Smirfy -> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies (3/29/2011 12:26:57 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko 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). The key word here is sophisticated not size, that requires soldiers having more than basic skill, which the British Army in 1944 had. Sure there was not the same elan in 1944 because the troops knew the war was won and they did not want to miss the victory celebrations therefore the British mounted elaborate operations. Napoleon did not fight with his army that he took to Russia he left it there that is the difference. Stalingrad was a defeat, Kiev was a defeat, Tobruk 42 a defeat ask the Chinese if the Long March was a defeat.
|
|
|
|