Doctor

I was under the impression that following the first Russian offensive the Germans were fighting a losing battle, US or no US. Seemed like it was downhill after Stalingrad, and though it may have taken longer Russia probably could have beat the Axis. They did, after all, have the disposable manpower to throw at the German lines.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Blah. It has nothing to do with "national will" as much as immediate threat. Countries moblize more when they are the crest of being over-run. I don't admire Japan or Germany for the numbers they tossed into battle. They had too. Their very countries depended on it. I don't know why France gets a bad rap. There military was crippled by poor leadership more than anything. When the Germans invaded the Allies had more tanks, and better, troops and a similar number of planes. France and the UK were outplayed not outmanned in France. Cav <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just reading a book that supports your claim. From "Panzer Battles" by Maj. Gen. F.W. Von Mellenthin in the chapter titled "The Conquest of France": "The German Army was actually inferior to the Allied armies, not only in numbers of divisions but particularly in numbers of tanks." (French and British forces had 4,000 tanks, with the best having 2-pounder guns and stronger armor. Germany had 2,800 tanks, with a 37mm standard gun) "To sum it up: The Battle for France was won by the German Wehrmacht because it reintroduced into warfare the decisive factor of mobility." He suggests that the main factors for success at the time were mobility and concentration of attacking force.

Thank you all for your responses. I truly appreciate it. I've decided to start with Panzer Battles(picked it kind of at random, because I have to start somewhere). So far, it's very interesting. I could almost kick myself for not discovering the pleasures of reading military history earlier in my life. The only book I can recall reading that had to do with war(other than fiction) was Stalingrad, which I enjoyed quite a bit(still have mental images conjured up about the panicked rush across a bridge once the 6th army was encircled) but thought it was a fluke. For some reason I assumed that military history was normally dry, boring, and should be read only if required. Boy, was I wrong. It's better than fiction. I've found a new hobby outside of computer games(really, just CM lately). I can't tell you how odd it feels to be this interested in something new again. Oh, and do I ever get the borg treatment?

As I mentioned in a prior thread, I spent my monthly computer gaming fund on WWII books because no games but CM seem to hold my interest any more. I'd appreciate it if anyone who's read any of the books I bought today could comment on them(in terms of accuracy, depth, entertainment, or whatever you feel like mentioning). I ask because I'm trying to get a sense of what style books I should be looking for(this buying expedition was a spur of the moment type thing). I honestly didn't know what to buy, and just picked the ones that caught my eye(the selection was pretty limited too). I'd also appreciate any suggestions on other books to purchase. Here's the list, and TIA for helping me educate myself on this subject. *Panzer Commander by Hans von Luck *Currahee! by Donald R. Burgett *A Blood Dimmed Tide by Gerald Astor *Seven Roads to Hell by Donald R. Burgett *Panzer Battles by Maj. Gen. F.W. von Mellenthin *WWII - a photographic History by David Boyle

I imagine that it had to do with a number of dynamic factors. Here's some in no particular order: -- If Russia beat Germany while we were fighting in the Pacific, we'd have more problems down the road if they decided they didn't want to leave the countries they invaded(which was a real possibility, and despite our being allied with them we didn't trust them at all). -- Political pressures from England demanded that we help them first. -- A-Bomb race with Germany. -- Freeing Europe from the German threat would free up non-US allied troops to help in the pacific(after all, would the UK fight in the Pacific just because we asked while thier cities were being bombed?) -- It bought us time to develope the A-Bomb and use it without fear of pissing off our European Allies who live next door to ground zero in Germany. -- American interests were under a lower direct threat in the Pacific after the initial Japanese land grab. -- More Americans in power were(and are) of European descent, and had greater interest(both economic and cultural) in seeing Europe freed. -- Britan was under direct threat from Germany, and if Britan fell we'd have a hell of a fight trying to get a toehold in Europe. -- We(American Mainland) were not really under direct threat from Japan, as far as I can tell. We may or may not have been under direct threat of Germany, but it seems like it was perceived that we were. There's probably more, and I may add to this. If any seem wrong, feel free to critique this list. Keep in mind that it's 6am, and I have had insomnia for the last two nights, so please go easy on my first attempt at in depth discussion on this board. [This message has been edited by Doctor (edited 09-14-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SilentPhoenix: Got assimilated by the CM Borg..... What an honor Started to look for books on tank warfare..... Hey! Stop! What are you doing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While I've not been assimilated by the borg(perhaps it's my breath?), I too had only a passing interest in WWII prior to finding CM. Then came CM. Then came hours of playing. Then came pondering the game and strategys while not playing. Then, today, I bought 6 books on WWII topics. This was my monthly disposable income that I usually spend on video games, but I found myself comparing every game I browsed through to CM for it's expected replay and enjoyment value. None came close enough to warrent a serious consideration for purchase, so I wandered into the bookstore and looked at some WWII books. So I guess we're in the same boat. CM is the first game that's inspired me to learn more about history. It's simply that good.

I'm just starting the Groesbeek operation and can't seem to figure out where I should be defending and where the enemy will advance towards because there's no flags. I understand there shouldn't be any flags, but how do I know what the AI will head for without them?

I've been reading this board for a couple months now, and haven't seen these two things mentioned before, so here goes. On a couple of occasions in thick fog, my infantry will target an enemy unit, but there is no image of the unit being shown. It says "Infantry Sounds? 10m" or something close to that. The red line extends from my men to a empty space on the map. Is this normal? Also, in fog my men tend to run at and over enemy foxholes that suddenly appear in view. Shouldn't they really stop running once they see them rather than assume that they're empty? Oh, and also, is it generally better to rest your men before combat or save time and enter combat ASAP? Or is it more of a better if you can, but sometimes you can't sort of thing? That's it. Hope they weren't dumb or recently asked questions. P.S. if anyone wants to PBEM with a low-average player please email me. I can do two or more turns per day, or less if you like. Thanks, Dr. Van Falk