior to the gun as well. Rarely did intelligence, navigation and weather allow for anything approaching discriminate raids. Imho blockades, even if only passive in nature, were always the thin edge of the wedge that made direct attacks upon civilians later acceptable.