Nationality differences - not based on materials

[JasonC]

Half of the SS weren't even Germans by the end. Entire units deserted. Some men started the war in the Red Army, were captured, recruited into the SS, sent to France to fight for the Germans, and later went partisan in favor of De Gaulle. In the Heer, some units were over 50, some ear nose and throat cases, some filled out by Hiwis or Poles. Ostdeutch were expected to be loyal to the cause based on ethnicity but oddly enough many of them preferred their actual country. And the idea there was no class system in Germany is laughable on its face.

Sergeants did at least as much of the low level command in the US Army as in the German, informally. It was a simple function of time in service and the natural leadership of those who know. Brit airborne at Arnhem didn't exactly dissolve as soon as an officer bought it.

There are numerous examples of isolated Russian units fighting to the last man with or without leaders. Of course millions also surrendered. So are they stereotypically fanatic or panicky?

It is not simply that there are counterexamples to stereotypes, the whole range is found within practically every formation type in practically every army. OK, there are few examples of Italian crack commandos (though somebody swam into Egyptian harbors to put mines under battleships), so what, what scenario is going to pretend otherwise? That is why all the knobs are in the hands of scenario designers to fiddle with, one unit and battle at a time.

[Jack Carr]

JasonC posted: Half of the SS weren't even Germans by the end.

There were many more SS divisions in the end whose ability to inflict casualties on any enemy was pathetic. In reference to fanatical SS divisions I would assume that Pud would be talking about, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, 12th Waffen SS Panzer. I may have missed one or two that gave a good accounting of themselves in combat. Using Andreas' suggestion to back up your post would seem to be the best solution. If there is a scenario that you are creating that involves elements of 3rd SS panzer then give them a fanatacism bonus. If the scenario involves the Handschar division then they would be Green experience with an easy breaking point. Not sure what number division Handschar was right off the top of my head just using them as an example.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Sergeants did at least as much of the low level command in the US Army as in the German, informally.

Pull the other one.

It was a simple function of time in service and the natural leadership of those who know. Brit airborne at Arnhem didn't exactly dissolve as soon as an officer bought it.

And this is an example of the training and conditioning ordinary British soldiers throughout the Army received? Why would you say that?

[Los]

Not that there's a rat's A$$ chance of seeing this ever come to fruition but as an interesting discussion for argument's sake...

I think people view the term "national differences", something akin to racial characteristics (and all the political baggage/issues that raises),instead of what the real intent seems to be: National Army Characteristics. Certain armies configure themselves in certain fashions which in CM terms could even effect performance at the Plt/squad level. I'll try very poorly to explain this without quoting real life examples that I have observed and worked closely with so that I won't be branded some kind of racist or degenerate.

You can have two armies with similar TOEs. In one Army, there's is a formalized professional education system for junior NCOs. In the other Army, the only guy that know's what he's doing is the Platoon Leader. The rest of the troops pretty much follow around. NCOs are not promoted based on merit, some are tabbed right out of basic to go to NCO school or just be promoted based on partonage or whatnot. In the first case, as losses are incurred, the platoon has a reasonable chance of staying intact, maintaining it's current level of reaction time to orders, ability of squads to operate outside of the direct supervision of tbe Pl etc etc. On the other hand once the one critical leader is gone, there's more or less no one to take his place. Squads in this category would suffer greater command delays when out of radius of the PL than normal if they had lost their SL (figured out by some calculation.) They just go into default "hold tight" mode or worse run away mode, until someone else comes along and tells them what to do. Or it means you can't give more than one Way point to at a time if it's going to take them out of your PL's command radius.

In some armies the thought of splitting up a squad into fireteams is unthinkable. There just is not enough qualified junior leadership to go around. (Hell in some armies the thought of splitting platoons into squads that actually act as tactical sub-units is unthinkable.) Yet in other areas the squads my be able to operate just fine. (i.e. the troops might be brave, difficult to panic, great shots, hardy, physically fit etc, but they just can't operate without direct control. Blanket setting a whole battalion at conscript status to capture command delay issues would be doing a dis-service in other areas of their performance. (monkey with each squad in that battalion individually to get what you wnat is might be time consuming.)

Now as both armies partake of the crucible of war and gain more experience, this gap potentially narrows, assuming the lesser army passed it's initial sink or swim phase of learning.

Secondly when discussing these national army differnces as they pertain to WW2, you can not apply them equally throughout the entire period of time of the whole war. The German Army in 1940 was a very different Army than 1943 than in 1945. Likewise the French Army in 1940 was a differnt army than the French Army fighting in Cassino in 1944. If this were done in table form, than for each army for whatever characteristics you wnat the default setting for that period to reflect, you would need a column for what time period, those charcateristics would be enforced. It's like the default charateristics for green-regular-veteran troops in each army would vary depending upon the year.

Meanwhile conscript troops are conscript troops, elite troops are elite troops and crack troops are crack troops, regardless of their National Army.

Los

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Los:

[QB] Not that there's a rat's A$$ chance of seeing this ever come to fruition but as an interesting discussion for argument's sake...

I think people view the term "national differences", something akin to racial characteristics (and all the political baggage/issues that raises),instead of what the real intent seems to be: National Army Characteristics. Certain armies configure themselves in certain fashions which in CM terms could even effect performance at the Plt/squad level. I'll try very poorly to explain this without quoting real life examples that I have observed and worked closely with so that I won't be branded some kind of racist or degenerate.

I agree with this, I thought I had tried to say this earlier in this thread, but you've done a good job here also.

You can have two armies with similar TOEs. In one Army, there's is a formalized professional education system for junior NCOs. In the other Army, the only guy that know's what he's doing is the Platoon Leader. The rest of the troops pretty much follow around. NCOs are not promoted based on merit, some are tabbed right out of basic to go to NCO school or just be promoted based on partonage or whatnot. In the first case, as losses are incurred, the platoon has a reasonable chance of staying intact, maintaining it's current level of reaction time to orders, ability of squads to operate outside of the direct supervision of tbe Pl etc etc. On the other hand once the one critical leader is gone, there's more or less no one to take his place. Squads in this category would suffer greater command delays when out of radius of the PL than normal if they had lost their SL (figured out by some calculation.) They just go into default "hold tight" mode or worse run away mode, until someone else comes along and tells them what to do. Or it means you can't give more than one Way point to at a time if it's going to take them out of your PL's command radius.

All true, BUT - ALL ARMIES IN WWII contained examples of all of these, as they ALL expanded in a huge hurry at the start of the war. The professional NCO class was by and large destroyed by 1941 in every major army in the world through simple dispersion.

In some armies the thought of splitting up a squad into fireteams is unthinkable. There just is not enough qualified junior leadership to go around. (Hell in some armies the thought of splitting platoons into squads that actually act as tactical sub-units is unthinkable.) Yet in other areas the squads my be able to operate just fine. (i.e. the troops might be brave, difficult to panic, great shots, hardy, physically fit etc, but they just can't operate without direct control. Blanket setting a whole battalion at conscript status to capture command delay issues would be doing a dis-service in other areas of their performance. (monkey with each squad in that battalion individually to get what you wnat is might be time consuming.)

CM isn't flexible enough (yet) to represent this. In some companies, no matter what army, the training will be so intensive that fireteams can operate independently. Then again, two or three men get killed and that squad goes into the next battle starting at square one. I think this is JasonC's point.

Now as both armies partake of the crucible of war and gain more experience, this gap potentially narrows, assuming the lesser army passed it's initial sink or swim phase of learning.

Infantry turnover rates over a one year period for all armies was a minimum of 100 percent for those units not actually doing garrison duty.

Secondly when discussing these national army differnces as they pertain to WW2, you can not apply them equally throughout the entire period of time of the whole war. The German Army in 1940 was a very different Army than 1943 than in 1945. Likewise the French Army in 1940 was a differnt army than the French Army fighting in Cassino in 1944. If this were done in table form, than for each army for whatever characteristics you wnat the default setting for that period to reflect, you would need a column for what time period, those charcateristics would be enforced. It's like the default charateristics for green-regular-veteran troops in each army would vary depending upon the year.

Meanwhile conscript troops are conscript troops, elite troops are elite troops and crack troops are crack troops, regardless of their National Army.

Los

I'd concentrate more on TOE differences (which CM does) and try and find other training differences that are hard and fast - ie my example of motorcycle training for all British officers.

[K_Tiger]

To speak for the germans as a german..its like playing with white tigers..

Im wondering, why no one mentioned how the germans were prepared for war, mentaly like physikaly. The young boys came into the Hitler Youth and became brain washed before they can think for herselfs.

I dont say career soldiers like Rangers, Commandos were worser than the best german counterparts, but the mass of german soldiers physis and overal moral was far better then of any country, at this time in the world. That doesnt mean germans are from their birth are better soldiers or fighters, under the right circumstances, every human is able to do so.

The hole country, or lets say the most of it hade to make what we would today call the first aerobic wave....even such stupid sports disciplines like handgrenade throwing included this...(record was 78m ). I`ve never read, or heared from a vet., that not to go to the army or possible not to fight maybe even to the death, was an option.

There was a lot more to put in this theory...like military history of the familie, the high overal educatinonal standard and the willigness to fight for the fatherland..after the mid of war the losses of the own home and the destroyed infrastructure can be ad to the stay and die mentality.To say there was no differences compared to other nations is ignorant. I do not need to wait on an answer...it will end like discussions with my dad which football team is the best..

To ad:

i prefer to play with blue + german equipment against green + allied eq. and vice versa. All others brings the danger to be called a right wing or N... at least here in germany.

[ October 06, 2003, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: K_Tiger ]

[Michael Dorosh]

And Canada, the US and Britain never had sports?

How much of a quantifiable difference could it possibly have made?

Allied soldiers benefitted from several more weeks of basic and trades training than their German counterpart (for some Germans, 7 or 8 weeks of training was all they got by 1944). During this time they were very physically fit.

Canadian soldiers were also better fit than Germans on the average - they were running daily battle drill courses after 1941 - all training was done in full kit and at the double. See BATTALION OF HEROES for info on the Battle Drill system adopted throughout the Canadian Army (and IIRC the British Army). Battle Drill inspired a kind of physical toughness that most Eastern Front battalions could only dream of.

[Pud]

I agree that scenario designers can make what they feel is a national/unit characteristic (be it accurate or not) present in a scenario but that leaves the players of quick battle with access to units which are bascially amorphous blobs with legs and guns.

If I could select (in a quick battle) SS units or some other unit which "tended" to be of better training/moral etc (and therefore cost slightly more) and could have an expectation that that unit would have a higher chance of having higher moral (or higher fanaticism) than a regular unit within the same battle would be reasonable? This is analogous to the veteran/green selection, you select and pay for a unit which 90% of the time will be a better unit. Couldnt the same work for other "characteristics"? This could also be linked to year of purchase to take into account the degredation of the "characteristc" that im most cases occurred towards the end of the war.

Note that by characteristics I am of course referring to unit characteristics not racial characteristics.

[K_Tiger]

I wanted only to show the pre-war differences. Im the last who tried to make someone beliving, the US, Canadians or whoever, doesnt made sport. But the like how the germans eliminated mill. of jews, with the same ambition they construct a giant army, unmatched in history. Even the allies trained her soldier mutch harder in 41, this has nothing to say. People who knows a bit about sports, will tell you, that it requires a lot more to fill the gap between an untrained man and one who made sports since his early youth.

There are many parts to made a "good" soldier...yes, you dont need to be a 100 meter goldmedall winner, to be a succesfull tankgunner..but the overall physic conditions are only a part from the hole.

Again, you want really compare a german 39-41 army with the pitiful remainders in 44? Come on...till then, the germs lost more Officers then the hole western allies "normal" soldiers altogether.

Like a proverb says: "the best dies first", and after 3 Mill. deads, there arent mutch left...especialy for such a small country.

[Los]

"And Canada, the US and Britain never had sports?

How much of a quantifiable difference could it possibly have made?"

Reminds me of that line from Red Dawn.

"Ah but your son was part of that elite paramilitary organization: Eagle Scouts".

Los

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Jack Carr:

I would assume that Pud would be talking about, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, 12th Waffen SS Panzer.

You can't even make generalizations about them. By all accounts, the 1st at Normandy wasn't really all that good... they had given up most of their veterans to form the 12th. There are periods in which these divisions, for whatever reason, just weren't that good. By basing some kind of game mechanic on the general state, you disallow portrail of the exception. To do it right, the game designers would have to research the histories of every unit that fought and then apply the 'nationalistic' modifiers on a unit by unit, dat by date basis. Much better to leave this up to the scenario designers. Within the current engine, it is possible to reflect many of the existing stereotypes.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

People who knows a bit about sports, will tell you, that it requires a lot more to fill the gap between an untrained man and one who made sports since his early youth.

I may be misunderstanding you, but it seems that you are implying that American, British, and Canadian boys did not participate in sports during their formative years. Nothing could be further from the truth. In addition to sports and athletic events organized by their schools, many kids also played informally. In the US, sand lot baseball, pickup basketball, and other sports were ubiquitous, and I expect there were similar things happening in the other countries. Also, a fair share of the soldiers in the US army came off of farms where they would also have engaged in strenuous physical labor and have grown up hunting and shooting.

Bottom line is I don't think we should make assumptions about national differences based on these factors until we look at them a great deal more closely.

It might be more profitable to look at average diet during childhood in the various countries if we want to get into formative issues. But personally I think all of this is likely to be naught but a blind alley as far as CM is concerned.

Michael

[ October 06, 2003, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[Michael Dorosh]

How much did physical fitness really matter, relatively speaking? The Allies drowned their enemies in bombs and high explosive.

As indicated earlier, the British and Canadians had extremely rigorous standards for physical fitness - Monty even had his brigadiers running every day!

In an Olympic contest, the Germans may well have outperformed the Canadians. In Normandy, the ability to run the 100 yard dash faster was really of little consequence compared to the Allied FOOs ability to call down a TOT or well placed 25 pdr concentration...and those same Canadian infantrymen had done a lot of tough training for four years in England and may well have been more "fit" than their German counterparts. But I honestly doubt either side had a real edge, or if they did, it mattered little.

[Makes The Jelly Judder]

I was of the understanding that it was the modern weapons of war that enabled total war. The MG and good rifles sort of negate the general lack of super human ability of the average Joe; know body can run faster than a bullet.

[Michael Emrys]

Well, stamina and general physical toughness count. Ability to function on little sleep, ability to withstand continual stress, resistance to illness are all important in combat. But it isn't obvious to me that any nationality had a measurable advantage over the others in this regard. For one thing, once again individual differences would tend to blur whatever national differences might have existed.

Michael

[ October 06, 2003, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Well, stamina and general physical toughness count. Ability to function on little sleep, ability to withstand continual stress, resistance to illness are all important in combat. But it isn't obvious to me that any nationality had a measurable advantage over the others in this regard. For one thing, once again individual differences would tend to blur whatever national differences might have existed.

Michael

Correct down to the last syllable.

[Becket]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

I wanted only to show the pre-war differences.

I'm not convinced there is one...though my knowledge of German sporting activities is really limited to Jesse Owens humiliating the ubermunchkins at the Olympics.

Do you have any details on what was different in Germany as opposed to, say, the US system that prioritized high school & college organized athletics, not to mention the professional leagues for football and baseball.

[ October 07, 2003, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: Becket ]

[K_Tiger]

I'm not convinced there is one...though my knowledge of German sporting activities is really limited to Jesse Owens humiliating the ubermunchkins at the Olympics

If you want to tell me something with it, feel free. Btw. was Mr. Owens on the frontline?

So.. i found something about the Hitleryouth:

They where founded in 1926 with 100.000 this rised to 8.7 Mio. in 1939... 10% of hole Germans.

DJ "Deutsche Jungvolk" are the Kids between 10-14 the real HJ are from 14-18 years old.

Something they have (should) to do every week:

1. (2 hours) Afternoon games without equipment (like balls)

some gymnastic.

2. Boxing, but only if a trainer is available.

This i translated with a specific programm:

(1 Sunday morning about 3-4 hours)

Instruction: Map customer 1:25000. Get along after sun and

clock setting-up of the map.

In the area: Get along in the area after the map 1:25 000 connected

with small tasks of orientation.

Order exercises: About 15 minutes of individual training process and

closed order of the group.

Or:

(1 Sunday morning about 4 - 6 hours)

Exercise march: 10-15 kilometers with 5-10 kilograms luggage,

ever after age and efficiency, connected with structure of camp,

Abkochen etc. ever after weather, or with tasks of orientation with

and without compass; Description of area, utilization of area,

camouflaging, distance treasures.

Or:

Area or road run: About 5-8 minutes, speed after the weakest ones

arrange, good runners into special departments together-let.

Or:

(1 Sunday morning about 3-4 hours)

Instruction: Repetition: Map customer 1:25000. Get along after

sun and clock, polar star, land forms, description of area.

In the area: Get along in the area after the map. Find from visible

points in the area on the map.

Sehuebungen: Goals on proximity and distances construct, a goal

recognize and describe, distance treasures.

Or:

(1 Saturday afternoon about 2-3 hours)

Repetition: Gunnery: Procedure with the shot outside of the

weapon. Triangle goals: Notice sitting at the first shot table and

lying presented. Goals and Abkruemmen, etc..

Source: Official gazette of the realm youth guidance from 15 March

1934 (Institut for

Contemporary history, Munich railways. 44.02).

Those things i learned in my Armytime (Bundeswehr) and those little buggers startet with 10 years to read maps...omg.

[K_Tiger]

For one thing, once again individual differences would tend to blur whatever national differences might have existed

I meant the overal kondition, i do not speak from single individuals.

The USA are the leader in the most olympic disciplines, but should this tell me anything about the overall condition from the hole nation...i dont think so, who has the thickest people proportionally? This should be also the USA!

[Sergei]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

who has the thickest people proportionally? This should be also the USA!

I thought it was the Samoans?

I don't know, however, if athletics is really relevant for CM. As you know, most recruits went through quite a lot of drilling and marching during their basic training period which would even things out. More over, back in those days most people took part in physical work in agriculture and industries, so you didn't have that many beer-bellied walruses anyway.

And just being fit during peace time is not enough, during battles you sure have a lot of exercise but very irregular diet. Should differences in supply systems and especially disturbances of supply be modelled, then? I think the 'weakened' and 'unfit' statuses are quite enough for this, as no-one's likely to end up with a universal model.

[Newbtler]

I just think that all these pre-war civilian or para-military training was of little use in a modern war.

Here in Italy, there were many Youth organizations (like the "Balilla" guys, "Avanguardisti" etc) who trained many thousands of children and teen-agers with physical excercises, map-reading , firing with small rifles.

Was this really useful in the war?

I think it wasn't. Logistics, weapons, feeding support, fanatism and extensive military training were the keys to succeed on a modern battlefield.

I still think that CM is great as it is now, just because we can change every units in the editor, and make them what these particular units were in reality. We can make a unit fit or unfit, veteran or green, add morale or stealth or combat modifier in every platoon or company.

Every army in the world had good and bad soldiers and commanders, there were crack and green troops and the thing is that we can simulate this in CM.

For example: in the Italian army there were units that were very tough and others that were fragile and were not very useful.

Most of these units were made of the same soldiers (and same guys from North or South of Italy), had the same training and weapons as the other units, but somehow they behaved differently.

I just think that it's unjustified to create a default characteristic for every nation, even because we can still change our troops in the game, so we can represent what happened in reality.

[ October 07, 2003, 04:38 AM: Message edited by: Newbtler ]

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font>

[Joachim]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Ostdeutch were expected to be loyal to the cause based on ethnicity but oddly enough many of them preferred their actual country.

Guess you mean Volksdeutsche (ie Ethnic Germans living in other countries)? "Ostdeutsch" is a post WW2-term.

And the idea there was no class system in Germany is laughable on its face.

Sure there was a class system in the society. But you could enter the upper class with academic grades (or money) and in the field the officers were encouragead and expected to lead by example instead of "dig my foxhole first, then dig yours". The Reichswehr had the first assessment centers to recruit their officers - they could not afford to have somebody in just because he knew somebody.

Is it normal for a Brit enlisted man and an officer to go for a beer? What about the Germans?

Sergeants did at least as much of the low level command in the US Army as in the German, informally.

That's why I offered a system to categorize the nations. Guess the US score would not be on the low end.

It was a simple function of time in service and the natural leadership of those who know. Brit airborne at Arnhem didn't exactly dissolve as soon as an officer bought it.

Airborne are always a good example for average units. Abandon "nations", use armed forces (From LW Inf to SS, paras to mech)

There are numerous examples of isolated Russian units fighting to the last man with or without leaders. Of course millions also surrendered. So are they stereotypically fanatic or panicky?

They fought to the death in the place were they were. Huge command delay. What did they do in offensive operations without leaders? What did they do when they had to quickly adapt to an attack cause they were not dug-in?

It is not simply that there are counterexamples to stereotypes, the whole range is found within practically every formation type in practically every army.

You'll find extraordinary leaders in many armies. No doubt about that. The question is "how many?". Is there a measurable difference in numbers?

OK, there are few examples of Italian crack commandos (though somebody swam into Egyptian harbors to put mines under battleships), so what, what scenario is going to pretend otherwise?

Now we are talking about a "class system". It wasn't the Italian soldier. It was the "Handpicked" officers (upper class) often not caring for their men, men neither motivated for the cause nor for their officers. IF a unit had a special spirit, the unit could perform differently.

That is why all the knobs are in the hands of scenario designers to fiddle with, one unit and battle at a time.

And what about QBs?

The problem with differences is that there are so many, and nation is not the only cause.

Gruß

Joachim

[ October 07, 2003, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: Scarhead ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Well, stamina and general physical toughness count. Ability to function on little sleep, ability to withstand continual stress,

All common denominators.

resistance to illness are all important in combat.

What about city boys vs country lads in adverse conditions ? The knowledge on such things as what wood you can and can not burn in the combat zone counts in. So does the overall level of preparedness of the respective armies to combat the sanitary and other related hazards. I think the only army to suffer from trenchfoot on a large scale during during the later stages of the war was the US Army. Then again to get it in the Finnish army was far less likely to happen and if you did get it was more often than not the soldiers own fault for not taking care of his gear when he was supposed to. NOTE: during Winter War the civilian footwear used by the troops worked both ways, country boys using their own boots were pretty much OK while city lads using their lofers were not so well off.

But it isn't obvious to me that any nationality had a measurable advantage over the others in this regard. For one thing, once again individual differences would tend to blur whatever national differences might have existed.

I agree in principle. But, generally speaking, somehow it is always the home team which gets all the bonuses. IF they have got their act together.

[ October 07, 2003, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: Tero ]

[Jack Carr]

Berlichtingen posted: Much better to leave this up to the scenario designers. Within the current engine, it is possible to reflect many of the existing stereotypes.

Yes. I think I said this two posts ago. Just read back a bit. Using your point you could easily take my last post and say that depending upon a given time within the conflict a specific unit/division may or may not get a fanatacism bonus. Again, if the scenario designer felt strongly enough about it. In your example at that period in the 1st SS history, they would not get a bonus but before they gave their veterans to the 12th they would have. AGain, I'm agreeing with Andreas' initial solution to the situation. The best way to handle it is with a bonus if the scenario designer feels strongly enough about it. If they are as knowledgeable as yourself regarding a units history and its fighting capability at a given period, then the designer will know, based upon where the scenario lands in the timeline, to give or not to give a unit a bonus. In any case, I agree with you and originally with Andreas on this one.