Why American squads "penalized"?

[buddy]

OK, it's my understanding that squads fight with less gumption and act more hesitantly if their HQ is wiped out - weren't American troops trained to think on their own (as compared to Axis forces having a strict chain of command).

Credit for getting off the beaches at Normandy was given to the fact that NonComs and enlisted pretty much took command and did their thing without the aid of HQ...

Anyone?

[Guest ACTOR]

Buddy where did you come up with the idea that the Amis troops fight with less gumption? Everything I have read says that all squads, regardless of nationality, fight the same. Their level of "gumption" is based on their experience.

Edited -

This thread would seem to cover this issue pretty well. Page 7 - Steve weighs in with the facts.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/012130.html

[This message has been edited by ACTOR (edited 11-22-2000).]

[buddy]

Maybe I am mistaken - I thought I read in an earlier post that when any squad loses it's HQ unit then it performs at a lower level - reaction time, etc are slower.

I could be wrong...

[jshandorf]

If anything not having a HQ is simulated in the sense that any movement orders you give the leaderless squads takes longer to execute. As for fighting ability... that has to do with the experience level.

The fact that US soldiers took the beaches of Omaha on June 6th was because a large number of them had NEVER seen combact before and didn't know what to expect, therefore they were gung-ho and took risks. In the end it paid off. Basically if you throw enough soldiers on the beach eventually there are some who will lead and take charge. That is what happened. A famous quote by some general whos name I can't remember went something like this: "An experienced soldier is a scared soldier."

If those US soldiers had any idea what they were up against you'd really have to wonder what would have happened.

Jeff

[Guest Germanboy]

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

weren't American troops trained to think on their own (as compared to Axis forces having a strict chain of command).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In US propaganda movies and SPR maybe, but reality was very much different. Quite the opposite in fact.

What you propose is a nationality modifier. Can't and should not have that. If you want to have US squads with such attributes make them veteran in a scenario you design. Or do you want to propose that even green US troops should have that bonus?

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-22-2000).]

[buddy]

Whoa, hang on a second guys. I was only curious about this and didn't propose anything...but why not? I mean, if Axis forces were more order-only oriented and Allied forces were not, then why not give them an advantage that way? Not really a bonus - more of a penalty to Axis forces.

[bogey]

American Troops are like popcorn. Most stay in the pot, some refuse to pop, and a few burst free and soar through the air. =)

[buddy]

I have no idea what that means.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

I mean, if Axis forces were more order-only oriented and Allied forces were not, then why not give them an advantage that way? Not really a bonus - more of a penalty to Axis forces.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point is, they weren't. Where did you pick this gem of information up? Stephen Ambrose?

From the horse's mouth (Ethan Phibbs, combat surgeon CCB 12th Armoured) comes a statement saying that performance depended on one or two guys and the quality of the squad leader. If that was okay, all others would follow, if not, the squad would be performing badly (which is what might be meant by the popcorn analogy). Platoon leaders made a difference to that, according to him IIRC, but I will check that. It is fine as it is. Again, where does your info come from?

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-22-2000).]

[Johnno]

I like th popcorn analogy it's pretty good. In reality though I think it might apply to all guys in the field, they are all individuals and have free thoughts not robots. I myself, in my playing of CM, put very high importance on my HQ units and this improves my play. If a HQ unit runs gets whacked and leaves the others behind the others don't benefit from his command modifiers and control. They are simply a squad not a platoon so to say but they don't fight any less hard they just don't have the benefits of the Commander.

My thoughts anyway, don't care if you like them or not. The way I play CM this idea flows through my troops and cuts down the enemy like Moses parting the Red Sea.

Johnno

Visit my website:

Dogs of War,CMBO Online Players Club

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"I like a man who grins when he fights."

- Prime Minister Winston Churchill<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by Johnno (edited 11-22-2000).]

[buddy]

"Where did you pick up this gem of information - Stephen Ambrose?"

Geez, I post to see how everyone else feels about something that I've been thinking about - I am not a military historian and yeah, I do like Stephen Ambrose - even if you obviously think he is a hack.

I don't appreciate having to explain my freaking educational qualifications just to get someone's opinion. Cripes.

[Mark IV]

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

I thought I read in an earlier post that when any squad loses it's HQ unit then it performs at a lower level - reaction time, etc are slower.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Operative word is "any". It has the same effect on German squads.

[jgdpzr]

I have to agree that this myth is widely propogated in the US. And certainly Ambrose has about as much to do with it as anyone. Just the other night I was watching one of the History Channel's pieces on D-Day, and there was Stephen once again spouting off about Gen. Roosevelt's decision to "start the war right here" when he discovered that his troops had landed at the wrong spot on Utah beach. Seriously, what choice did he have? Call the boats back to pick them up and redeposit them a few hundred yards north? Does he really think that a German commander in Roosevelt's shoes would have been paralyzed? And this whole concept of the "Furor Principle" has gotten a little old. On the strategic or operational level, this may have been true. But on the tactical level, German commanders and NCOs had every bit as much latitude as their American counterparts and were trained to behave as such(with some noteable exceptions- i.e. Stalingrad). I have even seen arguments that their training at this level was far superior to the western allies.

Certainly, I believe no such national modifier is necessary in this game. The tactical scope of combat in CM just doesn't need it.

Sorry, Buddy, hope you don't think my comments were meant to pick on you. However, you will find that Ambrose doesn't garner much respect outside of the US. Not a bad writer, but historical accuracy is not his forte.

[This message has been edited by jgdpzr (edited 11-22-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I was only curious about this and didn't propose anything...but why not? I mean, if Axis forces were more order-only oriented and Allied forces were not, then why not give them an advantage that way?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it is utter nonsense. German low level initiative and leadership was, if anything, superior to all other forces employed in WWII. The entire training system of low level tactics is based on the German model, not the pre-war Allied model.

This is why we don't have national modifiers. 99% of what is suggested be modeled is totally baseless. Therefore to add such stuff would be perpetuating myth and misinformation.

Experience was the deciding factor. I would much rather go up against a Green US or German unit than an Elite anything from any nation (all things being equal). OK, so I would much rather sit at home and not go up against anybody, but you get my meaning

Steve

[Guest Germanboy]

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

"Where did you pick up this gem of information - Stephen Ambrose?"

Geez, I post to see how everyone else feels about something that I've been thinking about - I am not a military historian and yeah, I do like Stephen Ambrose - even if you obviously think he is a hack.

I don't appreciate having to explain my freaking educational qualifications just to get someone's opinion. Cripes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't have to at all - I am just honestly curious. And I have never read Ambrose, so I would reserve my judgement.

If you can not handle somebody disagreeing with you, maybe you should consider not asking people for their opinion. Or just make a note at the bottom of the post that only those agreeing with you need to reply. That would save you some upset.

Anyway, you asked for people's opinion and you got mine. You also got a bit of reading info that may or may not change your mind. Whether you take it or leave it is up to you. Fact is that your original info is not backed by anything I have read, and from my observations on the board, I don't think that Ambrose is considered the most reliable source. The difference is much more down to unit experience, and probably cohesion, something the US Army with the notorious Repple Depple system was extremely bad at achieving.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

Germans - they come here, they shag our anteaters. (Angus Deaton)

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-22-2000).]

[Spook]

To buddy:

If you choose to dig through the CM forum archives and use "nationality" as a search term, you should likely come across BTS's repeated argument that it stayed away from pre-set "nationality" characteristics like the plague in the design of CMBO. (Dunno what CM2 will bring, though....)

In CMBO, you will find that a German squad will panic just as likely as a US one with the same experience. No national bias was applied to morale calculations. But in terms of HQ units, BTS noted that a German HQ unit, with similar experience to an Allied HQ unit, will likely have a little more in favorable "attributes" in random (quick-battle) scenario force generation.

The reason for this is that on AVERAGE, German HQ units in '44 would've been made up with men who had seen prior combat (e.g., rotated from the East Front) than their UK/US counterparts. And historically speaking in small-unit leadership anyway, I think that German leaders were a bit more flexible and able to adapt to changing conditions than most UK/US officers. But that's another forum topic for debate.

But ultimately in scenario designs, relative experience and HQ unit effectiveness is something you can tailor & adjust by yourself for both sides. If you want to create a US HQ unit uprated for someone's presence like Audie Murphy, you can do so in CM.

[Lanzfeld]

I not a huge fan of Ambrose either but I am sure he knows alot more about WWII than most people on this board. Even if he has made a mistake or two in his analysis. I find it perculiar that Germanboy slams him outright. Maybe Germanboy just doesnt like Americans. Just my observation.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

I find it perculiar that Germanboy slams him outright. Maybe Germanboy just doesnt like Americans. Just my observation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lanzfeld, I actually loathe Americans. All of them. They are evil, badly mannered and smell bad. Particularly Chupacapra. Your observation is obviously patently stupid. sorry for the harsh words, but next time think before you post.

I am just wondering how bad your command of what I assume is your native tongue must be to not understand (to quote myself): <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And I have never read Ambrose, so I would reserve my judgement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Slam is what I do with you above, not this clearly reserved judgement.

Funnily enough, Jgdpzr. also has some issues with Ambrose, or so it seems, so he probably does not like himself. Since when has nationality ever had anything to do with scholarly quality.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-22-2000).]

[Lanzfeld]

There is merit in what Buddy says though....

I too have read several accounts by German and British soldiers commenting on the inginuity (SP?), self-governing and inititive of the US troops in the absence of leadership. Yes there are plenty of instances of troops refusing to budge or take orders when they were stripped of their leaders but there are just too many testomonies of non-americans that say the otherwise to dismiss this. You can find that many soldiers of all nations showed incredible resiliance and inititive in the face of gloom and doom at some time but I have just heard of it mentioned about American soldiers more.

Again.....for what its worth...

[Guest Germanboy]

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

There is merit in what Buddy says though....

I too have read several accounts by German and British soldiers commenting on the inginuity (SP?), self-governing and inititive of the US troops in the absence of leadership.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seeing you slam the foreign soldiers like this, I think you just don't like the English and Germans. Just my observation. And it is 'ingenuity'.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-22-2000).]

[M. Bates]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You can find that many soldiers of all nations showed incredible resiliance and inititive in the face of gloom and doom at some time but I have just heard of it mentioned about American soldiers more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is the point of these discussions??

I can't see how resilience in the midst of dying comrades and flying shrapnell has anything to do with where you are born.

At the end of the day all soldiers have two arms, two legs, and don't want to get killed.

[jgdpzr]

Andreas, I am chock full of self-loathing! Sorry I am so transparent.

[David Aitken]

Lanzfeld wrote:

> there are just too many testomonies of non-americans that say the otherwise to dismiss this. [...] I have just heard of it mentioned about American soldiers more.

And I have heard numerous commendations of the skill and tenacity of British, and particularly Scottish, soldiers. Notice a pattern emerging here?

[buddy]

OK, close the thread. I do miss the old days when anyone could ask anything and not be slammed for it - these days you ask a question and get slammed for not knowing all of the details - which is why I posted to begin with. I do care for everyone's opinions and I should expect the crappy with the good, so I apologize for this tired rant - and this thread - and my attitude. Later.

[crepitis]

I have heard numerous commendations of the skill and tenacity of British, and particularly Scottish, soldiers.

You tell them davie boy!Although I think you probably need to explain what a scottish soldier is.Most Yanks think were all English anyway.It seems like just another example of American superiority complex coming through.

"Surely were not like all those other nations,I mean our soldiers MUST have been braver,more tenacious,more adaptable,more capable than those oter people,you know,those European and Commonwealth types".