I will never loose as the Germans

[jon_j_rambo]

Any rules, any variants, any opponent...name it. I never loose as the Germans.

I can be reached at jon_j_rambo@yahoo.com if you need a good ass kicking.

[jasontad]

Hi,

I just sent you my e-mail address.

[I/O Error]

Heh. "any rules." Hey jasontad, give the Allies extra experience.

Make sure you two make an After Action Report (AAR) thread so we can all follow along! Fun for the whole forum, as it were.

[jon_j_rambo]

Jason,

I sent you my first move.

Politics: Random

Variants: all *On, except "War In Siberia"= *Off

I did put "Disable Undo"= *On, I consider this standard. Do you?

Good Luck,

Rambo

(Maybe I should get a German nickname?)

[Gman]

I like your confidence. Guess I'll have to take a number after Jason and I/O Error. But I would like to challenge you sometime. You as the Axis and myself as the Allies.

[JayJay_H]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

I never loose as the Germans.

Me either...!

[I/O Error]

Originally posted by Gman:

I like your confidence. Guess I'll have to take a number after Jason and I/O Error. But I would like to challenge you sometime. You as the Axis and myself as the Allies.

Oh no worries, I haven't placed a challenege yet, you are free to make the offer ahead of me.

[Emil Seibold]

The reason it can be so easy to win as the Germans is that historically the old Corporal demanded that "Troops Fight to the death! No Surrender" and overruled his military commanders all the time as the war progressed. He threw away some of the best military units in the world and kicked out the best commanders in the world because he thought he was smarter than everyone else. Its a fact of life for WW2 game designers of games like SC that they have to cover up this historical fact by weakening germany and making the AI smarter. Imagine-if the plots to kill hitler had succeded, even after the Normany landings, the German commanders could have turned the tide to Germany's favour. As an historian later said "They put the best men, minds and equipment into the worst possable hands". We lost because of a cripple with a bandy 'tasch. Otto must have been turning in his grave.

[sogard]

Originally posted by Emil Seibold:

The reason it can be so easy to win as the Germans is that historically the old Corporal demanded that "Troops Fight to the death! No Surrender" and overruled his military commanders all the time as the war progressed. He threw away some of the best military units in the world and kicked out the best commanders in the world because he thought he was smarter than everyone else. Its a fact of life for WW2 game designers of games like SC that they have to cover up this historical fact by weakening germany and making the AI smarter. Imagine-if the plots to kill hitler had succeded, even after the Normany landings, the German commanders could have turned the tide to Germany's favour. As an historian later said "They put the best men, minds and equipment into the worst possable hands". We lost because of a cripple with a bandy 'tasch. Otto must have been turning in his grave.

The above is simply wrong on a number of counts. German generalship throughout the war could be good; but, it was also frequently rather bad. The one thing German generals had in abundance was arrogance. The Red Army produced generals by the end of the war who were every bit as good as any fielded by the Wehrmacht. Patton, Eisenhower and even Montgomery were every bit as good as their Wehrmacht counterparts.

You gotta read more widely other than sources that tell WW II history from the German viewpoint. There are lots of books out there that give a much more balanced view of WW II.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Rambo, Ok, you , me 1944 campaign

[jon_j_rambo]

G-Man --- Nice to meet you, I'd love to play some new opponents. I've played 6 different people the campaign game so far. The Germans are the heavy favorite in my opinion. We can start a game whenever you like. I am able to play via e-mail a turn in the morning (post to you around 9:30 AM EST, & one or more in the evening 9:30 PM EST.) I live in Mountain Standard Time & work the normal 8-5 type job, so that's my schedule... But I'm going on vacation/out of town the week of Thanksgiving & won't be touching a computer for gaming, except for some sports betting via some public library. Just let me know. My e-mail is: jon_j_rambo@yahoo. I actually use a friends e-mail now for gaming, because yahoo servers don't seem to like uploading/downloading SC games. I currently am still using patch #4, because I have a few games going on. I'm playing one guy in a hot & heavy game...I'm the Allies & am actually being a factor in 1943. That's it for now.

Carl Van Mannerheim --- Sure enough. I'm man enought to take the '44 beating. I'll do the best I can. I measure my play against myself anyhow (kind of like my golf game).

Remember, I can start play anytime, but cannot play between Nov. 21 - Nov. 30.

jon_j_rambo@yahoo.com

[JayJay_H]

Originally posted by sogard:

The Red Army produced generals by the end of the war who were every bit as good as any fielded by the Wehrmacht. Patton, Eisenhower and even Montgomery were every bit as good as their Wehrmacht counterparts.

[/QB]

In fact, the Wehrmacht was simply outnumbered. Their soldiers tactical mastery and readiness for duty were second to none - Nobody can argue that point.

[Artos]

Hi All.

I am new to the boards. Generally, I avoid posting unless necessary. Having read the first three pages of posts on the board, I now have some feel for the discussions.

First, I complement you and the moderators for keeping a very civil board. Second, the general quality of historical knowledge is well above average. I disagree on points, but that is to be expected.

I do want to comment on the topic of generalship and German possibilities of success. (Please forgive me in advance for 2 areas I can allude to, but not explain fully, as they involve topics you won't find in any secondary sources and I am protecting them while I continue to research.)

The comparison of generals is as old as war and fraught with difficulties. The 2 areas in which I have enough knowledge to feel confident in discussing this are the American civil war and WWII. Patton is perhaps the best example of how we can miss important points. Patton is widely regarded as prescient about the role of tanks, going back to the '30s, yet he was the architect of failure in US tank design, the M4 Sherman and was the person most influential in limiting the US to "medium" tanks, for nearly the entirety of the war.

Patton was, without doubt, the hard-ass, combat general he is depicted to be. He fought hard, trained is men hard, demanded a lot from them. All strong positive traits.

Please consider what we have no evidence of in evaluating Patton. Patton was not on the short end of the stick that generals like Rommel overcame time and time again. The chronic shortage of supply, lack of air superiority/air supremacy, the bumbling high command, incompent direction at the national level (Hitler), and the Italian officer corps to name a few. In my experience of real generals and study of Patton, I can honestly say that Patton would have had a hard time coping with these limitations. In fact, if he had been in the German army, I believe a convenient aircraft accident would have been arranged for him.

When considering generalship, there are more factors than even the majority of historians consider.

To give balance, Rommel had significant problems as a general. Two well documented examples I can provide.

Rommel had a habit of fighting too far forward. He never shook the tactical perspective of a platoon leader. This is something that is a strong positive in very good generals, yet in Rommel, there seems to be gap in perspective. He could think well operationally and strategically within a theatre, as well as at platoon level. Above the platoon and below corps level, we might be justified in saying he lost perspective during combat. Rommel would routinely place himself with his lead platoon/company in a major attack and remain there for days. He would ignore the rest of the Afrika Korps operations while he would pull more and more Korps assets into that platoon's fight. Certainly Korps assets existed to be used and at his discretion, yet the loss of focus was nearly fatal of a couple of ocassions. That they were not fatal, was due primarily to the stellar staff the Korps had.

The second area where Rommel can be faulted is field sanitation. A significant percentage of the German and Italian soldiers were ill with dysentery at any given time. British soldiers who fought their way into Korps defensive positions were often overwhelmed with the reek of feeces from the trenches and the surrounding area. To be sure, in battle, time for a toilet break doesn't exist, and when you have to go, you have to go. However, the rates of illness in the British forces were much, much lower.

Further comparison could easily show that Alexander was a better general than commonly believed and Montgomery was worse.

Continued in next post.

Thank you.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by JayJay_H:

In fact, the Wehrmacht was simply outnumbered. Their soldiers tactical mastery and readiness for duty were second to none - Nobody can argue that point.

You don't read much either, do you? You need to get away from accounts written by German generals and their apologists. Sorry to barge in, I was just checking on the posts of Mr. Seibold, after his trolling in the General forum.

Now to the point. There are a great many accounts of the German military's shortcomings, from their very poor military intelligence, substandard operational art, no better than average strategic decision making, awful industrial utilization… the list goes on. Now they did excel in a number of areas, including tactics, training, NCOs, among others. This idea that the Germans only lost because they were (take your pick) a) outnumbered, b)constantly subject to Hitler’s interference, c) Rommel the genius wasn’t in Russia, d) Rommel the overrated was in Normandy, e) [excuse of the day here] flies in the face of numerous accounts of serious historians. Even on the tactical level, where many will acknowledge that the Germans were very good, they were by no means always better, particularly as the war went on. They also didn’t have a terribly good track record in urban fighting on either the attack or defense.

[JayJay_H]

Originally posted by Marlow:

You don't read much either, do you? [/QB]

Aha, temper temper! I knew exposing that statement would cause some opposition.

But believe what you want - Volunteers from the Waffen-SS for example, were ready to die for what they believed in. As a quote from a field post message once stated: "Some believe in life, but life aint everything - We have to finish a holy task" I think that makes the fighting spirit very clear and most enemies would have the jitters if they had to face these 'boys'. The only formula against them was hundreds of guns per kilometer and air bombardements that nothing could survive.

[ November 13, 2002, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: JayJay_H ]

[Marlow]

Originally posted by JayJay_H:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marlow:

You don't read much either, do you?

Aha, temper temper! I knew exposing that statement would cause some opposition.

But believe what you want[/QB]</font>

[Artos]

Two other subjects raised in this post I would like to offer my perspective on, German chances of success and German tactical competence.

I'll get this out of the way at the start; the Germans could not have won. There are so many reasons and I expect most of the people who post here are familiar with: Hitler, the SS terror that undermined segments of the officer corps and the initially strong support in occupied territories like the Ukraine, poor decisions on technology development, not placing the German economy on a wartime footing (degree can be debated) for more than a year, the decision to repeat Tirpitz's mistake and build a capital fleet (see Z-plan), the shortage of U-boats when the war started, the failure to pursue the submarine war agressively from the start (please see the number of U-boats in September 1939 and compare to the number of U-boats in September 1940, the declaration of war on the United States that, had it not happened, Roosevelt would have been put in a hell of a bind (the game doesn't replicate this), Hitler's castration of the officer corps in the Army by diluting competence with mass promotions of more politically oriented officers, Goering, the resource lost in creating three separate ground armies (army, waffen SS, and luftwaffe units,) and the resources wasted on the holocaust, to name a few.

I have two other theories that play into this (one I won't advance here.) In addressing the other, what I can provide is a question that is rarely asked by historians, but is tantalizing when considered. When we ask, "Could the Germans have won?," something is left out of consideration when the answers are presented. What does "won" mean? The conquest and subjugation of the Soviet Union? The conquest and permanent subjugation of Europe and the Soviet Union? Conquest of the U.S.? Forcing the U.S. out of the war? Uniting the Arab world and keeping them cooperative?

The fact is that Hitler had no end game. Eternal war can not be considered an end state.

I grew up as an American who's grandfather fought in the German army in WWI (in which 2 of his brothers died) and saw the strong post-WWII prejudice first hand as parents would refuse to allow their kids to play with Germans (even 2d generation Americans). This prompted me to dig deep. I wanted to find that the Germans (not the Nazis) could have won. I was doing "what if" scenarios when I was 10 and haven't stopped. The reality is, the Germans could not have won. A fact that I am actually grateful for as I am convinced there is no way to separate the Germany of the 1940's from nation controlled by Nazis.

On the subject of tactical differences between the armies of the powers, I will have to be more circumspect to protect my research. In the 1980's US Army, there was some emphasis (not nearly enough) placed on war game models for past wars that might be built upon to model future wars. Please note, that this is not a study of tactics, only battles and wars. There were 2 primary contending models proposed and officers lined up on each side of the debate (the very few officers who thought it a worthwhile subject). The bottom line was that both models were terribly flawed. One model included "racial factors" for the mathematical formulas. While for 2 decades I have beleived, taught, and sometimes preached that it is impossible to study military history without studying cultural history, (military history IS cultural history) the notion of cultural factors that could be quantified and plugged into a formula is ludicrous. The tactical differences, frequently striking, between the armies of the major powers are one of the few areas of WWII European/American history that doesn't seem to be hotly debated. We can say that a concesus of understanding, on the basics at least, has been reached. The remaining debate in this area focuses on how to apply it to simulations/games and to a lesser extent on the causes for the differences. (My research has focused on these two areas and I find them inseperable. Further, I have found that the impact of tactics can be factored into simulations, even at the operational and strategic levels. As I still have hope of publishing my thoughts in an article or game, I apologize for leaving you hanging.)

These are my opinions.

Thank you.

[arax3]

Jay_Jay H: My dad fought the Nazis in North Africa, Italy and N.Europe. He acknowledges the high quality of the German troops and equipment. However, we had "angels on our shoulders." Nazis could never overcome Allied air superiority and superior intelligence. Even where Allies were caught by surprise by crack Nazi troops, i.e. Battle of the Bulge, Allies outfought the Nazis person to person, and when the weather cleared .... Sir, you are simply misguided and mistaken. Think what you will!! A3

[JayJay_H]

Okay, at least von Manstein would have been able to achieve a stalemate on the eastern front, even after stalingrad. The tragedy (if you want) was that countless wrong decisions were made by high command, lord have mercy if the fuhrer had given his field commanders free hand. So what, this discussion doesn't belong to this forum right

[JayJay_H]

Originally posted by arax3:

Jay_Jay H: Think what you will!! A3

Really brings flavour into our little debate. Lets cool it off anyway - i think madmatt is about to lock it up :cool:

[Marlow]

Originally posted by JayJay_H:

Okay, at least von Manstein would have been able to achieve a stalemate on the eastern front, even after stalingrad. The tragedy (if you want) was that countless wrong decisions were made by high command, lord have mercy if the fuhrer had given his field commanders free hand.

Not according to my reading of Glantz, Ericson and Clark. Also, Clark (among others) makes a strong case that Hitler was on a fair number of occasions correct, and his Generals wrong (example, his hold fast orders during the Moscow counteroffensive).

[ November 13, 2002, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[murks]

My two euro-cents:

Could germany have won? No, simply because of the atomic bomb.

Could germany have won, if we assume for a moment that never had been an american atomic bomb? Although I don't believe that germany ever could/would have conquered America, I don't see how we can be sure that the Soviet Union couldn't possibly have broken down under the german onslaught. Very few countries would have managed to fight on and ultimately strike back after the enormous losses of men, materials and economic resources the Russians suffered. Few countries would have managed to completely mobilize every man, woman and child for the war effort, as the USSR under Stalin did. Had the Soviet Union broken down, with germany then occupying the country up to the Astrachan/Archangelsk line as planned, I cannot imagine how the western allies could ever have lauched a sucessfull attack on the european mainland.

About the controversy on generalship, I believe it is impoosible to rate anglo-saxian generals compared to german generals. Certainly, no western general ever achieved a victory against a superior german force, german generals did more than once. But then, after 1940, western generals never faced a superior force, so they simply couldn't prove themselves under comparable circumstances. The battle of the Bulge did prove that the army could put up a tremendous fight when locally outnumbered, but we must not forget that they had every reason to believe that they were on the winning side and had to hold out for a limited amount of time and victory would be assured. Also, the Bulge is more suited to make a point about the strength of the american infantry man than that of the american (or british) general. I don't know of any particularly inspired tactical decision by the generals in the bulge. It was the stubbornnes of the green infantry divisions that surprised the germans.

Sorry for the length of the post

[2slick]

I'd like to recommend the book "Panzer Leader" by Heinz Guderian. Fantastic book, written from his diaries, and gives an amazing look into the bumblings of the German High Command & Hitler.

[Marlow]

With regard to inspired tactical decisions by an allied general at the Battle of the Bulge: Patton’s rapid shifting and movement of the 3rd Army to attack the southern shoulder of the Bulge.

As far as no western general beating a German general when the Germans were stronger, you may have a point, as I can’t think of any good examples (I’ll keep thinking). However, the Vosges campaign is an example where an American army attacked a similar strength German army under very unfavorable (for the attacker) condition, and won. Further, I can’t think of any good examples where an inferior German army defeated a British or American army in any large scale battle or campaign. Well, maybe Market Garden, but that was quite frankly one of the worst plans of the entire war barring maybe Zitadelle or Wacht am Rhine. By the way, read the evolution of the plans for Zitadelle. It was by no stretch entirely Hitler’s doing.

[ November 14, 2002, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[Marlow]

Originally posted by 2slick:

I'd like to recommend the book "Panzer Leader" by Heinz Guderian. Fantastic book, written from his diaries, and gives an amazing look into the bumblings of the German High Command & Hitler.

Good book, but a little too much self interest to be seen as an unbiased account.