The flying Dutchman Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Hello, my name is Justin and Í'm new on this forum, but I hope I can give my opinion of what I'd like to see in SC2. The first thing that I would find cool, is that The Netherlands (Holland) would be seperated from the rest of the benelux(Low countries)So as Belgium and perhaps Luxemburg. Secondly, In stead of just 1 corps, Holland would have had a much bigger army than in SC1. For instance, Holland had quite a good airforce which was located near Den Haag (The Hague) and some naval vessels (submarines, cruisers) Those ships fled to Britain after Holland was defeated. Also the government fled to London, but that isn't important for the game... About the airfleet: Holland had a very good fighter, the focker ???. I now that because my grandfather, who lived in Rotterdam, once saw 1 Dutch fighter take out 2 german fighters. (my grandfather also experienced the bombing of Rotterdam) In the years before the German invasion, Holland had built up its armed forces, and positioned it behind the 'waterlinie' (waterline) This was a defensive line which could have defended against the germans, but they had tanks which crushed trough the defensive lines of The Netherlands but also the rest of the BENELUX. So you could say that 1 corps was located along the borderline, 1 in perhaps Amsterdam, 1 airfleet in The Hague and a cruiser in the port of Rotterdam. This is all a suggestion, but historicly correct. I hope some other Dutch people can add some information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt88 Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Well, if the Dutch get more forces, Belgium would have to get Eben Emael, the mightiest fortress in Europe at the time. MORE POWER TO THE LOW COUNTRIES !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 "Ah, here they are, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg. Geez -- !" [ February 02, 2004, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt88 Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Better watch it, we'll take over your airspace in a second Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 You'll have to put your name on the waiting list. Anyway, why should we worry about protecting the airspace over Youngstown Ohio when we've got gizmos kicking up dust on Mars?! :confused: Great photo. So that's what JetTech Level 7 looks like! At the time that photo was taken I'll bet Belgium had a larger military Air Arm than the United States! The Wright Bros had people interested all over the globe, but not in America. It's incredible how this country has been so backwards, so often, and always come out looking good -- not so amazing, actually, as summed up in two words: Atlantic and Pacific. [ January 31, 2004, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 A little history of Holland. At one time they ran one of the largest trading Empires in the World! I know quite well the history since my continual Europa Unversalis 2 World Of Exploration Scenario makes the Dutch a VERY Formidable Force. Equal to England in Navy lacking only the Manpower for a massive Army to Conquor and Plunder the World Over. Technology Leaders, great bankers, likely a good balancing force against making the British Empire #1 too early, plus keeping Spain and Portugal Honest Of Great Colonial Nations, I'd have to say Portugal/Spain/England/France/Netherlands Top all time http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/brummett_awl/chapter20/medialib/thumbs/ch20_378.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Liam, Yes, excellent input. One of Hitler's considerations after taking Holland and Belgium was the postwar ownership of the resource rich Congo and the oil/rubber/tin wealthy Dutch East Indies. He especially did not want Japan becoming too powerful at that time; a little known bit of history. The terms he used were something like, "We need to be careful that the Red Colonial Empire is not replaced with a Yellow one." Of those nations, Holland and Portugal lacked the population to fully exploit their global positions. As Spain never became industrialized it had to buy commodities such as ships cannon from Britain, France, various German States and even Muscovy Russia. As these things were always complicated by who was currently at war with the Spanish the transactions often became complicated and expensive. At it's height, during the Reign of Phillip II and his immediate successors, Spain and Portugal, for a time joined together, were always about five years in debt to the Genoese, Venetian and Dutch bankers who served as middlemen in the arms transactions! One writer said of Portugal, "It's gold and silver wealth from the Americas and elsewhere fell like rain from the roofs of it's fine cathedrals, leaving little for the Portuguese themselves." Great map. I think you'd be better off posting it as an image -- the link is stretching the page -- when that happened the other day without an oversized photo causing it, the Forum lost all those posts. I don't know if there's any correlation, but I've just examined the entrails of a rooster and, well, who knows? [ January 31, 2004, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 This brings up an interesting problem. If you give the Benelux its proper forces, how do you ensure they fall as quickly as they did in real life? Its the same problem on a lesser scale, that you have with France '40. Benelux had thirty one (31) combat divisions. Netherlands had one (1) motorized division, Belgiums had two (2) cavalry divisions and the rest for both were infantry divisions. Thats almost a million men who were mobilized, but suppossedly they were less trained and had less equipment than the French. That works out to... Netherlands ....... two (2) Corps Belgiums .......... two (2) Armies, one (1) Corp As the SC Air units represent 1000 aircraft, Benelux doesn't have enough combat aircraft to represent a SC Air unit. I didn't record the naval ships, so I don't know how many they are. Benelux has nine (9) hexes, of which only three (3) (behind the river line) need to be defended. Even if you have Benelux units beyond that river line in the northernmost hex, there are still enough units leftover to defend the three important hexes. If the Germans have experience bars (which they should), we can represent the differences between the training and skill sets among the infantry. In theory, attacking German infantry should weaken the defenders enough to create a gap. Luft attacks would be needed to remove the defender(s) of Brussels. Then the German Armor should be able to exploit the gap in the line and take Brussels. Benelux falls. Issues that would need to be resolved would be stacking; German paratroopers; Armor breakthru (ie ability to move after combat); and Operating moves. There may be others. With the experienced German units being in Poland (gaining even more experience), it makes sense for Germany to use those units against Benelux. So we have one reason for four to five months elapsing after the fall of Poland before the invasion of Benelux. Limiting Operating moves and the readiness effects of movement should make it take most of that time to shift from Poland to the West. You could also make a case for weather effects on Luft (ie cannot conduct combat in WINTER or even most of FALL). Work the about out, and you've solved 80% of your issues for getting a historical result in France '40. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 This is a very interesting aspect. von Manstein's plan was helped, not hindered, by the fact that the Low Countries were full of Belgian, Dutch, British and French troops. Once the Germans broke the main river lines, which they did while the Anglo-French were still leaving Flanders, the Dyle Plan was already doomed. When the breakthrough came behind their line of advance, at Sedan, it created a herd type stampede to reverse and get back to the supply lines! An incredible fiasco. There's no way to duplicate any of that in this game system. Brussles / Antwerp become the supply base so this sort of plan doesn't work as well. Also, the sheer mass of units in the confined area is not a hinderance in SC, as it was in real life, especially aggravated by roads filled with fleeing civilians; something the Germans had to contend with four years later as they tried for the Rhine. Especially in the East, where masses of German civilians and entire military formations tried to reach Anglo-American surrender in the West. But there's tons of interesting material to consider here despite the game limitations. [ January 31, 2004, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les the Sarge 9-1 Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 It is usually impossible to directly or intentionally recreate the exact specifics of history. Fact, the Germans had their act together and the allies DIDN'T The numbers of units "available" and national pride are often of no real importance to the reality. Eben Emael was an impressive fortress. And it was taken out by a handful of paratroops totally outside of the game's ability to deliberately recreate. Nor is it possible for the Germans to drive through the Ardennes to the channel and force the allied player to make the paniced withdrawal. Currently, as it stands, in spite of personal opinions, the LC situation seems to accurate reflect the "conditions" of the time. Attack correctly it falls. Attack incorrectly, and you have a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The flying Dutchman Posted February 1, 2004 Author Share Posted February 1, 2004 Well the history of Holland is quite interesting but hasn't got a lot to do with this game but I have a question: How much ships does one cruiser represent? I once found a website where i read how much naval vessels Holland had, Í'll try to find it again. I like the idea of giving Holland and Belguim more ground troops, but I also realize that that would decrease the chance of a quick victory over The Low Countries. But you must also understand that Germany used a lot of bombers too, to take out both groundforces as aircraft etc. According to my grandfather, there was 1 huge wave of bombers which bombed Rotterdam. The population of Rotterdam thought it was on its way to England, but the bombers turned and went straight to...Rotterdam And someone also mentionned the small numbers of hexes, well why cant the creators make smaller but more hexes instead of the nine which are there now in SC1 ? But once again it is all a suggestion...and its not only that I say this because I live in The Netherlands, but I'd like the game to be more diverse instead of to follow History. I hope to hear from you guys soon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The flying Dutchman Posted February 1, 2004 Author Share Posted February 1, 2004 Well the history of Holland is quite interesting but hasn't got a lot to do with this game but I have a question: How much ships does one cruiser represent? I once found a website where i read how much naval vessels Holland had, Í'll try to find it again. I like the idea of giving Holland and Belguim more ground troops, but I also realize that that would decrease the chance of a quick victory over The Low Countries. But you must also understand that Germany used a lot of bombers too, to take out both groundforces as aircraft etc. According to my grandfather, there was 1 huge wave of bombers which bombed Rotterdam. The population of Rotterdam thought it was on its way to England, but the bombers turned and went straight to...Rotterdam And someone also mentionned the small numbers of hexes, well why cant the creators make smaller but more hexes instead of the nine which are there now in SC1 ? But once again it is all a suggestion...and its not only that I say this because I live in The Netherlands, but I'd like the game to be more diverse instead of to follow History. I hope to hear from you guys soon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 http://leden.tref.nl/%7Ejviss000/Default.htm This is a listing of the Dutch ships that were around at the time. Apparently as the site indicates much of the newly formed Dutch navy was smooshed during the German Invasion I'm certian it would be fair competition for the Kriegsmarine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 The most notable Dutch squadron was in the Indies where it was wiped out in early 1942 at the Battle of the Java Sea. An Allied force with poor multi-lingual communications commanded by Dutch Admiral Dorman was brushed aside without difficulty by the Imperial Navy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzeh Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 I think if the Germans take too long Amsterdam should become an island. Had the Dutch had more time they could have flooded tons of land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 That was the plan, somehow it was never executed, most accounts say it was due to German paratroopers. I've never seen what it was supposed to accomplish, isolated and bypassed they would have been forced to surrender very quickly. The Royal Navy could not have supplied them, it would have been a prolonged Dunkerque with ships serving as targets for aircraft. Stratigically the only part of Holland that concerned Germany was the Maastrciht Appendix, which they needed to move across on their way through Belgium, it's roads and those running into Belgium serving as a major supply route. The rest of Holland north of that region could just as easily have been by passed. The Germans were also hoping British and French troops would be drawn there to make their Ardennes plan easier, in other words, drawing the Allied neck further into the Axis noose. The Dutch would themselves have had no counter-attack or breakout opportunities, a sort of large, useless, Corregedor on the North Sea. Not one of histoy's well planned defenses. [ February 02, 2004, 04:33 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Originally posted by JerseyJohn: The Dutch would themselves have had no counter-attack or breakout opportunities, a sort of large, useless, Corregedor on the North Sea. Not one of histoy's well planned defenses. But it was developed while -the french army was praised to be the finest army of the world (proven wrong in 1940) and -every admiral would have told you that these lousy planes would never be able to sink Cruiser or Battleships (proven wrong in Taranto 1940 / Pearl & Singapore 1941) -parachutes where used to save pilots only Nice link regarding Taranto [ February 02, 2004, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: xwormwood ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 xwormwood You're right, many Western European planners were deluded by their own bold statements! Up till Norway most Navies did hold that warships could hold their own against air attacks. Up till the Battle of Britain many air strategists were still deluded into thinking bombers could successfully defend themselves against intercepting fighters. Meanwhile the only people who were not over confident were the French generals. The higher the rank the more filled with doom their reasoning. Either filled with doom, or filled with the delusion that they could deadlock the borders, wear the Hun out at the Rhine, and win with counter-offensives later in the war. Interesting period. Books written on this part of the war during 1942-43-etc are filled with explanations about fifth column activities, exaggerated accounts of German paratroop attacks and other not quite accurate reasons why the Allies lost so quickly. I recall one titled The Six Weeks War, which I read when I was twelve and got me really interested in this intelectual wasteland. It was written in 1942 and claimed Eben Emael was built entirely by German contractors who dutifully turned the blueprints in to the Fuhrer! I don't know how much of that is true, I'll look it up today. Hopefully you or someone else will know for certain. But the thing is none of those wartime accounts were willing to come right out and say that the Germans had won it by dint of superior training, leadership and especially air domination. The belief in a German Fifth Column, a term rarely used these days, came about through the road confusion exasserbated by streams of refugees. Most historians of the time felt German agents were creating this deliberately, somehow. Terrific Taranto link. What a dramatic proof of the fatality of falling behind in technology; if the Italians had AA radar both the fleet and the aircraft would have been detected long before they reached the Italian boot. Amazing how the British get such good results with obsolete items like Swordfish torpedo aircraft. The guys flying them were themselves afraid of the prospect of finding a target capable of shooting back, but they scored against the Bismarck and also against the Italian BBs. The Kriegsmarine had a modern tracking guage on their ships AA guns, making it easier for gunners to keep the weapon on target. Unfortunately the Swordfish was below the minimum setting and, when the Bismarck was attacked, there was no way of overriding the mechanism to track slow aircraft manually. Just shows how dangerous it is to be too technically advanced! [ February 02, 2004, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H.J. von Arnim Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Hi JJ, I am also glad to you've returned from hospital As I am sure that german is not problem for you at all by now you my find the attached link useful - Enjoy ! http://www.pickelhaube.de/2wk/eben-emael.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Greetings von Arnim Many thanks and it's great to be back. I think I've been overposting since getting out, maybe going through some sort of withdrawl from being away from the computer for a month. Thanks for the link, my German is still on a pre-schooler level but I'll chip away at it. There are so many German words in English that I think it would be an easy thing for young kids to pick up if they learned the two languages together and early. The problems seem to start in the written sense, primarily because the grammar of the two languages appears to be different. I know when I hear German it's easier to pick things out than when I read it. Must be interesting to speak German and learn English. I notice most people who go that route speak English very well, the only tip off is little things like v's and w's becoming confused and grammatically some words like should being used in place of would, but the difference is so slight it isn't even the wrong usage, only one that most Americans wouldn't use. I've got to got to a used book store and try reading some books written in German with a translating dictionary by my side, that might do it. For a while I tried learning Spanish by learning some words and watching Spanish-language TV shows, but they talk too fast for me to follow and I end up changing the channel. Oh, the disadvantages of a slow motion mind. Can't read the link well enough to find out about the contractors. Searched the web and there's only superficial articles in English (no comment) with a lot of material in German and what appears to be French but I guess is actually Belgian -- are they the same language? There's a book on it, The Fall of Eben Emael - James E. Mrazek and I'll see if it's at my local Library. Oddly, despite being located in this marshy wilderness, it has a very good history department. [ February 02, 2004, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 On Fall of France and the Allied weakness defending LC: Found some articles on the web quoted from a book on Fall of France and Wermacht vs Allied Performance..that German troops took Massive casualties and kept going. Some places as much as 75%, when around 25% is norm for an army unit to break. Guess you can come to one conclusion, the Germans were determined perhaps beyond the expectations and Determination of the Allies! I always thought if I was a Mini-Nation like the Netherlands or say modern day Kuwait during a time of trouble I'd buy 2,000 or 3,000 tanks and some air and use them instead of trying to raise a large army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Yes, the Germans or more properly, the Prussians, took very severe losses during the 1870-71 war with France, which is one of the reasons they didn't press for more territory despite their decisive, though pyhric, victory. Looking at the old footage of German infantry crossing rivers during bright daylight in rubber dinghies under intense fire, it's easy to understand how they had such huge casualties. In a little more than five years it was three and a half million dead soldiers out of a base population of seventy-five million, and that doesn't include civillian losses. Hideous though not as bad as the Russian figures, even proportionate to their much larger population. The average American has no clue as to how other countries have really suffered in times of war. Forgetting about modern weapons, the Thirty Years War, with it's concurrent witch mania, is said to have killed off half the German population, low estimates are one third, high estimates are two thirds. And before that there were those fun loving Mongols turning entire nations into wasteland ... [ February 02, 2004, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 some links : Short Story & Pics about / from Eben-Emael yes, that is another one Finaly the official Homepage JerseyJohn, i fear that your in 1942 written historybook might be wrong about german traitors providing blueprints to the Kaiser or the Fuehrer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 xwormwood I'm quite sure you're right. Thanks for the links, will go to them after posting this. The last time I saw that book, a little red hardcover thing, was back in the seventies. Even if it's all bunk I'd love to find it, probably one of my nephews has it, nice to have just for nostalgia. It talked a lot about Rommel as the commander of the 5th Panzer "The Ghost" Division, no doubt due to his successes in Libya and Egypt during the following year, but it was apparent that even with the war in progress he was an heroic figure even in the U. S.. What I remember fondly about it is the author's easy to grasp explanation of the weakness of river lines when breached by a mobile foe who fans out and starts rolling up the flanks. It also gave a great account of the failed French counterattacks and, as a kid, I began to wonder if the B.E.F. had really done the right thing by turning to Dunkirk and the Channel instead of trying to bludgeon it's way back to France, holding the way open for the French armies as well. Decades later I'm convinced they abandoned their ally. It's as one French General said in a World at War interview, "To be a little selfish is understandable, but in the event they were very selfish." His voice was not bitter, but regretful. It would be good to go back and read that little book again in light of all the information that has been added during the six decades that followed. Anyway, it does seem to me that if a significant amount of the fortification had been built by German contractors it would have been mentioned in the links, so I have to agree with you, it was only a wartime myth. Aside from which, the broken forts of Liege, smashed in 1914 by Krupp and Skoda 360 & 420 mm guns were within sight of the new fortress. Marshal Gamelin hoped it would hold out for five days, even without thinking there was sabotage in the offing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Liam wrote: I always thought if I was a Mini-Nation like the Netherlands or say modern day Kuwait during a time of trouble I'd buy 2,000 or 3,000 tanks and some air and use them instead of trying to raise a large army. That's a very interesting question which has fascinated me for years, especially in relation to the defense of Poland in 1939. Conservatism is always a great hurdle to cross in reforming any army, and cost is the next one. In terms of cost effectiveness, the Poles could buy 10 excellent Bofors anti-tank guns for the price of 1 decent tank, armed with the same gun. The trouble with an all tank army is that they cannot be on the move 24 hours a day, they cannot hold territory, and they aren't so good in close terrain. Who will protect them at night while they are resting and refuelling? I would therefore opt for an all arms force which has a good mobile component, including some tanks, but most importantly, excellent communications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts