90th Division remarks *DELETED* - Page 4

chuckfourth · #31 October 9th, 2007, 08:27 AM

Hi Noah
Yes you are correct
Thats Democracy for you, dont forget there was a thriving Nazi party in America pre American entry into the war. Now Im not saying America shouldnt have entered the War on the side of the allies, removing Nazism was a really great idea, but a lot of Americans didnt see it that way at the time. Dont forget in the 1940 election Roosevelt had to pledge that he would keep America out of the War to get voted in. Roughly half the nation was opposed to even giving financial aid to Britan let alone Fighting. ie a lot of peole didnt want America to get involved and a lot of these people were later drafted. So the American trooper had a bit of a mixed feeling about dying for his country, well not really for his country. Europe wasnt really "his" war, his war was the Pacific war(Those dirty Japs).
Contrast this to the Germans
Goebels had got a whiff of the Morgenthau plan and used it to great effect. The Morgenthau plan included dismantling all of Germanies factories, cutting off all her Raw materials, No mineing of coal or Iron ore, current mines all to be flooded and the German people to subsist on crops and cattle breeding. Roosevelt was actually in favour of this plan for some time. So the German soldiers, those that believed Goebels anyway, was fighting for his country.
Hitler also had the carrot, if they could just hold out long enough wonder weapons would save Germany. Not to mention that the Germans are a proud people, they did after all stop the Romans at the Rhine while the rest of Western Europe the Near East and a lot of other places got conquered. And even before that German warriors got to go the Valhalla for dying bravely.
Best Regards Chuck.

baggypants · #32 October 9th, 2007, 07:11 PM

Post deleted by baggypants

Marek_Tucan · #33 October 10th, 2007, 01:05 AM

Just to repeat again, under later commanders the 90ID was good enough to be the only unit selected by G.S.Patton from 3ed army for a citation as whole. After all, even Kasserine disaster bears on many parts signature of the II corps commander, incl. bad tank use doctrine and bad coordination of troops and their performance went up after II corps was taken over by G.S.P. So I'd say that while 90ID received sub par training in the sense it didn't have so much time for invasion-specific training in Britain, most of its problems came from officers.

PanzerBob · #34 October 11th, 2007, 01:39 AM

Great Stuff Guys

Prosit!

chuckfourth · #35 October 13th, 2007, 11:45 AM

OK
Let me put it this way. You say German Officers were a better standard than American, So wouldnt this mean that the Germans should have a better in-game Morale value? Considering that in-game Morale value is really only the much more specific "rallying ability" which depends on the quality of the Leadership?
ie the mens confidence in their leaders.
Chuck.

Marek_Tucan · #36 October 13th, 2007, 05:34 PM

This is covered by the Rally rating, I believe and yes, I think rally rating shall be lower for US troops than for Germans.

EDITED for clarity.

chuckfourth · #37 October 14th, 2007, 04:05 AM

Hi Marek
Glad you made that clear, when you say Rally rating do you mean the 3 Unit "Command" values the Player preferences or the Realism Preferences
Best Regards Chuck.

Marek_Tucan · #38 October 14th, 2007, 04:51 AM

The unit "leader ratings".

baggypants · #39 October 14th, 2007, 05:23 PM

Post deleted by baggypants

narwan · #40 October 15th, 2007, 01:20 PM

Quote:

baggypants said:
During '42 the US troops should be more fragile and by '44 a little more aggressive than the British while defensively about even with the Germans. The game does this IMO quite sucessfully with the current US values.

That is, as you state yourself, an opinion and not a fact. You are also more or less correct that the game with the current values reflects this. Which is exactly the whole point of this thread. The current US values are under scrutiny because the resulting 'abilities' in the game of US troops are not conform 'reality' according to some.
It's also not very smart to accuse the other side of the debate of 'admiring the germans'. This has little to do with it. We're talking about the US troops here, not the germans. I for one find it very odd you would find that the US would be more aggressive than the british in '44. All I have seen and heard when it comes to small unit performances (which is what this game deals with) suggests the opposite to me. So it would be helpful if you could teel us WHY you think the US was more aggressive (small units wise) than for example the UK and why you think they were on the same level (again small units wise) as the germans? I find both claims highly questionable.

And to get back to an earlier point, training; you say that the quality of officers had more to do with it than training. But isn't the quality of the officers vital for the training a unit receives, not so much the quantity but the quality of it?