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'

10 years in the Canadian Navy as a Marine Engineering Technician (Stoker). Served on various ships on both coasts of Canada. Participated in the naval blockade of Haiti in '94. Most recently helped collect Chinese 'Migrants' off the coast of British Columbia. Nothing spectacular, the job is 99% boredom and 1% real gut-wrenching excitement. Staying below decks operating the engines keeps you warm and dry Hello to the submariners from a skimmer - from the sounds of it we do the same job only I don't operate nukes, only steam turbines, gas turbines and diesels. Mike

The 79th British Armoured Division with it's assortment of 'Funnies' supported the First Canadian Army in its run up the coast of France - most notably in the captures of Le Havre and Boulogne as well as in the Scheldt estuary and during Operation Veritable. They were used so much alongside the Canadians that the 1st Canadian Armoured Personnel Carrier Regiment (using Kangaroos)was formed and incorporated into the 79th.

Two accounts I have read about involve British tankers abandoning their tanks. The first was in the Western Desert where, when fired at by German 88's, the tankers abandoned their tanks because they knew they were dead meat if they stayed with their tanks. The second account was in reading about Wittmann's attack on a British tank column where he destroyed the last tank in the column and then the first tank and then proceeded at his leisure to destroy the remaining tanks of the column which had been abandoned by their crews. I am sure that experience played a role in those abandonments as well ie. the crews were experienced enough to know that their chances of survival were greater outside thier tanks.

I think that BTS has already reached the point where they have decided what to keep and what to reject and now it is a matter of writing the code and then testing. While I agree that perfection is impossible, it is also impossible to satisfy all the things that I would like to see in a game unless I do all the programming myself. Since I am too lazy to get back into programming (I gave it up nearly ten years ago), I'll have to be satisfied with what I can get from people who are willing to supply my habit. With that said I must say that I'm happy with the way that BTS is handling things right now - they are a hell of a lot more responsive to their customers (or potential customers) than most of the game companies out there. I get the feeling from reading this forum and seeing their responses that this game will go a lot further to satisfying my desires for a good game of its type than any other product out there. By the way, I've been waiting almost twenty years for a computer game that will satisfy my need to simulate tactical combat without actually having to fight so if BTS can come closer than any other company with this game then I don't mind waiting - so long as they don't drop the ball and let some other company upstage their effort. Mike

Regardless of who received priority, the supply situation at that time would still have necessitated a halt in operations once any bridgehead had been established. As far as the size of Patton's salient it should be noted that he had only six or seven divisions to use on his proposed thrust to the Rhine (the rest were still clearing Brittany and Southern France to link with Operation Dragoon coming up from Marseilles). Another thing that should be taken into consideration was that by using Airborne troops part of the supply problem was solved since they could be resupplied via air from England. As well, Tactical air support could be supplied from England for the Arnhem operation whereas Patton would have to get his from airbases in France thus increasing the supply load (Could he have made it without Air support?). The more I study history the more I come to the conclusion that wars are won by supply clerks and not soldiers - or as Napoleon would have said (if he had said it in English) 'An army marches on it's stomach' Mike

I'm with you Thomas. I don't care how long it takes as long as they get it right. I have a lot of games that are four, five, or six years old that still occupy my hard drive and get a lot of playing time because they were well designed and are still fun despite their limitations with respect to such things as graphics. I also have my share of games that I have bought because of the hype and anticipation that it aroused in me, played a few times and then let collect dust because it didn't meet my expectations and desires. As a result of the latter, I have become much more cynical about games that I read about and I've adopted two main strategies before I buy. 1- I never buy games at Christmas time. 2- I always wait at least three months after a game has been published before buying it - if the reviews are good - this usually allows time for the first patch to come out Mike.

Sorry Mike, but I don't think that sending supplies to Patton would have been feasible at that time. The supply situation in NW Europe at that time was getting pretty thin for Allied forces. All their supplies were coming via Cherbourg or the Mulberry harbours at Normandy. Although Antwerp had been captured intact it would take until November for the Canadian forces to clear the Scheldt Estuary and allow the port to be used. As a matter of fact, the Market Garden exercise has been criticized in Canadian Military histories for diverting attention from clearing the Scheldt early thus allowing the Germans to fortify and cause unecessary casualties among the Canadians. At best, without Antwerp operating, Market Garden would only have created a large salient in the German lines, inviting German counterattacks. As it was, the failure to capture the bridge resulted in the British forces withdrawing to reduce the salient that they caused. The same could be said for any gains that Patton could have made - if he had captured any bridge over the Rhine he would have been left with an advantage which he couldn't pursue because of the lack of supplies and also be faced with determined German counterattacks. Without Antwerp operating, the Allies would have been forced to halt their offensive at that time whether they captured a Rhine bridge or not.

One small quote to remember "History is written by the victors"

I think Brian misinterpreted my comparison to the casualties in WWI. What I meant was that if you are willing to accept those kind of casualties simply because of your advantage in quantity then you are acting under the same state of mind prevalent among the Western leaders of WWI. During WWII, mindful of the waste of lives in the previous war (and several of them having fought in that war) the leaders of the Western armies were not willing to accept those horrendous casualties and adjusted their tactics to achieve victory without this slaughter. I really don't think that the Western leaders (and the people of the Western Alliance) of WWII were willing to accept those casualty rates - their use of the quantity over quality quotient was not in a head to head situation where 'I might win if I swamp the defence with tanks but suffer huge losses in return' strategy, but in the 'I'll use some of my tanks to pin your quality in place while I outflank you with my quantity' strategy - which is precisely the type of strategy which you've outlined in your statement. You'll notice that I've left the Soviets out of my statement as I believe that they used both strategies to full effect since IMO they had little regard for the value of human life (apologies in advance to any Russians I may have offended). On the whole, the point I was trying to make with that statement about criminality was that as gamers we tend to abstract the real cost of war and I was hoping that I could jolt people back to trying to relate those game pieces to real people - which is precisely the same mentality that many WWI generals had - that they didn't relate those little coloured pins on their maps to real people and thus didn't realise the true cost of their decisions. Just as an idea of what I mean, try to see the movie "Oh What a Lovely War" - a black comedy about WWI made in Britain in the mid 70's (I believe).

A lot of things are being ignored in this discussion of the merits of quantity vs quality. First of all, this war was fought on more than just the Western Front and for a much longer period than from June '44 to May'45. The Eastern Front was where the vast majority of the German forces were deployed. Not only were the German tanks there deployed against large numbers of tanks, but those tanks were also of the same or better quality. Thus, when combined on both the West and East Fronts, those 5000 Panthers faced 30,000 Shermans and 20,000 T-34's and probably another 10,000 KV's and JS's. Next, I think that you will find that in the majority of cases, the Western Allies would use their Infantry divisions to tie down Panzer divisions while their Armoured divisions attacked the German Infantry divisions and outflanked the Panzer Divisions. In the instances where the opposing armoured forces clashed - most notably in North Africa and in Normandy the Allied forces suffered considerably even when up against just Mk III's and IV's - when up against Tigers and Panthers the losses were horrible. As even the Western Infantry divisions had as much armour as a Panzer Division it becomes apparent that the German Infantry were at a severe disadvantage no matter who they faced. Lastly, the key to victory is tactics - using the forces you have to maximum advantage. When the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in '41 they faced a similar task that the West faced in '44, using inferior quality tanks against an opponent with better ones. Not only were they at a quality disadvantage, they were at a quantity disadvantage. They won their stunning victories against the Russians for two reasons, better tactics on their part and the wrong tactics on the Soviet part. The same story for the invasion of France in '40. As Steve shows in his After Action Report, even with superior tanks, if you use the wrong tactics you are going to get your butt kicked. One final note. In my view the reliance of quantity over quality is criminal. You have to realize that when you are willing to trade 5 Shermans to kill 1 Panther that you are effectively sentencing the crews of those tanks to death. This kind of mentality is what caused the massive casualties of the First World War when the idea was that Elan and Dash could allow an infantryman to overcome a machinegun bullet. Remember, the idea is not to die for your country but to let the other poor bastard die for his.