GaMaX Posted October 1, 2003 Author Share Posted October 1, 2003 Originally posted by Ant: Well whatever happens I've got confidence that BFC will get it about right, they haven't done a bad job so far. I do think that the Italians should have some sort of penalty though, similar to the Russian one in CMBB. It's a fact that the combat performance of the Italian army in general in WW2 was abysmal, they failed at just about everything they tried and couldn't even defeat the Greeks. That's not to criticise the average Italian soldier, there are many episodes of individual heroism. It's usually the fault of the command and/or equipment when an army performs so badly, just look at the British surrender at Singapore, or the French defeat in 1940 That was my point. I just said it in a strange and interesting way. But, if somebody thinks that my idea of Italian "surrender" order is an insult or degradation of Italian soldiers, than please tell me what you think of "Human Wave"? Trying to scare off enemy by yelling!!! Isn't that humiliating for a soldier. Fighting by yelling?! With "Surrender" soldiers at least stay alive, but with "Human wave"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Originally posted by Gamax: Just as soviets have their useless order in CMBB – "Human Wave", Italians could also have one in CMAK. Of course, that would be "Surrender" order. HQs could have an additional one: "Surrender Platoon / Company / Battalion". You mean like those pushovers at the battle of Keren? The Italians are penalized enough (M13s anyone). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Originally posted by Gamax: With "Surrender" soldiers at least stay alive, but with "Human wave"... The US Army practiced "Marching Fire" (Patton even recommends it in his memoirs), which was the formation of a skirmish line and an upright advance towards the enemy. The use of semi-auto weapons made this more plausible than the use of bolt action weapons; but a Soviet wave armed with SMGs in close-in terrain would have been something rightly to be feared. Given a peasant army, and a lack of trained junior officers, the Red Army appears, AFICT, to have adopted rather large sub-units which were harder to exercise tactical control over. I would suspect the Human Wave was not a "national characteristic" (as it would be perhaps in the Japanese case) but simply a reflection of poor Soviet leadership at the tactical level, at least initially. The Germans did not have this problem. So we come to the question of poor Italian leadership. While their generalship may have been poor, and junior officers and senior NCOs not well trained, did it really make a big enough difference in CM terms to institute some sort of "surrender" rule? I think you would need to provide specific examples of why you think this should be. Tactical inflexibility can be simulated by longer command delays (we see this in the Russians too AFAIK) but I think any kind of "surrender" rules would be off the mark. Perhaps, though, having the global morale reach a different threshold before causing auto-surrender would be workable, but you would need to prove that, at the tactical level, Italian units were more prone to surrender. I think that one an Italian unit committed to fighting, they would be just as unlikely to surrender as anyone else. The surrenders we are discussing were not in tactical engagements. Read THE BATTLE OF SICILY for some good info on Italian units in that campaign. While there were many bad formations that surrendered en masse, there were also good ones. The surrenders tended to occur in situations outside the scope of CM. In other words, CM battles represent units that have already chosen to stand and fight, or so I should think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Originally posted by Sergei: Also I think there should be a way for designers to set the initial morale for each side to model a situation where one side or the other is already demoralized and on the verge of total moral collapse. There already is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Originally posted by Berlichtingen: You mean like those pushovers at the battle of Keren? Leave your wedding reception (and the bridesmaids!) out of this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Originally posted by Gamax: But, if somebody thinks that my idea of Italian "surrender" order is an insult or degradation of Italian soldiers, than please tell me what you think of "Human Wave"? Trying to scare off enemy by yelling!!! Isn't that humiliating for a soldier. Fighting by yelling?! With "Surrender" soldiers at least stay alive, but with "Human wave"... The human wave is a legitimate tactic of the early Russians. If done correctly, it can be rudely effective. Having a special surrender command for the Italians is just plain insulting. Put any nationality in similar crappy situations and they'll do the same thing... in fact, they did. It diminishes the fact that when the Italians were not completely screwed to begin with they fought just as hard as anyone else. The Battle of Karen is an excellent example. There were also examples in North Africa as well as Sicily (It wasn't just Fallschirmjäger at Primasole Bridge) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Berlichtingen: You mean like those pushovers at the battle of Keren? Leave your wedding reception (and the bridesmaids!) out of this! </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Just because the average Italian soldier wasn’t stupid to the point of dying (with a 1st ww rifle on his hands) for his general’s big “villa” in Benghazi, it is my believe, we shouldn’t go rampart with pertinent but dubious jokes about a full nation “performance” at war. This “so common” (not in this forum thankfully) ignorant perception of the Italian ww 2 effort, just goes to shows us how we shouldn’t relay only on Hollywood excellent entertainment for personal education Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinzBaby Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 The Italians fought bloody well considering their circumstances. Regarding senario design, keep their troop quality at 'random', you won't know what to expect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaMaX Posted October 1, 2003 Author Share Posted October 1, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gamax: With "Surrender" soldiers at least stay alive, but with "Human wave"... The US Army practiced "Marching Fire" (Patton even recommends it in his memoirs), which was the formation of a skirmish line and an upright advance towards the enemy. The use of semi-auto weapons made this more plausible than the use of bolt action weapons; but a Soviet wave armed with SMGs in close-in terrain would have been something rightly to be feared.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Originally posted by Gamax: Aha... and just tell me, how often do you use Human Wave command in CMBB?Just about every time I'm stuck with conscript and green Russians. Get them in close and then use the human wave command. Ends with lots of dead Germans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Well, not being a history expert I too was under the impression that the Italians seemed to surrender a lot at least according to the book " Rommel's War In Africa". by Wolf Heckmann and others I've read over the years. Sorry can't remember the titles but they too left me with this impression. The darn authors really should visit this site before writing if they don't know what they are talking about. I am just starting on "An Army At Dawn" by Rick Atkinson and it'll be interesting to see if he is also wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Originally posted by lcm1947: Well, not being a history expert I too was under the impression that the Italians seemed to surrender a lot at least according to the book " Rommel's War In Africa". by Wolf Heckmann and others I've read over the years. Sorry can't remember the titles but they too left me with this impression. The darn authors really should visit this site before writing if they don't know what they are talking about. I am just starting on "An Army At Dawn" by Rick Atkinson and it'll be interesting to see if he is also wrong. Ok, let me spell out the point... The Italians didn't surrender because they were Italians. They surrendered because they were screwed. Now, in CM you can play a balanced QB between Italians and British, but in reality, the Italians had to fight QBs where they got 1,000 points while the Brits got 10,000 points. Given a reasonable situation, Italians fought as hard as anyone. Given a completely crappy situation, ALL nationalities surrendered. There is absolutely NO valid reason for giving the Italians a special surrender command Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Oh I dunno - I reckon a "surrender platoon/company/battalion" command would be fine for the Italians. We could match it with a "Surrender fortress" command for the Yanks and the Brits, an "Evacuate the Island/Continent" command for the Kiwis and Brits, a "leave the whole damned theatre" command for the Aussies, "Surrender the army" for the Russians & Germans, and so -on....what's the actual problem here??!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Originally posted by Berlichtingen: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by lcm1947: Well, not being a history expert I too was under the impression that the Italians seemed to surrender a lot at least according to the book " Rommel's War In Africa". by Wolf Heckmann and others I've read over the years. Sorry can't remember the titles but they too left me with this impression. The darn authors really should visit this site before writing if they don't know what they are talking about. I am just starting on "An Army At Dawn" by Rick Atkinson and it'll be interesting to see if he is also wrong. Ok, let me spell out the point... The Italians didn't surrender because they were Italians. They surrendered because they were screwed. Now, in CM you can play a balanced QB between Italians and British, but in reality, the Italians had to fight QBs where they got 1,000 points while the Brits got 10,000 points. Given a reasonable situation, Italians fought as hard as anyone. Given a completely crappy situation, ALL nationalities surrendered. There is absolutely NO valid reason for giving the Italians a special surrender command </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Yes, yes and yes - and I'll reiterate my point that entire battalions didn't surrender while hotly engaged in a CM-type fight! <small font>Michael...what's your mannequin's name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: The Italians really had the right idea, if you ask me. They got rid of their fascist warlord, surrendered the entire country when it was in danger of invasion, and joined the right cause. Just a shame they couldn't prevent the Germans from taking over so efficiently in Sep 1943. Today they're a land of milk and honey where porn stars hold high public office. Someone want to explain to me where they went wrong? I guess we're supposed to admire the Germans for being too weak-willed and/or stupid to surrender in February 1943 when they should have, ensuring the deaths of millions more people, the razing of thousands of acres of useable farmland, destruction of entire cities and rail networks, and etc. Given the choice between a bellicose blowhard who needs to fight all the time to feel big, or an abject coward who backs down from a fight, I think I'd feel safer living next door to the coward, thanks.I'm with you on this one, Michael. Although in another post I refer to some of the Italian troops as semi-literate, the point needs to be made that those semi-literates were shrewd enough to recognize when the game was not worth the candle. They knew what was important to them and this war wasn't going to win them more of it. If WW II proved anything at all, it was that the serious Nazis and Fascists badly misjudged what constitutes the good life and the way to acquire it. It's an example we could do well to keep in mind. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 but in reality, the Italians had to fight QBs where they got 1,000 points while the Brits got 10,000 points. No you're wrong. Actually in the early battles of North Africa it was the other way round. The Italians far outnumbered the British in men and equipment. They surrendered in droves because they had poor leadership and poor equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Originally posted by Ant: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> but in reality, the Italians had to fight QBs where they got 1,000 points while the Brits got 10,000 points. No you're wrong. Actually in the early battles of North Africa it was the other way round. The Italians far outnumbered the British in men and equipment. They surrendered in droves because they had poor leadership and poor equipment. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 What's that got to do with points? 1000 points will buy more M13s than 10000 points will buy Matildas Yes I see your point. Heck give the Italians 2000 points and they can buy twice as many M13s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaMaX Posted October 1, 2003 Author Share Posted October 1, 2003 Originally posted by Berlichtingen: Ok, let me spell out the point... The Italians didn't surrender because they were Italians. They surrendered because they were screwed.No, Berlichtingen, you are missing the point. It doesn’t matter WHY Italians surrendered. They did surrender, and that’s what matters. Of course it has nothing to with the fact that they were Italians. It’s just as with Soviet longer command delays, nobody is saying that Russian soldiers are less intelligent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaMaX Posted October 1, 2003 Author Share Posted October 1, 2003 Originally posted by Mike: Oh I dunno - I reckon a "surrender platoon/company/battalion" command would be fine for the Italians. We could match it with a "Surrender fortress" command for the Yanks and the Brits, an "Evacuate the Island/Continent" command for the Kiwis and Brits, a "leave the whole damned theatre" command for the Aussies, "Surrender the army" for the Russians & Germans, and so -on....what's the actual problem here??!! Oh, finally. Somebody with the sense of humour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romulus Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 "The stories of (Italian) cowardice carried in the British press, like all things else in wartime, were designed for home consumption by civilians."Siege: Malta 1940-1943" by Ernle Bradford. The quotation was found on the site www.comandosupremo.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintusarrius Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Slighly off topic... I remember reading about one of the philosophers of the early Italian Fascist movement vehemently advocating the abandonment of pasta as part of the national diet and the adoption of rice, due to the obvious martial prowess of the Japanese and the apparent love of peaceful contentment endemic in the Italian psyche. You have got to love someone who is as gleefully barking mad mental as that really... I'm with the "Italians being sensible and throwing in the towel like any other sensible individual". Stick most people in the middle of the desert with their water supplies interdicted, little or no motor transport and an enemy who has tanks that you cannot touch and I expect that there'll be a lot of white flags fluttering. I've got a lot of time for the Italians (their navy especially), poor s0ds were just on the wrong side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Originally posted by Quintusarrius: I've got a lot of time for the Italians (their navy especially), poor s0ds were just on the wrong side. I haven't looked deeply into the question, so I may be nurturing a misconception here, but didn't the anti-Fascist partisans fight well in the last two years of the war? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts