[Do serious games work for training and message propagation, do they change beliefs?]

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.

[Tigers from HELL]

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.

[Tigers from HELL]

No, defense of the British Isles was, and that was reflected in the distribution of their forces. But even that is beside the point.

True, but completely irrelevant to the points I was making. I got into this discussion to rebut your statement that the Axis, specifically the Germans, were overwhelmed in North Africa by numbers and matériel. My counter-argument is that prior to autumn 1942 that was simply not true. The balance shifted several times, but mostly was pretty even. All you need to do is simply recognize that fact and this argument will be over.

Michael

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.

[Tigers from HELL]

No. Clearly you dont get it. The amount of fighting in Iraq, Iran and Syria is largely irrelevant. All required significant forces from a threatre already stretched, and then consititued a continuing significant drain in terms of garrison. Each required a corps, and the British just didn't have htat many corps in total, let alone in the Med.

France wasn't just about sending a few Spitfires over every couple of days. It required the retention of the major part of Britains armed forces - army, navy, and air - for years.

Tiger first saw action in North Africa within two months of it's first action in Russia.

Panther saw action in Italy within months of it's first action in Russia.

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.

[Tigers from HELL]

You still refuse to get it. I was not comparing Rommel to the entire British empire, only to Middle East Command, which had limited resources and very extensive responsibilities. As to the forces engaged in the Western Desert and Libya, they were pretty well evenly matched most of the time and in the summer of '41 it was the British that had to fight at a numerical disadvantage. Tactically and operationally incompetent the Brits might have been, and that was the real reason for their defeats and compromised successes, but it is senseless to go on about a flood of matériel prior to about September of '42.

Michael

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.

[Tigers from HELL]

*cough*South Vietnam*cough*Cuba*cough

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

[Tigers from HELL]

Well, this is wrong too.

The primary theatre for the Commonwealth was the UK, the English Channel, and France. The home forces always had priority on forces and equipment. To take but two examples, compare when Spitfires became available in the UK c.f. the Med, and when 6-pr A-Tk guns became available in the UK vs the Med.

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.

[Tigers from HELL]

Michael wrote:

And he is quite correct. In the theatre, before Nov 1942, the Germans were only fighting on one front, while the British Middle East Command had multiple simultaneous and consecutive active fronts seperated by thousands of miles.

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.

[Tigers from HELL]

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.

[Tigers from HELL]

See: Operation EXPORTER

Both countries were the scene of large-scale, active operations. Neither were colonies.

Regarding the balance of forces, is it worth pointing out that during Op CRUSADER the British attacked with four divisions (7 Armd, 2 NZ, 4 Indian, ?? Seth Efrikan), and had another division (70th) in Tobruk. The Axis had ten: 15 Pz, 21 Pz, 90 Light, Bologna, Pavia, Ariete, Brescia, Savona, Trento, and Trieste.

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.

[Tigers from HELL]

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.

[Tigers from HELL]

The first thing is that the claim that the British had a "heavy advantage in number and quality" is a huge exaggeration. Whatever advantages in numbers of troops were available in the theater the British might have enjoyed were most of the time completely counterbalanced by the fact that Middle East Command was fighting on three and sometimes four fronts, whereas the Germans prior to November 8, 1942 were fighting only on one.

As far as quality of weaponry goes, I find it hard to assign any overall superiority to either side. Most of the Italian gear was second or even third rate, although their artillery seems to have been serviceable enough. In tanks and ATGs, the Germans enjoyed a clear edge until the Brits began receiving American arms in quantity. The Brits were a bit more lavishly supplied, especially in all-important petrol.

Finally, in regard to Ultra, its most important contribution was tipping when convoys would be sailing from Italy to Libya, and I believe even most of that information was in the Regia Marina code. Since many of Rommel's operations were in violation of his orders, he was not in the habit of informing them in detail before hand. Thus no messages for Ultra to intercept. On the other hand, he had his own intercept service that was quite good at keeping him informed of British capabilities and intentions, aided by quite sloppy comms discipline on the part of the Brits for most of the campaign. When Rommel lost his intercept detachment soon after arriving at el Alamein, at about the same time that his enemy began to tighten up radio discipline, he finally lost that advantage.

Michael

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.

[Tigers from HELL]

I think you should talk to more Desert Rat veterans (those that are still alive, bless them) about the superiority of their equipment, you might be treated to a good dose of British sarcasm! There are plenty of accounts of bravery from British tankers, but individuals are not normally singled out, unless it involves gallantry and a unit/medal citation.

You still have not answered my question, where are the names of the German tank aces in the desert, why are their exploits not as well known as the later war aces? Could it be that the Germans were celebrating strategic and operational success and had no need of individual tank aces, to cover up the decline?

Genuine question. Where are the German tank aces from the early war? Air aces do not count all nations seem to venerate and accord special status for the flyboys!

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.

[Tigers from HELL]

It could also be the simple fact that as you are loosing you start to seek out heroes more, tactical tales of bravery hiding operational stagnation and strategic reverses. Don't remember many Western Desert tank aces, when they also held a qualatative advantage, or in Russian when the long 75mm Pz IV's began to dominate the armour battles of 42.

It was not issues of survivability that Wester tankers were not accorded 'ace status', just a realisation that aerial victories were easier to award to individual crews. If it were just casualties that disenfranchised tanks how come the Russians had them? Course, the Soviet tales of multiple kills were just propaganda, whereas the Nazi's told the truth, ummm?

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.

[Tigers from HELL]

Steiner14, I don't intend to click these links in light of your past record on this board, but they wouldn't by any chance happen to be yet another attempt to deny, justify or whitewash brutal Nazi crimes, would they?

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.

[Tigers from HELL]

Often as Reynolds has pointed out, claims were duplicated because tanks shot up already bailed out or KO'd tanks. The Western Allies refused to designate official tank aces, just for this reason and that often a tank kill was a partnership between other arms (artillery suppress, infantry harass etc). It is notable that as the Germans start to lose the war, these tales of teutonic daring do rapidly increase, wonder what the correlation is there?

A lot of the "tales of teutonic daring do" you mention were in fact caused by the allies openly stating that they would accept only unconditional surrender. Remove any chance for your opponent to end things peacefully, and you create a determined defense, whose equipment was better, whose training, generally was better, and who basically had nothing to lose. Combine that with the fact that against advice of officers like Guderian, Hitler pressed for his secret weapons, the V-rockets, the King Tigers mentioned here, etc, when really, probably, he would have been better off as Guderian was telling him, in making a lot more IVs and Vs, and not trying to dabble in jets for an air force that already lost control of the sky, in rockets which were basically a weapon of terror, but had no operational nor tactical military value, and on the few Pz VI that the Reich at that time was able to put out. So here you have some great officers in a few great vehicles, hence the "daring do" you mention, but an overall errant war strategy, hence the fact they also began to lose it.

[Tigers from HELL]

Own-side claims are worthless. In every case where German claims have been compared to reported losses, the claims have been found to be wildly inaccurate.

Making deductions based on worthless own-side claims isn't compelling.

I think this is quite right also. You wind up with 2 tanks both aiming at a target, it explodes, both count the kill, etc..happened even more with air combat in that war, sometimes by 2x,3x..not even to mention the INTENTIONAL lies.

[Tigers from HELL]

wondering which one you're talking about: 12th SS HJ reached the beachhead on June 7 in the morning with little hassle by aircraft. 2nd SS DR marched from Toulouse to Normandy - which is quite a bit - and could march only by night and had quite some losses on soft vehicles, but not that many on tanks. And I don't recall that 1st SS LAH had significant losses on the march either.

It seems that most of the divisions (also Lehr etc) marched during the night and had some issues in getting into Normandy, but tank losses were not significant - or you have a source which tells the contrary.

The division in question was SS Das Reich, delayed however by around 2 weeks, not just overnight, and the heaviest losses were to allied air power hitting some trains with the division's equip. on them iirc.

[Games: Toys or Tools?]

I think that the primary value of it as a "tool" is to train the mind to think out a tactical problem. The key there would be figuring out how to solve the problem, and not necessarily being " this is how we would solve in the real world" although SOME games also give at least a little of that angle as well. Even if your solution to the tactical problem would NOT work in the real world, it is still good training to make you think what will work in the game,and to have your mind able to adapt and adjust to the specific rules of your specific situation, and find a solution.

[Tigers from HELL]

Thanks lol,and I actually AM German, making it much worse haha.

[Tigers from HELL]

not really a grog, but it is the 1.SS "Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler"

[Military Jobs that make you say ...]

hahaha, that one is just...wow..

[Time of Fury Game]

It is a good game, not really comparable to BFC products however,..at least any that I know of..it sort of does a different angle.

[Military Jobs that make you say ...]

That is one side of the equation I think almost nobody thought of either until the late 80s at least, Magpie.

[Military Jobs that make you say ...]

Keep in mind as SO said above..when the US (and presumably others as well) first tested many of their nuclear weapons, they did it from ranges that we now know to be quite dangerous..US Navy had exposed sailors at quite ridiculous( in hindsight) range, and seemingly nobody really cared or paid attention.