SoDak
-
Posts
39 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by SoDak
-
-
I think this statement still stands. Like I said before, you have posted nothing but your baseless opinions, which without supporting facts or sources, means nothing. </font>Originally posted by Comrade Trapp:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> lol , funny, not once in this entire 2 page thread have you posted any facts or sources supporting your argument, all I see is your baseless opinions.
-
<shrug> Yes and no. It wasn't a superior military system, as events proved, twice.Originally posted by SeaMonkey:"Thats simple politics."
Finally, something intelligent. Exactly Sodak, Germany being an historical military power, in the recent few decades, developed a superior military system due to their military ideology of their political system. This is not about Supermen or genetics, its about training, that's why I'm a better chemist than you.
In terms of training, disagree. The only "superior training" they had was that they were looking for a fight, while everyone else was wanting to avoid one.
Not hard to appear to have "superior training or tactics" in that scenario.
Once the scenario changed to both having the same political mindset, show was over. Twice.
[ July 13, 2004, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: SoDak ]
-
Definately. But then, thats not some inherent, superior genetic or whatever, German military trait as so many like to believe.Originally posted by Roosevelt45(the 2nd):So you do acknowledge(or whatever) the fact that compared to the democratic armies Germany was pretty though?
I'm not disagreeing with you on the fact that the Germans are way overrated but if you look at the state the armies of the UK and France were in, don't you think that Germany looks a lot better.
Thats simple politics.
-
Originally posted by Comrade Trapp:
[QB]
Lol, any third grader who's studying the subject already knows the facts about 1940France. You ?
One hint has already been given, started with the letter V.
No, I wouldn't. A single poorly prepared army sized force compared to an entire military ?Don't know what planet you live on where that math wouldn't make a difference.
I'm sure you would, being a myth believer and all.Anyone else realizes all those countries militarys together didn't amount to squat, and the Germans still came close to losing in Norway.
Pot, kettle, etc. mean anything to you ? Here's a fact; your German supermen got their asses kicked........twice.By the incompetant, moronic allies no less.
Do keep trying though.
[ July 13, 2004, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: SoDak ]
-
Lol, you're too much smartass. The 1940 French ? Give me a break; they couldn't be more than a speed bump to anyone in the chaotic state they were in, the entire war for that matter. Vichy ring a bell ?Originally posted by Comrade Trapp:SoDak
Will you please be so kind to enlighten us on why the Allies lost the Battle of France in 1940? Since according to you, it didn't have anything to do with the German Army's superior tactics in the area of armored warfare combined with close air support never before seen in the history of warfare.
So please, enlighten us.
BEF ? Hardly even a bump, due to their size.
But if you're so knowledgeable, you knew that already, right ?
Yeah, the Germans did great....in Poland, Low Countries, Norway, France, Balkans......wow, impressive
But hey, I couldn't care less if you agree or not, but nice try
I know the truth must be frustrating(or why the anger ?); thats what happens when bubbles burst.
-
Lol, wow. I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere, who knows what though.Originally posted by SeaMonkey:No German stargazers here, but that is an interesting perspective, let's look back at the Earth from the stars' position. A small country on the European continent, without a lot of natural resources or a large population, needs the combined strength of the most powerful, populated, abundant natural resource nations of the Earth to bring about her demise and collectively it took them approx. 5 years, ok 4/US 3. And that after they had done it once before, 20 years earlier. Naahhh,... your right Sodak..."Don't mean nothin"
Haven't seen that kind of, cough, logic, since I was in my teens.
-
Lol, sure buddy. I'm so upsetOriginally posted by Retributar:SORRY SoDak...Crash And Burn!...Crash And Burn!.
What a loser; that important to you eh ? That says a lot in itself. Since another German Military star gazer, Seamonkey, posted some authors, how about John Keegan ? (btw in answer to your age question, I'm way past the age of being easily impressionable, something I'd bet you're not, or at least, should be.)
He's said the same thing; German military were overrated, etc.
I find your comments about the superior German military system amusing. Almost verbatim what the Germans themselves said at the time, which tells me everything I need to know about your level of knowledge on the subject.
I wonder if they still said that in the bunker ?
Take your pick of sources. For that matter, keep listening to your copy of Panzerleid as you play cm. No skin off my back; you want to be a niave German star gazer, your choice. <shrug>
[ July 10, 2004, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: SoDak ]
-
Yep, and anyone who believes the German military was superior needs to widen their perspectiveOriginally posted by SeaMonkey:Just sighting a reference of information, a small piece to a big puzzle, not concluding it is the end all of "the truth". Your opinion is respected for whatever its worth, just remember that opinions change as perspectives widen and knowledge brings wisdom.
-
And who came up with these ratings ? The author ? Sounds pretty subjective then, if so. Why would I want to read another starry eyed/ignore the facts account of the German military ? I can get a Paul Carrell book for that.Originally posted by SeaMonkey:SoDak, have you ever read "Hitler's Last Gamble"? If not, perhaps you should find a copy at half-price books or something. In the back of the book with the bibliography there is an interesting evaluation of a number of things related to WW2, among them a detailed conclusion of ratings for the combat soldiers of all major participating countries.
For that matter, which "Hitlers Last Gamble" book ? There's many of them with that in the title.
Bottom line is there's a lot of myth buildup about the German military of the war, and they being supermen, while everyone else were tactical morons, is one of the most common.
Poor ol' Allies. Getting circles run around them by the superior German military.....yeah, right.
-
Care to supply some links for this assertion ? I'm really interested in your "claim" that recent US military reorgs are based on German items from WW2, but the "everyone copied them" is a good one too.Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:SoDak
If the Germans were not better than everyone else, than why, after the war, did everyone copy them?
Even some of the recent US military reorganizations, are doing nothing more than implementing things the Germany military did in WWII.
And I am referring to the "run of the mill" German Army units, not Waffen SS units.
-
Another myth believer. Allies(you know, the guys who actually kicked the "superior" German military ?) were just as high, if not higher, calibre.Originally posted by Retributar:Well im myself no fan of German Nazism...but aside that...i am personally very impressed with the high calibre of the German Armed Forces in WW2...i would associate their calibre and professionalism to that of the Roman Legions.
But since they didn't have snazzy uniforms, weapons, whatever, they don't count I guess, eh ?
[ July 09, 2004, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: SoDak ]
-
...this goes to show that best tactics may come to nothing if the srategy is bad enough. Hitler wasted an incredibly good army in aimless pursuits. Hitler never had a strategy to defeat Russia. Think about it:Originally posted by ev:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SoDak:
And yet, they still got their ass kicked.......twice. Hitler's plan called for the encirclement and destruction of Russian armies. Barbarosas first objectiive was to destroy the Russian armies. The secondary objective was to take Lenningrad and Moscow.
Hitler's was Napoleon's strategy: defeat the Tsar's army and you have defeated Russia. Well, back then the Tsar had only one army. And, any way, the strategy failed misserable for Napoleon.
Second, Napoleon had such a hard time destroying the Tsar's army because Napoleon was never able to surround it. So the Russian soldiers often lived to fight another day.
Hitler did not learn from Napoleon's mistakes. Hitler's army encircled millions of men in multiple engagements. But the Panzer Forces were too small, and did not have enough tracked vehicles (relying too much on trucks to carry most of the Panzer Grenadiers) to keep a tight lid on the encircled armies. Many Russian soldiers left their equipment behind and slipped through the German lines to fight another day. Much like Napoleon's, Hitler's army was given a task it could not perform.
But more important, the defeat of so many Russian armies did not represent any strategic advance. The Russians kept on recruiting more men to make good their losses. And the heavy losses did not diminish the Russians will to fight.
Hitler's secondary objective were the capture of Leningrad and Moscow. Again, there is no reason to believe that the capture of those two cities would have resulted in the collapse of the Russian government. Hitler had no strategy for victory. Whatever tactical advantages the German's had, they were useless without a sound strategic plan for victory. </font>
-
Originally posted by ev:
German Combat Doctrine of WW II was rooted in the experiences and advanes of WW I. Around 1917 the Germans implemented new combat doctrines for Attack and Defense. These new doctrines were way ahead of the allied combat doctrines. Unfortunately for the Allies they failed to grasp their importance until hammered during the first half of WW II.
Most historical work on WW II focuses on the Wermacht's attack capabilities. And, unfortunately, pays undue attention to the tank, and, misses the broader picture, of which the tank was but one part.
During WWI, the warring nations dig their armies in trenches. The attacker would bombard these trenches for several hours, or days, and then mount a massive infantry attack in the hope that enough men would survive the killing ground to take the enemy trenches.
As a general rule, many defenders did die during the initial bombardment, but enough survived to cause very heavy casualties on the attacker. It was usually a slaughter fest for both the defender and the attacker.
The Germans realized there was a better way to defend and to attack.
First, let's talk defense. The Germans were able to mount these amazing attacks because they realized they did not need that many men to hold the line, and hence could concentrate their best fire power in a decisive point. The Germans had a pretty sophisticated defense doctrine. I encourage you to read the following article:
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Wray/wray.asp#ted
In 1917 the German's developed the new defensive doctrine which they called Elastic Defense. The Germans wanted to keep their main defensive line outside enemy sight so enemy artillery could not home on thier possitions. So they would place their main line of defense in a reverse slope or behind woods or villages. And, in order to keep spotter off their main defensive line, they would set up a front line screen mainly responsible for stopping spotters and reconn parties. The first line would fall back along protected, prearranged paths as soon as the main attack started.
The main defensive line (the second line) was not meant to be impregnable. Instead, local commanders were suppose to counter attack to close in gaps as they were openned. When a breach was openned, German artillery would pin down the attacker, while Allied artillery was ineffective at pinning down the counter attackers because of their reverse slope possitions.
The Elastic Defense proved very effective during WW I. During WWII the Russian front was so vast it was impossible to cover the whole front with a continuous line of men, let alone a double line. But in Italy, Normandy, and the Hurtgen Forest, the Allied troops suffered heavy losses when facing this type of defense.
As for the attack, we have talked a lot about it in other posts. German Blitzkrieg was not about the tank, was about combining the mobilite of the combustion engine (tank, halftracks, trucks, and planes) with the storm troop tactics of WW I.
During WW I the Germans realized it was suicidal to keep on sending men into no man's land to be slaughtered by machineguns. They realized that enough Allied men survived artillery bombardments to mow down attacking waves by the thousands. But they also realized that those men survived the bombardment because they laid low as the bombs were falling around them. The idea: to attack the enemy trenches while the bombs were falling on the enemy.
It sounds suicidal. But it was not. The bombardment had two phases. The first phase covered the front line. During the second phase, bombs would stop falling in prearragend spots or gaps. Bombs would fall behind and on the sides of those prearranged spots. The defenders, not knowing what was going on, would keep their heads down. And the storm troopers would advance through these prearranged gaps in the German bombardment. It worked.
Storm Troop Tactics called for artillery to suppress, not to kill the enemy. Artillery suppressed the enemy so the storm trooper could close in for the kill.
The German would adpot these same tactics to the armored formations of WW II. In the attack, artillery or planes would suppress enemy fire while tanks and infantry mounted on halftracks closed in. On defense, armored units would act as the fire brigades, counter attacking any breach in the main defense line.
Of course, these fluid tactics required better communication procedures, batter ways of giving orders, more sophisticated relationships between commanders and junior officers, etc. And, of course the allied did learn as the war progressed and managed to close the gap. But, at the beginning of the war the Combat Doctrine and Command Structure of the German Army was vastly superior to that of any other country it fought during WWII.
And yet, they still got their ass kicked.......twice.
-
Try using WinRAR (www.rarlabs.com). I created those using it and have had clients tell me the same thing before when using Winzip or other archivers to open a WinRAR zip. </font>Originally posted by GJK:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SoDak:
Michael, anywhere besides cmmods where your asl terrain work is available ?
For some reason, all the zip files there, show no files when opened, for me.
-
Michael, anywhere besides cmmods where your asl terrain work is available ?
For some reason, all the zip files there, show no files when opened, for me.
-
Yeah, when it came out, I remember seeing a tv show with interviews of some real vets.Originally posted by Sirocco:I thought the first half an hour - after the schmaltzy opening - were stunning. The rest of the movie was enjoyable, but not particularly credible.
They all said the same thing; beach scenes were done right, everything else was pure hollywood.
-
The game is pretty good at what it tries to do, namely replicate a hex board wargame. The AI is pretty clever too. I've only ever played against the AI, and found it very good at picking off weak units you'd forgotten about, as well as the more strategic aspects like threatening your lines of supply.Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HolzemFrumFloppen:
I, too, am a fan of SSG's Korsun Pocket game. I purchased the add-on "Across the Dnepr" a month or so ago and have not had a chance to play it at all. How is it?
I haven't played any of the HPS Panzer Campaigns games, although I have had a look at them on the web. They look interesting.
I tend to play the attacking side, whichever that may be. So, in "Korsun Pocket" I play the Russians, and in "Across the Dnepr" I play the Germans. I think the attacking side is usually the most fun to play.
I will probably get "Battles In Normandy" when it comes out. I know far more about the D-Day campaign than the Eastern Front, which will no doubt add to my enjoyment of the game.
I have completed a couple of the "Korsun Pocket" scenarios but have yet to finish "Across the Dnepr". It is a big battle, with many divisions to control. Also, by the time I get to the middle of the battle I'm usually dissatisfied with the way the battle has gone, which prompts me to restart to see if I can do better.
I'm in the middle of a game now, at about turn 7. So far it is going well. I've crossed the Dnepr at two points, creating a big pocket with the town of Orsha at its centre. I should be able to cut off 3 or 4 Russian divisions, unless they manage to break out. Hopefully these can be mopped up by my following infantry divisions, so my panzer divisions can motor on to Smolensk.
I've played the game a few times now, and the key to it seems to be to avoid directly assaulting the major towns of Orsha and Mogilev, instead capturing the bridges around them so as to encircle them. This is the plan I'm following this game and it seems to be paying off.
I'd still like to play a CMBB battle from this operation though. </font>
-
Well, pilots regularly train on simulators, which, according to your narrow definition, would have to be regarded as "video games".Originally posted by Sirocco:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SoDak:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SoDak:
Simulation ? Thats what the Army, etc. does with the opfor training in the mojave, pilots do at Top Gun, Navy does on training manuavers etc.
Not what we do with a video game.
</font>
-
Well, pilots regularly train on simulators, which, according to your narrow definition, would have to be regarded as "video games".Originally posted by Sirocco:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SoDak:
Simulation ? Thats what the Army, etc. does with the opfor training in the mojave, pilots do at Top Gun, Navy does on training manuavers etc.
Not what we do with a video game.
</font>
-
(after snipping various other comments)Originally posted by xerxes:As with any simulation it's not the same as the actual role a commander has to play. The global "micromanging" that can be done at the squad level is certainly unrealistic. If you wanted to use it as a more accurate simulation, you wouldn't allow the "commander" to directly control anything out of their immediate area. All other "commands" would need to be relayed to subordinates who actually plotted them.
Yep. This has always bugged the hell out of me, because its so unrealistic.
Something along Highway to the Reich's command structure would be ideal; it handles this topic the best of any game made, ever, imo.
-
Ah, a defining of a word that Slick Willy would be jealous ofOriginally posted by jrcar:Technically CM is a "constructive simulation"
Flight sims are "virtual simulations".
and live training is "live simulation".
John sounds like he has some cool ones to play with (only a sim grog could appreciate
).BC2010 is an example of a commercial simulation that anyone can buy (but its expensive) that is used as is by various militaries.
Harpoon has been used unchanged by several militaries as well.
Cheers
Rob
-
No, wrong.Originally posted by John D Salt:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SoDak:
[snips]
Current military sims are night and day in comparison to civilian ones, even ones that have a civilian equivalent.
Totally different level of complexity, features, etc.
In several cases I know of they are the same product.
"Official" military simulations are not necessarily any better than "civilian" ones (although nearly all are written by civilians -- serving regular officers tend not to have the time or skill to write simulations). As an example in the CM domain, "official" simulations have been very poor at modelling suppression effects, many military simulations having for years not shown them at all; "civilian" games have had at least some model of suppression since the days when Panzerblitz was new.
All the best,
John. </font>
-
Thanks Michael, just might have to dig up the cd's and try it out.Originally posted by Michael Emrys:One thing I do that makes it a trifle easier (and believe me, I'd love to have an OOB screen or I wouldn't have bothered to ask for one) is to use the + key to go through my forces in order, noting which platoons etc. have the leaders with which bonuses. Then I go back through and start organizing my assault platoons according to the order in which I want them to advance and place them on the map. Any units I've chosen to give fire support or to constitute reserves also get placed. By this time I have a pretty clear idea of who is where and know where to go to find them.
Michael
-
Another good function of a quality oob, is to show each units status at a glance, instead of having to click on *each* unit, as is the case now.Originally posted by guachi:I haven't found not having an OOB to be a problem once the scenario starts. Unfortunately, having an OOB, exactly as described in this thread, would be a great help in the sometimes very lengthy set up.
QBs are the worst because all the forces are on the map at once and the setup is so free form. What a nightmare it is setting up a battlion of infantry plus all their support weapons.
BFC has their reasons for not having an OOB, but their reasons carry no weight with me if the OOB screen is limited to JUST the set up.
Initially, an OOB wasn't deemed necessary partially because large scenarios requiring one weren't envisioned as playable.
Jason
Real pain.
I've never heard the reasons why BFC doesn't use them, can you explain ?
</font>
German Combat Doctrine of WW II
in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
Posted