Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
ORIGINAL: Puukkoo
The WW1 Campaign is a fine idea, except for that the enemy may not appreciate your choice and buy latest armor for his forces, as usual.
ORIGINAL: TokyoBoyTensai
I hope the enemy has tanks. The idea is to prove Haig's ingenious theory he said in 1926 that riflemen and cavalry are the key units to win battles, not tanks and modern weapons. So I will charge my cavalry and riflemen against the German tanks, armored cars, heavy machineguns and engineers and back up my attack with the traditional WW1 style artillery barrage. Basically it will be WW1 British equipment and tactics vs the WW2 German army.
I hope the enemy has tanks. The idea is to prove Haig's ingenious theory he said in 1926 that riflemen and cavalry are the key units to win battles, not tanks and modern weapons. So I will charge my cavalry and riflemen against the German tanks, armored cars, heavy machineguns and engineers and back up my attack with the traditional WW1 style artillery barrage.
ORIGINAL: TokyoBoyTensai
Can you tell me more about your campaign like how many battles and the general results? I think your infantry only purchase is very realistic for Finland cause they never did use tanks in the Winter War except for a few vickers tanks which were all wasted in a single futile attack. But the Finnish troops were good enough to take on tanks and the Russian hordes. The Winter War is cool. [8D]
ORIGINAL: JEB Davis
I've been figuring it's "tongue in cheek" all along... can't be serious.
ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP
If Haig's ingenious (?) theory was correct, we would still have horse cavalry regiments and infantry battalions armed with bolt-action rifles. A look around the modern battlefield will show that Haig was dead wrong. [;)]
ORIGINAL: 264rifle
Haig and Tokyoboy ate both correct. If you have more men and horses than the enemy has bullets you will win everytime ( as long as your men don't figure out what is going on and mutiny).[:D]
ORIGINAL: TokyoBoyTensai
ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP
If Haig's ingenious (?) theory was correct, we would still have horse cavalry regiments and infantry battalions armed with bolt-action rifles. A look around the modern battlefield will show that Haig was dead wrong. [;)]
Flashfyre, the famous graphics wizard, thanks for your input. I'm sorry to have to tell you that your image of the modern battlefield is a bit diluted. [;)] First of all, in the Vietnam War which is inarguably a modern war, the highest number of kills achieved by a US soldier was using a bolt action rifle (Hathcock, 93 confirmed kills and plenty more unconfirmed). As for cavalry, had you looked around the battlefield of Afganistan when the Taliban were smitten, you would have seen scores of cavalry... the very cavalry which overran both the Taliban and the Soviets earlier... doing their excellent work. [:'(]
A lot of people think Haig to be a fool for his ingenious theory, like so many other geniuses in history were thought to be fools (like the round earth theory opposed by all) for saying the truth which clashed with stubborn ideas. What sets geniuses apart is that they don't just follow the crowd. [:D]
ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP
TokyoBoyTensai
Ah-ah-ah...you are using the example of a single Marine sniper to refute my statement about infantry battalions armed with bolt-action rifles; bad rebuttal, my friend, since the majority of the Vietnam conflict was fought with automatic weapons, on both sides. [;)] Since snipers operated in the bush under different orders, they are the exception to the rule. Show me a modern battlefield, manned by soldiers from recognized nations, where the common rifle is a bolt-action single shot rifle, and where horse cavalry thunder across the field to engage their enemies? [:'(]
Recent events in Afghanistan and other remote locations show only that horses are still valuable as a transport unit, with the trooper dismounting to engage his enemy; massed cavalry charges of the sort favored by Haig are suicide in the face of automatic weapons, regardless of the bravery and courage of the cavalry. This was amply shown in the Crimea by the Light Brigade during their charge into the Turkish position; today, they wouldn't have gotten half as far as they did under similar circumstances. [:-]
Haig was hide-bound and stiff-necked; he couldn't see the future of warfare when it stared him in the face, and he refused to listen to those who could. So send your cavalry my way!
ORIGINAL: 264rifle
Azraelck: The German MK I tank has been vastly overrated by most war games published since the end of WWII. One man doing the job of three men (magazine fed LMG have a crew of two, gunner and loader. Tank has both guns linked together so only one gunner needed but tank has NO LOADERS) and he is working in an area the size of an overturned washtub. and unless he leaves a couple of fist size vision ports open he has about as muc vision as being under the washtub. But maybe this is a topic for another thread.[;)]
ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP
TokyoBoyTensai
Ah-ah-ah...you are using the example of a single Marine sniper to refute my statement about infantry battalions armed with bolt-action rifles; bad rebuttal, my friend, You missed my point FlashfyreSP, as this case amply demonstrates what a well-trained marksman can do with the simple but practical bolt action rifle. A whole company of riflemen like Hathcock could lay waste to any 'modern' army. As for the overrated machinegun, note that almost all 93+ kills Hathcock performed were of AK47 toting North Vietnamese. Their machineguns didn't do them a spot of good, did they? since the majority of the Vietnam conflict was fought with automatic weapons, on both sides. [;)] Since snipers operated in the bush under different ordersTotally wrong. Snipers operate ANYWHERE., they are the exception to the rule. Show me a modern battlefield, manned by soldiers from recognized nations, where the common rifle is a bolt-action single shot rifle, and where horse cavalry thunder across the field to engage their enemies? [:'(]
Recent events in Afghanistan and other remote locations show only that horses are still valuable as a transport unit, with the trooper dismounting to engage his enemy; massed cavalry charges of the sort favored by Haig are suicide in the face of automatic weapons, regardless of the bravery and courage of the cavalry. This was amply shown in the Crimea by the Light Brigade during their charge into the Turkish position; today, they wouldn't have gotten half as far as they did under similar circumstances. [:-] Thanks for mentioning one of Britain's most glorious moments in military history. The charge of the light brigade is an excellent example of cavalry charging a well-prepared position and not only took the objective, they also killed the enemy leader Surat Khan. As for 'today, they wouldn't have gotten half as far as they did under similar circumstances' you are finally demonstrating some good tactical sense because Haig would simply have moved up riflemen with scopes and high powered rifles under the cover of darkness. Once the cavalry began their charge the next day, the Turks would man their 'modern' guns and all be shot off and the cavalry would not need to advance any further.
Haig was hide-bound There's no record of Haig wearing animal skins besides those he trode on. and stiff-necked; he couldn't see the future of warfare when it stared him in the face, and he refused to listen to those who could. So send your cavalry my way!
