Page 4 of 4
Re: Which one and why
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:59 am
by grizzlymc
Naps Spanish win the sartorial elegance stakes hands down. And if you win, the French are twice embarrassed.
Re: Which one and why
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:41 am
by levied troop
There’s some wonderful French units for 1940 and their effectiveness varies considerably from poor to effing hard bastards. Try the Tirailleurs Senegalese on p63.
Says the man with a red-headed stepchild.
Re: Which one and why
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:43 am
by Jeremy
levied troop wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:41 am
Says the man with a red-headed stepchild.
Re: Which one and why
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:22 am
by BaronVonWreckedoften
Jeremy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:52 am
Painting up WW2 French or Italians is much like Naps Spanish. A necessary, but ultimately pointless exercise
Dutch are quite good when defending an airfield, or similar target of an FJ mission. And they have some really wonderful Heath Robinson vehicles.
Belgians....er.....not so much.
grizzlymc wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 9:47 am
That's not a very nice thing to say about Mr Hart Mr Fuller and Mr Guiderian.
As I understand the "new thinking" on this, Hart and Fuller were brilliant - in the minds of Hart and Fuller and pretty much nobody else. Guderian is now thought to have completely ignored (or never actually heard of) either of them, which might go some way to explain why he was actually half-way competent..
Re: Which one and why
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:26 am
by Jeremy
BaronVonWreckedoften wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:22 am
Jeremy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:52 am
Painting up WW2 French or Italians is much like Naps Spanish. A necessary, but ultimately pointless exercise
Dutch are quite good when defending an airfield, or similar target of an FJ mission.
So very much a one trick pony then?
I’ve got my Brits, and soon some Jerries, that’s where I call it quits!
I will then have platoon size plus Brits and Germans from every theatre of the war, as well as Russians. I think that’s enough WW2, don’t you?
Re: Which one and why
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:37 am
by grizzlymc
Yes Jeremy. There would absolutely be no need to buy and paint up poles, French (classy looking tanks), Dutch, Belgians, Italians, Norwegians, Brits and Huns in greatcoats, gebeersjaggers, Froggies for Narvik, Greeks, Hungarians, Czechs. None at all.
Re: Which one and why
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:08 am
by Etranger
BaronVonWreckedoften wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:22 am
..
Belgians....er.....not so much.
As I understand the "new thinking" on this, Hart and Fuller were brilliant - in the minds of Hart and Fuller and pretty much nobody else. Guderian is now thought to have completely ignored (or never actually heard of) either of them, which might go some way to explain why he was actually half-way competent..
The
Chasseurs Ardennais fought well but didn't stand much chance against the German armour,
"They are not men, they are green wolves". (E Rommel)
Liddell Hart's post war interrogations of the surviving German generals are interesting, although in retrospect they were often humouring him in praising his writings. From wiki:
Following the Second World War Liddell Hart pointed out that the German Wehrmacht adopted theories developed from those of J.F.C. Fuller and from his own, and that it used them against the United Kingdom and its allies (1939–1945) with the practice of what became known as Blitzkrieg warfare.[21] Some scholars, such as the political scientist John Mearsheimer, have questioned the extent of the influence which the British officers, and in particular Liddell Hart, had in the development of the method of war practised by the Panzerwaffe in 1939–1941. During the post-war debriefs of the former Wehrmacht generals, Liddell Hart attempted to tease out his influence on their war practices. Following these interviews, many of the generals claimed that Liddell Hart had been an influence on their strategies, something that had not been claimed previously nor has any contemporary, pre-war, documentation been found to support their claims. Liddell Hart thus put "words in the mouths' of German Generals" with the aim, according to Mearsheimer, to "resurrect a lost reputation".[22]
Boney Fuller went mad!
Fuller was highly controversial in British politics because of his support for the organized fascist movement. He was also an occultist and Thelemite who wrote a number of works on esotericism and mysticism.
(wiki again. His biography is rather fascinating if 'eccentric'.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070621144 ... _34184.pdf for Mark Urban's take.
Re: Which one and why
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:05 pm
by BaronVonWreckedoften
I seem to have unfairly tarred Fuller (weirdo though he undoubtedly was) with the same brush as Liddell Hart. Mea culpa!
Interesting comment by Urban that the 1920s was the only time that the British were the world leaders in military thought. I suppose in fairness, it followed on from the only time that the British had an industrial-sized army (even the WW2 version was fairly small by comparison - worldwide, it barely reached the number that Haig alone had under his command in WW1).
Re: Which one and why
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:37 pm
by grizzlymc
I would disagree. I think that by 1943, the Brits had WWII tactics sorted. Funnily, this is pretty much how Boney did the continentals. Beat the shit out of them with artillery, then hit them with armour in small bites. Worked quite well for the rest of the war.
This blitzkrieg malarkey was plan 1919 dressed up. It relied upon the other guy being slow on the uptake.