Surrender

[Scipio]

I often wonder why soldiers in CM so rarly surrender. Units usually fight til there is only one or two men left. I think that a unit should nearly always surrenders once they are broken and an enemy is in sight (in simple words).

[Doug Beman]

Well, keep in mind that losses in an infantry unit are not all deaths; this also represents soldiers too wounded to function, soldiers throwing down their weapons to act as medics, and soldiers who have lost all will to fight. When enough soldiers lose the will to fight the entire squad will be listed as panicked or routed, but only when all soldiers are reduced to one of these combat-ineffective states will the entire unit vanish from the field of combat.

DjB

[Austrian Strategist]

Scipio: You are right for CMBO, but not CMBB.

At the Russian Front surrender was comparatively rare, because both sides used to kill their prisoners (at least by neglect), and that was well known.

In the West this should be different, but it´s too late for a major CMBO patch, I suppose.

[Conscript Bagger]

If a side's "friendly map edge" was set to the direction the enemy was coming from - or setting all map edges to "enemy" - would that make broken units more likely to surrender (having nowhere to run, in effect)?

[ July 11, 2002, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Offwhite ]

[Scipio]

Doug Mh - but a captured soldiers is worth the double victory points (AFAIK).

Austrian Strategist I disagree. Both sides made very much prisoners. It is correct that both sides killed many of them, but the most of them died in the Gulags/KZ.

[zukkov]

Originally posted by Austrian Strategist:

Scipio: You are right for CMBO, but not CMBB.

At the Russian Front surrender was comparatively rare, because both sides used to kill their prisoners (at least by neglect), and that was well known.

In the West this should be different, but it´s too late for a major CMBO patch, I suppose.

at first i was going to disagree with you. but tactically, you may be right. however, the russians surrendered by the thousands, espcecially early in the war. i also heard it was common for german soldiers to scream "i'm not ss!" when they surrendered. i assume ss prisoners were probably shot on the spot...

[Kingfish]

i also heard it was common for german soldiers to scream "i'm not ss!" when they surrendered. i assume ss prisoners were probably shot on the spot...

Actually, they screamed "I am Waffen Grenadier!"

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Scipio:

It is correct that both sides killed many of them, but the most of them died in the Gulags/KZ.

That´s what I mean. Russian Prisoners in Germany and German Prisoners in Russia had a short life expectancy, and the soldiers at the front more or less knew this, which discouraged surrender (pockets being the obvious exception).

Also 'Morale' was usually high on both the German and Soviet side, however, my personal explanation of this tends not so much to heroism or political ideology, rather the liberal use of the firing squad in both armies. I am slightly uneasy about this kind of 'morale' being equaled to efficiency in CMBO (only one value for both). We will see how CMBB approaches this.

(One of the few important things that CMBO does not simulate is that German soldiers, on average, were more afraid of their officers. Which is not quite the same as being 'Veteran'.)

[ July 11, 2002, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Austrian Strategist ]

[Andreas]

Play green troops and conscripts with no fanatical setting. They surrender alright.

[KNac]

Scipio you are right, both sides made huge numbers of prisoners. But not in the tactical battlefield, but in an operational/strategical size, were full divisions surrendered because they were totally cut off from their lines and hadn´t got any supplies to continue fighting.

This happened specially in the soviet side early in the war. And the famous cut off of the 6th Army in Stalingrad for the germans.

But in the tactical battlefield surrenders were not that usual, not like in the western front, because as someone pointed out, both sides killed their prisoners usually in the act, specially if they were from some specific arms of their armies.

[ July 11, 2002, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: KNac ]

[kump]

I'm going to have to dispute the fact that units don't surrender enough in CMBO. I think its fine the way it is.

Most times its "broke" and "route" results, but that is another matter. I think that is spot on.

As for surrender, I once had US paratroopers surround a company of German Heer troops, and I did have the superior numbers. I surrounded on three sides and to my surprise, the almost entire company surrendered! I'm talking units with no casualties raising their little arms up in mid game. I had never seen this before, but I rarely get enough time to completely box in the enemy like I had done.

The units seem to surrender when they feel no other option is open, like being surrounded by superior forces where running is certain doom. Seems CMBO gets this right.

Of course, strategically, a hell of a lot more surrendered, but I don't think CMBO can simulate that at all except when you surrender to your opponent because you know any further battle is just throwing away your little troopies digital lives, I mean, oh what the heck, they almost seem to have little digital lives.

[tar]

Surrendering in the middle of a firefight was something that wasn't generally done. It was often a very dangerous thing to attempt. It was often better to pretend to be dead and then either sneak away later or surrender once the fighting had stopped.

Most surrenders were of larger formations, rather than lots of small unit surrenders on the battlefield.

The problems of battlefield surrender included (among others):

o The hot blood of the combatants. Surrendering to the friends of the people you just shot didn't always work well.

o The problem of making the enemy know you wanted to surrender, and weren't starting to launch an assault. The first one out of cover could easily be shot before the enemy clued in to the situation. (I've even seen this happen in CMBO).

o The misuse of surrender as a ruse to lure troops into ambushes. Reinforces the "just shoot 'em" reaction.

o The difficulties in now having to take care of prisoners. Unlike in CMBO, real prisoners need to be much more closely handled. They have to be searched, guarded and moved under escort to the rear. That takes troops away from the battle and makes accomplishing the mission more difficult for the commander on the spot. This leads to killing of prisoners "out of military necessity." [sic]

[Schoerner]

To add my two cents:

Surrendering on the soviet side was much more common than on the german side.

For example: in the first weeks of Barbarossa (2-3 months), over 3 million(!) men of fighting russian troops were captured. Ofcourse this was due to the operational situation that the german attack directly hit the for an attack preparing russian troops close to the german border, but nevertheless the russian troops were not really willing to fight til the last man.

Or think, later in war, of the communist political-commissioners standing behind their own troops and shooting immediately at them, when they din't want to rush forward.

My grandfather told me, it was not rare, that wounded german soldiers, who were not movable begged for a mercy-death by the own comrades, when the front couldn't be held and the soviet troops were coming closer.

I thought this was because of the german propaganda, till my grandfather told me, what he had seen often enough with his own eyes, what had happened to the wounded soldiers in areas that had been evacuated and were reconquered.

It's not the right place to describe it here, but think of the most horrible things human brain can imagine, and it will come close to what happened.

BTW:

this is the reason, why the assassins from the 20th July '44 were completely wrong. They had no knowledge about the war in the east: even if the assassination on Hitler would have been successful, the german troops on the eastern front, would NEVER have surrendered. For by far the most of the german eastern-front fighters, the assassins were traitors.

[ July 14, 2002, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[PiggDogg]

tar,

Your comments were quite succint, well stated, quite logical, and informative.

Cheers, Richard

[Cull]

I generally agree that surrender doesn't happen often enough in CMBO. I have played many games in which one of the following occurs:

1. I have far superior forces, advancing in "mop up" mode against broken/routed units, and they proceed to get shot to bits rather than surrender

2. Advancing with armor against small infantry units, who have nowhere to go. They also tend to stand and get eliminated, within a few meters of a tank. I'm no expert on how it really happened, but if I was staring down the barrel of a Panther from 5 meters and was broken/routed/out of ammo, I'd probably give it up at that point. 'Course I'm a big yella belly.

[Nik]

I noticed most units which were surrendering where mainly immobilized. You need a perfect circle arround an enemy infantry unit to force them to surrender and all need LOS to the target Nearly impossible against a human player

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Austrian Strategist:

(One of the few important things that CMBO does not simulate is that German soldiers, on average, were more afraid of their officers. Which is not quite the same as being 'Veteran'.)

I cant agree with that statement. The Germans were more diciplined then the Soviets, which is something different than being afraid of their officers. It's rather the other way around, I think there were lotsa Soviets soldiers being more that a little nervous of their Commisars..

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

To add my two cents:

Surrendering on the soviet side was much more common than on the german side.

For example: in the first weeks of Barbarossa (2-3 months), over 3 million(!) men of fighting russian troops were captured. Ofcourse this was due to the operational situation that the german attack directly hit the for an attack preparing russian troops close to the german border, but nevertheless the russian troops were not really willing to fight til the last man.

Or think, later in war, of the communist political-commissioners standing behind their own troops and shooting immediately at them, when they din't want to rush forward.

My grandfather told me, it was not rare, that wounded german soldiers, who were not movable begged for a mercy-death by the own comrades, when the front couldn't be held and the soviet troops were coming closer.

I thought this was because of the german propaganda, till my grandfather told me, what he had seen often enough with his own eyes, what had happened to the wounded soldiers in areas that had been evacuated and were reconquered.

It's not the right place to describe it here, but think of the most horrible things human brain can imagine, and it will come close to what happened.

BTW:

this is the reason, why the assassins from the 20th July '44 were completely wrong. They had no knowledge about the war in the east: even if the assassination on Hitler would have been successful, the german troops on the eastern front, would NEVER have surrendered. For by far the most of the german eastern-front fighters, the assassins were traitors.

Schoerner, may I suggest that you kindly refrain from treating the board to your particular interpretation of history. The moderators take a dim view of people with a revisionist agenda.

I guess with a username like yours one should not be surprised though. ISTR that Schörner made up for a lack of skill in leading troops by fanatical devotion to 'the cause'.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

To add my two cents:

Surrendering on the soviet side was much more common than on the german side.

For example: in the first weeks of Barbarossa (2-3 months), over 3 million(!) men of fighting russian troops were captured. Ofcourse this was due to the operational situation that the german attack directly hit the for an attack preparing russian troops close to the german border, but nevertheless the russian troops were not really willing to fight til the last man.

Or think, later in war, of the communist political-commissioners standing behind their own troops and shooting immediately at them, when they din't want to rush forward.

My grandfather told me, it was not rare, that wounded german soldiers, who were not movable begged for a mercy-death by the own comrades, when the front couldn't be held and the soviet troops were coming closer.

I thought this was because of the german propaganda, till my grandfather told me, what he had seen often enough with his own eyes, what had happened to the wounded soldiers in areas that had been evacuated and were reconquered.

It's not the right place to describe it here, but think of the most horrible things human brain can imagine, and it will come close to what happened.

BTW:

this is the reason, why the assassins from the 20th July '44 were completely wrong. They had no knowledge about the war in the east: even if the assassination on Hitler would have been successful, the german troops on the eastern front, would NEVER have surrendered. For by far the most of the german eastern-front fighters, the assassins were traitors.

Well, if Stalin prepared an attack on Germany is a good theme for the general forum, so if you want to...

Henning von Tresckow, one of the 20. July assassins, served in Herresgruppe Mitte on the East Front. AFAIK it was also not the plan to let the Wehrmacht surrender, but to negotiate for an armistice.

About the Soviet war crimes - yes, it is true. But don't forget that the Germans acted in the same way. German soldiers starved also in the Americn camps. You don't enter a war to find new friends.

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Schoerner, may I suggest that you kindly refrain from treating the board to your particular interpretation of history. The moderators take a dim view of people with a revisionist agenda.

I guess with a username like yours one should not be surprised though. ISTR that Schörner made up for a lack of skill in leading troops by fanatical devotion to 'the cause'.[/QB]

Andreas, it's not possible to talk about surrendering, without talking about the 3 million prisoners in the first weeks of Barbarossa.

I agree, that the conclusion wasn't necessary.

Every wargamer is able to make his own conclusions about such facts, despite the official history.

And my nick is in memory of Feldmarschall Schörner.

If you have a problem with it, then it's YOUR problem - a problem of to less knowledge.

[ July 14, 2002, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

And my nick is in memory of Feldmarschall Schörner.

If you have a problem with it, then it's YOUR problem - a problem of to less knowledge.

From Christopher Duffy, 'Red Storm on the Reich' (p.295):

Schörner was imprisoned as a war criminal in the Soviet Union until 1955, when he was released and returned to his native Bavaria. He was now confronted by angry German veterans seeking revenge for the thousands of their comrades who had been executed on his orders in the last stages of the war. In 1957 Schörner was sentenced to four and a half years of imprisonment on a specimen charge of manslaughter. He lived for ten years after his release and died in 1973.

So much for the history. Duffy ends his book with the following paragraph (p.309):

When the Reich neared its end, it became clear that leaders had been fighting for different 'Germanies.' On the one side the moral contagion of those closest to the Nazi system became unmistakable. Field-Marshal Schörner, and those brown-jacketed heaps of filth the Gauleiters Greiser, Schwede-Coburg, Koch and Hanke were unsparing of the lives of others as long as there was a Nazi order to defend, and they then attended with great speed to their own safety . In contrast, Germany was honoured by the devotion of men like Hossbach, Reinhardt, von Tettau, von Saucken, Lasch, von Ahlfen, von Niehoff and many others, who proved that human responsibility could still be reconciled with soldierly duty .

Sorry for hijacking this thread Scipio, I'll stop now.

[Viceroy]

Andreas,

you didn't mention that Shoerner was also accused of deserting his men by his own Chief of Staff von Natzmer.

Sam Mitcham "Shoerner's methods were unquestionably vicious .... other commanders achieved equal or superior results under similar circumstances without resorting to barbarism."

Mitcham "Hitler's Field Marshells" conludes his chapter on Shoerner by saying he was, "... a thoroughly despicable human being."

[ July 14, 2002, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Viceroy ]

[Scipio]

No problemo, Andreas.

To come back to the topic, I agree that masses of prisoners were often made because of stratic incidents.

The question is, how is (or can) this be reflected in the game. The knowledge to be in a pocket has great influence on the general moral, for example.

[Schoerner]

Well, if you have something against my nick, i have to defend it.

I also had the same opinion about Schörner and believed what was written, till i read "Schörner - Feldmarschall der letzten Stunde" by Roland Kaltenegger (beside the narrations of my grandfather who was 4th GD).

The book gives a good insight how the mistrust of the highest german command in the Generalstab originated and it's much to complicated to explain it here.

To summarize: Schörner's success in leadership and his loyality to the Führer was bad for a lot of generals.

Generals who claimed after the war, that they never were Nationalsocialists and just did what the commands were. They were good soldiers.

And Schörner never neglegted anything. He was the prototype of the bad german general for the mass media and prpaganda.

Well who knows, that after war, there were only very few leaders that were beloved like their "iron Ferdinand".

He was hard to all the quitters, but he was just. Therefore he was loved by the the brave soldiers.

If you are interested in how the many years established picture of a man could differ from reality, then read this book and decide yourself, which facts are better.

What people afterwards say about someone, or what he really did in all the difficult situations.

BTW: thousands of his men signed in the 1960s a petition that he was the best leader they ever had, that he was the father for the brave soldiers and the enemy of the quitters and that his person should be protected against the lies.

[Schoerner]

@Vicheroy: this are the usual lies against one of the best german generals.

Schörner stabilized Herresgruppe Nord, AFTER Dietl was unsuccessful with even less men and material. He stabilized it that good, that it held serveral months ofter he was put to another objective.

Schörner was called alsways, after all the great names were unsuccessful - and he prooved with his success, that they were wrong.

Read facts and make your own decisions, instead of retelling, what someone wrote in a book about someone, without facts.

It's not a fact, if i say XY has killed people.

It's not a fact, if i write it in a book.

It is maybe true, if i can name details.

It's maybe true, if i can proove the soldiers under his command hated him.

But the opposite was the case!

Do you really think, there were no personal and political interests after WWII?

Where are the facts, in all of your narrations?

Read this book

"Feldmarschall der letzten Stunde", Roland Kaltenegger

and if you still have your opinion, then we can discuss.

But stop retelling always the same lies about this honourable and much to underestimated man.