JerseyJohn
-
Posts
6,549 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by JerseyJohn
-
-
Same here, thanks to all. It was very heartening.
---
[ December 19, 2002, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
It is as though we have found our voice, Immers, and then he was denied to us, and now, in France, there is only silence, which is also poetic, but quieter.
[ November 16, 2002, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
-- CvM
Fine ideas --
I'm opposed to #1 as I feel Germany conquering either the US or Canada would have been historically impossible, so I'm against that victory condition.
I like the other conditions, especially the one concerning U-Boats. Atlantic trade was essential to Britain's survival and it should be reflected in the victory conditions. Your idea here is excellent.
[ November 16, 2002, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
Mountbatten is another interesting case, how do you rate someone who starts out commanding a destroyer and ends up administering Indonesia? I've always liked the idea that he had guts enough to leave the Japanese troops there armed after the surrender primarily because they were the only police force available! Probably one of history's more unique decisions.
There's a case for Bradley, but he's more a nuts and bolts guy, gets the job done, doesn't make a splash either way and consequently he's difficult to judge. Also cases for people like von Runstedt, a similar commander to Bradley, and Auchenleck who stopped Rommel at first Alamein before being replaced by Montgomery.
Churchill and Lincoln had similar reasoning with regard to generals, when in doubt throw them out. I don't think Churchill was fair with either Wavell or Auchenleck. In Wavell's case he was removed for being right! He advised him to finish the Italians instead of sending O'Conner's best troops to Greece, Churchill sent them anyway, then sacked Wavell when the defeat he anticipated actually occurred.
This list business is turning out to be more involved than I'd originally expected.
Pretty soon we'll be down to an Italian known to the Tommies as "Electric Whiskers" because of his odd beard. He was famous for evading capture. After ordering his foot soldiers -- cut off at Sidi Barrani -- to surrender, he got in his staff car, ran through the British lines and headed west at full speed. The British gave chase, barely missing him at Tobruck, Benghazi and seveal other places before finally catching up to his parked car near El Agheala. A humorous photo has the old man wagging a finger at his captors and saying, "ah, if only I hadn't stopped for breakfast!"
Another Italian, Italo Balbo is also interesting. He became famous in 1930 when he took a squadron of sea planes across the Atlantic to New York, then back to Europe, at the time a very novel achievment. By 1939 he was Mussolini's commander in Cyrenicia. Appalled at the low standard of training and preparedness he went on a campaign to make his army more battleworthy and was shot down and killed by his own anti-aircraft guns. His successor, Rudolfo Grazziani, when ordered over the phone to invade Egypt, is alledged to have replied, "Who, me?"
[ November 16, 2002, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
The Soviets reverse engineered the B-29s that landed on their territory and were told all the A-Bomb secrets by spies at Los Alamos -- talk about tech-sharing!
[ November 16, 2002, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
-- Compassion,
More good points -- how can upper echelon commanders such as Nimitz and Eisenhower be compared with operational commanders like Rommel on land and Spruance on sea. We haven't even scratched the surface on air generals like Hap Arnold and Curtis LeMay or Bomber Harris for the allies and Spirille or Kesselring for Germany. Kesselring himself is an odd case as he filled many roles during the war.
--- ---
-- Rambo
Glad you realize I'm your biggest fan and supporter. Thanks for letting me borrow your special terms "over-rated and underated." Sorry you weren't around for Vietnam; it was a bad combination -- overated politicians running an underated war.
--- ---
[ November 16, 2002, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
Andre -- there are 65 pages of forums you should go back and scan over before reaching any conclusions.
The pre-pubescent pissing match is largely the work of a single person who's been working very hard to tick a number of people off.
Make a few entries in a few forums and see how you feel when this character suddenly dubs you a "German Worshiper" or a "Stalin Lover."
Get the picture?
None of us think any of that is called for and I personally don't appreciate being dubbed "Claus Boo Bee" because someone gets bored.
The overwhelming majority of people who come to this site are mature individuals with mature entries in hundreds of posts, presumably you haven't read much --or any-- of those forums.
[ November 16, 2002, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
I don't believe he is twelve, I thought that was only a wise crack in response to CvM's being fourteen.
If Rambo really is twelve I take back most of what I said. I'd have said he's a young brat and needs time to grow up.
And I hope he does.
-
That's pretty much what I'd give him as well. His outstanding quality was low casualties. On the other hand, he did some bizarre things, like not defending his airfields after being alerted that Pearl Harbor had been attacked. He was told to launch his planes against Japanese airstrips on Taiwan but instead withdrew to his home and did nothing. Later in the day Japanese aircraft from those very bases destroyed his own planes.
His career, spanning all the decades it did, serving as everthing from youngest general ever in WW I to Chief of Staff under Herbert Hoover, then Field Marshal (!) of the Philipine Army, to WW II S.E. Pacific commander, to Japanese "Shogun" and finally U.N. commander in Korea!
Understandably it's difficult for me to evaluate him. When I was a kid, in the 50s, MacArthur was generally regarded by WW II vets who'd served in both theaters as the greatest of our generals. But a lot of that might have been due to his battling Harry Truman a few years earlier and ultimately being dismissed. The newspapers were on MacArthur's side and most Americans felt we should have gone after the Communist chinese in Manchuria and China itself. It's hard today to imagine how really unpopular Truman became after Mac's dismissal and the ensueing deadlock in Korea.
As an after thought, and in keeping with evaluating generals, I'd have to add that, militarily, MacArthur brought about his own defeat. He proceeded to the Manchurian border not only in defiance of his mandate, but also against the advice of his own intelligence officers and advisers, all of whom felt he was walking right into a trap. The newspapers of the day never got around to mentioning any of that.
One of Mac's advisers went so far as to say 100,000 Chinese infantry could be hiding in the North Korean hills and Mac, according to witnesses, just puffed on his pipe and changed the subject. A few days later the Chinese emerged from their hiding places to wreak havoc!
[ November 16, 2002, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
Fine points about Montgomery. I never felt he was incompetent, perhaps too methodical, but as you say that was in keeping with his generation of British and French generals. I think the Americans and Germans went in other directions, toward more dynamic tactical doctrine.
Nimitz and Halsey are, like MacArthur, other hard cases in comparrison with the others on that list. You may as well include Spruance.
There seem to have been two phases to Halsey during the war -- early on, when he couldn't do anything wrong, and the last year or so, when he couldn't seem to do anything right.
Starting with Leyte Gulf, where, after thumping the southern and western Japanese fleets with carrier strikes, he abruptly turned north, falling for the Japanese bait and leaving the landing area virtually unprotected for the Japanese western fleet which back tracked and came back unexpectedly. The only thing saving the entire operation from oblivion was the heroic actions of an escort carrier and a few cruisers in suicidal bluff attacks against Japanese BBs (including the 18" gun Yamato) and the mysterious withdrawal of the Japanese fleet within moments of victory. Most historians believe the Japanese admiral was decieved into thinking he was really facing Halsey, who was actually hopelessly far to the north.
In the months that followed, Halsey proceeded to sail the fleet into two typhoons, each as damaging as a major naval battle, and by war's end, even while recieving his fifth star, he was in the naval doghouse.
Nimitz was a sound strategist and made good use of his officers and ships. I'd put him very high on any list, but regarding this particular application I think those mentioned in the "10" are more relevant to the discussion.
Spruance, to me, was one of the great admirals. He never mistook opportunity with assignment, always did his job excellently, and was the recipient of a genuine miracle at the Battle of Midway -- Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
-- The original lists are very good, but if we're going to include the Pacific there should probably two seperate lists of 10, one for generals and the other for admirals -- or maybe continue having them mixed but have seperate lists for the European and Pacific Theaters.
Even so, how do you compare Rommel to Doenitz? It's the old apples and oranges issue.
Plenty of room for input in this topic.
[ November 16, 2002, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
-- KuniWorth
Great topic.
Pretty much agreed with your lists.
About the only thing I liked concerning Montgomery was the fact he wasn't reckless, on the other hand, had he pursued Rommel harder after El Alamein he might have overtaken him and destroyed the remnants of the Afrika Korps before it withdrew to Tripoli, later linking with von Arnim in Tunesia.
There are two other WW II generals I like that have little relevance to the "List" so I'm just mentioning them as a side note:
Joe Stillwell in the Pacific, or actually South East Asian Theater, was very underated. The newspaper men dubbed him "Vinegar Joe" but he was known among the troops as "Uncle Joe." During the retreat from Burma, for example, he not only walked with everyone else, but also went back among the straglers to urge them on, doing it all on foot -- how many senior generals did things like that? He achieved the most with meager resources in a pretty much forgotten theatre of operations.
Early in the war he was considered America's top tactician and was earmarked for North Africa but Marshal decided he was too valuable in the Pacific, having spent most of his career there and being fluent in Chinese.
Another fine commander was the British O'Conner who engineered the Italian Libyan fiasco. It seems now like a given, but the Italian defensive blocks near Mersa Matruh were pretty formidable. O'Conner had the good sense to take aerial photos and study the tire tracks to see where the gaps in the minefields were placed.
Going along those trails he ran to the Italian rear and cut their supply line, most importantly seperating their huge infantry force from it's water -- the real reason they surrendered en masse, it beat the hell out of dying of thirst! Shortly after Rommel's arrival O'Connor was captured while personally on personal recon and never achieved the higher positions he was destined for. I consider him another Rommel, but there's no way that can ever be borne out.
--- Douglas MacArthur should fit in somewhere, I suppose, but he's a hard case to figure. Some of his actions bordered upon incompetence and others bordered on genius. Also, it's hard to figure how much of his Island hopping strategy was really the Navy's. One thing is certain, his handling of the New Guinea campaign was brilliant -- but here, to, was it actually even necessary? If the offensives would have begun farther north those large concentrations of Japanese would simply have been left behind -- possessing New Guinea itself was of little significance if the place were isolated.
[ November 16, 2002, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:
[QB] JerseyJohn --- Take a deep breathe......You have gone off the edge. I'm going to address things STEP by STEP so you can understand.
Okay Rambo, you've got it all figured out -- you're so busy telling everyone what they're thinking you don't stop to read your own forums. I entered postings to your movie thread and your history thread and where you find any basis for saying I didn't care for them is incredible.
Your forums are fine. The thing I don't care for is you. You're a self-appointed storm trooper.
As for not facing you in person, I did, in your own forum -- read your own forums.
As I said before, you have nothing to say and you say it poorly. You're a self absorbed anti-productive trouble maker.
Now, I think that puts it fairly directly in your face.
As you believe you represent the forces of good, or you represent the good guys or whatever delussional claim you toss about, it seems amazing that so many others agree with my own low opinion of you and your beligerent ways.
You're the first nincompoop who's ever claimed he was the most popular -- who gives a flying you know what who's the most popular -- that whole line of thought is moronic!
***
My thanks to all those who feel the same way about this guy I do. It was never my intention to bash him or anyone else, but he seems to hit on contributors randomly and I don't like someone who doesn't know me telling me what I worship and who I adore. What an ego!
***
-- Johan -- thanks for the offer, would also enjoy a game at your convenience.
[ November 16, 2002, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
I/O -- Yohan,
Thanks for the good word, appreciated.
-- Yohan,
Never thought that for a minute, never had a problem with anyone's entries or replies, they often conflict but never become flareups, usually the conflicting opinions lead to the most enjoyable exchanges.
What got me mad about this "Rambo" character is he thinks he's some sort of superhero, Captain America or something because he supposedly represents the "Good Guys" whatever that means. If it were that simple we wouldn't have sixty some odd pages of forums. The powder keg was his idiotic remark about w-4 forms. Only an imbecile gets into that sort of nonsense and I strongly suspect he's starting to alter my entries. Anyway, from now on I'll just stay out of his forums, there are plenty of better ones.
-
Norse & Bill
Thanks for the good word -- will hang around. After making the entry I thought about it and realized I'm satisfying a single immatture trouble maker without considering all the responsible wargamers whose ideas I enjoy and want to continue being in touch with.
Thanks again.
-
Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:
[QB]Jersey John the German worshipper --- The Germans were OVER-RATED. Keyword: 'were'. They're dead & gone. What's your thing for German soldiers? I prefer to post the good guys:
Rambo -- You're the sort of pea brain who ruins anything that's good. You wouldn't know good guys from a hole in the ground and as for me being a German worshipper you didn't bother to read my prompt put down of an earlier forum praising the waffen SS. If you had half a brain in your empty head you'd realize I lampoon the nazis and am not in awe of them.
You, Rambo, have nothing to say and say it poorly.
If your entries are any indication of your intellect there's no doubt your brain would fit n your 10.5 shoe size with plenty of room to spare.
[ November 16, 2002, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
Dear Hubert,
I've been commenting lately that someone seemed to be tampering with my postings. This morning I found a posting I didn't make with my forum name of JerseyJohn -- it was by Jon__J__Rambo or whatever he calls himself. In it he calls me a German Lover and posts some stupid remarks referring to me as "Claus Boobie" and posting some sort of belligerent challenge about comparing w-4 forms, etc. I draw the line at personal attacks and especially personal attacks that come in the line of blatant stupidity.
Henceforth I will avoid this site.
Disgusted -- John P. Dellova
I will be sending this same message to all administrators and posting it as a farewell forum.
-
Originally posted by JerseyJohn:
[qb]
There was a message here that I didn't post -- so we have a self-appointed hacker -- isn't that wonderful.
[ November 16, 2002, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
The entry below was not posted by me, nor was the photo. Nor was the next entry with my identifier posted by me either. If we have some nitwit altering our entries and even makeing new ones with our IDs as though they were ours, then this whole thing is defeated.
Yo-Hans-Boobie --- What should I post for e-mail? Should I post my company e-mail for you: MyRealName@fortune10.ceo.com? Would that impress you? Wanna compare W-2 forms next?[/QB]
-
"Twelve year olds with size 10.5 shoes picking fights with fourteen year olds -- and they do it when we are having choir practice. Why, it is the Children's Crusade all over again."
[ November 15, 2002, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
"Despicable about that fellow picking a fight with a fourteen year old. Just bully that the lad is fighting back!"
[ November 15, 2002, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
I'm a fan of both but would say they're far from identical. In fact, I think the differences easily outnumber the similarities.
Getting back to the original point, there really are a ton of earlier forums where his topic was beaten to death. Having commented my views extensively -- perhaps even borishly! -- in several of them, I honestly can't bring myself to cover the same ground here.
One thing I have to restate, though, is that SC is not an overall improvement of COS, it's essentially a different approach (production tables, naval tactics, etc.) and in some ways I prefer COS. In both games I hate the North African hex line which has no room for maneuvering -- it is relavent in one hex only, the once adjacent to Alexandria, where the Qattara Depression is closest to the Mediteranean -- which I've also said in at least a dozen earlier forums -- me and many others.
One thing about Clash, I always felt the computer was cheating!
[ November 15, 2002, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
"It's FlashGordon again -- but not to worry, this time he's picking on the Ancient Romans."
"That is good."
"Yes. And besides, they were overated -- look what we did to them in that forest."
-
Some excellent choices, most of which are not considered good movies by the general public but because of our special interest they get an added star or two!
"Walk in the Sun" is my favorite. It had the guts to depict Battle Fatigue, which was still something of a taboo subject during the war. What's even better, the guy suffering it is a hero by any definition who's just seen too much.
The John Ireland character's ongoing mental letter to his sister is fantastic. The novel is also good, but the movie is better! Another good point is the use of real equipment, love the remark about how, 'the closer we get to Germany the more you see they're older stuff.'
Also, nothing beyond what the characters see is revealed. If the viewer knew nothing about the Salerno landing they wouldn't know the Americans were winning. Everything is up for grabs and the soldiers depicted aren't even sure where the rest of the army is! The whole war, for them, is a single Italian farmhouse somewhere up the road.
Then there's Richard Conte's recurring line, "nobody dies" and in the end, "why can't they leave us alone!"
For me the only reminder that this flick is not eternal is the antiquated bouncing ball on the song lyrics. That was old fashioned and out of date even in 1945, when the film was made.
In "A Bridge Too Far" my favorite line is the German Fieldmarshal (Kluge? Model?) looking up from his HQ to see a deluge of open parachuttes -- "But there's nothing of value here?" then he thinks a moment, --"I'm valuable, they're all being sent here to capture me!"
Haven't seen "Stalingrad," will watch for it.
Prefer "Tora-Tora-Tora!" to "Pearl Harbor"; hated all the non-essential plotting. Love "The Great Gatsby" and other romances, but not in a "war movie." Liked the special effects in "Pearl Harbor" very much.
Most of the others, such as "Midway" and "Battle of the Bulge" seem a bit drawn out to me, though I liked some of the characters in Bulge, especially Telly Savalas. It's unfortunate the producers of those movies didn't doctor the tanks a bit to make them look more WW II vintage; wooden fittings on the "German" tanks could have made them look more like Tigers and less like post war U.S. models.
Did anyone mention "Slaughter House Five" -- it's hard to classify it as either SF or war, more a parody, but the war scenes and the destruction of Dresden are all done very well.
"Sahara," starring Humphrey Bogard, from 1943, is also good though very heavy on the propaganda. If you just watch it as a movie and ignore the Germans offering themselves for target practice -- it's pretty enjoyable.
Another good wartime propaganda movie is "Seven Graves to Cairo." Pure nonsense but Erich von Stroheim as a wicked Rommel is a hoot -- and great acting, if it were someone else and not Rommel the acting would have more effect.
Erich von Stroheim is also good as a corrupted army surgeon in "North Star" later butchered into "Armored Attack" with numerous good actors such as Walter Huston, Dean Jaeggar, Walter Brennon, Dana Andrews and numerous others as supports. Fine wartime propaganda film to evoke sympathy for our Russian Friends in the U.S.A.. Some corny scenes, one really terrible song and lots of 1941 Germans still wearing oversized WW I helmets (not the top spike model, the ones they wore in Sgt York, which is probably where they were gotten from).
[ November 15, 2002, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
Stukas were never intended to hold their own against either anti-aircraft defenses or enemy fighter planes. The were intended to do exactly what they did, hit open targets of opportunity, create confusion and damage and disrupt communications, then return home in one piece to fly another mission. They were designed at a time when the German war planners couldn't envision a battlefield where they did not have absolute air superiority.
I think the crux of the matter is the philosophy behind each of Europe's major armies.
Germany designed hers to win quick wars against more backward opponents. Tanks were originally light and fast as they were intended to pour through breeches and disrupt enemy rear areas while the infantry caught up and consolidated.
The Luftwaffe had two missions, flying artillery and air superiority. It was never intended to fill a strategic role and was misused in that capacity over Britain. Conversly, during '41 and '42 the RAF had the same problems in it's missions over Europe that the Luftwaffe had over England -- overextension of fighter range, total loss of downed aircrews, German radar defenses!, etc., but little was ever made of that -- the strategic air war over Europe is generally seen in only two phases, the Battle of Britain, and the large scale bombing of the Reich.
Much of the equipment in all armies was either obsolete or obsolescent when they began seeing service. Talk about the Stuka, what about the British Swordfish torpedo plane? If the Panzer III and IVs in France were not what they should have been (the lighter tank as tank destroyer and the heavier tank with low velocity anti-infantry weapn!) what about the British Matildas? The French tanks, though generally either heavy or fast, were plagued with mechanical problems and had no tactical doctrine within the French Army.
At that same time the United States was seeing it's own armored role in the light Stuart and medium Grant tanks, neither of which saw extensive use during America's actual fighting. the Stuart being used mainly in the Pacific and the Grant primarily by the British in North Africa (in the 1943 movie "Saharra" Humphrey Bogart is pictured in one; it had the same chasis as the more successful Sherman, also a death trap but fast and mechanically reliable).
This forum has had many sweeping statements bandied about, but to me it boils down to this: The German army succeded magnificently in what it was intended to do. It crushed Poland and France.
-- yes, the Poles had few tanks and resorted to using cavalry, but that was considered when the German army made it's plans; Poland by the nature of it's geography had to employ a large, primarily infantry army for a defensive war. There was never any doubt that, left to her own resources, she was doomed. It was only a matter of how long it would hold out.
-- Yes, the French were also tactically backwards, but that too was taken into consideration. It was no secret that France was lagging modernization and relying on the Maginot Line, and the Germans planned for a revised Schlieffen Plan, this time with the armor being the exploiting weapon, as laid out in the pre-war book, "Achtung Panzer" by then colonel Heinz Guderian.
The German army succeded as well in Russia, during the initial stages, it achieved roughly two French victories. Here, the army was let down on a strategical level -- Russia was much more than France x2.
Essentially, the Germans never planned for a long war. They envisioned a year at most with the taking of some minor countries followed by a quick armistace with England and France. Originally they didn't even anticipate the complete collapse of the French, and it might have been this unexpected success that condemned them.
Most importantly, air power decided the war. When the Axis had it they were conquerers, when the Allies had it the Axis was conquered!
It's significant that the German army, designed to work with air superiority, managed to fight so stubbornly even against an allied onslaught of total air superiority.
All in all, when getting into this sort of discussion, we're a bunch of monday morning quarterbacks. There were too many factors involved, not the least being the eccentric personalities of the principal leaders, for generalizations like "The Germans were overated" to have much meaning.
It's like casting a glance 2,000 years back to the Mediteranean and saying "The Romans weren't so tough!" Fine, but what does it mean?
Immers?
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
"Immers is back and all of France rejoices!"
[ November 17, 2002, 07:43 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]