Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies

Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series

Message

Q-Ball -> Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/24/2011 12:08:40 AM)
I was wondering, if WITE were expanded, what National Morale would we assign to the Western Allies? Even late in the war, the Wehrmacht was slightly more efficient pound for pound than the Western Allies, so keeping the current WITE ratings in mind. I'll take a stab...... FRANCE: 40 The Third Republic was in a sorry state politically, reflected in the malaise of it's poliu. The leaders stink too. Would make the French Army not so hot despite piles of tanks and quite a bit of firepower. As it should. Free-French are different, they would share ratings with UK/US BRITAIN: 65 I would keep the Brits the same througout the whole war. Not sure morale or combat efficiency really changed, other than the tools they worked with. Their Manpower production would really drop off in a game. CANADA: 70 All-volunteer force performed very well, and were tough opponents ANZACS: 70 Same comment as Canada INDIAN ARMY: 60 Performed well in Desert and Italy UNITED STATES: 1942: 50 1943: 60 1944: 65 1945: 65 The US Army started out slow, but gradually grew into it's combat power, and ended the war fairly efficient. I'm not sure the US Army really became a high-efficiency force, but became a killing machine mostly because of it's mobility, artillery firepower, and piles and piles of tanks. And logistics. As a side note, it would be a tough call on what to do with the US Infantry Divisions. They really were more mobile than standard foot infantry, but weren't "Motorized" per se. It seems a bit unfair to just allow them to Temp Motorize, but not use that for Combat exploits. Certainly, the US Army would have a bottomless vehicle pool. BELGIUM: 40 A bit unfair maybe, but you have to lump them with the French NETHERLANDS: 50 They showed some pluck in a short-fight, but the Dutch Army just didn't have the firepower to compete. GREECE: 45 They were great in comparison with the Italians.

delatbabel -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/24/2011 3:36:25 PM)
I'd rate the US a bit lower, but with high morale leaders that could rally routed troops quickly. The US troops (most of them) earned a reputation during the war of breaking and running at the first sign of trouble, but being able to rally quickly and start returning fire from covered positions, especially once they had artillery backup (which they usually did). This is in comparison to German and Soviet troops who would greet incoming fire by returning fire from the spot. It's a different war when you're fighting for someone else's homeland.

Josh -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/24/2011 4:09:39 PM)
NETHERLANDS: 50 They showed some pluck in a short-fight, but the Dutch Army just didn't have the firepower to compete. I'd say fair enough. Years and years of finance cutbacks after WWI made the militairy very inefficient. I mean they had to get artillery pieces from the museums to fight the Germans in '40... There was however a wellknown brigade that did well: The Princess Irene Brigade. http://www.prinsesirenebrigade.nl/ WitW... at least another six months?

Q-Ball -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/24/2011 5:21:26 PM)
I can see the point on poor morale, bucked-up by good leaders and artillery. US Army Artillery in WWII was second to none, and that's not just because my Gramps was a WWII Artilleryman. The US Army had first-rate communications equipment and doctrine (easily the best), superior mobility for it's artillery, and more shells. The Artillery attracted many of the brightest officers (My Gramps was #2 in his ROTC class at Illinois), and the training was quite good. There was a strong Espirit d' Corps in the Artillery, as least from what I can tell. The US Army is kind of a unique WWII animal in many ways

paullus99 -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/24/2011 6:43:11 PM)
The Canadians & ANZACs will be hampered by very low manpower pools - they never had the number of replacements they needed & were notoriously understrength, especially in Normandy & northern Europe.

Q-Ball -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/24/2011 7:16:36 PM)
...and the British later on. Only the US Army had adequate replacements. IIRC, the Australians were all transferred to the Pacific before it became critical. As far as the Canadians, I didn't know their replacements became critical. Certainly it was for the British, as they started disbanding divisions later in the war to create replacements Only the US Army had good manpower reserves

dazoline II -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/24/2011 7:36:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball ...and the British later on. Only the US Army had adequate replacements. IIRC, the Australians were all transferred to the Pacific before it became critical. As far as the Canadians, I didn't know their replacements became critical. Certainly it was for the British, as they started disbanding divisions later in the war to create replacements Only the US Army had good manpower reserves The only reason that Canadian frontline manpower was critical was due to the voluntary nature of serving overseas. Canada did have conscription but only for home defence, i.e. North America. Conscripted Canadians did help with the landings in the Aleutians.

anarchyintheuk -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/24/2011 7:37:21 PM)
Nationally they had good manpower reserves but as an institution the USArmy underestimated riflemen and tank crew losses in the eto. It led to using a lot of un/undertrained replacements after the losses sustained during Normandy and Huertgen et al. Iirc some aa and at units were cannibilized after Huertgen to provide infantry replacements.

paullus99 -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/24/2011 8:11:44 PM)
Barely adequate replacements, when they were available. The US Military severely underestimated the need for infantry divisions & allowed the majority of the quality manpower to be siphoned off to the Airborne Divisions, Rangers & the other services (USAAF & Navy). Although the US didn't need to break up existing divisions like the British did, they never had enough infantry replacements.

pompack -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/24/2011 8:17:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball ...and the British later on. Only the US Army had adequate replacements. IIRC, the Australians were all transferred to the Pacific before it became critical. As far as the Canadians, I didn't know their replacements became critical. Certainly it was for the British, as they started disbanding divisions later in the war to create replacements Only the US Army had good manpower reserves Actually the US Army replacement "process" was a disaster. The original staff numbers (actually algorithms based upon stance, type of combat, etc) for infantry losses were off by a factor of three to ten depending upon source. This first became noticeable in Italy but the significance was not recognized in Washington because of the relatively small number of infantry engaged (McNair and the infantry branch staff considered the winter of 43-44 in Italy an anomaly). After the D-Day landings the replacement pool began to deplete at an alarming rate in spite of the fact that less than half of the infantry force was engaged with an enemy ( and the Pacific Army casualties were extremely light, at least by Eastern Front standards). The Breakout saw a substantial reduction in infantry casualty rate allowing the pools to build back up slightly but then the late Fall battles on the Frontier reduced them substantially again and the Bulge totally depleted them. By January 44, Air Corps cadets were being transferred to the Infantry as were many (white) Service Force personnel. By Fall 45 things would have improved since virtually all of the 45 draftees were being sent to the infantry. However, this only applied to the infantry and in fact that was a root cause of the problem: far too many inductees were sent to the non-infantry branches based upon those flawed casualty algorithms ( per Ellis- The Sharp End, the replacement flow to the various branches was roughly proportional to their total headcount while over 90% of the casualties were infantry). Armor and artillery replacements were always adequate in spite of heavy tank losses Also in Game terms, the experience level for late 44- early 45 replacements would be substantially less than earlier since the replacements were transfers from other branches and had received only minimal infantry training.

Q-Ball -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/24/2011 8:23:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk Nationally they had good manpower reserves but as an institution the USArmy underestimated riflemen and tank crew losses in the eto. It led to using a lot of un/undertrained replacements after the losses sustained during Normandy and Huertgen et al. Iirc some aa and at units were cannibilized after Huertgen to provide infantry replacements. I know they did do this to alot of the AA units, also because they didn't really have a mission. US Infantry Divisions, though, were at TOE after rest, or became so fairly quickly after combat. Many were even above TOE at certain points from extra requisitions here and there, and attached armor units became fairly standard. In game terms, the US Army probably would have, if not ample, pretty solid replacements. There would be lots of Tank and TD Bns, probably 1 or 2 organically attached to every division, along with Corps AFV and artillery assets. Not to mention Cav Regts and other support units. This in addition to the arrival almost every turn in 44-45 of additional units. Part of the replacement training problem for the US Army was the system itself (Individual Replacement System, IIRC?) that trained a guy, then sent him to a series of depots with transient commanders and comrades, so whatever training he received lost its edge from sitting around the depots. My Grandfather went through this in New Guinea, at a depot at Milne Bay, which was boring and useless. And he was a pilot, so spent less time practicing pistol shooting than everyone else. Like I said the US Army was a unique animal that despite it's issues got the job done, in probably a way that only the US could do....

Remmes -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/24/2011 10:54:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Josh http://www.prinsesirenebrigade.nl/ I took a look at the site; I enjoyed the part about 'Tilburg' very much. It is about 500 metres from where I live. In fact I took the dog out for a walk along the small river on the map about 30 minutes ago. No traces whatsoever remain.

castlebravo -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/25/2011 6:00:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball UNITED STATES: 1942: 50 1943: 60 1944: 65 1945: 65 The US Army started out slow, but gradually grew into it's combat power, and ended the war fairly efficient. I'm not sure the US Army really became a high-efficiency force, but became a killing machine mostly because of it's mobility, artillery firepower, and piles and piles of tanks. And logistics. I disagree ;-). You are basically saying the US in 1942 is about as efficient as the Russians were in 1941. If you take the 1941 Wehrmacht as being 70 (average) and elite German units being 80+, then the average American unit would be at least 60 in 1942. There are lots of battles, from the get go (ie, Operation Torch in Tunisia) where the Americans had neither superior equipment, nor overwhelming numbers, nor air superiority, where their performance isn't as embarrassing as a 15-20 point differential in morale will actually result in game mechanics.

Steelers708 -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/25/2011 6:14:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castlebravo There are lots of battles, from the get go (ie, Operation Torch in Tunisia) where the Americans had neither superior equipment, nor overwhelming numbers, nor air superiority, Nor were they facing hardened troops, no disrespect meant, but the Vichy French troops encountered were hardly the toughened grisly veterans of the Afrika Korps and PanzerArmee Afrika, that hit the Americans so hard at Kasserine.

Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/25/2011 6:22:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball I was wondering, if WITE were expanded, what National Morale would we assign to the Western Allies? I don't think they said WITW would include 1940 scenarios and I doubt it will, let alone scenarios with Greece etc, but for what it's worth I think your post is interesting chalenge so I will assign what I see as better morale values: France in 1940: 50 UK: 55 (no more than 60 in any case) Canada: like UK, don't forget they had French Canadians that from what I've read were not at all keen on going to war ANZAC: 70 (they had by far the best morale of all anglo dudes) India: 50 US: going from 50 to 70 over the years is good idea Belgium: 50 Netherlands: 50 Greece: 70 I don't know how you came up with 45 as their morale when fighting Italians was sky high. When Germans stepped in it was another story, but they were overwhelmed by numbers and equipment, not really morale Lets not forget that Soviets for most of war are rated 50, and they are extremely tenacious, hardened fighters. They should probably have higher morale values BTW. There is no way I can agree that regular Brits should have significantly higher morale than Sovs! No way. The idea that Indians in Brit service fighting in Italy have visibly higher morale than Sovs fighting for their families and motherland is a bad joke. Also, I cannot agree in any way that Canadians should be rated as high as ANZAC. 60 is really far too generous for everyone on the list except late war Americans and ANZAC.

Steelers708 -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/25/2011 6:26:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball As a side note, it would be a tough call on what to do with the US Infantry Divisions. They really were more mobile than standard foot infantry, but weren't "Motorized" per se. It seems a bit unfair to just allow them to Temp Motorize, but not use that for Combat exploits. Certainly, the US Army would have a bottomless vehicle pool. I don't think the Americans should have or indeed did have a 'bottomless supply' of trucks. I've read many accounts, including in the book i've just finished reading, "In Final defense of the Reich: The Destruction of the 6th SS Mountain Division 'Nord' " where battalions/regiments had to walk to assembly areas etc due to there being insufficient motorized transport available to move the whole unit/s.

castlebravo -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/25/2011 8:15:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Steelers708 quote: ORIGINAL: castlebravo There are lots of battles, from the get go (ie, Operation Torch in Tunisia) where the Americans had neither superior equipment, nor overwhelming numbers, nor air superiority, Nor were they facing hardened troops, no disrespect meant, but the Vichy French troops encountered were hardly the toughened grisly veterans of the Afrika Korps and PanzerArmee Afrika, that hit the Americans so hard at Kasserine. True, but at Kasserine pass, you are talking about, as you said, toughened grisly veterans (aka elite, aka 80+ morale) of the Afrika Korps. Also, the Germans had total air superiority. And, according to Wiki: quote: Significant as the first large-scale meeting of American and German forces in World War II, the untested and poorly-led American troops suffered heavy casualties and were pushed back over fifty miles (80 km) from their positions west of Faid Pass in a rout. In the aftermath, the U.S. Army instituted sweeping changes from unit-level organization to the replacing of commanders. When they next met, in some cases only weeks later, the U.S. forces were considerably more effective. That is, in game terms, poor US leaders failed their command rolls ;-).

castlebravo -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/25/2011 8:22:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko Lets not forget that Soviets for most of war are rated 50, and they are extremely tenacious, hardened fighters. They should probably have higher morale values BTW. There is no way I can agree that regular Brits should have significantly higher morale than Sovs! No way. The idea that Indians in Brit service fighting in Italy have visibly higher morale than Sovs fighting for their families and motherland is a bad joke. Just curious, but if Soviet morale was so high, why did the NKVD put machine guns in back of the combat units? [;)] Further clarification. Since experience and morale are closely tied in WiTE, and furthermore, experience cannot be trained higher than morale, in effect you are saying that the average British unit was on par with the average Soviet unit in 1941. I don't know that the literature anywhere supports that argument.

Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/25/2011 8:37:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castlebravo quote: ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko Lets not forget that Soviets for most of war are rated 50, and they are extremely tenacious, hardened fighters. They should probably have higher morale values BTW. There is no way I can agree that regular Brits should have significantly higher morale than Sovs! No way. The idea that Indians in Brit service fighting in Italy have visibly higher morale than Sovs fighting for their families and motherland is a bad joke. Just curious, but if Soviet morale was so high, why did the NKVD put machine guns in back of the combat units? [;)] Because it was a totalitarian regime run by a psychopath? [;)] The NKVD thing is largely a myth anyway, high combat morale is undeniable in cases that had nothing to do with NKVD "encouragement".

Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/25/2011 8:44:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castlebravo Further clarification. Since experience and morale are closely tied in WiTE, and furthermore, experience cannot be trained higher than morale, in effect you are saying that the average British unit was on par with the average Soviet unit in 1941. I don't know that the literature anywhere supports that argument. That's wrong way to look at the problem. The correct way would be to ask why is experience closely tied to morale? I see no real reason why it should be. Greek units vs Italians are probably a good example of extremely high morale, probably only low to medium training (and of course obsolete equipment). I'd give Greeks morale 70 with no problem, but of course if that means they would train to EXP 70 too easy that's probably not really desired outcome. If that's the case, what is currently called morale should probably be called something else, like "proficiency" in TOAW. British units I am sorry but I have pretty low opinion about. I mean pure British. There is probably good reason why they constantly put ANZAC in the thick of the action, and used dominion troops to fill in the line (Indian, South African, Canadian etc).

castlebravo -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/25/2011 8:51:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko quote: ORIGINAL: castlebravo Further clarification. Since experience and morale are closely tied in WiTE, and furthermore, experience cannot be trained higher than morale, in effect you are saying that the average British unit was on par with the average Soviet unit in 1941. I don't know that the literature anywhere supports that argument. That's wrong way to look at the problem. The correct way would be to ask why is experience closely tied to morale? I see no real reason why it should be. Well, that's a game design problem. If you are trying to model the real world into a WiTE engine, you are constrained by how the engine goes about things, not how you or I would given a blank canvas. I agree with you that morale and experience shouldn't be tightly coupled...but that's how Gary Grigsby et al decided to implement it. Additional edit: I understand your perspective on the Soviet morale, especially after the initial month or two, after which Russian units really didn't surrender that much, instead fighting to the death. Low morale units really don't do that kind of thing.

Mehring -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/25/2011 10:56:44 PM)
quote: British units I am sorry but I have pretty low opinion about. I mean pure British. There is probably good reason why they constantly put ANZAC in the thick of the action, and used dominion troops to fill in the line (Indian, South African, Canadian etc). Interesting point, and something I also noticed is that from the British isles, you are more likely to see Scottish, Welsh and Irish units bearing the brunt of casualties than, particularly southern English. Sure, there are exceptions like the Ox and Bucks but as a rule. I'm not sure if this is necessarily a result of southerners actually being soft so much as imperial policy to maintain morale and minimise social discontent in the heart of the empire.

HMSWarspite -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/25/2011 11:39:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mehring quote: British units I am sorry but I have pretty low opinion about. I mean pure British. There is probably good reason why they constantly put ANZAC in the thick of the action, and used dominion troops to fill in the line (Indian, South African, Canadian etc). Interesting point, and something I also noticed is that from the British isles, you are more likely to see Scottish, Welsh and Irish units bearing the brunt of casualties than, particularly southern English. Sure, there are exceptions like the Ox and Bucks but as a rule. I'm not sure if this is necessarily a result of southerners actually being soft so much as imperial policy to maintain morale and minimise social discontent in the heart of the empire. Before you guys slag off an entire nationality based on... I dont know what, you might want to actually read a little history. Whilst there were disasters in WW2, please explain: Arras and Dunkirk defence (extremely adverse conditions, good performance against German line infantry) 1940 North Africa (decimated a hugely superior force, albeit Italian) Alamein (somewhat superior numbers and equipement, but a set piece assault against a well dug in enemy) Italy 1943/44 (compare the relative performance of UK and US forces (UK were NOT all Dominion, and not all fighting was 'delegated' Normandy: repeated brutal assaults against the vaste majority of the Panzers in Normandy 1st Airbourne at Arnhem (admittedly elite troops) You wont like this one: relief of the northern shoulder of the Bulge Where does a 15 point difference to 'normal' Ge come from?

Mehring -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/26/2011 12:29:03 AM)
Where am I "slagging off" anyone?

Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/26/2011 12:50:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite Before you guys slag off an entire nationality based on... I dont know what, you might want to actually read a little history. Whilst there were disasters in WW2, please explain: Arras and Dunkirk defence (extremely adverse conditions, good performance against German line infantry) 1940 North Africa (decimated a hugely superior force, albeit Italian) Alamein (somewhat superior numbers and equipement, but a set piece assault against a well dug in enemy) Italy 1943/44 (compare the relative performance of UK and US forces (UK were NOT all Dominion, and not all fighting was 'delegated' Normandy: repeated brutal assaults against the vaste majority of the Panzers in Normandy 1st Airbourne at Arnhem (admittedly elite troops) You wont like this one: relief of the northern shoulder of the Bulge Dunkirk was a disaster, described best by French phrase "sauve qui peut", something that only best propaganda in the history (British) can turn into, I don't know what, somewhat akin to victory? [:D] I mean how come Napoleon retreat over Berezina is generally thought of as a complete disaster, and Dunkirk is listed among British victories? There can only be one answer - propaganda. Otherwise I'd list them both as pretty similar events. Incidentally, I think totalitarian Soviet, nazi German or American propaganda are joke when compared to British. Venetian propaganda was also excellent in 12.-17. centuries, that's why all major accounts of Lepanto are still based on Venetian sources and fairy tales, of course painting Venetians in the best light, ridiculing Genoese, and "stealing" glory for coalition victory from Spanish in any way possible, but I digress. Arnhem is elite forces, they differ from average morale (plus, interesting but again Brits turn defeat into a propaganda victory). Normandy... Canadians? North Africa the brunt of the fighting was by ANZAC, also many dominion troops, Polish too.... Also, I am not "slagging off" entire nation, in fact I consider myself to be anglophile, just setting the record straight. I also love Venetians, my favorite Mediterranean empire ever. quote: Where does a 15 point difference to 'normal' Ge come from? Germans marched to freaking Stalingrad, that's almost Asia, to fight there house to house. Something I cannot imagine WW2 Brits ever do, not even under most favorable conditions, let alone fighting every mile of the way. The question to ask is, where does any difference to Soviets come from? Not in a wildest dream could I say average WW2 Brit infantry had equal, let alone better morale than Soviets. Of course, I understand that morale in WITE represents many other factors, but still...

pinebull -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/26/2011 1:00:25 AM)
HMSWarspite, sorry but I've read quite a bit of history and the more I read the less impressive the British performance seems. To respond to your examples: Arras - a single day's counter-attack. While British performance was decent, I don't seem to recall this as an example of tactical brilliance. Dunkirk - a good job defending, but again not really anything exceptional. North Africa - everyone looked great compared to the Italians. Alamein - about 195k British and commonwealth troops against approx 50k Germans. Commonwealth troops had a big part in this too (Australians especially). Sure the Italians were there as well, but their fighting efficiency was pretty low by that point. Again, it was a decent performance by 8th Army, but the numbers strongly favored the British. Italy - do you have examples of the relative performance? I don't either the US or the UK did that well in the Italian campaign. Normandy - pure attrition warfare. Where were the outstanding performances by the British troops? By way of comparison, studies have shown (I believe) the Germans inflicted about 50% higher casualties than the Americans and British, both attacking and defending. For an army 5 years into the war and clearly past their peak, that is pretty impressive and probably justifies a 15 point difference. Arnhem - elite troops in a defensive battle. Bulge - I think this is your weakest example. I know the least about this example, but how much fighting did the British really do? Overall, the record really isn't that impressive. I agree with Oleg on this - the British army was competent, but not much more than that.

Mehring -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/26/2011 1:16:39 AM)
I'm not sure how much water it holds but the cliche of british performance is 'unimaginative on the attack, stubborn on defence.' It's not a war winning combination, but it does make sense in the context of an established, sated empire, fighting off challenges from up and coming economies.

castlebravo -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/26/2011 2:31:36 AM)
quote: By way of comparison, studies have shown (I believe) the Germans inflicted about 50% higher casualties than the Americans and British, both attacking and defending. What about the Vosges campaign?

Klydon -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/26/2011 5:06:13 AM)
I would be tempted to give the English 65 in 1939/1940 and then 60 after that. The English army that started the war was much like the 1914 army that was an all volunteer force; well trained and professional at the start, but small. After conscription kicks in, they lose a bit. I agree the ANZAC's should be the best of the Commonwealth troops and the Canadians should be the same or slightly better as the English. Indian troops should be behind along with South African units. ANZAC 70 and Canadians 65 with no changes. India and SA probably 55 or so. Of all the European armies, the Germans hated fighting the English the worst, especially when the English were defending. They did not fear the English attacking as they felt they were very slow, predictable, and methodical. US troops, the Germans found they often broke fairly easy when attacked and were not that good under artillery fire, but the Germans feared the US on the attack as they felt the Americans had a real zest for the offense and mobile action. Of course, the US had their moments when they could be tenacious as well (Elsenborn Ridge in the Battle of the Bulge as one example that did not include elite US forces like say the 82nd Airborne at Bastogne ). Greeks, I would say 55.

randallw -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/26/2011 5:13:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castlebravo quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball UNITED STATES: 1942: 50 1943: 60 1944: 65 1945: 65 The US Army started out slow, but gradually grew into it's combat power, and ended the war fairly efficient. I'm not sure the US Army really became a high-efficiency force, but became a killing machine mostly because of it's mobility, artillery firepower, and piles and piles of tanks. And logistics. I disagree ;-). You are basically saying the US in 1942 is about as efficient as the Russians were in 1941. If you take the 1941 Wehrmacht as being 70 (average) and elite German units being 80+, then the average American unit would be at least 60 in 1942. There are lots of battles, from the get go (ie, Operation Torch in Tunisia) where the Americans had neither superior equipment, nor overwhelming numbers, nor air superiority, where their performance isn't as embarrassing as a 15-20 point differential in morale will actually result in game mechanics. The Soviet morale ratings for the game are 40 for 1941, then 50 the rest of the way. Q-Ball's suggested numbers only match the Sovs in 1942.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.546875