Where is Guderian

[Blashy]

Why? He's got 2.5 years of your posts to read about it .

[Desert Dave]

Desert Dave; in the minutes it took you to find that picasso you could have sent an email to Hubert urging for a patched leaderfile.

10 minutes!

You posted @ 6:40, and I asked @ 6:30!

Too late.

No responses to ALL or nothing else

Clownish or Goof-ball, neither!

FYI, not Kafka's K,

I have hurryin' Heinz Guderian In my own Mod,

Rated "7" IIRC. :cool:

I will NOW add Rokossovsky,

Since I am convinced by yer

Expertly researched expose.

However,

You and I and enfant terrible

[... who, alas, could NOT name

the painter, a crying shame really ]

And Blashy and Bill

And Condor and Terif

And Sombra and Stormbringer,

And et al,

Are NOT the Game Designer.

Do you not suppose,

With ALL the massive research materiels

Available to him,

By way of BF and other sources,

He is not already aware?

Of who it was led which

Sabres raised! charges,

Of the light & heavy brigades,

During any sort of campaigns?

Please.

[Kuniworth]

First of all this will be a bit of a faulty leaderfile but ok here is a compromise;

A suggestion to the leader file that doesnt alter the ratings which seem to disturb the gamey gamers nor does it include more hq:s;

USSR

- Rename Vorishilov to Voroshilov

- Insert Rokossovsky 7 instead of Chuikov 7

- Change Timoshenko 7 to Timoshenko 6

- Deleted Vasilevsky 6 and include Vatutin 7

GERMANY

- Deleted Weiss 6 include instead Kuchler or Weichs

UK

- change o´Conner to O´Connor

- change Auchinleck from 6 to 7

- change Wavell from 7 to 6

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

Dude here is the thing I don't get. You got me coming back arguing about this issue for month after month and you can't give me a straight answer. Why do you keep insisting of defending this leaderfile if you can't present any arguements for it?

Why?

Do you think Im arguing about this because I like to mess up the game or get it better?

I don't get it.

[Desert Dave]

Dude here is the thing I don't get. You got me coming back arguing about this issue for month after month and you can't give me a straight answer.

Demoted to "dude," eh?

OK by me.

It's how we refer to "green-horns"

(... out here in the outlaw West)

Just blew in

On a careless wind

From somewhere back East.

But, that seems awful cold

And, fickle.

Like that icicle hanging from 'em nose

Of yer old shenanigan pal, Loki.

What is "straighter," I have to ask,

Than:

Hubert decides who or what

Is in,

Who or what... is out?

Do you think Im arguing about this because I like to mess up the game or get it better?

You, as EVERYONE else in here

SURELY wishes the game to be better.

Thank you.

Really.

Truly. :cool:

Now.

What exactly?

Is... "better."

IF Hubert decides to adopt yer

Leader-file,

Letter by letter?

I don't get it.

Sure you do, Moon Enthused,

And... you have... always. :cool:

[Gérard Le Poer Trench]

I guess it's the same reason Jodl and Keitel are not included. Rommel and the others had vital roles in the war.

[Blackhorse]

Dude,

Are you, like, writing poetry or something?

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

It's how we refer to "green-horns"

(... out here in the outlaw West)

Just blew in

On a careless wind

From somewhere back East.

But, that seems awful cold

And, fickle.

Like that icicle hanging from 'em nose

Of yer old shenanigan pal, Loki.

What is "straighter," I have to ask,

Than:

Hubert decides who or what

Is in,

Who or what... is out?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Do you think Im arguing about this because I like to mess up the game or get it better?

You, as EVERYONE else in here

SURELY wishes the game to be better.

Thank you.

Really.

Truly. :cool:

Now.

What exactly?

Is... "better."

IF Hubert decides to adopt yer

Leader-file,

Letter by letter?

I don't get it.

Sure you do, Moon Enthused,

And... you have... always. :cool: </font>

[Desert Dave]

Blackhorse, quite briefly:

Dude,

Are you, like, writing poetry or something?

No.

I am writing how I always have done,

Since age 9 or so,

Then it was I no longer was

A dude.

[Concord Dan]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

by the way, you're member #2590, with 12 posts, and this is how you come out? LOL, what a stand Are you Blashy's pet?

Looking at your member number what are you? A 13 year old:) You do not understand or have failed to read the manual. Let's attack the poster.

Your juvenile drivel aside, do you really believe a HQ unit represents a single leader?

[Comrade Trapp]

Originally posted by Concord Dan:

Looking at your member number what are you? A 13 year old:) You do not understand or have failed to read the manual. Let's attack the poster.

Your juvenile drivel aside, do you really believe a HQ unit represents a single leader?

Where did you get "13 years old" from his member number? His member number is 10987.

You silly newbies crack me up......

As for the HQs, the HQ unit represents a SINGLE LEADER AND logistical support, intelligence, communications, field hospitals, and every thing else you would find in the rear area of an army group.

Why else would the HQs have general's names and ratings? I highly doubt that the rating is for the support staff.

[JerseyJohn]

Nostalgia, when Brother Rambo first started posting we used to go at each other's jugulars. When one of our members said he was thirteen Rambo claimed to be twelve, I wrote something back and another member said I ought to be ashamed to have said that to a twelve year old!

[Concord Dan]

Originally posted by Comrade Trapp:

Where did you get "13 years old" from his member number? His member number is 10987.

You silly newbies crack me up......

As for the HQs, the HQ unit represents a SINGLE LEADER AND logistical support, intelligence, communications, field hospitals, and every thing else you would find in the rear area of an army group.

Why else would the HQs have general's names and ratings? I highly doubt that the rating is for the support staff.

1. As in a higher member number means you have not been around as long as a lower number. Hence, a higher number denotes a younger age. Nooob lol - Kidding aside, I estimated his age based on his reply and the sentence score which indicated 8th grade.

2. Given your description of an HQ, what weight do you give to the single leader in the final HQ rating? Put another way, who were the Germans flying out of the Stalingrad pocket? Generals or technicians.

3. Why named? Historical Flavor. It is a GAME after all and a very ABSTRACT one.

[Liam]

Heinz Right? Ketchup folks, he was an idea man, one of the forefathers of Blitzkrieg, he'd be more of a Staff man less of a field man. Even though I suppose Manny(was still disputed as as genius) would be too, along with Rommel(was still not a army General) in 1940. Many of these Fine Commanders shouldn't even be in the list till later

P.S. where is Von Paulus? A field marshall and quite legendary one of the first of the High Command to actually say screw you Hitler by action though wouldn't have surrendered you poor boys at Stalingrad. I'd of just suicided them after what occurred after the battle. Most of the 6th Army never saw home ever again...Surrending to certian death anywhoo

[JerseyJohn]

1940 German Army:

Rommel commanded a panzer (The Ghost) division in the French campaign. He was a great field commander/tactician and even in North Africa commanded from the front lines -- probably losing some of his effectiveness because he wasn't enough of a staff man. He wrote a book on infantry tactics before WWII.

Guderian commanded a panzer corps in Rundstedt's Army Group. He was most assuredly a field commander and not a desk man. He wrote a book on tank tactics before WWII (Achtung Panzer) and his war memoirs afterwards.

Manstein , always unpopular with the highest prewar army commanders, he wasn't promoted to where he was supposed to be. As a staff officer he created the Polish and French plans that were actually used. In the second part of the French campaign he was placed in command of a corps. From early on in Russia he was made an army and then an army group commander. He wrote a book (Lost Victories) after the war.

All three were great field commanders. Rommel was the weakest of the three in terms of army group capabilities.

Paulus was always a staff officer until he was appointed commander of the Sixth Army. Even he felt it was a mistake. He was an excellent member of the general staff and should have remained there.

[Fubarno]

Forget the editor. When you're about to invade Russia, right click on your best German tank corps and rename it Guderian. Problem solved.

[Concord Dan]

Originally posted by Fubarno:

Forget the editor. When you're about to invade Russia, right click on your best German tank corps and rename it Guderian. Problem solved.

WINNER - and probably the most historically accurate at this level of abstraction.

[Liam]

Good enlightenment... I was aware where most men were Manstein's concepts just got in the door for France no? The German High Commander of the Wermacht at the time was not in favor at first, of punch a hole still all of our reserves through the line then changed his mind? Not sure if History Channel or yourself described these plans, interestingly enough he was never given what the other Commanders were. You think Nazi Favoritism? You think perhaps the German Generals were to Prudent to be in Command? Seeing they were underdogs they needed Revolutionary Men like Rommel, Manstein and Guderian.

As the Frenched needed men like Degaulle

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

1940 German Army:

Rommel commanded a panzer (The Ghost) division in the French campaign. He was a great field commander/tactician and even in North Africa commanded from the front lines -- probably losing some of his effectiveness because he wasn't enough of a staff man. He wrote a book on infantry tactics before WWII.

Guderian commanded a panzer corps in Rundstedt's Army Group. He was most assuredly a field commander and not a desk man. He wrote a book on tank tactics before WWII (Achtung Panzer) and his war memoirs afterwards.

Manstein , always unpopular with the highest prewar army commanders, he wasn't promoted to where he was supposed to be. As a staff officer he created the Polish and French plans that were actually used. In the second part of the French campaign he was placed in command of a corps. From early on in Russia he was made an army and then an army group commander. He wrote a book (Lost Victories) after the war.

All three were great field commanders. Rommel was the weakest of the three in terms of army group capabilities.

Paulus was always a staff officer until he was appointed commander of the Sixth Army. Even he felt it was a mistake. He was an excellent member of the general staff and should have remained there.

[JerseyJohn]

My pleasure, Liam , and I agree with your take on it. The old school in both France and Germany did, desperately, need the young firebrands to move them past their old concepts.

In France the generals tended to remain active till well in their eighties, so theory became virtually comatose. It's a wonder people like Bilotte, DeGaule and Leclair, who had modern tactical ideas, advanced at all.

Britain was probably the most open to advances, being the first to research jet technology as early as 1928. And with advocates for a totally mechanized/armored army. The problem in the UK was purely budgetary, which reached it's worst during the mid-1930s, exactly when the aggressor nations worldwide were beginning to emerge into the open.

Germany had some advantages. For one, Hitler was very open to new technology and new tactical concepts. For another, the Germans were on the receiving end of armored warfare, their own tanks being all but unusable steel hulks. Hitler was also open to air technology, an area the French dragged their feet in.

Hitler also shook up the highest ranks of the preWWII army. His main motive was to get himself into a position to control it personally, but along the way his meddling helped men like Manstein and Guderian.

Manstein was the sort of person who consistently made trouble for himself. He should have been an army commander by 1939, but was always moved away from higher command by the top dogs who would all be gone by the time the war started.

Guderian's largest field command was the Second Panzer Army under Kluge. After an argument with Hitler he was dismissed and later came back after Stalingrad as Inspector of Panzer Troops and a year later as Acting Chief of Staff. I think he'd be hard to rate as an army group commander, though there's no reason to assume he wouldn't have been in line for that position. My own rating for him would be on the high end.

Manstein, of course, was dismissed for the same reason as Guderian, an argument with Hitler. In his case I believe he closed the door hard and, just before the wood banged together he said, "The idiot!" There was no mystery as to who he was referring to.

[oliva2003]

About the Soviet Marshalls:

Ive been reserching about it and VASILESVKY commanded an Army Group in the winter of 1944-1945 in the Prusian-Poland front.

About Zhukov, everybody talk marvells about him, but he was not the "Great Marshall" that the last 60 years of history have talken. After the fall of Soviet System, the files were opened, files of the 30´s and 40´s years about the pre and war years, and those files say things like :

1. Operation Mars: at the same time of Uranus, Zhukov created and commanded that operation to destroy the 9th army near Moscu( commanded by Model). That battle was a disaster to the Red Army, same losses than all Uranus campaing without any result.

2. Vasilevsky was the best Militar Chieff in the east front (at the level of Manstein in strategical skills not at the same level in tactic skills. This guy was the developer of Stalingrad and the beginning of the Wehrmacht´fall in the East front, and in the all War)

Americans, remenber that in 1944 the War was won by the USSR. The D Day was only to protect the rest of Europe by Stalin. ( and thanks for that )

[Liam]

John:

You are always a good educator to me, lots of good knowledge of WW2. I love the lessons as I learn along with applying them to SC2. Alone I usually wouldn't memorize a few the items listed but you usually add to that with historical comment, debate along with the Game involved. Makes for double additive

I think that French and Italians start off with poor leadership understandable..maybe by the liberation, they should recieve DeGaulle Option for their own damned pride at about 7 or 8... and Americans/British are shortchanged. Russian and Germany land leadership is the King of SC2 but what it misses is a lot of the Admirals, Air Commanders on all sides, as the Japanese had one of those. Some of the best weren't even Army Officers

1 thing missing from SC2 is the regular appearance of Adolf and Stalin like Partisans on the Eastern Front in Command of troops with a Level 3 HQ 0 Experience that way we'd add some neat realism... they should appear around the Capitols constantly, put some cement in SCers boots taking over from Manny and Zhukov up around 2 or 3 stars. Would you let an Allied breakthrough kill 'em? How about it costing the game

[oliva2003]

More Topics:

Guderian.He wrote a book on tank tactics before WWII (Achtung Panzer) and his war memoirs afterwards.

The true "father" of the new Wehrmacht´s tactics was Von Seeckt in the 20´s years and his famous "ReichWehr" ( an Army formed by 100.000 men with ranges of officials and sub-officials all of them).

The book of Guderian was wrotten in 1937, when the blitzkrieg concept was installed in the Heer( at the same time, the Soviets had new several manuals of motorization/armour/airsupport war called by the code of "PU" ; PU36, PU39,PU41...)

Guderian Jumped to the Hall of Fame after his idea( with Manstein too) to change the original attack of Benelux in 1940, the famous path of the Ardenas forest, etc) but he was not the "engineer" of the BlitzKrieg concept and his use by the Heer)

[ April 22, 2006, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: oliva2003 ]

[Blashy]

Honestly Liam, I don't want to play a game where the name AH appears, that barbarian does not deserve to have his name anywhere.

Just my opinion.

[JerseyJohn]

Liam,

Appreciated, and I in turn have picked up a lot of interesting ideas and good information reading your posts over the years. I particularly liked the ones about your Common Wealth and UK relatives and their personal roles in the war.

Interesting idea about those partisan HQ's, though I'm not sure how this game's partisan engine works. Ideally I think there would be two systems for partisans; in the one instance they'd have the potential of coming together to form true military units behind enemy lines and, in the other, they'd always be small bands hindering supply and reinforcement.

oliva2003

I don't quite understand your point regarding Guderian and von Seeckt.

Guderian's book came out in 1937, but it was based on studies he'd made throughout his career. Origianlly he was analysing the role of German cavalry in the Belgium Campaign of August 1914. In the end he reached the logical conclusion that armor would be the successor to cavalry tactics.

Manstein's plan for the Western Front, 1940, was adapted after the original plan was captured by the British and French. Hitler had faith in it, but the majority of German generals considered it too risky. And it may well have been. Even Guderian later commented that a few sorties by Allied aircraft would have created havoc in the very long german columns using narrow roads. But that didn't happen because Manstein's first strike was far to the north, where the Brits and French expected it in the first place. It was only when they moved north to counter it that Guderian's rush through Sedan paid off and went for the Channel coast. All things considered, I think there's a good argument for saying it really shouldn't have worked. But it did.

Of course von Seeckt was instrumental in helping to create the new German Army that won those early victories. I never referred to Guderian as the "Father of the German Blitzkreig." Anyway, the tactics involved weren't entirely Army, the Luftwaffe was also a key element as flying artillery to destroy strong points, a strafing function to disorganize the defending troops and also as a screen to ensure that the advancing armies were not savaged from the air. Without air cover the blitzkreig couldn't be pulled off. So, the Luftwaffe's air theorists also deserve much of the credit.

Before the nazis gained control of Germany, there was a lot of cooperation between the German and Soviet armies within the Soviet Union, so many of the basic concepts were shared and it would difficult to determine who first came up with things. I'm not sure that's overly important. British General Fuller also pioneered armored tactics during the 1920s.

Naturally, a lot of the tactics depended upon the state of technology. The original Blitzkreig campaigns relied on swift light armored formations breaking through lines that were weak in anti-tank defenses. A few years later that situation no longer existed and the tanks changed into much heavier and much slower weapons with a somewhat changed role. Also, there were a lot more of them along with armored infantry support weapons that had also changed since the early days of the war.

I think the U. S. tactics in France 1944, after the breakthrough, can be considered Blitzkreig. But by then the defending German army (broken during the summer) was looking more like the Poles and France of 39-40 than the Wehrmacht of those same campaigns. Regardless of what it's called, the basic idea is to have a fast moving offensive force cutting through a slower moving enemy, using aggressive air superiority to keep them from reorganizing.

If I had to choose a number from 1-10 for Guderian, it would be 8. All things considered I think he was very similar to George Patton.

[jon_j_rambo]

I'm glad to see some big name posters stepping up to the plate in this thread.

Question: What about Eisenhower? Where was he physically located the whole war? Can I get some quick takes on Ike?

[JerseyJohn]

Greetings Brother Rambo. :cool:

Ike, as far as I know, was always pretty far behind the lines.

He wasn't generally involved in the tactical end of things, more a matter of deciding which army commanders would get which resources and then assigning objectives for them. So, there was no need for him to be near the front and nobody wanted him there anyway.

During the Bulge he was very shaken up by the German infiltrators, those MPs speaking perfect English who were actually German soldiers. He went into hiding till he was sure they'd been killed, or rounded up and shot.

Blashy,

So I take it you don't really object to the idea of having a leader piece (more of an objective than a unit connected with the actual fighting). What you really object to is the name on it -- specifically Hitler's, though I'd find Stalin's to be exactly as objectionable.

So, why not label them Chief of State Germany-USSR-UK-Italy , whatever?