Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Say what? Does not compute.

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

You may now come to my office to wipe the tea off my screen.

Good one http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

I believe we have an attempt to inject modern day so called morality and politics into historic events, it sounds just as incongruous as it does in this age. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif IMHO

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Indeed, these sort of remarks, even if meant just for comic relief, seriously detract from a relevant debate. I've heard the argument of 'you should be grateful we went to europe to fight and shut up' ad nauseam. I have a very hard time taking anyone who uses it in a discussion serious.

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Social commentary aside, there comes a time when a debate devolves into rivet counting Grognardism. Noah's comment reminded me of that and something more: Regardless of any differences between American and German training, and morale - We* Won.

Regardless of whether or not the 90th broke, of how many and what quality sights a given Sherman variant had and if the Japanese ever broke, factors far outside the scope of this game were responsible for the crushing defeat of the Axis powers. Russian man power, industrial capacity and technological superiority; England's ability to draw on a vast empire not just materially but philosopically (the Yanks fit in here too); the US' overwhelming industrial capacity; Canada's resources; Australia and New Zealand's strategic positioning; the occupied territories refusal to give up; none of these things can be depicted in the game yet all are part of why the Axis lost.

If all things were equal, it would matter if the 90th broke, but things never were equal. Too often the cry is "Realism, Realism" yet who is willing to to really put that into effect? How often do we hear calls to create OOBs with under strength infantry due to casualties? How often do people ask that the price of Tigers be doubled or tripled while the price of T-34's be halved to represent historical economic realties? So many Wittmans, so few Isaiah Washingtons, red ball truck driver from Detroit and fewer yet Hans Meyers, 14 year old Hitler Jugend huddling in the ruins of some nameless burnt out city waiting for the Russians with nothing more than a Panzer faust and a bloodstained secondhand feldgrau greatcoat to label them as soldier....

The frikin' Nazis lost and thank the gods for Germany that they did.

<PatG turns, picks up his soapbox, and walks away into the smoke>

*and no I am not a jingoistic American, I am a Canadian of British origin with a Maltese wife and an ex-stepfather from Arnhem and definately more German blood than American in my veins. We = "the good guys"

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Yes, Pat when the smoke clears, you've hit the nail on the head. Hear, Hear !!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

That's what we call 'kicking in an open door' so sorry that I don't join the bandwagon celebrating the obvious.

The 'who-cares-because-what-happened-is-what-happened' attitude is hardly the appropriate one when putting oneself into the middle of a debate that is not just touching the surface of 'what happened' but tries to go into the reasons why something happened. Some people are actually interested in trying to figure out, through discourse, why the 90th failed in Normandy.

Off topic Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Please excuse my bootprints Narwan and others - I tend to get a little twitchy this time of year. This is an interesting thread please keep it up.

Off topic Re: 90th Division remarks
 

I was just agreeing with the quoted statement

Prosit!

Re: 90th Division remarks
 

Hi BaggyPants

I am not suggesting rearranging one OOBs morale rating based on one hard luck outfit.
The levenworth article clearly details poor performance
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/car...er/doubler.asp
on a much wider scale. 90th division just serves as an very good example of problems due to poor training that I think were probably to be found in many/most American divisions/regiments. ie because they all got the same training. And of course dont forget Kasserine, same problem.
Thats right aggressiveness is'nt everything, but when you have some substantial advantages such as air, supply, numbers etc you should perform OK but if you then fail through lack of agressiveness or you could say, lack of initiative then that must be from poor training.
Normally when a section hits an obstacle and its a single fire position the corporal will get some info, place the LMG in a spot to cover the target and leapfrog the sections rifle group and scout group over the objective, same deal but more complicated for the coy lieutenant taking out a section etc. Now this is the British and Australian approach, and in the first instance takes about 10-20 minutes up until going back over the objective seaching the body and putting in a radio report, If you prefer to use the American "fixing attack" this can be a lot slower depending on your artillery availability, which may be one reason they got stuck in the bocage. And the enemy has the opportunity to "bug out" while you bring in the ranging shots and of course you lose the advantage of surprise.
The practice in most armies is to limit the amount of artillery support available according to the size of the formation being supported, this means you have to be aggressive or you dont get anywhere. American doctrine of allowing much higher levels or artilery support at lower formation sizes encourages reliance on artilley, no doubt saving American lives, but is slower. Allowing the enemy time to adjust to your advance.
The Germans had a higher proportion of Officers to noncommissioned ranks killed than the Americans, After losing and replacing officers such German Divisions didnt drop to green status, I guess because the replacements were usually pulled up from within the divisions ranks?
Your war college essay, emphasises the difficulties of the bocage, and it is good defensive terrain, but dont forget the closer the cover the more men needed to cover it. It sounds like the Germans had built the Maginot line in there but actually very few units were well dug in, there was very little depth and there were big gaps between some units. The Americans should have found these gaps and pushed through for all they were worth, a similar "missed oportunity" happened at Anzio. German replacements and resupply of course arrived in dribs and drabs and had to be thrown into the line piecemeal after being shot up by air all the way in.
The 90th wasnt reorganised it just had its commanders replaced.
Best regards Chuck