A ramble....might be worth reading!

[Fred]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

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

...maybe we read different books...esp. Operation Barbarossa showed a very neutral point of view, as the author showed the russion point of view in more than one instance.

Maybe we read the same books with a different point of view.

And if you think "Barbarossa" was written from a neutral point of view, well...

maybe then "Signal" was written from a "neutral" point of view, too.

Among the first books I've read about WWII were some of "Carell's" books. Why? Simply because the way he portrays Germany's (the german soldiers') behaviour during WWII is exactly the way most Germans want them to be, which means you'll find a lot of Carrel's books everywhere and many other books quote from him.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to bash you, but if you base your knowledge about the german role in WWII mainly on (german) general's memoirs and Carell's books there's much to discover for you.</font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Fred:

Fact is, the soviet doctrine was radical different from the western allies doctrine, like it or not.

Fred

Fact is, you are wrong. As a look in mid to late-war Soviet infantry doctrine would show you. Like it or not.

If you base your statements about Soviet doctrine on things written by those on the receiving end, that is a mistake. To insist that they are right and refuse to even try and inform yourself, would be ignorance. The material is out there, so why not check it and see what your opinion is afterwards? What have you got to lose apart from some long-held opinions, maybe?

Of course the Soviet officers are biased. But to understand what happened you need to look at both sides.

[Fred]

Originally posted by Andreas:

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

Fact is, the soviet doctrine was radical different from the western allies doctrine, like it or not.

Fred

Fact is, you are wrong. As a look in mid to late-war Soviet infantry doctrine would show you. Like it or not.

If you base your statements about Soviet doctrine on things written by those on the receiving end, that is a mistake. To insist that they are right and refuse to even try and inform yourself, would be ignorance. The material is out there, so why not check it and see what your opinion is afterwards? What have you got to lose apart from some long-held opinions, maybe?

Of course the Soviet officers are biased. But to understand what happened you need to look at both sides.</font>

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by Fred:

...if you say german memoirs are biased (and you are right, I guess), why do you think russian accounts are not biased?

I never said that. Among the books in my bookshelf are works by Carell (yes!), Panzermeyer, Guderian, Mannstein, etc... and many works by non-german writers as well.

My main point is that you should never rely on one source when judging complex topics.

What Carell depicts in his "stirring, emotional and immensely personal view" (Glantz) books may well be completely different than what a soviet officer has to say about the same issue, or an american historican who researched that topic after the war.

Take all the information you can get, think about it, and then draw your own conclusions.

[edit: ah, the art of quoting...]

[ September 04, 2002, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[Fred]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

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

...if you say german memoirs are biased (and you are right, I guess), why do you think russian accounts are not biased?

I never said that. Among the books in my bookshelf are works by Carell (yes!), Panzermeyer, Guderian, Mannstein, etc... and many works by non-german writers as well.

My main point is that you should never rely on one source when judging complex topics.

What Carell depicts in his "stirring, emotional and immensely personal view" (Glantz) books may well be completely different than what a soviet officer has to say about the same issue, or an american historican who researched that topic after the war.

Take all the information you can get, think about it, and then draw your own conclusions.

[edit: ah, the art of quoting...]</font>

[coe]

well it is interesting which countries used human wave tactics at one point or another....

You don't hear lots of accounts of the Western allies doing it (except for the beachhead) but even the germans did it "Nordwind" comes to mind.

Interesting Western allied reluctance.

I guess you use human wave out of necessity....

[Shosties]

Originally posted by Fred:

Neither Stalin, nor Hitler were interested in the welfare their troops.

Fred

Crack open Armstrong's Red Army Tank Commanders and wonder at the sort of discussions that Stalin had with his front commanders as low as brigade level! Stalin wanted to know how experienced tankers regarded their equipment in intimate detail in order to cull the bad designs and improve the good ones for production rationalization. Stalin certainly recognized he could not throw away men forever and survive.

[Gaylord Focker]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i recall reading of Zuhkov marching his soldiers right thru known mine fields in order to save time instead of having engineers dispose of the mines for the soldiers safe passage in his drive to Berlin.

[Shosties]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i recall reading of Zuhkov marching his soldiers right thru known mine fields in order to save time instead of having engineers dispose of the mines for the soldiers safe passage in his drive to Berlin.

I believe these were men from the penal battalions ("It takes a brave man to be a coward in the Red Army" - Stalin), certainly not something done with Guards motor rifle units.

Penal units in the Heer also got sent on "Himmelfahrtskommando" (suicide details).

[ARRPEEGEE]

And likewise with the U.S Nisei units in Italy.

After posting that..I should probably go into hiding...Stephen Ambrose might come looking for me......

[ September 04, 2002, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: mch ]

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by Firefly:

Yes, Mark Clark throwing the Texas Brigade across the Rapidan river to certain death reads like something from the First World War. The brigade's CO protested the order to no avail. Churchills 'Stand or Die' order to the Aussies in Tobruk only escapes criticism because it worked (and the RN was better at re-supplying the besieged garrison that the Luftwaffe was at Stalingrad).

Was there ever any doubt? They were Aussies after all!

Regards

Jim R.

[KEEF888]

Originally posted by Tim S:

This is a bit of a ramble!

Is it just me or does anyone else see the differences in Russian man power

usage as opposed to the US/Allied side in CMBO?

Now I appreciate that we only have the new demo to work with, but Russian

tactic differences, or lack thereof, become very apparent.

First off there is no smoke available to the Russians, so all attacks have to be done in the open! Come to think of it, the only smoke I could find in the demo is for German armor in the Kursk battle, the KV’s don’t have any.

If I'm not mistaken, the Soviets did not have/use smoke that often,(be it with OBA, vehicles, or guns). Some of the larger artillery units had smoke capability, and a few AFVs (i.e. SU85/122 and ISU122, I think the T-35, and of course the Lend-Lease Shermans), carried it. As far as the reasoning behind it, I'm not certain - I'm sure someone out there can explain exactly why - but it could have been because of military doctrine, unavailability factors, weapon priorities, etc.

[Hortlund]

What about sending troops in to attack in waves, and having every second or third wave attack without weapons (the idea being that they could pick up weapons from those fallen in the first waves).

To keep the units motivated, throw in a "blocking unit" behind the attackers with orders to gun down anyone moving in the wrong direction.

Care for the troops...the Soviet way?

[von Lucke]

...About an hour later the scene that lay before me and my subordinates changed sharply, transposed into something one could not imagine in his worst nightmare. Small groups of soldiers appeared in the buckwheat field some 900 meters ahead. They were running towards us, clearly intending to seek cover in the forest... One did not have to be a genius to understand that a Soviet Army infantry unit, unable to withstand the powerful enemy attack, had abandonded it's positions. This was the first time I had witnessed such an unusual event. I had no idea what to do in this situation.

Several minutes later I recieved categorical instructions: Fire at the retreating Soviet troops! I broke out in a feverish sweat. How could this be? Shoot at our own troops? The battalion commander came running up to my tank, and again he ordered, "Fire! Fire with machine-guns!"

An order is an order. It has to be carried out. With breaking voice I gave the command. "First platoon, fire over the heads of the infantry! Second platoon, set up a fire screen in front of the retreating soldiers!"

It came to me reflexively that we could create a situation where the fleeing soldiers would be forced to stop running and hit the ground...

Six Bren coaxial machine-guns tore the air with long bursts. The stream of tracer bullets whistled over the unorganized formation of retreating troops... In front of the fleeing troops was a 'fence' of mangled greenery and clods of dirt that had been created by the machine-gun bursts. To fall into the beaten zone would be a quick and certain death...

In the blink of an eye the panicked troops were forced to take cover by falling flat on the earth... I commanded, "Cease fire!" Quiet ensued; then suddenly several soldiers stood up and once again plunged toward the rear. First platoon's Brens barked in short bursts. The running soldiers flopped down in the buckwheat. Several minutes passed with no signs of movement in the field... The infantry commanders appeared on the scene and barked out brusque orders. The infantrymen got up and made their way back toward the river in a straggling formation.

As we discoverd later, the tank machine-gun fire had struck seven soldiers, whom we left at their last, inglorious frontline position. This is the kind of death that came to some of the Soviet soldiers in that war.

My nerves were frazzled, and my head ached. I would not wish such a condition on my enemy. Half a century has passed since that incident, but every moment of the experience is deeply etched into my memory. By the will of fate and the order of Stalin, we had to execute the role of barrier detachment: We were forced to use our weapons against our fellow soldiers.

---Lt. Dmitriy Loza, 233rd Tank Brigade, 1st Batt., 1st coy. (mounting Lend Lease Matilda II's), near Kirov, 13 August 1943; recounting an incident from his first day of actual combat.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

What about sending troops in to attack in waves, and having every second or third wave attack without weapons (the idea being that they could pick up weapons from those fallen in the first waves).

To keep the units motivated, throw in a "blocking unit" behind the attackers with orders to gun down anyone moving in the wrong direction.

Care for the troops...the Soviet way?

Well, and when was the last time that was used? Care to explain to me how that was different from the random hangings and shooting on the spot that went on in the German army during the last few weeks of the war?

Hanging from a lamp-post with a sign around your neck 'Ich bin ein Deserteur' or being shot in a backyard after some flying judgement detail determined you were a deserter - the German way of caring for their troops?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Fred:

How is a polish historian on the 'receiving end'?

You really suggest, that the doctrine of the western societies in 1943-45 was the same as the doctrine of Stalins russia?

Maybe you read too much soviet propaganda...and believe it..

Yes, pretty much, except that the Soviets were better at what they were doing and understood it better. I also think that just saying 'western societies' is a bit erroneous, if that to you includes the Germans. They happily hung, shot and wasted their Landsers, something the US and the Commonwealth never did.

I don't read propaganda, but you do if you rely on Carrell (who is also a proven liar about his own combat experience) for your picture of the war in the east. I actually read the combat regulations, and material like TM30-4430 'Handbook of Soviet Forces'. Maybe you should give that a try. Until then, you are welcome to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

[Fetchez la Vache]

Maybe a lot of lives were lost due to the fear and frustration of line officers rather than high command? I can well imagine that if I was a Russian Battalion Cmdr I would be pushing very hard indeed to achieve my goals - what with that nice political officer standing behind me!

First push fails? Throw everything at the Germans! At least it appears you did your best.

Retreat in good order and request reinforcements? Get a field court martial for cowardice and a quick bullet in the back of the head!

Just my personal thoughts. I'm a great believer in the power of fear, blood, stress and rain to right royally mess things up...

*edit: grammar

[ September 05, 2002, 05:42 AM: Message edited by: Fetchez la Vache ]

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

What about sending troops in to attack in waves, and having every second or third wave attack without weapons (the idea being that they could pick up weapons from those fallen in the first waves).

To keep the units motivated, throw in a "blocking unit" behind the attackers with orders to gun down anyone moving in the wrong direction.

Care for the troops...the Soviet way?

Well, and when was the last time that was used? Care to explain to me how that was different from the random hangings and shooting on the spot that went on in the German army during the last few weeks of the war?

Hanging from a lamp-post with a sign around your neck 'Ich bin ein Deserteur' or being shot in a backyard after some flying judgement detail determined you were a deserter - the German way of caring for their troops?</font>

[Herr Oberst]

Originally posted by redwolf:

A few remarks:

I think that BFC is in fact taking a substancial risk of doing this game with the Soviets modeld this way. This is hardly playable for a casual gamer, the Western front was much more approchable.

I don't think that any of the CM series (there are two now, so can we call it a series???) are targeted at the casual gamer...

Straight from the BFC website (where did the damn manifesto go?):

Battlefront.com's mission is to provide the challenging military minded computer gaming experience that has all but disappeared from the face of corporate gaming today. Our goal is to serve gamers, rebuild our community, and breathe some life back into a hobby whose followers are still here in sizable numbers but have been tossed aside by the Industry.

I don't want it made easier to play for the johnny-come-lately who doesn't know or care about tactics. Tactics that work fine in other "resource-based" military simulators *should* get your arse-kicked.

Rather than widening their target market segment out to other 'more casual' gamers and diluting the accuracy of their fine games for 'playability', how about letting Charles & Steve build what they want, and relying on the excellence of craftsmanship and historical accuracy draw new players into their target market segment?

"If you build it, they will come." reflects the unexpected popularity of the CMBO series, even by BFC's admission. I expect the same will be true of the CMBB release, although it is likely that a goodly percentage of their target market is better defined by prior sales of CMBO. I would expect, at a minimum, some 80% follow-on sales of CMBB to CMBO owners.

My own $0.02.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

How is that different between hangings and shootings of German deserters? There is an ocean of difference between slaughtering your own men, and executing deserters. If you dont understand that, then I have no idea how to explain it to you either.

Now there is not, since most of those German soldiers treated to this summary 'justice' were not deserters (a good example of how they worked is in 'Panzer Commander' by von Luck). It was a terror method to keep the men in line that had nothing to do with justice/fairness. The same as blocking detachments were when the Soviets were losing. This is the first time that I hear blocking detachments were used at Seelow - any sources?

[Hortlund]

Oh, no there were no blocking units at Seelowe, at least not to my knowledge. I thought you were asking for examples of situations where soviet commanders sent their troops running towards the German MG's in pointless human wave attacks.

As for the "summary justice" and the executions in the end of the war. Basically there were SS units roaming the areas behind the frontlines. Any soldier found in that area without a very good reason/pass were executed on the spot for desertion or cowardice in front of the enemy.

There still is a difference.

[imported_argie]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

There still is a difference.

Really? That the executioners were Aryans, maybe?

[ September 05, 2002, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: argie ]

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by argie:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

There still is a difference.

Really? That the executioners were Aryans, maybe?</font>

[imported_argie]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

If you dont understand that difference, then I cannot possibly explain it to you.

Well, if you can't explain something, then is very likeable that isn't supported by rational thinking.

[Hortlund]

Well its either that, or the person I'm trying to explain something to isnt really open to information.

By the tone in your post its pretty obviuous that you have already made your mind up, and I see little reason trying to argue with you. I have had my share of arguing with brick walls on other forums.

Let me just say this.

If you send your own men unarmed against machine guns, or if you send your men in waves against the enemy with every second or third wave without arms, that is nothing short of murder.

Picture if you will a modern US army commander applying that tactic against some Afghan cave...it simply wouldnt happen.

To issue such an order you would have to have such a complete disregard for the lifes of your men, that it is hard to comprehend. And if you not only send your men to their deaths like that, but order other units to advance behind the first poor sods, and to gun down anyone in the first waves who tries to take cover or tries to retreat...well, as I said, it is hard for us to even imagine such "tactics".

The above has nothing to do with situations where soldiers who have abandoned their units have gotten caught and were executed...nothing. ALL armies in ww2 executed their deserters.

Now, if you dont see the difference between those two examples, then you have such a different thought pattern from me, that I cannot possibly explain that difference. I simply would not know where to start.