A ramble....might be worth reading!

[imported_argie]

Let's say that instead of having a good, proffessional army fighting in a remote place against a remote menace, you have a bunch of unassorted peasants barely uniformed, fighting right next to your home against to a very clear menace not only to your life and lifestyle, but also to the life and right to life of your significant one, relatives, comrades, etc, etc. Wouldn't you try to suit your tactics to your resources?

Just imagine to try to develop an attack with fire and cover tactics against a HMG, with half your troops lacking weapons and the other half killing more friendlies than enemies only due to ill trained people crossing the LOF more often than reaching adequate cover.

As commander, I will put my bet in human waves, hoping that at least some people get close enough to really fight...

Is the principle of cavalry charges from when gun powder was used for military bussiness.

[Andreas]

All WW2 armies were executing their deserters?

Care to tell me the number of executed deserters in the US and Commonwealth armies? And that in the German army, with a particular subset in January to May 1945?

Quite apart from that, these men were not deserters, and executions of those with 'good reasons' to be away from the frontline happened. See the example I previously mentioned.

Drafting 12-year olds and 60-year olds to defend the Heimat - care for the soldiers, the German way... Yeah, sure - the Wehrmacht and the Nazi state were just models of humanity, right up there with the US and the Commonwealth.

There really is precious little left to say. Those with eyes and minds open read and learn, the rest live in ignorance.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Care to tell me the number of executed deserters in the US and Commonwealth armies? And that in the German army, with a particular subset in January to May 1945?

Well, off the top of my head,

US army...1 (might have been more though, but I know that at least one were executed)

CW army...lots (they were having huge problems with some of the local units in India and Burma early in the war)

German army..I have no idea whatsoever, and I strongly suspect that you dont have a figure either other than some estimation.

Quite apart from that, these men were not deserters, and executions of those with 'good reasons' to be away from the frontline happened. See the example I previously mentioned.

"a good example of how they worked is in 'Panzer Commander' by von Luck"?

Tell me, do you think a reference to a book is a good "example"? Could you perhaps be a bit more specific? Heck, you might even be able to take a minute or two and write down the example you had in mind here on this board?

Drafting 12-year olds and 60-year olds to defend the Heimat - care for the soldiers, the German way... Yeah, sure - the Wehrmacht and the Nazi state were just models of humanity, right up there with the US and the Commonwealth.

?? Who are you talking to now? And on what subject?

There really is precious little left to say. Those with eyes and minds open read and learn, the rest live in ignorance.

And those with noses and ears smell and listen, the rest live in silence and non-smell.

[ September 05, 2002, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Leutnant Hortlund ]

[Lars]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Care to tell me the number of executed deserters in the US and Commonwealth armies?

U.S. – One.

Pvt. Eddie Slovik

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Lars:

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

Care to tell me the number of executed deserters in the US and Commonwealth armies?

U.S. – One.

Pvt. Eddie Slovik</font>

[Lars]

Originally posted by MrSpkr:

When he was found, he stated that if sent to the front, he would just run away again.

Which just proves he wasn't very smart, either.

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Lars:

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

When he was found, he stated that if sent to the front, he would just run away again.

Which just proves he wasn't very smart, either.</font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

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

[qb]All WW2 armies were executing their deserters?

Care to tell me the number of executed deserters in the US and Commonwealth armies? And that in the German army, with a particular subset in January to May 1945?

Well, off the top of my head,

US army...1 (might have been more though, but I know that at least one were executed)

CW army...lots (they were having huge problems with some of the local units in India and Burma early in the war)

German army..I have no idea whatsoever, and I strongly suspect that you dont have a figure either other than some estimation. </font>

[Lars]

Originally posted by MrSpkr:

My life would be much easier if all cases were so simple.

You'd be out of a job.

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Lars:

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

My life would be much easier if all cases were so simple.

You'd be out of a job.</font>

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Regarding using one book as an example - you have not seen it necessary to show any support for your assertion that the flying squads handled soldiers in an even semi-correct way, or why they differed from blocking detachments. Happy digging.

Uh, when did I make that assertion?

Are you talking to me here or are you having some kind of inner conversation and giving me the blame for what is said?

[ September 05, 2002, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Leutnant Hortlund ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

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

Regarding using one book as an example - you have not seen it necessary to show any support for your assertion that the flying squads handled soldiers in an even semi-correct way, or why they differed from blocking detachments. Happy digging.

Uh, when did I make that assertion? </font>

[Grisha]

Well, Hi Hortlund, glad to see you've decided to grace this forum after your tumultuous stay at the Aces High Forum - you usually post in the 'O'Club Forum,' correct? Have you suddenly taken a liking to ground combat simulations? Or, was it perhaps the fact that the Soviets were involved?

Many of your points regarding the Red Army are very similar to those made soon after the war by German Generals like Guderian, von Manstein and von Mellenthin, as well as many other German officers interviewed by the US Army and Air Force in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The weakness of their arguments were in the fact that they did not understand the Red Army, nor operational art, as well as they seemed to. In fact, the US Army didn't really begin to grasp operational art until the 1980s, a full 35 years after WWII. Much of what the German postwar memoirs/interviews interpret as tactical deficiencies were either based on Soviet operational priorities, or generalizations that while existed in the beginning part of the war, no longer was done to any great extent in the latter part of the war. The strength of postwar German accounts is that some of these deficiencies, such as blocking detachments, or penal battalions, did in fact occur all through the war. But, then again, so did German use of such things as penal units. It is a fact, for instance, that the percentage of total German military personnel executed or imprisoned for 'indisciplinary action' by the German military forces was over two and a half times as high (3.3%) as the percentage of Soviet soldiers similarly dealt with by the Red Army (1.25%). If you wish to pursue this fact further I can direct you to Richard Overy's Why the Allies Won, p.304. I leave it to you to judge his sources. So, did the Soviets deal harshly with their own? Yes, they did at times, especially during the darkest hours of their fight for survival in 1941-42. But, this type of treatment wasn't limited to the Soviet Union, you can be certain of that.

Another problem is that many people do not understand how the Soviets fought, and by this I mean where the Soviets 'hinged' (to use a friend's term - and a good one at that)in their command structure, as well as the operational, intelligence, and logistical aspects of conducting war. It was at the operational level, a field of military art that was incompletely understood by all other combatant nations in WWII. The use of operations was an outgrowth of WWI, but the theory and practice of conducting operations was a study conducted solely by the Soviets at that time. It was during the period of the 1920s and 1930s that operational art came into being as a distinct level of military art, between strategy and tactics, and this distinction was established by Soviet military theorists. The purges of 1937 undid much of this work, and contributed greatly to the dismal performance of the Red Army in the early years of WWII, but these military concepts were revived, studied, and refined during WWII such that from mid-1943 to war's end the practice of operational art by the Red Army was formidible in effect and elegant in execution. There are many elements to operational art, far too many that I'd want to continue in this thread, and since I'm writing a paper on it at the moment which is intended for the wargamer community, I'll not go any deeper than that. However, if you do wish to understand this vital aspect of the Red Army I suggest you read Glantz, preferably his Frank Cass publications.

So, welcome, Hortlund. And I do look forward to seeing you in battle in CMBB - as Soviet

[Cull]

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?

~Herr Oberst

Not only on topic, but spot-on correct! I welcome new players to CM, with the caveat that they be anything but "casual gamers" seeking "fun" and "playability" over realism. They've got plenty of options out there.

What I look forward to about CMBB is that it will be, I hope, more difficult, more realistic, and as much like the real thing as possible. Well, to a point, of course.

There are dozens of WWII games available for those that want them....I want a simulation.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Andreas:

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

Uh, when did I make that assertion? </font>

Here:

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

[qb] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

And, oh, here again:

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

One more time, in case we had not gotten the message, thank you.

Well, strictly speaking, and your quoting of me shows that, Ive never said anyting that could be interpreted as "the flying squads handled soldiers in an even semi-correct way".

What I HAVE said was that

"There is an ocean of difference between slaughtering your own men, and executing deserters." (which there is)

Or

"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." (which is true)

and

ALL armies in ww2 executed their deserters. (which is also true, since you were talking about the CW army, not the British army).

I have never said anyting about how the "flying squads" (?) handled the soldiers they caught for various reasons, other than that most of them were shot/hanged. So please stop putting words in my mouth.

Regards

[DrAlimantado]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Uh, when did I make that assertion?

Are you talking to me here or are you having some kind of inner conversation and giving me the blame for what is said?

Hi there

Being new to a community, acting like an idiot is not the best thing to do. Just thought that I should point that out, in case you were not aware of this.

Mattias

[Andreas]

Hortlund, I am not putting anything in your mouth, you do that very well yourself. If you want to play semantics games, find yourself somebody else to play with.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Hortlund, I am not putting anything in your mouth, you do that very well yourself. If you want to play semantics games, find yourself somebody else to play with.

Yeah, I have no problem with letting the subject drop. What I do have a problem with is when people are accusing me of saying things I have never said. Especially when there is a nasty undertone to what they accuse me of saying. When you imply that I am defending what the SS units were doing, I am gonna say "whoa, wait just a minute, Ive never said such a thing."

If you call this a semantics game, then I suppose we see things differently.

Regards

[Lindan]

Hortlund,

it was nice to see you (not).We had several of your kind here, and they didn't stay for long.

You disqualified yourself pretty much with your first set of posts.

Now go away.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by DrAlimantado:

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

Uh, when did I make that assertion?

Are you talking to me here or are you having some kind of inner conversation and giving me the blame for what is said?

Hi there

Being new to a community, acting like an idiot is not the best thing to do. Just thought that I should point that out, in case you were not aware of this.

Mattias</font>

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Lindan:

Hortlund,

it was nice to see you (not).We had several of your kind here, and they didn't stay for long.

You disqualified yourself pretty much with your first set of posts.

Now go away.

Nice to see you too

My first set of posts were about the soviet 122mm APBC round and its possibility to penetrate the front armor on the PzV, apparently it was a bad idea to post that...since it "disqualified" me from something.

But I think I'll stay...hope that is ok with you.

[audace]

Actually I think all Armies in the world didn't care "too" much for their soldiers. As they were that: soldiers.

Now, comparing German vs Commonwealth or American Armies is wrong I guess.

The Germans executed more "cowards" since they were losing the war, and the Allied didn't really need to execute their soldiers as they were winning.

For what it's worth: in the Italian Army, there were some men shot, but they were single cases.

I read some accounts about the Greek campaign, that said that some Carabinieri (MP) units began to fire and to kill retreating troops.

These troops were retreating because some idiotic Generals made everything in a wrong manner, and they didn't have any fault in the disaster.

Well, some people died.

Apart from that, I don't reckon reading anything similiar during WW2.

In WW1 there were THOUSANDS of "military justice" cases, many men died. Carabinieri were behind first lines to shoot at retreating troops.

Often they wore normal Infantry uniforms, and were among the soldiers, and listened carefully what the soldiers said about the war.

One thing they really liked to do was the "Decimation" (from Latin, that means to kill one men in 10). Meny innocent soldiers died for no fault at all.

Here we sometimes say that there were more men killed by our own troops than by the Austrian during that war.

[ September 06, 2002, 04:32 AM: Message edited by: audace ]

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Grisha:

Well, Hi Hortlund, glad to see you've decided to grace this forum after your tumultuous stay at the Aces High Forum - you usually post in the 'O'Club Forum,' correct? Have you suddenly taken a liking to ground combat simulations? Or, was it perhaps the fact that the Soviets were involved?

Many of your points regarding the Red Army are very similar to those made soon after the war by German Generals like Guderian, von Manstein and von Mellenthin, as well as many other German officers interviewed by the US Army and Air Force in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The weakness of their arguments were in the fact that they did not understand the Red Army, nor operational art, as well as they seemed to. In fact, the US Army didn't really begin to grasp operational art until the 1980s, a full 35 years after WWII. Much of what the German postwar memoirs/interviews interpret as tactical deficiencies were either based on Soviet operational priorities, or generalizations that while existed in the beginning part of the war, no longer was done to any great extent in the latter part of the war. The strength of postwar German accounts is that some of these deficiencies, such as blocking detachments, or penal battalions, did in fact occur all through the war. But, then again, so did German use of such things as penal units. It is a fact, for instance, that the percentage of total German military personnel executed or imprisoned for 'indisciplinary action' by the German military forces was over two and a half times as high (3.3%) as the percentage of Soviet soldiers similarly dealt with by the Red Army (1.25%). If you wish to pursue this fact further I can direct you to Richard Overy's Why the Allies Won, p.304. I leave it to you to judge his sources. So, did the Soviets deal harshly with their own? Yes, they did at times, especially during the darkest hours of their fight for survival in 1941-42. But, this type of treatment wasn't limited to the Soviet Union, you can be certain of that.

Another problem is that many people do not understand how the Soviets fought, and by this I mean where the Soviets 'hinged' (to use a friend's term - and a good one at that)in their command structure, as well as the operational, intelligence, and logistical aspects of conducting war. It was at the operational level, a field of military art that was incompletely understood by all other combatant nations in WWII. The use of operations was an outgrowth of WWI, but the theory and practice of conducting operations was a study conducted solely by the Soviets at that time. It was during the period of the 1920s and 1930s that operational art came into being as a distinct level of military art, between strategy and tactics, and this distinction was established by Soviet military theorists. The purges of 1937 undid much of this work, and contributed greatly to the dismal performance of the Red Army in the early years of WWII, but these military concepts were revived, studied, and refined during WWII such that from mid-1943 to war's end the practice of operational art by the Red Army was formidible in effect and elegant in execution. There are many elements to operational art, far too many that I'd want to continue in this thread, and since I'm writing a paper on it at the moment which is intended for the wargamer community, I'll not go any deeper than that. However, if you do wish to understand this vital aspect of the Red Army I suggest you read Glantz, preferably his Frank Cass publications.

So, welcome, Hortlund. And I do look forward to seeing you in battle in CMBB - as Soviet

Hey Grisha, nice to see a familiar face around here.

I've always been a ground pounder first, my odyssey in Aches High had more to do with the lack of new tactical ww2 games at the time. (Im primarily a spwaw-addict by the way). And there is something about the eastern front that has always fascinated me…long and semi-philosophical rant could follow here, but I think I'll spare you

Regarding the Red Army.

I think it would be wrong to talk about "the red army in world war two", since the difference between the early red army (1939-1942/43) and the late army (1943-1945) is enormous.

You talk about the Soviet operational art of war. And I must agree that this is an area where the Soviets were brilliant. I disagree that the Russians were the only ones who mastered this concept though, since I am of the opinion that the Germans too had more than a rudimentary understanding of the concept. I would hold the Soviets first, followed by the Germans, and then a huge gap down to the rest of the combatants in ww2.

I would like to talk about an aspect of this that might explain a lot about the apparent discrepancy between German first hand accounts and post-war research.

One of the key factors in all successful soviet operations were the combination of undetected concentration of forces in a narrow area of the front, followed by an attack on the German positions. The undetected concentration of forces led to a huge numerical superiority for the Russians in that small sector of the front. But that does not translate to a huge numerical superiority for the Russians in the entire sector, or entire front. So while the statistics show that in various periods of time, the total Soviet numerical superiority was as low as 1.5-1 or 2-1 on the whole front, the numerical superiority at the point of attack could be as high as 10 or 20-1 in infantry and 10-1 in tanks.

I think the above has alot to do with German soldiers (or Generals) telling stories about masses of men and tanks charging across no mans land.

[Lee_DiSantis]

Seems like some of the guys in here need a reminder: This is an online forum. If you take it seriously enough that you start actually arguing with people, you should reconsider the medium. Just talk about relevant things, and don't try to insult each other (even with subtle undertones). There's no point; no one can win an online argument.

It's these kinds of things that makes me start to dislike the internet.

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by audace:

In WW1 there were THOUSANDS of "military justice" cases, many men died. Carabinieri were behind first lines to shoot at retreating troops.

Often they wore normal Infantry uniforms, and were among the soldiers, and listened carefully what the soldiers said about the war.

Oddly enough, Germany only shot 18 men for desertion during WW1 (compared to some 300 for the Commonwealth, and 600 French).

In WW2, however, I've read numbers as low as 10,000, and as high as 50,000.

I think Andreas and Lt Hortlund are arguing apples and oranges here: Yes, the German kopf jaegers and their drumhead "courts martial" (which is probably giving them more legitimacy then they deserve) took a terrible toll. And yes, the "punishing sword" of the NKVD cut a bloody swathe through the Sov soldaten. I think the main misunderstanding is coming from Andreas saying the Germans rounded up "deserters" in the rear, and coldly executed them --- while Lt Hortlund is saying the Sovs gunned down their own in the heat of battle. OK, what's to argue? Who was more cruel to their own?

Personally, I've always thought (and the more I read about the Great Patriotic War, the more I confirm it) that the Hitlerites and the Stalinists where mirror images of each other: Cannibals who, when faced with a shortage of enemies to devour, fed on their own people.

One footnote: Always considered the way the Sov's treated their own "liberated" POW's to be one of the great tragedies of a tragic war: Thought to be contaminated by their contact with the Fascists, they were herded into "re-education camps" in the USSR by the thousands. Many never survived the ordeal of being "re-educated" into good Communists.