Mike T

Sorry Spider, I forgot to thank you too for your interesting post about the German recon photos etc. Did you know that the German's also had a plan drafted to invade Ireland in WW2 - it was called Fall Grun (Plan Green) and I believe SPI was actually developing a wargame based on it. By the way, do you have any info on what the Republic's armed forces were like during the war. ------------------ 'Bitter Mike'

Happy St Patrick's Day everyone!! A few short notes to point out here. 1. Please don't confuse me with the other Mike T (I'm 'Bitter Mike'). 2. I'm of French Canadian ancestry with Irish blood from both sides of the Irish 'Question' as well as English and Scottish and a touch of German. The English and French Blood is always arguing with each other and the Irish blood keeps me drunk enough not to notice 3. I read a history of the Irish Civil War of 1919-1920 and came to the conclusion that if you put ten Irishmen in a room you couldn't get two of them to agree on the same opinion 4. As far as Canada invading the US, I think we've almost taken over parts of Florida and Arizona . Besides, it was shortly after the Revolution that either Vermont or New Hampshire almost voted to join Canada rather than remain with the US (I believe because they were PO'ed with how the southerners were running things ) 5. Lastly, My English Grandmother taught me that on St Patirck's Day everyone in the world was allowed to consider h'self an Irishman. How's that for Multiculturalism. Oh, and thanks to Dumbo, I think you're the only one so far who ansered my original question. ------------------ 'Bitter Mike'

In honour of St Patrick's Day, I'd like to ask the question of what roles the Irish played in WW2. For example, I remember watching a movie about Allied fliers as well as German fliers and sailors bieng interned in the Irish Republic during the war and I was wondering how many Irish fought for the British during the war and how many fought for the Germans. Any thoughts? ------------------ 'Bitter Mike'

According to the official History of the Canadian Army in WW2: 630,052 Canadians served in the Active Army - All of these men and women (25,251 Women) were volunteers. 100,573 men were called up for service under the National Resources Mobilization Act (Conscription). Total army 'intake' was 730,625 249,624 Men and Women served in the RCAF. 106,522 Men and Women served in the RCN. Total enlisted 1,086,771 out of a population of 11,267,000. Died 22,917 in the Army, 17,101 in the Air Force, and 2024 in the Navy. Compare this to WWI - out of a population of 7,879,000 - 628,462 served in the Army, approximately 10,000 in the Navy, and about 24,000 in the British Air Forces (RFC, RNFC and RAF). Casualties in the Army were 60,383 KIA or died of wounds and disease, 155,799 WIA. ------------------ 'Bitter Mike'

I'd like to back up Steve's last statement with a little more factual information which is rarely commented upon. Western Europeans supplied more troops to the German Armed Forces than they did to the 'Free' Allied forces. Neutral nations such as Sweden, Spain, and Switzerland supplied more volunteers to the Germans than to the Allies. The reason - simple - once Germany was at war with the Soviet Union a large number viewed it as a good war ie. a crusade against communism. The vast majority of the units that the Germans formed from these 'volunteers' were used solely on the Eastern Front. The reason no one seems to mention this fact is political - none of these countries want to admit to the amount of collaboration that went on. ------------------ 'Bitter Mike'

Fionn - Middlebrook's book gives the best account of the battle that I've read but its been years since I've read it so my recollections about OOB are pretty vague. Regardless of that, one question remains - What motivates people to continue to advance in the face of such casualties? ------------------ 'Bitter Mike'

180,000 men spread over a front 18 miles long gives us 10,000 men per mile of front. A mile is 1760 yards long - 10,000 men over 1 mile gives approximately 5 men per yard. A little crowded don't you think . I'm being a little facetious here but if you let me explain I think it will clear up. Consider that the standard military procedure was to keep 1/3 of your forces in reserve. Extending this to the Corps, one division in three would be kept in reserve. We are now left with 2/3 of your 20 divisions for the front lines (let's be generous and say 14 divisions for the front lines with 6 divisions held in Army reserve - probably the Cavalry ). We now have 168 Battalions on the front lines or 126,000 men. Add to this the fact that the Division itself would hold one brigade in Divisional reserve (1/3 of their forces), we are left with 112 battalions conducting the initial assault or 84,000 men. Now consider 60,000 casualties spread among 84,000 men we have a casualty rate approaching 75% among the frontline troops in the initial assault. Even if we assume that the divisions were able to commit their own reserve brigades we are still left with a casualty rate approaching 50%. All of this in the first three hours of the day. So now you've effectively removed nearly 100 battalions from doing anything more than defending their own trenches (or about 8 Divisions). My whole point in this discussion of July 1, 1916 is that the battalions in the assault suffered such tremendous casualties and continued to press on - they didn't break, even after watching the battalions in front of them get mowed down. How do you explain it and how do you model it? If I follow the explanations of morale in CM, this would never happen even if you (as the CO) were stupid enough to order your men to do exactly as they did on that day. ------------------ 'Bitter Mike'

I'm quite happy with your answer about designing the game the way you want and preventing people from 'mucking about' with the figures. I guess what I really wanted to ask is if the Game Engine and the way you've hardcoded things will allow expansion into future scenarios allowing modern warfare (if you wanted) and incorporating such things as the armour I mentioned and possibly AT missiles etc. (Assuming you've already exhausted all the WW2 possibilities ) ------------------ 'Bitter Mike'

I've heard the same actions described in many ways - fanatic, courageous, stupid - My next question is what causes men to react in such a manner? One of the reasons I brought up the Somme is the fate of the Newfoundlanders - Out of 810 men only 69 met the muster the next day. The curious thing about their fate is not the high casualty figure (many other battalions suffered just as badly) but the fact that they were not in the first wave or for that matter the second wave. They were attacking after watching eight other battalions from the first two waves get decimated and they had to advance over open ground from the assembly trenches just to reach their own front lines (since casualties from the first two waves clogged the front line trenches) subjected to machinegun fire from the full force of Germans (as there were no other targets left for them to fire at). Still, faced with all that they managed to reach the first German trenches - further than any other battalion in their division. I'm reminded of a scene from the movie 'Gallipoli' where the ANZAC's are about to attack the Turkish trenches - due to a miscalculation in the timing of the artillery, the fire was lifted and the Turks remanned the trenches. Even though they knew the Turks would be waiting, the ANZAC's continued with the planned assault. How would you describe that? Why did they continue? What can possibly motivate you enough to do what they did? More importantly - How do you incorporate such reactions into a game like CM? ------------------ 'Bitter Mike'

Just an offside question for you Steve - does hardcoding the data into the individual vehicles etc make it possible for you to simulate something like spaced armour and composite (Chobham) armour? ------------------ 'Bitter Mike'

Back to Fanatacism. Does it really exist or is it something conjured up by people to explain the reactions of enemy troops which do not seem to have a rational explanation? It might help to explain that what seems totally irrational to one side is completely rational to another especially when different customs and beliefs are taken into account. Is it really legitimate to add a fanatacism bonus (or for that matter a berserk bonus) or is it more legitimate to allow certain troops the ability to perform actions that would be considered irrational to opposing troops? ------------------ 'Bitter Mike'

The British casualties figures quoted by myself and LOS are indeed correct - and as LOS stated most of those were inflicted before noon (from 7AM to 9AM mostly). The British suffered more dead on that one day than they suffered in the Crimean, Boer, and Korean wars combined. For the record their next worse day was the battle of Waterloo where they suffered 8000 dead (appr). In only two locations on the 14-18 mile front did they capture any German trenches - in front of the 36th (Ulster) Division and in the south by the French - and these were only the front line trenches which they were then forced to abandon by German counterattacks and the lack of support on their flanks. Fionn - considering that the average battalion contained 730 men and if you assume that it suffered 600 casualties (approximately 80% of its fighting strength) that means that 100 battalions suffered 80% casualties on that day - mostly before noon. Since the normal infantry complement of a British division in WWI was three brigades of 4 battalions each (12 battalions in total) that means that 8 1/3 Divisions suffered 80% casualties in their fighting strength - this hardly constitutes a minority of the troops involved. As far as believing British staff reports that they were able to continue a fighting advance on the second day with the troops that they committed on the first day, what sort of staff officer isn't going to put a rosy assesment on the face of a disaster he is primarily responsible for. An excellent account of July 1, 1916 is given in Martin Middlebrook's "The First Day on the Somme". There are also excellent accounts on the web - one of which I recommend to visit is the Royal Newfoundland Regiment's home page (whose address escapes me at the present time - sorry ). ------------------ 'Bitter Mike'

I am intrigued by the concept of fanaticism and fanatical qualities. Would you consider the acts of suicidal frontal assaults that were conducted in WWI as fanatical acts? Could you possibly consider the loss of 60000 casualties (20000 dead) that the British suffered on the first day of the battle of the Somme an act of mass fanaticism? How about the million dead suffered by France and Germany combined during the battles for Verdun? I don't consider either of those conditions as fanatical but rather as a poor application of tactics and a poor understanding of the realities of modern warfare. The British at the Somme were Green troops weighed under by heavy packs walking - yes walking - in battle lines across up to a mile of no-man's land in the face of massed machine gun fire and barbed wire against an enemy who were supposed to have been annihilated by a week's worth of heavy artillery bombardment. The Russian peasants of WW2 were just as ignorant of modern war as the armies of WWI and just as untrained. The biggest difference was that the western armies had more people who understood the waste that was WWI and thus their troops (and leaders) were much more reluctant to sacrifice their lives in futile attacks - just as Americans were much more aware of the horrors of war (as a result of Vietnam) before committing troops to the Gulf War. The percieved fanaticism of the Japanese with their Banzai attacks is also a great misconception IMHO. The Japanese soldier believed that dying for their emperor was the greatest honour that there was. This fact allowed them to mount the suicide attacks that they are famous for. What we consider to be an act of fantaticism is actually to them an act of loyalty. The greatest asset to the attacker is the perception of the defender. As Major Tom points out psychology is extremely important and if you believe your enemy is a fanatic then he will be a fanatic and you'd better run becuse he is going to kill you. So a better way to simulate this is not to increase the morale of the attacker but to decrease the morale of the defender being subjected to such an attack (especially if they have never endured this type of attack before because if you've survived one Banzai charge you quickly realize that the advantage is firmly in the hands of the defender). ------------------ 'Bitter Mike'

An aside on conscription - Both Great Britain and Canada had all volunteer armies for most of WWI until manpower losses forced the adoption of conscription in 1916-17. Canada also had an all volunteer force at the beginning of WW2 and adopted conscription in 1940 but only for home service - until 1944 the actual frontline troops were all volunteer General Service troops and from November '44 til the end conscripts began to trickle forward releasing rear-echelon troops to the frontlines and in the end only 313 casualties were suffered by conscripts (69 fatal). Another interesting aside is Canada's involvement in the Pacific - Approximately June 1945 a cabinet decision was made that only volunteers for the Pacific theater would serve against Japan. This created an interesting problem. HMCS Uganda was serving with the British Pacific Fleet off Okinawa at the time having transferred from the RN to the RCN in October 1944. When a vote was taken among the crew it was found that there were not enough volunteers for duty in the Pacific to keep the ship crewed and thus the Uganda voted itself out of the war, being forced to return to Canada to replace the non-volunteers HAHAHAHA!!! Another aside - the last VC won in the war was won by a Canadian pilot serving in the Fleet Air Arm on HMS Formidable when he was killed in an attack on a Japanese destroyer (which he sank) on August 9th, 1945 - the same day the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. ------------------ 'Bitter Mike'

Despite my ranking as a Junior Member, I've been posting to this site for at least a couple of years. I was searching for CSL - at this point it was being developed by Atomic (their version became CC1) and then it was taken by BTS. At this point I followed to BTS - I already owned OTR and FC2 and saw a lot of promise in their games. From there I've watched the whole story unfold with the collapse of AH and CSL and the determination of BTS to carry on with their version of CSL which became CM. Now when other people complain about the wait for CM I just sit back and smile - they ain't seen nothing. ------------------ 'Bitter Mike'