Michael Emrys Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Originally posted by K_Tiger: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> For one thing, once again individual differences would tend to blur whatever national differences might have existedI meant the overal kondition, i do not speak from single individuals.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Originally posted by Tero: What about city boys vs country lads...This is an interesting point. I have read that among American troops in Viet Nam, the country boys oriented and adapted better out on patrol in the jungle, but then the city boys took over in city fighting in places like Hue. I have found no comparable discussion about the troops during WW II, but it wouldn't surprise me if a similar situation applied. But as far as whole units were concerned, these effects might tend to even out as soldiers shared their particular knowledge in their squads and platoons. In armies that tended to recruit units in particular regions, these kinds of differences might emerge, but as time went on, most armies became at least somewhat homogenized, at least as far as the urban/rural split is concerned. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Prehaps what is needed is a selection for each unit that would rate the possibility of new leaders arising and the initiative of small units that lose their existing HQ units. In CM once the HQ unit is gone...its gone, yet a reading of history shows that many times a junior man, "with a marshalls baton in his backpack" arises. I would see that in CMx2 you could control how often this would occur and prehaps the quality of the new leaders. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Originally posted by Hans: Prehaps what is needed is a selection for each unit that would rate the possibility of new leaders arising and the initiative of small units that lose their existing HQ units. In CM once the HQ unit is gone...its gone, yet a reading of history shows that many times a junior man, "with a marshalls baton in his backpack" arises. I would see that in CMx2 you could control how often this would occur and prehaps the quality of the new leaders. I'm starting to wonder if we aren't getting into splitting finer and finer hairs here. Yes, it is fun to speculate about all these things, but just how much difference would it actually make to gameplay? Consider: we're talking about platoons losing their HQs now. So what happens if they do? They don't just give up and quit fighting, go into paralysis, or anything like that. They just fight at somewhat reduced efficiency. And unless a player has been either awfully careless or unlucky, his HQ isn't going to get whacked until the platoon's squads are pretty well worn down and ready to take a rest anyway. So generating a new HQ isn't going to bring them very far back into the fight. So what's it all come to? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Chapuis Posted October 7, 2003 Author Share Posted October 7, 2003 I'm starting to wonder if we aren't getting into splitting finer and finer hairs here. Yes, it is fun to speculate about all these things, but just how much difference would it actually make to gameplay?Im sure not much difference in game play. To try to get away from the current discussion about pre-military activities, I am interested in hearing if differences in “branch characteristics” would be appropriate to try to model – or if they are all just stereotypes. Should US army rangers/marines/airborne/regular infantry only be priced differently in a QB based on armament and squad size (exp level being constant)? Obviously you could set the bonus for one branch higher than another, but that leaves out a very large portion of games – QBs. Also, going back to the differences in combined arms methodology that I mentioned before - but was either forgotten, ignored, or considered not worthy to respond to – here are some excepts from Rommel’s Greatest Victory (Witcham): British tactical doctrine, which had been developed in the 1920s and 1930s, evolved around the basic idea that heavy “infantry” tanks should assist the infantry in conducting the deliberate assaults against the enemy’s continuously held front lines, as they had done during WWI; then, once a breakthrough had been achieved, they would commit their pursuit tanks into the enemy’s rear areas. . . It contributed to the dangerous idea which developed in the Royal Tank Corps that it was an army within an army – that it was an elite formation that should do battle only with the German panzers. . . [The Germans] worked their tanks, antitank guns, artillery, and infantry in harness, so that none was without the protection of the others. They especially liked to use their armor against the infantry and soft-skinned vehicles of their enemies, and their antitank guns against the British tanks. British tanks at this time could not adopt these tactics, as they had only armor-piercing shells. The German 88 did have a serious weakness: it was designed as an antiaircraft gun, not as an AT gun. It was therefore very vulnerable to enemy artillery, but the Allied commanders (especially their tank commanders) were slow to appreciate this weakness.He later claims that the Allies rarely called in artillery against the German 88’s in tactical situations. I’m not proposing any game changes for this, but it seems like to get an accurate battle simulation, combined arms tactics would need to be discouraged for the Allies. Also if you will be fighting a ‘April 42 NA’ scenario, will it be considered gamey to use combined arms tactics? Just food for thought. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Tiger Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: And what I am saying is that little if anything is known about comparative "overall condition". If you have some hard data to amaze us with, by all means bring it forth. So far, all you've presented are unsubstantiated opinions, opinions that conflict with opinions expressed by writers with more impressive credentials than either you or I who have consistently maintained that Australians, Canadians, and Americans were by and large the hardiest soldiers in the war. [/QB] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 "I just think that all these pre-war civilian or para-military training was of little use in a modern war. Was this really useful in the war?" Yes it's extremely useful in training for war. If I'm the guy doing training resource management for Germany in say WW2 or Japan or whatever and I can cut a week or two off of basic training because recruits already have or can master much quicker certain basic skills sets, (which they would have learned through paramlitary training, or in the Reichsarbeitdients, etc) then I can feed trained replacements into the front line in a faster manner. That's what that's all about. Los 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Determinant Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Originally posted by K_Tiger: .. thats why in the german army the smalest guy have to carry the maschine gun around. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Originally posted by Los: "I just think that all these pre-war civilian or para-military training was of little use in a modern war. Was this really useful in the war?" Yes it's extremely useful in training for war. If I'm the guy doing training resource management for Germany in say WW2 or Japan or whatever and I can cut a week or two off of basic training because recruits already have or can master much quicker certain basic skills sets, (which they would have learned through paramlitary training, or in the Reichsarbeitdients, etc) then I can feed trained replacements into the front line in a faster manner. That's what that's all about. Los And if the Canadians or Americans can still send their recruits to 16 weeks of training vice 7 for the Germans, doesn't it still even out? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Tiger Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Los [/qb]And if the Canadians or Americans can still send their recruits to 16 weeks of training vice 7 for the Germans, doesn't it still even out? [/QB] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Tiger Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 Ahh. That is interesting. It was the same in the Rhodesian Army. The little guy gets the MAG. The argument was just the same - the little man will move better with it. Something to do with power to weight ratios I believe. Not quiet right...smaller people are mostly more tough then stronger ones. They are able to move longer distances. You will propably not see a bodybuilder who runs a marathon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 Originally posted by 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.Oh god. Ever heard about statistics? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 Originally posted by Steiner14: ]Oh god. Ever heard about statistics? [/QB]Got any of these statistic thingies that actually quantify and show "national traits? such as Italians as surrender bunnies? Or any other form of assorted silliness? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: This is an interesting point. I have read that among American troops in Viet Nam, the country boys oriented and adapted better out on patrol in the jungle, but then the city boys took over in city fighting in places like Hue. I have found no comparable discussion about the troops during WW II, but it wouldn't surprise me if a similar situation applied. I would expect so, too. And since most countries have both towns and villages one would expect the universality is there. Which brings us to the fringes of the military establishment of the respective countries and how they planned ahead. Including such things as battlefield bivouacks. The Germans for example had their light weight tents made from separate cloths carried by the men themselves. The Finnish army went for the half squad tent with a stove (the model is still in use today). I do not recall having seen any data on the British and the US bivouacks. From what I have read the Germans for example relied on finding bivouacks in the indiginous constructions more than their tents, which they apparently thought would be temporary ones. The Finnish army tent fits better for extended bivouacking in field conditions. I theorize that since the Finland could not afford "unnecessary" losses the need was to limit the "mobility" and other such "kills" with appropriate preventive measures. The big armies could afford them so they were taken for granted, (if unfortunate). But as far as whole units were concerned, these effects might tend to even out as soldiers shared their particular knowledge in their squads and platoons. In armies that tended to recruit units in particular regions, these kinds of differences might emerge, but as time went on, most armies became at least somewhat homogenized, at least as far as the urban/rural split is concerned. The interesting thing is the value of the "buddy battalions" have been cast in doubt by the British experience during WWI. The Finnish WWII mobilization organization was regional and during heavy engagements the casualties concentrated. But it also meant that the units were composed of men who knew each other intimitely (including their commanding officers up to battalion level)and unit cohesion tended to remain good even when the losses ran heavy. On the other hand the units were susceptible to all kinds of rumor mongering (which resulted in the fall of Viipuri in 1944). One noteworthy thing is that even in full retreat the Finnish units would not surrender. The Red Army could capture only ~2400 Finns during the Continuation War. By the same token the number of Soviets captured during Winter War was ~5000 while the number for the Continuation War was ~60 000. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 Originally posted by Tero: The Finnish army went for the half squad tent with a stove (the model is still in use today).Surely you mean the half-platoon tent? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 I sincerely hope we are joking when we suggest that soldiers who grew up in cities would somehow be "better" at fighting in cities! Given the low percentage of rural-raised soldiers even in WW II, I tend to doubt severely that the idea of the North American "natural hunter" or "natural soldier" has any weight behind it. Even in World War One, some people have tried to describe the Canadians as superior soldiers because they were supposedly backwoodsmen, hunters, and the like. Statistics don't bear this out, and there is no proof that even those soldiers who grew up on farms made better or worse soldiers than their city-dwelling comrades (who outnumbered them). The only real skills that were useful in city fighting that were not used in any other situation were mouseholing - and I don't seem to recall that being a standard activity back home on the block(!) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 I sincerely hope we are joking when we suggest that soldiers who grew up in cities would somehow be "better" at fighting in cities! Given the low percentage of rural-raised soldiers even in WW II, I tend to doubt severely that the idea of the North American "natural hunter" or "natural soldier" has any weight behind it. Even in World War One, some people have tried to describe the Canadians as superior soldiers because they were supposedly backwoodsmen, hunters, and the like. Statistics don't bear this out, and there is no proof that even those soldiers who grew up on farms made better or worse soldiers than their city-dwelling comrades (who outnumbered them). The only real skills that were useful in city fighting that were not used in any other situation were mouseholing - and I don't seem to recall that being a standard activity back home on the block(!) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Bluebottle Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I sincerely hope we are joking when we suggest that soldiers who grew up in cities would somehow be "better" at fighting in cities! Given the low percentage of rural-raised soldiers even in WW II, I tend to doubt severely that the idea of the North American "natural hunter" or "natural soldier" has any weight behind it. Even in World War One, some people have tried to describe the Canadians as superior soldiers because they were supposedly backwoodsmen, hunters, and the like. Statistics don't bear this out, and there is no proof that even those soldiers who grew up on farms made better or worse soldiers than their city-dwelling comrades (who outnumbered them). The only real skills that were useful in city fighting that were not used in any other situation were mouseholing - and I don't seem to recall that being a standard activity back home on the block(!) This also used to be the claim behind the superiority of Australian soldiers. However, once analysis was done of the enlistment rolls, the reality was that it was found that the overwhelming majority of Australian soldiers were reflective of the society they came from - primarily urbanised and not from "off the farm". It might surprise many people but Australia is one of the most urbanised nations on earth with, at the turn of the 20th century, it was as high as over 75% of the population living in urban settings. Its become progressively better/worse (depending I suppose upon one's perspective) with today nearly 90% of the population living in urban settings. IMO, its not where the soldier is drawn from, as much as what the training incalculates in the soldier, as to their ability to think for themselves and to act independently when needed. If the emphasis is upon following direction from officers or NCOs and little room for independent thought is allowed, then you'll have a mob of sheep. If, on the otherhand, the reverse is true, with soldiers being allowed to contribute and to provide solutions and their role within the unit being recognised as being as essential as that of the officer/NCO, then you'll have a group of soldiers who can overcome most obstacles. Attitudes to authority are also important in that respect. A rigid class system (UK) versus an egalitarian system (Dominions) or even a mobile class system (US) tends to be part of the national differences between army. Afterall, armies are created by their societies and hence reflective of them. However, that is, as I've suggested before, a generalisation and one which lies at a level much higher than portrayed in the CM game universe. [ October 09, 2003, 03:26 AM: Message edited by: Private Bluebottle ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: The only real skills that were useful in city fighting that were not used in any other situation were mouseholing - and I don't seem to recall that being a standard activity back home on the block(!) You just live in the wrong neighborhood 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 In my neighborhood we used to blow things up all the time. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Shame they didn't start with you 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Well, I hate to brag you know, but I was pretty popular with the girls. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 I always figured you for a pretty boy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 You can't guess. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Originally posted by Sergei: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tero: The Finnish army went for the half squad tent with a stove (the model is still in use today).Surely you mean the half-platoon tent? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.