Why American squads "penalized"?

[Bastables]

<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. 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...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you'll find that these incidences are spoken about relative to British forces as opposed to German forces and these in an attempt to make a point to the war office in blighty, or to support the German belife that 'Tommy is no soldier'. As Steve and Germanboy have stated at the German Battalion level and below they held lower level IC's and 2IC’s (aka In command and second in command respectively) ‘initiative’ in the highest regard and trained for it and if anything had more ‘initiative’ than USA forces. On the British side I think you’ll find a lot more reported about the initive of the German forces verses British troops than USA. The problem with anecdotes is that they may be interpreted out of context and then used to support any argument, in this case Lanz you ignore all the reports of English inginuity and cunning on the field, but Ambrose says nothing of these so a 'picture' built.

Oh and Ambrose problem is that he’s not a multi discipline Historian, he relies almost exclusively upon the written or spoken word. I think Kipling said it best when his work upon his official war history of the Irish guards failed in its initial goal of locating his MIA son. ‘ A battalions field is bounded by its own vision. Even within these limits, there is a large room for error. Witnesses to phases of fights die and are dispersed; the ground over which they fought is battered out of recognition in a few hours; survivors confuse dates, places and personalities, and in the trenches, the monotony of waiting days and the repetition-work of repairs breeds mistakes and false judgment. Men grow doubtful or oversure, and, in all good faith, give directly opposed versions. The clear sight of a comrade so mangled that he seems to have been long dead is burnt in on one brain to the exclusion of all else that happened that day. The shock of an exploded dump, shaking down a firmament upon the landscape, dislocates memory throughout half a battalion; and so on in all matters, till the end of laborious enquiry is too often the opening of fresh confusion. When to this are added the personal prejudices and misunderstandings of men under heavy strain, carrying clouded memories of orders half given or heard, amid scenes that pass like nightmares, the only wonder to the compiler of these records has been that any sure fact whatever should be retrieved out of the whirlpool of war’. (1919 Kipling).

I sorry but just with this paragraph Kipling has shown a shining insight into the chronicling of war, or even History in general that has so far eluded Ambrose. So yes buddy Ambrose is a hack, because he is certainly no Kipling.

Hey Spook do you play warbirds 2.76 under the same name?

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

From the jshandorf

"Why don't we compare reality to the game like Bastables likes to do all the time?"

Mr T's reply

"Don't touch me FOO!"

"Yes that's right Jerry, RUN, Run for your little lives because Tommy's gotten close enough to assault mhahahahah."

Nizam al-Mulk, (Order of the realm) In speaking of his superb disregard of maneuver warfare, in the destruction of OGSF hamsters who then carried on to flee the battle in their own notion of maneuver warfare. Tally HO!

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

[Lanzfeld]

I love to make you boys type. Jump again will you?

[Bimmer]

A few points that will probably do nothing to smooth the waters:

1. Ambrose, while he has done much in America for popularizing history in general and World War II history in particular, has a disturbingly (for other historians, at least) heavy bias toward overestimating American capabilities. Like him or not, you must recognize his point of view. Keegan has a similar problem with regard to British ability and accomplishment. Ironically, most of the historians with a pro-German (in terms of ability, not policy) bias are not Germans. It has been posited that the German historical community is loathe to suggest that any part of the Third Reich was good, a view I tend to accept.

2. There are plenty of examples of soldiers performing exceptionally well under combat conditions without the benefit (or hinderance) of leadship. The fundamental difference between the German Army and its opponents was that the former trained its company-grade officers and senior NCOs to lead above their rank and strongly encouraged (some would argue required) individual initiative. The Allied armies did not do this as a matter of doctrine - what individual commanders did is another matter entirely. James Corum has written an excellent book on the interwar German Army called _The Roots of Blitzkrieg_ that discusses this in depth.

[Major Tom]

There were never the good old days where everyone can spread their opinions like rancid butter on the bread of the world. That's just a myth.

Andreas, I'm trying to get that file back to you, not much happened in this turn, from what I see. I am experiencing much the same slowdowns as usual. I'll try again!

We've been through the national modifier deely thing before. Everyone looks upon their OWN nation's military as either the best in the world, or the worst in the world. The best historical research on any military is done through a third party (ie. some sort of neutral, and possibly even your enemy). Home based historians have more of an agenda than outside historians. If you really want to find out the truth about some matter, read a lot of diverse publications and BE AWARE of all bias. Stupidity is OK, ignorance is unforgivable.

[M. Bates]

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

I think you missed Aitken's point, which was that if you live in America, then you will hear many stories of American bravery. Or if you are born and bred in Australia you will hear tales of their bravery, et cetera.

It's all down to native outlook.

I suspect that a Japanese citizen's view on the atomic bombs is different to the average American or Canadian or UK citizen.

And then again some Japanese would argue that Pearl Harbor was as much an act of defence as it was of aggression.

[Splinty]

I have heard that the U.S. Army spent a lot of time after the war studying the way the German's did things at platoon level and below just because German NCO's and junior officers were so good at doing things on their own.

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

Nicht Schiessen!!

[Bastables]

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

I love to make you boys type. Jump again will you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats the best retort you have?

[David Aitken]

Lanzfeld wrote:

> I love to make you boys type. Jump again will you?

Thanks for that invaluable contribution.

[Lanzfeld]

Bastables....

I am not ignoring anything. I just have read many accounts of this behavior from Americans. I did'nt say it was never shown by Germans or Brits.

I believe it is a fact that certain armies have certain behaviors. The book I am reading now, "Fighting in Hell" is a collection of reports from captured German officers for US intel about the characteristics of the Russian soldiers in battle. These were written by the men who were there, they are accurate. So maybe certain armies of certain eras exhibit certain qualities: Good or bad. Maybe, because it is written of so much, Russians are slow to learn on the battlefield but are some of the most viciuos fighters. Maybe Italians, for whatever reason in WWII, did have a tendancy to run reguardless of training (not all....but alot...again...reading this). Maybe Americans did exhibit better inititive qualities then most when stripped of their leaders. and maybe the Brits did like to stop everything to have tea.

and to my dear Germanboy....

I was writing about how you said "Where did you pick this gem of info up??? Ambrose??"

as if anything out of Ambrose mouth is garbage. That is what I meant by you slamming him, not about you later reserving your judgement, which doesnt make sense after you already judged him.

[Doug Beman]

Whether you believe it was American soldiers who rallied faster, or German squads that performed better without their leadership, the point is: how do you put this in the game? Make ALL soldiers of one side have the same bonus/penalty? That's unrealistic. Make SOME soldiers randomly act better/worse? Then the scenario designer can (and Quick Battles do) make some soldiers go fanatical. Is there an option to increase the chance that some units from one combatant or another will perform worse than normal (sort of anti-fanaticism)?

IMHO, it doesn't matter whether you believe that one nation or another's soldiers always/never performed well/badly. Stereotypes contribute to ignorance and marginalization and should be avoided.

DjB

[Walter]

I think that was Lanzfeld's way of admitting he was wrong and apologising. At least, that's the way I interperet it.

Cheers,

Walter R. Strapps

[Guest Germanboy]

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

I love to make you boys type. Jump again will you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gah - pointless and wasted.

Major Tom, no problem. If you would rather play something much smaller, let me know. There are some small ASL conversions on Col.Klotz' site.

As for the rest of this thread - I think the last couple of posters brought out what seems to be a key about much WW II research. It is often positively or negatively biased.

This is not necessarily because there is a hidden agenda (there may well be), but it has to do with access to sources and material. E.g. if you don't speak German, access to 1st hand accounts by German vets will be extremely difficult. You either have to go through translations (often flawed) or interview those that speak English (few, and a skewed selection). So there are obvious problems.

The main thing is not to rely on one source (no matter how much you like that author) if you are reading to learn (note, if you are reading for entertainment, this obviously won't matter). Cross-check, re-read, come here and propose a thesis you are interested in/confident of, and see where it leads you. If all you have to answer to justified criticism of your thesis is 'Bah you are all bad people because you don't agree with me.' then you are better off not doing it in the first place.

I have learned an amazing amount from this board, but a lot more from the reading I picked up here. Just do not trust the 'experts'. They are only human (even Ambrose or Keegan) and make mistakes. If you chose to take their word over everything else, then you just deserve being taken seriously. No amount of reading can replace thinking.

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

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).]

[Spook]

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

Hey Spook do you play warbirds 2.76 under the same name?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Judas H Priest, how this thread snowballed since I last checked here. Anyway, Bastables, that must be some other "Spook", as I don't have Warbirds (just EAW).

[M. Bates]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think that was Lanzfeld's way of admitting he was wrong and apologising. At least, that's the way I interperet it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, you obviously missed his latest post - he is still beating the same drum

[Guest wwb_99]

While, as a military historian, Ambrose is poor at best. For those of you who do not know, he works out of the University of New Orleans, which is a 3rd rate school at best. While he has become famous, on the academic level he is a joke.

But in his defense, his D-Day collection is a great thing. While his interpertation may be biased, hopefully some future historian will get ahold of the collection and study it to its full potential. If only someone had bothered to do that for all the Roman wars than I would not have had to do so much by conjecture in my college career. . .

WWB

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

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salatamus.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

and to my dear Germanboy....

I was writing about how you said "Where did you pick this gem of info up??? Ambrose??"

as if anything out of Ambrose mouth is garbage. That is what I meant by you slamming him, not about you later reserving your judgement, which doesnt make sense after you already judged him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I wasn't going to and maybe I should not, but what the hey.

Where exactly did I judge him then? Did it ever enter your head that maybe it was just a question? Obviously not, instead you like to jump to conclusions and to pointless generalisations, e.g. me not liking Americans. If I don't like something it is ignorance and stupidity.

FWIW - My impression that it was Ambrosia stems from that I know him to be very popular in the US, and for many people to think him to be an accepted expert there. I also know from my readings of this board that it would not be totally beyond him to propagate this sort of bollocks. That's why I checked. But at the same time I will not judge his books until I have read them.

Now I know that this attitude of mine towards Ambrose is a very difficult concept to get your head round intellectually, and you may well be tasked beyond the limit of your capabilities here. Never mind, just go on thinking that if somebody dares take issue with Ambrose he must be anti-American, and hole up in your very sophisticated and informed patriotism.

Have a nice day.

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

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).]

[Bastables]

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

Bastables....

I am not ignoring anything. I just have read many accounts of this behavior from Americans. I did'nt say it was never shown by Germans or Brits.

I believe it is a fact that certain armies have certain behaviors. The book I am reading now, "Fighting in Hell" is a collection of reports from captured German officers for US intel about the characteristics of the Russian soldiers in battle. These were written by the men who were there, they are accurate. So maybe certain armies of certain eras exhibit certain qualities: Good or bad. Maybe, because it is written of so much, Russians are slow to learn on the battlefield but are some of the most viciuos fighters. Maybe Italians, for whatever reason in WWII, did have a tendancy to run reguardless of training (not all....but alot...again...reading this). Maybe Americans did exhibit better inititive qualities then most when stripped of their leaders. and maybe the Brits did like to stop everything to have tea.

and to my dear Germanboy....

I was writing about how you said "Where did you pick this gem of info up??? Ambrose??"

as if anything out of Ambrose mouth is garbage. That is what I meant by you slamming him, not about you later reserving your judgement, which doesnt make sense after you already judged him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stereotypes in my field of study, social anthropology is at the minimum frowned upon, the idea that an individual is a perfect avatar for their culture is well quite simply wrong which is why culture is seen by many within anthropology as a pc manner in implying inherent racial qualities, i.e. Italians are always Ice cream soldiers, the Americans have always been civilians in uniform and are therefore ill disciplined and unprofessional, British troops are Superb defensive fighter yet very poor on the attack. We are trying to move away from the ideas that excused slavery and racism; Africans process lower IQ’s yet are stronger than Europeans and are therefore better suited to blue collar as opposed to white-collar work. Your creation of Russian as stupid but stoic fighters buys into the German explanations of how the ‘greatest army the world has ever seen’ was strategically out thought by Russian high command and a German reason for the end effects of poor training given to the mythical Russian solider compared to the mythical German soldier. The Germans as able to outthink and outmanover everyone could never think or even concive of the Russians as being able to out think them on the strategic level, no they only beat ‘the greatest army’ through sheer animal brawn and numbers. Seem racial predjous will play a large part in German discussion of their enemy, as the Russians CO’s will ascribe their victories to communist fortitude and stoicism vs. the morally rotten fascist. Its all bollocks, all it indicates is how the upper levels of the military wish to think of ‘their’ war.

Again I have to support Germanboys thoughts on Ambrose, he's a storyteller and not as good at storytelling or history as Kipling was, so as in all historial works one read one should take a bag of salt with them and refuse to rely on one writer/historian. Ambrose is just staggering in his myth creation even for one such as my self who works at the subjective level of humanity, and has to work with the assumption of I think this is what Villiger/urban dweller y is saying and what they belive, to insure that the reader understands that my anthroplogical work is based upon my understanding, inherent when the one understands that the anthroplogist or any person is not and could never be a cipher.

Germanboy, old bean did you recive my setup for TF rose?

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 11-23-2000).]

[PeterNZer]

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

I am not ignoring anything. I just have read many accounts of this behavior from Americans. I did'nt say it was never shown by Germans or Brits. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, stupid people must be punished.

Please don't try and dodge what you have previously stated. If you wish to admit you made an error in the way you put your case forward, do so, but when you said..

<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>

.. implying that although all soldiers were 'good'.. American soldiers were 'better' you are coming out with your position quite clearly.

In fact, the US was as crap along with everyone else, after all, didn't Rommel say he could take over the world with an Army of New Zealanders?

National modifiers are a bunch of ass. It comes down to training, equipment, leadership, morale and so on.

Lets look at Russia, for much of that conflict the Russians were on the retreat. Their leaders had fled the front, often leaving entire divisions without leaders. Weapons were poor, training worse, no wonder they fled repeatedly and showed poor initative.

However, I would like to point out that on many occassions the Russians displayed excellent tactical thinking and troops prooved to be as brave as anyone else. For starters look at the battles around Elnya where the Russian army ground down the Germans in a long and bitter struggle. There's the battles around Moscow, and of course Stalingrad. Later on in the war the Russians took advantage of the German propensity for pincer/encircling attacks to sucker the Germans into the defeat after the German operation 'citadel' which involved fierce fighting on all sides.

As for the rest of the worlds forces, the idea of placing some kind of national modifiers on forces disgusts me for two reasons. One, there is there no real historical evidence of some kind of born-in trait other than the traits of training/morale/leadership etc etc etc, all ALREADY represented in the game, implementing such a fact smacks of 'poor science'. The other cause for my disgust is that it does a HUGE diservice to the many brave men and women who did their duty.

As for 'accounts' from soldiers, proper academic studies show that soldiers perceptions of the battles they fight in are often grossly distant from the truth, (check 'An intimate history of killing' for many detailed references), furthermore, that in combat men around the world tend to operate in a fairly similar way. How they are led, instructed, trained etc is really what makes the difference. You can't base judgement of an army on what soldiers say.

In the above mentioned book they talk about different training techniques tried by the allies, Paton's call to 'get the men to shoot', (inexperienced soldiers would often just not fire their rifles, even as the enemy advanced on them) and a myriad of other factors. This has NOTHING to do with where you are born, but comes down to those factors mentioned.

If you wish to simulate the ideas of better or worse units in CM, it's VERY easy to do so, simply buy/create veteran forces or veteran leaders with bonuses. Watch how veterans operate under fire and the casualties they can inflict, (Especially at close range) and you will see this 'better initiative' and so on first hand.

Buddy

Don't get uppity. You opened a topic and asked or discussion, you got it! If people are a bit firey it's simply because this has been discussed in detail before. Now you have read what people have to say, and evaluated it, do you think we have a point? Or are you not actually looking for a discussion at all? Yes, sometimes people disagree with you, sometimes people simply know more than you and sometimes these people are right. Choose to disagree if you wish, but don't chicken out

PeterNZ

ps. You know a thought just struck me, a certain guy, got elected in Germany in the early 30's, he had these kinda ideas about qualities in various countries, now what was his name again...

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

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." George W Bush -Saginaw, Mich.,

Sept. 29, 2000

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

[jshandorf]

Something I think that could be added that would at least simulate bravery or cowardice is the chance that troops could act in such a way.

For instance.. Say a unit is routed and there is only a 15% chance they will rally. Well.. Maybe there could also be a another percentage based off of the rally chance that they go back to alert status immediately. It could be a 10% chance of the base rally chance, so the unit I described above would have a 1.5% chance of this happening.

This in a way could simulate leadership from "within the ranks" type of thing happening.

You could also increase the 10% modifier depending on the experience level.

You could also do this for a "cowardice" chance and maybe a "bravery" chance.

Sound interesting?

Jeff

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

[buddy]

What I protested was this attitude of "Oh yeah, well you're a complete horse's ass...what rock did you dig YOUR information up from?"

I could care less.

Everyone has different opinions, this is true. I should think that we could all express those without putting the heat on anyone.

Funny thing is, I've been slammed for NOT defending an opinion I wasn't really attached to in the first place - I just brought it up to bring it up. Get over it.

[PzKpfw 1]

From scanning the thread I wanted to add that I have seen 'experience' used to generaly reflect that combat performance is superior to units w/o CE, I would add this was not the always the case Ie, the British 7th Armored performed absmyl in Normandy as did several other experienced British vetran divisions Ie, the 50th etc, all were vetrans of NA.

Despite their previous combat experence they were apperently in no way, prepared for the bocage fighting, nor did they lack courage just arguably initiative. Several key opertunities were missed, do to overcaution etc. IIRC D'este goes into this in quite a bit of detail in his Normandy book, as well as comparing US & UK small unit leadership and performance, but this is from memory as I havent picked up the book in years.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[PeterNZer]

John, that factor is represented by your playing, not by the way individual squads and units behave I would think.

Feel free to take a bocage scenario as brits and play badly, I'll take the Germans

Buddy

In response to your most recent "why is everyone picking on me" post, lets look at the progress of this discussion:

- Your first post asked for comments.

- next post asks where you heard this, (Reasonable request)

- You add in something about the game, which isn't particularly related to the previous post, but never mind.

- Next two posts bring up issues with the whole idea. This is what you were asking for????

- You then proceeded to state this:

<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? Not really a bonus - more of a penalty to Axis forces.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As we can see you moved from asking some opinion, (which you got) to stating some fact, (along with the contradiction implicit in the final sentence).

- Next post questions where you heard this, not even a flaming 'what a load of crap!', a mere request, and it seems the questioner had a pretty good idea where you heard it! Was he correct?

- You follow up by getting all defensive and using the old 'waaaa tha nasty man is being mean to me' dialectic approach.

- Next FIVE posts give you some sources, some info about historians, some clarification of points made and questions on your points. (this is what, in laymans terms, we call a 'debate').

- Rest of thread consumed by debating with Lanzfield over his statements. Essentially you are ignored from this point on until your most recent post.

which included

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Funny thing is, I've been slammed for NOT defending an opinion I wasn't really attached to in the first place - I just brought it up to bring it up. Get over it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet as we have seen you did feel the need to bring up an opinion after your first post and got all huffy that people questioned it. why didn't you say then 'I could be talking out my bunghole, this is just what I have heard, please enlighten me'

You also say

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I could care less.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then why did you ask in the first place?!

You have to remember that this board has a lot of well educated people here who are used to debate and debate techniques. This kinda statement...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What I protested was this attitude of "Oh yeah, well you're a complete horse's ass...what rock did you dig YOUR information up from?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...shows that you are clearly not used to this kind of debate. If you have some idea and want it checked, just say it! Say "I read on the back of a cornflakes packet that German soldiers were worse because they ate a lot of sausage, is this true?" and you will find many people willing to discuss the issue. Posting a question, then getting huffy people don't agree with the opinion up for discussion, then posting a more inflammatory opinion and getting even more upset it just a bit silly, don't you think?

PeterNZ

(ps. when are you damn Yanks going to choose a president so I can change my sig? )

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

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." George W Bush -Saginaw, Mich.,

Sept. 29, 2000

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

[buddy]

PeterNZer et al,

I apologize for being a woosie earlier but I do believe the tone of the board has changed considerably since before the game was released. Nuff said about that.

In reference to where I heard it earlier, consider this snippet from an earlier post by BTS:

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

Big Time

Software

Moderator

posted 06-09-1999 06:24 PM

Oh, forgot to mention about leaders specifically...

Without them your units are in big trouble. They improve reaction time and help steady their men under fire. They also act as a rally point for men that are panicked or broken (well, if they stop long enough ). Leaders have to be in contact with their troops. Poorer the quality, shorter the distance. Nationalities are also modeled differently.

Leaders are the lifeblood of the game. Without them you are toast. Some leaders are really good, and help your units by spotting better, having greater command radius, or lower response time. Others are poor and actually hinder your troops by poorer spotting, smaller command radius, longer response time, and even greater chance of unit panic. All this stuff has been in the game for months. Works REALLY well too!

- Steve

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

I knew I'd heard the general idea - leaders (HQ units) improve reaction time, etc. Once they are gone then you have hindered troops.

Now the only thing I wanted to ask was would American troops be less hindered than Axis if they were leaderless - I have nothing to base this on specifically except books in general on WWII, history channel specials and the like where I got the impression that American troops generally took charge when their leadership got killed off whereas Axis troops in general were conditioned to take orders only and taking initiative was frowned upon.

That was the basic gist of my posting and I apologize for not being more specific. I am fairly ignorant of the similar threads posted about some nationalities being better than others and I don't get in on flame wars.

[Spook]

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

As for the rest of the worlds forces, the idea of placing some kind of national modifiers on forces disgusts me for two reasons. One, there is there no real historical evidence of some kind of born-in trait other than the traits of training/morale/leadership etc etc etc, all ALREADY represented in the game, implementing such a fact smacks of 'poor science'. The other cause for my disgust is that it does a HUGE diservice to the many brave men and women who did their duty.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just wanted to mention here quickly, PeterNZer, that this paragraph of yours is a very good summation of my view also, in regards to the spurious notion of "inbred combat capability by nationalist/societal background".

Ed

[Lanzfeld]

Walter....

What in the world would I ever have to say I'm sorry for? Go back to bed.

Germanboy....

You are telling me that you didnt mean to slam Ambrose with you comment? Please, you sound like Clinton. Look at that context and tell me more lies.

Bastables.....

Your correct in saying that stereotyping is not in popular fashion nowadays. But I think at some point you have to admit that some of them are true. At some levels we seem to do it and accept it everyday. I dont want to slip too far off topic here. Anyway, my original post was saying that I have just read alot of these accounts. It makes me wonder, at least, if they are true. I suspect everyone has an answer but the truth is nobody has an answer.

PeterNZer.....

Well, I certainly didnt sit here and call anyone STUPID. That seems to make you feel better though. By the way...it's Lanzfeld...no I. Go check your history. The Russians were slow to learn and they were on the offense just as much as defense. In fact on the offense is where they were very slow to learn and it cost them millions of lives. Your comment about me thinking like Hitler is really off. Wow. I never said Americans were beter soldiers. Dont worry there little NZ. Your just as good as us. I simply said there are many accounts of non-American soldiers bringing this quality up. Why did you call me stupid for writing this on the Forum?