WW1 color photo's

[2019]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=35524&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

Absolutely Awesome!!!!

i wonder how close to the actual color they come... it looks quite real to me, but then again...

again... Great link... THANKS


--Mike

[Deamon]

This is awesome stuff. Would be good to make some u-boat images colorfull to better see it's painting sheme.

Deamon

[Oesten]

Dear God, those really bring WWI to life. Suddenly WWI seems a lot more like a real war to me than it did before....instead of just a mere intellectual pastime.

I remember some of the horrific black and white photos I've seen, of rotting corpses and skeletons in trenches. Now after seeing the colour pictures in that link, I can imagine the b&w ones in colour, and it makes them far more real, and far more horrible in my mind.

[Seaboy]

WWII was the the second act. It all started in WWI. (WWII was WWI reloaded)

Those were indeed fantastic photos. I've always been very interested in the forts, such as those around Verdun. Back in 94 I recreated Douaumont and Fort Vaux to scale for the DOOM player - as best as possible seeing that the DOOM engine was not true 3d.

"in 1916 over 22 million shells were fired on the 15 forts defending the city"

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWdouaumont.htm

Douaumont was captured by the Germans largely by the exploits of Sergeant Kunze and his ten men - who more or less just walked in.
But when the French later took it back, "It is estimated than more than 100,000 French soldiers fell in the attempts to recapture Fort Douaumont." http://battlefields1418.50megs.com/fort_douaumont.htm

think of it...almost as many men fell as America lost in Vietnam X 2, just trying to take back one fort.

[Deamon]

That was one bloody battle. It's crazy how many man died for a little advancment.

Hey Seaboy do you ever check your PM's ?

Deamon

[Seaboy]

I just checked the PM and sent an answer. Let me know what you need.

[2019]

Hey Seaboy

Back in 94 I recreated Douaumont and Fort Vaux to scale for the DOOM player - as best as possible seeing that the DOOM engine was not true 3d.
I've also saw your menus made for sh2.
Nice work.
You must be a artistic person, right?

Do you have more graphics work?

[Razman23]

That was one bloody battle. It's crazy how many man died for a little advancment.


You can blame most of it on the hard headed generals and their use of 19th century tatics in a 20th century war.

Afterall, how many times does it take before they realize that a massive infantry charge against machine gun and artillery just doesnt work.

BTW, hows your sim coming along?

[Seaboy]

2019 - no I am not really. All I did with the SH2 was cut and paste from sources on the net, and then only for myself (I never intended to put the SH2 WWI mod out to the public). The only art I ever did was for rather primitive games made back in the early 90s, when a simple paintshow was the name of the game. I helped program a simple 2d game called 'Shurrupak' back in 92-93 - and though I also did some of the art for that - it was quite primitive by today's standards. As for the DOOM wads I made, those were just maps (there were some 20,000+ maps made by enthusiasts back in 94-95). The only art I did in DOOM was quite simple (256 color gifs) for my 'Shurrupak' take-off wad.

Of course there are some really great u-boat artists on the SH3 forum, which I am sure you already know. I am afraid Seaboy is not much of one for art.

[2019]

Well Seaboy, i find your game dev history interesting, since that's all retro stuff you did.
A lot of basic lines have been settled back then.
Seems i could learn some old school techniques from you. ;)

I helped program a simple 2d game called 'Shurrupak' back in 92-93 - and though I also did some of the art for that - it was quite primitive by today's standards
i've never heard of this game.
What kind of game did it was?

[Deamon]

You can blame most of it on the hard headed generals and their use of 19th century tatics in a 20th century war.

Yes something is true about it.

Afterall, how many times does it take before they realize that a massive infantry charge against machine gun and artillery just doesnt work.


Yes, i'm just woundering whitch option there realy was to that. The tanks were surly missing. The only thing i can see here is to not sacrifice countless man for a target that is maybe not worth it and especialy when options like tanks are about to be introduced more or less soon. In this case i would maybe rather be defensive till they aren't available.

BTW, hows your sim coming along?

Slowly and steadily. You won't notice the development proccesss cose it's all closed now.

But you have interest in it right ?

Deamon

[Floater]

Deamon, you'll always have interest in your project. ;)

to Deamon - it was an RPG like King's Quest or Indiana Jones game the Fate of Atlantis. Several friends and I began the work in late 91 but did not actually really get going on the project until early 93. Sadly for us, because of delays, it did not come out in the shareware version until early 94 and thus it was DOOMed - DOOM came out in late 93. From 89 through 93 was a golden age of PC game making in that a few guys, or even just one guy who knew light programming and a very small investment could easily make a product that could make a lot of money. I recall once staying awake for 56 hours working on just one module that was giving us trouble - and yet we never saw enough return on that game to even cover our costs. During the Christmas of 93 I recall seeing at Walmart a pack of 5 CDs for $5 that contained on them hundreds of games much like ours, and I knew then that our ship was likely sunk. As luck would have it, DOOM swept the nation in early 94 just when we were trying to move our game by shareware. Back in 94 shareware moved mainly by PC users who traded disks with one another, though we did have two download sites on bulletin boards. DOOM overtook even a large part of the RPG market - and caused a slow down or slump in other game markets as I recall. To ship our full version of Shurupak (Shurrupak) we had to charge a minimum of $17. But by that time the market no longer supported that kind of price for 2d games. Back in 94 only about 17 to 22% of the American households even had a PC. It was a different world back then. Everyone who was really with it in the PC world back then (except those poor souls who couldn't afford to upgrade to a 486 PC) were playing DOOM. The only recent modern game that has come near to matching that level of total market participation has been the game Halo 2, and then not on the PC market. Today PC games are a dying breed. But the game market for PCs became quite rough for game makers since about 95 - from 95 through about 2000 I know that there was an average of 3300 games made per year, of which only about a handful ever made it to store shelves. Since the advent of the Xbox and Playstation2 I know this has all changed again.

In any event we used Microshoft PDS7 and QuickC 2.0, both made for a DOS 3.3 environment; which in today's world is like saying you know how to write in Egyptian Hieroglyphics. I first got into computers back in the late 80s when I took a course in taking care of IBM mainframes (on a 3270 terminal with a keyboard that likely weighed more than a modern PC does now!). The monitors we used were lovingly called the 'PHOTON TOREPDOES' because of the damage they did to one's eyes because of their intense bright green light. We used a floppy disk that was about 10 inches wide. The mini-computers we worked on, the System 36, had 1 meg of memory! We thought it was HOT! JCL and RPG were the two languages I first learned.

By 1990 I donated my old Epson and Apple 2C to our local grade school, and bought my first secondhand 286, with two floppy drives and no HD. When I first began programming Shurupak I used a 386 with 4 megs of memory and a 52 meg HD, and other guys would always ask me why I had so much memory and HD space - "...was I planning on being an engineer or something??"

I didn't continue bothering with game programming at all after 94, just a series of boring jobs, like contract programming for an outfit in LA that only dealt with small business.

The advent of the internet created another gold rush period - and I recall days when one could easily make $350 for 20 minutes of work in writing a small web 'PAGE' in HTML. Even my stupid cousin from Oklahoma made $500 for such work as late as 1998 by selling his services to small business owners in areas where the poulation was still in the dark about the internet and PCs. But I don't see too many more gold rush periods ahead in the computer world these days. Oh, if you live in China or India I suppose you might see this period as a gold rush. But certainly Westerners must see this period as one of decline from a pay standpoint. This is likely why Seaboy is often very down on the world I suppose. I grew tired of learning all kinds of platforms only to have them become totally obsolete just as I was starting to really get the hang of them. I also became very negative I suppose about the way Microsoft destroyed so many up and coming software companies that COULD have actually made programming in the late 90s something truly wonderful. In 1991 we were all looking forward to the day when major programming projects would be done with almost no code typing at all (I am speaking about a level far beyond what is offered today). There were several smaller companies working on just that problem in 91. Microsoft came out with VB1 and derailed that idea. VB2 was an improvement, BUT VB3 was actually a step backwards. But by that time the smaller companies who had tried to work on that problem were already history. VB4-5 sucked. Products like Visual C++ 6 for example, never attempted to attain true codeless programming. VB6 improved only enough to take on the internet. Microsoft has never been interested in making public platforms that would put themselves out of business. Today codeless programming has been attained for the West with CHINA LABOR 1.0 and INDIA LABOR 1.1 and yes, Rumanian Labor 1.0!

You see Seaboy is going deeper into remorse the more he thinks about the old days. :damn: :damn: :damn:

[AK-101]

awesome photos, never seen any ww1 colour pics before, nice one

[Seaboy]

Deamon - that guest post was Seaboy - not sure why my name is not showing. I tried to access some of the pics from the old 93 game I mentioned, but Anglefire is not working as far as that goes for the moment - I can't even get into my album. But much of that 93 story was mutated and transposed into several DOOM wads in late 94 and early 95. Those are here at the old relic remains of a now defunk UFO site I used to run:
http://www.angelfire.com/co4/kivatraveler/page13.html

Anglefire is nothing but trouble these days - I need to find a new location.

ALSO, I sent you the reply and address. I likely will not be around here for a while since I have a good deal of work coming up in the next weeks. But I'll check back in here by August.

[Deamon]

Deamon, you'll always have interest in your project. ;)

What do you mean ?

Anyway, when i'm finisehd with you Floater, you will be a german u-boat sailor and the only thing you will like about warships is to torpedoing them :-j :lol:

Deamon

[Floater]

Deamon, you'll always have interest in your project. ;)

What do you mean ?

Anyway, when i'm finisehd with you Floater, you will be a german u-boat sailor and the only thing you will like about warships is to torpedoing them :-j :lol:

Deamon
I simply meant that there will always be interest in WWI U-boat sims.

And as for what I like about warships, you're exactly right - I love to see them explode! (I'm mostly playing SH3 at the moment).

[Deamon]

This is one hell of a story. Thanks for the very interesting insights Seaboy. It's always good to hear some experiance from others.

I recall once staying awake for 56 hours working on just one module that was giving us trouble

That is maybe even higher than my record. Not coding though but playing :lol:

- and yet we never saw enough return on that game to even cover our costs.

That's a pitty. I hope we will not end like this.

During the Christmas of 93 I recall seeing at Walmart a pack of 5 CDs for $5 that contained on them hundreds of games much like ours, and I knew then that our ship was likely sunk.

That's a terrible fate after years of effort was putted in to the project.

As luck would have it, DOOM swept the nation in early 94 just when we were trying to move our game by shareware.

I hope operation flashpoint III will not sweap us away too. Man, as it came out i hardly could play anything else than it.

The only recent modern game that has come near to matching that level of total market participation has been the game Halo 2,

I think Operation Flashpoint was an international megaseller as well. But i heard not so mutch in USA.

Today PC games are a dying breed. But the game market for PCs became quite rough for game makers since about 95 - from 95 through about 2000 I know that there was an average of 3300 games made per year, of which only about a handful ever made it to store shelves. Since the advent of the Xbox and Playstation2 I know this has all changed again.

What do you mean with change again ?

In any event we used Microshoft PDS7 and QuickC 2.0

What's that ? QuickC must be an developement environment for C ?

[quote]I first got into computers back in the late 80s when I took a course in taking care of IBM mainframes (on a 3270 terminal with a keyboard that likely weighed more than a modern PC does now!). The monitors we used were lovingly called the 'PHOTON TOREPDOES' because of the damage they did to one's eyes because of their intense bright green light. We used a floppy disk that was about 10 inches wide. The mini-computers we worked on, the System 36, had 1 meg of memory! We thought it was HOT! JCL and RPG were the two languages I first learned.

LOL that were times.

By 1990 I donated my old Epson and Apple 2C to our local grade school, and bought my first secondhand 286, with two floppy drives and no HD. When I first began programming Shurupak I used a 386 with 4 megs of memory and a 52 meg HD, and other guys would always ask me why I had so much memory and HD space - "...was I planning on being an engineer or something??"

LOL

I didn't continue bothering with game programming at all after 94, just a series of boring jobs, like contract programming for an outfit in LA that only dealt with small business.

Have you ever thought to get involved with it again ? Or was the disapointment to big ?

The advent of the internet created another gold rush period - and I recall days when one could easily make $350 for 20 minutes of work in writing a small web 'PAGE' in HTML. Even my stupid cousin from Oklahoma made $500 for such work as late as 1998 by selling his services to small business owners in areas where the poulation was still in the dark about the internet and PCs.

Oh yeah i recal this times. I tried it later too but i guess i joined the party mutch to late. :lol:

But I don't see too many more gold rush periods ahead in the computer world these days.

You are maybe right. But there will be better possibilities for direct distributing the games via net. That might improve the situation for indies who can't effort shelf space. Actualy i doesn't even aim for shelfspace.

Oh, if you live in China or India I suppose you might see this period as a gold rush. But certainly Westerners must see this period as one of decline from a pay standpoint. This is likely why Seaboy is often very down on the world I suppose.

Yes that must be very demoralizing when years of effort flopps commercialy.

I grew tired of learning all kinds of platforms only to have them become totally obsolete just as I was starting to really get the hang of them.

Oh yes that was always a problem. But leave this thing to the pros and then just use their engines. I will work only within the limits of thous engines and won't make my hands dirty with it and concentrate to the bigest part on the game code.

I also became very negative I suppose about the way Microsoft destroyed so many up and coming software companies that COULD have actually made programming in the late 90s something truly wonderful.

I hate Microsoft anyway.

In 1991 we were all looking forward to the day when major programming projects would be done with almost no code typing at all

How is that supposed to work ?

You see Seaboy is going deeper into remorse the more he thinks about the old days. :damn: :damn: :damn:

I feel sorry for you and i'm glad be still young in the curent era. I hope our effort will be not a waste. It's quite risky what we do. How old are you btw ? I'm just 29.

regards
Deamon

[Deamon]

2019 - no I am not really. All I did with the SH2 was cut and paste from sources on the net, and then only for myself.

You show talent to express the subject and the feeling. It looks like it comes from your heart. This ability i valuate even higher than artistical skills. :up:

The only art I ever did was for rather primitive games made back in the early 90s, when a simple paintshow was the name of the game. I helped program a simple 2d game called 'Shurrupak' back in 92-93 - and though I also did some of the art for that - it was quite primitive by today's standards. As for the DOOM wads I made, those were just maps (there were some 20,000+ maps made by enthusiasts back in 94-95). The only art I did in DOOM was quite simple (256 color gifs) for my 'Shurrupak' take-off wad.

So you have some game developing experiance. Have you made any other games ?

BTW: What do Shurrupak stands for ?

Of course there are some really great u-boat artists on the SH3 forum, which I am sure you already know.

Oh realy ? i never am on the SHIII forum :doh:

regards
Deamon

[Deamon]

Those are here at the old relic remains of a now defunk UFO site I used to run:
http://www.angelfire.com/co4/kivatraveler/page13.html


You run an UFO site ?

You must be very interested in this subject. How comes ? Have you experianced something unusual ?

Deamon

[Seaboy]

"Have you ever thought to get involved with it again ? Or was the disapointment to big ? "

There really was no disappointment at the time. In 93-94 everything was still looking up, the internet opened up and that was a new adventure. But I did learn one thing - I had to quit being a perfectionist. The game failed because it was late. It was late because I convinced the others that it should be the most we could build (for the time). They just wanted a flat 2d game, but I wanted it to be a 3d emulator (not real 3d). Also I went wild when it came to designing a security system - and my first wish had been to make the whole game shareware with a software key that would unlock the whole game to paying customers. But by the time the game reached 12 megs in size that idea went out the door - still we had wasted a great deal of time.

So my one suggestion to you guys is don't bite off more than you can chew. Keep it real. Find a way to get something out of your sim before too much time passes.

QuickC? Actually the version was 2.5, it was just a light C platform that was very easy to work with that Microsoft quit supporting back around 92 0r 93. The reason we used it and the PDS (Professional Development System 7.0) was because both had super friendly editor support. As I recall the hot ticket back in 92 was Borland C++ 2.0. I still have a copy of that around here somewhere. But the trouble with that Borland (besides crappy written documantation) was that the editor was just like all the others - you code and then you compile and then you find your errors. So one either does alot of compliling, or a lot of debugging. The platforms we used caught many of our errors right up front as we typed. That meant less debugging. And before the world wide web days, using snail mail, or sending files over 1400 bps (not Kbps) modems, with one guy in another state, it was important to keep debugging to a minimum.

But as for your sim, I can't see how the market will sink your U-1. I don't think there are too many game companies out there ready to flood the market with real to life WWI sub sims.

I also get the feeling that you are not making this sim for money, it seems more like a labor of personal interest and love. That being the case, I don't see the market getting in your way at all.

If you just wanted to make money, I'd suggest making a line of US Civil War Ironclads. Easy to build, simple designs, and in the USA Civil War things like that would sell like hotcakes. You could even throw in the Confederate submarine the Hunley. Again extremely simple (its forward balast tank was open to the crew area - likely why it sunk). I know the Monitor and Virginia pounded on one another to no effect, but that was only because the Monitor had stupidly only brought along canon balls rather than shaped shells that were available. Many more were built in that war on both sides and their main job was shelling forts.

But you see, there I go - suggesting MISSION CREEP to you. That's how good projects get delayed and sunk, always adding in too much and another new list of objectives.

[Razman23]

Yes, i'm just woundering whitch option there realy was to that. The tanks were surly missing. The only thing i can see here is to not sacrifice countless man for a target that is maybe not worth it and especialy when options like tanks are about to be introduced more or less soon. In this case i would maybe rather be defensive till they aren't available.

At the beginning of the war, the front was very fluid. The allies would take land and then the Axis would take it back and then some. This went on for a couple of years until nobody could move no more because the land was so battered by shelling and each side was more or less equal in manpower and weaponery. So nothing left to do but dig trenches. Of course, the generals (majority in their seventys and eightys) could not grasp the concept of the 'new' trench war so they sent their men over the top. Basically shell the other side for about four to five hours and then send the 'boys' over to grab as much land as possible. Of course, the other side just hide in the bunkers and waited. The shelling stopped, they came out and man their machine guns and chew down the luckless souls in 'no mans land'. The axis tried to break the stalemate with new products of death, the infamous mustard gas for one. The allies came up with the tank just to break the stalemate but they didnt use it like it should have been. They were piecemealed out to the front. The ones that didnt break down on the roads became easy targets after the fear of them was overcome. The axis actually captured allied tanks and used them against their previous owners...........with no better results. The tank didnt really become into its own until they used it in mass with infantry support. A procedure that was very well proven in 1939-1940.

Slowly and steadily. You won't notice the development proccesss cose it's all closed now.

But you have interest in it right ?

Deamon

I have seen your work and I think it looks real good. Im sure if you release it, there will be allot of SHIII captains that wouldnt mind having a copy. :up:

[Deamon]

"Have you ever thought to get involved with it again ? Or was the disapointment to big ?"

There really was no disappointment at the time.

And after that time ?

In 93-94 everything was still looking up, the internet opened up and that was a new adventure. But I did learn one thing - I had to quit being a perfectionist. The game failed because it was late. It was late because I convinced the others that it should be the most we could build (for the time). They just wanted a flat 2d game, but I wanted it to be a 3d emulator (not real 3d). Also I went wild when it came to designing a security system - and my first wish had been to make the whole game shareware with a software key that would unlock the whole game to paying customers. But by the time the game reached 12 megs in size that idea went out the door - still we had wasted a great deal of time.

So my one suggestion to you guys is don't bite off more than you can chew. Keep it real. Find a way to get something out of your sim before too much time passes.

This is exactly the way i planed it to do. Sutch a project is to big for a few guys, so i come up with a special solution, that i told you about in the mail of how the bulk of the development can be reduced and still make a very nice unique sim.

I think the first thing an indi should do is to make a small nice game, some sort of commercial prototype, throw it on the market for a low fee and see how it's doing. On the feedback and revenue he can see what he can expect for the next release, he gain an idea of the market, what is i think very very important before you put in years and years of your life in to it and have to finde out at the end that the revenue can't cover the costs or maybe an other similar product appeared on the market and sweapt you away.(Mike do yu hear me :arrgh!: :lol: ;) )

During the development of the next release he already has a small circle of loyal customers and till he reached the next release his sim maybe already gained more popularity, maybe helped to cover some costs and people do waiting for the next release and grab it right as it's being released.

I realized very quickly that this is the way to go and adjusted my plans to something realistical. Still its alot to do.

But i aim to a broader audiance. As i gaved you a hint in the mails this project deals with the subject in a level of ditail never brought to the public in a game. This project is not only for gamers but also aims towards militaria fans/collectors for example who likes to deal with a subject in an extraordinary level of ditail. And militaria means often past eras like WWI.

And WWI u-boats is, i think, a special subject anyway, couse not so many deal with them in detail. It's somewhat covered in mystery. To having a virtual project that deals with it in great ditail should many militaria friends finde superb. At least i see a growing interest in it everywhere.

I also learned that some people become very addicted to the subject once they realy finde something out about it. Here the comprehensive ammount of informations the sim will propable deliver, will maybe help to addict more people to it.

And before the world wide web days, using snail mail, or sending files over 1400 bps (not Kbps) modems, with one guy in another state, it was important to keep debugging to a minimum.

Man that were times. I haven't experianced them, i was a small boy at that time and lived in a world where you never heared about something like a computer :)

But as for your sim, I can't see how the market will sink your U-1. I don't think there are too many game companies out there ready to flood the market with real to life WWI sub sims.

Nore were there every a company that have ever tried to make one. Yes that's the point. That gives me a curtain savety. But i feel that won't stay that way for to long. Anyway i see a great opportunity in it.

I also get the feeling that you are not making this sim for money, it seems more like a labor of personal interest and love. That being the case, I don't see the market getting in your way at all.

Yes that's right. Although we all desire commercial success i think i will never be able to make a game for merely the money. Yes it's a labore of love in the first place.

If you just wanted to make money, I'd suggest making a line of US Civil War Ironclads. Easy to build, simple designs, and in the USA Civil War things like that would sell like hotcakes. You could even throw in the Confederate submarine the Hunley. Again extremely simple (its forward balast tank was open to the crew area - likely why it sunk). I know the Monitor and Virginia pounded on one another to no effect, but that was only because the Monitor had stupidly only brought along canon balls rather than shaped shells that were available. Many more were built in that war on both sides and their main job was shelling forts.

Thanks for the hint that's a good idea. Isn't it maybe something you could try to do as well ?

But you see, there I go - suggesting MISSION CREEP to you. That's how good projects get delayed and sunk, always adding in too much and another new list of objectives.

I do it vice versa over tha last two years. Always looking for what i can leave out, or greatly simplifie, what is not most important. If your resource are very limitted than you become able to come up with clever solutions. I'm defining several versions of the sim: one with a dead minimum of features and than the next higher beafed up version and so forth. So i defined several levels of importance for eatch feature. Than we will try to reatch the first version and if still some time is left we can try to implement more features of the next higher version and so forth. I always try to keep the situational awareness of what is going on and where we currently are and how mutch is still left to do. It's always a great help to keep the control.

regards
Deamon

[Deamon]

At the beginning of the war, the front was very fluid. The allies would take land and then the Axis would take it back and then some. This went on for a couple of years until nobody could move no more because the land was so battered by shelling and each side was more or less equal in manpower and weaponery. So nothing left to do but dig trenches. Of course, the generals (majority in their seventys and eightys) could not grasp the concept of the 'new' trench war so they sent their men over the top. Basically shell the other side for about four to five hours and then send the 'boys' over to grab as much land as possible. Of course, the other side just hide in the bunkers and waited. The shelling stopped, they came out and man their machine guns and chew down the luckless souls in 'no mans land'. The axis tried to break the stalemate with new products of death, the infamous mustard gas for one. The allies came up with the tank just to break the stalemate but they didnt use it like it should have been. They were piecemealed out to the front. The ones that didnt break down on the roads became easy targets after the fear of them was overcome. The axis actually captured allied tanks and used them against their previous owners...........with no better results. The tank didnt really become into its own until they used it in mass with infantry support. A procedure that was very well proven in 1939-1940.

Very interesting, i haven't dealt with land war so fare in depth. I'm still a seaman in this era. :)

But on the first look i would agree with you. The generals appeared to me to old too. I always doubt whether a general in that age is still able to think flexible. Remainde me on the overaged leadership of the former soviet union. A bunch of old pirate buddys occupieing the country :arrghh!:


I have seen your work and I think it looks real good. Im sure if you release it, there will be allot of SHIII captains that wouldnt mind having a copy. :up:

Thanks for your encouragements :)

Tell me have any you moding or dev experiance ?

regards
Deamon

[Deamon]

Seaboy, you told me that you are an Ironclad fan, i'm woundering what are you more into, Ironclads or U-Boats ?

OLD GENERALS. That was indeed one of the main problems with WWI and many of the earlier wars. One of the main troubles with all military forces when they fight wars, is the tendancy to attempt to refight that last war in the present war. In the case of WWI all the forces (both sides) went into battle thinking that they were about to refight the Franco-Prussian War of the early 1870s. Of course weaponry had greatly advanced since the 1871, but many of the generals, who had taken part in the Franco-Prussian War, were fixated on re-playing that old war. In wars with decisive outcomes its usually just one side that tries to fight the last war, while the other side trys to fight a new war. An example of this would be the German panzer tactics and Blitzkrieg method used against France and Britain in 1940. In that fight the Brits and French actually were attempting to fight WWI all over again - while the Germans were trying to fight WWII. Hence the quick decisive outcome.

The American Civil War began slowly because both sides were trying to refight the US-Mexican War of 1846-48 all over again. Actually most older wars tended to always attempt this bad habit. The reason they did this was because in the old days governments did not maintain scientific-military establishments. Instead they merely relied on old war-horses (hero generals) who had won the last war. These old generals usually aged to near the point of senility - and even though younger men - in their 40s and 50s would take over as the new war began - they were all schooled in an establishment controlled by aged generals. Case in point: Winfield Scott - fought in the War of 1812, the Blackhawk War, the Seminole Wars, the Mexican-American War, and the War for Southern Independence (American Civil War). You see my point.

History is filled with outstanding generals - but nearly all of them are young men who somehow evade the controlling hand of the older military bureaucracy of their age. It was not an accident that the conquests of Alexander the Great were made by such a young man. Few people today realize that it was Alexander's move to add mounted archers to his army that gave him the edge he needed. His old Greek generals were always complaining about the Asian innovations that Alexander was adopting - not only in dress, but in many other areas as well. Mounted Archery was an Asian tactic. Because he was very young, and a king, he could push aside the old habits of these old Greek generals.

Napoleon Bonaparte was quite young when he came to absolute power and he not only reformed the military along new lines, but the whole government too.

Adolf Hitler - though not a great general - being himself an outsider to the old Prussian General class, was able to break apart that old bureaucracy and allow the revolutionary ideas of the new panzer generals to take precedence. But in no way would I compare Hitler himself to other great leaders or generals. Napoleon Bonaparte would never have halted his land forces outside of Dunkirk on the hope that dive bombers could destroy the British Army.

Sometimes new ideas in warfare can become the orthodox mind-dulling menace. In this case a new idea that worked out well at the beginning of a war, can become the obsolete method near the end of the war. In this case generals may be caught trying to refight the beginning of the war near the end of the war. Bad mistake. Case in point: German Russian front 1940s. Panzer forces were great at Blitzkrieg attacks, but they were not very effective at holding and defending static fronts. Once the Allies and Russians had adopted the Blitzkrieg tactic themselves, it was time ofr Germany to come up with something NEW. Or even something OLD. Sometimes something old - but revamped - can be something new. Case in point: Russia's WWI tactic at Kursk, but modified to include defense in depth. Actually there was one old WWI German general who tried this Kursk tactic south east of Berlin - I forget the exact when, and the name of the guy - it would take a while to look it up. But he tried it and it stopped the Soviet Shock armies in their tracks. So sometimes something old but updated can be something new and effective.

Wars require great flexibility of thought, but military bureaucracies tend to be the LEAST flexible of all bureaucracies. Mainly because on the whole - during peace time - the brightest minds of civilization avoid the military and the duller mind tend to gravitate to it. I am speaking of a percentage basis. Yes, bright minds enter the military - but at a lower rate than say the field of science. Likewise those who enter the military tend to be men who yearn for yesteryear, tradition, and so forth. Avant-Guard type thinkers tend to gravitate toward science, arts, and so forth. The result is something like Winfield Scott - a leader who fought in 1812 and still leads in 1861.

Another tendancy of old war-horse leadership is to keep trying the same tactic over and over but with increasing resources committed to the endevor. For example, there are two ways to increase the speed of an old steam ship - (1) design a more effective engine or hull, or (2) pour on more coal into the old steam engine. The method of the old-war-horse mindset is to just keep throwing in more coal into the boilers of the old steam engine. IF the first attack was mowed down by machineguns, well make the next attack larger. If 2000 rounds of artillery didn't break the trench lines the first time, then try 12,000 rounds next time. If 250,000 troops didn't break the North Vietnamese forces, then bring in 500,000 troops.

Sometimes this old war-horse Blugon-method works if the leadership has near unlimited resources - the old Celtic/Saxon method of slug it out face to face - like two Rams on a mountain side. The Russian attacks against Germany usually took this line. If 5 t-34s can't do it - then send in 20. If they don't make it, then send in 100. Stalin didn't have to worry about public opinion and he had a vast human pool to call upon.

[Deamon]

OLD GENERALS. That was indeed one of the main problems with WWI and many of the earlier wars. One of the main troubles with all military forces when they fight wars, is the tendancy to attempt to refight that last war in the present war. In the case of WWI all the forces (both sides) went into battle thinking that they were about to refight the Franco-Prussian War of the early 1870s. Of course weaponry had greatly advanced since the 1871, but many of the generals, who had taken part in the Franco-Prussian War, were fixated on re-playing that old war. In wars with decisive outcomes its usually just one side that tries to fight the last war, while the other side trys to fight a new war. An example of this would be the German panzer tactics and Blitzkrieg method used against France and Britain in 1940. In that fight the Brits and French actually were attempting to fight WWI all over again - while the Germans were trying to fight WWII. Hence the quick decisive outcome.

Yes i AFAIK as fire arms were introduced the armies still meet on the open field and stood in rows and fired like they would still fight with spears and swords.

AFAIK it were the russians who first start to use firearms out of an covered ambush.

Yes you are right with the refight thing. The old guys were caught in their inflexible traditional thinking. It were the younger leaders somewhere in the middle of the chain of command that realized the potential of new weapons but couldn't get the attention of the old farts in charge of the high command who tend to ignore them. The same was in the german navy prior to WWI. Kpt.Lt. Hans Rose who clearly has forseen the potential of the u-boats but well whitch general listen to an u-boat skipper ? And a whole war was lost.

The American Civil War began slowly because both sides were trying to refight the US-Mexican War of 1846-48 all over again. Actually most older wars tended to always attempt this bad habit. The reason they did this was because in the old days governments did not maintain scientific-military establishments. Instead they merely relied on old war-horses (hero generals) who had won the last war. These old generals usually aged to near the point of senility - and even though younger men - in their 40s and 50s would take over as the new war began - they were all schooled in an establishment controlled by aged generals. Case in point: Winfield Scott - fought in the War of 1812, the Blackhawk War, the Seminole Wars, the Mexican-American War, and the War for Southern Independence (American Civil War). You see my point.

Oh yes i see it. That all remindes me on the old russian generals that were alewas shown on the russian TV back than whos chest was almost completely covered with medals where i woundered what did they get it for and who apparently were slow in their speeches and apparetly slow in their thinking, thous old WWII weterans. Even back than where i was small i had my doubts in their leadership capeabliities.

Adolf Hitler - though not a great general - being himself an outsider to the old Prussian General class, was able to break apart that old bureaucracy and allow the revolutionary ideas of the new panzer generals to take precedence.

Yes and at the end he seemed to have acted like an overaged general. He had his qualities for sure but he don't seemed to have trusted to his generals that mutch and tried to micromanaged everything and finaly screwed up everything.

But in no way would I compare Hitler himself to other great leaders or generals. Napoleon Bonaparte would never have halted his land forces outside of Dunkirk on the hope that dive bombers could destroy the British Army.

I heared different theories about why he has let the british army escape, one was that he has feared that when he would catch the british army that than england could fall in to the hand of russia. But finaly i don't know. I don't know, Hitler was a clever fox on one hand but on the oher hand he was screwed somewhere and couldn't adjust himself to the reality but thought hi can maybe adjust the reality to him. Outch, no wishful thinking will evre survive a colission with the reality.

Sometimes new ideas in warfare can become the orthodox mind-dulling menace.

Oh yeah, like the russian doctrine. After WWII the russian leadership raised the WWI tactics to the status quo and it wasn't allowed to deviate from them. Russian military advisors helped Saddam to build up his defence system prior the first allied campaign in Iraq. And an russian general saide shortly before leaving iraq that that will be the grave of the US troops. Well, the colition roled over Husseins defence lines that was quite a wake up call for the russian leadership lol

Hussein leader the war according to the WWII doctrine imported from russia. Well we saw the result.

In this case a new idea that worked out well at the beginning of a war, can become the obsolete method near the end of the war. In this case generals may be caught trying to refight the beginning of the war near the end of the war. Bad mistake. Case in point: German Russian front 1940s. Panzer forces were great at Blitzkrieg attacks, but they were not very effective at holding and defending static fronts.

I thnk holding the position was Hitlers favoured tactic. Hitlers problem was once he had something he didn'T wanted to let it go even if it would have been better to do it. Of course his generals pointed this out but Hitler didn't wanted to admit any lose. Even the army caught in Stalingrad could have been saved but Hitler ordered them to hold the position. :damn:

Once the Allies and Russians had adopted the Blitzkrieg tactic themselves, it was time ofr Germany to come up with something NEW. Or even something OLD. Sometimes something old - but revamped - can be something new. Case in point: Russia's WWI tactic at Kursk, but modified to include defense in depth. Actually there was one old WWI German general who tried this Kursk tactic south east of Berlin - I forget the exact when, and the name of the guy - it would take a while to look it up. But he tried it and it stopped the Soviet Shock armies in their tracks. So sometimes something old but updated can be something new and effective.

Oh yes, a good tactic of Stalin was to let the germans break deep in to their territory and then cut their resupply lines from partisan groups leaded by special forces. Sutch long rail routes couldn't have been guarded effectively, so they blew them up all the time.

Wars require great flexibility of thought, but military bureaucracies tend to be the LEAST flexible of all bureaucracies. Mainly because on the whole - during peace time - the brightest minds of civilization avoid the military and the duller mind tend to gravitate to it. I am speaking of a percentage basis. Yes, bright minds enter the military - but at a lower rate than say the field of science. Likewise those who enter the military tend to be men who yearn for yesteryear, tradition, and so forth. Avant-Guard type thinkers tend to gravitate toward science, arts, and so forth. The result is something like Winfield Scott - a leader who fought in 1812 and still leads in 1861.

Yes i would agree with you.

Deamon

[Deamon]

Another tendancy of old war-horse leadership is to keep trying the same tactic over and over but with increasing resources committed to the endevor. For example, there are two ways to increase the speed of an old steam ship - (1) design a more effective engine or hull, or (2) pour on more coal into the old steam engine. The method of the old-war-horse mindset is to just keep throwing in more coal into the boilers of the old steam engine. IF the first attack was mowed down by machineguns, well make the next attack larger. If 2000 rounds of artillery didn't break the trench lines the first time, then try 12,000 rounds next time. If 250,000 troops didn't break the North Vietnamese forces, then bring in 500,000 troops.

Yes, called attrition war. Attrition "tactic", when you are out of ideas.

Sometimes this old war-horse Blugon-method works if the leadership has near unlimited resources - the old Celtic/Saxon method of slug it out face to face - like two Rams on a mountain side. The Russian attacks against Germany usually took this line. If 5 t-34s can't do it - then send in 20. If they don't make it, then send in 100. Stalin didn't have to worry about public opinion and he had a vast human pool to call upon.

Oh yeas i pointed this out in other discussions already. Stalins favoured tactics were subversive and partisan war on one hand and drawn the germans in russian blood. If the germans has 500.000 rounds left than send in 750.000 russkys. Pretty simple huh ?

Russia has sutch a deep territory that the germans could never maintain sutch long resuply routes to even role from west to east.

And Hitler hasn't listened to his generals anyway.

Deamon

[Oesten]

I disagree with the comments about WWI generals. These guys had to cope with the most radical and rapid technological change in warfare in all history.

Within a few short years, WWI brought the following new technologies into battle: the dreadnaught battleship, the aeroplane, the submarine, the aircraft carrier, the mine, quick-firing artillery with bombardments on a scale never before imagined, AA guns, poison gas, the tank, and wireless (radio) communications.

The generals and admirals of the age, brought up in the Victorian era in which army officers still learned Napoleonic tactics and naval officers studies Nelson's victories, did amazingly well to integrate all this new technology into their campaigns. If the generals and admirals had been as stuck and rigid in their thinking as is popularly believed, there would have been no tanks, no submarines and no aircraft carriers as those projects would have been shelved as soon as they were proposed.


Nearly all technology in WWII was merely developments of WWI-era inventions. (obviously excluding radar and the atomic bomb.)

[Deamon]

I disagree with the comments about WWI generals. These guys had to cope with the most radical and rapid technological change in warfare in all history.

What do you think is the point we talked about ?

And are you realy disagree or do you just want to correct our comments a bit ?

Deamon