Normandy Game

[Battlefront.com]

All sides had some serious deficiencies when it came to execution of tactics. The difference, I think, is that the Americans (in particular) knew that their doctrine sucked So combined with a sort of inherent entrepreneurial spirit the American tactics kept evolving. Germans, on the other hand, were losing so many soldiers and officers in the Normandy meatgrinder that they had little chance for adaptation on anything but a very small unit scale.

But overall I think there was plenty of good and bad examples of "tactical rigidity" on both sides. How many weeks did the Americans try, time and time and time again, to get through hedgerows using the same basic tactics? How many times did the Commonwealth forces keep pressing armored attacks without adequate coordination with supporting arms (the Polish armor in particular was nearly wiped out by bad planning)?

All else being equal, the Germans were doomed to lose France as soon as the Allies got ashore in significant numbers. The Germans had absolutely no way to cut the Allied supplies and vastly superior quantities of men and material, while the Allies had all kinds of ways to disrupt and destroy Germans before they got to the battlefield. Just the other night I reread about the problems 2nd Panzer Division had getting its forces into action due to various logistics problems, made particularly worse by Allied and Resistance actions.

Therefore, we once again come back to the main point was that even if the Germans were tactically superior, with tactically superior weaponry, at the operational and strategic levels they were completely overmatched by the time 1944 came around. Higher level problems and advantages always work their way down to the tactical level given enough time. Or put another way, if the Allies had the operational and strategic problems that the Germans did in Normandy, the Allies would not have had the ability to figure out a way through the hedgerows and how to tackle the Big Cats. Instead they would have been used up and neutered within the first few weeks, getting (at best) a stalemate for a prolonged period of time.

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

I think we are all looking forward to getting back to WW2. I miss these debates..

[GSX]

humm...it seems the propaganda nowadays is much more powerful than the nazi one.No kidding...many people in our times think about the ww2 germans as about evil murderers determined to kill everibody.Strangely,from the tales of my grandparents and of all other older people that I been talking to,it seems the germans had an impeccable behavior in all respects.Well now..who should I trust...?my grandpa or the official propaganda??

I think the regime was rather than all the individuals in the country, however, there was enough to make a difference I think.

[GSX]

Agree, what i see on the Last Pages is some US-Boys talking the Germans to crap. Look at your own Tanks like M1. Any Strategical Problems with it modelled in the Game (tactical Level)?

NO!

The Reason why Germany lost the War is that they never ever could win on a Strategic Level. What should they do? Occupy the whole world? Supress whole Europe for lets say 60 Years? For all the Great Mass Production and Ressources grabbing by USA and Russia but the better optimised Warmachine in Terms of effectivness was the German once.

But dont whine. You`ll get your weak Tiger and Panther for sure Just take a look at that Russian Stuff in Shock Force and you can relaxe and take a Deep Breath!

I think in a tactical wargame the Germans usually come out with certain advantages that werent always or often true. Take the Tigers, how many of them were actually made, but how often do they turn up in a scenario? Its because theyre great in a wargame, but even though they also dominated real warfare at times, there were never enough of them. Same goes for the Panthers. The same goes for the SS and other elite troops. They also almost always arrive in full strength.

On the other hand the Allies rarely get the air and artillery that was available to them for a lot of the time.

Understandable though, who wants to play the Germans when you get 1 Tiger out of 8 that were supposed to arrive and then get pounded by artillery for 2 hours before your attackers come in.

So you have to balance somewhere in a wargame. Like other posters have mentioned here, the debate is only going to intensify as the game nears completion, and then it will get worse when the grogs find something wrong with the way that Tiger turns!

[MarkEzra]

War does not lend itself to impeccable behavior in any respects. That individual decency dwells alongside general barbarity is the norm for all. The actions of National Leadership is, of course, a wholly different matter.

[GSX]

War does not lend itself to impeccable behavior in any respects. That individual decency dwells alongside general barbarity is the norm for all. The actions of National Leadership is, of course, a wholly different matter.

Agreed, but when the actions of that leadership breed a certain type of individual, more disposed to outrageous behaviour then the barbarity becomes the normal response. Witness various statements by German generals urging their subordinates to stop their men committing atrocities in the East. Not because they thought it wrong per se, but it was taking men out of combat.

Very difficult issues which this simple forum cant resolve, thats for sure.

[Battlefront.com]

Well, I for one have been arguing against people's perception of WW2 having "balance" for a long time now Especially in Normandy. When the Allies were tactically defeated they were usually whooped pretty good because there was an imbalance in the German's favor. When the Allies tactically won the Germans were usually completely overmatched before the battle started and either withdrew or were completely obliterated (sometimes before the ground attacks started). When the Germans were on the attack they usually lost as soon as they hit any significant resistance.

But in a wargame... you can neutralize and massage out many of the elements that create an imbalance. You can do this in CM:SF as well, though admittedly it's a little tougher to do with similar type forces on both sides. The irony is many of the same things needed to balance Normandy are the same things needed to balance CM:SF. Limit Allied/Blue's artillery or give German/Red lots of really good defensive terrain. Limit the numbers of Allied/Blue's tanks and armored vehicles or give German/Red lots of top-notch AT assets. Etc., etc.

steve

[Sgt Joch]

I don't think people realise to what extent artillery was such a prominent feature of the Normandy battlefield. 21st Army Group had more gunners (around 18%), than infantry (around 14%). 70 % of casualties in the commonwealth sector were caused by german artillery/mortars, and this on a front where the germans were chronically short of artillery.

Of course, playing a game where your troops spend most of their time hunkered down waiting for the enemy bombardment to lift, is not much fun...

[Lethaface]

I guess the Germans lost the war the moment they stopped bombing the Brits airfields. There are several other major mistakes which have led to the total demise of the germans, like the whole east front thing. Then within the east front there were Millions of troops committed to emotional goals.

Had the Germans continued their air superiority in the beginning of the war and wouldn't have started to bomb London, but kept their focus on English airfields, I guess air superiority in the western theater would have deemed any allied invasion from England fruitless. Nobody can make a sound strategy when your practically low on every resource and your factories producing war material are constantly being blown to pieces, like the German generals had to do.

Now I'm glad that they made those mistakes; otherwise 'Dutch' would have more of a dialect of 'Deutsch' as it is now

But I think there were plenty of capable German generals, arms producers and soldiers. France, England, Russia and others are probably responsible for creating the window in which Hitler could go so far on his quest for 'lebensraum'. In my recent vacation to East Germany I wonder how on earth they needed more room! There is more 'nothing' in a small part of East Germany then there is in the whole of Netherlands.

In my eyes the Third Reich was a showcase for the benefits and shortcomings of dictatorial regimes. Ofc the shortcomings are highlighted especially since they produces the vast amount of horrific casualties.

The general German R&D was probably more productive per men any other of the nations, perhaps Japan could come close. Ofcourse there are areas where other nations excelled, like for example the russian T34, but the Germans were quick to copy and excel.

The German generals have proven in the first part of the war that they are more then capable, being outnumbered (and outclassed sometimes) they defeated the French, English, Belgian, Dutch and Polish armies in the very few first months of the war. Later on even their now superior equipment couldn't polish away the strategic (incl. economics) and tactical failures and or mistakes the Germans faced. The Allies had some more room for mistakes, at least in the case of the USSR and the USA.

1000 well built Tigers with adequate fuel, ammo, spare parts, infantry, light & medium armour, artillerie support and air superiority or equality would have kicked the **** out of any invasion in southern france. The Tiger was an unmatched tank and very capable. But even an m1a2SEP TUSK wouldn't have won the war for the germans

[Michael Emrys]

I guess the Germans lost the war the moment they stopped bombing the Brits airfields.

An argument can be made that they lost as soon as they persisted in attacking Poland in the face of the Anglo-French ultimatum, although admittedly that didn't become apparent for three more years.

Had the Germans continued their air superiority in the beginning of the war and wouldn't have started to bomb London, but kept their focus on English airfields, I guess air superiority in the western theater would have deemed any allied invasion from England fruitless.

The Germans were losing the Battle of Britain even before they switched to to concentrating on the cities. A big part of switching to the Blitz was that the cities were big enough to find and hit in the dark, and the Luftwaffe needed to fight at night in order to keep losses manageable.

In my recent vacation to East Germany I wonder how on earth they needed more room! There is more 'nothing' in a small part of East Germany then there is in the whole of Netherlands.

It wasn't room, per se, that was sought. It was food and raw materials. Whereas the USA, USSR, and the UK (as long as the sea lanes were open) were mostly self-sufficient for those things, Germany depended heavily on imports. Hitler, as well as most Germans who gave much thought to the matter, believed that in order to be a secure great power, Germany needed to be autonomous for raw materials as well as a guaranteed position in world markets for its imports.

The German generals have proven in the first part of the war that they are more then capable, being outnumbered (and outclassed sometimes) they defeated the French, English, Belgian, Dutch and Polish armies in the very few first months of the war.

All the German victories were against either second-rate powers (Norway, Belgium, The Netherlands, Yugoslavia) or first-rate but ill-prepared powers (Poland, France, the USSR). That's not all that hard to do. Look at how the Brits whupped up on the Italians in Africa before the Afrika Korps arrived on the scene.

Michael

[Lethaface]

All the German victories were against either second-rate powers (Norway, Belgium, The Netherlands, Yugoslavia) or first-rate but ill-prepared powers (Poland, France, the USSR). That's not all that hard to do. Look at how the Brits whupped up on the Italians in Africa before the Afrika Korps arrived on the scene.

Michael

I see you didn't mention the British in your list, although I'm sure they have been defeated in battles agains the germans in the beginning of the war (france, belgium). Although technically they got away just before their cups of tea got too cold (dunkirk). Being 'ill-prepared' for an invasion by the uber aggresive third reich, around the year 1940, is a strategic and tactical blunder. Perhaps even worse than the ones Hitlers would make in a later stage.

Ofcourse I know Hitlers plan about lebensraum was about resources and even about moving all germans from russia back closer to large germany. When I was there it just seemed weird. For me at least, i'm not used to so much undisturbed nature. Was a wonderful sight if you like nature

Regarding the german defeat; I have read sources (can't remember which ones exactly since it was too long ago) about the British struggling in the beginning of the Battle of Britain. Keeping aircraft and airfields operational was becoming harder and harder. They were worried they would have lost most airfield and aircraft capacity in a matter of weeks. Although the germans were also suffering heavy losses they still had more planes. You could argue that a total air superiority for the germans could have led to a whole different path of the war (invasion UK???). Ironically it was a mistake by german bombers (accidently bombing london) that lead to the UK bombing german cities, after which Hitler reacted by starting the massive bombardements of UK cities and towns. This lead to relief for British fighter command and we know where that lead to. Now i'm not saying it would have been definately different without this happening, but one could ponder at least the stupidity of stopping the airfield bombardments when air superiority is practically in grasp.

Perhaps an invasion of UK would have been more compelling that the whole Barbarossa operation.

[Battlefront.com]

I think most historians would agree that, barring a sudden entry of the US into the war (openly, that is), Britain was losing the air war before the Germans switched to bombing cities. Yes, it is true that the Germans were paying HEAVILY for the lack of good bombers and long range fighter escorts, but the truth was the Germans could afford to lose heavily at that time. Later on, when they were fighting on three fronts against massive air forces, those losses helped contribute to the military failure of the Third Reich. But in 1940/41... the Germans could have knocked Britain out of the war if Hitler wanted to. But the little bugger had his heart set on Russia and its rich resources, not on tiny little Britain with its terrible climate, horrible food, drivers on the wrong side of the road, and the Scotts. hehe... sorry, I couldn't resist

Seriously, of all the things that Hitler screwed up, it was not taking Britain out of the war before turning East that really did it. If Hitler had not beat Britain down, but stayed in the West, things would have been very different. If it had beat Britain down, then moved East... again, very different. And I'm talking "taken out" not occupied. There was no way Germany could have occupied Britain in 1940, 1941, or even later.

Not that it would have ultimately mattered. The Nazi regime would have failed as any badly functioning machine run by an idiot will fail.

Steve

[Dietrich]

I think far too many people get hung up with the sexy German uniforms and supposedly superior equipment and forget about how terrible they actually were at running a war economy or actually fighting a war. Which is good for us I suppose as if not the murdering bastards would have killed everyone by now!

humm...it seems the propaganda nowadays is much more powerful than the nazi one.No kidding...many people in our times think about the ww2 germans as about evil murderers determined to kill everibody.Strangely,from the tales of my grandparents and of all other older people that I been talking to,it seems the germans had an impeccable behavior in all respects.Well now..who should I trust...?my grandpa or the official propaganda??

(à la Jeremy Clarkson when introducing The Stig on Top Gear) "Some say they were the most formidable armed forces in the Second World War. Others say they were just a bunch of village-burning, civilian-slaughtering, baby-bayonetting, Jew-hating Nazis. All we know is... [pause for effect] ...they're called the Germans!"

Even a defensive campaign where your outnumbered Landsers try and hold off the Amis as long as possible. Is it just the German blood in me or wouldn't other Americans enjoy giving that a go?

"Vorschit! Volle Deckung!"

"Himmelherrgott--! Sie kommen wieder!"

"Vollrotzen!"

"[short but blood-curdling scream]"

"Mein Gott, die haben ihn erwischt!"

"Laufweschel! Laufweschel!"

"Handgranate, Deckung!" . . .

*clears throat* Uh, yeah, I have a little German blood in me.

Honestly, though . . . I dig German equipment, and I think the fact that only one eighth of the Wehrmacht ever faced the Western Allies from Normandy onward says a lot about the Germans' warfighting capability in WW2, but as far as CM:N goes, I'd love playing as anybody, whether German, American, British, other Commonwealth, etc.

And yeah, the fact that the British Isles remained undefeated/unoccupied meant that later the US, the British Army, and the other involved Commonwealth forces could use the UK like a giant aircraft carrier parked right off the coast of Europe.

[Sequoia]

From what I've read, Luftwaffe Intelligence during the Battle of Britain was quite poor and due to wildly overestmated kill rates from their pilots (something pilots always tend to do) they believed they already had beaten the RAF over South Western England and the RAF reserves were hiding farther north out of Luftwaffe range, so the Luftwaffe turned to bombing cities in an effort to force the RAF fighters to defend them and consequently be shot down. Ironically that was just the break the RAF needed to regroup and beat back the Luftwaffe.

[Sgt Joch]

(à la Jeremy Clarkson when introducing The Stig on Top Gear) "Some say they were the most formidable armed forces in the Second World War. Others say they were just a bunch of village-burning, civilian-slaughtering, baby-bayonetting, Jew-hating Nazis. All we know is... [pause for effect] ...they're called the Germans!"

"don't mention the war!..."

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=22575815

[Battlefront.com]

And to balance that out, I just watched A Fish Called Wanda last night for the first time in 10 years or more. Otto's tirade directed at Wendy is a classic.

Steve

[Redwolf]

In my recent vacation to East Germany I wonder how on earth they needed more room! There is more 'nothing' in a small part of East Germany then there is in the whole of Netherlands.

That is a post-WW2 and post-reunification trend.

Before WW2 Germany, all of it, was about the most populated country outside Asia.

At the end of WW2 the Germany population moved West for the most part, either from the then no longer German areas in the East or from Soviet occupied zone into the Western Allies' zone.

The result is that West Germany was more densely populated than before the war, and that is with all the war losses and the non-German population that went elsewhere.

After the reunification a large amount of people, in particular young people with perspective, also left for the West.

[Michael Emrys]

I see you didn't mention the British in your list, although I'm sure they have been defeated in battles agains the germans in the beginning of the war (france, belgium).

Indeed. You could add to that list Norway, Greece, and large bits of North Africa. I didn't mention the British because in spite of their many defeats in battle, their homeland was never overrun or occupied (except for the Channel Islands (and if you count them I call foul)) and they were never forced to ask for terms.

Although technically they got away just before their cups of tea got too cold (dunkirk). Being 'ill-prepared' for an invasion by the uber aggresive third reich, around the year 1940, is a strategic and tactical blunder. Perhaps even worse than the ones Hitlers would make in a later stage.

You may be over estimating the size of the blunder. As far as an invasion from the continent goes, it was a calculated risk with the risk factors heavily weighted in favor of the British. Any German soldier that made it alive across the Channel would have had a very difficult time remaining alive and at liberty for very long.

Regarding the german defeat; I have read sources (can't remember which ones exactly since it was too long ago) about the British struggling in the beginning of the Battle of Britain.

Of course it was a struggle. I never said it was a cakewalk or a picnic. But the Germans were losing aircraft and aircrew at twice the rate of the RAF, and at a time when aircraft production and training of aircrew were starting to ramp up for the RAF but had actually diminished for the Luftwaffe. There were indeed some tense moments for the RAF, but the future was improving for them more than for their opponents.

Keeping aircraft and airfields operational was becoming harder and harder. They were worried they would have lost most airfield and aircraft capacity in a matter of weeks.

If RAF losses had increased to unsustainable levels, they had but to withdraw to airfields beyond escort range. They would have still been able to contest any attempted invasion.

You could argue that a total air superiority for the germans could have led to a whole different path of the war (invasion UK???).

Except that total air superiority was unattainable. The Luftwaffe never even came close to that goal.

Ironically it was a mistake by german bombers (accidently bombing london) that lead to the UK bombing german cities, after which Hitler reacted by starting the massive bombardements of UK cities and towns.

Don't forget that the weather was closing down. That was going to make the precision bombing necessary for airfield attack off the table soon after the end of September anyway. That's when the Brits rebuild the airfields and come back stronger in the spring.

...one could ponder at least the stupidity of stopping the airfield bombardments when air superiority is practically in grasp.

Read my last paragraph.

Perhaps an invasion of UK would have been more compelling that the whole Barbarossa operation.

An invasion of the UK would not have gotten intact across the English Channel, RAF or no RAF.

Michael

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I'm siding with Michael Emrys on the BoB thing.

If the Brits were losing the aerial war, the Germans were out-losing them. Aircraft wise British production kept up with or exceeded losses if I recall correctly. Nor was German bombing amounting to much. Airfields and radar stations recovered quickly, so they weren't on the ropes in that aspect either. The loss of aircrew was the crux, with the Brits catching the break of fighting over home turf. Morale among German bomber crews was at rock bottom.

And all that when the brunt of attacks fell on the coastal regions covered by 10 and 11 group. Even raids against the London area tended to get savaged by the RAF so I don't see how the Luftwaffe was supposed to get the better of Fighter Command operating from more inland bases.

There was a good thread about a few years back this that included a link to an exceedingly informative Axis History thread where the case for British long term prospects in a protracted BoB was convincingly made.

Can't find it now, sadly.

[Michael Emrys]

If I may, a couple of books that help to put the Battle of Britain in perspective are 1940: Myth and Reality , by Clive Ponting and The Right of the Line: The Role of the RAF in World War Two, by John Terraine.

Now hopefully we may allow this thread to return to its topic.

Michael

[Pinetree]

There's also The Most Dangerous Enemy by Stephen Bungay. Probably the best book on the BoB you could read.

[Michael Emrys]

And also The Battle of Britain: The Myth and the Reality, by Richard Overy. I forgot to mention this one, but if there is one single book that pertains to the battle that should not be overlooked, this is the one.

Michael

[Dietrich]

Lemme guess . . . only those who haven't read all the aforementioned books about the Battle of Britain would think that Len Deighton's Fighter is an insightful work?

So there was no way the Luftwaffe could have achieved air superiority over the British Isles in the summer/autumn of 1940, and thus there was no way the Germans could have even gotten across the Channel intact; and the German defensive effort in Normandy was doomed as soon as the Allies got ashore.

Speaking of Big Cat Envy, though . . . if Tigers and Panthers made up only a fraction of the German armor in Normandy, yet the Allies lost plenty of tanks, then the humble Pz. IV must be (at least somewhat) more capable than it is given credit for. When playing as the Germans, sure, it would be cool to have a couple Tigers or Panthers at my disposal, but when defending, between all the Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks and PaK 40s and even PaK 38s, I think I'll have enough to put up a good anti-armor showing.

[BlackVoid]

The books mentioned by Michael are both written authors on the Allied side. We know that victors write (and more often than not, falsify) history.

We will never know if an invasion could have succeeded or not. It is one thing to defend Britain at the extreme range of German fighter range, and another to attack an invasion fleet close to the shore where fighter defenses can be easily concentrated. And we all know from history that the fleets would have been irrelevant in the invasion, battleships are large slow targets (remember Prince of Wales).

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

Back to the topic: I am extremely glad, that the CM franchise is returning to WW2. I do not care much about the lopsided conflicts depicted in CMSF, so I did not even buy it although I have all 3 previous CM games. For CMSF NATO vs Warsaw pact would have been much more exciting.

[Sgt Joch]

Speaking of Big Cat Envy, though . . . if Tigers and Panthers made up only a fraction of the German armor in Normandy, yet the Allies lost plenty of tanks, then the humble Pz. IV must be (at least somewhat) more capable than it is given credit for. When playing as the Germans, sure, it would be cool to have a couple Tigers or Panthers at my disposal, but when defending, between all the Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks and PaK 40s and even PaK 38s, I think I'll have enough to put up a good anti-armor showing.

There were a lot of Panthers available in 44. These are the figures for tanks available on the western front in june 44:

39 Pz III

758 Pz IV

655 Panther

102 Tiger I

158 Stug

179 Captured tanks

According to the official TO&E, the ratio of PZ IV and V in a 44 Panzer division was supposed to be 50/50. It was more like 60/40 in RL, but still more than enough Panthers to go around.

A lot of people love the Tiger, but the Panther has always been my favorite German tank.