Where is Guderian

[jon_j_rambo]

I'm in favor of a Goering piece. Wasn't he calling the shots for the LF?

@Sir Jersey --- That's what I thought about Ike, he was Patton's boss (see movie), guess I could do a google search.

[Edwin P.]

Ike, in my view he was the football coach who decided who the quaterback was for the game, and changed them as needed.

I would like to see the opportunity for a HQ to be appointed Theater Commander; i.e. Modes > Theater HQ, and give extra support to attached HQ units based on their Theater Command Rating.

Patton would rank lower as a theater commander and Ike would rank higher.

Example Rankings for Each Mode:

Patton: Combat HQ= 8, Theater HQ= 6

Eishenhower: Combat HQ= 6, Theater HQ= 8

[Liam]

As far as I'm concerned, Italy, Germany and USSR all had Leaders that tampered with their Field Commanders Operations. Brits and Americans seem to have left that more to the proffessionals.

Perhaps a Percentage factor and not a name that any General in the HQ factor can turn to 3 rating or in Italy's case, 1... randomely after say 1941 for Germany, the whole war for USSR and Italy... Also perhaps the constant sacking of HQs and having them put back in the Production for 3 months if they should lose under such dreadful Regimes. Not lacking any history

Naturally these figures can go back up and you can replace those HQs, but the disorganized minds of Fanatical Leaders who tampered in their Frontlines.. You're supposed to be the Chief and Commander in SC but we all know the truth you are a hand puppet moving the strings along of a greater war.. Those men are X factors in your decisionmaking as you're greater than they are in a sense you're God of a simulated War. SO such an event gives you the fustrastion and real feel of the ETO

Originally posted by 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?

[JerseyJohn]

Liam,

Agreed and it is a shame that there doesn't seem to be a way of incorporating that into the game. Hitler and Stalin did the worst kind of meddling into the operational operations of their armies.

Stalin seems to have learned his lesson after wasting the Siberian Reserves in early 1942, ordering them to continue their offensives even after they'd reached the point of exhaustion and had grossly over extended supply lines, leading to the Ukraine disassters that all but cancelled out the gaines made over the winter of 41/42.

Hitler, on the other hand, seems to have meddled even more with each successive fiasco. Unlike Stalin, he gave in to the temptation of blaming his troops and his generals for his own errors.

Churchill was also a meddler but, after Greece, Crete and Singapore his generals appear to have reined him in. As late as the winter of 44 he pulled Allan-Brooke aside and began making grandiose gestures on a map of Europe.

The UK would leave a direct assault on France to the Americans while landing instead in Portugal , of all places. He elaborated on how they'd be received with open arms by their traditional allies who would immediately declare war on the Axis. Franco would also see the light and either give right of passage or, even better -- and at that point Allan-Brooke turned away from him, "Winston, if you're quite through with that preposterous nonsense, I've got serious work to do."

It's easy to imagine how different Germany's war would have been if Hitler's general staff had been able to say something similar to him.

Moved here from the Plunder Thread

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

[...] Boardwalk Raconteur,

...

Great commentary on the Generals, BTW.

One question.

(... selfishly, for my own Mod)

Who was, or were the best Leaders

For the following countries,

**(... and what ratings would you assign? I have since reconsidered my rating of "7" for Guderian and will use your recommended "8"... it was my initial instinct, but I down-graded by one, since he wasn't full Field Marshal; thing is, even if merely a Tech Sergeant, hurryin' Heinz was instrumental to the whole concept of "Op-eratic blitzkrieg," so, IMO, I prefer to have him included)

1) Rumania

2) Australia/New Zealand

3) Sweden

I could google it, or access that wikipedia even,

But I TRUST yer long-standing insight

And hard-learned judgement.

Dave, I'd love to, except to be honest I don't know anything about Sweden's WWII era generals. All anyone can do, of course, is speculate on the matter.

Not sure how high the Australian and NZ commanders rose, but I guess corps commanders would have been tops, and it's almost equally hard to judge here too, as I don't think any of them ever operated independently except during the early days of the war, on a very small manpower scale, in the defense of Port Moresby against the Japanese. Sorry I'm not of help here.

The Rumanians and Hungarians would be difficult to evaluate because I don't think their generals could have made much of a difference. Their armies were of WWI vintage but lacking in adequate heavy artillery and completely devoid of anti-tank weapons -- a fatal flaw on the Russian front. Hitler's reasoning for placing them on the 6th Army flanks at Stalingrad was his own stupidity about the Red Army having already been bled dry and not having enough tanks left for use in offensive operations. Well, that judgement probably cost him the war.

But getting back to their generals, how can we judge men who are placed in command of troops barely equipped to fight in the last war?

The German high command had a very low opinion of Rumanian officers and viewed their army as a 19th century relic where the sergeants metered out severe physical punishment to the lower ranks and the officers did little more than attempt to control an armed mob. I doubt they were as bad as that, but their generals, as far as I know, didn't have much of a chance to show their abilities.

The Hungarians and Bulgarians (who were not committed to the Russian Front by signed agreement) were regarded a little better by the Germans. Again, I can't offer anything other than wild speculation.

Italian generals are also a mystery to me. Grazianni always seemed a good commander working under impossible handicaps, namely, Mussolinni. Like his predecessor in Libya, Balbo, he didn't want to invade Egypt, the main argument being logistical, and secondly he realized his troops weren't properly equipped or mobile enough for the open desert. So, he proceeded slowly, building a reliable road as he advanced, and protecting it with a series of fortified boxes. It was a good plan and might well have worked but for O'Connor's daring plan and ability to quickly exploit an unexpected early outflanking success.

The Italian army was consistently misused by Mussolini and, for his generals, things were usually over before they'd actually begun.

Marshall Bodoglio, victor in Ethiopia and loser in Greece, might be typical of the higher ranked fascist Italian generals.

In 1943, after thoroughly deceiving the Germans, ousting Mussolini and negotiating a secret treaty with the U. S. and U. K., he went on to flee Rome, along with his government, without bothering to inform Italy's remaining 55 divisions as to their current status. Not even a hint that were now supposed to defend their homeland against the relatively small number of Germans within it's borders.

All he needed to do was tell them to block all the roads and transportation and Germany would have been reduced to defending the Alps. Instead, he fled without saying a word and German troops poured into the country, quickly disarming their former allies -- who by then had no idea what they were supposed to be doing -- and almost overnight Germany had enough troops on hand to enable Kesselring to rescind his earlier plans (with Rommel) to draw a ling far north of Rome, and change it to fighting at Salerno, where he came close to throwing the American troops back into the sea.

Anyway, if that was the way Italy's highest ranking and most veteran general acted, we can easily imagine what most of his subordinates must have been like.

In short, I think much of this is a guessing game.

We've got a much more reliable basis for evaluating Franco and Mannerheim, both of whom seem to have been very able commanders.

On Guderian, I think it's safe to assume his rating should be equal to Rommels. Both of them a notch above Rundstedt, though the older general was no doubt better at logistics than either of them.

Rundstedt, in both France 40 and Russia 41, tended to hold back on the side of caution -- though outside of Kiev this didn't prevent his flanks from being very weak against the remnants of defeated Soviet formations.

At Dunkirk he prevented Guderian from flanking the B.E.F and beating it to the Channel coast. He was afraid it would be overextended and itself cut off before the infantry could come to the panzer units support. It's clear now that Guderian was correct and Rundstedt/Hitler totally wrong, the outflanded BEF would have simply been trapped far from the rescue operation of the Royal Navy and it's volunteer civilian craft. Rommel would have followed the same tactic as Guderian, except in his case he might well have followed through even without higer authorization, relying on victory to justify his actions.

So, to me, that's the crux of it, Rommel and Guderian are like the Reese and Rizuto of the German generals lineup -- all things considered (adjustments made for ball parks etc) they have to be considered equals.

-- Rommel's achilles tendon was supply. In North Africa he appointed a major as his logistics officer. Poor guy, we can imagine him trying to force his decisions on two and three star generals all clamboring for limited fuel and ammunition.

[ April 24, 2006, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

John: I just thought it shared realism. The game wishes to follow a historical viewpoint:

Imagine this, Battle of Britian now is a flop. There is not real qualities to it as would historically make it feel like the battle of Britian. The best you can do is operate the Egyptian AF to England and purchase Monty early, setting you back in tech. You still will likely not successfully defend the UK without giving up Egypt. Rarely can one afford Technology, HQs and Units vital.

So I look at it this way Hugh Dowding was in Control on one Side and on the other Herman Goering. One was a competent defender and likely the savour of the English Isles, the other a blundering arrogant pig who likely aided to the loss of the war. Noone would disagree with this viewpoint as History is over.. Goering failed to kill the BEF, failed to defeat the RAF, failed to supply the 6th army. Dowding was superb, defended the Isles against overwhelming Numbers. Neither Commander can represented in the field, all that you get in SC2 is Army HQs, not actually Airforce

HQs which would be distinctly different. Though at the very least England should be supplied Montgomery to represent their fine RAF Leadership with a 2nd Fighter then these two units disband officially at the end of the Battle, which you could say is toward the First Frost of '40-'41...Amphibious Transports should suffer this penatly if approaching the Isles, that if Air Supremacy is not obtained, there is a 50% chance they will not unload their troops. Air supremacy is fighters reduced Strength 4 Defending and attacking strength 6. Not allowing the freeflow of transports via their Escort Range. That would really give a real feel and be historical. Hurricanes and Spitfires would've pounced transports around the clock sorties... Likewise English should suffer the same losses when attempting anything against the Germans, which is to give the role Fighters something substantial.

Germany would do nicely with a Light bomber squadron to start the war with the HE-111 was real and advanced for it's day. It did reign terror upon London...

By the way:

What you spoke of in Churchill you have admit something the man did save the Isles as well as making errors. He was aware of Germany's buildup early, brought it up Parliment, none listened. He was wise in Bombing Berlin, making it a personal issue with Hitler, causing Hitler's blunder and informing Goering to Bomb English Cities. Etc.. He was a much more accomplished a Field Commander than Stalin or Hitler just not meant to be in charge of the Armed Forces on a tactical level.

P.S. Romanians and Italians on the Eastern Front, it seems all that I ever hear is that they were pretty much smooshed like bugs. I have to assume they had no equipment and no formal training to fight a Power like Russia. They had very little incentive either. Especially Italians how many miles from home? Germans were likely righteous to regard them as incompetent, and they should of been on Partisan duty alone not on the frontlines of a Major Front War. Regardless, Italians in SC are capable with technology upgrades.

[ April 24, 2006, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[JerseyJohn]

Liam,

A lot of interesting issues in that post, and I like your take on them.

So, I'll try and take them individually:

-- The Italian Army in Russia was actually issued pressed cardboard combat boots! Italy made the mistake, back in the late 1930s, of stuffing more men in the ranks than they were able to properly support in the field. The Japanese did the same thing and that's a major reason why, despite their fanatasism and excellent abilities, they were so abundantly slaughtered -- often their Banzai charges were launched through desperation than a belief that their will to victory would see them through. In the Italizn Army, of course, there wasn't a parellel regarding fanatacism, but inferior equipment (and leadership) put them at the same sort of disadvantage the Japanese usually had to deal with.

Italian, Rumanian and Hungarian officers were generally trained in obsolete tactics using obsolete equipment, and in the case of Italy this was made worse by Mussolini's appointment of good fascists to responsible positions rather than people who were competent. And yet, under Rommel, the Italians generally fought pretty well, the infantry always putting up a good defense and the armor (Ariete Div) -- it's tanks always grossly inferrior -- often moved with the two much superior panzer divisions (15 & 21). I think there'd have been a vast improvement in all the Axis allied units (except Finland, which were excellent on their own) if Germany had helped them even a little bit with equipment and training instead of using them as cannon fodder.

-- Churchill. Yes, I agree, he was head and shoulders above either Hitler or Stalin. In many ways he was like Abe Lincoln in the Civil War, except Winston was much more popular -- though in a war where he had all the population supporting the fight as opposed to Lincoln never having more than marginal popular support in an unpopular war. Churchill made similar mistakes to Lincoln; both men were at their worst when they tried to directly interfere with military actions. Both men also had the same habit of replacing commanders, often when it wasn't called for, helping to ensure that few would learn from their experiences.

He entered the war with the reputation of being an adventurer from his WWI Gallipoli fiasco. Yet, even in that case, he did a lot of things to help the British even in that war, including early support for the tank!

Probably Churchill as a morale booster had an effect that can't be accurately simulated in a game. The military mistakes were the price his country had to pay for his powerful political leadership.

Goring vs Dowding is an interesting case. If the battle had been fought as Dowding vs Kesselring (2 luftlottes) and Sperrile (1 luftflotte) it might have turned out much differently. But the chubby guy's meddling made it impossible for his excellent generals to conduct the battle in a sensible way. Certainly none of the Luftwaffe commanders wanted to shift to the cities when they were on the verge of gaining air superiority over southern England by knocking it's airfields out of action.

Interestingly, as time passes ever more information suggests that the Luftwaffe was never actually in a position to win the Battle of Britain. The bleeding of the RAF is well known, but less well known is the fact that Germany was also losing too many of it's seasoned pilots, both fighter and bomber. It was coming down to a war of attrition and, incredibly, Goering's worst decisions weren't in the conduct of the battle, but in the use of his crews and the production of aircraft/training of replacements. On the exact day that the Luftwaffe suffered it's most severe losses Goering made the decision to cut back on fighter production and that wing's allocation of manpower. Incredible incompetence -- I doubt any other air force had comparable glitches.

Additionally, the RAF was incredibly good at learning from the mistakes of the Poles and French. Aircraft at their bases were parked in pairs with fortified mounds and sandbags protecting the planes so explosions wouldn't spread to other fighters. Get a direct hit at a difficult target and you destroy one, maybe two aircraft instead of an entire line.

The radar was only part of the spotting defense, which also incorporated a sophisticated network of observer/spotters.

Additionally, UK replacements were handled more skillfully, despite the fact that, at one point, new pilots were being pushed through with very little training, many going down the first day, but in the end they did train the pilots they needed and Germany was, meanwhile, transferring theirs to bombers -- another piece of Goering's idiocy.

Hitler, of course, well, we all know about his brilliant wartime guidance.

So, in game terms, maybe a provision, some sort of optional Battle of Britain rule, that would have the Luftwaffe penalized in a way that simulates Goering and Hitler's interference. Maybe every few turns there's a random factor and the objective is suddenly changed. Say the human player is successfully hitting airfields. He's suddenly unable to attack those in Britain and can only attack cities, or ports, or channel convoys -- whatever comes up as Hitler's sudden master stroke.

Battle of Britain

For Goering it might be something like the fighters are suddenly less effective, simulating his order that they had to remain with the bombers at all times. Luftwaffe pilots have described how they had strain to keep their aircraft flying slow and close to the wings they were escorting, not only allowing the RAF first strike, but at the same time negating their major advantages of speed and being able to use the Hun out of the Sun tactic.

Other special rules would be needed to simulate Goering's dead hand in Russia and also in the Dunkirk operation. One of those things where he hadn't come up with the stupid idea of sinking the Royal Navy as it attempted to rescue the BEF, Hitler might actually have been inclined to listen to some more aggressive army views and gone for keeping the British away from the coast.

-- The problem, though, is the the Luftwaffe had many very good generals, primarily Kesselring, Sperlle and Richtoffen. Of course, if it hadn't had them to at least partially counterbalance Goering's meddling, things would have gone even worse for the Reich.

I guess the same sort of irrational variables can be assigned to the army and navy as well. A rule where the U-boats must have a given % sent to the Mediteranean and also assigned to patrol the coast of Norway when they're on the verge of sinking enough merchant tonnage in the North Atlantic to bring the UK to it's knees.

Really interesting stuff, Liam. I don't know how much of it can be put into the game before it falls apart and burns out, but I'm really enjoying this thread and grateful for all the points you've brought up.

[Liam]

John:

I was just at the coffee shop overviewing some books on WW2, Everything from Patton vs Rommel, To the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Kursk, etc... Sure the library is even better stocked in WW2 history. They had Guderians Book there, opened up just a few pages of Kursk, explained that Guderian was supposedly instrumental in the organization of Germany's Panzers in the 30s? Oddly, right beneath and I've heard this mentioned many times, before Kursk, really Germany was fully mobilized. They got up around 9 plus million at that point. Seems Manpower was a big problem with Germany. The Lines at Stalingrad being covered by Minor Armies that as you say and as even the German's had regarded them as being Poor Quality. Romanians use to fighting Balkan Wars...I can envision the many blunders the Germans made just in a few moments of glancing over old books and new ones alike.

In history I know that the Germans split in two after Stalingrad and Caucasus Oil, that was a blunder, the second Group would've been perfect to cover lines and it's armor to take Stalingrad sooner. Though I Hardly see that as being a collapse of the Front for the Russians. As in SC as in history, it is wise to target the Axis Minors to break through, gain experience, wreak havoc. Also in SC, the Mountains and rugged terrain and crappy supply in the Caucasus make it very difficult for it to be a viable strategy. VS Brother Rambo that was my attempt in our game, I got close but just as the Germans had I collapsed on my way into the Caucasus, Siberians went straight for that Spearhead, cut it off and killed the trapped troops. I lost an Army, and never recovered.

To summize off topic a little, this game has good Strategic Historical potential. The Battle of Britian is shortchanged, your concepts were good. I do know that many believe that air supremacy over the Channel was impossible, well maybe not impossible but the cost not worth the gain. Even Goering saw this.. The Germans were not equipped with as you say enough Aircraft, the right aircraft, more pilots, more training, the right tactics....they didn't have the right type of Bombers nor the time to really outperform the Brits. They had to think of other fronts, that or at least Hitler had his eyes set on Russia, perhaps Hitler was a Landluber that's the idea I always get....afraid of sea.

To sum it up though, your ideas are tactical, I put out real strategic ideas to cover that Portion of the War, which many say was a GameMaker or GameBreaker for 1940... And it's true, no England meant no USA any time soon. I think a battle for the skies was important, It meant control of the sealanes, control of the ports, control of getting Germans over on gliders. Once they arrived what could they have done? They would've wreaked havoc......It may have not be possible in 1940, but in Spring or early Summer of '41, very possible. Did the GHC think that far? Beats me...

Best Ideas to simplify the battle of Britian to represent the poor German Command Tactics: cut their abilities with their HQ. Enhance the British as I said with temporary reinforcements. Plus limit Amphibious operations with Control of the Air. I don't see Naval Power as being Supreme, without more Cruisers. England has to defend Egypt and other arenas, like the Atlantic. That is almost impossible and keep England safe. I don't think the British would've fought on in Egypt, maybe Canada. Though They would've fought on forever.. It was likely the biggest battle of the War, because it meant the end of everything. The Entire MiddleEast, India, Major Portions of Africa, Suez, everything the Japanese could then theft. England out is a GameKiller. Not represented in SC terms. USSR can kill Germany historically but not in SC2 as well. USSR will need luck, and lots of money. With the Diplomatic and Expanionist power of Germany if she captures Egypt.. The Russians don't startoff Strong enough to destroy Germany......

On Italians:

I feel bad for them. Everything you write upon them sounds bad. I hear the best about the Italian Navy and Airforce... And well, as you mentioned those Troops under German Command. You have to feel pity for them. French had it tough but the Italians almost should be under the classification of a Minor as far as Upgrades are concerned, to be historical. Extreme but Real

[santabear]

Liam and John,

When you're discussing the British AF vs. the Luftwaffe, don't forget Kammhuber. Even though he was a lower-ranking officer, he designed Germany's (effective) air defence.

[Desert Dave]

In short, I think much of this is a guessing game.

JJ,

Thanks just the same... I'll scratch around

And surely come up with some Leaders

For those Countries I'm interested in.

I'd have thought, what?

With all the X-tremely knowledgable Swedes

We got on board,

One 'a them mighta known something

About their own WW-2 military?

Same way we do about our very own US of A leaders, then and now... LOL!

Oh well, back to the drawing board... BTW!

When was that birthday gift gonna arrive?

June wasn't it?

Then we play... the game! :cool:

[hellraiser]

@ Sir Jersey, regarding:

"At Dunkirk he prevented Guderian from flanking the B.E.F and beating it to the Channel coast."

It seems this action (quite illogical military wise) had political reasons behind it and it emanated directly from Adolf himself who had hopes that by sparing uk troops would have been in a good position to negotiate with Britain.

@ Liam , regarding:

"P.S. Romanians and Italians on the Eastern Front, it seems all that I ever hear is that they were pretty much smooshed like bugs."

Unfortunately the Romanian army was a victim to the pre-war political fights and corruption, no one actually cared about endowing the army properly. A shame because the men were very, very good soldiers (better at defending their country than attacking because of the peaceful nature of this nation). Lack of AT capabilities, lack of a modern doctrine, lack of motorized assets - a sure victim against superior russian weaponry. Exception are the elite mountain divisions - highly trained and proffessional units which performed admirably on the eastern front - received a lot of praises from the germans and were feared by the soviets - they forced Romania to disband them immediately after the war. Another branch performed very very well - the Romanian Royal Air Force - excellent fighter pilots, flying indigenous fighters (IAR series) and BF109s.

We had another tough formation, an armoured division, which fought valiantly on the eastern front but unfortunately was severely underteched compared to the Russian counterparts. By the end of the war things started to improve, it received better vehicles - notably mark III and IV and it fought well but it didn't matter anyway anymore

The rest of the army was WW I vintage, no doubt.

[JerseyJohn]

Santabear

Glad you brought up the night fighter general, Josef Kammhuber. I didn't know much about him, and still don't, but he's a very interesting WWII figure. Like so many of the Luftwaffe's best minds he wound up butting heads with Erhardt Milch -- others crossed with either Goering or Udet and, like Kammhuber, were cast aside when Germany most needed their skills.

There was an interesting episode a day or two before Germany's invasion of Poland. A derigible was pulled out of mothballs, I believe it was the Graf Zeppelin, loaded with electronic gear and sent on a mission to fly over the entire coast line of Great Britain. The purpose was to get an exact reading on the British radar network. The crew thought the Brits were jamming their sensing devices and landed with the mission a complete failure. Turns out the British, who observed the craft all along it's trip, worried that they'd succeeded in pinpointing their towers. The jamming wasn't British. It was the Zeppelin's own metal frame.

As Liam mentioned earlier, the RAF was as unsuccessful in it's own 1940-41 air campaign against Germany as the Germans were in the Battle of Britain. I agree with his view, that the aircraft of that particular time lacked the capabilities of carrying out a succussful strategic bombing campaign along the lines of what the USAAF and RAF carried out from mid-1943 to the end of the war.

DD,

I'm sure you'll eventually find something on those Swedish generals, but I can't see much to base ratings on as Sweden hadn't been involved in a war since -- ? -- Napoleon, when Bernadotte (a former French marshall) led the Swedish army at Leipzig.

If the rating system is the same as the original SC (haven't got SC-2 yet), I'd give all the minor nation HQs a 4, with 6 for Franco and 7 for Mannerheim. And, yes, most certainly looking forward to that game sometime in July. :cool:

Lord Hellraiser,

I agree. Even up to the Battle of Britain, Hitler still had delusions about the UK accepting what he thought was it's sensible and rightful place at Germany's side. Personally I'm convinced that, had he destroyed the BEF on the continent, Churchill would never have had his chance to be Britain's war leader. I think there'd have been a popular outcry to make peace when France fell.

Hitler, in the summer of 1940, was afraid of having Japan fill the colonial vacuum in Asia. He said something to Ribbentrop about how undesirable it was to replace the British and French empires with the Japanese.

He was stumbling over his own racial and political entanglements, some of which were very insightful, and some of which were sheer nonsense.

I have a feeling that, for those of us who are still around in 2040-50, there will be a lot of interesting historical information revealed when some of the more sensitive archives are opened. Among them, the full involvement of British fascists with Germany and Italy. There has to have been a lot more to all of that than what's been revealed so far -- and I think a lot of it will have to do with Rudolf Hess's flight to Scotland and the abdicated King's forced exile (through overseas appointments) from the British Isles for the duration of the war.

[Liam]

Yes, I realize that United Kingdom on one end had superb equipment, that's one end of my family the other in USA and with German and British Heritage. Well, the USA was far behind for WW2 they did have the equipment just not wanting to spend for another war. Fearing that maybe the depression and other things were caused by involving themselves in WW1. Isolationism, which I cannot blame.

I do know Buglaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, Greece and perhaps Turkey to a lesser degree had much border disputes. The Balkan Wars Before WW1. I know that Romania had chunks removed by Hungary, and then replaced by Pieces of USSR which were historically Romanian Territories and Romania had claim upon them. This is something the Russians got their hands in a bit too much, pissing off Finland, Romania, Germany and other nations. Too aggressive...even Ukraine and Poland had difficulties with the Reds before they were both dissolved.

I'd bet if any Balkan was given SMGs, Anti-Tank Guns, Mobile Warfare with trucks, Tanks, and good airplanes they would've done well enough. Serbians have made excellent Generals and some Romanians in History have been very good leaders, notably Vlad Tepesh

Originally posted by hellraiser:

@ Sir Jersey, regarding:

"At Dunkirk he prevented Guderian from flanking the B.E.F and beating it to the Channel coast."

It seems this action (quite illogical military wise) had political reasons behind it and it emanated directly from Adolf himself who had hopes that by sparing uk troops would have been in a good position to negotiate with Britain.

@ Liam , regarding:

"P.S. Romanians and Italians on the Eastern Front, it seems all that I ever hear is that they were pretty much smooshed like bugs."

Unfortunately the Romanian army was a victim to the pre-war political fights and corruption, no one actually cared about endowing the army properly. A shame because the men were very, very good soldiers (better at defending their country than attacking because of the peaceful nature of this nation). Lack of AT capabilities, lack of a modern doctrine, lack of motorized assets - a sure victim against superior russian weaponry. Exception are the elite mountain divisions - highly trained and proffessional units which performed admirably on the eastern front - received a lot of praises from the germans and were feared by the soviets - they forced Romania to disband them immediately after the war. Another branch performed very very well - the Romanian Royal Air Force - excellent fighter pilots, flying indigenous fighters (IAR series) and BF109s.

We had another tough formation, an armoured division, which fought valiantly on the eastern front but unfortunately was severely underteched compared to the Russian counterparts. By the end of the war things started to improve, it received better vehicles - notably mark III and IV and it fought well but it didn't matter anyway anymore

The rest of the army was WW I vintage, no doubt.

[Cheese Panzer]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Liam, Moved here from the Plunder Thread

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Desert Dave:

[...] Boardwalk Raconteur,

...

Great commentary on the Generals, BTW.

One question.

(... selfishly, for my own Mod)

Who was, or were the best Leaders

For the following countries,

**(... and what ratings would you assign? I have since reconsidered my rating of "7" for Guderian and will use your recommended "8"... it was my initial instinct, but I down-graded by one, since he wasn't full Field Marshal; thing is, even if merely a Tech Sergeant, hurryin' Heinz was instrumental to the whole concept of "Op-eratic blitzkrieg," so, IMO, I prefer to have him included)

1) Rumania

2) Australia/New Zealand

3) Sweden

I could google it, or access that wikipedia even,

But I TRUST yer long-standing insight

And hard-learned judgement.

Dave, I'd love to, except to be honest I don't know anything about Sweden's WWII era generals. All anyone can do, of course, is speculate on the matter.

Not sure how high the Australian and NZ commanders rose, but I guess corps commanders would have been tops, and it's almost equally hard to judge here too, as I don't think any of them ever operated independently except during the early days of the war, on a very small manpower scale, in the defense of Port Moresby against the Japanese. Sorry I'm not of help here.

</font>

[JerseyJohn]

Cheese Panzer

Thanks for the info, I enjoyed reading it and agree with your assessment. Didn't know much about Blamey, knew a little about Freyberg but always as someone mentioned along the way.

I find it very difficult to speculate, obviously you don't like to speculate either.

The Peter Principle, about people reaching their level of incompetence, seems to be particularly true of generals going from corps to army and again from army to army group.

In the Second World War, I think the Germans had the greatest consistency in promoting generals and knowing they'd do a credible job at their new level. I'm talking about the real generals, of course, not Himmler, Goering and Goebles.

If I had to give Blamey and Freyberg HQ ratings for SC or SC2, I think it would be 5. To me that denotes a trained, competent professional who is neither brilliant nor a liability. I'd give Paulus that rating, though I think he'd be an 8 if we had a way to rate staff generals.

-- On the negative side, I'd give Voroshilov a 3, Budeny a 2 -- both men were political hacks who engineered some terrible fiascos. Himmler, who commanded an army in 1945, would get a 2 rating, clearly incompetent and Goebles (who commanded the 1945 Volks Army, at least on paper and in rousing speeches) a 1, only because I don't think there's a rating of zero.

[Desert Dave]

The two highest ranking/famous ANZAC commanders of WWII were General Blamey for Austrailia and General Freyberg for New Zealand.

Appreciate the information CP.

Freyberg sounds like someone I'd likely use, somewhere.

[... brief abbreviation of yer "nom de guerre" keeps my own cognitive dissonance at low levels, which is necessary, as I am already quite dissident enough, or so it has been... though, lately, not QUITE as much as I really NEED to be, alas, it's gettin' to resemble a Serling-esque "twilight zone" here home, and ever more apparently, over there and just about anywhere else you could notice should you giv a good long LOOK... well, what the hell, I am a bit beat and older now, but that ain't enny adequate excuse... ]

JJ,

Very true about those later GErman "political hack commanders"... the kind, all by their arrogant, ego-maniacal selves can ruin a whole Army... in ANY time, or place.

BTW, I owe you EM; sometime today or tomorrow latest.

[Cheese Panzer]

Glad you liked it, guys. To be honest, I love to speculate, but I also know when to yield the floor to experts, and Commonwealth Corps commanders are NOT an area of especial study for me. I'll also point that while both men were made field marshalls after the war, Blamey was only knighted after the war while Freyberg was knighted in 1942 and made a Baron after the war ended.

[Liam]

Goering a 1? That is cruel. That man had political desires along with a lot of his leaders. He was afterall a WW1 Ace and Officer, which I know doesn't stand for too much but he had some ideas that just weren't sound and how much was politically motivated?

[Panzerkeil]

I had to laugh out loud to myself when I read Jersey John's comments about the Rumanian soldiers on 6th Army's flank. Have any of you ever seen the German made film "Stalingrad?" If you watch it with English voices, there's a scene where the main characters are in a field hospital. They are wondering why there are so many men in the hospital. A wounded German with a big bandage on his head says, "There's been a big breakthrough, those F*&^ing Rumanians!" Well, I thought it was funny, in view of how when I play Russian Front games I like to hit the German minor allies with my big tank armies.

[Panzerkeil]

Some good ideas in this thread. I too am disappointed in what happens in the summer of 1940 in this game. There is no drama after the fall of France. I think it is due to the scale of this game. Take air units, you can only do one operation per turn: attack a ground unit, hit a port or a target at sea. That's it. Much of what happened in the war is handled very abstractly in this game. I'm not complaining, just making an observation.

At present it is too easy for any side to make amphibious assaults, the only proviso being that you have the points to do so. The threat of Sea Lion was more in British minds than in reality. I seriously doubt that the German navy could have pulled off an amphibious assault of the British isles. Norway would have seemed a cakewalk by comparison.

[JerseyJohn]

Liam,

I think Goering's WWI flying experiences were part of the reason he was so inept as the Luftwaffe chief twenty years later. The same is true of his friend, fellow Luftwaffe administrator and also a WWI Ace, Udet, who committed suicide as the war worsened for Germany and his own mistakes began emerging. Both men regarded maneuverability in fighter planes as being a greater asset than speed, which was ironic considering their aircraft designers had concentrated on giving Germany the fastest planes. Udet was the original proponent of dive bombers, which he discovered at an American air show during the 30s. Typically, the two of them went overboard and declared that all of Germany's aircraft needed to have a diving capability -- forever throwing away strategic bombers.

As a general, I think Goering was next to worthless, literally. He thought nothing of showing up at a fieldmarshall's HQ and meddling with operations. In the Battle of Britain he seemed, at times, to be receiving instructions from the British. Certainly his pathetic incompetence in Russia speaks for itself. Though the Luftwaffe had ground units such as The Hermann Goering Panzer Division and it's parachutte divisions (which after Crete were barely drop able, so they became infantry divisions in all but name). But I don't think he ever commanded any of them, though in Italy his top Luftwaffe general, Kesselring, showed himself to be a very capable ground commander.

Goering made some speeches to the panzer division named after him and survivors later said that every time he did, morale in the units actually went down!

You made an interesting point earlier about the Caucasus Front that was lost in the flow of discussion. It really was an interesting situation. The 6th Army & elements of the 4th Panzer Army trapped in Stalingrad, the Rumanians and Italians shattered, and an entire German army group hundreds of miles south still pushing on the Caspian Sea oil fields. It seemed that the Soviets would have been able to bag Rostov and trapped a million or so Germans. Instead they opted to lock von Paulus in place. Probably not the best decision. I can't help but feel they might have won the war in early 1943 by simply containing the immobile Stalingrad command and sending everything else to take Rostov, blocking the German withdrawal -- except for the Kirch Straights -> west, which would also have had to serve as the supply route -> east for the still trapped German armies; an impossible situation.

DD

Looking forward to reading it.

CheesePanzer

A lot of generals are honored after a war even when they were instrumental in it's fiascos. Not saying this was the case here, I think both generals mentioned were at least above average and possibly very good. With the Americans, Mark Clark, for example, was very prominent as a post war military figure. And yet, how many blunders rank with his rush to take Rome when he could have moved in the opposite direction and possibly destroyed the retreating German armies in the open before they had a chance to reach their prepared line of mountain defenses. Instead, his photograph appeared on all the front pages as the liberator of Rome, and the Allied troops had to spend an additional year being bled on the Italian mountains. He should have been dismissed, but taking Rome made him a hero, and that's all the public cared to remember about it.

Panzerkiel

I think I saw that movie during the 70s on television. If it isn't that old then the one I saw was pretty similar. A European film, but I'm not sure whether or not it was German. There was a very good scene of the Rumanians dug in along the Don in very good WWI trench lines. The river is frozen and, at first light, Soviet infantry and cavalry swarm across behind a massive line of T-34s. The Rumanians are depicted as fighting from their trenches even as the Soviet tanks go rolling over them, the survivors either climbing out with their hands held high or doing their best to escape. The scene did an excellent job of showing that they had no way of fighting against the attacking armor.

A few of Hitler's generals had earlier suggested that German anti-tank units be distributed along the Rumanian and Italian lines, but he refused to even consider such suggestions.

There's a tape from late 1943 of Hitler talking with either Marshal Mannerheim or some Finnish generals, in which he says something like, (paraphrased) "If I had known earlier that they could make so many thousands of fine tanks, things would certainly have been done differently." He didn't realize he was being recorded by the Finns.

I agree, that is a pretty funny image, poor bastards all the way around. Probably the Germans in the field didn't know their allies had nothing to stop tanks with.

[Liam]

LOL, poor ole Goering, had in died in WW1 he would have been known as a Fighter Ace and Hero... lol only figure of the Nazis uper echelon anyone would know...

Udet-Milch-Goering they said all three were not cooperative enough to really bring about any strength in the Luftwaffe. It was the men in the field, I know Germany has a lot of high scoring aces. Men flown to the bitter death

Oddly Hungarians and Finnish aces outdo Italians Even Romanian.then again they probably had 109s

[ April 29, 2006, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[Cheese Panzer]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

[QB

CheesePanzer

A lot of generals are honored after a war even when they were instrumental in it's fiascos. Not saying this was the case here, I think both generals mentioned were at least above average and possibly very good. With the Americans, Mark Clark, for example, was very prominent as a post war military figure. And yet, how many blunders rank with his rush to take Rome when he could have moved in the opposite direction and possibly destroyed the retreating German armies in the open before they had a chance to reach their prepared line of mountain defenses. Instead, his photograph appeared on all the front pages as the liberator of Rome, and the Allied troops had to spend an additional year being bled on the Italian mountains. He should have been dismissed, but taking Rome made him a hero, and that's all the public cared to remember about it.

[/QB]

I should have been more specific:

That was a piece of trivia.

[JerseyJohn]

Really, it's all trivia. Every day I have wise souls telling me that studying history is a complete waste of time.

Anyway, I'm glad you posted it, always glad to learn about things.

[ebitt]

Cheese Panzer wrote:

Mark Clark, for example, was very prominent as a post war military figure. And yet, how many blunders rank with his rush to take Rome...

Possibly his decision to send the 36th Division across the Rapido River. I read somewhere that Mark Clark was wanted in Texas as a War Criminal.

[JerseyJohn]

ebitt

Actually, I believe that was Cheese Panzer quoting JerseyJohn. But yeah, I agree with what you've said and, in a morbid way, had something like a laugh when I read it. I remember hearing stories about West Point instructors of the 1950s and 60s using Clark's campaigns as examples of how not to conduct an offensive. One of his masterpieces, I believe it was part of the campaign you're mentioning -- centered around a town called San Pietro (apologies if the spelling is wrong or if I've got the wrong town altogether) was openly referred to as 'butchery' -- the ones being butchered being the attackers by their own inept commander.

And yet, Clark, under different circumstances would have been very capable. I think he'd have been great in North Africa, for example, a couple of years earlier. Italy just wasn't the place for him, that's all.

The only defence I've ever heard of his wild rush to grab open Rome before anyone else could get there, was that all through the campaign Rome was always cited as the objective and, when he saw the Germans withdrawing from it, he proceeded with what he regarded as his standing orders.

It isn't much of an excuse, of course. Any general worth his salt would have taken the shortest possible route to ultimate victory, in this case the cutting off of tens of thousands of battle hardened German troops. Instead he jumped at what he thought would be the greatest photo op of the war. And it was, for a day or two, till the Normandy landings and the hot and heavy Pacific actions that soon sent Clark to the small print.