Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies - 3/29/2011 12:07:37 AM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline

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 Gøring 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 Gøring.

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.




Off course there is the reality that Hitler and the high command having actual experience of fighting the British in WWI on the same terrain which was full of inundations thought it was not a good idea to blunt their armoured units when most of France remained unconquered and no one could dream of evacuating 330,000 men off a beach in 1940. Langemark and the Marne were both deeply etched on the German psyche in 1940, the spectre of 1914 was the most decisive factor on the decision making process

(in reply to color)
Post #: 91
RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies - 3/29/2011 12:26:57 AM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
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.




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.


(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 92
RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies - 3/29/2011 8:02:20 AM   
Muzrub


Posts: 1780
Joined: 2/23/2001
From: Australia, Queensland, Gold coast
Status: offline
Germany- mid to late war- I would say morale was low, but desperation was high.

_____________________________

Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away;
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
You better watch out,
There may be dogs about
I've looked over Iraq, and i have seen
Things are not what they seem.


Matrix Axis of Evil

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 93
RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies - 4/2/2011 2:31:41 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
We keep getting lost. The parameter called 'morale' in the game represents a whole host of things, of which moral fibre/will to resist is only a small part. I thing someone said 'doctrine' would be a better term. I think of it as effectiveness. That is, all else being equal, which division/regiment/whatever will (on average) come out better. I tried to say it earlier. If a unit is fanatical for some reason, it might fight better. Take those same troops, and put them in an army where supply distribution to company level is really bad (even when there are loads of supplies at division/corp/army level) and the rating would be lower. This is because they will fight less effectively (because they are hungry/out of ammo for periods etc). The moral fibre, culture, or plain suicidal insanity of the squaddies and their junior officers is just the same, but the outcome is different.

Likewise, I think it represents tactics/style of combat. In this system, your average Japanese Army unit would NOT score highly, since their doctine tended to default to one of attack, even when that is not effective. Look at Iwo Jima... when units were surrounded and things were getting down to the last few rounds a charge was not infrequent. This was generally not effective, since it just got them out in the open to be mown down. Fanatical, yes, but no more effective than a typical western power unit which would probably surrender in this situation. Some other nations (Russia?, or less controversial, VietCong/NVA) might try and melt away, or stay hidden and force dugout by dugout clearance, which could be MORE effective than the (admittedly cliched) IJA picture.

I think this thread (and subject) will be impossible until we agree on this (the wider content of 'morale', rather than my example above )

Of Course, the big mistake was calling it morale:)

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Muzrub)
Post #: 94
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.828