@ShadowHAwk
All games have “loopholes” and knowing when to exploit them make them that much more fun!
The crazy karl being an infamous one in this game.
Missing French Pieces
-
Most historians contest that France had ancient tactics and equipment when fighting the invading Germans. Every time I think of it I see the video of a calvary charge with their swords unsheathed. I think I saw on the World at War series.
Not sure what historians you saw. :? We definitely had modern equipment; our heaviest tank, the Char b1, had better armor and firepower than the Panzer II or III, the mainstream German tanks at that time. It was, however, a gas guzzler, and was pretty slow.
And like I said, the D.520 fighter was modern for its time, as was the LeO fighter, but they saw little action as it was too late to mass produce them. Same with the other modern equipment we had, including the Char b1 tank.
Not sure where you got the French charging the Germans with cavalry. Not a single reported incident of that happened. Same with Poland, where there’s a myth of them using horses against panzers. :roll:
But ancient tactics? Well, 1918 tactics. Only a few like Charles de Gaulle advocated modern warfare. Actually, Heinz Guderian, one of the big developers of blitzkrieg, read de Gaulle’s book, compared it to his own, and found many similarities. So yes, the French High Command was still thinking 1918; the Germans were thinking 1940.
However, in comparison to the Army, the Navy was very well trained and had modern ships. Small wonder the British were desperate enough to bomb the fleet at Mers El Kébir!
-
@UN:
Most historians contest that France had ancient tactics and equipment when fighting the invading Germans. Every time I think of it I see the video of a calvary charge with their swords unsheathed. I think I saw on the World at War series.
Not sure what historians you saw. :? We definitely had modern equipment; our heaviest tank, the Char b1, had better armor and firepower than the Panzer II or III, the mainstream German tanks at that time. It was, however, a gas guzzler, and was pretty slow.
And like I said, the D.520 fighter was modern for its time, as was the LeO fighter, but they saw little action as it was too late to mass produce them. Same with the other modern equipment we had, including the Char b1 tank.
Not sure where you got the French charging the Germans with cavalry. Not a single reported incident of that happened. Same with Poland, where there’s a myth of them using horses against panzers. :roll:
But ancient tactics? Well, 1918 tactics. Only a few like Charles de Gaulle advocated modern warfare. Actually, Heinz Guderian, one of the big developers of blitzkrieg, read de Gaulle’s book, compared it to his own, and found many similarities. So yes, the French High Command was still thinking 1918; the Germans were thinking 1940.
However, in comparison to the Army, the Navy was very well trained and had modern ships. Small wonder the British were desperate enough to bomb the fleet at Mers El Kébir!
I think in Poland, the calvary was attacking German inf, and then tanks showed up.
-
@UN:
Most historians contest that France had ancient tactics and equipment when fighting the invading Germans. Every time I think of it I see the video of a calvary charge with their swords unsheathed. I think I saw on the World at War series.
Not sure what historians you saw. :? We definitely had modern equipment; our heaviest tank, the Char b1, had better armor and firepower than the Panzer II or III, the mainstream German tanks at that time. It was, however, a gas guzzler, and was pretty slow.
And like I said, the D.520 fighter was modern for its time, as was the LeO fighter, but they saw little action as it was too late to mass produce them. Same with the other modern equipment we had, including the Char b1 tank.
Not sure where you got the French charging the Germans with cavalry. Not a single reported incident of that happened. Same with Poland, where there’s a myth of them using horses against panzers. :roll:
But ancient tactics? Well, 1918 tactics. Only a few like Charles de Gaulle advocated modern warfare. Actually, Heinz Guderian, one of the big developers of blitzkrieg, read de Gaulle’s book, compared it to his own, and found many similarities. So yes, the French High Command was still thinking 1918; the Germans were thinking 1940.
However, in comparison to the Army, the Navy was very well trained and had modern ships. Small wonder the British were desperate enough to bomb the fleet at Mers El Kébir!
I think in Poland, the calvary was attacking German inf, and then tanks showed up.
Polish cavalry never charged German tanks or entrenched infantry or artillery, but usually acted as mobile infantry (like dragoons) and reconnaissance units and executed cavalry charges only in rare situations against foot soldiers. Other armies (including German and Soviet) also fielded and extensively used elite horse cavalry units at that time. Polish cavalry consisted of eleven brigades, as emphasized by its military doctrine, equipped with anti tank rifles “UR” and light artillery such as the highly effective Bofors 37 mm antitank gun. The myth originated from war correspondents reports of the Battle of Krojanty, where a Polish cavalry brigade was fired upon in ambush by hidden armored vehicles, after it had mounted a sabre-charge against German infantry.
-
@UN:
Most historians contest that France had ancient tactics and equipment when fighting the invading Germans. Every time I think of it I see the video of a calvary charge with their swords unsheathed. I think I saw on the World at War series.
Not sure what historians you saw. :? We definitely had modern equipment; our heaviest tank, the Char b1, had better armor and firepower than the Panzer II or III, the mainstream German tanks at that time. It was, however, a gas guzzler, and was pretty slow.
And like I said, the D.520 fighter was modern for its time, as was the LeO fighter, but they saw little action as it was too late to mass produce them. Same with the other modern equipment we had, including the Char b1 tank.
Not sure where you got the French charging the Germans with cavalry. Not a single reported incident of that happened. Same with Poland, where there’s a myth of them using horses against panzers. :roll:
But ancient tactics? Well, 1918 tactics. Only a few like Charles de Gaulle advocated modern warfare. Actually, Heinz Guderian, one of the big developers of blitzkrieg, read de Gaulle’s book, compared it to his own, and found many similarities. So yes, the French High Command was still thinking 1918; the Germans were thinking 1940.
However, in comparison to the Army, the Navy was very well trained and had modern ships. Small wonder the British were desperate enough to bomb the fleet at Mers El Kébir!
I never said that the film I saw was an actual charge, I’m pretty sure it was just a propaganda piece. This link is what I was talking about, not sure where it is at though.
-
The French equipment was top of the line. (tanks especially).
They had serviceable fighters and other equipment. That is probably one of the reasons why they are disparaged so much, is that they cannot blame losing on inadequate equipment.
The French soldier was capable of bravery. However, they were so ineptly led and trained that they were near useless in combat. It is sad that the war ended so fast for mainland France, for they were unable to develop a national “character” of their soldiers. For example:
Russia = Soldiers developed a reputation for tenacity - no matter what, they would keep fighting, no matter the costs
Japan = Developed a reputation for sheer lack of the fear of death - until a Japanese soldier was dead, he wouldn’t stop fighting
UK = Brave, resolute, steadfast and dependable. They may not be the quickest to achieve an objective, but they would take it.
German = “Thinking” soldiers. They would outthink you on the battlefield, using flanking movement etc. Also very brave.
US = Not giving up. It may take thousands and thousands of rounds, but they would not give up. NUTS!
Italy = Not really in the war, they would surrender due to apathy and inferior equipment (and rightly so).The only possible image we have of France is of a near immediate surrender. (Hence the jokes) I really feel that the blame lies on commander from the Sergeant level up - the French soldier was not motivated enough, and that is inexcusable, especially when your country is invaded.
-
The French equipment was top of the line. (tanks especially).
They had serviceable fighters and other equipment. That is probably one of the reasons why they are disparaged so much, is that they cannot blame losing on inadequate equipment.
The French soldier was capable of bravery. However, they were so ineptly led and trained that they were near useless in combat. It is sad that the war ended so fast for mainland France, for they were unable to develop a national “character” of their soldiers. For example:
Russia = Soldiers developed a reputation for tenacity - no matter what, they would keep fighting, no matter the costs
Japan = Developed a reputation for sheer lack of the fear of death - until a Japanese soldier was dead, he wouldn’t stop fighting
UK = Brave, resolute, steadfast and dependable. They may not be the quickest to achieve an objective, but they would take it.
German = “Thinking” soldiers. They would outthink you on the battlefield, using flanking movement etc. Also very brave.
US = Not giving up. It may take thousands and thousands of rounds, but they would not give up. NUTS!
Italy = Not really in the war, they would surrender due to apathy and inferior equipment (and rightly so).The only possible image we have of France is of a near immediate surrender. (Hence the jokes) I really feel that the blame lies on commander from the Sergeant level up - the French soldier was not motivated enough, and that is inexcusable, especially when your country is invaded.
What about ANZAC and China?
-
The French equipment was top of the line. (tanks especially).
They had serviceable fighters and other equipment. That is probably one of the reasons why they are disparaged so much, is that they cannot blame losing on inadequate equipment.
The French soldier was capable of bravery. However, they were so ineptly led and trained that they were near useless in combat. It is sad that the war ended so fast for mainland France, for they were unable to develop a national “character” of their soldiers. For example:
Russia = Soldiers developed a reputation for tenacity - no matter what, they would keep fighting, no matter the costs
Japan = Developed a reputation for sheer lack of the fear of death - until a Japanese soldier was dead, he wouldn’t stop fighting
UK = Brave, resolute, steadfast and dependable. They may not be the quickest to achieve an objective, but they would take it.
German = “Thinking” soldiers. They would outthink you on the battlefield, using flanking movement etc. Also very brave.
US = Not giving up. It may take thousands and thousands of rounds, but they would not give up. NUTS!
Italy = Not really in the war, they would surrender due to apathy and inferior equipment (and rightly so).The only possible image we have of France is of a near immediate surrender. (Hence the jokes) I really feel that the blame lies on commander from the Sergeant level up - the French soldier was not motivated enough, and that is inexcusable, especially when your country is invaded.
What about ANZAC and China?
What about them? They’re almost never actually portrayed in anything, period.
…that they were near useless in combat.
The British evacuating from Dunkirk would disagree with that; even when poorly led they put up bitter resistance against the Germans as they closed in on Dunkirk.
-
Also, I really think Italy’s image has been tarnished by British wartime propaganda. Like the French, the Italians were poorly led (though they had far worse equipment then the French), but they were capable of acts of bravery. Italian artillery would literally continue to fire until they were literally overrun. Plus, their motor vehicles were actually better than average, with commanders like Monty using them in his African campaigns!
And oh boy did they put up a fight in Sicily, though by the time the Allies gained a foothold in Italy proper there was much friction between the Italians and krauts.
-
@UN:
Most historians contest that France had ancient tactics and equipment when fighting the invading Germans. Every time I think of it I see the video of a calvary charge with their swords unsheathed. I think I saw on the World at War series.
Not sure what historians you saw. :? We definitely had modern equipment; our heaviest tank, the Char b1, had better armor and firepower than the Panzer II or III, the mainstream German tanks at that time. It was, however, a gas guzzler, and was pretty slow.
And like I said, the D.520 fighter was modern for its time, as was the LeO fighter, but they saw little action as it was too late to mass produce them. Same with the other modern equipment we had, including the Char b1 tank.
Not sure where you got the French charging the Germans with cavalry. Not a single reported incident of that happened. Same with Poland, where there’s a myth of them using horses against panzers. :roll:
But ancient tactics? Well, 1918 tactics. Only a few like Charles de Gaulle advocated modern warfare. Actually, Heinz Guderian, one of the big developers of blitzkrieg, read de Gaulle’s book, compared it to his own, and found many similarities. So yes, the French High Command was still thinking 1918; the Germans were thinking 1940.
However, in comparison to the Army, the Navy was very well trained and had modern ships. Small wonder the British were desperate enough to bomb the fleet at Mers El Kébir!
I think in Poland, the calvary was attacking German inf, and then tanks showed up.
:-D Polish sucked!
-
@Dylan:
:-D Polish sucked!
That’s like saying Canada sucked.
-
@UN:
@Dylan:
:-D Polish sucked!
That’s like saying Canada sucked.
At least we didn’t have horses! Besides by the end of the war, we had the forth strongest military.
-
@Dylan:
@UN:
@Dylan:
:-D Polish sucked!
That’s like saying Canada sucked.
At least we didn’t have horses! Besides by the end of the war, we had the forth strongest military.
The United States, Germany, the Soviet Union, and Japan all had cavalry.
Fourth? Care to share where that statistic comes from? :?
-
At least we didn’t have horses! Besides by the end of the war, we had the forth strongest military.
Fourth behind who? USA, USSR, and UK? Technically wasn’t the Canadian military part of the UK (commonwealth) military?
-
Time for a good joke:
Q: Why do the French plant so many trees on their roads?
A: So the Germans can march in the shade!This sounds like a variation of what Leonidas of Sparta replied at the battle of Thermopylae when the Persian king boasted that the arrows of his troops would blot out the sun: “Good. We shall fight better in the shade.”
-
@UN:
But ancient tactics? Well, 1918 tactics. Only a few like Charles de Gaulle advocated modern warfare. Actually, Heinz Guderian, one of the big developers of blitzkrieg, read de Gaulle’s book, compared it to his own, and found many similarities. So yes, the French High Command was still thinking 1918; the Germans were thinking 1940.
Yes, one of the fundamental problems was that most of the French high command (de Gaulle being one of the rare exceptions) still regarded the tank as an infantry support weapon. They therefore tended to scatter their tanks all along the front to provide that local support. On the other hand, Guderian, de Gaulle, and people like J.F.C. Fuller and Liddell-Hart in Britain, viewed the tank as the spearhead of the attack, which ought to be used in massed formations concentrated at key points of the front.
-
At least we didn’t have horses! Besides by the end of the war, we had the forth strongest military.
Fourth behind who? USA, USSR, and UK? Technically wasn’t the Canadian military part of the UK (commonwealth) military?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=18760.0 There there’s my proof. Also saying thats part of the commonwealth is like saying modern Australia is part of the British army today! Or the Canadian army today! They were just loyal to the British still, but were’t British. They were Canadian.
-
@Dylan:
At least we didn’t have horses! Besides by the end of the war, we had the forth strongest military.
Fourth behind who? USA, USSR, and UK? Technically wasn’t the Canadian military part of the UK (commonwealth) military?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=18760.0 There there’s my proof. Also saying thats part of the commonwealth is like saying modern Australia is part of the British army today! Or the Canadian army today! They were just loyal to the British still, but were’t British. They were Canadian.
That’s not proof. The 4th largest army in the world in 1945 was not Canada, nor Australia. I’m pretty sure it was France, whom had over a million men by the end of the war.
The Canadian Army was in fact a Commonwealth army in WWII for all intents and purposes.
-
@Dylan:
@UN:
@Dylan:
:-D Polish sucked!
That’s like saying Canada sucked.
At least we didn’t have horses! Besides by the end of the war, we had the forth strongest military.
when you say military, i think you mean to say navy. canada did have the 3rd (or 4th?) largest navy at the end of 1945. they certainly did not have the largest army or airforce.
-
i just opend my pacific and no japs,wtf,how can i claim them,from who?
-
Contact Wizards Customer Service, either here or at the address or phone number on the back of the Rulebook.
Suggested Topics
