Poles and Italians Start With tank Corps?

[Fubarno]

From the screen shots in what looks to be the 1939 scenario both the Italians and Poles have tank corps. Will this be the default start forces for these nations or is this just to show some unit types? Do the French and Brits have tank corps at start too? If so, why?

Strategic doctrine at start of WW2 didn't take advantage of massed tank corps except in the German army. The introduction of lightning warfare was the basis for success for Germany in early war. Other countries misunderstood the tank and integrated it into infantry formations which precluded concentration of force and exploitation of the enemy supply lines (I know you guys know this, that's why I was surprised to see them on the screen shots).

Three other things:

Do the italians start with an air corps? If I recall, they had one of the larger airforces in 1939 Europe.

Also, is their an event for a Polish uprising if and when Soviet forces approach the eastern Polish frontier and if not, is this something that can be added by the player as a custom event?

Thirdly, I noticed on the nato symbols for the tank corps have a yellow hew, regardless of nationality and the air corps are blue, regardless of nationality. One looks to the base of the unit to figure the nationality. Maybe this is something that I could get used to after some prctice, but initially I thought it was wierd/confusing and I thought the tank corps were british units. Why not make the colors country specific on the nato symbols (except German tank corps which should be black :cool: ).

[Fubarno]

Oh, and the Army formations are white while the infantry corps are country specific colors. Is there no other way or is this something that modders will need to change?

Here's a link to the page -

http://www.battlefront.com/products/sc2/screenshots/pages/5sc3b.html

[Blashy]

France had a tank division when WW2 started, it was actually of better quality than anyone else.

But, they had no clue on how to use them effectively. And were outgunned in every other area.

[Blashy]

Oh and that pic you show is just for "show".

I know this because Germany has 4 AFs and 2 bombers, no way that is the OOB at the start of the war. Same goes with Italy and Poland having tank divisions.

Hubert, I'm sure intends to make as realistic an OOB as he knows/can.

[stoat]

Originally posted by Blashy:

France had a tank division when WW2 started, it was actually of better quality than anyone else.

But, they had no clue on how to use them effectively. And were outgunned in every other area.

They had light, medium, and heavy tank divisions. They did not use them effectively, with the notable exception of the battle of Gembleaux. The Char bi(s) could shred German armor and tanks like the S-35 were better than anything save pz IVs.

[Fubarno]

Thanks Blashy, I'm sure you're correct about the OOB, that makes sense.

[Liam]

Yes, the Char1Bis did have a massive gun advantage vs the the Panzer Mark III IVs

The Panzer 4 was a infantry support weapon originally, later it was adapted as the backbone of the German Armored Fighting Force.

The Renault 35 was formidable, but slow, I believe all French Armor was slower and ineffectively used. There were no concepts of Massed Armor in conjunction with Air Power During the Battle of France. That was the effectiveness that the German Armor had the French did not have. Perhaps could be represented in that no Allied Armor piece exceeds 35%-45% regardless of HQ effectiveness though is present and entrenched as a defensive infantry support weapon till after 1942 or 1943... That would recognize the slow tactical education of the Allied Forces

[BradMick]

I find that a funny point of history actually, the British and French who first used mass tank formations in the Great War to great effect, completely ignored that lesson when forming their new tank corps. The battles where they commited their tanks in small numbers made nowhere near the gains of the larger massed tank formations. It just baffles me. A lot about WWII baffles me, like how Germany fumbled so badly with victory on a silver platter for them. Oh well, its a good thing they didn't win. Don't get me wrong. But geez, it was in the bag.

[jon_j_rambo]

The Germans were overated.

[BradMick]

Not so much.

Their equipment may not have been better than the rest of the worlds, but their tactics and overall use of it was excellent. The Eastern Front could have been theirs that summer of 41' had they not split their forces so much on the drive to Moscow. The winter didn't stop them so much as the lack of man power did. The winter rolled in about the time they realized 'hey, we lack the forces necessary to break through this line of defense'. I mean, the whole Russian strategy was 'fall back! just...run!'. You're not going to win a war when pulling something like that. Russia was beaten, the breif lull that occurred because of the stalled German advance saved them.

And I in no way meant any offense with my earlier statements. I just find it really funny that the two main employers of the mass tank formation completely ignored it.

[Fubarno]

Absolutely, and I think this is reflected in the fact that in SC 1 Germany is the only nation (other than the Soviet Union) which starts with armored Corps, but more importantly they are the only nation that starts out with HQ units. In a game of this scale, the modifiers of these HQ's reflects the advanced military doctrines that formed the basis for their battlefield strategies (Blitzkrieg) and superiority.

The French, and arguably the British, had tanks that had superior armor and weaponry than that of the early German forces. Despite this, the Germans managed their incredible early victories through their superior doctrines of organization, communication and combined arms tactics.

[jon_j_rambo]

Germans had home field advantage, at the beginning. They attacked a bunch of sleeping countries, not too difficult to take over.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Germans had home field advantage, at the beginning. They attacked a bunch of sleeping countries, not too difficult to take over.

They did a better job than USA in North Korea, Vietnam and Iraq.

[BradMick]

Those nations weren't so asleep. They pretty well realized what was going on, limited mobilizations were happening, nothing quite on the scale of germany. Had the allied nations at the time of the Czech crisis stood up and actually honored their pledges to the Czechs, it would have ended there. There also would have been a much better chance for the behind the scenes coup being organized to have succeeded. The world realized after the Czech crisis, it was inevitable. They mobilized on a limited scale, they knew, but not to the full extent. They had a fair amount of time after the action in Poland started to prepare, not a lot, but enough.

They weren't sleeping, just hoping once again they could talk to a man they had so far been able to talk things through with. If only Britain and France had honored their treaty obligations with Czechoslovakia...Chamberlain did a real job on the Czechs. "You will do as Hitler demands, because we won't support you." and also, since Russia was only obligated to help the Czechs if France did, yeah...anyway. If only, if only, if only. To damn many of them

the point is, the world got a clue. just didn't take it so seriously as they should have.

Also, i should note. the russian generals knew what was coming, but Stalin decided he was going to listen to hitler. the man who had taken austria, promised he wouldn't take anymore, then took chzechoslovakia, promised he wouldnt take anymore, kicked the crap out of poland, then turned on france. the russian commanders knew, but stalin wouldn't hear of it. eh, anyway. they knew.

[ October 21, 2005, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: BradMick ]

[Liam]

Hold on a moment to add to the comments made in this thread. "The Russian Generals Knew but Stalin listened to Hitler?" Why not, he was greedy, perhaps he thought himself superior, both had an inferiority complex being short men with bad fathers and harsh lives. Stalin was busy soaking up the Baltics, Finland, Parts of Poland, and what else did he want? God knows where he would've stopped. He took 4 and half countries himself! Wasn't Persia and Mongolia nothing but Russian Puppets really anyways? He was much more Global than Hitler.

The German Massed Armor wasn't the only point of which gave the Germans a decisive victory. Their troops practiced a lot, they were prepared for war. Their commanders were cutting edge and their equipment in some cases was inferior and other cases superior. What the Western Allies had which was superior was sitting on the assembly line, they never prepared. There were plenty of French and British who believed in Mass Armored Warfare but it seems the old hardliners prevailed. Bad Luck altogether for the Allies. So you must say the Germans altogether had great luck. Had there been 5 Xs as many Spitfires waiting in France. Had there been Matildas and Char1s in Massed formations of a thousand waiting for Blitzkrieg on the under end of the Ardenne Forest, what then? An armored punch right back through Belgium.

Despite the awful Politics of the time, the appeasements years which all the Fools of Europe thought that the West would back down whenever Hitler whined about German BirthRight Land. They ended up making Italy, USSR and everyone else in the Baltic basically suckup to Hitler thinking that the West was divided and weak. They stood divided against aggression... That was what gave Hitler part of his momentum and of course no nation was prepared to handle full Blitzkrieg in the first 2 or 3 years. Only Stalin managed it and that was become he let the Germans Freeze to death and sprawl themselves over a Massive front.

It is quite possible the Germans could've won, they had it in the bag really as mentioned, it was a mega-blunder they came to Russia's winter unprepared and they didn't take a true objective by the end of '41 and into the Summer of '42. They just spread even thinner. That was because Hitler was personally in charge and not that great a tactician or General, he never made beyond Corporal. Goering probably was a better choice...

AND DO NOT THINK the Germans didn't pay in every campaign vs a real enemy. there were many thousands of casualties vs Poles and French. 50 or 100 thousand here or there. That is nothing to just laugh at. Plus a heavy toll in France to their Airforce, what 25%? Then when the real battle came and the Germans faced a formidable foe, the RAF they got smooshed. Also when they faced an enemy willing to pay 5 or 10 men for every one of theirs<Russia> they also got smooshed. War isn't about figures, doctrines, equipment, it's about winners. Blitzkrieg though revolutionary in the end was embraced, understood and conquored by the Allies.

Rewinding things a little, had all the money spent on the Maginot Line been spent on updating France's Airforce, Army, Armored Forces...It's High Command.. I probably would guess they would cost the Germans more than they did. They had a hard time paying their troops! The Germans were very focused on making their troops happy. The general ideology, comradre<sp, etc... in the Wermacht, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine was far different, it was higher.. The Brits had more to fight for.. It wasn't till the French were defeated did they realize what a blunder it was and that their wall was meaningless and if they expected a Attrittion style WW1 battlefront they were in for a big suprise did things change.

The Soviets on the other hand, they knew they were fighting for them lives I feel. They knew that they were dead if they didn't.. So they sacrificed themselves in wholesale. What can you do when 20 guys launch themselves at your Elite Platoon all holding Grenades self sacrificing themselves??? Any comparison to Iraq, Vietnam or Korea is a gross one. Hell, American Army wiped out Millions without raising a finger. By the time the 90s hit we mine as well of been Luke Skywalker and the Iraqi's hmmmm? bugs? I think we managed to lose somewhere in the range for 4 dead ROFL The only way they can kill Americans is if they send in 8 year old boys or women blowing themselves up.

All really laymen discussion though. The real fact of War is that lay out the units. The Germans had more, they built it up, it was there and Europe was Ripe for the taking. Just like SC1 indicates

[BradMick]

All really good stuff, looks like you and I pretty well hold the same thoughts.

A minor note. The Germans had the Battle of Britian pretty well won as well. I'd call it a mega-blunder as you called, the evening that 111 went off course and bombed London switched the rather successful campaign of attacking the the RAF airfields and crushing them, to a very unsuccessful campaign we all know as the blitz.

don't get me wrong. The RAF had a highly superior plane in the Spitfire. That plane in my opinion is what seriously gave the British an edge as well. But there were to few of them. I'm pretty sure though that had there not been any Spits around, and only Hurricanes, things would have been a lot worse.

And, i should have noted that as well. In those other countries yes, plenty of generals believed in the massed armor tactic. But tradition did end up ruling supreme.

Anyway, great stuff. I love talking history

[jon_j_rambo]

@Blashy --- The results of all those battles was what? We are the Superpower!

[Mr.Dozer]

i disagree about superior planes. The RAf engines sucked, it was a german tactic to go up then start racing down then british engine would stall while germans wouldnt when following. The movabiliy of the spits were great though, i saw a show on this that they were about equal.

I do believe te brits had radar while germans didnt thats why they thought they al ate carrot. the radar and the change of bombing is why britain lasted.

Russia won by suicidal unarmed trowing of men at enemy. Allies won with skill and manly the power of mass production. They just built and built.

Also a interesting thing was operation paper clip, were americans stole scientist from europe when they werent suppose to.

[ October 23, 2005, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: Mr.Dozer ]

[stoat]

Originally posted by Mr. Dozer:

The RAf engines sucked

Why did they put the Merlin engine in the P-51 again?

RAF engines didn't have fuel injectors which allowed Luftwaffe planes to dive away.

[Mr.Dozer]

well the fuel injector part is why the planes lacked a bit.

[stoat]

Once they corrected that they produced some very high quality power plants.

[SeaMonkey]

Wasn't this about superchargers and the introduction of HF Alkylation processed hydrocarbons delivering the high performance? Oh yeah I guess I should mention the tetraethyl lead compounds for octane enhancement.

Still use these products today for race fuel.

[stoat]

Not fuels so much as engines.

[Mr.Dozer]

isnt plane fuel carosene or use to be?

[Guest Mike]

Kerosene is jet fuel - piston engined aeroplanes use petrol.

One advantage the allies had in aircraft power was very high octane ratings for their fule - the Germans never had anything like 100/130 or 115/145 rated petrols and lamented the fact.

The higher octane ratings delivered significantly more power from a given sized engine.

as for tanks - as has often been said in hte CM forums, individually the allied tanks were more than a match for hte Germans, but as you assembled more tanks the Germans got better and hte allies worse - IIRC Lorrin once wrote that the crossover point was about battalion level - above that the Germans were noticeably superior.