British Tanks: Underrepresented in User Created Scenarios??

[crepitis]

Hey,M.Bates,lighten up,dont you know that us scots are born well-balanced,with a chip on each shoulder?Lets shake hands,or i'll invade England!What do you say,eh?And,yes,I do love History,and,no,your comments werent lost on me.Scotlands greatest national hero,Robert The Bruce,was second generation Norman/English(DE Brus)I was just having a little fun!

[Terence]

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

Hey Terence,IPA,et al,I feel so proud that we've all done our bit for International relations.I certainly wasnt having a pop at Americans,it was just tongue in cheek....,Bob.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is what I thought, and as I said, if I really were irked, I bet I could have come up with some better retort than "sucks boo."

Although, for the British, taking the piss out of the Americans is a tradition with a long and glorious history --predates the War of Independence (or as you gleefully call it, The Colonial Uprising of 1776) And I'm sure that's because we always, always rise to the bait.

Every nationality has a few points worth making fun of. I'd just rather talk about the game -- in this thread, anyway.

So in a desperate effort to keep this on topic -- MACE: can you tell us any more about these scenarios? When might they be ready?

Ternece

[Terence]

deleting duplicate posting caused by forum error, not my incompetence.

cheers,

Terence

[This message has been edited by Terence (edited 12-05-2000).]

[M. Bates]

We will see who has the most chips on their shoulder when Brown and Erikson next meet

[Terence]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates:

We will see who has the most chips on their shoulder when Brown and Erikson next meet <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WhatEVER!!. American chips are still way way better than British chips.

In fact, you guys wouldn't even HAVE chips it it wasn't for us.

Its people like you what cause unrest!!!

[Mace]

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

WhatEVER!!. American chips are still way way better than British chips.

In fact, you guys wouldn't even HAVE chips it it wasn't for us.

Its people like you what cause unrest!!!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMHO, the chips you get down the corner fish & chip shop are the best!

Mace

[crepitis]

CHIPS.....mmmmmmmmm.

[CaSCa]

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

In fact, you guys wouldn't even HAVE chips it it wasn't for us.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, if talking about American 'chips' then they wouldn't even have 'crisps' if it wasn't for us.

[Terence]

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

Actually, if talking about American 'chips' then they wouldn't even have 'crisps' if it wasn't for us.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

actually I was talking about chips on shoulders in a lunatic crazy attempt to make joke.

sorry comrades, no further jokings in workers paradise.

[Chupacabra]

Er, I'm pretty sure that crisps, chips, whatever, were an American invention.

Edit: Yep.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In 1853, railroad magnate Commodore Cornelius Vanderbilt, dining at a Saratoga Springs, NY resort, sent his fried potatoes back to the chef, complaining that they were too thick.

The chef that evening was Native-American George Crum, who was apparently miffed at Vanderbilt's complaint and decided it deserved a sarcastic reply. He sliced potatoes paper thin, fried them to a crisp in boiling oil, and salted them. The Commodore loved the “crunch potato slices,” as he called them, and the “Saratoga Chips” became a restaurant fad from that day forward.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 12-06-2000).]

[Guest wwb_99]

I was under the impression that those 5-6 Centurions did see action in the Hartz mountains. Don't remember where I gained this impression, but you all probably know better.

And, the Plantaganate (sp?) line ddefinitely had a french outlook. The first english king that was known to speak english dates from the 15th centurty. Richard III (the Lionhearted) spent more time in Burgundy and Acquitane than England (climate is a lot more pleasant). Only when they lost the 100 years war did the English kings start looking to england as more than an unassailiable recruiting ground.

And we must note that while Britain could not have won the war without American help, they saved the war for the allies. From the fall of France to Operation Barbarossa they stood alone against Germany, and we should never forget that. Had they acquieced, there would have been no base of operations for the invasion of the continent, and the US would have been powerless to contest Hitler in europe. That and the whole ultra thing.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[M. Bates]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And we must note that while Britain could not have won the war without American help, they saved the war for the allies. From the fall of France to Operation Barbarossa they stood alone against Germany, and we should never forget that. Had they acquieced, there would have been no base of operations for the invasion of the continent, and the US would have been powerless to contest Hitler in europe. That and the whole ultra thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thing I can never quite comprehend, is why didn't the Germans invade Britain? Sure, they would have had to cross the Channel, but with those nice European roads they would have been in Glasgow by teatime!! A successful invasion would have also removed the threat of a second front in France, and would have led to the anhilation of Allied forces in North Africa.

I think some one in this thread mentioned the relationship between the Japanese and Germans. As I understand it, the Germans were always a bit 'snobbish' and standoffish towards the Japanese. In the end there was not enough enthusiasm from the Germans to work towards an Axis link-up in Asia somewhere.

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

Great Quotes

Maximus: "And what's that Rob? The rest of the world doesn't care? I can assure you that when Boris Yeltsin stepped down in Russia last New Years, the world cared. Oh wait, you live in Canada. That's right, Canada only cares 'aboot' Canada. The whole world could be on the brink of destruction and as long as Canadian soil isn't involved, they could care less. Does the phrase, "Isolationist China" mean anything to ya?"

Rob/1: "Lets just say I dont like americans ok... if you have a prolbem with that Minumis is one of the resions."

jshandorf: "Suck"

[David Aitken]

M. Bates wrote:

> A successful invasion would have also removed the threat of a second front in France, and would have led to the anhilation of Allied forces in North Africa.

Try telling that to Hitler.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates:

The thing I can never quite comprehend, is why didn't the Germans invade Britain? Sure, they would have had to cross the Channel, but with those nice European roads they would have been in Glasgow by teatime!! A successful invasion would have also removed the threat of a second front in France, and would have led to the anhilation of Allied forces in North Africa.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two reasons:

1. It was not a part of Hitlers plan. The entire point of the war against France and the UK was to remove them from a position from which they could contest the was against the USSR. This is often over-looked by people who simplistically paint Hitler as just a power-mad looney trying to take everything over.

The reality is that he was a power-mad looney trying to take over Eastern Europe. Africa, Battle of the Atlantic, Battle of Britain, France, etc. were all just preparation for the real goal, which was lebensraum in Poland and the western portions of the USSR.

By late 1940-1941 it appeared that the UK was basically unable to interfere, so why bother invading them?

2. It is a lot harder than it looks. It is likely that the Germans would not have been able to successfully launch a cross channel invasion of the UK without establishing complete air superiority, which they failed to accomplish during the Battle of Britain.

So, in a nutshell, Hitler did not think there was a good reason to invade the UK, and probably couldn't have succeeded even had he wanted to.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

The more interesting question is really Why didn't the UK negotiate a peace with Germany after the fall of France?

Jeff's Scenario for a German "Victory" in WW2:

That was what Hitler really wanted. Just think. A negotiated peace with the UK involving some sort of nominally independent (albeit subservient) France and assurance from the UK not to interfere in "continental" issues in the future.

At this time the USSR is still not exactly popular in British circles, so a war between Germany and the USSR may not have been reason enough for the UK to re-declare war on Germany. Indeed, a Russo-German war very likely would have been welcomed by the UK.

This means no Battle of the Atlantic (and no massive diversion of men and material to building U-boats). The Luftwaffe is not decimated in the Battle of Britain. The Wehrmacht is not further dispersed and bled by a campaign in Greece and North Africa. Without the Greece campaign, Barbarossa potentially starts 6 weeks earlier, in late April or May instead of June.

Wehrmacht takes Moscow in the Fall of '41. The Siberian reserves manage to check the German advance at that point (instead of in front of Moscow). The Japanese attack the US in 1941, but without the UK involvement, the US does not involve itself in the campaign against Germany.

Take a look at a map of the USSR circa 1941. Hell look at one today. The term "All roads/rails lead to Moscow" was (and is) very much the case. Without Moscow the Soviets would find it extremely difficult to manage any strategic mobility.

I see a real possibility of a German-Soviet peace treaty negotiated in 1942 leaving the larger portion of Russia in German hands.

The UK staying in the war after the fall of France was immensely important in the long run. It ensured diversion of German resources, and (maybe more importantly) ensured that the US would enter on the side of the USSR.

Jeff Heidman

[M. Bates]

I suppose you are right... the Germans reckoned on under 40 Commonwealth divisions in Britain, and they themselves invaded Russia with over 130.

[Guest machineman]

An interesting alternate history considering that very scenario:

http://members.aol.com/dalecoz/PODMay99Web.htm#Dunkirk

[Jeff Heidman]

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

An interesting alternate history considering that very scenario:

http://members.aol.com/dalecoz/PODMay99Web.htm#Dunkirk <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is interesting. The only beef I have with it is that it a little TOO alternative. It ignores almost completely the entire reason Hitler and Germany went to war to begin with, namely, to secure "Lebensraum" in the East. I cannot imagine any credible scenario that does not include a German invasion of the USSR.

Jeff Heidman

[dumbo]

Not trying to be irritating or anything but the comment "The British couldnt have won without the Americans" or the reverse is sort of off base.

After all I dont think anyone would contest that the USSR did the vast majority of the fighting against Nazi Germany.

Not implying the Commonwealth or US forces were not nessecary for victory but I think its worth pointing out the large elephant in the room with "USSR" tattooed on its trunk Certainly the USA and Commonwealth played second fiddle to the USSR in terms of fighting IMHO.

cheers

_dumbo

[This message has been edited by dumbo (edited 12-06-2000).]

[Jeff Heidman]

Second in terms of fighting if you define fighting as only including land warfare, and even then only including that portion of warfare at the sticking end.

But modern wars (and WW2 in particular) are not won solely by men and tanks on the ground.

Whenever that "elephant" is mentioned, it seems like the 800lb. gorilla with "Air Power" and the 10,000lb. whale with "Logistical capacity" are ignored.

The USSR provided the bulk of the dying and the killing. But modern warfare is not so simplistic that it can be reduced to an equation where the only variables are how many men you managed to kill and get killed.

How many men and tanks equals one FW-190? How many men and tanks equals a U-Boat? How many T-34s would you trade for a merchant ship full of food?

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 12-06-2000).]

[Terence]

Jeff,

Well put.

The equation does get extremely complicated, and while I would never minimize the role played by the ultimately victorious Red Army, I won't downplay the sacrifices of any people during and after the war,

(when you talk about the cost of the war, its inhuman to not include the Germans and Japanese as well, very few of whom had a choice or a vote in what their nations ultimately did).

Wellington said once that there was nothing more terrible than a battle won, except a battle lost.

I think that when you consider the slaughterhouse that Europe and Asia became for 6 years and the starvation and privations that followed, its hard to quantify who suffered or gave more.

At some point, suffering becomes impossible to measure. I see it as a three legged stool.

If the commonwealth leg, the Soviet Union leg or the United States leg is removed, the whole thing comes crashing down.

Now, each of those legs is significant for different reasons, but all are important.

--Terence

[dumbo]

Jeff:

I think thats a completely valid point. Although I can dig up some pretty hairaising figures on just how many aircraft were deployed on the eastern front for you if you like ,I am at work right now but its a LOT

However I would still put more emphasis on the bleeding side of combat in WW2. Its hard for me to imagine Germany losing WW2 if it had not invaded the USSR, I can imagine germany losing even if the USA or UK hadnt been involved. However thats certainly open to debate.

My original point was that an western allied only perspective simply will not do when describing germanies downfall as the western front was the front of secondary importance and treated as such by Germany.

[dumbo]

Terence:

I think thats a reasonble point of view ,I certainly agree about the terrible human suffering

I just find it hard to describe germanies downfall as a three legged stool when to my mind one leg is just so much bigger than the other two (Ok this stoll thing could get weird soon).

_dumbo

[Jeff Heidman]

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

I just find it hard to describe germanies downfall as a three legged stool when to my mind one leg is just so much bigger than the other two (Ok this stoll thing could get weird soon).

_dumbo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is just it. I am not sure what the absolute sizes of those legs are, but I dispute the common assumption tat the Soviet leg was disproportionately large. It is the simplistic viewpoint that since the USSR lost more men and killed more Germans, their leg is considerably larger.

I do not contest that the Eastern Front was the decisive front (in that the war would be won or lost based upon what happened their), I contest the idea that the Western Front did not impact the result of the Eastern Front to a very large degree.

It is too easy to get caught up in the human element and lose sight of the fact that the human element, while the most emotional, is not always the most decisive. I am not trivializing the sacrifice made by some tens of millions of dead Soviets, but at the same time it is erroneous to assume that just because the devastation was horrifying, the result must have hinged upon it.

The point of total war is to remove your opponents ability to prevent you from imposing your will upon him. Killing soldiers is only one limited way of achieving that end.

The stool had three (or more) legs. The Soviet leg was painted in blood, but is not as large as first glance would suggest.

Jeff Heidman

[Terence]

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

Terence:

I think thats a reasonble point of view ,I certainly agree about the terrible human suffering

I just find it hard to describe germanies downfall as a three legged stool when to my mind one leg is just so much bigger than the other two (Ok this stoll thing could get weird soon).

_dumbo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

right, the stool analogy is a bit unwieldy. I came up with it on the fly, and I want you to know that there is no way I could underestimate the sacrifices made by the Soviet Union.

I lived in Moscow from 1979 to 1981 and again from 1993 to 1996. For the Russians --and with good reason-- the Great Patriotic War is THE defining event of the 20th Century, perhaps more of a crucible for the Soviet/Russian state than any other thing -- even the Bolshevik Revolution.

Now, the past has always been changeable in Russia, but this is IT for them--the ultimate victory and vindication of their

statehood.

And you can trifle with the Communist pantheon of Marx, Lenin, Stalin (many do) but if you are around a bunch of Russians, don't ever question the sacrifices or the victory that the Soviets won. Its not healthy to do so.

And its not hard, when you read about the Seige of Leningrad, and the defenders of Stalingrad to be amazed that human beings were capable of that much suffering.

When you consider achievements like moving the majority of the soviet military industrial complex from western russia to wilderness behind the urals, its really astounding.

And when you consider what the Russians put up with that much at the hands of their own government as well as at the hands of the invaders .. well, really the whole thing just boggles the mind.

Could an American or British city have withstood what the Leningraders did? I hope we never have to find out.