True enough, but Allenby wrote:
And that I could not agree with. On the other hand. After some research I agreed with the point behind the false statement.
Last edited:
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
True enough, but Allenby wrote:
And that I could not agree with. On the other hand. After some research I agreed with the point behind the false statement.
Agreed, it was Falkenhayn who wanted to 'bleed France white', but Haig also accepted that the victor would the the side that survived the war of attrition - Britain and France, ultimately.
Germany had fought defensively for most of the war - if they had taken the offensive as much as the allies did during those years, perhaps they would have won. It is my argument that broadly, allied offensive action damaged the German armed forces to an extent that they were weak enough to be driven back comprehensively during the 100 day offensive in 1918.
For all of the stigma about the absurdity of taking offensive action during the Great War, the side that took offensive action the most was the side that won - and part of the reason that they won was due to their willingness to attack more than the Germans.
Germany had fought defensively for most of the war - if they had taken the offensive as much as the allies did during those years, perhaps they would have won. It is my argument that broadly, allied offensive action damaged the German armed forces to an extent that they were weak enough to be driven back comprehensively during the 100 day offensive in 1918.
For all of the stigma about the absurdity of taking offensive action during the Great War, the side that took offensive action the most was the side that won - and part of the reason that they won was due to their willingness to attack more than the Germans.
Allenby,
I couldn't agree more. For all the common misgivings about the Somme, the German High Command were persistently worried about it. Even in 1918 Ludendorf was clear that they 'could not afford another Somme'.
However much it cost in blood, and however little it achieved in territory, it fatally wounded the German army, especially its confidence. And for that Haig must be given credit.
What is also sad, is the achievement of the Somme is always tarred by the first day. The horror of tens of thousands of casualties is awful, but the battle lasted months, and the attrition rate to use a monstrous term, was considerably lower than the infamous 100 days of 1918. The Brits, and Haig, were on a sharp learning curve.
Is it possible to mod the attack types? You know, when you order one of your units to move into enemy controlled terrain (or press CTRL). You get that drop-down menu with the actions the unit can take, is it possible to change the actions?
Then you could have a 'move to front' order, that would trigger very low-intensity fighting with hardly any casualties but with the org dropping steadily. This would simulate trench warfare and the kind or attrition going on, and force the player to keep an eye on his divisions (a division would normally only do about three months of continuous frontline duty, AFAIK).
Your could also have another order, 'offensive', to simulate the getting out of the trenches and walking very slowly towards the enemy kind of strategy. This type of combat would be a lot more intense, with severe casualties (and very limited gains, of course).
Then you could have a 'move to front' order, that would trigger very low-intensity fighting with hardly any casualties but with the org dropping steadily. This would simulate trench warfare and the kind or attrition going on, and force the player to keep an eye on his divisions (a division would normally only do about three months of continuous frontline duty, AFAIK).
Your could also have another order, 'offensive', to simulate the getting out of the trenches and walking very slowly towards the enemy kind of strategy. This type of combat would be a lot more intense, with severe casualties (and very limited gains, of course).
hmm was not tanks one of the bigg reasons for the breaktroughs? 50 tanks on one spot can brake the best morale!
(harry turtledove any?).
To simulate the counterattacks etc, maybe a kind of "starvation" system(like that in low inf provinces) but now simulating the dead in the trenches...
Maybe tough for the player...
What about a popup every month that you can choose between
A)charge!(allout attack!)
b) more attacks
c)keep it as it is
d)defensive(few attacks)
aswell as a report on dead and "advances"(and a "reinforce" button for the army) the advances would be enemy casulties etc.
Pretty good?
(harry turtledove any?).
To simulate the counterattacks etc, maybe a kind of "starvation" system(like that in low inf provinces) but now simulating the dead in the trenches...
Maybe tough for the player...
What about a popup every month that you can choose between
A)charge!(allout attack!)
b) more attacks
c)keep it as it is
d)defensive(few attacks)
aswell as a report on dead and "advances"(and a "reinforce" button for the army) the advances would be enemy casulties etc.
Pretty good?
Tanks initially were a bit of a surprise, but really how terrified could soldiers involved in a 3-4 year struggle be at a armored tractor moving at perhaps 5 mph...
"Hanz...look out!"
"What!"
"A armored tractor is coming."
"Oh dear GOD no!!!!!!!"
[Hanz waits the 5 minutes for the slow moving object to get into range of the artillery. End of the tank.]
"Wow, that was really scary."
Many of the early tanks at the time were prone to break down, could be taken out by machine guns, and even the later models were usually decimated by artillery. So don't be looking for WWII style tank breakthroughs...didn't happen. Artillery and the infantry man was responsible for the breakthroughs in WWI.
These options sound more like making changes to the hard coded engine, which is really outside the scope of this mod.
I think you've got a good point there - at Cambrai when they were first used, the psychological effect on the defending Germans was large...for the first day at least. By the second day, the number of tanks had been reduced by half, and arguably, they were more harm than good, attracting artillery fire. I think Mj-General Harper wouldn't use his tanks as they were intended because they attracted too much fire, thus killing the tanks' supporting infantry. He sounds like a bit of a stick in the mud, but he might have had a point.
I think you're probably devaluing tanks a little too much... yes, artillery could defeat them: but artillery was not stationed in the front line trenches, it was tucked away nice and safe a mile or two behind the lines. If the tanks got that far, you'd already lost the battle...
As for machine guns, IIRC the first tanks were only "semi-bulletproof", plus the Germans had a special tungsten bullet issued to snipers that could also pierce a tank's armour. Then the British made one of those stupid mistakes you often get in war; the Mark II (or was it III?) tank was intended for training purposes only, and had a mild steel body instead of actual hardened armour - but the generals were so desparate for tanks that they sent them into battle anyway. Result, massive casualties, and the Germans pretty much dismissed tanks as a useless novelty. Then the British came up with the Mark IV, which was completely bulletproof, and used it at Cambrai... and its successors were also used at Amiens, and during the 100 Days. No, they didn't "win the war" as lots of people claim - but they were an essential part of the combined arms tactics (tanks, infantry assaults, artillery barrages, gas, combat engineers, aircraft) which did beat the German army.
As for machine guns, IIRC the first tanks were only "semi-bulletproof", plus the Germans had a special tungsten bullet issued to snipers that could also pierce a tank's armour. Then the British made one of those stupid mistakes you often get in war; the Mark II (or was it III?) tank was intended for training purposes only, and had a mild steel body instead of actual hardened armour - but the generals were so desparate for tanks that they sent them into battle anyway. Result, massive casualties, and the Germans pretty much dismissed tanks as a useless novelty. Then the British came up with the Mark IV, which was completely bulletproof, and used it at Cambrai... and its successors were also used at Amiens, and during the 100 Days. No, they didn't "win the war" as lots of people claim - but they were an essential part of the combined arms tactics (tanks, infantry assaults, artillery barrages, gas, combat engineers, aircraft) which did beat the German army.
They did contribute to victory of course as part of using combined arms - on the whole making battles at the end of 1918 seem more like those of 1940. Nevertheless, I'd still say tanks were not as valuable as the other innovations, many of which you mention, especially improved artillery tactics.
my event thing is just a event that appears as something else, if you choose a all get more causulties/manpower loss(or something to represent the deaths) etc
realy not that hard to do(?)
realy not that hard to do(?)
I totally agree. I think it is also important when considering the tank, to imagine a war lasting until 1919 or 1920. By then much better models of tank would be common, and in much greater numbers. Whippet tanks having twice the speed of the MkIVs and Vs for example. The war ended before adequate models were availabvle in large numbers. Models which had overcome the low speed and lack of reliability which was, for me, the real limitation for them.
here is some tank tactics for ww1(my own^^):
a) your tactic: take 2 tanks, no other units and let em roll over the trench line and get bombarded by...everything! result: 2 smoking tanks in the middle of no mans land...
b) take a 150 tanks, all over the line and let infantery use them for protection from nasty machineguns, at the same time bombard the trenches with 3/4 of your artillery and use the rest to suppres enemy artillery have planes ready to strafe retreating troops! result: maybe victory if the enemy don't got tanks
c) gather all your tanks and choose a weak spot, bombard all trenches but focus on this one.
result: breaktrough!
a) your tactic: take 2 tanks, no other units and let em roll over the trench line and get bombarded by...everything! result: 2 smoking tanks in the middle of no mans land...
b) take a 150 tanks, all over the line and let infantery use them for protection from nasty machineguns, at the same time bombard the trenches with 3/4 of your artillery and use the rest to suppres enemy artillery have planes ready to strafe retreating troops! result: maybe victory if the enemy don't got tanks
c) gather all your tanks and choose a weak spot, bombard all trenches but focus on this one.
result: breaktrough!
Just like at Cambrai. The problem is how to exploit your break-in and turn in into a breakthrough.
Your remaining tanks moving at 3mph, are hardly sweeping into the enemy reaer positions, but they are finding ever more gunn positions further back, which take out even more of them.
The real problem was how to exploit the victory. A cavarly division takes as much as 13 miles of road, and there aint no road across no-mans-land. Your infantry move slower than his, as he benefits from interior lines; for the same reason his communications are probably better, so he is likely to know you have broken through before you do.
only the very late war tanks had any hope of exploiting the victory, and turning success on the battlefield into strategic success. Until then, the only troops capable of outpacing the enemy are the cavalry, and they are the worst troops you have in terms of equipment and hitting power.
mm butt i don't think that there are many enemy troops left to fight by then...look at the german armys breakdown after the allied counter attack
Maybe the trench warfare could be represented by altering the dug-in bonus speed? It would be quite simple and could be strenghtened by a set of events adding some forts to the sized territories.
Cheers
Cheers
the rise of nations system would be perfect for this, with a flexibel "border" but that will certainly NOT happen.
Only on the Western Front. Germany was quite consistently on the offensive in the East, with the eventual result of knocking Russia out of the war. The exception is Verdun, where casualties were about equal - no way for the Germans to win doing it that way, since they were outnumbered.
Unfair to expect Germany to mount more offensives since their manpower < Entente.
However I've come up with an idea for infantry tech!
Apparently the storm trooper tactics in 1918 did a lot to break through British lines. Have we addressed this in the tech section?
However I've come up with an idea for infantry tech!
Apparently the storm trooper tactics in 1918 did a lot to break through British lines. Have we addressed this in the tech section?
Yes, there are "stormtrooper" techs included.
These are (more or less) stoormtrooper techs:
1700 (main cathegory) - Assault Improvements
1701 (tech) - Flamethrower
1702 (tech) - Stormtrooper Units
1703 (tech) - Submachinegun
1704 (tech) - Specialized Assault Gear
/Johan