Combat Phrases

[U2]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, First find four insane people who own UV
next pick team 2 Japan 2 Allies
1st Japan moves his units etc save (not ends) turn and send to 2nd Japan (who keeps his paws off 1st Japans stuff) he makes his orders and ends turn who sends to first Allied, who passes to 2nd Allied who gives orders and ends turn sending file to 1st Japan. (2nd Japan and both Allied would need to watch replay every turn starting on turn 2)

Hi

I see. So IF you and I are the allies we devide the map into two zones of control. Lets say you take New Guinea and Australia and I take care of Nomuea and its surrounding bases. Is this your idea?
Dan

[Admiral DadMan]

I can just see it now...

"HEY!! I need Lexington and Yorktown more than YOU!"

"Who said YOU could have Yamato?"

[mogami]

Allied is easy One for South Pac and one for Southwest Pac
Japanese would really have to fight since 8th Army is going to need fleet units and combined fleet landunits are too small but they could just assign areas and split forces

"One CV for you, one CV for me
One CA for you one CA for me"
"2nd division for me"
"38th Division for you"

be really funny when they had to help each other out

[U2]

Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
I can just see it now...

"HEY!! I need Lexington and Yorktown more than YOU!"

"Who said YOU could have Yamato?"

Fantastic!:) This will be fun.
Dan

[mogami]

Hi, it would be great fun. And I think more realistic. The omnipotent nature of wargames that makes everything bend to one will would be replaced with jealous team mates. I would even wish for a way to keep separete scores (LOL)

House rules to forbid too much teamwork (some of course would be required and allowed)

[U2]

Originally posted by Mogami

House rules to forbid too much teamwork (some of course would be required and allowed)

Hi

What would "too much teamwork" be exactly?
Dan

[mogami]

Everything being used to capture one objective and then going to next objective.

Certain assets would have to be considered "Stratigic" in nature and be allowed to be passed back and forth (ships). Others (mainly land and air units) would be required to stay within their owners domain.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by IMJennifer


Without taking issue with Toumas' tactical assessment, I need point out that among the German generals, Guderian was one of the more successful in re-casting his wartime role in post-war writings. For those who read German, the proceedings of a conference sponsored by the Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt on the German Army in the Second World War, Die Wehrmacht: Mythos und Realität, R.D. Müller and H.-E. Volkmann, eds. will prove enlightening.

As I said earlier, there is a tendency in the memoirs of German generals to claim they could have saved Germany had it not been for the interference of Hitler and the OKW. Unfortunately, this is not born out by a now readily available body of documentary evidence.

BTW -- Mogami, I really like your definition of Grognard!

IMJ : without reading through all the posts on this board, I have to take issue with this post.

It is all too typical that whenever people use Guderian as a source other people jump in and say basically what you have just said here : that Guderian is a liar. This is a gross oversimplification. The discussion which you were responding to was discussing a tactical arrangement that happened to be a source of debate between Guderian and Hitler and some of the General Staff. This debate is well documented in other sources, among them the transcripts of the OKW conferences. The source that you quote, Jennifer, talks about Guderian "re-casting" himself as a non-Nazi. This recasting is also well known, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the tactical arrangements for AGC in 1944, and it is further disingenuous to make vague suggestions about Guderians political truthfulness when the discussion is centered on a tactical issue that really isn't in dispute in the primary sources.

You may be attempting to highlight the larger issue of the Generals attempting to evade political and tactical responsibility for both the criminality of the Nazi regime, and its subsequent defeat, and this of course would be a good thing.

The latter debate is one that will never be resolved; I think it would be useful if historians as a group could say; that probably every General had something political to cover up, most did cover it up; that Hitler did in fact have some good strategic ideas that went against the grain of military orthodoxy; that Hitler did in fact have some tactical and strategic ideas that not only went against the grain of military orthodoxy but which also accellerated the process of defeat; and that the bottom line is that Germany lost, that this loss was a credit to all humanity, but the "responsibility" for Germany's defeat is shared by everyone who had any power in Germany at the time to the degree they had it, more or less.

[HARD_SARGE]

Hi Dgaad

Guderians political truthfulness when the discussion is centered on a tactical issue that really isn't in dispute in the primary sources

well I think Jennifer can defend herself and prove her points,

again here is the part I am agrueing about, the "tactical" AGC, could of been saved by a "tactical" change, 12 miles and AGC could of been saved, a different Tactical layout, and AGC could of been saved

once you get to the Army level, Army Group level, isn't Tactical out of the scope of the duscussion

"Herr Obest, yes we would of won the war, if only that fool had put the 88 behind the hill, instead of on the side of it, I mean, How many times while I was sitting in the Wolf's Lair speaking with Hitler, I've told him and told him, behind the hill, always behind the hill, but no, does he follow orders, some silly stuff about the gunner can't see though the hill if he puts his guns where I tell him too, the fool"

but what do I know, I was only a Grunt, not a General

HARD_Sarge

[dgaad]

Originally posted by HARD_SARGE
Hi Dgaad

again here is the part I am agrueing about, the "tactical" AGC, could of been saved by a "tactical" change, 12 miles and AGC could of been saved, a different Tactical layout, and AGC could of been saved

HARD_Sarge

Sarge : you are correct about the 12-mile thing. Hitler himself, in the Guderian source, actually admitted his own error later on (about 3 days after the start of the Russian offensive, when most of the forward areas of AGC's line had been overrun without much delay). He, Hitler, said to Guderian : "You were correct. Unfortunately I didn't listen to you."

[Sonny]

............

Remember! If found to be a shpy, zee penalty is........death! I vill ask you zees questions vonce only!

Vat is your beer of choice?

Vat is your preferred fragrance?

......

[/B]

Who won the 1997 World Series?

I always liked those kinds of questions in the war movies to tell friend from foe.

[IMJennifer]

Originally posted by dgaad

It is all too typical that whenever people use Guderian as a source other people jump in and say basically what you have just said here : that Guderian is a liar. This is a gross oversimplification. The discussion which you were responding to was discussing a tactical arrangement that happened to be a source of debate between Guderian and Hitler and some of the General Staff. This debate is well documented in other sources, among them the transcripts of the OKW conferences. The source that you quote, Jennifer, talks about Guderian "re-casting" himself as a non-Nazi. This recasting is also well known, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the tactical arrangements for AGC in 1944, and it is further disingenuous to make vague suggestions about Guderians political truthfulness when the discussion is centered on a tactical issue that really isn't in dispute in the primary sources.

You may be attempting to highlight the larger issue of the Generals attempting to evade political and tactical responsibility for both the criminality of the Nazi regime, and its subsequent defeat, and this of course would be a good thing.

The latter debate is one that will never be resolved; I think it would be useful if historians as a group could say; that probably every General had something political to cover up, most did cover it up; that Hitler did in fact have some good strategic ideas that went against the grain of military orthodoxy; that Hitler did in fact have some tactical and strategic ideas that not only went against the grain of military orthodoxy but which also accellerated the process of defeat; and that the bottom line is that Germany lost, that this loss was a credit to all humanity, but the "responsibility" for Germany's defeat is shared by everyone who had any power in Germany at the time to the degree they had it, more or less.

Actually, what I said was that among the German generals Guderian was one of the more successful in re-casting his role in post-war writings. The obvious intent of the comment was to underscore the fact that Guderian, among others, had a tendency to claim that absent the interference of Hitler and the OKW they could have saved Germany -- the inference being that he should be read with caution when he talks about what might have been. I suppose the question of whether or not comments regarding historiography are appropriate is up to the reader; you make plain that in your mind they are not. That's fine.

Regarding your final paragraph... I think it speaks for itself.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by IMJennifer


I suppose the question of whether or not comments regarding historiography are appropriate is up to the reader; you make plain that in your mind they are not. That's fine.

They are more than appropriate when the reliability of sources is in question. I just didn't think that on that particular matter Guderian as a source was questionable.

I now understand and agree with you that Guderian was "successful" at recasting his Nazism, where other Generals were less so. Guderian was a member of the Nazi party, unlike a fair number of German generals who were less than successful at recasting themselves as basically "against" Hitlerian policy. However, it is also true that an ambitious and capable person, as Guderian obviously was, would also join a political party for reasons having to do only with their own personal concern for advancement, rather than out of a political conviction or belief. Guderian's personal behavior suggests that he viewed the more heinous aspects of Nazi policy as poppycock.

[trafix]

Hey guys! I'm back....and married....and only played UV 3 times in the last 7 days. I think that's pretty good. Now for the honeymoon......

I see, looking at the the above posts, that I have a lot of work to do to keep up with the conversations on this board! I think I shall leave my laptop at home (following my better judgement) for the honeymoon, but I shall find a good WWII book to lose myself in whilst basting in the Eastern Carib. sun.

Any suggestions of good reading? Maybe something on the south pacific - to keep this post on topic and to really get me excited to get back and play UV.

Thanks to all, grogs or not

[trafix]

Boy, I did not realize this thread had gotton so big! After I had submitted my last post above, I saw the other 4 pages.

I think I may just start a new thread about the above topic.

Thanks

[Mojo]

Originally posted by trafix
Boy, I did not realize this thread had gotton so big! After I had submitted my last post above, I saw the other 4 pages.

I think I may just start a new thread about the above topic.

Thanks

There's a couple of reading list threads going including this one.

showthread.php?s=&threadid=19790

Reading history on your honeymoon? You gotta good one then!;)

[IMJennifer]

Originally posted by trafix
I think I may just start a new thread about the above topic.

Thanks

Your honeymoon?

[Marc von Martial]

"Bet Kindchen, bet, morgen kommt der Schwed"

Not really funny, considering the fact what swedish mercenaries "accomplished" in nothern and mid germany during that war . Anway, a very interesting and shocking part of europes history.

[trafix]

Originally posted by IMJennifer


Your honeymoon?

Sorry, I meant about the reading material. I think a thread about my honeymoon would be very dangerous:D

But I see there have been good books listed in other posts, so I shall peruse some more.

[Admiral DadMan]

I have several favorites:

• Samuel Eliot Morison, The Two-Ocean War: A Short History of the United States Navy in the Second World War
• Clay Blair, Jr. Silent Victory: The U.S. Submarine War Against Japan
• Gordon Prange, et. al., At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor
• Gordon Prange, et. al., Miracle at Midway
• Stephen E. Ambrose, Citizen Soldiers: The U.S. Army from Normandie to V-E Day