Jump to content
user1000

The Many Skill Levels Of Soldiers

Recommended Posts

On 2/19/2017 at 8:53 AM, user1000 said:

What would be an example of  real life conscript US soldiers in WW2? I would say directly after the beach landings. At that point isn't it when the draftees really started to flood into action?

He didn't make anything up. He is pointing out that despite posting the CM definition of what a conscript is, you still insist that US forces in Normandy were conscripts. This is false. If you want to continue to pretend they were untrained sods, fine have fun with that. But you are historically incorrect. The only soldiers the conscript skill level could be applied to with any level of realism is rear echelon soldiers you are simulating being involved in fighting that they normally wouldn't be. For instance, if you are simulating a bunch of truck drivers and mechanics who were pressed into being riflemen for a battle because the Germans broke through or something like that. Otherwise, the conscript skill level does not apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

He didn't make anything up. He is pointing out that despite posting the CM definition of what a conscript is, you still insist that US forces in Normandy were conscripts. This is false. If you want to continue to pretend they were untrained sods, fine have fun with that. But you are historically incorrect. The only soldiers the conscript skill level could be applied to with any level of realism is rear echelon soldiers you are simulating being involved in fighting that they normally wouldn't be. For instance, if you are simulating a bunch of truck drivers and mechanics who were pressed into being riflemen for a battle because the Germans broke through or something like that. Otherwise, the conscript skill level does not apply.

Classic trolling, makes something up out of thin air and continues to defend it. I'm starting to believe this is one guy with 10 or more handles..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, user1000 said:

Classic trolling, makes something up out of thin air and continues to defend it. I'm starting to believe this is one guy with 10 or more handles..

Not trolling, and I'm not making anything up out of thin air. For cryin out loud, I wrote an entire essay on the other thread you made about why US infantry who went into Normandy WERE NOT conscripts. You are the one who is making things up and continuing to stubbornly defend it. You are wrong. Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere. Not even the few historians who claim the US was ill prepared for Normandy claim that US troops were conscripts, they just claim that they were ill prepared and not combat tested. Which is also false. 

The 1st Infantry Division who landed on Omaha beach had been fighting in the war since the invasion of North Africa. The 82nd Airborne had been fighting since North Africa as well, making their first combat jump on Sicily, and then continuing to fight on Italy. The Ranger battalions that hit the beaches had also been fighting since North Africa. 

You are the one making false claims. You are the one who is wrong. You are the one who has not presented anything to support your false claims, and now that multiple people are pointing out that you are wrong, you claim that you are being trolled by someone with multiple accounts. You already have a reputation on these forums for being childish and throwing tantrums. I see you have not changed at all.

Edited by IICptMillerII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before this gets out of hand, let's define conscript. It is by definition a synonym of draftee. User1000, has a point that a lot of "real life" U.S. units after D-Day had conscripted soldiers but they also had a lot of volunteers.

However, if one is talking about the 'Conscript' level of soldier quality in Combat Mission (i.e. poorly trained, poorly motivated and little or no combat experience), then the answer is obviously no, there were no U.S. combat units after D-Day that fit that definition. At worst there were some green soldiers, but most might fit into a 'Regular' category. Usually well trained but little or no combat experience.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, user1000 said:

Classic trolling...

You mean yourself, don't you? Sometimes I think your entire purpose in being here is to jerk us around. If you are not merely fraudulent, you are totally blind to self-reflection. Come back sometime after you've grown up enough to behave in a reasonable and civil manner instead of ascribing completely fictitious attributes to others.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, user1000 said:

Classic trolling, makes something up out of thin air and continues to defend it. I'm starting to believe this is one guy with 10 or more handles..

You're skating on thin ice.  You've been pounding away at nothing for two pages now, people are getting annoyed that you're not listening, and you're the one calling them trolls?  That's not going to do you much good, especially if I have to give you an official time out for not understanding the written rules of this Forum any more than you apparently understand the written explanations in the game manual.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Pak40 said:

Before this gets out of hand, let's define conscript. It is by definition a synonym of draftee. User1000, has a point that a lot of "real life" U.S. units after D-Day had conscripted soldiers but they also had a lot of volunteers.

However, if one is talking about the 'Conscript' level of soldier quality in Combat Mission (i.e. poorly trained, poorly motivated and little or no combat experience), then the answer is obviously no, there were no U.S. combat units after D-Day that fit that definition. At worst there were some green soldiers, but most might fit into a 'Regular' category. Usually well trained but little or no combat experience.

 

This is a very good clarification, well said. I now realize that we are dealing with two separate definitions of the term "conscript" which is where I think the main confusion is coming from. I think you did a very good job of separating the real world general definition of conscript and the game definition of it. And I agree with you that while being a draftee is being conscripted to fight, that does not automatically mean that a unit made of draftees are at a skill level of conscript in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thought. It would be fair to say that the majority of soldiers after D-Day were citizen soldiers, i.e. not career soldiers. However, this is still a far cry from the term conscript, whether it's the Webster Dictionary definition or the Combat Mission definition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pak40 said:

Another thought. It would be fair to say that the majority of soldiers after D-Day were citizen soldiers, i.e. not career soldiers.

Actually, you could say that after 1940 when the draft was begun and the expansion of the Army was starting to get underway.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Emrys said:

Actually, you could say that after 1940 when the draft was begun and the expansion of the Army was starting to get underway.

Michael

Well, I'm talking more in the context of troops landing on D-Day vs Troops after D-Day. For example, 1st ID was permanent & 29th Div was a reactivated Guard unit, so they probably both had soldiers who wanted to be in the army as apposed to draftees or volunteers after the war started.

However, even the 82nd and 101st, which were considered elite troops, were full of citizen soldiers, although mostly volunteer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2017 at 5:31 PM, IICptMillerII said:

That said, I'm pretty sure its an unwritten rule of humanity that all manuals must be thoroughly researched, written, and published, then promptly forgotten about and never read by anyone :lol: As is tradition.

That's for certain. I took a lot of time and effort to author the official manual for new IL-2 flight sim series (as well as Rise of Flight), and yet still I see people asking the same extremely basic questions that could be answered far more quickly by glancing through the manual. It's just one of those things that's never going to change.

Edited by LukeFF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2017 at 2:35 AM, Erwin said:

'Course one should read the manual.  It's remembering all the friggin details that's the problem.

I hear that pen and paper are hot commodities these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Pak40 said:

For example, 1st ID was permanent & 29th Div was a reactivated Guard unit, so they probably both had soldiers who wanted to be in the army as apposed to draftees or volunteers after the war started.

The 1st. would have contained plenty of draftees by D-Day. It was permanent, but not all its soldiers were. As for the 29th., it too started out with regional NG volunteers, but by the end of the summer of '44 had absorbed enough replacements that its original nature had become quite diluted.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

I hear that pen and paper are hot commodities these days.

You never heard of the paperless society?

Seriously tho'... you'd end up with another thick manual of notes on the original manual - and then most of that would get forgotten.  Then one has to make notes about notes etc. = fulltime job, and it's already close to being a fulltime job just keeping up with CM2 and all the patches, upgrades and mods etc.   One solution is to hire a PA to do all the grunt work freeing one up to actually have fun playing the game rather than spending all our time reading manuals and making copious notes (as we did in the good old cardboard wargame days). 

Cardboard wargaming imploded in the 80's due to the increasing complexity of the games which required more and more study of the rules which meant one played less and less - and many eventually just gave up.  History has a habit of repeating itself.  Just hope it doesn't happen here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Side note... Combat Mission's classification of Experience levels has not changed since, er, I think 1998 :D  While tons of things changed between CMx1 and CMx2 this isn't one of them.  As far as I can remember!  At the very least CMx2 has never had a change in terminology since CMSF was released.

As for what the terms mean, it seems there's a needless discussion happening here.  By definition a Conscript is someone who got drafted and is only in military service because of that fact.  He can be a Sgt Rock or a Pvt Pyle and everything between.  Labeling the 82nd Airborne "conscript" would, therefore, be fairly accurate from a technical standpoint, but utterly useless for establishing what it's fighting potential is.

So let's not get too tied up with technical stuff and instead focus on the only thing that matters... what is in the CMx2 manual.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would like to point out, as reported in a number of sources, that it was found that Green well-trained units usually out performed the Veteran units. Why? The Greens were full of **** and vinegar, didn't properly understand what they were facing and were spoiling for a fight, desperate to prove themselves. By contrast, the Veteran units knew full well the grim realities of war and operated accordingly. For example, the famed Desert Rats, having been forced time and again, because of who they were, their demonstrated battle capabilities and morale boost the Desert Rats gave other formations by their presence, found themselves spearheading every invasion including OVERLORD. Real pros, but worn out in body and spirit, also angry and bitter. I've read there was practically a mutiny. The men thought they'd done their bit and then some, but were still required to be the point of the British effort. I feel sorry for them.

Regards,

John Kettler 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my understanding most of the first wave for both the british and americans, excluding airborne troops to an extent, were what would be classed as green, but extensively trained.  Most first wave troops had been training for 2 years for D-day, and kept out of active theatres, the desert rats landed on d-day plus 1.  This decision was taking because commanders new that veterans would be less likely to throw themselves at fortified beaches, they new better and new how to survive, thats why green troops were the first wave, more piss and vinegar and willing to take more risks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not have classified the US 1st. Division as green under any circumstances. There were doubtlessly some green replacements fleshing out the formation, but there were also lots of veterans who had been at it for a year or more.

MIchael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...veterans would be less likely to throw themselves at fortified beaches, they new better and new how to survive, thats why green troops were the first wave, more piss and vinegar and willing to take more risks."

You can verify that, Doc???

The counter argument would be that the shock would paralyze Green troops who would be more likely to panic and be useless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 7:15 PM, Combatintman said:

Stating the obvious really ... 'Manual contains information that is useful to understanding how the game works' ... perhaps if more people read the thing they wouldn't make such @sses of themselves on here.

If I could +1 this post, I would +1 the heck out of it. +1. Extra double mega +1.
 

On ‎2‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 7:55 PM, Erwin said:

If one has read all the manuals from CMBO days, how many manuals is that?

Many, and anyone who has read them all has likely forgotten more than most other people have even read.
I love big, chunky manuals, but then again, I'm a lifelong war-nerd.
 

On ‎2‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 8:53 AM, user1000 said:

What would be an example of  real life conscript US soldiers in WW2?
I would say directly after the beach landings.
At that point isn't it when the draftees really started to flood into action?

None. The USA was never in a position to have to rush poorly trained soldiers up to the front lines.
The only technical possibility might be some garrison troops in the Pacific, but even then, the war had been going on long enough for plenty of additional training and drill.
1939 - 1941 is a long time to train.

Also no. Draftees sent to the ETO were fully trained, and would be classified 'Green" according to the game manual.
Remember, the variable being described is a Skill Level, not the circumstances under which the soldier enters service.
 

On ‎2‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 10:44 AM, user1000 said:

Classic trolling, makes something up out of thin air and continues to defend it. I'm starting to believe this is one guy with 10 or more handles..

Get over yourself. That's not what trolling is.
 

On ‎2‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 6:36 AM, user1000 said:

And there goes my purchases :D Not a smart, and ultimately  an untrue call.

Good riddance. Might as well delete your forum account too.
 

On ‎2‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 10:33 AM, Pak40 said:

Another thought. It would be fair to say that the majority of soldiers after D-Day were citizen soldiers, i.e. not career soldiers. However, this is still a far cry from the term conscript, whether it's the Webster Dictionary definition or the Combat Mission definition. 

All that matters is what the term means in the game. Everything else is useless.
 

On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 2:44 PM, Warts 'n' all said:

But, they also had to trade in their Shermans, and get used to fighting with the Cromwell which they were none too happy about.

That would certainly turn me bitter, in fact, I might just be furious.
A spacious, comfortable, ergonomic, and reliable vehicle, replaced with a vehicle that has none of those qualities.
Yeah, furious would qualify.
 

4 hours ago, Erwin said:

"...veterans would be less likely to throw themselves at fortified beaches, they new better and new how to survive, thats why green troops were the first wave, more piss and vinegar and willing to take more risks."

You can verify that, Doc???

The counter argument would be that the shock would paralyze Green troops who would be more likely to panic and be useless.

As I vaguely recall, the idea behind that is Green units would have higher Motivation, given the fact they had not yet been shot at.
They were more willing to attack, but were short on results, and often suffered greater casualties than veteran units who had fought on the same ground.

I forget where the discussion originated from, it's back in the shadowy cobwebs of my brain, but it is a military problem as old as time itself.
You have to blood your men to get the best out of them. It sucks, but there it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Doc844 said:

This decision was taken because ...

You've kind of answered your own question already - there were numerous divisions in the UK who'd been preparing and training for months for Overlord. There's not much point replacing them at the last moment for a different unit. That way lies confusion and disorder. Also, the Desert Rats was an armoured division. Doctrinally, armd divs are for exploitation and pursuit. Infantry divisions are for assault, and D-Day was nothing but an assault writ large. There was simply no doctrinal place for an armoured division in the first couple of days. Furthermore, even beside 7th Armd Div, there were loads of other US and UK armd divs in the UK in mid-1944, and they mostly stayed there until July.

This also reeks of the post-war rationalisation for why these units didn't perform as well as expected when they were pulled back from the Med in late '43 and early '44. This has been addressed pretty directly by John Buckley in his books on the Normandy Campaign ("British Armour in the Normandy Campaign" and "The Normandy Campaign 1944: Sixty Years On"). Suffice to say that yes, 7th Armd was the 'worst' of the three British armd divs (the others being 11th and Gds), but that was largely down to ****ty leadership rather than general war weariness.

Edited by JonS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waaaay back in CMBB days the Russians had their own command called 'Human Wave'. That was conscript(?) troops with high morale. They would throw themselves at the enemy lines with élan but would quickly become traumatized and be useless for further fighting.

The (real world) US with its piecemeal casualty replacement system had similar problems. The fewer-and-fewer veteran soldiers would shrink to a kernel of the overall unit and they'd advise each other to not make friends with the new guys. Because the news guys were VERY much more likely to get themselves killed pulling John Wayne stunts on the battlefield. Battlefield heroics were reserved for newbies and for veterans so traumatized by their experience that they'd go 'berserker' in a frenzy that could be called 'suicide-by-enemy'. It wasn't until the US established the 'cohort' system of the early 80s that they began withdrawing and rebuilding entire units as a single entity. That concept kind'a fell apart again in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...