RE: British Unit with low Exp

RE: British Unit with low Exp (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

String -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/20/2009 6:39:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Offworlder Frankly, one must compare her to America in this respect. The US was capable of assembling a huge military force which could go toe to toe with the major opponents it faced, passing through a painful experience or two but actually fielding a decent land force by '43. That had nothing to do with greater resources, training facilities etc. The truth was that the US geared up and not only created a viable fighting force (in terms of military hardware and numbers) but also a decent officer corps. The latter was a real accomplishment for an army that pre-war was quite small. Well the US army did have the privilege of being on another continent with no real threat to its home country and having a year or so to prepare for its first real offensive operations and not really getting into the fray in numbers before 1-2 years, while the British were constantly in action since early 1940.

Caractacus -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/20/2009 6:42:47 PM)
Well possibly in Offworlder's defence he was only referring to the British Army in India? Otherwise his statements would make no sense at all! Before the Commonwealth Army in India/Burma is totally written off, it could be worth bearing in mind that they defeated more Japanese troops there than the US did throughout the whole of its island hopping campaign. (That's something I read a while back, and I'm not gonna defend it if it turns out to be wrong.) [:D] However, the point is all that didn't happen by accident or incompetance surely?

Wirraway_Ace -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/20/2009 7:01:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: String Well the US army did have the privilege of being on another continent with no real threat to its home country and having a year or so to prepare for its first real offensive operations and not really getting into the fray in numbers before 1-2 years, while the British were constantly in action since early 1940. I am not sure I agree. Britain declared war on Germany on or about 1 Sep 39. Germany invaded France & the low countries on 10 May 40. The BEF had 8 months and 10 days to prepare. The U.S. entered the war on 7 Dec 41. The 1st Mar Div invaded Guadalcanal and Tulagi on 7 Aug 42. The Marines had 8 months to prepare. I remain unconvinced that the German Army represented a credible threat to the British Isles. If your logic that being at war makes it significantly harder to develop a proficient Army were true, how would you explain the Red Army's success?

Wirraway_Ace -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/20/2009 7:08:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Caractacus Well possibly in Offworlder's defence he was only referring to the British Army in India? Otherwise his statements would make no sense at all! Before the Commonwealth Army in India/Burma is totally written off, it could be worth bearing in mind that they defeated more Japanese troops there than the US did throughout the whole of its island hopping campaign. (That's something I read a while back, and I'm not gonna defend it if it turns out to be wrong.) [:D] However, the point is all that didn't happen by accident or incompetance surely? While I have not done the actual math, I believe you may be confusing the comment that Slim inflicted the largest defeat (by that he is defining India, Burma and Malaya 1944-1945 as a single defeat) with the whole of the island hopping campaign.

Sharkosaurus rex -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/20/2009 7:10:47 PM)
You people can be so funny.

Wirraway_Ace -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/20/2009 7:24:21 PM)
"Funny", yes well...Debate can be fun, but one does not wish to be "funny" when talking about such critical issues as the relative combat skill of armies that fought more than a half-century in the past.

EUBanana -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/20/2009 7:31:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace If your logic that being at war makes it significantly harder to develop a proficient Army were true, how would you explain the Red Army's success? Depends how you define success really. "If there is a minefield, we attack as if it was not there." - Zhukov I think I'd rather serve in the British Army than the Red Army in WW2 myself...

frank1970 -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/20/2009 8:09:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Caractacus OK, first of all I wish the juvenile 'my sub's better than your sub' guys would bugger off and start their own thread. Especially the SS fanboy and his German friend. ... As a matter of fact your behavior is unappropriate, some how like the performance of most British forces in the pacific theater ;-) And now explain me, why facts about the Indian forces are more on topic in a thread about British leaders´ ratings than a discussion about the size of Britains Army. Kind regards

Wirraway_Ace -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/20/2009 8:15:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace I agree with you; however I found the similiar performance surprising considering the RAF as a whole had two years of wartime experience to draw on. The sprinking of veterans sent to the FarEast in some ways actually made the RAF experience worse because it was a classic example of the "wrong" experience for the wrong enemy. RAF vets were used to having the edge in turning maneuvers over their primary adveraries (the Germans). When they came up primary against the Ki-27 and Ki-43, they were not only rudely shocked to find the dynamic reversed but worse.....the enemy was fully capable of sticking it to them. (and did along with most others in early 42) RAF preformance in Burma 43-45 was puzzling and continues to be debated to this day. A RAF 'troubleshooter' sent to investigate the Hurricane problem vs. the Type 1 concluded that tactics and training were at the root of the problem....an assertation that was hotly disputed by the local RAF commanders. Ultimately the RAF and USAAF overwhelmed the JAAF by sheer level of resources in that theater. thanks Nik. I also overlooked the benefits that Chennault's experience in China gave the USAAF. More relevant tactical experience than the RAF had I would guess.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/20/2009 9:29:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 Look up how Morton and USS Wahoo died, and perhaps you'll understand this ex-submariner's pique. I was not aware it is known how Mush and his boat were lost? Not 100%, but more than 90% certainty. See http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,118115,00.html There are also many sites with underwater photos of the wreckage.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/20/2009 9:40:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace While I am not necessarily a Mush Morton fan, I am not sure you are being fair in your use of descriptive statistics. Morton's kills on Wahoo were in a very short period of time. Haggard on Truant sank 10 ships in over two years of patrols. Mush sank approximately twice as many in half the time. A 4 times greater rate. Against the same opponent, Haggard on Truant sank 2 japanese vessels in more than 7 months of patrols. Mush on Wahoo did rather better... Many of Truant's ships were single Italian merchats sunk in the Med against what one must assume was rather flaccid ASW measures by the Italians. Many of Morton's kills were under great duress and kill-or-be-killed conditions. One Wikipedia excerpt from the wild Third Patrol: "Wahoo was ready for sea again on 16 January 1943. She performed sonar tests in Moreton Bay with USS Patterson (DD-392) before beginning her third war patrol. Three days later, the submarine passed into Vitiaz Strait en route to her patrol area. Wahoo's orders were to reconnoiter Wewak, a Japanese supply base on the north coast of New Guinea between Kairiru Island and coincidently, Mushu Island. There was one large problem: Wahoo had no charts of the harbor. However, it turned out that motor machinist's mate Dalton Keeter had bought a cheap school atlas while in Australia. It had a map of New Guinea with a small indentation labeled "Wewak". With that as a reference, a blowup of the Navy chart was made. On 24 January 1943, Wahoo dove two miles (3 km) north of Kairiru Island and proceeded around the western end to penetrate Victoria Bay. She sighted the Japanese destroyer Harusame with RO-class submarines nested around it. The destroyer was getting underway, so Wahoo fired a spread of three torpedoes at the moving target; all missed aft. Another torpedo was fired, but the destroyer avoided by turning away, then circled and headed for Wahoo. Wahoo turned toward the destroyer and at a distance of 750 yards (690 m) fired one last torpedo.[7] This torpedo struck the destroyer amidships, breaking its back. Wahoo had no difficulty escaping the area. Despite heavy damage Harusame was beached and repaired." The rest of this patrol can be read about at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wahoo_(SS-238)

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/20/2009 9:44:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mark Weston Sometimes it's a wonder to me that the British army performed as well as it did, never mind asking why it was sometimes as bad as it was. And Dunkirk was no help either.

Wirraway_Ace -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/20/2009 9:53:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 Look up how Morton and USS Wahoo died, and perhaps you'll understand this ex-submariner's pique. I was not aware it is known how Mush and his boat were lost? Not 100%, but more than 90% certainty. See http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,118115,00.html There are also many sites with underwater photos of the wreckage. Thanks!

crsutton -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/20/2009 10:02:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mariandavid ""rather poor officers that they had"" This is a truly objectionable and unsubstantiated statement - and I know no evidence and no source that can credibly suggest that there was any serious distinction between the officer corps of America and Britain. In truth the weakest officer part of any army was the '90 day wonder' system introduced by the USA later in the war to make up for errors in forecasting officer losses. There are several quotations of Canadian troops expressing sorrow and pity for neighbouring American units ordered into battle knowing that their officers had no comprehension of how to lead Well unsubstantiated except for Alan Brooke's lamenting the tremendous gap created in the talent pool for the British officer corps by the terrible losses suffered between 1914 and 1918. Officers that two decades later should have been arriving at the colonel, brigadier and major general rank, except that they were all dead. But what would he know....

crsutton -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/20/2009 10:14:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Caractacus Well possibly in Offworlder's defence he was only referring to the British Army in India? Otherwise his statements would make no sense at all! Before the Commonwealth Army in India/Burma is totally written off, it could be worth bearing in mind that they defeated more Japanese troops there than the US did throughout the whole of its island hopping campaign. (That's something I read a while back, and I'm not gonna defend it if it turns out to be wrong.) [:D] However, the point is all that didn't happen by accident or incompetance surely? Well, Slim's campaign in Burma was brilliant. He is one of the most underated officers of the war. However, there are many that argue that the whole Burma campaign was a total waste of resources and men. The Japanese forces in Burma had already been notified by the Imperial Staff that they were in effect "on their own" as there was no longer any way to send supply and reinforcments to them. The only key stragetic contribution of the whole Burma campaign was the recapture of Myitkyina (poorly that it was done) as it doubled the amount of of supply going to China and prevented Japanese fighters from preying on allied transports flying the hump. The rest of the Burma campaign served little purpose but to restablish British dominion over a people who despised their presence, and that dominion was very short lived. Rangoon was taken only just before the Japanese surrendered-all for show.

mariandavid -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/20/2009 10:30:46 PM)
Nik makes a good point on RAF veterans bringing the wrong message. The key I suspect was how quickly they adapted to the realisation that their tactics were wrong. A good example is the veteran RAF/RAAF Spit squadrons sent to Darwin that were thumped by Zero's. That is often quoted - what is not is that their excellent leaders checked with the locals, reviewed tactics and met the Zero's on equal terms in their next attack a few days later. It makes me realise how right the AE developers are to base their ratings on averages not the always highlighted extremes of success and failure. crsutton: You are quite correct in quoting Lord Alanbrook's words. However when the field marshal wrote he was referring to the loss of regular officers - those that would have been brigade and division commanders in 1940. My objection to Outlanders comments was that he was stating that the entire British officer corps was deficient - 95% of whom were by 1942 ex-civilians. Strangely the US army had much the same problem. Although it suffered far few officer casualties than the Commonwealth in WW1 it was doing so from a far smaller base - I believe Marshall uttered comparable complaints in the pre-war years.

EUBanana -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/20/2009 11:15:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton Well unsubstantiated except for Alan Brooke's lamenting the tremendous gap created in the talent pool for the British officer corps by the terrible losses suffered between 1914 and 1918. Officers that two decades later should have been arriving at the colonel, brigadier and major general rank, except that they were all dead. But what would he know.... I still think this is something of a myth, one widely shared. But in the cold light of day, it's only an excuse IMHO. The Germans suffered more in WW1 than the British did, after all. Plenty of dead German officers too.

Mark Weston -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/21/2009 12:06:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton Well unsubstantiated except for Alan Brooke's lamenting the tremendous gap created in the talent pool for the British officer corps by the terrible losses suffered between 1914 and 1918. Officers that two decades later should have been arriving at the colonel, brigadier and major general rank, except that they were all dead. But what would he know.... I still think this is something of a myth, one widely shared. But in the cold light of day, it's only an excuse IMHO. The Germans suffered more in WW1 than the British did, after all. Plenty of dead German officers too. Yes, the comparison with Germany is a simple test of the logic. Germany suffered more losses (both absolute and proportional to population), was limited by the Versailles restrictions until 1933, and still built a continental army by 1940 with a much stronger and deeper officer corp than Britain managed. It's understandable that people of Alan Brooke's generation bought into the myth, but it really doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

ckammp -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/21/2009 1:17:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mariandavid Trying to avoid turning this into a 'who is best' dialogue but I must challenge some of Offworlders highly questionable assumptions: ""The British land forces never really performed that well in the war, especially when facing a first class army"" Considered opinion (ie not my own) is that in 1940 the British and German infantry were comparable, British artillery was superior and British armour despicable. It is also true to say that the US Army itself never faced a 'first-class enemy' - as evidenced by the fact that it only engaged one full-strength panzer division in the whole war (the 2nd Panzer in Normandy). This is not a criticism simply a reminder that comparisons are tricky. ""Infantry/artillery co-ordination was basic"" In fact it was the best of any nation and its systems were copied by the United States Army after Korea. The key here was that its forward observers (regardless of rank) could order not merely request a fire mission. This avoided the debate and time wasting found in the US fire control centre system. "while armour/infantry was nonexistant" True if oversimplified. The lack of co-operation was between tanks and motorised infantry in the attack and this problem was not solved until after Normandy. That between tanks and marching infantry was exemplary from the start - as an example note the attack by the combined 1st Tank Brigade and the 50th Infantry Division at Arras in 1940 - the one that gave the SS and Rommel a severe fright! Note that the US Army had precisely the same co-ordination problem at Kasserine Pass as late as 1943. ""rather poor officers that they had"" This is a truly objectionable and unsubstantiated statement - and I know no evidence and no source that can credibly suggest that there was any serious distinction between the officer corps of America and Britain. In truth the weakest officer part of any army was the '90 day wonder' system introduced by the USA later in the war to make up for errors in forecasting officer losses. There are several quotations of Canadian troops expressing sorrow and pity for neighbouring American units ordered into battle knowing that their officers had no comprehension of how to lead The trouble in this sort of comparisom is that if fails to compare situations. Some (I for one) would agree with the perception that the USA case can be summed up by saying that it produced ""the best soldiers, but the worst army"" among the allies. By this I mean that its magnificent qualities were mucked up by organisational dictats: such as its small size (contrary to Offworlders statement it was tiny in terms of number of divisions versus national population - the smallest in the war); its truly abominable replacement system;some very serious weapon weaknesses, again created by men safely housed in Washington who prized quantity over everything. Now I feel better!!! Glad you feel better!!! And thank you for answering a question that's been bothering me: How did the US Army - the worst led, worst trained, worst organized of any army in WWII - so bad the Canadians openly pitied them - how did this terrible army do so well in the war? Now I know: They never fought a 'first -class enemy'! Fortunatly for the Allies, the British (who had the best led, best trained, best organized army in history), with help from the Compassionate Canadians, were able to defeat all of the Axis 'first-class' units with ease. Of course, British excellence wasn't limited to their Army; RAF planes , pilots, and tactics were the world's best. The RN, lead by such heroes as Victor Crutchly (surely,the reincarnation of Horatio Nelson!), absolutely dominated the sea. Their sub captains were, are, and forever shall be the unequaled best! All of the above is well documented fact. Just ask any British fanboy.[8\|]

Andy Mac -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/21/2009 1:55:42 AM)
Well I was going to respond to that last one but decided its not worth the effort back to debugging

mariandavid -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/21/2009 1:56:17 AM)
I did not claim that the British were the best or that the Americans were the worst; I simply challenged you claim that the British were in all respects inferior. The differences between them were the result of time, culture and assets and both had strengths and weaknesses. Both were critically inferior to that of Germany for the first few years of the war. I merely pointed out that the American army was fortunate (as the British were not) that they did not encounter the Germans when their first-class army had been diminished by nearly three years of war.

EUBanana -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/21/2009 2:22:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ckammp You Yanks are the most sensitive people on earth. Who'da thunk it? [:'(] Meanwhile Stilwell is being rehabbed in other threads. [8\|]

EUBanana -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/21/2009 2:25:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mariandavid I simply challenged you claim that the British were in all respects inferior. British Army leadership was poor, the rest of the situation was pretty good though. At least such is the impression I get reading German accounts of fighting the British Army. von Mellenthin's book on the subject says endlessly how 8th Army was much better equipped than the German/Italian forces, and how British logistics in particular was far superior. Of course, with Ritchie in charge one might say it was all rather moot.

Zebedee -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/21/2009 2:37:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana I still think this is something of a myth, one widely shared. But in the cold light of day, it's only an excuse IMHO. The Germans suffered more in WW1 than the British did, after all. Plenty of dead German officers too. Some military historians have noted that British commanders improved at all levels as meritocracy and rigorous officer selection became the norm during the war. Brooke's lament to his diary is made (IIRC) in the early stages of the war and perhaps over much is made of it; Brooke's diary is equally scathing about the quality of the US high command. In game terms, I guess the British armed forces and their commanders need to get a raw deal because otherwise Malaysia might become defensible and Operation Matador might even become a possibility with the wheels coming off the SRA assault for the Japanese player almost immediately.

EUBanana -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/21/2009 2:54:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zebedee Some military historians have noted that British commanders improved at all levels as meritocracy and rigorous officer selection became the norm during the war. Brooke's lament to his diary is made (IIRC) in the early stages of the war and perhaps over much is made of it; Brooke's diary is equally scathing about the quality of the US high command. The other thing to bear in mind is that Brooke wasn't all that much himself as a military genius. [:D] Though he did have the cojones to stand up to Churchill which was a quality badly needed and possessed by few. I think it's true that British army high command was poor, though. Churchill bitched and moaned about it himself behind closed doors, wanting to know why British divisions with plenty of air power, plenty of materiel, all the manpower needed, still managed to make a mess of things. Not always, of course. And I suppose every army had its debacles.

Anthropoid -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/21/2009 2:56:49 AM)
As somebody naive to the literature, I just cannot help myself and have to ask: did it, or for that matter does it really matter how "good" they were? Van Creveld shows pretty convincingly that the Germans were, what? two or three times "as good" as the Yanks? Even more better than the Russians . . . Nonetheless they lost. That makes me entertain the idea that, it doesn't really matter how good a military is, it matters how well a nation uses the military assets at its disposal in concert with its foreign policy. Sure having a weak military and a contumelious foreign policy could spell disaster (South Ossetia?), but then having a token military and a amiable foreign policy (witness modern Canada?) could be a sure fire path to "victory!" When a nation tries to do things beyond, the capacities of its military either in terms of scale, specificity or time it seems to start highlighting how "bad" that military is (The CSA biting off more than she could chew even though arguably having a "better" military at the outset), while in other instances a military that clearly showed itself to be really "good" (Germany late 1930s?) ultimately was not able to make enough of a difference to make up for psychotic foreign policy.

EUBanana -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/21/2009 3:07:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anthropoid As somebody naive to the literature, I just cannot help myself and have to ask: did it, or for that matter does it really matter how "good" they were? To an extent, sure. But as some German general said, "We cannot fight the whole world." [:D]

crsutton -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/21/2009 3:36:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mariandavid Nik makes a good point on RAF veterans bringing the wrong message. The key I suspect was how quickly they adapted to the realisation that their tactics were wrong. A good example is the veteran RAF/RAAF Spit squadrons sent to Darwin that were thumped by Zero's. That is often quoted - what is not is that their excellent leaders checked with the locals, reviewed tactics and met the Zero's on equal terms in their next attack a few days later. It makes me realise how right the AE developers are to base their ratings on averages not the always highlighted extremes of success and failure. crsutton: You are quite correct in quoting Lord Alanbrook's words. However when the field marshal wrote he was referring to the loss of regular officers - those that would have been brigade and division commanders in 1940. My objection to Outlanders comments was that he was stating that the entire British officer corps was deficient - 95% of whom were by 1942 ex-civilians. Strangely the US army had much the same problem. Although it suffered far few officer casualties than the Commonwealth in WW1 it was doing so from a far smaller base - I believe Marshall uttered comparable complaints in the pre-war years. You are right, British officers at the junior level were actually quite good. There was of course a shortage, but that was the case with every army in the war. The serious problem in Asia is that the British officers stationed there tended to cling to the old "colonial system" of caste and rank to the determent of morale and cohesion. This problem in Asia was much more pronounced than say in the Western Desert. In Singapore in December of 1941, there were strict barriers between regular army officers and the white Indian officers who were treated as inferior. A native Indian officer could not be served in any officers club or stay in a hotel with whites. (or ride in the same train car for that matter). British regular army officers treated Austailian officers even worse-looking upon them as rank amatuers. An Australian officer's uniform could a get one denied service in a first class restaurant or hotel. This caste sytem carried on into the ranks as well with Australian troops and native ally troops getting very poor treatment over the white enlisted men-who themselves were not a happy or well treated lot. Indian troops were more often used for manual labor and the Indian ranks and officer corps were rife with Nationalist sentiment and hatred for the colonial system that they were being forced to defend. British colonial society has grown rotten and the ills of that society had thoroughly infected the Allied forces. It was an nasty stew of discontent and resentment and goes well towards explaining why 80,000 Allied soldiers were severly butt whipped by 40,000 Japanese.

crsutton -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/21/2009 3:41:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton Well unsubstantiated except for Alan Brooke's lamenting the tremendous gap created in the talent pool for the British officer corps by the terrible losses suffered between 1914 and 1918. Officers that two decades later should have been arriving at the colonel, brigadier and major general rank, except that they were all dead. But what would he know.... I still think this is something of a myth, one widely shared. But in the cold light of day, it's only an excuse IMHO. The Germans suffered more in WW1 than the British did, after all. Plenty of dead German officers too. You can't compare the two. The Germans worked hard to make up the losses between the war and trained a professional army. And unlike the Brits class barriers to advancment in the German army were not as severe providing a greater pool of talent.

EUBanana -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/21/2009 3:57:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton You can't compare the two. The Germans worked hard to make up the losses between the war and trained a professional army. And unlike the Brits class barriers to advancment in the German army were not as severe providing a greater pool of talent. Sure. Thats kinda the point though, no? The old joke of British WW1 soldiers, when the war was over, heaving a sigh of relief and declaring, "Thank god thats over, we can get back to soldiering." The Germans prepared, the British did not. Nothing to do with WW1 lost generations, all to do with preparation/militarism, or the lack thereof.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.375