Beta tester's battle style

[Morris]

During the times with GS beta testers , after around hundreds of pbems ,I found the beta tester's battle style are something similiar with the WW2 history . So with a cup of Chinese Longjing tea , I 'd like provide my personal idea of it ,just for new player reference :

Borger Halder
Ronnie von Brauchitsch
Joe Guderian
SuperMax Patton
Neil Kesselring
crazygunner Zhukov
Diplomatus Bradley
Plaid Konev
Peter Heinrich
Kragdob Montgomery
Richardrd LeClaire
.........
Morris ?

There are still many good testers I haven't listed & everyone is welcome complete it or correct it up to your choice .
Have some fun !

[GogTheMild]

Would that be richardsd Leclerc?

How about Lord Morris Lovat, or Morris Wingate? I think that I prefer Morris Yamashita for your cunningly aggressive offensives and dogged defences against hopeless odds.

[Morris]

Would that be richardsd Leclerc?

How about Lord Morris Lovat, or Morris Wingate? I think that I prefer Morris Yamashita for your cunningly aggressive offensives and dogged defences against hopeless odds.

May I not be a Janpanese one ?

[Cybvep]

Gog, you need to be careful with those comparisons. Few Chinese want to be compared with Japanese commanders .

Anyway, Morris is like Patton IMO. Attack, attack, attack!

[GogTheMild]

People might not like being compared with generals who physically assault their own wounded. Or, more seriously, were sentenced to death for war crimes. I had assumed that we were talking about military ability only.

On that basis, perhaps Morris Peng Dehuai?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I don't consider my playing style being like Halder. Halder wasn't very successful although he had good foresight, predicting Germany would lose before many others.

I think my playing style is more like Montgomery. That means I wait until I get enough forces to be sure I win.

Joerock seems more like a Manstein to me, excellent both on the attack and defense.

Supermax seems like a Guderian or Rommel (blitz attacks and pushing very fast, faster than the opponent thinks was possible)

[Morris]

People might not like being compared with generals who physically assault their own wounded. Or, more seriously, were sentenced to death for war crimes. I had assumed that we were talking about military ability only.

On that basis, perhaps Morris Peng Dehuai?

Peng De Huai ? The PLA commander in Korean war ? hehehe but Why ?

[GogTheMild]

Well, he lost half his troops in the successful 5th encirclement, and 75% of the survivors in the Long March, and still wanted to attack. Mao wrote a poem - part of it:
"Who is the courageous one, striking from his horse in all directions?
None other than our great General Peng"
Sound familiar?

But mostly for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Offensives in 1950. Peng took apart the American and Korean forces repeatedly and rolled down the Korean peninsula. The longest retreat in US army history apparently. Reminds me of what you frequently do to your opponents.

I have just been reading up on the battle of the Imjin River. Beautifully planned by Peng, but let down by inadequate logistics and weaponry, improved UN tactics and overwhelming UN air and artillery support. Again, a bit like your late Axis offensives in some of your AARs.

[Morris]

Well, he lost half his troops in the successful 5th encirclement, and 75% of the survivors in the Long March, and still wanted to attack. Mao wrote a poem - part of it:
"Who is the courageous one, striking from his horse in all directions?
None other than our great General Peng"
Sound familiar?

But mostly for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Offensives in 1950. Peng took apart the American and Korean forces repeatedly and rolled down the Korean peninsula. Reminds me of what you frequently do to your opponents.

I have just been reading up on the battle of the Imjin River. Beautifully planned by Peng, but let down by inadequate logistics and weaponry, improved UN tactics and overwhelming UN air and artillery support. Again, a bit like your late Axis offensives in some of your AARs.

Hi Gog :

Thanks for your explaination ! Regarding to the General Peng De Hua & his campaigns in Korea , I want to provide several personal opinions for your reference :
1 Peng was one of the greatest PLA general . His battle style was smart & tough & cold blooded. He performed well in Korea in 1950s although he made some mistakes .
2 I am quite familiar with the sentence of Mao . It just because Peng took the burden of commanding the PLA's Korea mission right after Linbiao(best PLA general around that ages )refused to do it .
3 The campaigns which Peng lost in Korea were all because of the following reasons : Very Bad logistics , No air superior ,less experience to deal with the modern mechanic army especially the airforce & artilery of US .
4 Regarding to the battle of the Imjin River , it was the biggest mistake which Peng had made . The No 180th division was encircled & destroyed. & The 63th army had 24000 casuaties . This was the only time that PLA lost a whole division after 1927 . Actually Peng had suggested to delay or cancel this campaign , but he had to execute this campaign by Mao's direct order ! The reason was political of course .

Finally ,Peng is one of the greatest general which I do respect & admire !

[Morris]

I don't consider my playing style being like Halder. Halder wasn't very successful although he had good foresight, predicting Germany would lose before many others.

I think my playing style is more like Montgomery. That means I wait until I get enough forces to be sure I win.

Joerock seems more like a Manstein to me, excellent both on the attack and defense.

Supermax seems like a Guderian or Rommel (blitz attacks and pushing very fast, faster than the opponent thinks was possible)

Regarding to Joe as Manstein , I agree .

But you , Monntgomery ? No! I think anyone can win a campaign when he has 3 times of tank ,4 times of airpower ,2 times of artilery ,10 times of logistic supply than his rival ! He beated Rommel down can't prove he was better than Rommel ! & you must be much better than him ! how about Ludendorff ?( I know he was in WW1)

[GogTheMild]

Finally ,Peng is one of the greatest general which I do respect & admire !

Good choice then - phew! From what little I know of him, I would agree - a top class military commander.

I am weak on my knowledge of the early PLA, so thanks for the extra detail. Most of what I know comes from Allied accounts of the Korean War. Chinese accounts seem to be almost non-existent.

Imjin River: we seem to be agreed. I would add to the reasons why the Spring Offensive failed inferior mid-level leadership in the PLA/PVA (company to brigade/regiment level). Interestingly most Allied accounts speak highly of the Chinese soldiers' military ability and compassionate attitude.

[Morris]

Finally ,Peng is one of the greatest general which I do respect & admire !

Good choice then - phew! From what little I know of him, I would agree - a top class military commander.

I am weak on my knowledge of the early PLA, so thanks for the extra detail. Most of what I know comes from Allied accounts of the Korean War. Chinese accounts seem to be almost non-existent.

Imjin River: we seem to be agreed. I would add to the reasons why the Spring Offensive failed inferior mid-level leadership in the PLA/PVA (company to brigade/regiment level). Interestingly most Allied accounts speak highly of the Chinese soldiers' military ability and compassionate attitude.

In 1950's , most of the PLA soldiers including most mid-lvl leasders were lack of education . 60% of them were illiteracy . But they had full experience of war . Some of them 's experience were more than 20years( 8 years agsinst Japanese,12 years of civil war) & The PLA snniper used the rifle without sighting telescope . So if they could just be armed with AK47 , it would be a totally disaster for the Armed force for UN !

Actually , I learned most of the message of Korean war from the books & memoirs by Americans & British . For some political reasons , I never read the relative books of USSR or PRC (before 2000). I just want to learn the truth & the objective evaluations .

[mamahuhu]

Who is Rommel

[Cybvep]

Who is Rommel

Somebody who is a good tactician but a rather bad strategist, i.e. a person who comes up with grand and ambitious plans even when they are infeasible due to logistics alone. If X repeatedly inflicts high losses on the enemy and achieves some temporary successes but tend to lose because their underestimates the enemy's potential, then I think that it's a good indication that X is Rommel .

[Morris]

Who is Rommel

Borger's opinion : Supermax .

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I wouldn't call Rommel a bad strategist. He was set to lead the DAK (Deutsches Afrikakorps) with way too few resources to have a chance to succeed with taking Egypt. Regardless of the lack of resources he harassed the British until November 1942 and got all the way to El Alamein.

If Rommel had got adequate equipment (airplanes, tanks etc.) then I'm pretty sure he could have reached the Suez.

Rommel did very well in the Battle of France where his unit moved so fast it was called the ghost division.

In 1943 the Axis forces in Africa were outnumbered and were driven back towards Tunisia. Rommel led a stiff defense, but didn't have enough resources to turn the tide.

Rommel was given command of Army Group B in France with responsibility to defend the French Atlantic coast from an Allied invasion. Rommel realized that Axis forces were very vulnerable to Allied air raids so he wanted the panzers stationed close to the beaches. This way they didn't have to traver far to deal with the invaders. His superior Rundstedt overruled Rommel and wanted the panzers stationed in the rear closer to Paris so they were outside range of the Royal Navy. Hindsight showed that the lack of German armor near the beaches on D-day June 6th was a major factor why Overlord succeeded as well as it did.

Had Rommel got his way Overlord could have become more ugly for the Allies.

[Cybvep]

He was set to lead the DAK (Deutsches Afrikakorps) with way too few resources to have a chance to succeed with taking Egypt.

... and in spite of that, he attacked Egypt, which was his own initiative. Hitler gave the "order" retroactively. Rommel ignored logistics over and over again, scoring tactical, but not strategic successes. I would never call such a commander a good strategist and he is definitely not the god of war which some people make him. That being said, he certainly was a skilled tactician and knew how to surprise the enemy. I agree that his plans for France were better than Rundstedt's.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

If Rommel had been passive in Libya then he would have allowed the British to build up and you would have seen the El Alamein defeat earlier for the Germans.

He overstretched his units several times and that meant he had to retreat again. I see this as a result of lack of resources. He wanted to get to the Suez and whent he British were on the run he tried. Maybe he could have just halted and waited for the next time the British wanted to try something? I don't think that would have changed the situation.

Germany needed to neutralize the British in Africa and they would never do that by being passive.

In GS it's a common strategy for the Axis to defend near Tobruk and just delay the Allies enough so they can't land on Sicily until Summer 1943. In the mean time the Axis player hopes to cripple the Russians. I rarely see this strategy work well. When the British come in force you can't do much.

The Axis players in GS who harass the British in Egypt seem to hold on to Libya and Tunisia longer than the passive players.

It wasn't Rommel's fault he got impossible odds for his DAK. That was the fault of Hitler and the OKW. They didn't see the value of defeating the British in Egypt.

I'm not saying Rommel is some kind of general "god". I think for example that Manstein was a more skilled general. Manstein had to deal with large scale offensives (both attacking and defending) and performed very well.

If you look at the quality of the generals of WW2 I think Manstein is one of the very best. Maybe even as good as Zhukov.

[Cybvep]

Except that supplying a larger force was hardly possible. Axis logistical capabilities in the NA were low and loooooong supply lines (one of Rommel's "achievements") in a theatre which is characterised by abysmal infrastructure makes prolonged offensives infeasible. That's why bringing Tigers to the NA probably wasn't a good idea, even though it's a very popular "what if" scenario. Anyway, Rommel thought that he could achieve miraculous results by beating the enemy in the field, but the biggest obstacle was logistics and this is sth which Rommel couldn't swallow. "Lack of resources", sure. That doesn't mean that one should be daydreaming about grand conquests and actively trying to implement such "plans".

Not that I'm saying that Rommel was a bad commander. I think that he was good, but not great... and as I said, his tactical brilliance notwithstanding, it's hard to call him a good strategist.

[Morris]

Except that supplying a larger force was hardly possible. Axis logistical capabilities in the NA were low and loooooong supply lines (one of Rommel's "achievements") in a theatre which is characterised by abysmal infrastructure makes prolonged offensives infeasible. That's why bringing Tigers to the NA probably wasn't a good idea, even though it's a very popular "what if" scenario. Anyway, Rommel thought that he could achieve miraculous results by beating the enemy in the field, but the biggest obstacle was logistics and this is sth which Rommel couldn't swallow. "Lack of resources", sure. That doesn't mean that one should be daydreaming about grand conquests and actively trying to implement such "plans".

Not that I'm saying that Rommel was a bad commander. I think that he was good, but not great... and as I said, his tactical brilliance notwithstanding, it's hard to call him a good strategist.

Although I do respect & love Rommel's style , I have to agree with Mr Cybvep's point that : Rommel was a great general but not a good strategist . His best position was not marshall but a Panzer division's commander .
the main reason for this is that : After DAK took Topruk , Hitler had two choice : Malta & Eygpt . Kaserlling & Italian Marshall support to attack Malta & Rommel insist to attack Eygpt , Rommel sent his assistant to Berlin & persuaded Hitler to choose Eygpt ,Finally Hitler chose Eygpt & said that " Winged victory smile once a life ! " This choice cause Alamein , Alamein cause the failure of NA , the failure of NA cause Italy's out ,Italy's out speed up the death of the third Reich !
In fact the one who should hold the main responsibility for this wrong choice is Hitler not Rommel . But Rommel gave him a wrong consultant & Hitler do trust him !