War Tactics

[Revolution]

The strategy I was referring to was based on a Discovery Channel special Hirtler used. I am not to much in WW2 history but the tactics that I was watching were pretty nice at least on DIscovery. (maybe it was just one country dont know)
But true a major offensive would have to utilize all 3, men, ground vehicles, and air vehicles.
I liked the suicide bomber squads (haha) and heavy defensive with War parties to antagonize the enemy back to the fortified front lines, and just wear em down. Least thats how I always kicked ass in AOE. Plus camping in quake2 and actionquake 2 hahah( only sometimes its fun)

[Guardian AngeL]

Originally posted by Revolution
I liked the suicide bomber squads

who wouldn't! suicide bombers rule!

[Revolution]

Its a mixed subject GA, half are like ROCK ON, other half are like NOOO THATS LAME!! But hey, alls FAIR in War!
Personally I love to do it every once in a while. hehehe. DEATH BEFORE DIS-ALLAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dont get all rowdy on the allah thing I am USA.

[Guardian AngeL]

in sof2 i just run around with nades

[Manitou]

Originally posted by Warborn
I'd say the Fins did a lot better against the Soviets than the Poles against the Germans, if you're talking about bravery and valour.

Very true. The Fins were legendary in their defense against the Soviets. The Poles were just so outdated in equipment. My reference to their defense was on a relational perspective.

Britain and France weren't afraid to fight or anything. Unless you meant something else by it, in which case, do tell. I love history also.

I believe they were more into appeasement than fighting. I won't sit in judgement of that as they were still cowed by the prospect of another affair such as the horrific Trench Warfare of WWI, which is to be expected. But there was a window of opportunity when Germany had her military might on the eastern front and was susceptible to an attack from the west. The military surplus Germany enjoyed in the May '40 campaign was accumulated due to inaction by the two only powers that could have slowed that buildup.

German tactics didn't rely on massive tank rushes. That was the Soviets. The Germans actually, at the start of the war, had tanks which were inferior in armor and firepower to the French tanks, and they also had about 200 or so fewer tanks than the French. The reason they whupped their ass so heavily is because the bulk of the French Army was at the Maginot Line, so they were able to totally avoid most of it, and because the Germans relied on mobility and, yes, surprise, rather than huge numbers. That coupled with the fact that the French didn't know how to properly use their tanks, and with their infantry being largely unmechanized, meant that not only were the French unable to effectively fight the Germans, but they were also unable to actually move to intercept, encircle, flank, or otherwise use movement to their advantage. They were about as bad off as the Italians were in North Africa when they engaged the meager British troops holding Egypt.

Well said. The Soviet T-34 was the best tank ever built at the time, in my opinion. The German Panther G that came along later was probably the best tank overall, but as far as mechanically speaking in terms of reliability, the T-34 had a slight edge. But, the key here is numbers. The T-34 was deployed in veritable swarms, while Germany had a hard time producing the Panthers in the needed numbers.

Warborn, good conversation! I love to see another fan of the craft! By the way, have you read Guderian's Actung-Panzer! yet? Good stuff. The guy was awesome...

[The Prudential]

Panzer Leader is an excellent book, but I would also recommend Battle Leadership by Captain Adolf Von Schell. It's about combat leadership, most relating to combat action. Also, Von Schell is a World War One officer so you also pick up some interesting facts about that war (safe to say the lesser studied world war).

Also, I recommend How to Make War by James F. Dunningan. This is one of the best books you could ever read on Post-Cold War engagements and possible strategies. Also, Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace is a very good book. It's a bit deep, and only a serious student of strategy should read it.

If you're soley interested in military history then Blood, Tears, and Folly by Len Deighton is an excellent source. It doesn't cover the entirety of the war, but focuses on a few important points. Highly recommended.

Other than reading material I do have to agree with Manitou (Fading Suns?) that the English and French had an excellent opportunity to invade western Germany while the majority of the Wehrmacht was still fighting the Poles. During this time the British Expeditionary Force was the first fully motorized military formation and could have made great time in moving against Germany. The French formations would have been slower, but no less effective. This could have bought the Poles some time as the Germans would have been forced to pull units, probably the invaluable Panzer Divisions, off the Eastern Front to engage the British and French. Of course, given the political weakness of the British and French governments at that time, this 'theoretical offensive' had almost no chance of ever occuring. Of course, WWII would have been a lot shorter, and Adolf Hitler might be a footnote to history.

[Manitou]

Thanks for the nice reading list, Prudential! I am currently reading two books, one is John Keegan, The Second World War, and the other is a sort of war diary from a journal written by a German soldier stationed on the Eastern Front by Gunter Koschorrek, Blood Red Snow. The war diary book is very gripping.

[Warborn]

Well said. The Soviet T-34 was the best tank ever built at the time, in my opinion. The German Panther G that came along later was probably the best tank overall, but as far as mechanically speaking in terms of reliability, the T-34 had a slight edge. But, the key here is numbers. The T-34 was deployed in veritable swarms, while Germany had a hard time producing the Panthers in the needed numbers.

The Soviet attack on Germany from the East had nearly 1000 T-34 tanks with it... must have been a hell of a sight for any German defender unlucky enough to be in their path.

Warborn, good conversation! I love to see another fan of the craft! By the way, have you read Guderian's Actung-Panzer! yet? Good stuff. The guy was awesome...

No, not yet. I've been busying myself with The Rommel Papers and various other books my girlfriend/family got me for Christmas. I'm definitely interested in picking that, along with an English version of Infanterie Greift An if I can find one. Guderian was an absolutely phenomenal tank commander. He knew those vehicles inside out, and knew how to use theym extremely well. Really lucky for the Allies that Hitler sacked him early in the war.

[Warborn]

Well, although the British and French armies weren't built for the war that the Germans were waging, I do agree none the less that if they would have done something, things could have gone differently. But, the same could be said for various other points during the war, also. For instance, had Goering not been such a prick about the Luftwaffe pounding the French/British at Dunkirk, 350,000 French/British soldiers and officers would have been taken prisoner -- among them, people like Montgomery and Wavell. Had Dunkirk been a Wehrmacht victory, rather than a Luftwaffe failure, the war would not have gone so well, and I imagine that Britain may very well have surrendered, given that its Expeditionary Force contained its most seasoned troops and officers.

[The Prudential]

Oh, I agree Warborn. Had the Panzers not stopped outside of Dunkirk the loss would have been so catastrophic that a unit of Fallschmirjager (sp?) could have taken Britian. Also, given the fact that such a horrible loss could have resulted in the sacking of Winston Churchill...the anti-war elements of Parliament could have pushed for a peace treaty with the Germans.

[FraBaktos]

Holy shit this post is almost as boring as going to my history Gr10 history class everyday. DON'T BE SO NOSTALGIC, THERE IS NO USE DWELLING IN THE PAST!!!

[Duritz]

Wow, you can tell he's 15......

Just because history class is boring to you doesn't mean that everything that ever happened has no significance, importance, or interesting factors related to it.

You could, at the very least, not say anything and let them talk in peace.

[Revolution]

To tell you the truth history class was one of my favorite classes. Too bad I smoked too much of that CIGAWEED in college, it took some of it out.
This thread would not be boring if some think it would be if we could have a more distinct discussion about tactics IG. I know its hard to fathom at the moment since its not out yet but as maybe some of you I am wetting my pants waiting for it. Damn, have to change my diaper. I wear one so I do not get any liquids on the computer.
Anyways, some people had some tactics ideas, ty for those.

[Duritz]

Well, I'm not really worried about looking at tactics right now, because we don't know the mechanics for the weapons, vehicles, and infantry. If those mechanics are unrealistic enough then real life tactics won't suffice and if they are realistic enough most IG tactics won't work.

However, there are ideas that work on both fronts and have been used in almost every competitive, warlike game. For the most part, they are lopsided tactics like tank rushes and the rocketeers from RA2 or maybe glitch uses like the wingwalking on BF1942. Hopefully, the main tactics used in PS won't be as obvious as these, nor will they be as unpreventable as some. I am simply hoping for enough teamwork to pull ANY good ideas off.

[Sputty]

I liked..maybe because history is interesting or because I found the class really easy...hmmm..not sure which.