Jasper

Actually I've been having a hard time following some of the things on this thread. But I do agree with Jason 100% on his idea, but being a contrarian by nature, I was going to accept his challenge just for fun. But then I realized that the playing field was slightly tilted in his favor. Myself, I'd float out a flawed argument just to see if others would catch me on it, and I'm not sure Jason didn't do the same thing. Example: He mentions Korea but not Viet Nam. Is he sitting back waiting for someone to propose that as a war won with "maneuver"? Or are other sensitivities in play? (Tilt 1) I should say now, the only clear distinction that I can draw between 'attrition' and 'maneuver' seems to be intent. And if the idea that "We'll win this war by destroying the enemies armed forces" goes into the 'attrition' side. Then that doesn't leave a lot of attractive options for the other guy. There might be some limited instances of winning based on occupying some holy ground or the like! (Tilt 2) In looking for an answer to the challenge - what wars do we use? Start with the case of one side being much larger than the other. It doesn't matter the strategy of the larger side - because anything based on the performance of the larger side would hardly be convincing. Example: The Finno-Russian war of 1939. Ok. So if the sides are uneven then it has to be a case were the small side wins - rare enough indeed! That leaves the cases of wars in which the antagonists are equal in side - not a lot of material there either. WWI? (Tilt 3) What is 'winning' and 'losing'? I would've thought that France 1940 should be an example of 'maneuver' winning a war. As far as the nation-state of France was concerned - the war was over. Other nation-states continued the fight but for France, and her colonies, the war was over. It occurs to me that one trait of a(successful) 'maneuver' war is that it must be quick. A long and drawn out 'maneuver' war will begin to look like an 'attrition' war before too long. The Franco-Prussian war comes to mind. But I'm not sure what the conclusion would be. "Attrition works if you're bigger than him". Duh. "Maneuver sometimes works". Double duh. I also agree with Jason about how to determine 'size'. The side with the most infantry is the 'big' side and the side with the lesser infantry is the 'small' side. Making yourself small by purchasing lots of fancy toys is not the path to victory - I can personally attest to that!

Don't know if this is consistant with other findings, but figured the ballistic crowd may find this interesting. <HR> Armor in the land Battle Digested by tbe MILITARYREVIEW from an article by Msjm General H. E. Pyman in the "Journal of the Royal United Service Institution', (Great Britain) May 1954. THE We carry too much tank ammunition within an armored division. Great strides have been made in the accuracy of tank gunnery eince the end of World War H. In considering armor- piercing shot, as a rough calculation it took seven rounds in World War II to hit an enemy tank in a tank versns tank encounter. Any grinner who takes three shots to deaI with his target today has nothing to be proud of at all. An armored division carries 15,000 rounds of armor- piercing shot in first and second lines. Theoretically— very the-oretically— that means that it can fire all that ammunition within 24 hours and in that time should destroy 5,000 tanks. If in any 24 hours my division could destroy one- tenth of that figure, I would die a happy man. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

"Temp drops would effect projectiles as well as ammo, so ammo nose would be more brittle, too." Ah hem. I don't know a lot about ballistics physics and the like, but I suspect that if you take something and shoot it out of a cannon - it will exit the cannon slightly warmer than when it entered. I further suspect that as it screams through the air - that friction may warm it up - especially in front. Just a layman's observation.

[Never mind!] [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 02-01-2001).]

So the Germans drag a T-34 all the way from Russia to France, just to shoot at it. OR The picture of the 'French Tank' is actually a picture of a T-34 knocked out in Russia and simply misidentified. Which is more likely I wonder?

Excerpts from P. Gudgin's "Armored Firepower, The Development of Tank Armament 1939-45: "This superiority was maintained throughout the war by a judicious and far-sighted policy of development, whereby a new gun, or an improved version of an existing weapon, was always available when required." Really? It's 1942 the T-34/76 shows up. To pull some quotes from Achtung Panzer http://www.achtungpanzer.com/t34.htm "Very worrying", Colonel-General Heinz Guderian, Commander of Second Panzer Army. "We had nothing comparable", Major-General F.W. Mellenthin, Chief of Staff of XLVIII Panzer Corps. "The finest tank in the world", Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist, First Panzer Army. "This tank (T-34) adversely affected the morale of the German infantry", General G. Blumentritt. Personnally I think P. Gudgin is full of sh*t.

An article called "Advance and Attack" from Oct 1942 starts with: "In connection with the handling of his armored units there are four principles from which the Boche rarely departs: 1. The primary role of the tank is to kill infantry. 2. The main weapon of the tank is thus the machine gun. 3. The tank can only be successful if used in conjunction with all arms. 4. Tanks must be used enmasse." Given points 1 and 2 - is the author attributing allied perceptions of tank warfare to German doctrine? And so missing is his misinterpreting German doctrine of the time? Later on he makes an interesting observation about the German 88mm: "The 88-mm though it has proved a very effective antitank gun is primarily included in the "Box" to protect "soft skinned" vechicles from air attack." I suspect he thought the use of 88-mm antiaircraft gun as an antitank gun was 'gamey' and that the Germans shouldn't do it. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII. [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 02-01-2001).]

I just posted another article that mentions the role of women in the Red Army. I had thought it was a Russian article (Hey I only skim this stuff to see if it's worth further reading - gimme a break ), but it's not. I don't think even the Russians would be so "over the top". Whew! It's from India. It's called "The Red Army - Foundations of Strength". It's on my spaceport site. I still hope to find a Russian document on women in their armed forces, but don't hold your breath. Maybe it was no big deal to them - kinda like trying to a restaurant review of McDonalds or Burger King in today's society. But stuff like that is hard to find, and there are other priorities. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

Since there are 12 faces in CM, I suspect the better looking ones go to 'elite' units, and gradually they become scruffier until you get to 'green'.

Some reading recommendations I might suggest to people interested in this sort of thing: Breakout at Anzio (just posted it). Highly recommended. Employment of Tanks and Infantry in Normandy. Combat Lessons #4 & #5. Combat Lesson #5 mentions a field manual FM 17-36. I think field manuals are available on-line, but I've been having fun doing other stuff and havn't looked for it yet. It makes an interesting study to watch the development from the ad-hoc field modifications needed at Anzio to later becoming common practice. One trail I don't have documented is the 'infantry phone'. I was told it was invented by the USMC in the pacific backed up by referring to Official Marine Corp History. I never did. I believed him. In any case the earliest mentions of infantry phones are from the Pacific Theater. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

Well thanks to my crappy connection today I started writing this before I read Michael emrys post. He and I are in substanital agreement. But since I already wrote this I'm going to post it anyway - - - - - - - - - - - - Actually, I think that it changed over time. While I'll defer to the experts, I think that the original idea of 'Blitzkrieg' was for armor to roll unsupported by infantry until they hit the ocean. I base this on trying running from the Ardennes to Dunkirk in the time it took the Germans to get there. So I suspect that it worked in 1939. Common pratice then seemed to be for an infantry and armor commander to move to an objective - stop - then talk about the next objective. I suspect adgenda item one was always "Who goes first." As far as I can tell - no one could touch the American infantry-armor integration in say 1944. With infantry radio's in tanks, tank radio's in infantry CP's, telephones on the backs of tanks etc etc. In that case "who goes first" isn't *that* much of a critical issue, because of course each side could call on the other to bail each other out of a jam.

[i give up. See ya'll tomorrow.] [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 01-30-2001).]

My internet connection today is dreadful, but I did manage to post the "A German Account of Changes in the Red Army" article on the 'Spaceports' site before it went south. If my 'signature' block is messed up the URL is http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ I'll try and get the Russian article posted tomorrow. To set expectations - these articles are NOT about women in combat - but merely make mention of it. (And a bunch of other interesting stuff!) I suspect that - like this board - the overall impact of women in combat far exceeded their numbers. Example: How do we (aka the Germans) think that all the pilots of the the 'glide bombers' mentioned by BTS are women? Here's what I suspect: That one aircraft engine won't restart or the Germans manage to shoot one of them down. The body found in the wreckage is that of a woman. So after that all the 'glide bombers' are women. Male or Female, to knowingly shut down the engine of your aircraft over enemy territory would take a great deal of courage. One real good idea that I read about would be for ground attack aircraft to attack flying towards their own lines. In addition to more likely attacking from the rear - you had a greater chance of crashing landing your aircraft on your own side of the lines should it be necessary. But with no power - and at night! Wow.

I've found two references to women in combat roles during WWII. They are somewhat broad in scope, and don't mention individuals by name, but it does seem to indicate that (1) women did serve (on the Russian side) and (2) where they served. One document is "A German Account of Changes in the Red Army" translated from German and another Russian document. I'll try and post these things soon, am looking for a larger web site. But to summarize where these article indicate where women served (you'll have to trust me on this one until I can get the files posted): Medical (Ambulance drivers) Air Force (ground personnel and pilots) Snipers (both articles make reference to this) Anticraft / Searchlight units Ground Forces (Army) - usually mentioning a support type branch like cooks / drivers etc. The German document mentions a patrol was captured "which consisted of fifteen women armed with rifles and dressed in men's civilian clothing. They are very useful in espionage and for this purpose they cross the lines or are landed by planes behind out own lines". Given that the crew quarters for the T-34 was so cramped (with the stories about smaller people being used as tank crews) I half-expected to find references to women serving in tanks, but didn't. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ for military documents written during WWII

Rounds per gun. It's not as easy as that. You have to consider the transport of that stuff to the front where it can do some good. Capture of Russian artillery. Consequently reused by Germans? Or just lost to the Russians? Where are you coming from?

SlapDragon said "The question of course is how much." From what I'm reading - lots. Later in the same article mentioned above is states that HC smoke was only shot after the last round of WP was used. And that the practice was widespread among all artilley units. Early in the article it said that during the previous 20 days a 1/3 of the ammunition shot out of 4.2 inch mortars was WP. In 'Combat Lessons' #4 refering to the 4.2 mortar (again!) it reads "The Germans have shown a marked dislike for WP, and on many occasions a few rounds thrown in their hedgerow positions have caused their precipitate withdrawal." After reading the above posts I now understand why.

God this is really pissing me off after the umpteenth time. An observation: This is basically a whine about the quality of the soldiers. Patton slapped what he considered a poor quality soldier if memory serves. While training and general improvement are constant themes in all commanders long range plans - once the shooting starts whining about the performance of the soldiers is a unnecessary distraction. You gotta use what you got. I guess one measure of the effectiveness of a commander is one will say "Crap. I wish ... wasn't the case. Well gotta suck it up and take the fight to the enemy" And the ... can be from "that our armor stacked up better against the enemy armor" or "that I could get even a little air support" or whatever. Oh yea. Another observation. One definition of insanity is to repeatedly retry the same actions expecting a different result. [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 01-25-2001).]

Ouch! I've heard that WP is flammable I was thinking the smoke probably doesn't smell too good, nor do much good for the eyes. Otherwise I'd think being shelled by smoke wouldn't effect morale much. Perhaps it causes a shower of little burning nasty things?

There's a document called 'Tank versus Tank' that readers of this thread may find interesting. While you're at it you might take a gander at the German article called "The American Sherman Tank" to see what their official war-time opinion of it was. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ for military documents written during WWII

I was reading about the 4.2 inch chemical mortars and came across this sentence: "It is readily admitted that white phosphorus will not produce a high percentage of casualties, but it has an important antimorale effect and it does spray over a terrifically larger area and thus covers more of the target then would be possible with high explosives." From "Chemical Warfare in the European Theater of Operations" by Col. Adrian St. John, Chemical Warfare Service, Sep 4, 1944. Seems to me that it must be pretty nasty, but I was wondering if anyone had an occasion to see it first hand. I'll post the article soon, but despite the corporate stance of BTS, it seems that white phosphorus was used a lot. Read one instance in a 'Combat Lesson' where they fired it *behind* German troops attacking at night so as to see the outlines of the German soldiers against the illumination of the WP rounds. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ for military documents written during WWII

On the fourth and fifth pages of the site listed below you'll see a number of 'Combat Lessons' documents posted. These were printed by the Army during WWII and distributed to the troops. The first section of the the 'Combat Lessons' manuals is always 'Leadership' and after reading a few of them you should get a pretty good idea what was expected from officers. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ for military documents written during WWII

If off-map artillery is "in the scope" then why is counter battery "out of scope"? Last I checked there where no 'out of bounds' penalties in war. I know there is some weirdness differences between on-map artillery and off-map artillery - but I've never had a mortar fire request denied because my battery just got toasted by the enemy.

Ya know, you just can't rush good help. Well I've got a source document on this subject, I uploaded the file blah blah. Did everything but provide a link to it. Duh. Anyway it's called "Air Action Against Combat Formations". There's some other stuff but I think that's the best that I've got. I didn't really look for airforce type stuff, the next time I think about I'll look around and see if I can find some other source documents on air support. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ for military documents written during WWII

Given rules there will be rulesmith's. Seems like to me anyone with a strong opinion of the allocation of points is by definition a rulesmith. Yes it takes one to know one, but I usually turn it off. Some will, no doubt, re-balance their optimized forces to get the maximum firepower per point ratio - and since there is only one best solution - play with the same forces over and over again. Personally all I want is for the rules to bring it in something close - I'll take it from there. I don't get hung up on the 'historical' thing - because then I'd have to let the computer pick out my forces - and quite frankly I find choosing my forces to be more fun. In choosing one's own forces - leads to issues like: Since Puma's where used in combat - why can't my QB be one of the battles where Puma's where used? The effort to reduce the number of Puma's "out there" will result in either (a) randomly being excluded from purchase in QB's ( the cost of a Puma will vary from QB to QB or © the cost of the Puma being raised so of a statistical sample of QB players - 50% of the players that always choose Puma's will choose something else. If someone viewed themselves as a 'Puma Commander', or wanted to play a 'Puma lead reconnaissance patrol QB' then they might find any alteration in the present scheme frustrating. Personally I don't care - my boredom threshold is low enough that I doubt I'll pick the same forces twice. I find HT's handy, and cheap, and so will find the temptation to not purchase none difficult indeed. So what? It's only a game. Oh one last thing. I prefer ladder games as a cheap way to vet out the flakes of the world. And I'd rather lose than cross my gaming principles. So the assumption that every last one of us ladder players is a panting 'win at all cost' rulesmith is incorrect. However: I *hate* having to leave the opponents radio's unjammed, his off-map artillery unengaged, and his supplies / reinforcements interdiction free. So maybe I am a little competitive [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 01-22-2001).]

Gee I've seen that style somewhere before. Nice work! ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ for military documents written during WWII