SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   Lets play world war II mix and match! (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=180909)

Snestorm 03-03-11 05:13 AM

Infantry = Germany
Armor = Russia
Air = USA
Navy = USA
Logistics = USA
Artillery = USA
Command = Germany

Oberon 03-03-11 07:28 AM

Country: The Empire of Wotsitstan
Infantry = Germany
Armor = Germany
Air = Britain
Navy = Britain
Logistics = USA
Artillery = Russian
Command = Germany

Raptor1 03-03-11 07:33 AM

Erm, let's see.

Country: Hanseatic League of Northern Bigfootia

Infantry - German 43/44 (Panzergrenadiers?)
Armour - Soviet 44/45
Air - US 44/45 (If I could break it down I'll probably say Strategic Air - US 44/45 and Tactical Air - Soviet 44/45, though in the latter category I'm not absolutely decided as to who had it better)
Navy - US 44/45
Logistics - US 44/45
Artillery - Soviet 44/45
Command - Prussia 1866...Well, okay, Soviet 44/45 (You're all really taking the German Command? Are you forgetting how messed up it was?)

And if you'll allow me to add:

Tactical Command and Training - Germany 42/43
Operational Doctrine - Soviet 44/45

HunterICX 03-03-11 07:49 AM

Nation: Zod
National Anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKofKCziiG4

Infantry: German Motorized Infantry
Armour: German Panzers, Assault Guns and Tank Destroyers
Artillery: Soviet 1944/45
Air: RAF
Navy: RN
Logistics: US 1944/45
Command: General Patton

HunterICX

Feuer Frei! 03-03-11 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor1 (Post 1611086)
(You're all really taking the German Command? Are you forgetting how messed up it was?)

It was only messed up because Hitler decided to appoint himself Commander-in-Chief of the German Army.
Back in 1941, which kind of made sense since that is when Germany started to slide downhill.
It is a well-known fact that had Hitler not intervened so much on the ground and let his Generals and Commanders dictate the battles more directly, then Germany could have, and imo would have done much much better.
Prime example: the drive on Moscow.
Germany had excellent Military Commanders, Rommel, Heinz Guderian, and Erich von Manstein come to mind.

Takeda Shingen 03-03-11 07:59 AM

Nation: Takistan

Infantry-British (totally underrated in my view)
Armor-German
Air Force-USA
Navy-USA
Artillery-USSR
Command Model-German
Logistics-USA

Raptor1 03-03-11 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei! (Post 1611094)
It was only messed up because Hitler decided to appoint himself Commander-in-Chief of the German Army.
Back in 1941, which kind of made sense since that is when Germany started to slide downhill.
It is a well-known fact that had Hitler not intervened so much on the ground and let his Generals and Commanders dictate the battles more directly, then Germany could have, and imo would have done much much better.
Prime example: the drive on Moscow.
Germany had excellent Military Commanders, Rommel, Heinz Guderian, and Erich von Manstein come to mind.

Oh, I'm not disputing that Germany had some very good commanders at the time. But besides Hitler personally directing operations, the German High Command was terribly ineffective. The OKW taking direct control of land campaigns, and as a consequence the rivalry between the different High Command in the Eastern and Western Fronts, is a good example of this.

Granted, Hitler is largely responsible for all this, but unless this is about the highly theoretical German Command structure as it was supposed to work, you can't take the German Command and ignore its vast problems.

Feuer Frei! 03-03-11 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor1 (Post 1611101)
rivalry between the different High Command in the Eastern and Western Fronts, is a good example of this.

Indeed, this was also a big issue for us, the rivalry, spurned on by Hitler.
Everyone wanted to prove to him that they were the best. Everyone wanted to outdo each other to be his 'favourite'.
Everyone wanted to avoid failure. For fear of failure was big.
Ultimately because of this, decisions were made hastily, often not being consulted at the low levels of command, on the ground in most cases with the ground commanders.
But i get your point. :salute:

August 03-03-11 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei! (Post 1611108)
Indeed, this was also a big issue for us, the rivalry, spurned on by Hitler.
Everyone wanted to prove to him that they were the best. Everyone wanted to outdo each other to be his 'favourite'.
Everyone wanted to avoid failure. For fear of failure was big.
Ultimately because of this, decisions were made hastily, often not being consulted at the low levels of command, on the ground in most cases with the ground commanders.
But i get your point. :salute:

Command rivalries aren't unique to the Germans. There was quite a bit between Montgomery and Patton as well as MacArthur and Nimitz.

Oberon 03-03-11 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1611110)
There was quite a bit between Montgomery and Patton

That's an understatement :haha:

TLAM Strike 03-03-11 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon (Post 1611084)
Country: The Empire of Wotsitstan
Infantry = Germany
Armor = Germany
Air = Britain
Navy = Britain
Logistics = USA
Artillery = Russian
Command = Germany

We think alike Oberon. ;)

:yeah:

August 03-03-11 09:41 AM

You guys would actually take the British navy over the US Navy? I would think our fleet carriers alone would make the US the obvious choice in that area.

Takeda Shingen 03-03-11 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1611167)
I would think our fleet carriers alone would make the US the obvious choice in that area.

That's exactly why I picked them. The USN of WWII was very much the navy of the future. What I don't understand is the choice for the German navy. Sure, lots of submarines, but weak in the use of surface combatants and entirely lacking in air power. The Kriegsmarine was primarily an anti-shipping force; not at all well suited to major naval engagements.

TLAM Strike 03-03-11 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1611167)
You guys would actually take the British navy over the US Navy? I would think our fleet carriers alone would make the US the obvious choice in that area.

The difference was not that great. Brit carriers didn't carry aircraft on deck until the end of the war, at that time they could carry about 75-80% of what a US fleet carrier could carry.

Plus the Spit/SeaSpit could whoop the Zeros @$$.

The Firefly was also a great multipurpose carrier fighter. A/A, A/G, Recon, ASW.

Diopos 03-03-11 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen (Post 1611176)
...
What I don't understand is the choice for the German navy. Sure, lots of submarines, but weak in the use of surface combatants and entirely lacking in air power. The Kriegsmarine was primarily an anti-shipping force; not at all well suited to major naval engagements.

Think how many tanks you can build with the resources needed to build a battleship and you will have your answer. The German armed forces of the era were designed to conquer land via land ...:yep:


.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.