Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >>

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 7/6/2000 10:33:00 AM

sven

Posts: 10293
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: brickyard
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Elvis: <<< Yep I am sure the Italian, French, Polish, Soviet, Hungarian, Norweigian, Danish, and Belgian armies were all superior to the US Army. >>> Now here is a pearl of wisdom... I'd love to hear you prove a claim like this one. Please do, in detail. <<< I suppose that the US Army should have not used IT'S (USAF was born in '47)inherent advantages to seem more manly. >>> Yet another pearl. I suppose that it would have been more "sporting" to forgo the use of tactical air power, even though it was an "inherent advantage." Every standing army from 1939-45 had inherent strengths and weaknesses. The factors involved are many; quality of equipment, quantity of equipment, quality of training, elan, pride, tactics, ability to adapt, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Basing an opinion on any one of these factors without taking the others into account renders any "rating" argument invalid. On a tactical level, I'm sure every army had its share of stunning victories, and each had its share of catastrophic defeats. What does this prove? Nothing - until you take a look at the overall picture. It does a great injustice to the fighting men of all countries involved in the War to make generalizations based on 50 years of hindsight, especially from those of us who were not there...

Ahh Elvis I am guessing you did not Scan my sarcasm directed at Drake in that post. I do however think the French were overrated. Simply put- they folded without half the pressure that the Poles were under and I do not care how great the shock of the Meuse was they should have been able to rally. The French made some very grave mistakes in their choice of a commander, style of doctrine, structure of command and control, and utilization of assets. I am not casting aspersions on the fighting mettle of any soldier, I am quite willing however to cast aspersions on the leadership of those same fighting men. It is not the individual French infantryman's fault that when Churchill asked, "where is your strategic reserve?" the French high command shrugged and said, "there is none." I am glad the US used whatever it could to win. It seems to me that each of the major powers utilized what advantages they had to the best of their leadership's ability. That is where the Frances, Denmarks, et. al (including Soviet Union imho) came up short. France had several very large advantages during the Battle of France(more correctly named the Skirmish of France) here are some figures I dug up. forces in NW Europe(divisions) Allied british total 16 Armored 1 motorized 15 belgian total 23 Infantry 21 Cavalry 2 Dutch total 9 motorized 1 infantry 8 Polish total 2 infantry 2 French total 102 armored 6 motorized 7 infantry 84 Cavalry 5 Allied Total 152 armored 7 motorized 23 infantry 115 Cavalry 7 German Totals 136 armored 10 motorized 7 infantry 118 cavalry 1 These numbers do not convey a few facts though. 1) Allied C+C was greatly hampered by the multinational nature of the alliance. 2)The Belgians refused to allow the French to shore up their defense until it was too late. 3)the germans did indeed have air superiority but were 800 tanks short and had only one quarter of the total number of motor vehicles for their infantry. I would say that 1940 was not France's finest minute.... let alone hour. The French were a tired people who had watched their young manhood go off to die in the Somme, so do I begrudge them their defeatist attitude? No, but will I mention it and laugh at them when they claimed to be the dominant European military? Absolutely. regards, sven 11h ------------------ Give all you can all you can give....

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 31

- 7/6/2000 10:44:00 AM

Exnur

Posts: 23
Joined: 6/23/2000
Status: offline

Since the going rate is still 2 cents, I'll chip in too. First of all, all armies have deficiencies. That's what lets good generals win. The British, the Soviets, and even the Americans all had problems, but not enough to be overrated. Overrated means until you know for sure, you thought they were better than they really are. The French qualify as being the most overrated army in WWII. They shared some doctrine problems with the British, namely spreading the armour out. Their tanks, that some people like so much, had no radios, and the tank commander was alone in the turret, forced to be gunner, loader, as well as the normal duties of the commander. I think SPWAW lets the French off easy for the faulty tank design. The army itself was disorganised. Many of you probably read stories where the French couldn't counter-attack because of lack of fuel. Other times, commanders withdrew from good defensive positions and helped the overall situation deteriorate more (ex. General Andr� Corap, commander of the French 9th Army, ordered the abandonment of the Meuse, and withdrew it 15 to 20 miles behind the river. This removed the block to Gen. Reinhart's corps. I think this shows disorganisation. Even a losing army can do the best with what they have. And remember, the only action that scared the Germans in France was the British attack at Arras, which the French were supposed to help with, but couldn't be ready on time. Politically, having a change of government as often as the French did between 1918 and 1940 doesn't help. I'm not sure of the number, but I think it's more than 60 changes of government in 20 years. Exnur

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 32

- 7/6/2000 11:06:00 AM

Drake666

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline

All I was saying sven is that the US army in WWII is everated and they were. If you look at the big deal that is made of them and what they were really faceing you would understand. The Germans were already defeated by the time the US Army really did any fighting. But I gess you most have grown up with amarican prapagande on how they won WWI & II singal handaly and all that bull. [This message has been edited by Drake666 (edited 07-06-2000).]

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 33

- 7/6/2000 11:50:00 AM

sven

Posts: 10293
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: brickyard
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drake666: [B]All I was saying sven is that the US army in WWII is everated and they were. If you look at the big deal that is made of them and what they were really faceing you would understand. The Germans were already defeated by the time the US Army really did any fighting. But I gess you most have grown up with amarican prapagande on how they won WWI & II singal handaly and all that bull. Drake I never said we did it single-handedly. I guess if I am a "victim" of "American Propaganda" then mayhaps you are a victim of "Soviet Propaganda". At no time have I ever said that the US won either of those horrible wars single-handedly, but you sure would like to put those words in my mouth I guess. You seem to feel that the United States did not do any of the "real" fighting. I would like a few sources for that posit. I guess Kasserine and Torch were walks in the park. Wait don't tell me the Brits were about to singlehandedly kick Rommel's ass and just decided to wait and let us help for our egos? If the United States had decided to sit World War Two out the Axis would have cleaned the British and Soviet's proverbial clocks. We were doing everything in our power economically to help those two nations with their war effort even when it meant that we were violating the spirit of our "neutrality".(for which I am glad) The Soviet's were even more strapped industrially than were the English. If Germany had been on death's door as you seem to feel in '44-'45 perhaps you can explain how her production had somehow managed to increase up until the fourth quarter of 1944. Maybe you can elaborate on this statistic... in 1943 72% of German forces were in the Eastern Front as opposed to only 42% for their aircraft, but in 1944 only 40% of their strength was in the Eastern front with 45% of their aircraft there... so tell me I guess there were not any germans sent to plug up the western front.... oh wait I am sure Hitler sent them to the Pacific to back up the Japanese and the Germans just laid down for the Americans and ran away from their airplanes. Indeed the German army of December 1944 had more than double the equipment it won it's stunning victories with.(just no fuel, poorly trained soldiers compared to '39, and the fact that the Allies had produced five times that number.) I really wish you would document and support your position. My figures are from the WW2 Almanac, Dirty Little secrets of WW2, and Keegan's Second World War. I guess every book I have ever read on the subject is biased toward the American side even though Keegan is an Englishman, and the WW2 almanac is of the opinion that the English and Russians carried most of the war. Your assertion on the quality of the US Army is humorous... have you ever served in it? I seem to recall that the US, UK, and USSR were the victors. I guess that counts for nothing. regards, sven p.s. I guess that in the Pacific the Marines single handedly whipped the Japanese... even though the US ARMY conducted almost double the number of assaults? Oh wait the AIR FARCE(because it was the US Army Air Corps) did it alone right? I am waiting with baited breath for your dissertation concerning the Pacific Theatre of Operations..... ------------------ Give all you can all you can give....

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 34

- 7/6/2000 11:52:00 AM

sjuncal

Posts: 50
Joined: 5/21/2000
From: VA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Drake666: who is the most overrated army in WW2? Now as to that question as it is posted I would have to say the US army. Hope I dont heart to many peoples feallings with this, HeHe.

I know this is going to sound like I'm just being contrary but the question is "most overrated"... To that the most surprising but logical answer has to be The Germans. They lost. Conventional wisdom states that they had the best: Infantry, Leadership, Armor and Airforce. Yet they lost all they way back to Berlin. Their Airforce was decimated, their heavy tanks failed to stop the Allies lighter, faster, more manuverable (less fuel sucking) tanks. Their leaders commited millions to static beach defenses, that were on the whole an abysmal failure and waste of resources. They commited a classic error in trying to "defend everything", they underestimated when doing so would hurt them, and overestimated likewise. The commander and chief of their army was insane. And their top leadership much like the German people of the time, went along with it. Hope I didn't hurt too many Germanophile's feelings hehe

Grogs fawn over Tiger tanks and play endless "on paper" (or board or computer screen) games where armor is modeled down to the milimeter... But where speed, mobility, efficiancy and numerical superiority are often given negligable treatment. Now as to the US Army... The US had only a token standing army when WWII broke out, they had something like a grand total of 2000 WWI era main battle tanks (if you can call them that). I would say the US Army would be one of the most UNDER rated of the war. Our boys were fighting a war entirely on foriegn soil, to liberate OTHER countries, yet they died just as bravely, aquited themselves just as well if not better, than some of the armies that were fighting for their OWN LAND. They took on a _professional_ army rich in military tradition with years of campaigning and millions of veteran soldiers, and after a bloody nose or three, chased them all the way back to the fatherland. (Not that they were the ONLY ones doing so of course). Anyway rant over now if you'll excuse me I have to get back to CM, where my lowely Sherman has just disposed of a Tiger by driving around it faster than the Tiger could track it with it's slow turret, blowing it's ass off before the poor gunner ever finished traversing.

Simon

_____________________________

-- Simon Moderator Capitals@his.com Aka Alhazred http://capitals.washington.dc.us/ http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/shooter/

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 35

- 7/6/2000 6:24:00 PM

O de B

Posts: 136
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: France, Paris
Status: offline

Since i'm french i'll try to defend a little the poor french army in 40

As far as i know, the french army was in numbers almost equal to the german one, with 2 notable differences. 1. The air force was becoming obsolete. French had few fighters as good as the Spitfire and Me 109. 2. The armor was being restructured from an infantry support role to a more offensive one under De Gaulle's pressure. There were only 3 and a half tank divisions organized in June 40. The government was trying to delay active war to increase the preparation of the army. However, the defeat was more strategic and political. Strategically, French armies drove too fast into belgium and were not defending where the panzers attacked. (Heard the poles made the same fault, driving towards germany and missing the Nazi Spearhead that came northern). Then lots of things were lost

. But clearly not the war. Politically, the politicians had no will to defend at all costs. Whereas the Brits had planned to defend each inch of their land in case of Sealion, the french politics followed Petain's proposal of armistice, whereas De Gaulle was asking of moving the government to the colonies and fighting from Brittany and the south of France plus colonial empire. At that time the communists in france were more or less favoring Nazi germany since the germano-sovietic pact (how do you call it overseas ?) and they represented most of the worker's opinion. The other public opinion was evenly divided. Petain was far older than at Verdun, (some bad people would say a bit senile too

) and may have seen there a good opportunity to keep the power. In any case, there was not a good 'fighting spirit' in the country in 1940, and at last until Barbarossa. Concerning the game, the problem is that if you fight the french, the AI is likely to pick a fair amount of tanks, so if you battle them, consider you happen to encounter one of the DLM's. I think that when that happened, the german panzer divisions were for a though and bloody match and had to call for air support.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 36

- 7/6/2000 6:44:00 PM

talon

Posts: 49
Joined: 5/16/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline

Well I think the performance off the army is discused here or the performance off the whole countrys ? Teh French at their time were regarded as very powerful but today everyboby says they were poor so they can�t be overrated anymore . I would agree they were the worst performing army in the war but at that topic only armies who are highratet can be overrated I think . So I think only the Germans and the US can be brought up at this . The German army stated the war with very poor equipment and very good trained soldiers and endet the war with stat of the art equipment and children at the front so they never have been at top performance . Also only a small amount of the armyleadership really opposed the insane Hitler in 44 and that was far to late . They should have put this Idiot to the grave back in 39 when all these veterans off WW1 were frightend off a new war and the effects on their country . So the Germans were never that top that many think and the US were never top performing . A agree with the statement that they started to engage the really when they already had lost the war . In africa nobody won the whole war and Italy also was not really desisieve . At Salerno they almost were driven back in the meditarean .The Germans really died in the east and their end was at the summer offensive in 44 were whole army gruop center was destroyed. Their equipment also never was state off the art and only the bazoka was a new idea . So they also were never really good .

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 37

- 7/6/2000 7:24:00 PM

Fabs

Posts: 444
Joined: 6/5/2000
From: London, U.K.
Status: offline

We seem to have gone full circle. Although I have had fun reading the posts in this thread, I have to say that the original question envites generalizations and prejudice, and these have benn abundantly expressed. Armies are not sports teams and war is not a tournament. The Second World War was possibly the most apocalyptic historical convulsion in the history of man. I think it wrong to express such opinions about any Army based on their performance early in the war. The German and Japanese leadership had committed themselves to war, while other nations had been trying very hard to avoid it. Germany and Japan enjoyed the strategic initiative in the early years, and to this they owed their early successes. The French leadership made huge strategic errors, and the Army of 1939-40 was not employed correctly. The impact of the rapid and huge strategic reverses caused its morale (not exactly great to begin with) to collapse. This situation, in even more dramatic terms, was experienced by the Soviet Army in 1941. France, because of its geopolitical situation, did not have the depth to recover from the catastrophe. The Soviet Union did. Is it fair to pin the results of this exclusively on the Army and label it over-rated? What about Bir Hacheim, or Cassino, or Colmar? As to strategic and tactical doctrine, brilliant thinkers were not the monopoly of Germany, whose progressive military leaders enthusuastically adopted ideas shared by Liddell Hart and De Gaulle. The political situation in the country and within the Army, as well as the fact that the Heer was practically being re-built from scratch, put enough of the German progressive thinkers in a position to apply their ideas. In Britain and France, the high commands were still dominated by the old establishments that had been seen as responsible for winning the previous war, and the progressives were suppressed or marginalized by them. After the early defeats, the old establishments were swept away and replaced by the progressives or their disciples, and the Armies began to perform better. And what about the US Armed Forces? Are people aware of the massive leap in size that they had to undergo from their pre-war establishment? They had to absorb millions of untrained men and make them into an effective fighting force engaged on several fronts globally fighting generously for reasons that were not necessarily as personal as those of other combatants. Of course it took time for this force to achieve combat effectiveness, and their better trained and at times better equipped enemies gave it a hard time early on. The speed at which the lessons were learned and applied was a huge accomplishment, and to judge the American Armed Forces as over-rated is undefensible, IMO. As for Germany, do you include or exclude the dangerous and sometimes plain asinine characteristics of the Fuhrer's leadership style? In that reside the causes of their early successes as well as those of their ultimate defeat. Each army had strengths and weaknesses, but the outcome of the war was determined by factors of far greater importance than the relative merits or faults of any individual Army. The armies that are being talked about here were composed by men who, through accident of birth, were caught up in differing but certainly equally harrowing ordeals, whatever uniform they happened to wear. I love wargaming, but out of respect for these men I will not express a derogatory opinion about any of their outfits. ------------------ Fabs

_____________________________

Fabs

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 38

- 7/6/2000 7:43:00 PM

Mike Knight

Posts: 5
Joined: 6/29/2000
From: Australia
Status: offline

I think you guys have all missed the point. Those pesky Luxembourgers didn't even put up a good show when that pathetically small group of Germans...what did they call them...Army group west or something equally nonsensical. Anyway, with all the natural advantages of lovely tourist spots and a picturesque scenery, is there a mention anywhere of their resistance, let alone their collection of border tolls (or passport inspection taxes) when the Germans came through. I think this ends the argument. Overrated army = Luxembourg

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 39

- 7/6/2000 7:45:00 PM

Mike Knight

Posts: 5
Joined: 6/29/2000
From: Australia
Status: offline

I think you guys have all missed the point. Those pesky Luxembourgers didn't even put up a good show when that pathetically small group of Germans...what did they call them...Army group west or something equally nonsensical came traipsing through. Anyway, with all the natural advantages of lovely tourist spots and a picturesque scenery, is there a mention anywhere of their resistance, let alone their collection of border tolls (or passport inspection taxes) when the Germans came through. I think this ends the argument. Overrated army = Luxembourg

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 40

- 7/6/2000 7:53:00 PM

Kev

Posts: 25
Joined: 3/29/2000
Status: offline

quote:

Even if they had destroyed the entire U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor, thats actually worse news for Australia than it is for the United States. So my point is that there was never any real hope of victory, so they were a limited threat. [/B]

Actually it didn't matter to Australia if the US fleet was destroyed at Pearl Harbour or not - Japan never had the troops available to invade Australia (the IJN proposed a limited operation to hold the Nth of Aust using aprox 15 Divs, and the IJA told them that not only did they not have 15 Divs to spare, but they were not confident of victory even with a far larger force). Contrary to populist historical belief Australia was quite well armed (in relation to Japan) by mid 42. Australia could have fielded 8 Divs as 4 Corps (fully equipped) and a huge number of units with limited scales of equipment. Arty was plentiful and produced in Aust, as was the 2 Pdr AT gun (a virtual 88mm against Japanese armour).

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 41

- 7/6/2000 7:56:00 PM

Fabs

Posts: 444
Joined: 6/5/2000
From: London, U.K.
Status: offline

Quote: Most Overrated Army=Luxembourg He, he. How about this then: Most under-rated Army of WW2: The Swiss Army! Its frightening reputation discouraged people so much that no one attacked them.

(Before anyone has a dig, I am Swiss myself, and fully aware of other possible reasons why we were left alone. Contary to popular opinion, there are a few of us with a sense of humour. Then, perhaps, 25 years of living in England may have something to do with that!)

------------------ Fabs [This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-06-2000).] [This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-08-2000).]

_____________________________

Fabs

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 42

- 7/6/2000 8:00:00 PM

Elvis

Posts: 86
Joined: 6/20/2000
From: Clarion, PA
Status: offline

Sven, I did miss the sarcasm, I was kind of burned out after 12 hours at work and a 3 hour class.

And Fabs, that was the point I was trying to make with my earlier post, although my mind wasn't functioning well enough to express it as well as you did...I agree completely. ------------------ alea iacta est [email]sooperduk@hotmail.com[/email]

_____________________________

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -- George Orwell

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 43

- 7/6/2000 8:04:00 PM

Fabs

Posts: 444
Joined: 6/5/2000
From: London, U.K.
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Elvis: Sven, I did miss the sarcasm, I was kind of burned out after 12 hours at work and a 3 hour class. And Fabs, that was the point I was trying to make with my earlier post, although my mind wasn't functioning well enough to express it as well as you did...I agree completely.

Thanks for that, Elvis. Your post came in while I was writing mine. You made it well, using less words than I did. ------------------ Fabs

_____________________________

Fabs

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 44

- 7/6/2000 9:44:00 PM

Grisha

Posts: 355
Joined: 5/11/2000
From: Seattle
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by sven: I think the second most overrated army was the Soviet. I know I will take a lot of heat for that but hear me out. There are logical reasons for this viewpoint enumerated in several sources. 1) Uncle Joe taking his senior leadership out behind the woodshed in the thirties was not a good move for the implementation of professionalism, or new theory in the Red Army. 2) I am not meaning to imply that Ivan did not get results, only that Ivan got results at a prodigious cost that better training may have curtailed. 3) Soviet domestic production sucked in several strategic areas. (truck production, waterproof wire construction, supercharger production, advanced oil refining techniques.) If the UK and US had not loaned Uncle Joe those things there would have been an even greater strain placed on the Soviet people. 4) Uncle Joe's policy on being a P.O.W. was extremely reactionary and paranoid. He was almost Japanese-like in his abject hatred of anyone who got caught.(including his own son) 5) Any military that cannot handle an opponent it outnumbers twenty to one sucks. I will always have a special place in my heart for the Finns because they beat the hell out of Ivan twice. God bless that little country. regards, sven

I only partially agree with you, sven, and have some problems with your specific points. While I agree that the Soviets were very over-rated in the early years of WW2, by the end of WW2 they were probably the most under-rated army. Now, to your specific points. 1) Very true. The purges of 1937 decimated the officer core of the Red Army just at a time when highly advanced armor concepts were being refined. It took the Soviets until the winter of 1942 before they relearned the concepts of deep battle and deep operations, theories that were even more comprehensive than the German Blitzkrieg. 2) By mid 1943 Soviet troops were surprisingly well trained with lower level commanders (battalion-level) being expected to take the initiative rather than call in for orders to higher command. 3) The Soviets outproduced the Germans in many areas despite possessing fewer raw materials than Germany. Pretty good when you consider they had to move 60% of their heavy industry to the Urals. Lend Lease was extremely helpful to the Soviets, but it was not absolutely vital to Soviet victory. But it certainly helped the Soviets to defeat the German ground forces in a timely manner. 4) Yes, it was a very counterproductive order, but the fact remains that many officers and soldiers were in agreement with it. I think it has something to do with the Russian character about never giving up. 5) Yes, the Winter War was directly after the purges and the Red Army's performance was a direct result of their officer corp being wiped out. However, Finland did lose each time, in the end. BTW, are you aware that active German forces actually outnumbered active Soviet forces in the summer of '41? German accounts in 1944 of being outnumbered 10 to 1 had more to do with Soviet operational art than literal numbers. The Red Army didn't even possess 3 to 1 odds over Germany until about 1945.

_____________________________

Best regards,
Greg Guerrero

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 45

- 7/6/2000 10:55:00 PM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

From what I understand, from some Polish sources (though I can't remember where I got it) the charge of the Polish calvary was a collosal myth, and that they wouldn't have been that stupid. I suppose the sources considered it part of the German propaganda machine.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 46

- 7/6/2000 10:55:00 PM

Larry Holt

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline

Its been pointed out that while the Germans had a very aggressive military culture, the French had a very defensive one. In open battle, the German style won out. However, the French were counting on the Maginot line and it was not finished before the war started. I also think that it was intended to stop at the Belgium border and not go to the sea. The winter of '39 was the worst in a long time and too cold to pour concrete. It would crystilize rather than set properly. Its interesting to speculate that if the line had been finished and to the sea, things might have been much different. I doubt that the Germans would have been defeated but they would not have won so easily that their aggressive intentions might have been humbled for awhile. William Shire wrote the Collapse of the Third Republic and it is an excellent study on the collapse of France. Its scholarly but very readable too. It held my attention as a high school student. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 47

- 7/6/2000 11:18:00 PM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

Charles-That's what I read too. The Polish cavalry had surprised an infantry regiment (?) in a clearing and were merrily sabering and shooting Germans when they were surprised in turn by armored cars. Of course they fled, but many didn't make it to cover. An Italian war correspondent distorted the whole thing, as correspondents so often did in those days. The Polish cavalry mainly fought as dismounted infantry, using their horses to compensate for Poland's poor infrastructure and lack of motorization/mechanization. Another myth is this whole thing about lances. From any reliable source I've ever read, they were placed in storage in 1934. I imagine that there may have been localized instances of horsed units being engaged by armor, but I refuse to believe that anyone would have been so stupid as to actually organize a charge against armor, when charges against infantry had pretty much been suicide since the Franco-Prussian War. Larry-The Maginot line was stopped at the Belgian border so as not to give the impression that Belgium was to be thrown to the wolves. When the Belgians got the crazy idea in the mid 1930's that they could save themselves by severing military ties with the French and being neutral, construction started on the border, but money and time were basically out. The Maginot Line acquitted itself admirably in combat, and the Germans would have had a really rough time with a properly constructed full-border line. It would have helped, of course, to jump the Germans while they were busy in Poland, but they hardly tried.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 48

- 7/7/2000 12:55:00 AM

kfbaker

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/26/2000
From: Sheffield,UK
Status: offline

Suprizing debate so far, I would say myself that the french were badly hamperd by their command structur which was more to do with polatics than ability in the field, with the result that the best generals were miss placed, dismissed and ignored while old gaurd held favour. As such they never rearly had a chance again'st what was a modern well structured and trained army. I think without any doubt the biggest flop was the italian forcers, but we all know that today so we don't thing of them as over rated. But Musalini in his day had much the same ambitions as hitler, but I don't thing the italians every had it in them and prooved more of an handicap to germany.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 49

- 7/7/2000 1:19:00 AM

JJU57

Posts: 54
Joined: 6/9/2000
From: Chicago, IL. USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Grisha: BTW, are you aware that active German forces actually outnumbered active Soviet forces in the summer of '41? German accounts in 1944 of being outnumbered 10 to 1 had more to do with Soviet operational art than literal numbers. The Red Army didn't even possess 3 to 1 odds over Germany until about 1945.

I think you should recheck your facts here.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 50

- 7/7/2000 1:23:00 AM

Fabs

Posts: 444
Joined: 6/5/2000
From: London, U.K.
Status: offline

This is another typical old prejudice about the Italians. Many commentators on all sides have expressed favourable opinions about the qualities of Italian soldiers, including Germans, English and Russians. Italy's poor performance in World War 2 was a matter of strategic and political nature. The defeats suffered by Italian arms were never worse than those suffered by other Armies, and some of the most spectacular debacles of the war befell entirely respectable Nations which later went on to redeem themselves. Allied propaganda early in the war is responsible for creating this prejudice that endures today. I really do wish that people would stop pointing the finger at this or that Army singling it out for derision or condemnation. The men who died serving in those armies do not deserve this. ------------------ Fabs [This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-08-2000).]

_____________________________

Fabs

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 51

- 7/7/2000 1:54:00 AM

cward

Posts: 40
Joined: 7/5/2000
Status: offline

Well the kuomintang were an effective force at channeling American arms and munitions to the Japanese.. IMHO

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 52

- 7/7/2000 2:40:00 AM

Drake666

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by JJU57: I think you should recheck your facts here.

Mid-Year Manpower On The Eastern Front Year Soviet German 1941 5 million 3.3 million 1942 5 million 3.1 million 1943 6.2 million 2.9 million 1944 6.8 million 3.1 million Germany never did out number the soviets but the soviet did not out number the Germans at any time 10 to 1.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 53

- 7/7/2000 3:16:00 AM

JJU57

Posts: 54
Joined: 6/9/2000
From: Chicago, IL. USA
Status: offline

The Germans were outnumbered by more then 10 to 1 in guns, tanks and aircraft in 44 and 45 by the Soviets.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 54

- 7/7/2000 3:48:00 AM

Guderian

Posts: 81
Joined: 5/3/2000
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Charles22: From what I understand, from some Polish sources (though I can't remember where I got it) the charge of the Polish calvary was a collosal myth, and that they wouldn't have been that stupid. I suppose the sources considered it part of the German propaganda machine.

Close call. Actually, Germans propaganda wasn't aimed at Polish soldiers - the whole cavalry vs tanks lie was made up by communists in '40-'50, to disgrace Polish army of 1939 and glorify the Red Army and LWP (Poles fighting alongside Russians).

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 55

- 7/7/2000 6:46:00 AM

Drake666

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by JJU57: The Germans were outnumbered by more then 10 to 1 in guns, tanks and aircraft in 44 and 45 by the Soviets.

Aircraft Available In Europe Date Soviet German June 1942 2100 3700 December 1942 3800 3400 June 1943 5600 4600 December 1943 8800 4700 June 1944 14,700 4600 December 1944 15,800 8500 I would say they were in 1944 when Germany was close to defeat. I think you most have got that 10 to 1 ratio from the German tank kill rate and stuff. The Germans killed 10 tanks for everyone they lost and their kill rate in other areas were high to. Look at some of the stats and see for yourself. http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/stats.html

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 56

- 7/7/2000 7:06:00 AM

talon

Posts: 49
Joined: 5/16/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline

To the matter of Poles charging tanks . Its a fact that the poles never charged tanks in 39 but charged at infantry a few times . The charge which the italian war corespondent talked of took place on september the 1st at 14.00 at Konitz . The 18. Ulans charged parts of 20th mot div . to give polish infantry a chance to retreat . But drurind their attack they were suprised by german armored cars and tanks moving up the road . the poles were out in the open and while the german infantry started to retreat at the cavalary charge with the start off mg fire from the vehicles they lost control off their horses . 50% of the poles were killed including the commanding officer off the regimen col Marstelarz. By the way I have a scenario on this which is in the game depot "Auf zum Ruhm" . The Italian saw only the dead horses and man and the armored vihcles after the battle and concluded the poles had charged the tanks . Thats were this myth comes from

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 57

- 7/7/2000 1:55:00 PM

Grisha

Posts: 355
Joined: 5/11/2000
From: Seattle
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by JJU57: I think you should recheck your facts here.

Actually, it's true. Though the Soviets had a tremendous advantage in total available manpower, 7-12 million non-mobilized reserves, their mobilized, standing army was actually smaller than the Germans in the summer of '41. Many people are shocked at this, but it's the truth, nonetheless. My reference source is When Titans Clashed by the renowned historian Col.David Glantz. It is a recent book on the war in Russia, making use of Soviet archives, as well as traditional German sources.

_____________________________

Best regards,
Greg Guerrero

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 58

- 7/7/2000 2:29:00 PM

Hans

Posts: 36
Joined: 6/29/2000
From: Hamburg, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Fabs: Each army had strengths and weaknesses, but the outcome of the war was determined by factors of far greater importance than the relative merits or faults of any individual Army. The armies that are being talked about here were composed by men who, through accident of birth, were caught up in differing but certainly equally harrowing ordeals, whatever uniform they happened to wear. I love wargaming, but out of respect for these men I will not express a derogatory opinion about any of their outfits.

You are absolutely right Fabs. Hans

_____________________________

dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 59

- 7/7/2000 8:23:00 PM

sven

Posts: 10293
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: brickyard
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Hans: You are absolutely right Fabs. Hans

Part of history is hard analysis. If one were to have asked military intel. in 1938 who was stronger France or Germany I am guessing NO ONE would have stated the French would have fell so quickly. That is why I am wondering who was overrated. The virtue of individual soldiers is not what is being discussed. For all I know The French were the most loyal courageous army on an individual basis, but I can't determine that without a lot of ahistoric anecdotal evidence at this point. What I can analyze is the performance of the French Army. Point out to me one time that I have denigrated individual soldiers. My feeling is that if the French wanted to act the part of the dominant power in continental Europe they really should have had a better idea of how to project power. That has nothing to do with the relative merits of the French soldier as compared to any other- it is a strategic failure not an operational one. If I have offended anyone with this topic I am sorry. I had relatives serving in three armies, German, Canadian, and US. It truly was not my intent to besmirch any individual other than inept leadership, and leaders place themselves in a position to be held accountable for their deeds. humbly, sven ------------------ Give all you can all you can give.... [This message has been edited by sven (edited 07-07-2000).]

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 60