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]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 7/10/2000 12:19:00 AM

Greg McCarty

Posts: 234
Joined: 6/15/2000
From: woodbury,mn,usa
Status: offline

This really shouldnt turn into a bashing contest. The problem here is that Chris generalized. You can point out that some American units behaved with ineptitute during various points in history, all the way up to Division level. I could name names. And America has never been known for the kind of blue-blood military traditions of the Prussians. But many of our individual leaders proved brilliant -if egomanics. (nature of the beast) There are many accounts of individuals behaving with extraordinary panache. (Audy Murphy) Overall, Americans probably had better leaders than troops, on average. I think we performed rather well up thru WWII considering our training was either none or assembly line fashon. But you have to admit, West Point has produced some great minds.

quote:

Originally posted by ChrisMcDee: As I'm sure you all know, the Americans are known throughout history for their lack of tactics and feeling of self superiority. From the Foolish attack on Vietnam to Custer's Last stand, the Americans are not exactly famous for their tactical knowledge and the quality of their troops. So imagine my suprise when I found that the US Army had been given high troop quality and Leadership!!! I suppose all the Americans here will disagree with me, but I just thought I'd have my opinion said and done.

_____________________________

Greg.

It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees.

--Zapata

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 31

- 7/21/2000 2:17:00 AM

Exnur

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

quote:

Originally posted by Fabs: The Dieppe raid was staged to learn lessons concerning amphibious operations. Being the first ever operation of this nature, it is hardly surprising that it was a disaster. And what is this about Dunkirk? Most historians agree that the evacuation of the BEF was an extraordinary feat, and the British can not be held responsible for the collapse of the French Army.

I agree with Fabs about Dunkirk, but the "lesson" aspect of Dieppe was mostly used to cover a blundered operation. Not a tactical blunder like Jagdpanther was saying, more of a strategic one. Mountbatten was firmly set to go ahead with Dieppe, no matter what problem materialised. In my opinion, no tactical excellence could have made up for the strategic handicaps of the operation. I'll only name a few: 1- The heavy bombers were removed, because Bomber Harris didn't want to transfer the bombers from strategic bombing of Germany. 2- The paratroop landings were dropped, and replaced with a few commando raids. 3- The Admiralty refused to risk a Battleship, and nothing bigger than a Lt. Cruiser was approved. 4- The first try at an invasion was aborted, which tipped off the nature of the operation. 5- When the true raid really happened, surprise was lost, because they were spotted by some German boats. Even Montgomery said the raid should be scrapped for good. After the failure of the raid, Mountbatten said that it was a success, that many things were learned. Most historians agree that these lessons that didn't need a failed raid to learn. Namely, avoid strong, fortified positions in an amphibious assault. Support it with strong naval and aerial components. The element of surprise is important, etc. All things that they knew before the Dieppe raid, and didn't have.

_____________________________

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 32

- 7/21/2000 2:26:00 AM

Fabs

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

Thank you, Exnur, for filling a gap in my knowledge about Dieppe. Even after years of interest, one can always learn something new. ------------------ Fabs [This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-20-2000).]

_____________________________

Fabs

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 33

- 7/21/2000 2:59:00 AM

Drake666

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

quote:

Originally posted by Exnur: Even Montgomery said the raid should be scrapped for good. After the failure of the raid, Mountbatten said that it was a success, that many things were learned. Most historians agree that these lessons that didn't need a failed raid to learn. Namely, avoid strong, fortified positions in an amphibious assault. Support it with strong naval and aerial components. The element of surprise is important, etc. All things that they knew before the Dieppe raid, and didn't have.[/B]

Now I would have to desagree with you on this. As history teaches, hard lessons are the ones that people fallow. If it was not for this raid more then likely a larger mistake on a later seaborne invation would have fallowed. Its easy for people today to say they new this and that but you got to remember that at their time they were doing many things that were not done before and everyone had their own view on what was right and rong. But when something like this raid happens and the lessons are before their eyes, everyone comes around to what is right and rong to do.

_____________________________

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 34

- 7/21/2000 3:09:00 AM

GI Seve

Posts: 101
Joined: 6/27/2000
From: Oulu, Finland
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Skuderian: Hi! In the seventies there was a big examination lead by famous officiers of the US-Army. They examinated the leadership qualities of the armies in the WW2. They ranked the major powers by following result. 1. Germany 2. Japan 3. US 4. USSR 5. Britain 6. Italy They also ranked the normal soldiers with this result. 1. Germany 2. Japan 3. USSR 4. Britain 5. US 6. Italy from "Der Freiwillige" a german magazine which printed some parts of the study (I never read the whole study) Possible Reasons: The Reichswehr was prohibeted to have more than 100 000 soldiers. They searched for a possibility to increase the army in short time. So everbody in commanding position learned to command troops two levels higher. So every Squad Leader was able to command a company. A normal 2nd Lt. was able to command a baon. This was a reason for the possibility to increase the men strengt in very short time after 1933 (election of Adolf Hitler for Reichskanzler). They also recognised that this system was very good, if one of the leader was killed. During the first 2 years of the war there were some lucky lessons for the german army, where they learned how to use the combined arms. For the rest of the war they had the best tactics of all armies. The russians learned the lesson fast in the last two years they where nearly as good as the germans. Under normal conditions the US Army was not able to win against the Germans. If you study all the big battles like D-Day, El Alamein, Battle of the Bulge or others the only chance to win was mass. If there was no artillery, figther-bombers, or odds with more than 4-1 the US-Forces never attacked. If somebody is interested in gathering more information post it in the forum. Skuderian

Well I think I can't say much bout those leaders skills. But still those *so called* fine officers of USA kind of like forgot at the seventies that Finnish soldiers(estimated 500.000 men throught whole war) faced many times more USSR troops(estimated strength at begin over 1 million and at end over 3 million) in WW2 and prevailed.I don't recall many other nations troops(Norveigeans,Danish,some small nations at Pacific?)facing so overwhelming odds.And we didn't even have sufficiend weaponry at Winter war in 1939-40 (Germans sold us some before continual war between 1941 -44). So I suppose that list should add Finnish troops to be positioned atleast better than USSR. Or atleast mention we did so fine as 1 dead finish soldier versus 10 killed russians!!!

_____________________________

HallelujaaGobble!

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 35

- 7/21/2000 3:46:00 AM

Skuderian

Posts: 52
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Purkersdorf
Status: offline

Hi GI Seve! The ranking was only made for this six major powers. The german ranking includes the Volunteers from Denmark (Dansk Legion), Belgium (La Wallonie) etc. So most of the minor countries which have no regular troops but sent volunteers fighting against bolschewism are included. Greetings Skuderian

_____________________________

gez.

Skuderian

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 36

- 7/21/2000 5:30:00 AM

Exnur

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

As I said Drake, Montgomery recommended the raid be cancelled and he was the one who originally planned the raid. This is not hindsight.

_____________________________

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 37

- 7/10/2000 8:42:00 AM

Tombstone

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline

Holy crap. That first post on this topic had to have been an intentional fuse lighting. And just look at the explosion. USA did kinda suck it early in WWII, but we got our sh*t together pretty quick. Even so, you can't expect to go toe to toe with anyone that had the experience of the east front. In Korea we sucked... the US wasn't prepared and we were all high on the victory of '45. By the time we got to Vietnam though you can't be serious if you say we didn't know tactics. We made airmobile what it is today in Vietnam. The Vietnamese beat us, but that's because the war was unwinnable, they we're on top of their political/military game (big time). What were we gonna do? Kill all the Vietnamese? Once you get past Vietnam we probably went into a period of reduced effectiveness due to the low probability of war (or it being nuclear) and the bad taste of vietnam. But nowadays we have a high degree of training and proficiency in our soldiers... Tactics are more a matter of experience than anything else. Those who have done it before have a better idea of how to do it... It's all kinda irrelevant anyways, those values in SPWAW reflect morale and leadership which amount to training. Tactical success is dependent on the relative battlefield 'smarts' of the people who are fighting. (Us players) Someone said earlier that MacArthur was a tactical genius. I disagree. He was a leader for sure, but a great military mind he was not. Tomo [This message has been edited by Tombstone (edited 07-10-2000).]

_____________________________

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 38

- 7/10/2000 10:04:00 PM

Seth

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

Oh, we could have won Vietnam the way the British won the Second Boer War, by putting them all in concentration camps, right Chris? Oh wait, he's gone

If anyone ever had to point to a big American disaster, Korea would be the one. We just dusted off some WWII surplus crap, and sent a bunch of softies with no training off to die. Thank god we got serious. I'm not much on Emperor Macarthur, he was a bit of a nut, and not so great a general as he made himself out to be. If you read Korea: the Forgotten War (a huuuuge book), they say that there was already a plan for Inchon, and it was not Macarthur's 'stroke of genius'. He probably had much more skill cultivating a cult of personality than campaigning. Lots of depressing anecdotes in the early part of the book about totally deficient equipment, and bad leadership at just about every level. I think America tends to start off mediocre, and then come on strong.

_____________________________

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 39

- 7/10/2000 10:28:00 PM

Larry Holt

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

quote:

Originally posted by Seth: think America tends to start off mediocre, and then come on strong.

The US Army agrees with you. Years ago an analysis showed just this fact and the leadership decided to change it. Out of this the national training centers were born. It was noted that if soldiers, marines, etc. could get some realistic experience before the bullets started flying then their survival and success ratio in war would be better. "No more task force Smiths" is the rallying cry of the training centers. Given the impressive tactical* display of the US military (not just the army) in Desert Storm. I'd say that they are doing a good job. *OK, given the operational situation, Iraq lost the war when they sat in the desert and let themselves be cut apart by bombers but when the forces clashed on the ground, US crews out performed their enemies because they were superbly trained. Not to slight the tactical expertise of our allies but this is a thread about US tactics. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 40

- 7/10/2000 10:31:00 PM

ChrisMcDee

Posts: 7
Joined: 6/21/2000
From: England
Status: offline

No, I haven't gone. I was just waiting. The Americans attacked Vietnam to try and show off to Russia and the rest of the world by starting a war that could have been prevented. Much like in Hiroshima, they only wanted to show off their 'power' and it backfired spectacularly, leaving America looking like fools. I am not having a go at the US here, I'm just stating my opinion. So let's end the topic now, it's getting dull.

_____________________________

Verior Procella

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 41

- 7/10/2000 10:36:00 PM

sven

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

quote:

Originally posted by ChrisMcDee: No, I haven't gone. I was just waiting. The Americans attacked Vietnam to try and show off to Russia and the rest of the world by starting a war that could have been prevented. Much like in Hiroshima, they only wanted to show off their 'power' and it backfired spectacularly, leaving America looking like fools. I am not having a go at the US here, I'm just stating my opinion. So let's end the topic now, it's getting dull.

Spoken like a defeated man. I guess England only goes to war for "the right reasons?" Germany, and Russia too? What about Japan? Who in the hell do you think you are? You are speaking from a position of authority with no sources or referencing.(kind of shows a lack of intellectual honesty) You must be a Blair voter. regards, sven ------------------ Give all you can all you can give....

_____________________________

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 42

- 7/10/2000 10:43:00 PM

Fabs

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

Every major military operation is full of imponderables and surprises. Because America is a democracy, is not imperialist (contrary to generally held beliefs outside America) and is not a militaristic society, it always tends to struggle at the beginning of a new situation. The free world owes America a debt of gratitude for the way in which it continues to try to keep some sort of progressive order in a chaotic world, regardless of whether one believes that it does so out of self-interest, or even incompetently at times. We do get exasperated at times with aspects of how it chooses to project its power, but that should not detract from the general principle. Every now and then, it can stupefy the world with its capability, as it did in 1991 under an extremely competent President. It will be a long time before an equally illuminated and capable power will emerge, if ever. Europeans that begrudge American hegemony do so because they hanker back to the days when their nations ruled the roost. They like to think that if that would still be the case things would be running much better. Their history, within which lie the reasons for their fall from power, does not support this. ------------------ Fabs

_____________________________

Fabs

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 43

- 7/10/2000 10:47:00 PM

Fabs

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

Fabs

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 44

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

Fabs

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

quote:

Originally posted by ChrisMcDee: No, I haven't gone. I was just waiting. The Americans attacked Vietnam to try and show off to Russia and the rest of the world by starting a war that could have been prevented. Much like in Hiroshima, they only wanted to show off their 'power' and it backfired spectacularly, leaving America looking like fools. I am not having a go at the US here, I'm just stating my opinion. So let's end the topic now, it's getting dull.

Sorry about repeating myself guys, got confused when the page switched.

I am left breathless by the superficiality of this posting by Chris. A standard European left wing student type of argument, I do not believe that it even deserves to be answered. Please do not confuse his rantings with his country. It just keeps the level of debate lower than it can be. Incidentally, many Blair voters are actually pro-american. There is a greater affinity with America in the UK than in any other European country. It remains to be seen whether they will vote for Blair in quite the same number. The one thing working for Blair right now is that the alternative is still far from compelling. ------------------ Fabs [This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-10-2000).] [This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-10-2000).]

_____________________________

Fabs

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 45

- 7/10/2000 11:08:00 PM

Seth

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

Good God Britboy, you are ignorant! We didn't start the Vietnam War, we joined it already in progress. Sure, we didn't have to, but it was certainly already going when we got there. But, since we all KNOW how terrible US tactics are, I'm sure we all KNOW that you're right, huh? I suppose I can say that the Romans were absolutely incompetent because they lost the occasional battle? Which military that has actually fought, has not? On the other, I really don't get how Bush deciding we needed gas to stay cheap qualifies as a brilliant victory. If you spend a couple of months bombing unmotivated conscripts out in the desert, you'd damn well better win. I think just about anyone could have won that one. We haven't faced a real opponent in years. With the quality of our armed forces, very few qualify as worthy, and we're unlikely to invade Western Europe just to see how we'd do.

_____________________________

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 46

- 7/10/2000 11:15:00 PM

Fabs

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

Cool it, Seth, why dignify such blatant ignorance with the time it takes to write an answer, even a brief one?

America's accomplishment in the Gulf was much more a diplomatic one than a military one, but I would not discount the sheer effort involved in building up the strike force, maintaining tactical surprise, (which was achieved brilliantly), keeping the coalition in line and executing the opearation with unbelievably low casualties on the coalition's side. The only aspect I would be critical of was the decision to stop when they did, but I accept that the jury will be out on that one for some time. On the subject of worthy opponents and how America would do if it faced one, you need to convince the world that the stomach for such a fight (and the consequent casualties) is there, because the evidence so far is unconvincing. Pray God that the day may never come. ------------------ Fabs [This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-10-2000).] [This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-10-2000).] [This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-10-2000).]

_____________________________

Fabs

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 47

- 7/11/2000 9:35:00 AM

Grimm

Posts: 126
Joined: 7/10/2000
From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Status: offline

"As for the Sherman, well lets just say that much maligned tank certainly managed to help the 3 major powers at wars end, to WIN the war... Whereas the venerated almost whorshiped Tiger didn't. " Lets not forget that in August 1944, US industry produced as many Sherman tanks (only) as the German industry produced ALL models of ALL tanks for ALL of 1944!

_____________________________

Its what you do
and not what you say
If you're not part of the future
then get out of the way

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 48

- 7/11/2000 1:54:00 PM

Belaja smert

Posts: 483
Joined: 5/29/2000
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Fabs: I am left breathless by the superficiality of this posting by Chris. A standard European left wing student type of argument, I do not believe that it even deserves to be answered.

Gentlemen, Although I agree that Chris was just trying to piss off the Americans reading this forum, this kind of slander is not acceptable. I for one come from a country that has never been and will never be one of these "major" powers. My country has had its share of "friendly" nearby superpowers. As history shows superpowers have always exploited smaller or poorer countries, throughout history. Or maybe this is just a leftist student from Europe rambling?

Remember that history is written all the time... But I digress. Fabs, I know you feel that you have to defend your own country, I'd do the same, but those kind of comments are simply wrong. Sic transit gloria mundi, Belaja smert

_____________________________

"THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YE FRET"

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 49

- 7/11/2000 8:59:00 PM

Fabs

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

quote:

Originally posted by Belaja smert: Gentlemen, Although I agree that Chris was just trying to piss off the Americans reading this forum, this kind of slander is not acceptable. I for one come from a country that has never been and will never be one of these "major" powers. My country has had its share of "friendly" nearby superpowers. As history shows superpowers have always exploited smaller or poorer countries, throughout history. Or maybe this is just a leftist student from Europe rambling? Remember that history is written all the time... But I digress. Fabs, I know you feel that you have to defend your own country, I'd do the same, but those kind of comments are simply wrong. Sic transit gloria mundi, Belaja smert

Hi, Belaja smert! Actually, I was not defending my country at all. I was born in Lugano, Switzerland. My father is from Lugano and my mother is Spanish. I have served my time in the Swiss Army twentyfive years ago, and moved to England where I've been living and working for most of my adult life. What does that make me? I assume that you are from Finland, a country that has earned my undying respect because of the brilliant way in which it stood up to the Soviet Union. I understand your comments about superpowers from your perspective. I would argue that America has been a unique example of a superpower in many ways. Especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union, very few if any examples can be found in history of a power with such a dominant global position. What is special about America is that while it will always act according to its national interests (and why not?) it will normally try to be a force for good and progress, albeit in a slightly naive way at times. You will find that mostly American involvement in any region of the world in the last century has put back as much if not more than what it has taken out, with few exceptions. Their brashness and the uniqueness of their position may be envied and resented, but if one looks at things with a detached historical perspective one must agree that their behavior has been unmatched by other previous and recent "superpowers". As for your criticism of my comments I assume you were getting at the "European left wing student" thing. I grew up among quite a few of these burgeois "revolutionaries" and the sort of comments that Chris made were their routine "mantras". They conveniently ignored the fact that their freedom to make such comments had been bought with an important contribution in American blood, and that it was American economic aid that started Europe back from the depths of despair prevalent at the end of the war. Thankfully, we will never know what would have happened if the strong socialist/communist current that was prevalent in most European countries from the war until the early eighties would have won the political argument. I am not saying that he is left wing, I assume that he is a student because it says so in his details. If my comments were too harsh, I apologize to the other members of this forum. I will not apologize to Chris because I mean what I said, and if he was going to express such an opinion he could have chosen better words in both postings. I also believe that other members have used somewhat more direct language, for which I have some sympathy. ------------------ Fabs

_____________________________

Fabs

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 50

- 7/12/2000 10:39:00 AM

Greg McCarty

Posts: 234
Joined: 6/15/2000
From: woodbury,mn,usa
Status: offline

You really have to wonder why Chris started this thread. I used to see people do this on BBS boards just to start a flap. Mission accomplished. Chris, look. Believe me when I tell you; we did not spend billions of dollars, 55000 or so lives just to "show off." It damn near tore the country apart. We honestly thought we were going to accomplish something sensible. Unfortunately, Ho Chi Minh was fighting to get rid of colonialism, and unify the country. We were fighting to ward off what we saw as Communist expansion. We both were working at cross purposes. We had no idea just how independant of both Russia and China he (Ho) actually was. If it had been 20 years later, after the collapse of the Berlin wall, we probably could have straightened it out with him over a bottle Jack Danials. We know that now. We didn't then. Was it a mess? Certainly. I served there. I still feel the cause was noble, (containing Communism) but our course of action, less than brilliant. Don't generalize. Research. Learn. As for U.S. Army tactics; Does anyone remember (I cant remember in which of my many tomes I read this) that the U.S. Army had a WWII tactical doctrine which evolved out of practical neccessesity, and was adopted for the duration. It went something like this: For the sake of simplicity, officers at any tactical level were taught to, when going on the offense to split their given force into two groups. One would engage the enemy frontally (more or less) in an effort to get him to commit the bulk of his force, and get his undivided attention. The second group; ideally slightly smaller, and more mobile would attempt a flank attack, which would hopfully knock the enemy off balance enough to provoke at least a withdrawl or readjustment. Devilishly simple. Anyone could remember and execute it, from Platoon commander to Battalion level. So you see, Chris, we're not totally lacking in imagination. (chuckle)

_____________________________

Greg.

It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees.

--Zapata

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 51

- 7/12/2000 11:47:00 AM

kkrull

Posts: 13
Joined: 4/12/2000
From: California
Status: offline

I am not sure if Midway is a sign of great tactics.... Great strategy and code breaking, yes, but I really don't think that there was any one person who said: let's sacrifice the majority of our Torpedo planes in piecemeal so that all of the Japanesse CAP would be at the deck, allowing our diverbombers to attack uncontested. Not to take anything away from the heroism of those who went in without fighter cover, but if it was part of a plan, the planer should probably have been relieved of command. (Can't recall that strategy being used in later engagements.)

quote:

Originally posted by Aktion T4: I should also mention the Battle of Midway as another example of good 'ol US tactics. Read this and weep: JAPANESE LOSES CU Akagi CU Kaga CU Hiryu CU Soryu CA Nikuma + 332 aircraft AMERICAN LOSES CU Yorktown DD Hamman + 147 aircraft All I have to say is, "Admiral Nimitz, Chester Fletcher, and Raymon Spruance" 'nuff said I thought I had to put a plug in for the US NAvy as well! 8)

[This message has been edited by kkrull (edited 07-12-2000).]

_____________________________

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 52

- 7/12/2000 11:56:00 AM

kkrull

Posts: 13
Joined: 4/12/2000
From: California
Status: offline

Honestly, I think getting the Germans to commit resources to North Africa was strategically brilliant. It was not key to winning, and it diverted resources from Barbarossa. What type of reputation would Rommel have made on the Russion Steppe? The wide open spaces are similar to the dessert, but less problems with sand. :-) Give Germany the extra brains (Rommel) & material (Afrika Core) on the Eastern front, and maybe the Germans get the extra 40 miles they needed to take Moscow.... This does not include any potential delay caused to German schedules by the British being in Greece (I really don't know much about that, exect that the Germans helped out the Italians, which also diverted from Barbarossa.)

quote:

Originally posted by Fabs: [QUOTE]Originally posted by troopie: Should like to point out that if, Churchill had not pulled most of the British army out of North Africa to help the Greeks, the British would have run the Italians out of Libya before Rommel got there, and he would never have made a reputation as the Desert Fox. ... troopie

quote:

You are absolutely right about Churchill diverting troops from North Africa to Greece. It was a strategic blunder. Rommel did get his chance, and his superior generalship gave the 8th Army a very hard time. ...
[This message has been edited by kkrull (edited 07-12-2000).] [This message has been edited by kkrull (edited 07-12-2000).]

_____________________________

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 53

- 7/12/2000 6:07:00 PM

Fabs

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

Kkrull, there is merit in your argument. On the other hand, the Greece gamble damn near cost the British Egypt. As for the germans not getting to Moscow, the delay to the beginning of Barbarossa was certainly a factor, but other decisions on the conduct of subsequent operations in Russia also played a part, and it remains to be seen whether taking Moscow would have been as significant as to totally prejudice the final outcome of the struggle with the Soviet titan. Taking Moscow did not help Napoleon. The events of early 1941 in the Mediterranean and North Africa were quite hectic, and it is difficult to figure what would have hapened had Churchill not sent some of his best troops East. I would have thought that Rommel would have been sent anyway, because there was a threat that Italy may be swept out of North Africa, and that would have been a serious setback for the Axis. By sending troops East, Churchill settled for a 2-0 result in favour of the Axis as opposed to a very possible 1-1. This is, of course, pure conjecture, and I accept that there is merit in what you say. ------------------ Fabs [This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-12-2000).]

_____________________________

Fabs

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 54

- 7/12/2000 8:21:00 PM

Steve

Posts: 13
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Perth, Western Australia
Status: offline

Salutations Gentlemen!! A most interesting thread this is becoming... My own four cents (two pence for the poms out there...DAMN that dratted exchange rate!! You will never get the Ashes though!!!) now follows.... Every nation has its ups and downs, the British have been resposible for some of the greatest glories of battle..(not on any cricket pitch of late though), so to have the French, the Germans, the Americans and certainly not the least the Russians!! Every nation has her leaders of brilliance and her dullards, every general has his moments of magnificence and times when he really shouldn't even put on his shoes... Yes even those sacred trio Rommel, Guderian and Manstein messed it up and misbehaved occasionally!! Which brings me to a particular bug bear of mine... This endless rewriting...That damned if only....My all time favorite is the old"If only the Germans had gone straight for Moscow....If only Hitler hadn't buggered about with his generals so...etc. Well if we are going to let the Germans have another go I think it only fair we let the Poles, French, Brits, Yanks and Russians have another shot as well. It really pains me sometimes to see the short shrift the Russians are given... the Germans only lost due to bad luck or even worse those ENDLESS hordes of dull low brow Russian soldiers and thier damned inferior tanks!!! Sorry, I almost fell of my milk crate there. Anyway, the Americans have brought some sheer brilliance to the battlefield and some sheer stupidity too, but so has everybody else.And I for one am more than happy to inhabit the same planet with the damn Yanks!! Their comedy shows suck, they can't play rugby or cricket and I love em dearly!! Anyway must scoot off... I've got a date with that ratbag Rommel again, he reckons he's got my measure this time...thank Matrix for Spwaw (is that a word??) Regards to you all. Steve

_____________________________

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 55

- 7/12/2000 9:59:00 PM

JJU57

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

I had long talks with my dad (God rest his soul) who fought with the 3rd Infantry Division in WWII. He was wounded twice and was there from the start of US involvement (Operation Torch) till the end. We used to discuss tactics and which country had the best soldiers. His opinion was that the British soldier was the best fighter but their leaders did dumb things. He gave me many examples most of which were from the Italian campaign. As for tactics, his most common comment was that no individual soldier knew what the hell was going on. They just receive orders to go to some town or hill and then fought till they either captured the place or retreated due to losses. He used to say the Germans felt the US was crazy because they did crazy or unexpected things. Bottom line was the average Joe would goof up and sometimes this caused victory and sometimes this caused defeat. It was had doing much of anything when being shot at. Remember most soldiers are just 18- 25 year olds. They did most of the fighting and dying.

_____________________________

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 56

- 7/12/2000 11:05:00 PM

ChrisMcDee

Posts: 7
Joined: 6/21/2000
From: England
Status: offline

well said steve, I think that message from steve finishes this string off nicely, let's drop this topic before it gets boring, and somebody please start up a thread on the possability of Internet play (not PBM) as I know it's cropped up a few times in certain areas. The End (?) ------------------ Verior Procella

_____________________________

Verior Procella

(in reply to ChrisMcDee)

Post #: 57