RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies

RE: 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

Mehring -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/27/2011 9:35:08 PM)
Given that doctrine is included in morale, would it be possible to have distinct defence and attack morals or a bonus to British on defence?

Tarhunnas -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/27/2011 9:35:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Oleg - one slight problem with your comic break - it was not funny..... It was to me [:D] And to me.

warspite1 -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/27/2011 9:56:57 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. Warspite1 Mehring, firstly, where did you get the southern English idea? Forgetting the Dominion and Colonial troops for the moment and just looking at your view about the British Army. Who made up the rank and file of the British Army down the ages? People from all four home countries of course. Of these, the Irish and the Scottish made up a higher proportion of the army in relation to their total population. Why? Not because of some southern English plot(!), but because traditionally private soldiers came from the poorer parts of the UK. Families with great army traditions grew up in those parts (look at the British General Staff in WWII). This has been true down the centuries. Southern England made up its fair share of the army - you mention just the Ox and Bucks light infantry - why? What about the Wessex Division - the Royal Hampshires, the Dorsets, the Somersets and the Wiltshires? What about the Home counties Division, the Buffs, the Queen's Own Royal West Kents, the Royal Sussex Regiment, etc etc etc. I suspect you were more likely to be in a reserved occupation "up north" in WWII i.e. where the shipbuilding, coalmining, steel making industries were... Secondly, where is there any proof that troops from the southern counties took less casualties than those from other parts of the army? That is a strange notion.

Smirfy -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/27/2011 10:09:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko Guys with nicks HMSWarspite and warspite1 discussing English morale, and - what a surprise - agreeing that it should be set pretty high: priceless [:D] I am sorry, I know this post is not a meaningful contribution to the discussion, it was meant as comic break, please continue. On topic, I still think that rating Brit morale higher than Soviet is just plain wrong. Could the Russians have lauched attacks like Veritable or Infatuate. These were highly sophisticated operations, morale we are told are to reperesent doctrine. By 1944 the British army was an efficent fighting machine. By the way the difference between the Berezina and Dunkirk was at Dunkirk the Army survived. A 20th century army 330,000 men was evacuated off a beach, tell me who else achieved a comparable feat? The British Army had serious defects but cohesion was not one of them.

Mehring -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/27/2011 10:48:17 PM)
quote: Warspite1 Mehring, firstly, where did you get the southern English idea? Forgetting the Dominion and Colonial troops for the moment and just looking at your view about the British Army. Who made up the rank and file of the British Army down the ages? People from all four home countries of course. Of these, the Irish and the Scottish made up a higher proportion of the army in relation to their total population. Why? Not because of some southern English plot(!), but because traditionally private soldiers came from the poorer parts of the UK. Families with great army traditions grew up in those parts (look at the British General Staff in WWII). This has been true down the centuries. Southern England made up its fair share of the army - you mention just the Ox and Bucks light infantry - why? What about the Wessex Division - the Royal Hampshires, the Dorsets, the Somersets and the Wiltshires? What about the Home counties Division, the Buffs, the Queen's Own Royal West Kents, the Royal Sussex Regiment, etc etc etc. I suspect you were more likely to be in a reserved occupation "up north" in WWII i.e. where the shipbuilding, coalmining, steel making industries were... Secondly, where is there any proof that troops from the southern counties took less casualties than those from other parts of the army? That is a strange notion What is my view of the british army? Perhaps you could enlighten me. I'm sure economic conscription is nothing new, and it constitutes another possible explanation for the proponderance of northern and overseas soldiers who bore the brunt of fighting and consequent casualties in WW2. As I said, it is something I have noticed, and I offer no evidence nor can find the time to do so. Anyone who cares to, and is not entering into the investigation purely to prove the opposite, I strongly suspect they'll find it. As for plots, are you seriously saying that the ruling social layers do not conspire against the majority of the population to maintain their economic privilages? Good god, even the provision of allotments was motivated by the fear of revolt as the common land was stolen from the people by the new landlords in the mid C19.

PyleDriver -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/27/2011 11:10:52 PM)
My 2 cents, I dont think morale was the issue for Britian, It was leadership. If Monty was the best the could muster, oh well. Their problem was the nobilty of officers, not proven ability. Of hell its tea time, lets stop and drink some...If Patton had his corps running the highway in Market Garden the 1st Brit airbone may not have been desimated...

karonagames -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/27/2011 11:18:59 PM)
quote: If Monty was the best the could muster, oh well. Joel, can you see this? What did I tell you? Anything that involves national comparisons, is always going to be sensitive to the nations being compared. I hope this thread dies of natural causes before any more nations get dragged into what started out as an interesting discussion, but has now degenerated into "Monty bashing" and " Patton Glorification" thus sparking pages of endless nonsense. Never thought I'd have to use this one: [sm=00000613.gif]

warspite1 -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/27/2011 11:22:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PyleDriver Their problem was the nobilty of officers, not proven ability. Of hell its tea time, lets stop and drink some... Warspite1 Re the nobility of officers - I think you have confused us with the Italian army. Re the tea reference - I take it you watched Gallipoli too many times [;)]

Smirfy -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/27/2011 11:25:14 PM)
Warspite your wasting your time this sort of nonsense does not stand up to any scrutiny. Were the 55,000 killed in Bomber command alone, all from up north [8\|] Jesus you would have been safer in a Northern Regiment.

PyleDriver -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/27/2011 11:30:12 PM)
Bob this a great thread, I love reading it. Its the first I open...The Brits were tough guys and lasted 6 years because they were. Hell, if they didn't stand fast and respond to Hitlers every move in the west things could have been very different. I just think thier leaders were poor, not the grunts...What was the general they had in North Africa that did great before Monty, but was killed? Help me guys...

warspite1 -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/27/2011 11:31:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PyleDriver Bob this a great thread, I love reading it. Its the first I open...The Brits were tough guys and lasted 6 years because they were. Hell, if they didn't stand fast and respond to Hitlers every move in the west things could have been very different. I just think thier leaders were poor, not the grunts...What was the general they had in North Africa that did great before Monty, but was killed? Help me guys... Warspite1 Auchinleck - yet another non-nobleman.

Smirfy -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/27/2011 11:34:44 PM)
Gott was to replace Achinleck but was killed

warspite1 -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/27/2011 11:37:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smirfy Warspite your wasting your time this sort of nonsense does not stand up to any scrutiny. Were the 55,000 killed in Bomber command alone, all from up north [8\|] Jesus you would have been safer in a Northern Regiment. Warspite1 Agreed - I must admit I'd heard the anti-British stuff before obviously, and the anti-English argument - but never the southern English nonsense!!

Smirfy -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/27/2011 11:38:04 PM)
Hey who was that guy that planned D-Day you know that operation which was the biggest invaision in history his name escapes me probably a nobleman

warspite1 -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/27/2011 11:43:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smirfy Hey who was that guy that planned D-Day you know that operation which was the biggest invaision in history his name escapes me probaly a nobleman Warspite1 [:)]

warspite1 -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/27/2011 11:45:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smirfy Gott was to replace Achinleck but was killed Warspite1 Strafer Gott - another non-nobleman.

LiquidSky -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/28/2011 3:43:06 AM)
Richard O'Conner? although he wasnt killed, he was captured

Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/28/2011 3:58:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smirfy Could the Russians have lauched attacks like Veritable or Infatuate. These were highly sophisticated operations, morale we are told are to reperesent doctrine. By 1944 the British army was an efficent fighting machine. [X(] Could they? They launched Bagration for god's sake. Let alone half a dozen highly successful offensive operations after that, each of them probably bigger than Veritable and Infatuate taken together. However let me state again that in this discussion I prefer speaking about MORALE as PURE morale. Obviously, in WITE morale represents all sorts of things, proficiency, training ability, tactical prowess, who knows what else. Obviously, whatever "morale" represents in WITE is highly subjective and flexible, but in pure morale, no army, not even the fanatical Japanese, could beat Germans and Russians IMO. Those two armies are like way above all others. Since we don't exactly know how morale works in game, we can discuss it only rhetorically, ie "how would I rate morale of some army in some year of WW2 in some hypothetical game". quote: By the way the difference between the Berezina and Dunkirk was at Dunkirk the Army survived. A 20th century army 330,000 men was evacuated off a beach, tell me who else achieved a comparable feat? Solid part of Nappy army survived Berezina, in fact he was waging, and winning, biggest battles in history to date, less than a year after Berezina. If you want to look at Dunkirk as victory, something I have problems with, then that's more of a navy feat than army. We are talking about army morale here.... Navy games usually don't model morale, but for what it's worth obviously Brit Navy would get very high morale ratings. RAF too. Army, however, IMO does not deserve any such high rating. Again, probably lower than Russians, certainly not bigger (equal would be reasonable compromise).

Speedysteve -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/28/2011 12:47:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko However let me state again that in this discussion I prefer speaking about MORALE as PURE morale. Obviously, in WITE morale represents all sorts of things, proficiency, training ability, tactical prowess, who knows what else. Obviously, whatever "morale" represents in WITE is highly subjective and flexible, but in pure morale, no army, not even the fanatical Japanese, could beat Germans and Russians IMO. Those two armies are like way above all others. If you want to look at Dunkirk as victory, something I have problems with, then that's more of a navy feat than army. We are talking about army morale here.... Navy games usually don't model morale, but for what it's worth obviously Brit Navy would get very high morale ratings. RAF too. Army, however, IMO does not deserve any such high rating. Again, probably lower than Russians, certainly not bigger (equal would be reasonable compromise). Must.....stop.....posting....in....a.....thread....that........will....only.....escalate........and.....become....nation....vs......nation = over patriotic! If you're basing on the above I simply can't agree with that (in that morale purely = morale). The Brits certainly wouldn't be low. Think of how many times they were resolute on the defence and put up with a lot of **** and pressure since the start of the war without buckling. I'll re-state I think the leadership was to blame for a lot of the inadequate military operations but not the morale of the soldier.

color -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/28/2011 1:09:29 PM)
When you talk about Dunkirk and try to retrieve any conclusion about morale of the british units involved, it would be wise to first take into consideration the fact that Hitler stopped the panzers dead in their tracks. I've heard about two theories about this decision: 1) A favour to G�ring so he could bask in the glory of his luftwaffe finish off the british - which he eventually could not do as the luftwarre failed to stop the british evacuation, so that would be an EPIC FAIL there G�ring. [:D] 2) Intent by Hitler to allow the British to escape without too much of a humiliation so they would be more receptive to a negotiated peace. Don't know which is correct, but it's pretty obvious that apart from national morale, there were some factors in that escape which arguably played a sizeable role.

Speedysteve -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/28/2011 1:36:17 PM)
Of course but what part of the France Debacle was down to British Morale?!?[&:]

Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/28/2011 1:45:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Speedy Of course but what part of the France Debacle was down to British Morale?!? Well here we have issue of what morale really represents. Again, France is usually everyone's favorite whipping boy, helped by the fact most French don't speak English good enough to argue on Internet forums [:D] (Same goes for Italians.) So, lesson number one - learn the language of international propaganda if you want to be over-patriotic on the Internet [;)] Now seriously, in my opinion, any nation that went through worst of WW1 slaughter, Verdun etc without giving up had at least solid morale. Not WW2 German or WW2 Soviet style solid, but pretty solid. Better than WW2 Japanese I would dare say. French collapse in WW2 wasn't due to what I call "pure morale", it was due to being completely outsmarted on operational level. Again, I prefer to discuss "pure morale" as I honestly have very little idea what "morale" represents in WITE and what effects it has on the results.

karonagames -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/28/2011 1:55:03 PM)
Morale is a dynamic concept, that is influenced by a gazillion factors and can change by the hour, so what ever number is chosen as an abstraction of this is meaningless. I don't care what the numbers are as long as the game, when it comes out in 6 years time, is fun. Why did I say 6 years? Because it is a number that means as much as the numbers under discussion here.

warspite1 -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/28/2011 1:55:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: color When you talk about Dunkirk and try to retrieve any conclusion about morale of the british units involved, it would be wise to first take into consideration the fact that Hitler stopped the panzers dead in their tracks. I've heard about two theories about this decision: 1) A favour to G�ring so he could bask in the glory of his luftwaffe finish off the british - which he eventually could not do as the luftwarre failed to stop the british evacuation, so that would be an EPIC FAIL there G�ring. [:D] 2) Intent by Hitler to allow the British to escape without too much of a humiliation so they would be more receptive to a negotiated peace. Don't know which is correct, but it's pretty obvious that apart from national morale, there were some factors in that escape which arguably played a sizeable role. Warspite1 The fact that - for whatever reason - Hitler halted his Panzers is irrelevant to national morale. By giving this order the Germans allowed time for more of the Allied armies to escape. Had he not done so, less would have escaped - simples. But the point is, if the British and indeed the French had turned into a rabble, then even with the halt order being given, the Germans would still have mopped up the bulk of the Allied forces in the north-east. Let's be absolutely clear, no one can say that Dunkirk was in any way a victory for the Allied armies. The Royal Navy (yet again) were the heroes of the day, Anglo-French armies were beaten ones. But what is being argued is that the beaten British army remained largely intact to fight another day - something that was only possible thanks to their remaining a cohesive unit.

Q-Ball -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/28/2011 1:56:51 PM)
National Morale though doesn't really mean "Bravery". Far from it. Certainly, the French and Italian Armies each had very strong instances of fighting hard and Bravely, and any battlefield performance says nothing about the individuals in that country. William Shirer wrote an excellent book about the Collapse of the Third Republic. The 1930s in France were hard times, with the polarization of politics, government after government, the Spanish Civil War, just all kinds of issues. Shirer does a good job describing the malaise that afflicted many Frenchmen, and the lukewarm suppoort of the war from many quarters. This was reflected in the attitude of it's military generals, who literally fell apart in the first days of the war. Several including Billotte and even Gamelin suffered quasi-nervous breakdowns. The Italians had poor leaders and bad eqiupment, but also a lack of reason to fight. The average Italian began to question, with good reason, why they were fighting for the Germans in Africa and Russia. It got even worse when the Allies landed in Sicily, the Italians surrendered in droves. Their "National Morale" was very very low at that point. That doesn't mean they were "Cowards", it means they were "Sensible".

warspite1 -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/28/2011 2:07:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball National Morale though doesn't really mean "Bravery". Far from it. Certainly, the French and Italian Armies each had very strong instances of fighting hard and Bravely, and any battlefield performance says nothing about the individuals in that country. William Shirer wrote an excellent book about the Collapse of the Third Republic. The 1930s in France were hard times, with the polarization of politics, government after government, the Spanish Civil War, just all kinds of issues. Shirer does a good job describing the malaise that afflicted many Frenchmen, and the lukewarm suppoort of the war from many quarters. This was reflected in the attitude of it's military generals, who literally fell apart in the first days of the war. Several including Billotte and even Gamelin suffered quasi-nervous breakdowns. The Italians had poor leaders and bad eqiupment, but also a lack of reason to fight. The average Italian began to question, with good reason, why they were fighting for the Germans in Africa and Russia. It got even worse when the Allies landed in Sicily, the Italians surrendered in droves. Their "National Morale" was very very low at that point. That doesn't mean they were "Cowards", it means they were "Sensible". Warspite1 +1

Speedysteve -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/28/2011 2:34:29 PM)
FWIW I won't be commenting in this subject again due to the potential of it being too over-patriotic. What will be, will be. [8D]

Tarhunnas -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/28/2011 4:09:23 PM)
quote: The average Italian began to question, with good reason, why they were fighting for the Germans in Africa and Russia. I thought it was the Germans who were fighting for the Italians in North Africa. Interestingly, it didn't seem to affect German morale though... [:D]

HMSWarspite -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/28/2011 8:20:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko Guys with nicks HMSWarspite and warspite1 discussing English morale, and - what a surprise - agreeing that it should be set pretty high: priceless [:D] I am sorry, I know this post is not a meaningful contribution to the discussion, it was meant as comic break, please continue. On topic, I still think that rating Brit morale higher than Soviet is just plain wrong. Other than saying I more or less agreed with Q-Ball, who said 65 (i.e. same as late war US), please indicate where I said anything about where it should be. I was countering some comments that implied it had to be low (like Belgian low), without providing any evidence, or even subjective justification. Your thoughts? Or better yet, evidence. You do know that the war started in Sept 1939, and UK was engaged (actively) on land against Germany/Italy from April 1940 until May 1945 I take it. And that significant advances were made by this low morale (but actually more like small unit effectiveness) outfit. Ah, and as for Bagration, this was after 3 years continuous learning. The Desert war was fought from Sept 1940 to 1942 - i.e. that was the learning bit for the UK!

HMSWarspite -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/28/2011 9:24:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mehring Given that doctrine is included in morale, would it be possible to have distinct defence and attack morals or a bonus to British on defence? To get this debate on to a more even footing, I would love to have the (oft repeated) German comment explained. Does 'predictable/slow & methodical' on attack mean 'unsuccessful'? Or does it mean 'you know exactly what is going to happen, they dont surprise you, they just get the job done'? I would be the first to conceed that the British lesson from WW1 was: attacks have to be carefully coordinated, and methodical if they are not to suffer higher than necessary casualties and be more prone to failure. Never over extend your attack, never go beyond artillery range, or the counter attack will push you right back. The possible failing is that the British tended to apply this to apply to 'blitzkrieg' opportunities too often, which kind of defeats the object (except for Arnhem, which has to be viewed as proof that Monty smoked dope on at least one occasion! [:-] ). To put it another way (game terms if you like), you could offer the British 2 combat results tables: a) roll result 1 defender holds, attacker takes x casualties 2-8 attacker advances, attacker takes x casualties 9-10 attacker advances 2 hexes takes x casualties and b) 1-4 defender holds, attacker takes 2x casualties 5-6 attacker advances, x casualties 7-8 attacker advances 2 hexes, takes 2 x casualties 9-0 attacker advances 4 hexes, takes 2 x casualties. The British would take table a) every time. Why? Because I have a 90% chance of pushing the defender back 1 hex or more (average gain 1.1hexes) , and expected casualties are about x per attack (or 0.9x per hex) . With table b), I have only 60% chance of the advance even though on average I push them back 1.4 hexes. Also I take 1.8 casualties on av, which is about 1.3 casualties per hex gained. And I have a 40% chance of having to do the attack again... Is this what the Germans mean? Or do they mean 'you can hold the British whilst attacking, all day? [>:]' (Which is what I suspect a lot of people think they mean) Patton would take table b) every time I suspect, because he has a 40% chance of getting 2 hexes or more, and 20% of 4 hexes. The rate of advance is faster... Anyone? (Or have I now entered the Twilight Zone?[:D])

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.109375