The Germans, historical Bad Boys or just really cool guys?

[ScoutPL]

OK guys, FLAME ON!!

I dont get it. Why the fascination with the Germans? Lets not get into the political aspects and all that other REALLY negative stuff but why them? I understand of course if you're german. There's bound to be a little nationalistic pride there. (Although, even though I was born and raised in the South (North Carolina) and can trace my family tree back to SC during the Civil War, I always play the Yankees when I startup a Civil War game. Something about I believe alot more in what the USA stood for then what the CSA stood for.)

And I myself often play the germans, though simply from a need for variety. I play CM because it gives me wonderful opportunities to practice and hone my tactical skills, albeit in a simulated environment. I get the feeling though that alot of the guys that post to this forum think the last great soldiers wore SS deathheads insignia and drove tanks that were prone to break down before the crossed the LD. Any thoughts on why that is?

[russellmz]

they had better tanks...

seriously, us tanks were pretty geeky lookin' and they always got their butts kicked unless there were more of 'em.

plus the bad guys are always cooler.

there is also the mythos of the german soldier, who kept fighting even when it was obvious they lost.

cooler names too: first german is a guttural language most of the time, sounds meaner.

plus there is the 'stormtrooper'. hell it was used up to star wars to represent bad-ss bad guy.

------------------

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[Lorak]

lol, no flames here.

I play both sides about as often. I think the reason I like playing the Germans is the neat factor. It is also the reason I believe more german mods are done than allied ones. You just have more to play with. list follows

Germans:

Infantry (some had camo)

Tanks (camoed, looked low and mean, sportscar factor).

There are just a lot of camo textures to play with.

Allies:

Infantry (some winter camo)

Tanks (ugly. No cammo really to speak of. Shermans were really tall and kind of ugly)

How many shades of olive green are there?

I am also from North Carolina. I tend to play the rebs in that one too. I think a lot of that is just the underdog factor. The last thing I do is let the political issues of respective sides get in the way of the "game". If I did this there would be very, very few games to play. As most countries have fought for bad reasons at one time or another.

Lorak

------------------

"Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."--William Butler Yeats

Cesspool

[Guest machineman]

Of course the other way to look at it is, other than national pride or political reasons, why would anyone be fascinated by the Allies?

Their equipment and uniforms look dorky, their battles are usually won by brute force rather than skill, other than 'Mustang' they can't even give their war stuff cool names!

Seriously, if the war record of the German army was just overunning Poland, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, etc. I don't think they would have much appeal. It was their toughness against overwhelming odds during the years of defeat that made their name. What if the Americans had had someone with the war history of tank commanders Wittman or Otto Carius, Stuka pilot Rudel, or fighter pilots Galland or Barkmann?

[aka_tom_w]

well they did have the most toys and

they certainly had the best tanks early in the

war.

-tom w

[russellmz]

probably why people interested in wwi pacific theater like the us stuff better.

aside from the sheer massive yamato class BB's, the US BB's looked better.

carriers were cooler too, some jap carriers didn't even have islands(ick)...

hell, the planes of the allies were cooler than the germ ones too...

------------------

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[Maximus]

Honestly, I think the main reason why people tend to admire the German Army of WWII is because of their pure dedication to the cause, not that the cause was right or wrong, it's just that they fought on even when their nation was on the brink of collapse. Such dedication is very rare now these days. Maybe there's something to be said about extreme nationalism.

I don't think the hardware has much to do with why people admire the German Army. Maybe somewhat, but I don't really think that's the case.

------------------

Coming soon to a web near you...

The Maximus CM Mod HQ

This site will be host to a plethera of mods from myself and others.

Please send questions and comments to: davem@shawneelink.net

[Monticello]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutPL:

OK guys, FLAME ON!!

I dont get it. Why the fascination with the Germans? <stuff snipped><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I were to guess, it's because folks like winning. It's difficult to lose an even match with German equipment.

In most wargames (including boardgames), the Germans always have the most resilient units with superior firepower. They were the side of choice in SL, PB, and PL. Of course, the scenarios in those games imposed historical limitations on the Germans which doesn't really exist in the QBs that folks use today.

Do you think there may be a market for Tourney-style PBEM scenarios managed by a referee? The players bring their own map and the ref sets up the scenario for them.

As far as my preference... I'll take the French, Poles, or Canadians. There is less equipment to lug around

[Grisha]

Sure, the Germans had better equipment - than the USA in 1944. Take it back to Barbarossa, and 1941, through to 1943, and it's a different story in game terms. Soviet tanks ruled (maybe not '41-'42 Soviet tactics or C3, but that's not a game issue at CM's level). From 1943 until mid 1944, the edge swung to the Germans, but by mid 1944 that was mostly neutralized by the IS-II.

Anyway, Germans were very tactically adept, extremely versed in tactical combat. But I'll still play Soviet any day

[Guest AggroMann]

It seems like theres just something intriguing about the German forces in WWII.

And probably for many different reasons. One obvious one definatly has something to do with the stand out obvious fact that German machines, being so much more complex than there allied counterparts look so much more... cooler than American or even British tanks. Their language also sounds more fierce and intimidating.

Another reason could be just because they were Nazis. And although the Nazis were cold blooded murderers in part (at least the SA and Gestapo were), there is just something luring about that swastika. I myself hate to see such a cool symbal embedded forever in the minds of people as being Nazi, as it origionally wasn't. Here is a quick example of someone neutral drawn to the swastika.

I live in New York State, recently some Ecuadorian immigrints moved in a few houses down. I befriended the youngest, age 13. I showed him the ropes in CM. And after a while of playing and me teaching him the ways of WWII, he always kept wanting to play the Axis. When i asked him why he replied "Because they have tigers and a cool flag"

(i had downloaded the optional swastika flag mod)

Anyways, it just seems to me that most casual gamers find that the Allies are boring and the Germans are cool.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by machineman:

Of course the other way to look at it is, other than national pride or political reasons, why would anyone be fascinated by the Allies?

Their equipment and uniforms look dorky, their battles are usually won by brute force rather than skill, other than 'Mustang' they can't even give their war stuff cool names!

Seriously, if the war record of the German army was just overunning Poland, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, etc. I don't think they would have much appeal. It was their toughness against overwhelming odds during the years of defeat that made their name. What if the Americans had had someone with the war history of tank commanders Wittman or Otto Carius, Stuka pilot Rudel, or fighter pilots Galland or Barkmann?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I always must chuckle when I hear they "fought against overwhelming odds". Other than France, Germany's victores were against inferior and smaller forces.

cav

[Wayne]

The Germans, man for man, were better soldiers. Their platoon, company and battalion leaders were better and their armored equiptment was better and more varied.

There is also the facination with losers or the underdog. How many of us are intrigued with armies in history that lost in spite of being some of the best fighters in the world. Napoleons legions for example or the armies of Carthage. I have an endless facination for the Imperial Japanese Navy of 1941 and 1942. They were the best in their field and almost won the war for their Emperor. Now they are a distant memory with a legend of excellence. I feel the same about the German Army, not the German political system of that time. They fought against the world and almost won but now there is only the legend left.

I enjoy playing Allies as well and respect and admire their perseverence. I feel the entire European conflict is facinating no matter which side I play.

------------------

Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus:

Honestly, I think the main reason why people tend to admire the German Army of WWII is because of their pure dedication to the cause, not that the cause was right or wrong, it's just that they fought on even when their nation was on the brink of collapse. Such dedication is very rare now these days. Maybe there's something to be said about extreme nationalism.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dedication to "cause"? Cripes, that should go to the Americans. They had little real risk from either Japan or Germany. Both Germany and Japan fought on because they were defending their homelands. They fought like they did because they had their backs against the wall.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I don't think the hardware has much to do with why people admire the German Army. Maybe somewhat, but I don't really think that's the case.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. It is the hardware and the "mythos" around it. Unfortuantly to many believe the myths and not the reality.

Cav

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wayne:

The Germans, man for man, were better soldiers. Their platoon, company and battalion leaders were better and their armored equiptment was better and more varied.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is this based on? Other than the Soviets, the Germans got more than they gave...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I have an endless facination for the Imperial Japanese Navy of 1941 and 1942. They were the best in their field and almost won the war for their Emperor.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh?

Cav

[russellmz]

i disagree whether they were better man for man. they were mostly on defense and their equipment was better so they usually got the higher kill ratio.

it's hard to determine man for man who was better. there were tough veterans mixed with old men and kids, plus there was the difference in rifles(semi-auto us m1 vs bolt action for many germs!)

and the jap navy wasn't that good, the only oppfor that had carriers were the us and brits, and only heavy us carriers(i think, not sure)

------------------

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[Wayne]

Just to answer the criticism in my post concerning the Germans: the manpower ratio on the Eastern Front was about 5 to 1 against the Germans and they managed to almost defeat the Russians and hold them off for 2 years.

About the Japanese Navy: their pilots were better than ours in the early years. Their naval gunnery was superior to ours, read about the night surface battles around Guadalcanal, and in many air actions the Japanese were outnumbered significantly but still managed to defeat the Allied flyers.

These are just my impressions of the events of 1941,42.

------------------

Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight.

[Mark IV]

Ooohh, I could write a long one on this... but what would it serve?

Curiously, Maximus has said at least some of it well. The pure dedication and willingness to die for the higher goal- which to the average German was the homeland, and the perseverance in the face of all odds... this has a certain mystique. The Napoleonic comparison is quite appropriate, as is Xenophon. Their reach exceeded their grasp and that has always appealed.

Japan- very different on the surface. But from their point of view, they were the first and only non-whites to seriously challenge the licentious sway of colonial powers in the Pacific. They swept away the myth of the inferior Oriental in 1904-5 and continued sweeping until they bit off more than they could chew... and then came back again as very serious businessmen.

If you don't admire the spirit of your enemies, why are you playing this game???

[Aussie Smith]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I always must chuckle when I hear they "fought against overwhelming odds". Other than France, Germany's victores were against inferior and smaller forces.

Cav <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you on drugs Cav?

Against France huh - well you'd better throw in the BEF to that one as well - you know the British Army that evacuated at Dunkirk, The Free Polish Army and the Canadians.

Oh and so Barbarossa was against a smaller/inferior enemy huh??

It never ceases to amaze me how some people make wonderfully grandiose statements that they tell themselves are true that have no historical foundation at all.

Cav – all you need to do is the math – The German Army from 1941 fought on 3 different fronts and held out for almost another 4 years. They fought an enemy that could out produce its industry by a factor of 10 and that had a potential 6-1 manpower advantage – and you say they didn’t fight against overwhelming odds??

The Germans are no master race and as many other threads have pointed out individually their soldiers and the allies were of equivalent quality but to deny them at least some respect for the victories and achievements that were achieved even to the fall of Germany in May 1945 is to deny reality.

I could provide account after account where German forces were victorious over both technically and qualitatively superior enemies but your blinkered answer leads me to think such a response would be futile.

Craig

[Guest machineman]

Someone in the German military must have clued in to the psychological benefit of this, and then milked it for all it was worth. The early war stuff wasn't that stylish or aggressive. PzII, PzIV, anyone? Ohh, scary.

Later everything seemed to get a bit of a charge to it: Tiger, Konigstiger, Sturmtiger, Panther, Hunting Panther (Jagdpanther), Stormgun (MP-44 Sturmgewehr), even stuff that was essentially defensive: Tank Terror (Panzershreck), Armoured fist (Panzerfaust).

Here's a quote:

"The Hummel, (also nicknamed the Bumble-Bee)...on 27 Feb 1944 name dropped as Hitler thought it was too timid for a fighting vehicle..."

How often did the Allies drop a name because it was "too timid for a fighting vehicle"?

------------------

"Environment is everything - The Lion may be king of the jungle, but you airlift him to Antartica, and he's just some Penguins bitch" - Dennis Miller

[Jagdwyrm]

I like to play both sides but I have to admit German armor had style. But I must also say I really like US TDs. As far as airplanes well just about any prop-driven plane from the WW2 era is a thing of beauty to me . I dont think germans had the best man for man soldiers. Every country in the conflict fielded units of varying quality. How do you stack Volksstrum up to Rangers or Airborne? I believe the IJN was an excellent modern navy at the time. The US won some key battles against it (US also having an excellent navy) that tipped the scales.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by russellmz:

i disagree whether they were better man for man. they were mostly on defense and their equipment was better so they usually got the higher kill ratio.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think this is true except on the Eastern Front.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aussie Smith:

Are you on drugs Cav?

Against France huh - well you'd better throw in the BEF to that one as well - you know the British Army that evacuated at Dunkirk, The Free Polish Army and the Canadians.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummm, that would be in FRANCE now wouldn't it?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Oh and so Barbarossa was against a smaller/inferior enemy huh??

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What part of "Germany's victories" don't you get? Barbarossa was a failure.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

It never ceases to amaze me how some people make wonderfully grandiose statements that they tell themselves are true that have no historical foundation at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even more amazing is how people don't read a post on their way to defend the "honor" of the German military machine. "Deutschland vollständig!", eh?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Cav – all you need to do is the math – The German Army from 1941 fought on 3 different fronts and held out for almost another 4 years. They fought an enemy that could out produce its industry by a factor of 10 and that had a potential 6-1 manpower advantage – and you say they didn’t fight against overwhelming odds??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't attach some special "honor" to it. I call it stupidity. Look at the German dead and a occupied country for those grand results...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The Germans are no master race and as many other threads have pointed out individually their soldiers and the allies were of equivalent quality but to deny them at least some respect for the victories and achievements that were achieved even to the fall of Germany in May 1945 is to deny reality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They achieved a wrecked country. Where's the respect for the victories and achievements for the American army? An army that joined a war which the others had at least a three year jump on. An army that was able to learn quickly. Would the pro-Germans like to compare the win-loss ration of major battles of the American Army versus the German? Other than the mythos, you may not like what it shows.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I could provide account after account where German forces were victorious over both technically and qualitatively superior enemies but your blinkered answer leads me to think such a response would be futile.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please do, of course it will likely be laced with Soviets...

Cav

[Guest grunto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

well they did have the most toys and

they certainly had the best tanks early in the

war.

-tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i would say that they had the best usage of tanks, and the radios were a factor.

on the other hand the french had some decent vehicles but no radios. some of the french tanks were better than the german from an armor protection and main gun standpoint.

then in 1941 the KV and t-34 series had superior armored protection and main gun, and the t-34 was perhaps more mobile than any german tank in the summer of 1941.

on the other hand they too had very few radios in their tanks, and the early t-34 had a 1-man crew.

also, consider the british matilda. in the french campaign that was a nasty surprise at arras for the germans if memory serves.

in any case i'm not sure if you can call a pzIIIe or pzIVc 'better' than the best french, soviet, or british tanks of 1940-41 but the germans sure knew how to use them from a communication and manuever standpoint.

the germans knew about 'mass' and 'breakthrough' while the western allies and later the russians were still deploying the tanks in a mainly piecemeal, infantry support fashion.

actually, if what i write here holds any water, prehaps the wermacht would be even more fascinating in that they were successful early with tank hardware which was actually inferior 'on paper' to the competition in many respects.

thanks for your consideration,

andy

[russellmz]

"Just to answer the criticism in my post concerning the Germans: the manpower ratio on the Eastern Front was about 5 to 1 against the Germans and they managed to almost defeat the Russians and hold them off for 2 years."

and about my germans mostly on defense statement:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

I don't think this is true except on the Eastern Front.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah but c'mon: the russians, man, the russians!

in the "The name of CM2?" thread one of the suggestions for it was "With enough untrained soldiers, tactics aren't really important"

just because the russians had stupid local (ok, not so stupid since they worked but...), wasteful tactics, is not to say the germans were better man for man. their tactics were to lose X number of troops for every enemy they killed.

i mean, isn't russia the place where they had soldiers link arms and charge the german lines? the kill ratio in korea musta been really high in favor for the us vs n korea and china but you don't have the mystique of the us soldier.

"About the Japanese Navy: their pilots were better than ours in the early years. Their naval gunnery was superior to ours, read about the night surface battles around Guadalcanal, and in many air actions the Japanese were outnumbered significantly but still managed to defeat the Allied flyers.

These are just my impressions of the events of 1941,42."

true they had good gunners, and torps, and lookouts. and they kicked butt at savo island. but don't foget the flying tigers in china who were outnumbered. and that other battle guadalcanal where the jap bb hiei was heavily damaged by a smaller group of ships in a confusing night battle.

and let's not forget one of my favorite engagements, the uss washington taking on the hiei's sister ship, a cruiser or two and some destroyers(i believe there were 14 total) at the same time, with the jap bb getting sunk.

the japanese had a good run, yes, but i think that had more to do with their airpower, more modern ships, and preparedness for war. when the us was prepared, (midway, coral sea) the japanese did not fare as well.

------------------

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[Guest grunto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by grunto:

..and the early t-34 had a 1-man crew.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

uh... 1-man turret.

=g=

andy