abneo3sierra

For sure games are often used. From a military standpoint in games the idea is not necessarily to win the game, but to learn the ideas behind specific techniques, and sometimes to test out how a tactic might work in theory.

I am quite aware of Overlord. I am also quite aware of many books on the subject, which all state that the British knew there would be no invasion, at the same time as the German Command decided it, because the British read the dispatch to that regard, before the German corps commanders in France even did. You do not give your British Empire as much respect as I am even giving them.. Enigma/Ultra were incredible, war winning, efforts. As far as tactics on the field of battle however, to state that the British were in a different time zone, is quite inaccurate. The Germans kicked them off the continent in France at Dunkirk, in Greece, landed on them and knocked them out of Crete, and came within probably a hairbreadth of kicking them out of Egypt, so much so that observers said the sky above Alexandria was black from the British burning papers before their planned evacuation, the one tactic they positively excelled at early in the war. That they then turned this around, is an amazing act, and was truly a great piece of warfighting by troops from all around the Commonwealth, but it was hardly a situation of being tactically worlds ahead of an army that had pretty well thrashed them in the war's first few encounters.

I hadn't really thought of this as an argument. My original line which you referred to, was only one small part of my reply to another post, as to my opinion on why there were no mention of "tank aces" in the desert war, with my opinion PRIMARILY being that in the desert war, the Germans were not really in the overall strategic position that later created the tank aces. Phil, also replied directly below your original reply. While my interest in WW2 has primarily been that I had family fighting in it on the German side(father's family) and the Allied side (mother's family). Phil, as a designer on this game, I assume to be much more of an expert. He mostly also seems to have supported my statement in a more clear way than I did. That said, however, I know that NO warfighting force, probably in all of history, has ever had "what they needed"..it has almost always been "use what you have". Nevertheless, I quite humbly agree to disagree here, and I apologize if I was argumentative.

True..even wiki says this, however, as also wiki says, they were only deployed in negligible numbers in Africa. And I will grant your point, as I also said above, about the French front, albeit that to me just says that the British High Command was not very capable, if devoting ""the major part of Britain's armed forces-army,navy and air- for years" when they did nothing at all on the ground save the disastrous "invasion" of Dieppe, from 1940-1943 in France. But I do get that there was a continued effort to make the Germans guess that an invasion was imminent, etc, which tied down many forces in the deception..just am amazed if they would actually tie down the bulk of them, to sit, while they had units in Africa in so much need as seems to be implied.

I do actually get your point, it just seems that you are not getting mine, which was perhaps not even answered as well by myself, as by Phil directly below yours. I understand the "Middle East Command" was stretched, but my point is that was Britain's primary command. Jon above has made a good argument that this was not the case. While for certain, also, the German DAK was far from the primary German front. So Britain had to fight an air war over France, and skirmish in Iraq, Iran, Syria, that you mentioned. The German "other front" was along a many-thousand-km line through the Soviet Union. Yes, "what if spitfire" had been introduced in Africa..it would have definitely helped. Also, on the other side..what if the Tiger units had been introduced to the DAK, or Panthers even for that matter, instead of in the USSR. Or the elite SS Divisions, etc. My point is that , still, the side with ability to do this, was the British/Allied, as this was their main active front. Air Forces over Europe aside (forgive me, as a grunt, I do not think quite the same of an air war involving hundreds OR thousands even, compared to a ground war involving hundreds OF thousands. But you could also add in the navy lest they be left out, and that did also eat up a great deal of British resources and time, while their opponent in the Battle of the Atlantic was also German.

hahaha.. ok, I'll give ya that.

That is possible, really. It makes sense in one way (home defense should be priority) but really not sure WHY in another way (They were reading the enemy's mail via ULTRA/ENIGMA..they knew there was no longer any threat of invasion to the home isles)..as far as France, it was already occupied/conquered long before there was a DAK. Are you referring to their (British) plans for the "Second Front"? Not sure when these plans began, but yes, that is possible, I agree.

That is true, but the German forces "in theatre" were fighting in what their high command regarded as a sideshow, and relegated resources to them based upon this fact. The British were fighting in their primary theatre against Rommel, and the others for them, were the sideshow that Rommel was for his command. There were in the vicinity of a million German and Axis troops that I am certain the DAK would have loved, that were not available to them because their High Command was fighting against the USSR. While anything the 8th Army asked for, they got, essentially, as no other serious threat existed for them. Also the comparison to modern Germany, etc as far as occupation, is inaccurate. In modern Germany, if they elect a government that the US does not like, we will not likely invade them(probably :-) ), while this was the issue in Iran and Iraq. When you force a government to agree with you, allow you to put troops there, etc, it is you running things, not them.

Actually in that snippet it says the military occupation ended in 1947, but close enough. My only argument was that the earlier post here, questioned why there were not "tank aces" in the desert, and this somehow has led to the question of who was stronger, while my point is primarily that tank aces were not probably (yet still possible) until their side went on the defensive. As I noted a few posts back, my entire comment that these have been based on, was actually an error in my reading of the post that I was replying to. Still though, having replied to Michael above regarding his statement that before November 1942 the Germans were fighting on only one front, while the British command was fighting in Greece ( this ended as I pointed out, in early 1941) Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc.. my rebuttal to this, was that they were not fighting in the same sense as they were fighting in the "Western Desert"..in these other areas, they were fighting against insurgents who were rebelling against British rule, direct or indirect, of their lands, and the British were fighting to keep their position astride oil supplies, etc, but they were fighting poorly equipped, tribal armies basically, and partisans, while the other German front was Russia, from summer 1941, on. And in that front, Germans were fighting a giant. The German force in Africa was lowest in the line for replacements, reinforcements, etc(rightly so) behind what Hitler saw as "THE war" in the east..while for Britain, until the landings on the continent, Africa was "THE war" and the others mentioned were the side show.

Technically you are correct in that they were not colonies, yet the people the British were fighting in these operations were partisans seeking to rid British colonialism. The British governed these countries after WW1 as occupied lands, and the British forces fighting there, were not fighting "axis" powers, but rather "insurgents" trying to gain their own freedom.(albeit I am sure with help from the axis) Also the comparison of numbers of divisions does not account for the fact that during Op Crusader, the German Italian divisions you mentioned were short on pretty much everything, from artillery shells, to fuel, to food, to tank rounds, due to the harassment of their LOCs by a well led, and superior RN Mediterranean force, as well as the rather tenacious defenders of tiny Malta. "Britain granted independence to Iraq in 1932, on the urging of King Faisal, though the British retained military bases and transit rights for their forces. King Ghazi ruled as a figurehead after King Faisal's death in 1933, while undermined by attempted military coups, until his death in 1939. Ghazi was followed by his under age son, Faisal II. 'Abd al-Ilah served as Regent during Faisal's minority. On 1 April 1941, Rashid Ali al-Gaylani and members of the Golden Square staged a coup d'état and overthrew the government of 'Abd al-Ilah. During the subsequent Anglo-Iraqi War, the United Kingdom invaded Iraq for fear that the Rashid Ali government might cut oil supplies to Western nations because of his links to the Axis powers. The war started on 2 May and an armistice was signed 31 May. A military occupation followed the restoration of the pre-coup government of the Hashemite monarchy. The occupation ended on 26 October 1947. The rulers during the occupation and the remainder of the Hashemite monarchy were Nuri as-Said, the autocratic Prime Minister, who also ruled from 1930–1932, and 'Abd al-Ilah, the former Regent who now served as an adviser to King Faisal II." just a snippet from wiki article on the times.

Actually Mr Emrys..the Germans were fighting on a rather large front (Russia) as well as in Greece against the British you mentioned (already won there by the way before the date you give). Perhaps ROMMELS mission only involved Libya, but you compare one German unit whose mission was Libya, then compare the entire British Empire with all of their missions, your logic is flawed in that. You mention Greece, that ended in spring 1941. Syria? Never a theater of war in any normal sense of the word, Iraq, Iran..the British Empire was trying to keep these colonies from rebelling, but at the same time, Germany also was dealing with the same type of partisan warfare in France, the Balkans, and conquered areas of the USSR. That said, Phil was dead on right in his reply to you also. Even on a "bad day" for the British, they had much more than the DAK had on its best day in terms of men or material.

I think, to be fair, we should say that every front the British were fighting on, was against the Germans, so the idea one was on more fronts, is not accurate, unless including the Pacific, which was mostly a sideshow, as the Western Desert was also to the German command. Also because the German command was putting secondary emphasis on the desert, the DAK received mostly secondary vehicles, and generally insufficient amounts of ammunition, not to mention the petrol as you said. A tank without petrol, is a sitting duck. I agree with the part of the code in that Rommel apparently never (? occasionally? lol ) notified his own command what he was planning, until he was already done. Also a huge reason he missed (and still barely at that) was leaving Malta un-taken astride his LOC. That said though, most of what I had said was only about tank aces. Generally having seen men in combat, I think it comes down to that if the average person has a chance to A) back up and fight another day, or stand and fight to the end, he will choose A. Not many heroes are created when you have that choice, usually heroes are created (or aces, for that matter) when you HAVE to fight, therefore also usually on the strategic defensive, rather than the offense which generally has the freedom of action to choose where and when to fight. In the western desert, the Germans were mostly on the offensive due to Rommel's style, and the general German world position of the time. Once the Germans began having to withdraw, worldwide, the best weapons, the Pz VI, etc, were on their home front, so most of their aces, who by that time had experience also in other areas, were here, on the home front, unable to really withdraw ,so they stood, and fought.

Oh I misread your question, sorry about that! and it is a good one. But of course at that point the Germans still did not have the VI, and really had very few of the V (not sure if ANY in the desert?).. I still think sitting inside of a nearly impossible to kill beast (VI) with desperation, with nowhere left to retreat to in some instances, created a GUARANTEE that you will do two things..1--kill ALOT of them, and 2--finally be killed yourself.

In the western desert a British force that had heavy advantage in number, and quality, and with the abillity because of "enigma" to read their enemies mail,was beaten for some years very soundly by a German Italian force with no advantage save leadership and tactical ability...not much chance for a western "hero" there, until Monty finally turned it. As for Soviet claims, they kept records which even at best could be described as "shoddy", and kept even these classified for many years, while the Germans penchant for recordkeeping led them to even document things which put them in a bad light, such as war crimes, etc..yes, I would definitely say their records were probably better than the Soviets, though I would probably trust the Western Allies records the most of all.

I think the war crimes went in both directions, especially in the east, less so in the west. The east was a war of total hatred, on both sides, the west had its moments, but there was much more respect between enemy armies there, until you get to almost the very end.