Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: historical command changes

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> RE: historical command changes Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: historical command changes - 5/16/2016 3:51:47 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11315
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
Yes, it's the same book I mentioned. It also shows downsides of German army and upsides of US army, it's not one-sided. The advantages of the German army simply made it more efficient in combat, but other aspects were lacking and the price paid was high (Ger: best men go to infantry, lead from the front, get medals, die from sniper fire; US: best men go to rear services, army is well supplied, get medals, morale of frontline troops led by less able men plummets down).

(in reply to EwaldvonKleist)
Post #: 31
RE: historical command changes - 5/16/2016 4:26:56 PM   
EwaldvonKleist


Posts: 1786
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Berlin, Germany
Status: offline
The book is of course balanced and shows downsides too.
Major philosophy of Wehrmacht was to focus on the fighting soldier, its needs and the leadership. This means decentralisation and focus on tactical brilliance.
US Army approach was to see the army as a very big machine which has to be controlled by collecting data and automatize/centralize its analysis.
So german army is good in front line fighting and maneuvering.
US Army is good in logistics and shooting/bombing enemy with its organisation allowing for a kind of industrialized war.
Both systems have advantages, german one however was a bit more ressource-effective i think.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 32
RE: historical command changes - 5/16/2016 5:33:36 PM   
HexHead

 

Posts: 464
Joined: 2/9/2010
From: I'm from New Hampshire; I only work in cyberspace
Status: offline
Let's not forget that even as late as 1944, something like 60% of Wehrmacht transport was horses.

Let's see, let's take a look at the US Army by mid-war, late war:

* Artillery out the wazoo - good artillery, too, and plenty of it, arguably the single strongest asset for US ground forces; let's not forget the L5 spotting planes either, they did a tremendous job.

* Only army in the world in the 1940s that had a semi-automatic rifle as general issue. I wonder how many Axis soldiers, in the ETO and PTO, got hit with a slug from an M-1 Garand (i.e., 'bang, bang, bang') while they were cocking their bolt?

* Only army in the world that was completely motorized - that's a fact.

So, who was resource effective? Also, for all of their leadership qualities, the German approach could still be a bit too rigid - on June 6, 1944, a Panzer formation drew to within three miles of the beaches. The CO wanted orders and didn't go any farther. As one historian remarked, no American officer would've done that. Throughout the history of the US Army, individual initiative by officers of all grades has been emphasized.

_____________________________

"Goddamn it, they're gittin' away!!"
- unknown tincan sailor near the end of Leyte Gulf, when Kurita retired

(in reply to EwaldvonKleist)
Post #: 33
RE: historical command changes - 5/16/2016 6:52:27 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 27195
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HexHead

Let's not forget that even as late as 1944, something like 60% of Wehrmacht transport was horses.

Let's see, let's take a look at the US Army by mid-war, late war:

* Artillery out the wazoo - good artillery, too, and plenty of it, arguably the single strongest asset for US ground forces; let's not forget the L5 spotting planes either, they did a tremendous job.

Yes, my dad was a US FO in France 44-45 and flew over 30 missions in a spotter plane. US artillery was good, and that is factored in the game by rules that bring more of it into battles in support.

* Only army in the world in the 1940s that had a semi-automatic rifle as general issue. I wonder how many Axis soldiers, in the ETO and PTO, got hit with a slug from an M-1 Garand (i.e., 'bang, bang, bang') while they were cocking their bolt

Yes, that fact is in the game as well, but remember, Germans had a great LMG, and my father was hit by both a bullet (of unknown origin) in Normandy and an artillery round from German artillery when he was 5 miles into Germany in Sept 44 (near Wallendorf).

* Only army in the world that was completely motorized - that's a fact.

Well, yes and no. The infantry had to walk, unless they were temporarily motorized (which could be done, but not always). Sure, their guns and equipment had trucks, but they weren't fully motorized.

So, who was resource effective? Also, for all of their leadership qualities, the German approach could still be a bit too rigid - on June 6, 1944, a Panzer formation drew to within three miles of the beaches. The CO wanted orders and didn't go any farther. As one historian remarked, no American officer would've done that. Throughout the history of the US Army, individual initiative by officers of all grades has been emphasized.



In total, we stand by our ratings, although I appreciate that half the fun of playing a wargame is arguing about the facts versus the game.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to HexHead)
Post #: 34
RE: historical command changes - 5/16/2016 7:14:13 PM   
HexHead

 

Posts: 464
Joined: 2/9/2010
From: I'm from New Hampshire; I only work in cyberspace
Status: offline
I wasn't really getting into game modelling, more addressing a poster and trying to get certain things on the record.

The US Army was wholly motorized, in the sense that all transport was such. And 'straight legs' rode, where practicable or needed. Any hardly any animal transport - there was some, here and there, now and again, particularly in Italy - still tough to out-do a mule in mountains or rough terrain.

The Germans essentially invented the assault rifle, but they should've done it in 1936, they were too little, too late. Excellent machine gun, though - MG42.

_____________________________

"Goddamn it, they're gittin' away!!"
- unknown tincan sailor near the end of Leyte Gulf, when Kurita retired

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 35
RE: historical command changes - 5/16/2016 7:15:31 PM   
EwaldvonKleist


Posts: 1786
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Berlin, Germany
Status: offline
Germans made of course tactical mistakes. Do you have a source for your 3 mile to beach thesis? (no offense, i just want to read about it).
quote:

Let's not forget that even as late as 1944, something like 60% of Wehrmacht transport was horses.

Let's see, let's take a look at the US Army by mid-war, late war:

* Artillery out the wazoo - good artillery, too, and plenty of it, arguably the single strongest asset for US ground forces; let's not forget the L5 spotting planes either, they did a tremendous job.

* Only army in the world in the 1940s that had a semi-automatic rifle as general issue. I wonder how many Axis soldiers, in the ETO and PTO, got hit with a slug from an M-1 Garand (i.e., 'bang, bang, bang') while they were cocking their bolt?

* Only army in the world that was completely motorized - that's a fact.

So, who was resource effective? Also, for all of their leadership qualities, the German approach could still be a bit too rigid - on June 6, 1944, a Panzer formation drew to within three miles of the beaches. The CO wanted orders and didn't go any farther. As one historian remarked, no American officer would've done that. Throughout the history of the US Army, individual initiative by officers of all grades has been emphasized.

I never questioned the effectivity of US weapons. I only stated that germans would have used them better.
Give german Wehrmacht and US Army the same number of everything (fuel, trucks, rifles, tanks, planes) and put them on a mirrored terrain and Wehrmacht will win most tactical battles because better in generating fighting power with the ressources on hand.
Give them both the historical numbers and add some idiotic leadership by high command and western allies will win.


I don't own WITW so i don't know about game details or details of any leaders. I just like to discuss history


< Message edited by EwaldvonKleist -- 5/16/2016 7:17:29 PM >

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 36
RE: historical command changes - 5/16/2016 7:46:10 PM   
EwaldvonKleist


Posts: 1786
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Berlin, Germany
Status: offline
Btw german army was a master of the "Auftragstaktik" "order tactics" in english??? and subordinates showed a lot of self initiative, sometimes ignoring their subordinates (France 1940, Barbarossa for example). Hitler himself often ignored this recipe for success when giving orders directly to divisions or overruling his professionals.

(in reply to EwaldvonKleist)
Post #: 37
RE: historical command changes - 5/16/2016 7:51:27 PM   
HexHead

 

Posts: 464
Joined: 2/9/2010
From: I'm from New Hampshire; I only work in cyberspace
Status: offline
I don't own WITW so i don't know about game details or details of any leaders. I just like to discuss history

So do I, but I try to eschew involved historical discussions on the main forums of wargame sites. There's a separate forum for those discussions, as such.

But I don't know about the Wehrmacht winning most tactical battles, per above. The historical record tends to show they did much better in 1943-1945 than they 'should' have. I think the average German soldier was probably the best for six years, but not by leaps and bounds. As an American, and US Army veteran, do not overlook the esprit de corps of the American fighting man. Not to mention the fine traditions of the British - and I would be willing to hazard that the Free French, properly equipped, were well led and gave more than a good account of themselves; they had every motivation in the world.

That said, open a thread on the History sub-forum and I'll discuss the wider topic with you.

_____________________________

"Goddamn it, they're gittin' away!!"
- unknown tincan sailor near the end of Leyte Gulf, when Kurita retired

(in reply to EwaldvonKleist)
Post #: 38
RE: historical command changes - 5/16/2016 8:45:22 PM   
EwaldvonKleist


Posts: 1786
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Berlin, Germany
Status: offline
I rould really like to discuss this with you and others! Please just show me the way to the history sub forum. I so far failed to find it. Did you mean general discussion?

(in reply to HexHead)
Post #: 39
RE: historical command changes - 5/16/2016 9:05:36 PM   
Steelers708

 

Posts: 111
Joined: 12/7/2010
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HexHead
The Germans essentially invented the assault rifle, but they should've done it in 1936, they were too little, too late. Excellent machine gun, though - MG42.


That's a bit of a moot point as I'm sure they would have preferred to have the Panther tank and Me262 in 1936 also, the list is endless as to what they should've done sooner or instead off.

(in reply to HexHead)
Post #: 40
RE: historical command changes - 5/16/2016 9:23:32 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 1753
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
Even assuming the German system was better than the American or British system such that they had better junior officers and NCOs, I would suggest this is accounted for in the game by the Germans having generally higher levels of morale and experience. For example, at the start of the June 44 campaign game 26& of the German divisions have morale of 80 or better and 63% have morale of 70 or better. By comparison the Allies numbers are only 6% and 44%.

But this doesn't explain why the German Leaders have generally better ratings than the Allied Leaders. That is the issue I wanted to open up for discussion. But I can hardly complain that this issue has been diverted into something else when I hijacked the thread in the first place.

(in reply to Steelers708)
Post #: 41
RE: historical command changes - 5/16/2016 9:29:11 PM   
HexHead

 

Posts: 464
Joined: 2/9/2010
From: I'm from New Hampshire; I only work in cyberspace
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Steelers708


quote:

ORIGINAL: HexHead
The Germans essentially invented the assault rifle, but they should've done it in 1936, they were too little, too late. Excellent machine gun, though - MG42.


That's a bit of a moot point as I'm sure they would have preferred to have the Panther tank and Me262 in 1936 also, the list is endless as to what they should've done sooner or instead off.


A parenthetical comment, in reply to someone.

_____________________________

"Goddamn it, they're gittin' away!!"
- unknown tincan sailor near the end of Leyte Gulf, when Kurita retired

(in reply to Steelers708)
Post #: 42
RE: historical command changes - 5/16/2016 10:23:38 PM   
EwaldvonKleist


Posts: 1786
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Berlin, Germany
Status: offline
Please, where is the history subforum? I still do not know which place you mean HexHead?
@Harrybanana: My thesis is that the higher german leader ratings should mirror the better fighting power per soldier the germans had due to better army organisation in many aspects i assume (following creveld). Because their is no other way to do this its done by leader rating. Maybe the devs were also assuming that german high commanders were more experienced, better trained and most important the best ones were commanding units instead of managing the war in USA or doing administration.

(in reply to HexHead)
Post #: 43
RE: historical command changes - 5/16/2016 11:16:56 PM   
HexHead

 

Posts: 464
Joined: 2/9/2010
From: I'm from New Hampshire; I only work in cyberspace
Status: offline
I scoped it out and it looks like what I was thinking of is outside the WitW forum.

_____________________________

"Goddamn it, they're gittin' away!!"
- unknown tincan sailor near the end of Leyte Gulf, when Kurita retired

(in reply to EwaldvonKleist)
Post #: 44
RE: historical command changes - 5/16/2016 11:39:53 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 1753
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

Please, where is the history subforum? I still do not know which place you mean HexHead?
@Harrybanana: My thesis is that the higher german leader ratings should mirror the better fighting power per soldier the germans had due to better army organisation in many aspects i assume (following creveld). Because their is no other way to do this its done by leader rating. Maybe the devs were also assuming that german high commanders were more experienced, better trained and most important the best ones were commanding units instead of managing the war in USA or doing administration.



I don't think there is a "history subforum".

The "better fighting power the Germans had per soldier" is already reflected in the fact that the German units generally have higher morale and experience than the Allied units. So there is another way to do it. To also give them better Leaders is, IMHO, to over compensate them for this.

Creveld also espouses that the Israeli military have a difficult task in fighting insurgents because they have overwhelming firepower when compared to the insurgents. Therefore when they lose they are seen as incompetent and when they win they are seen as oppressors. Ironically, IMO, this is similar to the problem the Allied leaders face in achieving good ratings in this game. An Allied Leader, like Horrocks, gets little or no credit for the numerous battles he did win, but because he lost one battle (Market Garden) he is crucified. Meanwhile Rommel can lose battle after battle from August 42 on and he is still seen as one of the very best.

I'm not saying Germany did not have some of the very best commanders of the war, they did. But come on, 40 Commanders with a 7 or better Infantry rating compared to just 7 for the Americans, British, Canadians and others combined. Seems a little skewed to me.

< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 5/16/2016 11:42:57 PM >

(in reply to EwaldvonKleist)
Post #: 45
RE: historical command changes - 5/17/2016 5:18:28 PM   
EwaldvonKleist


Posts: 1786
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Berlin, Germany
Status: offline
I created a new thread in the general discussion section and already wrote an introducing statement. I am looking forward to discuss things with you!
Link: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4083674&mpage=1&key=�


< Message edited by EwaldvonKleist -- 5/17/2016 5:39:07 PM >

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 46
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> RE: historical command changes Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.125