Real-Life Fanaticism

[JoshK]

No this is not a topic about Madmatt .

Instead, I thought it would be interesting for people to post some real life examples of fanaticism displayed by troops in the ETO. This would be useful for scenario designers when they are determining if there should be any increased setting for Fanaticism.

Here is one example:

On September 20, 1944 the 3rd Battalion of the 504th PIR, followed by 1st Battalion, performed the death-defying feat of crossing the Waal river by assault boat (a feet they had never practiced - one officer told a British colleague of XXX Corps that it was "on the job training) in order to seize the road and rail bridges at Nijmegen, Holland.

Having just read A Bridge Too Far, Ryan's account of this battle demonstrated what fanaticism is. While being battered by 88mm, 20mm and MG fire, the paratroops endured the crossing feeling totally helpless. Upon landing, the were enraged by a combination of the deaths of so many of their buddies, a chance to finally fight back, and a sense that they had somehow cheated death, so it became less terrifying. Therefore, in small groups, often lead by enlisted men, they crossed hundreds of meters of open land and literally assaulted a fortress. Often times a single man would assault a position held by five times his number. While I do not have Ryan's book with me, I remember a quote by an officer (may have even been Major Cook, the CO of the 3/504) who said that he had never seen such rage by an entire unit.

Any other good examples?

[Fionn]

Hmm, well I wouldn't really agree about the 504th in this case being an example of fanaticism. The groundpounders didn't know what they were getting themselves into when they went into the water and once in they were committed as there was, literally, no going back.

Fanaticism:

Soviet arty officer who had lost an arm and an eye sitting in a brewed up Soviet tank ( complete with dead bodies) for 3 days calling down arty whenever German supply convoys came along.

Or the SS Zugfuehrer who led a charge with a large sword in hand during street fighting in the Normandy area.

Or the recorded cases of tanks ramming eachother on the field of battle (not as common as propaganda would make it seem but still a definite occurence).

Hell, taking on a tank with a magnetic mine is pretty fanatical in my book. Overcoming the "tank terror" and chucking a big bomb onto a tank while in full sight of all its buddies isn't courageous, it's just mad

[JoshK]

Fionn,

You would know better than I, but from reading the most recent article on the Raider's CM page, it seemed that the fanaticism setting would affect the chances of units (based on experience level) to be fanatic. Therefore, it would safe to assume that adjusting this setting would impact a large number of units.

While I like all three of your examples (I remember reading the first one in Clark's Barbarossa and being chilled), do you have any examples of fanaticism displayed by a relatively large percentage of forces involved?

Thanks.

[Ghost Dog]

As I understand it,the fanaticism is not only good.Storming a Sherman tank armed with a peeling knife sure is courageous,but it´s also very stupid.Maybe there should something like ASL´s desperation morale in the game.

Ghost Dog

[tss]

In another thread I mentioned about the Soviet 700 men partisan patrol to Porajärvi. That patrol fulfills my definition of fanaticism pretty well.

The unit fought without supply for a month, living of berries, mushrooms, and an occasional fish, while being constantly on move.

Their wounded who couldn't walk were left behind to delay the pursuers and fought to death in most cases. Many blowed themselves up with hand grenades when the situation became hopeless.

Finns captured only 24 prisoners and IIRC only couple of them were not severely wounded when taken.

- Tommi

[Fionn]

JoshK,

Well I'd nominate the 12th SS in Normandy and at Falaise and most German units defending Berlin...

I think that fanaticism might be a bad way to describe it though.. FWIW I think the 12th SS fought to the death because it knew that by doing so it could allow its comrades to escape.

As for the Eastern Front I don't think that fighting to the death there really signified fanaticism so much as realising that surrenders were often "declined" by the Soviets .

I think CM is gonna handle fanaticism differently for CM2 which will allow the variations to be modelled better.

[Guest Babra]

June 25, 1941, near Raseiniei, the fourth day of Barbarossa. A lone KV-1, only survivor of a counterattack by twenty of its fellows, reaches its objective athwart a German supply route. An unsuspecting supply convoy is shot afire by the lone monster blocking the road. The route could not be bypassed due to the swampy terrain. Ammunition for the 114th PanzerGrenadiers could not be brought forward, nor could wounded be evacuated, all due to the single KV-1 blocking the road.

Several 50mm PaK are destroyed when they try to engage the KV from a range of 500 yards. The Russian tank remains undamaged after fourteen direct hits. An 88 was brought forward. The Russians calmly allowed it to set up at 700 yards, then destroyed it too. The road remained blocked.

At night, Pioneers crept forward and attempted to demolish or immobilize the tank with satchel charges. The tracks were damaged in the explosion, but not sufficiently to immobilize it. The KV remained mobile. The supply road remained blocked. Russian civilians crept forward in the darkness and resupplied the vehicle with food and ammunition.

Late in the second day, the Germans mounted an noisy demonstration at long range with 50 tanks. While the Russian tank kept watch on them, a second camouflaged 88 set up to the rear of the Russians. Of twelve direct hits, three penetrated and the road was finally opened.

An entire division had been held up for the better part of two days during the critical opening phases of Barbarossa by a single tank...

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

Floreat Jerboa !

[RobVarak]

I think that Audie Murphy's CMO-winning rampage qualifies as fanaticism. Standing on top of an already burning TD while single-handedly blunting an enemy counter-attack isn't exactly rational behavior.

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

Rob Varak

Editor

Site on Sound: The Web's Premier Site For Musical Discussion

www.siteonsound.com

[Stryker]

Josh,

Great example from a great book! It's been years since I read it. I'm not exactly sure what the definition of fanatic really is, but those guys crossing the river were certainly heroic.

Regards,

Stryker

[Spook]

This time, Fionn, I'm gonna have to call you on your presumption that the paratroopers assaulting the Waal River weren't "fanatical" upon reaching the other river bank.

I read Ryan's book and a couple of others regarding this incident. It would be a bit much to claim that an entire battalion (3/504th) went fanatical as an entity in this assault, and only half of the battalion went across in the first wave anyway. But the survivors could have just as well cowered at the river bank and waited for more fire support. They didn't, and tore into the German defenders. And when they reached the railroad bridge, they killed over 250 Germans who panicked on the other side and tried to cross to escape.

Those actions pretty much seem to meet the arbitrary definition of "fanatical" troops. And the performance of some Marines at Iwo Jima could match anything you can throw as examples from the presumed standard "fanatical" troops (Soviets & German SS).

My point to this response is that "fanaticism" shouldn't be regarded as some trait that only certain armies or nations were capable of. All nations had their share of heros & cowards. And if a battle's circumstance's were extreme enough, it would push soldiers all the much harder to either panic completely or fight back even more savagely.

It can be fairly understood, however, why the Soviets often are cited for fanatical conduct. A universal trait for the Soviet people of WW2 is that they were no strangers to hardship, considering their ability to endure not only harsh climates but also the harshness of Stalin's rule for many years earlier. Thus for many Soviets, they proved able to take the added hardships of war in stride.

[Fionn]

1. It wasn't a presumption.

2. It was simply my expressed opinion.

3. If you call the 504th fanatical then you should call everyone who landed on D-day fanatical too. That just doesn't jive with me.

[Lee]

RobVarak: Why does everyone call it the "congressional" Medal of

Honor? It's just the Medal of Honor, I don't know why that name is

gotten wrong so often.

As far as fanaticism goes, I think one has to distinguish bravery

from fanaticism. Fanaticism would be more along the lines of

fighting with an almost, if not in fact, suicidal disregard for

losses in the pursuit of achieving an objective. Sometimes even

when the particular objective in question isn't of that great

an importance. Some elits units might exhibit this sort of

behavior.

In CM this would be manifested in hugely increased resistance

to suppression. And I would also hope CM has a very large bonus

in close quarters combat as well. This would simulate fighting it

out hand to hand with a bunch of lunatics.

[This message has been edited by Lee (edited 02-24-2000).]

[Stephen Smith]

Actualy, I would have to agree with JoshK that his example (if it was accurately described) WAS fanaticism, while Fionn's several examples do not qualify.

Fanaticism, it seems to be, would be the temporary insanity of a group of people-they are battle-raged, or shocked, to the point that normal psychological limits (fear of death) don't enter their minds.

If the case that Josh described is accurately described, it sounds like the unit (whether it was a whole battalion or just the initial squads landing on the beach) was fanatic-they lost their normal fear of death.

That is quite different from Normandy-at Omaha beach, the Americans DID do what those paratroopers could have done-they cowered on the beach for hours (from about 6:00 until 2:00 in the afternoon). That is the whole point of Josh's example-those paratroopers COULD have cowered, been ineffectual, etc. But instead, not only did they continue with the mission, it sounds like they did foolhardy things while doing so (the one guy scaling the wall of the fortress or whatever it was).

And the other examples (wounded tanker calling in artillery for three days, KV tank in place for two days, partisan group travelling and eating berries for a month)-they weren't temporary. They may have been fatalistic, and willing to keep fighting when most of us would have quit, but they weren't fanatic (as a comparison: the Squad Leader rules that cover fanaticism don't merely make a fanatic unit merely unbreakable-they make that unbreakable unit CHARGE the enemy and engage in hand to hand combat!).

Steve

[Aacooper]

Could BTS clarify (or restate) how fanaticism is implemented in the game?

Then, we´d have a better understanding of what historical examples are fanatic.

[Aacooper]

Sorry - should have searched first.

BTS´ original fanaticism post says that those troops won´t panic or surrender.

Given that definition, it incorporates a wide range of behavior and motivations. I think every example given is one of fanaticism.

[Fionn]

SS,

I don't know where you seem to get your idea that fanaticism has to be "temporary".

Fanatical fighters in everyday parlance would be a term applied to Japanese, SS and some other such units which often fought to the death and fought even when there was no hope of victory.

Such behaviours do NOT necessarily have to be "temporary". SS troops often fought to the death as a conscious choice without the clouding of the mind of battle fury.

The idea that fanaticism is temporary is simply wrong IMO.

Also, I'd take great exception to using Squad Leader rules as a basis of what is realistic . What YOU are talking about is what happens to a BERSERK unit. Berserk units are NOT the same as fanatical units. You have your terms and conditions mixed up.

[Stephen Smith]

Fionn-

You are correct. I had mixed up 'berserk' with 'fanaticism.' However, it is quite obvious how and why I did-Josh's original post did the same thing. Where did I get the idea that fanaticism has to be temporary? I'll quote the original post (you could go back and look it up yourself, but I'm sure you are too busy insulting CPT Manieri for not doing the very same thing).

"A sense that they had somehow cheated death, so it became less terrifying...enraged by the combination of the deaths of so many of their buddies...he had never seen such rage by an entire unit."

Josh was obviously talking about temporary battlefield insanity-what SL called berserk, what I originally thought he meant when he said 'fanatic,' what he actually did mean when he said 'fanatic,'. He was NOT talking about really devoted soldiering (like the two tankers)-soldiering to the point of death because surrendering was not an option (like SS on the Eastern Front), or really skillful fighting(like marines, SS on the Western Front), as your post discussed.

Steve

[Fionn]

Well, his topic title includes the word fanaticism and not the word berserk so that's what I discussed.

Furthermore he IS obviously talking about fanaticism as modelled in CM , and I quote,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This would be useful for scenario designers when they are determining if there should be any increased setting for Fanaticism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and since CM ONLY models fanaticism and not berserking I chose to confine myself to what JoshK intended to discuss.

That he ended up straying into berserking was a cul de sac I chose not to follow. IOW I chose to discuss what Josh really wanted to discuss, fanaticism as it applies to CM, and not what he gave examples of ( berserking) since he didn't want to discuss berserking.

Lastly,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> (you could go back and look it up yourself, but I'm sure you are too busy insulting CPT Manieri for not doing the very same thing). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gees Smith will you PLEASE take your agenda and shove it where the sun don't shine as opposed to following myself or Matt around and posting this kind of drivel.

I do NOT want to have to deal with your kind of crap on a daily basis. I did NOT start anything here today so why can't you be mature enough not to bring your own petty, pathetic and snide little agendas into these discussions.

C'mon. Josh, I and others were trying to have an interesting discussion about fanaticism in war and what parameters could be utilised to determine if units should be labelled as fanatic in scenario design. We didn't all agree with eachother but with continued rational discussion we'd probably have all come to an agreed position. This is both an interesting and worthwhile discussion and you bringing your little snide agenda into it is unworthy of the discussion.

Even a cursory look at your posting history would show this agenda easily. Take my advice and lose the chip on your shoulder and just try to have some nice discussions ok? You'll find yourself enjoying the forum a lot more if you participate in it without such an obvious agenda.

[Spook]

Alright, Fionn, in your clarification of terms, I will agree that "beserk" and "fanaticism" can be defined separately, and that fanaticism would certainly be more applicable (in CM terms) to the troop examples you have cited. You are probably wrong again, though, in dismissing the 3/504th as not even being fanatical following the Waal River assault. They may have hit the river bank "beserk", but it was very likely fanaticism that carried them on to the bridges. I say so because the time to reach the bridges didn't happen in the space of a few seconds or minutes.

But you know----I REALLY would have appreciated you being more definitive right when you immediately responded back to my post. Your statement about D-Day "fanaticism" is right in that it wouldn't jive with me either, but you're straying into apples and oranges when you equate the actions of two companies of paratroops with all of the invading troops hitting the beach on D-Day.

So then it spun out later to debating "beserk vs. fanatic" and now it's sunk to inferences and name-calling.

To Stephen Smith: I have to echo the sentiment of Fionn, that if you ARE indeed taking snipes at him, then I'd rather that you'd take it to private e-mail. You can tell me to get lost, of course, I'm only stating a preference for civil discussion.

But Fionn: You think that telling a guy to "shove it where the sun don't shine" or labelling him here as "petty" & "pathetic" & loaded with "agenda" is encouraging civil discourse? To me, the question mark here is who has the bigger chip on his shoulder. I'm too old of a man to be believe that such a style of response will resolve a debate satisfactorily.

It doesn't appear that anyone can claim moral high ground here, so perhaps we should all cool it for a stretch? Be a little less "beserk"?

As an e-mail friend of mine would say---Peace. Out.

[JoshK]

First of all, I am sorry that some discussion on this thread turned personal.

As Fionn said, I was just trying to have a discussion that did something I find quite interesting - melding historical circumstances with CM gameplay.

Fionn simply chose to disagree with my example, with is fine with me. If we all agreed, any discussion on this board would be quite stale.

Not being familiar with ASL (a heretic I know - my youthful paper and counter days were spent on operational-level games), I was unfamiliar with " berserk " behavior.

From what little I gleaned from this discussion and upon rereading the section in Ryan last night, I would argue that the 3/504 exhibited both types of behavior. They did give into a certain bloodlust that overcame common sense. However, Aacooper's citation of BTS' definition of Fanaticism - no panicking or surrendering - certainly fits the paratroops as well, IMHO. Not panicking under murderous fine and after taking heavy casualties is closely related to charging over open ground in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds. Once they got the German positions, perhaps they went berserk. Again, I am not familiar with ASL. However, it seems that the two are in no ways contradictory.

[Ron]

From Webster's Seventh Collegiate Dictionary (1970):

'Berserk' - an ancient Scandinavian warrior frenzied in battle and held to be invulnerable. 'Frenzied' - a temporary madness.

'Fanaticism' - behavior marked by excessive enthusiasm and intense uncritical devotion.

A clear definition is moot anyway as there is enough room for scenario designers to interpret it in a given battle given BTS's definition of troops who won't panic or surrender.

Ron

[Fionn]

Spook,

Actually I didn't call SS petty or pathetic. I called his agenda petty and pathetic. It's a small distinction but important IMO. And FWIW if you check some of his recent posts you'll see why I hold the opinion I do of his agenda.

As for encouraging resolution of the issue satisfactorily... Hell, it didn't work when I tried to be nice to him last time and I doubt it'll work this time. I'm no saint and if someone comes in here with an agenda I make NO apologies for telling him to get stuffed. I see no reason to treat with respect someone who shows me none.

Those who treat me reasonably are treated VERY well in return. Those who come in here sniping should know I won't just sit here like a meek little target.

Furthermore, like I said, I've had a death in my close family so my mood isn't all that great and I would hope that people would show a little bit more compassion than coming in here to kick me while I'm down.

So, was it cool for me to label his agenda pathetic? Maybe not but he attacked me first and I only responded by decrying his agenda (which is clear to anyone who does a little research). I didn't call him names etc.

Personally I feel it was VERY uncool for him to come on here and kick me while I am down so to speak.

JoshK,

Don't tell anyone but I didn't play ASL or SL either . I don't think not playing them disqualifies opinions in any way.

After reading the various points made and having a think about it I actually would change my position slightly. I don't think it the 504th was fanatical when getting in the boats (I think they were just blissfully ignorant of what was going to happen). I DO think they were berserk by the time they got to the other side though.

One reason I'm still not sure of saying they were fanatical (in CM terms) is that in CM terms fanatical troops start the game that way and remain that way for the entire scenario. The troopers in the 504th weren't fanatical during the entire battle. They just became "berserk" due to stress of being under fire during the crossing.

It's probably a case of 50/50 IMO. I wouldn't make them fanatical if I was making a scenario of the 504th but I wouldn't find it unreasonable for someone to make them fanatical in a scenario they designed and use the argument that while they weren't fanatical really that the best way to represent their mental attitude in CM IS to make them fanatical.

[Fionn]

10 Cool points for anyone who can tell me where the word berserk comes from (think warrior tradition here)

[Ghost Dog]

Berserk;

an ancient nordic warrior(Viking)that are subject to sudden fits of anger.

Much like some people on this board.

Ghost-Dog

[Ghost Dog]

Oops

[This message has been edited by Ghost Dog (edited 02-25-2000).]