quote:

ORIGINAL: qgaliana

(brief thread diversion) I'm not an expert and it's very complex, but read a bit a bout it so I'll take a shot (from a friendly outsider perspective)...

Personal opinion is pride was a good part of it - or at least the attempt to salvage what was left. But different Frenchmen salvaged it in different ways. Some by refusing to stop the fight. Others by accepting defeat with some attempt at dignity. Remember the French army was well and truly cooked - they performed the military equivalent of ducking into an uppercut. The homeland was lost, not just some remote colony, so surrender was not unreasonable. In hindsight we see a more monstrous enemy and a long total war, but that wasn't so obvious then (propaganda aside).

In Europe (all countries) there was no shortage of fascists willing to setup puppet governments. In time the Vichy regime became more and more controlled by them under German pressure. But Vichy France was really only nominally in charge - the different military governors pretty much ruled as independent viceroys. The military men generally hated Germans more than they disliked the English. For the most part, those that hadn't gone Free French were hoping to take another crack at the Germans, but needed some favourable conditions especially since taking up the fight again was technically an act of treason. But politics has to be considered. The big names in charge of North Africa or the Near East were not likely to bow their heads to a junior upstart like de Gaulle. Pride.

Churchill didn't exactly help. The same pride that guaranteed they'd rather die than surrender the fleet to the Germans (which is basically what eventually happened), meant they wouldn't quietly accept an English ultimatum (and I may be wrong but I think the French admiral was an anglophobe). I don't think they believed the English would shoot. But once they had, it pretty much guaranteed a cold reception everywhere else. So: Dakar, Madagascar, Syria, operation Torch; at this last, the allies salvaged this mostly by laying some early political groundwork and keeping the British out of sight. Even then the French felt they needed to put a token resistance to save face. More pride.

But strictly speaking, the French never fired at allied units unless they were being attacked by them. Outside of the influence of German guns (i.e. european France), the most the Germans got out of them was overflight rights for planes going to Iraq. Impossible to oppose without going openly free french.

Still, I oversimplify. France along with the colonial empire was badly fragmented into much worse than just free french vs vichy. The politics of Gaullist vs communist vs Petainist vs militarists vs etc. is worthy of PHD discussions. But I don't understand that part very well, and it's hard to get objective material on political matters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mldtchdog

I'm still in a quandry as how to handle the writeups for the guard banner armies. Here is what I have so found so far.

[1 banner ARM]
I could use a)the writeup of the 1st army which was historically the "1st Red Banner Army" and was more infanrty than armor. b) the 1st guards Tank army was awarded the order of the red banner after the war.

[2 banner ARM]
a) the 2nd Red Banner army (same conditions as the 1st army)

[3 banner MECH]
a) the 3rd red banner army is a post war formation that traces its history from the 3rd shock army

[4 banner MOT]
a) nothing

[5 banner INF]
a) nothing

[6 banner INF]
a) nothing

[7 banner INF]
a) the 7th red banner tank army formed in 1946 from the 65th army

.T "The Order of the Red Banner given to individuals for fearlessness, devotion and bravery in battle. Also given to military units for the successful outcome of a battle or operation in wartime". First issued in 1918.
.P The Guard Banner Army is a hypothetical unit that reflects the Soviet tendency of reinforcing their successful units with extra manpower and equipment.
 

any suggestions?

quote:

ORIGINAL: qgaliana
Still, I oversimplify. France along with the colonial empire was badly fragmented into much worse than just free french vs vichy. The politics of Gaullist vs communist vs Petainist vs militarists vs etc. is worthy of PHD discussions. But I don't understand that part very well, and it's hard to get objective material on political matters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

While travelling I read through all the land unit writeups (provided by Capitan) and marked them up with editting changes - mostly verb tense, commas, and capitalization. Since I have gotten back to Honolulu, I have made those edits to the file. Here are 4 (from the hundreds that have been written so far) that I found interesting.

quote:

a lot Russian WiF unit designations just simply didn't exist in the real OOB from what I can recall from reading Alexander Werth a long time ago and more general WWII histories of late. All of the MECH Armies for example. The Guards units are in a similar position - the most famous one in history that I can recall is the "5th Guards Tank Army". Unfortunately WiF only goes from 1st to 4th. If I recall correctly, the "Guards" designation was an honorific earned in battle, there weren't parallel series of army numbers for Guards the way WiF is set up. I think we need just a short paragraph introducing these considerations and then only include detailed write-ups of the units that match, which would be most of the numerically designated WiF pieces (most of the black-print units), and only a few of the Guards and GBA units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mldtchdog

quote:

a lot Russian WiF unit designations just simply didn't exist in the real OOB from what I can recall from reading Alexander Werth a long time ago and more general WWII histories of late. All of the MECH Armies for example. The Guards units are in a similar position - the most famous one in history that I can recall is the "5th Guards Tank Army". Unfortunately WiF only goes from 1st to 4th. If I recall correctly, the "Guards" designation was an honorific earned in battle, there weren't parallel series of army numbers for Guards the way WiF is set up. I think we need just a short paragraph introducing these considerations and then only include detailed write-ups of the units that match, which would be most of the numerically designated WiF pieces (most of the black-print units), and only a few of the Guards and GBA units.

It gets more complicated with the duplication of armies. for example 3rd guard Infanty, 3rd guard Motorized, 3rd guard Garrison. I've gone ahead and duplicated the history of the 3rd guard army for these it being hard to arbitarily decide which unit really represents the 3rd guard army.

I agree that WiF skips a lot of important units during a period of time. for example the 62nd army. Can you say Stalingrad[:D] We do have the 8th Guards Infantry...which is what the 62nd army became. So, in that write-up I did detail the history of the 62nd and then the 8th Guards.

As for the Mech armies...well, I just went ahead and used the Tank armies histories using the same theory as the 3rd guard army. That being that the counters represent different equipment and manning strenght that WE choose to commit to that army.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dale1066

Just been reading through the naval descriptions and looking at the specs for example max armour thickness some seem to be in metric some imperial and some have both.

To me a trivial thing however others may not think such. Is it a question of what data is avialable, for example I would expect all CW naval descs to be in imperial measures and the rest of the european navies to be metric? what about the US?

Apols if this has been discussed before I did a search for metric and imperial and nothing cropped up

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: dale1066

Just been reading through the naval descriptions and looking at the specs for example max armour thickness some seem to be in metric some imperial and some have both.

To me a trivial thing however others may not think such. Is it a question of what data is avialable, for example I would expect all CW naval descs to be in imperial measures and the rest of the european navies to be metric? what about the US?

Apols if this has been discussed before I did a search for metric and imperial and nothing cropped up

I have standardized on US punctuation for numbers: 12,000 men, 16.2 thickness. But for the metric, I have strongly advised to go with the owning country/country where manufactured, which will make the write ups inconsistent across all unit writeups.

I was unfamiliar with the use of the adjective Imperial for measuring systems. Instead I am use to English versus Metric.

quote:

ORIGINAL: amwild

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: dale1066

Just been reading through the naval descriptions and looking at the specs for example max armour thickness some seem to be in metric some imperial and some have both.

To me a trivial thing however others may not think such. Is it a question of what data is avialable, for example I would expect all CW naval descs to be in imperial measures and the rest of the european navies to be metric? what about the US?

Apols if this has been discussed before I did a search for metric and imperial and nothing cropped up

I have standardized on US punctuation for numbers: 12,000 men, 16.2 thickness. But for the metric, I have strongly advised to go with the owning country/country where manufactured, which will make the write ups inconsistent across all unit writeups.

I was unfamiliar with the use of the adjective Imperial for measuring systems. Instead I am use to English versus Metric.

Where measurements are included in the unit writeups, why not include both english and metric, e.g.: "Armour Thickness: 1" (2.5 cm)".

Not all of us think in the same sort of units.

quote:

Where measurements are included in the unit writeups, why not include both english and metric, e.g.: "Armour Thickness: 1" (2.5 cm)".

quote:

I have it on good authority that some of the aircraft in todays RAF have equipment fits using the English/Imperial system so it is still in active use not just in Burma

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

quote:

I have it on good authority that some of the aircraft in todays RAF have equipment fits using the English/Imperial system so it is still in active use not just in Burma

I didn't say otherwise. Re-read my post. I talked about the U.S. and Britain and then said "Apart from the above, it is used in...", hence including the U.S. and Britain in the countries that use Imperial (or Standard, or whatever Americans call it). I did see the smiley BTW and know your post was well intended but I like people to understand my exact meaning. I'm aware of the stuff about the RAF as even in Metric Australia, I worked on Rolls Royce gas turbines that were all Imperial. Our squadron had both Imperial and Metric tools.

The Metric system has been used in the rest of Europe for a looong time. The Germans generally referred to enemy equipment in terms of SI (Metric) units.

Cheers, Neilster

Just for interests sake do historical german sources refer to the Bismark as having 15" guns or 381mm guns? when was the metric system introduced ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dale1066

quote:



Just for interests sake do historical german sources refer to the Bismark as having 15" guns or 381mm guns? when was the metric system introduced ?

Hi Dale

I believe that the Revolutionary French were responsible...

Brits of my generation now have the bizarre situation of having to be fluent in both systems after it was brought in and taught in schools but stubbornly resisted by the older generations. I work in building development and it becomes a real skill to be able to translate acres into hectares in your head; the private sector still uses square feet for floor areas but measures dimensions in metric. Go figure!

Many of the young generation coming through now have no real idea what most of the Imperial system is and its only a matter of time before inches and miles go the same way as Chains and shillings

By the way I think a relatively significant little former colony out west called the USA still uses much of the Imperial system doesnt it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

The French even had decimal time and calenders for a while...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_time

Cheers, Neilster

[image]local://upfiles/10515/AB76E5FC654741F196171FC645DB33D0.jpg[/image]

quote:

Many of the young generation coming through now have no real idea what most of the Imperial system is and its only a matter of time before inches and miles go the same way as Chains and shillings

quote:

And how long before Wif becomes un PC?

quote:

The Romans had 10 months in a year until they inserted July and August honoring Julilus and Augustus Caesar. That is why September/Oct/Nov/Dec have the prefixes for 7/8/9/10 though they are the 9/10/11/12 months.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

The Romans had 10 months in a year until they inserted July and August honoring Julilus and Augustus Caesar. That is why September/Oct/Nov/Dec have the prefixes for 7/8/9/10 though they are the 9/10/11/12 months.

Wow, I'm happy to have learned that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Last year I did a 3rd year maths subject which involved number theory. We had to do calculations using Roman numerals as an exercise (and in the exam. That was pretty cruisy. Easy marks.). We're not sure how the Romans actually did them, but they probably used a grouping and substitution algorithm similar to the modern one we learned. They would be so familiar with this that they would have been able to do several steps at once. It's no wonder that Arabic numerals and the concepts of zero and place took over though.

Mind you, we use algorithms like long multiplication, (well...some of us can still do it [:D]) without really thinking about why they work. In that subject we also performed multiplication using the Ancient Egyptian and Russian peasant methods. They're pretty funky, but work. It was all designed to make us think hard about the number system and algorithms we take for granted.

Cheers, Neilster