DesertMouse

Playing quite a few games in all seasons at dawn in North Africa, often there are tanks whirling about each other that cant see each other for the dust and what not, often at quite close ranges like 200 metres or less, with flat terrain or on the same slope. Is this a bug or a realistic simulation of what actually happened in the desert war?

Interesting. Look, I am not saying that there was not some exchanges, letting prisoners go etc. But the terrain, the amount of HE used, the weapons with little or no cover, the dust etc looked brutal. And I think that that must have had an effect on the men. Do any of you knowledgeable gentlemen know about machine gunning of the crews bailing out of tanks? Surely Monty didnt want Rommel to have experienced tank crews. Thats just one example.

Ok but enough of the nonsense. It was a tough theatre. Men died when they could have been let go as suggested, but they werent. Quarter was not given. As stated, if you saw men in the wire at Tobruk, you can guarantee they were shot at. They were not allowed to go home and report intelligence - that just does not make sense and it did not happen. Horace Suckling, Private in the Rifle Brigade at El Alamein, recounts in the BBC Documentary on El Alamein about the morning in October 1942 near the German counterattack stopped by 6 pounders that "If the crews bailed out of the tanks, if they ever survived, we were shooting them down like rabbits". Doesnt sound so noble to me. [ July 27, 2007, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: CousinPeePee ]

The facts are there. Flamethrowers, heavy artillery, mechanized infantry, bayonet charges. You call that a walk in the park? Do you actually think that in the middle of an attack you would stop shooting the enemy and let them all go? The point is that there is too much fantasy associated with this theatre being somehow noble. Think about Tobruk - do you really think that they would let scouts who entered the wire get out alive? Give me a break.

Yes I agree with most of that. The point is that in close combat situations, emotion does kick in. You wouldn't look or think twice about whether they were surrendering - if they were bailing out and in front of you you would take the opportunity to fire. After all, only seconds before, they had made an adventitious and determined attempt to kill you. With a big tank. Nows your chance - you take it. If you think that an order for cease fire would be made, think about what that would do for morale. Morale aside, emotion and adrenaline kicks in. You just take the opportunity to hit the enemy. Do you think that there would be as many stories about this as there would about more nobler events? No, no one would prefer to talk about that. Of course the nicer points are going to be spoken about. There are many Japanese veterans who meet Allied soldiers, and wives of Japanese veterans too, who are given *not sold* swords and other items that were captured or stolen from corpses. I just think that this fable of the desert war being more noble somehow as utter nonsense. In WWI in France, Germans and English shared Christmas cake, prisoner exchanges and Carols. That didn't somehow make close combat any better.

I just watched the History Channel documentary about El Alamein. In the counterattack near Sidi Rezegh in November 1942 by Rommel, the documentary stated that the 5th South African brigade, outgunned, "fought almost to the last man". Frankly, that sounds pretty tough to me. I don't think that you would have wanted to be there. As for my question before, if you were a platoon commander who had been relentlessly machine gunned and fired upon by a tank that had just been knocked out, do you think that you would order your troops to suddenly stop shooting as the crew exited their vehicle? Its a simple question.

Look, with respect, that really is not a reasonable response John. You could ask every single veteran alive now if it ever happened, and even if they all said it didn't, it does not mean that it didn't. On the other hand, if you asked every veteran what their reaction was to mg or tank crew who had just attempted to overrun/machine gun them minutes/seconds earlier, well what do you realistically think the answer is?

That was a British tanker. What about the British infantry who had just been machined gunned by the tank? What about the German infantry who had just been machine gunned by a British tank? You think that they would hesitate not to take at least a pot shot of the crew that had just tried to kill them..? Hmm. Look, there are no rules, when you are there there is only emotion and opportunity. While I think that the tanker was right in his account, that does not mean that it was somehow romantic. I am sure that a lot of crews were shot and worse even after being captured. If every veteran came out and said that that never happened, then I would start to believe that it was somehow a "noble" experience. It seems far from noble.

Im sure that on the eastern front cigarettes were exchanged for prisoners. You cannot say that it did not happen. Dont believe that there were only germans v russians there. There were latvians fighting latvians, byelorusians fighting russians, ukranians fighting slovaks, and other people fighting their brothers and distant cousins all because they were pressed into service by the immediate circumstances. If you are talking about Waffen SS guards units exposed to propaganda fighting Russian cavalry, well, even then I am certain that there was quarter given sometimes. Do you really think that the individual soldiers, thrown about by their relative regimes, were not in tune with each other's plight? When will the nonsense stop about this front being better than that front. It was terrible in North Afrika. Look at the combat footage. Look at youtube. If you were sitting on a Matilda and you knocked out that PzKpfW III, you will say BURN BABY BURN and GOOD SHOT just like in game. You wont let the crew get out in one piece. In fact, your supporting infantry will probably shoot them after being machine gunned by them. That is what they are trained to do and that is what they did so. Dont let a few examples of goodness make you think that somehow it was safe for all prisoners. If you want to make comparisons about how bad Russian front was, forget it. The Pacific war was on a totally different scale of hardship and mostly for other reasons - the enemy was the terrain as much as the enemy soldier. Just stop already with the idea that war in the desert was somehow "more noble" . What utter rubbish. Most of the people involved were subject to the same strains and emotions as in any other front of the war. And performed the same types of acts, perhaps just not recorded on the same scale as they were in other theatres.

Yes, about the quip re making munitions in Texas, my point really was that they were still captured and used as prisoner labor. Sure, they may not have been making munitions, but they were digging potatoes for the munitions factory workers, or what not. The point I was making was that east front or desert - they were still captured and used as prisoner labor. I was aware that often soldiers couldnt be processed when captured, and consequently, were let go. That happened everywhere when it was too much bother to feed them and process them. Even in the east front, enemy commanders captured by enemy commanders would not be executed. It did happen in the far east though. But what also happened was that prisoners would be shot. And to say that this didnt happen in Afrika is simply wrong. When the enemy put their hands up during an infantry advance only moments after firing their AT gun or MG at the enemy, you can bet that normal infantry in the heat of battle will probably shoot them. That happened in Afrika. Lack of SS? Well if you mean the Waffen SS, I dont think that makes much difference. Sure, there would be fewer death squads hell bent on execution when there are no SS political commanders around. But the average SS soldier was the same as everyone else - just better equipped. Yes, some units were given extraordinary orders - but that also happened in the Heer and Luftwaffe. What I think is wrong is to think that these guys were spared more than in any other theatre. Like in any other theatre, you have burning tanks filled with burning flesh, corpses all over the ground. If you think that when you overrun an enemy position in the middle of a battle and you are going to stop firing, just because they put their hands up, thats where I think you are wrong. Its surely a myth that the desert war was somehow more noble. And this is my point, concentrating on things like letting prisoners go (instead of the full range of what actually happened) leads to error in perception.

Yes that example is true - however that was not always the case - on either front. There were a lot of Germans who were spared, but instead of being sent to make munitions in Texas, they were sent to make munitions in the Urals. I am watching World at War at the moment (the BBC documentary) and the soldiers are saying that the conditions were like WWI conditions. That is what Rommel said (but I cant find the film clip where he said that). But you have demonstrated my point: that most people regard the desert war as some kind of noble theatre, above the conduct displayed in other theatres. My point is: that is a fiction. [ March 23, 2007, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: CousinPeePee ]

I do hope that you are joking? Right? As for the previous poster, yes that is interesting. Letting captured soldiers go rather than execute them. Im sure that it still happened. As for the few sniper teams, I wasnt aware of that. I just think that unlike the eastern front, you have no cover, no buildings for refuge field hospitals at the very front, and no water. So I really dont believe that it was better than eastern front. The dust alone, the disease, and no water. Im sure that prisoners were shot just like any other theatre. Getting back to the conditions that Rommel spoke about, it sounded very very bad.

There seems to be an impression amongst the public that the African war was largely a cheery affair compared to the other theatres. I have to admit that when I am firing up CMAK I dont feel the same trepidation about my soldiers going into battle as I did playing CMBB. But this is surely an absolute myth. I have just watched a propaganda film on Youtube about the DAK and even that, staged as it was looked absolutely brutal. Huge artillery, massive explosions using satchels and charges, dust everywhere, absolutely barren terrain with nothing but insects and dust for miles. I remember also seeing a film of Rommel talking about the conditions of the battle (I believe at Tobruk but it may have been El Alamein). He is talking in the film and says that the conditions were worse than those in Verdun in WWI. Has anyone else seen this? Incredible really. What are your thoughts about this?

That would be a smart way of doing it. It demonstrates the reality of the limited protection once the gun is discovered. Compare this issue to initial camouflage - trees, haystacks, trenches, etc. It was ok to be firing a gun then, it was safe, but when it was discovered by the enemy of course a gun was going to be a priority target, much like a tank. A single gun, if left unsuppressed, could win the battle.

Been playing CMAK for a while now, and as a tactical simulator of the Med theatre, it's second to none. Then I started reading some of the history surrounding the scenarios I was playing. Especially Monte Cassino, and the Benedictine Monastery on that mountain. All I can say is, nice one allies. Blow up all of those historical documents - not cool. Blow up a monastery with no soldiers in there - not cool. Then allow the Germans to occupy perfect infantry holding environment - better than most urban rubble - not cool Many Brits, US, Kiwis, Poles, Indians and others dead - not cool. It's pretty shameful actually.