Bernard Honig Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 a good way to beat the french is to send a small group of units to the north and send the bigist part of your force to the south and cut the french army off and hit'em with all you got! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Another good way is to simply ignore the defence, (especially any large well defended border areas), just attack, and they should surrender. Ok sorry, that was cruel. Did I tell you guys I saw an ad in a 1941 Paris newspaper? It reads: "For sale, French Rifles, Cheap, Only Dropped Once" Damn, there it goes again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC- Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Easiest way......send all girls to the front lines. As the french try to act all smooth with the women, sneak up behind them and wack them over the head with a large loaf of bread. Bloodless campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 It better be three day old stale french bread, this way it will better dent a French helmet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonManstein39 Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Sorry, but it's time for a rant. <rant> Leave the Frogs (sorry, French) alone! They don't deserve all this abuse. If some French soldiers performed badly in WWII, that's the fault of their generals for not making sure that they were properly trained, not of the soldiers themselves. </rant> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 <rant response> I agree with you vM. Actually, on the whole, French soldiers themselves performed very well in the Second World War. We all know the French can Fight, just look at Napoleon. It was the ineptitutde of the French commanders that lead to thier sorry defeat. </rant response> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 So why are French roads lined with trees? Because the Germans like to march in the shade! OK, OK, I won't quit my day job ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Originally posted by Otto: It was the ineptitutde of the French commanders that lead to thier sorry defeat. That, and Hurryin' Heinz Guderian. Speaking of whom, I absolutely think he should be included in the German Leader's List! After all, without his radical tank doctrine -- proclaimed throughout the 30s, those two ancient enemies, the Teutons & Franks, might STILL be trading curses and machine-gun bullets all along a narrow blood-soaked front. :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Originally posted by Immer Etwas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Otto: It was the ineptitutde of the French commanders that lead to thier sorry defeat. That, and Hurryin' Heinz Guderian.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloid Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 So what's the excuse for the Italians?????? Bad leadership, bad weapons (tanks, rifles), needed to carry too much water in the desert for pasta? (anyone remember SPI's Campaign for North Africa... it actually accounted for Italian's higher consumption of water!) Aloid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Originally posted by Aloid: So what's the excuse for the Italians??????There is no excuse for failure in war, but their leadership was pitiful. Given the right commanders they did well, ie, the Italian Ariete amrored division, (trained in Germany), was a critical part of Rommel's Afrika Korps. Also this all depends on historical timing. If you were to ask the enemies of Rome about the fighting abilities of the italians, we know what kind of answers we would get. We would get the same answers if we spoke to the enemies of Napoleon's French soldiers. Even though they lost, World War Two was the time of the Germans. Every people have their day, but the ones in recent history get a bad rap. I'll bet Roman centurions joked about the poor quality of the Germanic Barbarians. Probaly something like this: Q: Why are their so many trees in the Black Forest? A: Romans like to rest in the shade. just a thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Aside from the ole teutoberger wald... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Yes, this was to Rome as Stalingrad was to the Third Reich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloid Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 So, leadership is key, that we all seem to agree on. But what role does organization, and equipment play? US leadership is questionable (at times) in WW2, but supply, and equipment were important... Not that the Sherman was any great tank, but it was reliable, and the M1, .50 cal, and eventually the artillery arm were also key... hmmm... broad topic I guess, and open to so much bickering... So, bottomline, people can fight well, if motivated correctly, trained, equiped, and with good leadership... I see this in the design of CM, which is another reason why that game is so great! back to work... (until I hit refresh in the browser in a couple minutes... heh!) Aloid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straha Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Actually the Romans did fear the German barbarians since the early devastating raid of Italy by the tribes of the Cimberians and Teutons. This experience was so deeply rooted in the Roman psyche that it haunted them for generations to come. Just think of the limes, the Western version of the Chinese wall. The tragedy is that it all didn't help. At the end, in the catastrophical 5th century, the Roman nightmares finally all came true ... Straha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 There was a very narrow historical window for WW2. The convergence of Scientific Revolution, rise of Nationalism, and Industrial mass-might. So. I would argue for superior production (Henry Ford's model-T assembly line technique) as the single most powerful determining factor. Of course leadership matters immensely -- in the small-scale tactical encounters, which is why the Germans even lasted as long as they did (long-standing military tradition & training). This may be why WW2 is so popular among gamers, myself included. The coming SUPER WEAPONS had not yet made the world wide techno-war obsolete (mutually assured destruction). You can still what-if? everything and... had the Germans ousted Hitler and the occultish Nazis (say, with Rommel as head of State) then we MIGHT have had a brokered peace in '42, or eventual German hegemony. :eek: Always interesting to contemplate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Originally posted by Straha: Actually the Romans did fear the German barbarians since the early devastating raid of Italy by the tribes of the Cimberians and Teutons. This experience was so deeply rooted in the Roman psyche that it haunted them for generations to come. Just think of the limes, the Western version of the Chinese wall. The tragedy is that it all didn't help. At the end, in the catastrophical 5th century, the Roman nightmares finally all came true ... StrahaYeah, I can remember in my history books the stories of precarious Roman Empire, attempting to hold on to their minor territorial possesions, which was merely the entire known world at the time, for a meagre 500 years. I also remember reading that the fall of the Roman empire was due to these Barbarians who wouldn't stay behind their damn wall! [ June 20, 2002, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Otto ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straha Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Originally posted by Otto: Yeah, I can remember in my history books the stories of precarious Roman Empire, attempting to hold on to their minor territorial possesions, which was merely the entire known world at the time, for a meagre 500 years. SNIPLol, yeah, I didn't mean to slighten them. But in fact the Roman Empire is also a paradigm for the dangers of overextension. The border went along the Rhine and then along the whole Danube. It is an impressive feat of organization to keep the whole thing together for so long without falling apart at the seams. Now if they would have succeeded in establishing a perimeter from the Bosporus to the Baltics (a considerably shorter "front") - who knows whether they would have been here to stay ... Straha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grimlord Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Originally posted by Straha: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Otto: Yeah, I can remember in my history books the stories of precarious Roman Empire, attempting to hold on to their minor territorial possesions, which was merely the entire known world at the time, for a meagre 500 years. SNIPLol, yeah, I didn't mean to slighten them. But in fact the Roman Empire is also a paradigm for the dangers of overextension. The border went along the Rhine and then along the whole Danube. It is an impressive feat of organization to keep the whole thing together for so long without falling apart at the seams. Now if they would have succeeded in establishing a perimeter from the Bosporus to the Baltics (a considerably shorter "front") - who knows whether they would have been here to stay ... Straha</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straha Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Right about the importance of the internal problems. But then don't forget yourself that the surviving East Roman Empire pretty soon was sort of totally "Greekified", Latin gone as a language and no more pasta at all! Straha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 Straha, grimlord, I think we are all saying essentially the same things, but with a topic as vast as the roman empire, you can only cover a little portion in a Bulletin Board post. You guys are absolutely right though, "Imperial Overstretch" was the culprit as far the the fall of the Roman Empire. Hey, wait a minute, isn't this a WWII thread?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straha Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 WW2-French-staleloafsofbread-Italians-Germans-Romans-Byzanz ... seems we came around quite a bit! Straha [ June 20, 2002, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Straha ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts