Matrix Games Forums

Given that doctrine is included in morale, would it be possible to have distinct defence and attack morals or a bonus to British on defence?

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

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

It was to me [:D]

And to me.

ORIGINAL: Mehring

British units I am sorry but I have pretty low opinion about. I mean pure British. There is probably good reason why they constantly put ANZAC in the thick of the action, and used dominion troops to fill in the line (Indian, South African, Canadian etc).

Interesting point, and something I also noticed is that from the British isles, you are more likely to see Scottish, Welsh and Irish units bearing the brunt of casualties than, particularly southern English. Sure, there are exceptions like the Ox and Bucks but as a rule. I'm not sure if this is necessarily a result of southerners actually being soft so much as imperial policy to maintain morale and minimise social discontent in the heart of the empire.

Warspite1

Mehring, firstly, where did you get the southern English idea? Forgetting the Dominion and Colonial troops for the moment and just looking at your view about the British Army.

Who made up the rank and file of the British Army down the ages? People from all four home countries of course. Of these, the Irish and the Scottish made up a higher proportion of the army in relation to their total population. Why? Not because of some southern English plot(!), but because traditionally private soldiers came from the poorer parts of the UK. Families with great army traditions grew up in those parts (look at the British General Staff in WWII).

This has been true down the centuries. Southern England made up its fair share of the army - you mention just the Ox and Bucks light infantry - why? What about the Wessex Division - the Royal Hampshires, the Dorsets, the Somersets and the Wiltshires? What about the Home counties Division, the Buffs, the Queen's Own Royal West Kents, the Royal Sussex Regiment, etc etc etc.

I suspect you were more likely to be in a reserved occupation "up north" in WWII i.e. where the shipbuilding, coalmining, steel making industries were...

Secondly, where is there any proof that troops from the southern counties took less casualties than those from other parts of the army? That is a strange notion.

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.

Could the Russians have lauched attacks like Veritable or Infatuate. These were highly sophisticated operations, morale we are told are to reperesent doctrine. By 1944 the British army was an efficent fighting machine. By the way the difference between the Berezina and Dunkirk was at Dunkirk the Army survived. A 20th century army 330,000 men was evacuated off a beach, tell me who else achieved a comparable feat?

The British Army had serious defects but cohesion was not one of them.

Warspite1

Mehring, firstly, where did you get the southern English idea? Forgetting the Dominion and Colonial troops for the moment and just looking at your view about the British Army.

Who made up the rank and file of the British Army down the ages? People from all four home countries of course. Of these, the Irish and the Scottish made up a higher proportion of the army in relation to their total population. Why? Not because of some southern English plot(!), but because traditionally private soldiers came from the poorer parts of the UK. Families with great army traditions grew up in those parts (look at the British General Staff in WWII).

This has been true down the centuries. Southern England made up its fair share of the army - you mention just the Ox and Bucks light infantry - why? What about the Wessex Division - the Royal Hampshires, the Dorsets, the Somersets and the Wiltshires? What about the Home counties Division, the Buffs, the Queen's Own Royal West Kents, the Royal Sussex Regiment, etc etc etc.

I suspect you were more likely to be in a reserved occupation "up north" in WWII i.e. where the shipbuilding, coalmining, steel making industries were...

Secondly, where is there any proof that troops from the southern counties took less casualties than those from other parts of the army? That is a strange notion

What is my view of the british army? Perhaps you could enlighten me. I'm sure economic conscription is nothing new, and it constitutes another possible explanation for the proponderance of northern and overseas soldiers who bore the brunt of fighting and consequent casualties in WW2. As I said, it is something I have noticed, and I offer no evidence nor can find the time to do so. Anyone who cares to, and is not entering into the investigation purely to prove the opposite, I strongly suspect they'll find it.

As for plots, are you seriously saying that the ruling social layers do not conspire against the majority of the population to maintain their economic privilages? Good god, even the provision of allotments was motivated by the fear of revolt as the common land was stolen from the people by the new landlords in the mid C19.

My 2 cents, I dont think morale was the issue for Britian, It was leadership. If Monty was the best the could muster, oh well. Their problem was the nobilty of officers, not proven ability. Of hell its tea time, lets stop and drink some...If Patton had his corps running the highway in Market Garden the 1st Brit airbone may not have been desimated...

If Monty was the best the could muster, oh well.

Joel, can you see this? What did I tell you?


Anything that involves national comparisons, is always going to be sensitive to the nations being compared.

I hope this thread dies of natural causes before any more nations get dragged into what started out as an interesting discussion, but has now degenerated into "Monty bashing" and " Patton Glorification" thus sparking pages of endless nonsense.

Never thought I'd have to use this one:

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Their problem was the nobilty of officers, not proven ability. Of hell its tea time, lets stop and drink some...

Warspite1

Re the nobility of officers - I think you have confused us with the Italian army.

Re the tea reference - I take it you watched Gallipoli too many times [;)]

Warspite your wasting your time this sort of nonsense does not stand up to any scrutiny. Were the 55,000 killed in Bomber command alone, all from up north [8|] Jesus you would have been safer in a Northern Regiment.

Bob this a great thread, I love reading it. Its the first I open...The Brits were tough guys and lasted 6 years because they were. Hell, if they didn't stand fast and respond to Hitlers every move in the west things could have been very different. I just think thier leaders were poor, not the grunts...What was the general they had in North Africa that did great before Monty, but was killed? Help me guys...

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Bob this a great thread, I love reading it. Its the first I open...The Brits were tough guys and lasted 6 years because they were. Hell, if they didn't stand fast and respond to Hitlers every move in the west things could have been very different. I just think thier leaders were poor, not the grunts...What was the general they had in North Africa that did great before Monty, but was killed? Help me guys...

Warspite1

Auchinleck - yet another non-nobleman.

Gott was to replace Achinleck but was killed

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

Warspite your wasting your time this sort of nonsense does not stand up to any scrutiny. Were the 55,000 killed in Bomber command alone, all from up north [8|] Jesus you would have been safer in a Northern Regiment.

Warspite1

Agreed - I must admit I'd heard the anti-British stuff before obviously, and the anti-English argument - but never the southern English nonsense!!

Hey who was that guy that planned D-Day you know that operation which was the biggest invaision in history his name escapes me probably a nobleman

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

Hey who was that guy that planned D-Day you know that operation which was the biggest invaision in history his name escapes me probaly a nobleman

Warspite1
[:)]

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


Gott was to replace Achinleck but was killed

Warspite1

Strafer Gott - another non-nobleman.

Richard O'Conner? although he wasnt killed, he was captured

ORIGINAL: Smirfy
Could the Russians have lauched attacks like Veritable or Infatuate. These were highly sophisticated operations, morale we are told are to reperesent doctrine. By 1944 the British army was an efficent fighting machine.

[X(]

Could they? They launched Bagration for god's sake. Let alone half a dozen highly successful offensive operations after that, each of them probably bigger than Veritable and Infatuate taken together.

However let me state again that in this discussion I prefer speaking about MORALE as PURE morale. Obviously, in WITE morale represents all sorts of things, proficiency, training ability, tactical prowess, who knows what else. Obviously, whatever "morale" represents in WITE is highly subjective and flexible, but in pure morale, no army, not even the fanatical Japanese, could beat Germans and Russians IMO. Those two armies are like way above all others.

Since we don't exactly know how morale works in game, we can discuss it only rhetorically, ie "how would I rate morale of some army in some year of WW2 in some hypothetical game".

By the way the difference between the Berezina and Dunkirk was at Dunkirk the Army survived. A 20th century army 330,000 men was evacuated off a beach, tell me who else achieved a comparable feat?

Solid part of Nappy army survived Berezina, in fact he was waging, and winning, biggest battles in history to date, less than a year after Berezina.

If you want to look at Dunkirk as victory, something I have problems with, then that's more of a navy feat than army. We are talking about army morale here.... Navy games usually don't model morale, but for what it's worth obviously Brit Navy would get very high morale ratings. RAF too. Army, however, IMO does not deserve any such high rating. Again, probably lower than Russians, certainly not bigger (equal would be reasonable compromise).

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

However let me state again that in this discussion I prefer speaking about MORALE as PURE morale. Obviously, in WITE morale represents all sorts of things, proficiency, training ability, tactical prowess, who knows what else. Obviously, whatever "morale" represents in WITE is highly subjective and flexible, but in pure morale, no army, not even the fanatical Japanese, could beat Germans and Russians IMO. Those two armies are like way above all others.

If you want to look at Dunkirk as victory, something I have problems with, then that's more of a navy feat than army. We are talking about army morale here.... Navy games usually don't model morale, but for what it's worth obviously Brit Navy would get very high morale ratings. RAF too. Army, however, IMO does not deserve any such high rating. Again, probably lower than Russians, certainly not bigger (equal would be reasonable compromise).

Must.....stop.....posting....in....a.....thread....that........will....only.....escalate........and.....become....nation....vs......nation = over patriotic!

If you're basing on the above I simply can't agree with that (in that morale purely = morale). The Brits certainly wouldn't be low. Think of how many times they were resolute on the defence and put up with a lot of **** and pressure since the start of the war without buckling. I'll re-state I think the leadership was to blame for a lot of the inadequate military operations but not the morale of the soldier.

When you talk about Dunkirk and try to retrieve any conclusion about morale of the british units involved,
it would be wise to first take into consideration the fact that Hitler stopped the panzers dead in their tracks.
I've heard about two theories about this decision:

1) A favour to Gøring so he could bask in the glory of his luftwaffe finish off the british - which he eventually could not do as the luftwarre failed to stop the british evacuation, so that would be an EPIC FAIL there Gøring. [:D]

2) Intent by Hitler to allow the British to escape without too much of a humiliation so they would be more receptive to a negotiated peace.

Don't know which is correct, but it's pretty obvious that apart from national morale, there were some factors in that escape which arguably played a sizeable role.