Nationality differences - not based on materials

[David Chapuis]

The recent "Italian" thread, along with something I recently read, made me wonder about the merit of adding more peculiarities to the game based on non-material differences between nations. In CMBO, the only non-material differences I can think of are platoon/squad sizes. In CMBB, there is the early Russian command delay (are there others?).

What I read was from Blitzkrieg From the Rise of Hitler to the Fall of Dunkirk (Deighton). He says:

According to Liddell Hart, both German and British senior commanders agreed that German soldiers were more individualistic than their opponents. General von Blumentritt went so far as to complain of this, saying the Germans’ rank and file had too many ideas of their own and were not sufficiently obedient. However surprising this might be to British readers, studies of the desert fighting supported the contention that the German soldiers were better able to improvise in emergencies than their British opponents. Another finding was that British units commonly ceased fighting after losing all their officers, but Germans remained effectively organized right down to the last few NCOs.

Assuming that this “finding” is true, that seems to be something that would be worth trying to simulate.

Deighton says that this “finding” can at least partly be attributed to:

the way in which German commanders were prepared to change plans minute by minute in the face of enemy opposition. . . The French and the British Army was trained to fight systematic set-piece battles. . . This systematic approach to war was exactly what the German generals usually tried to avoid.

Regardless of this particular issue, it seems feasible that the various training methods and differing armed forces’ methodologies between the nations would produce non-material differences at the battalion level and down that would be important and interesting additions to the simulation.

[Sergei]

And how exactly would you put this into the game, other than the already existing command delays as per experience level?

[JasonC]

9 out of 10 nationality difference statements are silly prejudices masquerading as thought. We are talking about nations of 50 million people and upward, about armies of millions of men. They aren't going to fit in cartoon outlines. Name any national stereotype and I will find someone that exemplifies it and someone else who shows it is a crock, from the same country. There is way too much variation within each for such generalizations across several to mean anything.

If a scenario designer thinks a given unit will fight to the last man, he gives that side 50% fanaticism. If he thinks a given platoon just has very high morale he makes them vets or gives them a +2 morale bonus leader. If he thinks this side's men just didn't have their hearts in the quarrel, he gives them green or conscript quality, perhaps weakened fitness, and crappy leaders. You can do as you please with any of these settings. There is no good reason to instead introduce fundamentally arbitary stereotyped differences between one regular unit and another.

[Berlichtingen]

Oh well said Jason. That's a point I never seemed to get across in the 'Italians' thread

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Sergei:

And how exactly would you put this into the game, other than the already existing command delays as per experience level?

Basing leadership bonus on the pistol toting guy(s) in the HQs, not on the complete team (ie runners with the carbines). For Germans, the plt sergeant with the MP should have a bonus, too. But not for the other nations.

For CMx2 replacing HQs with lower HQs, including squad leaders acting as Plt HQs for Germans. EG by just allowing 1st squad to take over from HQ if HQ is disabled or too far away.

Gruß

Joachim

[Tero]

Originally posted by Scarhead:

For Germans, the plt sergeant with the MP should have a bonus, too. But not for the other nations.

Based on what ?

For CMx2 replacing HQs with lower HQs, including squad leaders acting as Plt HQs for Germans. EG by just allowing 1st squad to take over from HQ if HQ is disabled or too far away.

What if the unit structure does not conform with the universal model ? Or there is historical evidence of the unit structure being set aside on the fly to rearrange the forces on the spot ?

The problem with this issue is lack of comparable data on small unit training and tactics and how they played out in actual combat in the different armies.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

Another finding was that British units commonly ceased fighting after losing all their officers, but Germans remained effectively organized right down to the last few NCOs.

Assuming that this “finding” is true, that seems to be something that would be worth trying to simulate.

This finding could well have been skewed by a possible failure to correctly compare who does what in various armies.

In the British army, the platoon leader was almost invariably a Lieutenant (officer), although there have been exceptions, of course. In the Wehrmacht (and at least until the late 80s in the Bundeswehr), you find a lot of NCOs in platoon leader positions. Therefore, if the 'last few NCOs standing' happen to be the platoon HQ, it would be no surprise to anyone aware of this organisational difference that the unit stays organised.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

Another finding was that British units commonly ceased fighting after losing all their officers, but Germans remained effectively organized right down to the last few NCOs.

Assuming that this “finding” is true, that seems to be something that would be worth trying to simulate.

This finding could well have been skewed by a possible failure to correctly compare who does what in various armies.

Also, what constitutes fighting in this context ?

In the British army, the platoon leader was almost invariably a Lieutenant (officer), although there have been exceptions, of course. In the Wehrmacht (and at least until the late 80s in the Bundeswehr), you find a lot of NCOs in platoon leader positions. Therefore, if the 'last few NCOs standing' happen to be the platoon HQ, it would be no surprise to anyone aware of this organisational difference that the unit stays organised.

And it does not even have to be the HQ NCO's left standing. I think such things as distribution of battle field intel and your own battle plans to the lower ranks are in the focal point of this issue every bit as much as the training and application tactical principles.

I'm sure you have read the book on British infantry training during WWII (the name of which escapes me at the moment). It would appear the British infantry did not encourage the crossing of the boundaries between officers and other ranks for one.

[Pud]

Can someone please explain why in CMBB SS units dont get a moral boost when compared to non-SS troops? In all material I have read/seen/watched the SS virtually fought to the death as they knew capture (by the russians) meant on the spot execution. The best way to simulate this would be to have a greatly improved moral. Or did I miss something in the manual/game.

I know this has been brought up before, but since we are on the topic anyway a quick answer will do nicely.

Thanks in advance fellas.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Pud:

Can someone please explain why in CMBB SS units dont get a moral boost when compared to non-SS troops? In all material I have read/seen/watched the SS virtually fought to the death as they knew capture (by the russians) meant on the spot execution. The best way to simulate this would be to have a greatly improved moral. Or did I miss something in the manual/game.

I would have thought the best way to do this is to give a fanaticism modifier, which is in the game for scenario design purposes. To give the SS a general moral modifier is not a good way to simulate anything like this, IMO.

It would be a blanket bonus based more on the SS-rememberance industry then anything else. Ordinary German infantry units fought well too, and did not exactly relish being captured by the Red Army, going to great lengths to avoid it. Because they did not wear cool uniforms, and did not get to play so much with the latest toys, that is less well documented though.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Scarhead:

For Germans, the plt sergeant with the MP should have a bonus, too. But not for the other nations.

Based on what ?

For CMx2 replacing HQs with lower HQs, including squad leaders acting as Plt HQs for Germans. EG by just allowing 1st squad to take over from HQ if HQ is disabled or too far away.

What if the unit structure does not conform with the universal model ? Or there is historical evidence of the unit structure being set aside on the fly to rearrange the forces on the spot ?

The problem with this issue is lack of comparable data on small unit training and tactics and how they played out in actual combat in the different armies.

When there is now data, you have to resort to "felt" data. If the phenomenom of "better German training resulting in less paralysis when the commander is no longer availbale" is accepted based on felt data, my proposal is a possible solution to the resulting problem.

It does not state that the phenomenon is true (cf. Andreas post).

The only evidence I have is that Germans were trained "one rank up", based on the old Reichswehr training. They had only 100.000 men - so they made sure they could turn them into 100.000 leaders in a short time. And you never change a running system, so the idea of the training was kept. And the resulting spirit in the field to trust the 2nd in command to fill the gap if his superior was not there.

Hard data: one of my grandpas was a Corporal - and plt HQ after most of his plt followed the HQ when it rushed down one side of a bridge. My grandpa rushed down the other. He never saw those men again. But he stayed Plt HQ till he the end of the war. I guess this incident does qualify for "immediate reorganization of a plt".

As a result, I'd state some other differences:

A lone squad of survivors in

- a well-trained army

- with educated soldiers,

- no class systems,

- based on the individual rather than the mass,

- where taking over responsibility is awarded

- more than failure is punished

should have a lower command delay than an "out-of-contact squad" still having a plt HQ. Command delay should resemble a team out of command.

Suppression effect of losing the HQ should last "forever" (ie broken) when near site of destruction or only a few turns (when farther away or fanatic)

Maybe "ad-hoc-leadership" should be a parameter like fanatic.

Gruß

Joachim

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David Chapuis:

Another finding was that British units commonly ceased fighting after losing all their officers, but Germans remained effectively organized right down to the last few NCOs.

Assuming that this “finding” is true, that seems to be something that would be worth trying to simulate.

This finding could well have been skewed by a possible failure to correctly compare who does what in various armies.

In the British army, the platoon leader was almost invariably a Lieutenant (officer), although there have been exceptions, of course. In the Wehrmacht (and at least until the late 80s in the Bundeswehr), you find a lot of NCOs in platoon leader positions. Therefore, if the 'last few NCOs standing' happen to be the platoon HQ, it would be no surprise to anyone aware of this organisational difference that the unit stays organised. </font>

[Private Bluebottle]

Differences in national character do exist between national armies. However, they have a much greater influence on strategic and operational matters, than tactical ones and its the tactical level that CM is conducted.

From the British and Commonwealth perspective, British line infantry weren't known for their personal initiative - something remarked upon by Australian observers from the 2nd Boer War onwards in the debates over the differences between "Tommy Atkins" versus "Tommy Cornstalks". Yet, more specialised units where the "misfits" and the independent thinkers could flourish were invariably established during wartime and they could and did match Johnny Boer or whomever was being fought for willyness. More elite British units were either completely unimaginative in their thinking but were well known for their doggeded pursuit or defence of an objective, while the well led and trained could and did match the Dominion and Colonial troops as fighters in both world wars.

Within the Axis, there were of course a very mixed bunch. Even the German soldier wasn't always what he was cracked up to be yet, even what could often be considered the worst troops did conduct brilliant defensive actions with little in the way of materiale' if inspired by their leaders. The Italians generally were brittle, yet in East Africa they gave a good account of themselves, often only supported by native Askaris and against considerable odds.

However, invariably, as I stated at the top, this was more of a factor at the upper levels of strategy, not down on the battlefield. Invariably there was always some bugger who hadn't read the pamphlet you'd been given on "Know the enemy" which pointed out that they were a bunch of craven cowards who'd surrender at the first shot, shoot back at you and aimed to kill as well.

[ October 06, 2003, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Private Bluebottle ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Scarhead:

- no class systems,

- based on the individual rather than the mass,

Are we now about to see the grogs throwing citations from sociological surveys at each other?

[David Chapuis]

And how exactly would you put this into the game, other than the already existing command delays as per experience level?

Well, if that statement my original post was largely accepted as true, you could make a difference between German and French/British units when their platoon HQ has been eliminated (and not in CC of a higher HQ) in response time and loss & restoration of morale. That is, if the British/French squads lost their platoon HQ and were not in contact with the Coy Hq, then their command delays increase some degree, and they become broken/panicked/routed quicker compared to Germans having the same thing happen.

9 out of 10 nationality difference statements are silly prejudices masquerading as thought.

Is that true about this one? I found that thought by Deighton quite interesting. In your opinion is it just a silly prejudice?

We are talking about nations of 50 million people and upward, about armies of millions of men. They aren't going to fit in cartoon outlines. Name any national stereotype and I will find someone that exemplifies it and someone else who shows it is a crock, from the same country. There is way too much variation within each for such generalizations across several to mean anything.

Obviously you can find exceptions to any generalization. But that doesn’t make the generalization untrue. And if it is almost always true, then it doesn’t seem irrational to simulate if you are trying to make a realistic war simulation. Especially if the option was just based on an average, like fanaticism is currently.

Maybe "ad-hoc-leadership" should be a parameter like fanatic.

Exactly, an option like this wouldnt blanket punishing every person in the nationality, but would give a chance for some of these differences to be played out.

That would only be if the difference wasn’t just a silly stereotype – but that should go without saying.

There is no good reason to instead introduce fundamentally arbitary stereotyped differences between one regular unit and another.

Sure I agree with that, accept if the differences aren’t just arbitrary stereotypes, but accepted differences.

Another nationality difference was the German vs the Brit/French theories of combined arms – at least through the fall of Tobruk in ’42. (I have read more than a couple people who mentioned this, but if that is just another stereotype, please let me know). I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that - specifically any differences that would show up in tactical engagements. One example I can think of – I’ve read that the Commonwealth did not, in general, use art against AT guns in the desert, much to their detriment.

[ October 06, 2003, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: David Chapuis ]

[Los]

"If a scenario designer thinks a given unit will fight to the last man, he gives that side 50% fanaticism. ...<snip>.....There is no good reason to instead introduce fundamentally arbitary stereotyped differences between one regular unit and another."

Of course there is the obvbious inverse to the arguments where you have national characteristic default settings and use the methods mentioned above to adjust and tweak units to the given situation or historical perforamce as necessary to suit a scenario.

But then again it's pretty clear that there were absolutely no measurebale differences between national armies, no little a quirks that affected performance or operations, they were all the same, just one big mass of plain vanilla.....

Los

But then again maybe I just imagined my observations from the past 25 years of military experience as an advisor working closely with armies from all over the world...

[ October 06, 2003, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: Los ]

[Michael Dorosh]

I agree with the last. If you simply increase the likelihood of occurences that were known to be more likely for certain nationalities, no harm is done.

For example, the example of British rallying is apt. If a Platoon HQ is knocked out, I would agree with greatly increasing the rally times for the component squads. It might work better in a system in which objectives are predefined rather than the loose system CM employs, or in a multi-player game.

There is always going to be the question of how much different a player is going to play as opposed to his historical counterpart. Just because a German company in a given historic situation was guaranteed success against a certain type of enemy, well, if the CM player taking the Germans in the same situation sucks at CM, you aren't going to replicate that likely historical outcome.

So should the game really be designed along those lines?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Los:

But then again it's pretty clear that there were absolutely no measurebale differences between national armies, no little a quirks that affected performance or operations, they were all the same, just one big mass of plain vanilla.....

Los

But then again maybe I just imagined my observations from the past 25 years of military experience as an advisor working closely with armies from all over the world...

Key words in your posts italicised.

Los, I am sure you are in a prime position to advise BFC on how to measure the little quirks in a combat simulation.

I am certain you are completely right about this, but I am almost equally certain that in a combat simulation like CM, there is a very serious risk that it degenerates into the old 'all Italians run, and US pilots can't hit squat' very quickly, because hard data on this is very difficult to come by.

I am not saying there should be 'no' national differences. I am saying that they should only be there when it can be shown that they existed, based on at least a semblance of hard data. E.g. the Soviet experience level modifier, or the Human wave order.

As Michael says - do you want the game to be designed along those lines?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Scarhead:

The only evidence I have is that Germans were trained "one rank up", based on the old Reichswehr training. They had only 100.000 men - so they made sure they could turn them into 100.000 leaders in a short time. And you never change a running system, so the idea of the training was kept. And the resulting spirit in the field to trust the 2nd in command to fill the gap if his superior was not there.

Good example - because IMO it shows the dangers of the approach. You are assuming that because it was a good system, it stayed unchanged. Which is a fair assumption to make, until you consider the changes in conditions in the late 1930s. While the Reichswehr managed to do this, I am almost 100% certain that the practice, if not the principle of the training 'one rank up' went out of the window with the massive expansion of the Wehrmacht in the late 1930s. While they would not have liked to change the running system, I am pretty certain they abandoned it.

German infantry, officer and NCO training almost certainly declined as the war went on, based on what I have read.

[Jack Carr]

Andreas posted: Ordinary German infantry units fought well too, and did not exactly relish being captured by the Red Army, going to great lengths to avoid it.

I would have to agree with the ordinary German infantry units fighting well part. Back to Pud's point, I have seen lines in various books which stated that the Soviets generally killed outright anyone wearing the double lightning bolts or deaths head on their collars. To what extent this was perpetrated I do not know nor have I read any statistics on it.

I'm sure every German soldier regardless of branch of service did their best to avoid capture by the Red Army but it has been written that the Soviets treated Waffen SS soldiers far more harshly than their Heer counterparts. I'm just upset I'm not near my library o' WWII East front books on the Waffen SS. Books by Bruce Quarrie keep coming to mind.

As far as the Waffen SS getting the latest toys, I have also read that Waffen SS units did receive preferential treatment when it came to getting equipment. I know there have been some Bruce Quarrie books that have made mention of this. The Waffen SS were "the apple of the Fuhrers eye" so to speak. I have also read this about the GrossDeutschland division, which, although it was a regular Heer division, was considered an elite fighting unit within the German armed forces.

Perhaps some of you can put Quarrie to shame in reference to this.

As far as Combat Mission goes, I'd have to agree with Andreas on this one. Fanaticism modifiers would be a good solution if you felt strongly enough about it.

[Michael Dorosh]

Not only did GD and SS units get the newest and best equipment, but they actually did the field trials on this stuff in many if not most if not all cases.

At Kursk, the new Panthers - the only ones in the world - were attached to GD. GD got some of the first Tigers upon expansion to divisional status. &etc.

[Andreas]

Jack

Grossdeutschland was certainly in the same class as the Waffen-SS when it came to equipment. I am not sure if they had their own Tiger company in 1943 though, as some of the Waffen-SS divisions did, and which must have done wonders for their kill stats and ability to deal with Soviet operations. Michael will know the answer to it.

The Soviets in their Kursk general staff study refer to Grossdeutschland as an SS division, interestingly enough.

My point is that because of the nature of the fights the SS units often found themselves in, and (these are connected) their preferential treatment in terms of equipment, strength, presumably reinforcements, etc. pp., they are simply easy to write about. This then feeds on itself, by providing more material for others to use in their writings. Not many people are as unhinged as I am (well, I know for a fact Kip is), and prefer to look at more mundane stuff such as the lot of the ordinary soldiers in the east, who fought and often died in some numbered infantry division, in a forgotten battle for a place with an unpronouncable name to support a despiccable cause (in Kip's case it is simply a strange fascination with the SU-76 tank destroyer, BTW).

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Andreas:

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

The only evidence I have is that Germans were trained "one rank up", based on the old Reichswehr training. They had only 100.000 men - so they made sure they could turn them into 100.000 leaders in a short time. And you never change a running system, so the idea of the training was kept. And the resulting spirit in the field to trust the 2nd in command to fill the gap if his superior was not there.

Good example - because IMO it shows the dangers of the approach. You are assuming that because it was a good system, it stayed unchanged. Which is a fair assumption to make, until you consider the changes in conditions in the late 1930s. While the Reichswehr managed to do this, I am almost 100% certain that the practice, if not the principle of the training 'one rank up' went out of the window with the massive expansion of the Wehrmacht in the late 1930s. While they would not have liked to change the running system, I am pretty certain they abandoned it.

German infantry, officer and NCO training almost certainly declined as the war went on, based on what I have read. </font>

[Jack Carr]

Andreas posted: Not many people are as unhinged as I am (well, I know for a fact Kip is), and prefer to look at more mundane stuff such as the lot of the ordinary soldiers in the east, who fought and often died in some numbered infantry division, in a forgotten battle for a place with an unpronouncable name to support a despiccable cause...

I know what you mean. There are a whole lot of books about the Waffen SS but not many about, I use the term loosely, generic Heer formations which did the majority of the fighting, dying, occupying foxholes in the cold, etc.

There are some excellent first hand accounts, I'm sure you've already read them, Blood Red Snow, Forgotten Soldier (Sajer was in GD I think), In Deadly Combat. I like to read about that as well. The average soldiers experience. What they ate, how they slept, etc. This type of thing is just as interesting to me as the war from a tactical overview perspective, perhaps even more so.

Michael: Thanks for the info. I re-enact in a big GD unit on the east coast. I've met some of the GD and Waffen SS veterans. To me it's fascinating to listen to the stories and things these guys lived/survived through. I know an American vet who fought in North Africa, Italy, France and Germany. He has some interesting stories. Haven't met any British or Russian veterans yet though.

I enjoy re-enacting because you see so much that you normally would never have the opportunity to see, equipment weapons, uniforms, vehicles. I'm really not into the battle aspect of it though. You do get somewhat of an appreciation for how hard it was to lug all the stuff around, and live with it. Not easy for two or three days. I couldn't imagine several years in the field with an occasional one or two week pass.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Scarhead:

Again the example of my grandpa - he stayed corporal, the lowest NCO rank, but was plt HQ for several months, maybe years.

Gruß

Joachim

When did he enter the service?

Counter-example of my grandfather, who managed to get himself promoted from Obergefreiter to Unteroffizier (big freaking whoop) in six years of war, while receiving EKI&II. Then again, he was in a branch where people rarely had to do really silly stuff that can poke your eye out.