tips hat
There’s no doubt that Krieghund must be considered the authoritative source in this matter. Thanks for the information, and you’re also quite correct in distinguishing between versions and editions. I didn’t even know that multiple editions of the Milton Bradley version existed.
1st edition: Nova Games, 1981
2nd edition: Milton Bradley, 1986
3rd edition: Revised, 2004
4th edition: Anniversary, 2008
5th edition: Spring 1942, 2009
I’ve played editions 2, 3, and 5, and I think they got better every time. Major improvements in Spring 1942 as compared to Revised are, imho:
a) No more using transports as cannon fodder
b) No tech
Too bad that they didn’t do a better job on the map (but Imperious Leader has helped us out there) and some of the other paper/cardboard components. It wouldn’t have bothered me spending some more money on a better edition component-wise.
You may well be correct there. My statement was merely a response to a few earlier posts describing the French military strength at the end of the war as virtually nonexistent.
If, for some reason, we want to determine whether Canada of France was militarily stronger at the end of the war, we would have to decide when and how that strength would be assessed. When, as in: the end of the war in Europe, or in the Pacific. How, as in: a direct comparison in an entirely hypothetical Canadian-French war, or as in: a comparison of a likely contribution to the success of a military alliance in which both countries played their part, for example, if the war would have been continued against the Russians.
But I really don’t think it’s all that interesting in a world where the USA and the USSR called the shots anyway.
The point is the original claim that The Germans considered Patton the ‘best’ Allied General.
That “original claim” is too vague anyway. We would have to define who “the Germans” were, and how “best” should be interpreted. If we consider that “the Germans” would, in this context, probably refer to “a representative cross-section of senior German military commanders during World War II” (a formula which introduces new definition problems in itself, but I guess it will have to do), then I very much doubt that they have ever been systematically polled on ranking the qualities of their Allied opponents, from “best” to “worst”.
I gave a quote where this is contradicted and no quote confirming the ‘Patton is best’ claim can be found.
Hardly. It’s a quote of Rundstedt stating that Montgomery and Patton were the best. So that’s no more than one of “the Germans”, albeit a very distinguished one. It would have contradicted the original statement if Rundstedt had ranked Montgomery, or anybody else, over Patton, but he didn’t. And even if he had, any claim one way or the other about the opinion of “the Germans” would need to involve more than one of them.
Furthermore, this is no doubt not the only thought or opinion Rundstedt ever had on Montgomery, Patton, or other Allied military leaders. So if we do hold Rundstedt’s opinion for representative, and we want to decide whether in the end, he considered either Montgomery or Patton the better general, we need to look into what else he said about these men. And those sources are not easily found. I quoted Ryan’s book, who bases his statement on Blumentritt, and concludes that Rundstedt considered Patton more dangerous.
Again, we need Blumentritt’s book to better understand Rundstedt’s assessment.
I have yet to see any quote showing a named General showing the claimed German ‘fear’ of Patton.
I agree with you there. I don’t believe that “fear of Patton” was a major psychological concern with the German populace or military leadership during World War II.
Anyway, the whole topic mainly provoked my interest once actual quotes and sources were presented. Like you, I’m not much in favor of arbitrary claims.
I have nothing against Montgomery. I also have no personal opinion on whether Montgomery or Patton was the greater general, or how good they were at all. To form such an opinion would require quite a bit of additional reading and analysis on my part, which is something I don’t intend to spend my time on.
Thank you for the quote. Like I said, I don’t have Liddell Hart’s book at hand, and based my statement on a report in Der Spiegel which mentions “The German generals”, quite possibly referring to both Rundstedt and Blumentritt, and maybe others.
But I don’t think that the quote from Ryan’s book can be written off as “legend”. Ryan refers to Blumentritt as well. I also don’t necessarily see a contradiction between these two statements, and I’m not sure whether in Rundstedt’s view, “more dangerous”, also meant “better overall” - that’s a suggestion created by Ryan’s wording.
We also need to consider that translation and re-quoting may have disrupted certain subtleties in the wording that we can’t reconstruct right now. Liddell Hart needed an interpreter to speak with the German generals at all.
I would consider Blumentritt’s book “Von Rundstedt, the Soldier and the Man” the authoritative source on this matter, but I don’t have the text of that book either.
It’s difficult to get a hold of original sources, and I don’t have a copy of Liddell Hart’s book. However, the freely accessible archives of the German magazine Der Spiegel provide some good clues about Lidell Hart interviewing captive German generals:
Für die Fähigkeiten und Leistungen der Alliierten fanden die deutschen Generale Worte der Anerkennung. Montgomery und Patton seien die fähigsten Männer, die ihnen überhaupt begegnet seien.
(from http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-44416969.html)
which translates as:
“The German generals found words of appreciation for the skills and achievements of the Allies. Overall, Montgomery and Patton were the most capable men they encountered.”
It is not specifically mentioned that (von) Rundstedt was among the generals who said that, but it seems likely: Liddell Hart did indeed meet Rundstedt there (see http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-25655614.html for some details - on a side note, in that article another German officer describes Rundstedt as “wise and clever, but very lazy”) and also Rundstedt’s chief staff, Blumentritt, whom he later befriended.
But the possibility exists that the quote was a consensus opinion offered by several German generals, Rundstedt being one of them.
On the other hand, there’s also evidence that Rundstedt indeed considered Patton more dangerous than Montgomery. Cornelius Ryan, in “A Bridge Too Far”, writes:
Throughout his career, Von Rundstedt had closely studied British military tactics; he had also, to his own misfortune, been able to observe American warfare at first hand. He had found the Americans more imaginative and daring in the use of armor, the British superb with infantry. In each case, however, commanders made the difference. Thus, Von Rundstedt considered Patton a far more dangerous opponent than Montgomery. According to Blumentritt, Von Rundstedt viewed Field Marshal Montgomery as “overly cautious, habit-ridden and systematic.”
Ryan also mentions Blumentritt as his source, although it’s not entirely certain whether he actually met Blumentritt or consulted Blumentritt’s biography of Rundstedt.
According to Wikipedia, the Free French Forces numbered 1,300,000 at the end of the war. That number would have been difficult to match for Canada and nearly impossible for Australia, given the size of their respective populations at the time.
@Subotai:
Yes, if they had been sent to the eastern front in 42-43, it would probably be less than 20.000 left of them by the end of the war, same goes if they had been sent to the western front in 44… :-)
Out of 400,000, that would imply a 95% casualty rate, which seems very unlikely even with the German death toll rapidly rising towards the end of the war.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Casualties_by_branch_of_service
No, it’s not. Germany already made his combat move when attacking the Caucasus. The attack on Moscow would be a second combat move carried out after combat itself. That’s not allowed, even when the tanks have not moved before. The only movement left after combat, would be the non-combat move, which does not include attacks.
By May 5th, the remaining German forces were in western Holland and hostilities ceased May 5th when the German forces negotiated a surrender.
Strangely, this is not entirely true. On the island of Texel, fighting continued even beyond the capitulation of Germany itself. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Uprising_of_Texel for some details.
In that case, the amphibious attack could not take place. I would say that the ships involved in the intended amphibious attack would remain in the sea zone without any further combat at that time, and the situation would be resolved on the defender’s next turn.
And of course, when the attacker decides to withdraw during naval combat, the units involved in the amphibious assault should withdraw as well.
I think that Revision 2 makes sense, because the offshore bombardment is basically a part of the land battle (it kills enemy land units after all). I’m against Revision 1 because it addresses an unusual situation, making the rule hard to remember.
I actually played that a week ago! Advanced Civilization with the Western map, five players, but we didn’t use the whole board. Took us 11 hours. But we finished it and had a great time.
The trade card values run like 1 squared, 2 squared, 3 squared, etc, multiplied by the number of the deck, so for grain it’s 4, 16, 36, 64, 100, etc.
Here’s an earlier discussion on Allied strategy that you may find useful: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=15289.0.
The rule as you describe it is from the 1986 edition. The computer game is probably based on that version.
Welcome to the forum! :-)
Here are a few thoughts…… not going into great detail, but a few things for your consideration. And I’m not going to write about general tactics and strategy because, well, others have already done that extensively and better than I could.
R1 - I bought 6 inf 1 tank, attacked Eastern Europe and West Russia, taking only West Russia.
- I then moved inf from all Russian territories to reinforce Caucasus and West Russia, and I THINK I moved whatever was in Archangel to Karelia. I also moved my sub in SZ4 to SZ6. On the eastern Russian front I moved my units in Yakut and SFE into Buryatia.
- For placement, I placed 4 inf in Caucasus, and the rest (2 inf 1 tank) in Russia.
- So at the end, Karelia had a tank and 2 inf, Caucasus had a few tanks, 6-7 inf, a ftr, and art, and West Russia had tanks and inf. Russia had 1 tank and 2 inf.
That’s a decent purchase on R1, and taking West Russia is standard. I don’t much like the attack on Eastern Europe though: even if it succeeds it’s very easy for Germany to recapture it. If you want to capture another territory, any of the other three options are better.
Your sub would be better placed in SZ2 to reinforce the UK fleet against a German attack.
In the east, I’m not a big fan of stacking Buryatia but opinions differ on that.
G1 - He bought 4 tanks, some inf, and I honestly forget what else. But he used all of his IPC. He attacked Caucasus with a bunch of tanks, inf and a fighter. He attacked Karelia with a tank, 2 inf and a 2 fighters (I think). He took Karelia but lost in Caucasus.
- He also anihilated my sub in SZ6 with his fleet.
- He moved his Algeria units into Libya, reinforced Karelia a bit, and left a small force in Belerussa, and one tank in Eastern Europe.
- For placement, he split it pretty evenly between Germany/Southern Europe
He shouldn’t have attacked Caucasus - with everything you put there it was way too strong.
Killing your sub with his fleet makes sense because the German Baltic fleet isn’t all that useful in A&A 1942.
Instead of moving into Lybia, he should have attacked Anglo-Egypt with the Lybian forces and an amphibious landing from Southern Europe.
As for placement - I’d prefer to put most or all units in Germany, and maybe a bit in SE only to target Africa, but well, he allowed you to sink his transport for free……
UK1 - I bought 2 bombers, and saved the rest of my IPC
- Combat consisted of me doing a SBR on Germany, using my sub near Australia to attack a lone Japanese sub (in SZ45 I think?), and using my fighter on my AC in SZ35 to destroy the lone Japanese transport in SZ59. I also destroyed a lone German transport in SZ14 (I forget how/why it was alone… but it was, and I sunk it).
- I moved my transport I THOUGHT to SZ10, but I’m looking at a PDF of the map and if it starts in SZ2, it cant make it that far… so maybe its in SZ9 (I’m at work so I cant check the board right now). Regardless, I was moving it to SZ10 to help the US ferry units to Africa. I moved Persia’s units into India, and I moved any close units towards Anglo-Egypt Sudan.
As the UK, you need to buy boats, and guard the boats that you already have. Since you left your battleship in SZ2 and didn’t attack the German fleet in SZ6, Germany gets a great opportunity to sink the battleship next round. The battleship should have been moved away and/or reinforced with, say, and AC for the UK fighters to land on, and a destroyer. Or you could have used it to attack Germany’s SZ6 fleet depending on how much of it survived the round one combat and on where Germany put its air force.
I suppose the German transport was alone because he used his battleship to attack either SZ13 or SZ15. He should have brought the transport along to keep it with the battleship.
J1 - He bought a transport, some inf/tanks, and I think a destroyer or cruiser.
- He took China, and tried to take Buryatia but failed. He took an AC, dest, cruiser, 1 ftr, and a transport with 1 inf 1 tank to SZ52 and destroyed the US fleet there. I’m assuming he’ll take Hawaii next turn.
- At the end of his turn most of his fleet was in SZ52, French-Indo China had 1 bomber in it, China had 5 inf, and Manchuria had I think 2-3 inf.
Buryatia was probably too strong so I suppose he shouldn’t have attacked it right away, but basically life gets easier for Japan if Russia stacks it because normally, Japan’s big problem is that it needs to cover a lot of distance to even get to fight the Russians.
Attacking the US fleet is normal, but Hawaii itself is typically not worth taking for Japan, it’s too costly with the 2 US inf there.
He shouldn’t have left a lone bomber in French Indo-China - bombers are poor defenders so you would kill it on UK2.
US1 - I bought 1 cruiser, 3 tanks, 5 inf, and didn’t attack anything.
- I moved 1 ftr to Hawaii, loaded up 2 transports IN sz10 with 3 inf 1 tank and moved them along with the cruiser and destroyer to SZ12 for my impending takeover of Africa.
- I placed the cruiser in SZ55, one inf/tank in WUS, and the rest in EUS.
No need to reinforce Hawaii imho.
I sure hope you checked the German navy and air force when moving to SZ12. You didn’t mention where they went, but if they can reach you with one bomber and one fighter then things can become costly, let alone if the German Atlantic sub is still around.
My strategy is to try and keep Germany on the defensive with Russia as much as possible. I don’t intend to push the line but I don’t want to just leave him free to build up units to roll Russia over. I plan to buy more tanks/inf with Russia next turn, maybe 4 tanks 2 inf or 3 tanks 3 inf. Should I buy fighters instead since mine were lost?
Russia generally should focus on inf and some tanks. Planes are too expensive.
The UK, with 3 bombers, will conduct constant SBR on Germany. I don’t know whether to continue building bombers to aid in more SBR, or build a navy, or land units and transports, or possibly an IC in India.
Navy, I’d say, and threaten Europe to help Russia. I’m not a big fan of SBR’s - they take a few turns to have any serious effect, and Russia may run out of time. The India IC is likely to be captured by Japan and used to that nation’s advantage.
USA I’m using to take over Africa. I built a cruiser in the Pacific to try and keep Japan a little more occupied there, but I don’t intend to spend many resources there. Next turn I may have USA buy an AC and fighters in Atlantic, along with another transport, or start buying bombers for attacking Europe.
Africa is a reasonable target for the US - alternatively, a standard approach you may want to consider is to use transports to shuttle troops to the UK and threaten D-day from there.
He’s obviously going after Hawaii with Japan. I put two USA fighters there just to give him a harder time of it. If he wants to keep his fleet in the Pacific trying to take over 1 IPC islands then that’s fine by me. I’m not entirely sure what he plans with Germany. He’s mentioned a few times that “Germany must play defensively”, but from all I’ve read on these forums, Germany should be aggressive to try and break Russia before it can get help from USA/UK. Maybe he’s just trying to sych me out, or perhaps he doesn’t know the game as well as he thinks he does?
Germany can’t count on Japan to defeat the Allies all by herself. Germany needs to put pressure on Russia while keeping the UK and US at bay. Aggressive play is a necessity for the Axis because they won’t be able to keep up with the Allies economically in the long run if they don’t capture enough land.
I was actually glad that they removed tech. I’ll try to explain why.
A&A is, imho, supposed to be a game of strategy and tactics. The dice inevitably introduce an element of chance, but the essence of the game is, that good play should prevail over poor play. And I think that a key element of good play is, to purchase the right units at the right time in order to deploy them where you need them.
Spending money on tech instead, adds an element of randomness to the game that I don’t like at all. It basically replaces strategy with gambling. I’ve often seen it in pre-1942 games, especially when someone had the US, was clueless about what to do with all the money, and just decided to give it a try, hoping for heavy bombers or so.
I think the South enjoyed superior generalship overall, but that did not compensate the huge difference in resources. Another Southern general who deserves to be mentioned, though not quite in the same league with Lee and Jackson, was Jubal Early.
Of the primary commanders of World War I, my vote would go to Marshal Ferdinand Foch of France. While far from perfect, he typically did much better than his contemporaries.
