Army + Tank group commanders

[Col. Gen. Guderian]

I don't know whether this has already been discussed or not, but couldn't you choose commanders for armies and tank groups instead of just HQ's? There were a few flaws as well with the ratings of Field Marshalls and their historical accuracy in SC1. Whilst Manstein got a deserved 9, Bock only got a 6 which is completely unfair as he was an excellent soldier. Same goes for Auchinleck who only got a mere 5 rating.Also, although Rommel and Manstein did eventually become Field Marshals, they only did so in '42 and '43, yet they're available right the way through the game. Couldn't different commanders become available as the game progresses? I think there should be more emphasis placed on the officer corps. It would be good to put a higher price tag on the better generals.

I think this would be a good addition and would make you feel more like a real commander handling his subordinates. Also, with this feature you would get to include dozens of Generals who were left out of the last one e.g. Guderian, Hoth, Hoepner, Manteuffel, O'Connor, Chuikov and many others.

Any thoughts?

[Retributar]

Yes...thats the way it should be!...it was that way in 'HEARTS OF IRON'...and i really liked that!.

I think SC1...was made as a simple to play game...thats why i hesistated for quite a while before buying it.

Your feature and other features were simplified in SC1 as much as possible...at the sacrifice of many historical situations and actualities.

Looks like SC2 will be a much deeper game...and much more complex (YIPPIE!!!)...plus everyone here wants it that way...and rightly so...so we'll see a lot of complexity and exotic features...in this game!.

In summary...i dont see why-not this suggestion of yours couldn't be accomodated!.

[pzgndr]

Looks like SC2 will be a much deeper game...and much more complex

Not quite. SC2 will be much more flexible than SC1 with all of the new features of the editor. Don't expect it to be much more complex. The essential simplicity of SC1 will remain.

thats the way it should be!...it was that way in 'HEARTS OF IRON'

So?

[Col. Gen. Guderian]

I've been meaning to get Hearts of Iron but I haven't seen it in any shops. I read a review in PCZone and although they thought it was great, they complained about there being too much micro management and not enough automation. This put me off it a good bit, i'll have to give it a go sometime though.

[ev]

Originally posted by Col. Gen. Guderian:

...I think there should be more emphasis placed on the officer corps....

Any thoughts?

A couple of days ago I openned a topic on a C3 research area: Command, Control, and Communications. This is would be a "research area" that would increase the effectiveness of HQ's

My idea is to simulate through the research engine the investment on better officer staff. As per my suggestion, when an HQ is upgraded to a higher C3 Tech Level it generates a higher readiness level on the troops under its command.

I elaborated quite a bit on this point on that topic. I would really appreciate if you look at my suggestions over there and let me know how you feel about it.

[Retributar]

'Col. Gen. Guderian'...Yes you are correct about the micro-management...but when i got used to it ...it was no problem at all!. That game had a high learning curve!.

-------------------------------------------------

'ev'...i thought your suggestions on C3 research was 'EXCELLENT'...in my opinion it should definitely be used....unfortunately, its not up to me!.

Most of your suggestions are very very good, i find it difficult to find a problem with any of them...other than the programmers might not be able to handle them under the constraints of time money or whatever!.

[ May 19, 2004, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Col. Gen. Guderian:

There were a few flaws as well with the ratings of Field Marshalls and their historical accuracy in SC1. Whilst Manstein got a deserved 9, Bock only got a 6 which is completely unfair

I think this would be a good addition and would make you feel more like a real commander handling his subordinates. Also, with this feature you would get to include dozens of Generals who were left out of the last one e.g. Guderian, Hoth, Hoepner, Manteuffel, O'Connor, Chuikov and many others.

Any thoughts?

First of all Chuikov was in the last one. However lots of good army group commanders were not and I have made a list of this which you can have a look at in the threads "THE COMPLETE RED ARMY COMMANDERS LIST" and "THE COMPLETE GERMAN COMMANDERS LIST" threads. Feel free to contribute to the discussions over there.

However I don't agree on the Bock-issue. Feel free to explain what should give him a 7?

[Col. Gen. Guderian]

Well, him and Guderian agreed on most things and Guderian was probably the finest general the Germans had of the war, certainly the best Panzer General, hence my goofy name. It was Bock who was responsible for the Kharkov encirclement in May 1942. He spotted the opportunity but Hitler took the idea as his own, Paulus got all the credit when in reality, Bock was really carrying it out. His dismissal was because of him airing rational views about clearing his flanks before making the real assault (Plan Blue). Had he not been dismissed, it is arguable that the whole Stalingrad disaster would not have happened as the army groups A and B wouldn't have been given such independent and wildly optimistic objectives. From that point on, the operation lost all cohesion with such mix ups like both Kliest's and Hoth's Panzer armies arriving at the same bridge head causing days of congestion. Have you read Stalingrad by Antony Beevor, or Barbarossa by Alan Clark? I'd def recommend them. Quality books, but I read up my info from them and both men believe Bock to be a fine general.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Col. Gen. Guderian:

Well, him and Guderian agreed on most things and Guderian was probably the finest general the Germans had of the war

Have you read Stalingrad by Antony Beevor, or Barbarossa by Alan Clark? I'd def recommend them. Quality books, but I read up my info from them and both men believe Bock to be a fine general.

Guderian never speaks much of Bock in his memoirs, the one thing they did not agree on was if Kluge's 4th Army should be in control of 3rd and 2nd pz armies during barbarossa. Von Bock urged for Kluge to get control which rendered trouble for Guderian.

The books you mention I got safely kept in my bookshelf. However I've have yet to read von Bock's own memoirs(war diary) which surely could be interesting reading.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Col. Gen. Guderian:

Well, him and Guderian agreed on most things and Guderian was probably the finest general the Germans had of the war

Not true. Guderian himself actually considered Manstein to be "our finest operational brain".

[Col. Gen. Guderian]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

Guderian never speaks much of Bock in his memoirs, the one thing they did not agree on was if Kluge's 4th Army should be in control of 3rd and 2nd pz armies during barbarossa. Von Bock urged for Kluge to get control which rendered trouble for Guderian.

Whoa, didn't know that. I thought Guderian only became subordinate to Kluge at his own request, so that he could use some of Kluge's infanty to guard his own flanks. Oh wait, but you mean he wanted to make both Panzer armies subordinate to Kluge? I see. All the same, Bock, Halder and Guderian were all in total agreement with wanting to attack Moscow and there are certain other instances in Barbarossa where Guderian and Bock agreed with each other, but I can't remember any specifics.

[Glez_]

As far as I remember, Kluge had to keep Guderian on a leash, else he would outrun his infantry support and leave vulnerable flanks.

Guderian resigned his command of his panzer division and he was latter urged back by either Von Rundstet or Hitler, don't exactly remember which one. Von Kluge was a real "professional", and accepted Guderian back without any problems.

[Col. Gen. Guderian]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

Not true. Guderian himself actually considered Manstein to be "our finest operational brain".

Well you're hardly going to say "I have our finest operational brain", unless you're George Patton or something. Yes, granted, Manstein was a complete genius who was particuarly adept in planning but I did only say that Guderian was probably the best general of the war. It's wide open to debate.

What IS certain though, is that he was the greatest tank commander of the war. He was the originator of it within the German army, a pioneer. Rommel, Manstein, Manteuffel, Balck and many others all learnt their tactics from him. This natural ability with tanks could be explained by the fact that he was originally a technician in the army and worked with tanks and motorized troops from the early 1920's.

Did you know that Manstein thought that the Kursk operation should be continued even when the Russians had unleashed their tank reserves? Hitler ordered that the mission should be abandoned. Alan Clark called this an "interesting role-reversal". OK, it's the only real flaw I have ever seen in Mansteins judgement, but it was a pretty huge one.

[Retributar]

I hate to crush your idolization of Guderian...i have no complaints about him being an excellent general...but Guderian was not the original architect of the idea of a concentrated tank-force!...he took De-Gaulle's idea and made it a reality!.

Now id have to do research to be absolutely precise on this...but, i will try to go from memory for now.

BUT...before that ...again i have to crush another ideology: Yes George S. Patton was a great general...but, a lot of the credit of his success goes to 'ULTRA'(Research ULTRA on the internet)...the codename for the Allies secret progect to decipher the German Communications codes.

Before Eisenhower sent Patton into Southern France...they already knew that the Germans were not there in force...and so sent Patton whom they knew the Germans respected...they wanted to use him to instill fear in the German High Command ... to destroy their will to resist...so they made a Boogey-Man out of George S. Patton...made him look larger than life!.

Thats also why...the Russians had 20 miles of indepth defenses and killing boxes waiting for the Germans...they never did that before KURSK!!!...its because The US & Britain showed Stalin the deciphered German Communications showing him that he was going to be attacked...So Stalin built a Slaughter-Box for the German Armee and amassed huge reserves to counter-attack after the German Panzer Units were mauled into hamburger-meat!.

***Charles De Gaulle was the 1st and true originator of the concept or idea of what later became the panzer Division ...but, the French Commanders would have nothing to do with his ideas...and so they were never studied or implemented.***

I think De Gaulle lead an armoured formation as he had outlined in his book in the south of France before France was completely taken over by the German Army.

His idea was then studied by Guderian first..., thats my recollection...

------------------------------------------------

Got bored waiting for more posts and researched Charles De Gaulle:

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/charlesdegaulle.html

Charles de Gaulle

A study on military theory, Vers l'armée de métier (1934; The Army of the Future), defended the idea of a small professional army, highly mechanized and mobile, in preference to the static theories exemplified by the Maginot Line, which was intended to protect France against German attack. He also wrote a memorandum in which he tried, even as late as January 1940, to convert politicians to his way of thinking. His views made him unpopular with his military superiors, and the question of his right to publish under his name a historical study La France et son armée (1938; France and Her Army) led to a dispute with Marshal Pétain.

----------

http://www.needham.k12.ma.us/high_school/cur/Baker_00/2002_p5/bakerp5_df_1-02/de_gaulle.htm

During the time between World War I and World War II, de Gaulle promoted mechanized warfare, and the tank, accusing the French Army as being insufficiently mobilized and mechanized. He was shunned and ignored, and promotions were given to others. Petain became Marshal of the French Army. De Gaulle wrote a book, The Army of the Future, which was not well known in France itself, but part of German Military curriculum.

(1932-1937) He was dubbed 'Mr. Motor' for his pro-mechanized views. Although he did get recognition in the late '38 months, when two armored divisions were assigned to the Rhine, he said it was "too little too late" . De Gaulle said he could see war written in the skies of the Rhine.

When World War II came, the German First Panzer Army used Gaullist tactics against France, and sent the country down

------------

http://www.angelfire.com/tn/ww2essays/19401.html

Much has been made of the role of leadership in the debacle. Typically the argument runs that, in particular, France's military leaders were too old and unable to comprehend modern mobile warfare. While all the senior commanders were veterans of the first war, so were the German commanders. Although Germany did lead the way in implementing new techniques of armored warfare--the blitzkrieg--these concepts were first expounded by de Gaulle in 1934. The main German proponent of de Gaulle's tactics, Heinz Guderian, struggled for years to win acceptance. Had Germany not been a totalitarian state, it is doubtful that his ideas would have been implemented.

[ May 20, 2004, 05:19 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Col. Gen. Guderian:

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

Not true. Guderian himself actually considered Manstein to be "our finest operational brain".

Well you're hardly going to say "I have our finest operational brain", unless you're George Patton or something. Yes, granted, Manstein was a complete genius who was particuarly adept in planning but I did only say that Guderian was probably the best general of the war. It's wide open to debate.

What IS certain though, is that he was the greatest tank commander of the war. He was the originator of it within the German army, a pioneer. Rommel, Manstein, Manteuffel, Balck and many others all learnt their tactics from him. This natural ability with tanks could be explained by the fact that he was originally a technician in the army and worked with tanks and motorized troops from the early 1920's.

Did you know that Manstein thought that the Kursk operation should be continued even when the Russians had unleashed their tank reserves? Hitler ordered that the mission should be abandoned. Alan Clark called this an "interesting role-reversal". OK, it's the only real flaw I have ever seen in Mansteins judgement, but it was a pretty huge one. </font>

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Col. Gen. Guderian:

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

Guderian never speaks much of Bock in his memoirs, the one thing they did not agree on was if Kluge's 4th Army should be in control of 3rd and 2nd pz armies during barbarossa. Von Bock urged for Kluge to get control which rendered trouble for Guderian.

Whoa, didn't know that. I thought Guderian only became subordinate to Kluge at his own request, so that he could use some of Kluge's infanty to guard his own flanks. Oh wait, but you mean he wanted to make both Panzer armies subordinate to Kluge? I see. All the same, Bock, Halder and Guderian were all in total agreement with wanting to attack Moscow and there are certain other instances in Barbarossa where Guderian and Bock agreed with each other, but I can't remember any specifics. </font>

[Retributar]

If you know anything about 'ULTRA'...then you know why the Germans were defeated in WW2...the Allies knew almost everything the Germans were going to do before the German Generals knew!.

The only reason why the Battle of the Bulge had any success at all was because Hitler ordered strict radio silence on this matter.

With all this in mind...i am still very much impressed and have tremendous respect for what the German Armed Forces accomplished in WW2...under those circumstances,...but i am also very grateful that they were defeated!.

Do you really believe that the Battle at Kursk was totaly unrelated to the Invasion of Sicily?...think again!.

[ May 19, 2004, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Glez_]

I think what Manstein pressed for at Kursk was for the Germans to eliminate the Soviet mobile formations, then to turn and face other threats.

I guess he felt it might be the last chance the German army might have of destroying the Soviet, as it proved to be.

[Col. Gen. Guderian]

Originally posted by Retributar:

BLAH

Yes yes, i get the picture. But you're ignoring 2 key points. I only said Guderian was the pioneer of tank warfare in the GERMAN army. Also, when I said that would be something Patton said, I meant that Patton would say something like that because he was so vain.

Hence, your entire argument was wasted on me. No offence, but you completely misread me.

[Col. Gen. Guderian]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

Manstein's decision at Kursk is known and is explained by the fact that the sacrifices made during the first stages of zittadelle should not be in vain. And partially that opinion holds some sense, reason Hitler so hastly abandoned the operation was to a large extent due to the allied invasion of sicily.

It is true that Hitler abandoned the operation as much out of the Sicily landings as of recognising that Zitadelle had been a failure, but Mansteins judgement in that instance was certainly uncharacteristic of him. Yes he was in a difficult position, but if the operation had been pressed ahead it would have only hastened the demise of the German army.

Kursk is one of the most interesting battles of the war in that, although it finished inconclusively and each side had done as much damage to the other, it proved to be the final turning point in the war. For once, the German Blitzkrieg simply hadn't worked. After that, it was all downhill for Hitler.