Question of the Day #9

War is sweet to those who have no experience of it, but the experienced man trembles exceedingly at heart on its approach.
- Pindar (518BC - 438BC)

Is my answer down to a tea.

One of my great grandfathers fought in WW1 in the middle east and the western front. One of my grandfathers was 'conscripted' into the Dutch Underground during WW2, while my other grandfather was a touch too young and was in the navy from 1946 on mine clean up duty but had no real troubles after his service. My great grandfather was heavily wounded and lived another 25 years after 1918 but had what we'd now call PTSD. My grandfather in the dutch resistance never spoke about his 18 months or so of his life, (other than visits home to knock up my grandmother!). Never told his wife or kids when they asked the question 'what did you do in the war?' The only tidbit that they got out of him was a pretty 'put the pieces together' answer that he had killed another man but that was it - nothing about who, how, when or why. He was a little more open about the final months of the war where he was roped into the British army as a cook and body collector following British units into Germany. His brother who was not caught up in the fighting but lived through the occupation became fascinated in the war, my own grandfather escaped the Netherlands as quick as possible and didn't really see it as home anymore. My own father as a board 20 something in the late 60's was happy to go to Vietnam, but as he put it: 'I lost that lottery as well,' and never got a call up.

Personally I've always been fascinated since my primary school years and my parents encouraged me to a point like taping all the the 'World at War' episodes when they were going through one of their many re-runs on TV. My school even nominated me for a extracurricular WW2 history course around grade 7. I guess the fascination for many relates to the great sweeping changes that occur in such a short space of time.

Finally, my grandfather who missed out on WW2 loved watching the classic war films of the 50's - 70's, while my other grandfather from the dutch underground avoided them like the plague. He thought the old TV show, 'Conflict' was an absolute joke, but one of his favorite shows was 'Hogan's Heroes.' He had some respect for the British Army but none for the Americans, who he thought were undisciplined idiots who relied on their superior numbers and excess in material to win battles. He did however, perhaps strangely have the greatest respect for the Germany army; hated the bastards, but had the most respect for them as adversaries.
 
My Interests in military history or history of wars I owe to my grandfather (R.I.P) who told me a lot of family war stories. Since I was a small boy I heard a lot about my ancestors fighting for freedom of Poland in January Uprising 1863, Polish - Soviet War in 1920 or September Campaign in 1939. My most notable family member was cavalry colonel Edmund Heldut-Tarnasiewicz. All these things made me military history geek and fan of historical wargaming. Of course I am aware of that real war have nothing to do with gloryfication, its brutal, ugly and cause a lot of pain and misery. In same time I think Its nothing wrong in reasearching, memorising even reconstructing battles or war events beacause its a way to remmber those who fought and died, they are still alive in our memories and they wont be forgotten (it doesnt matter on which side of frontline they fought).
 
Ithikial said:
Finally, my grandfather who missed out on WW2 loved watching the classic war films of the 50's - 70's, while my other grandfather from the dutch underground avoided them like the plague. He thought the old TV show, 'Conflict' was an absolute joke, but one of his favorite shows was 'Hogan's Heroes.' He had some respect for the British Army but none for the Americans, who he thought were undisciplined idiots who relied on their superior numbers and excess in material to win battles. He did however, perhaps strangely have the greatest respect for the Germany army; hated the bastards, but had the most respect for them as adversaries.
Click to expand...

I had a couple of uncles who fought in WW2, and they might have taken offense to that opinion. One was in the 101st Airborne during Operation Overlord. But then again, neither of them talked about it any at all to me, so nah, I doubt they would have. They were both very humble men, during the time I knew them.
 
Meat Grinder said:
I had a couple of uncles who fought in WW2, and they might have taken offense to that opinion. One was in the 101st Airborne during Operation Overlord. But then again, neither of them talked about it any at all to me, so nah, I doubt they would have. They were both very humble men, during the time I knew them.
Click to expand...
No doubt!

Yeah my late grandfather was pretty opinionated about such things and no doubt clouded by his first hand and narrow experiences of where he happened to be and when.

The problem of experiencing history first hand is you can't experience it from all view points nor in many cases to sit back and reexamine what you went through without it being clouded by your own memories and emotions.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
 
Interesting comment re the US military. Absolutely no doubt that the US was not the most diplomatic ally! However, they did universally put themselves in harms way and credit to them. The "lumbering giant" is a common call against the US military - even today. Interestingly, the WW2 German Army was well regarded re their flexibility and performance "pound for pound." A reasonable argument is this was a result of their formations being incomplete due to shortages. The smaller size of their formations allowed for better coordination and response. When managing the immense war machine that was WW2 USA, it is inevitable that it would, at times, appear unweildy and less than impressive. Not the troops on the ground fault or even the leaders - it is just the nature of massive organisations.
If you have ever worked in a Government Department you will know what I mean! You have to laugh at "government conspiracist theories", which to pull off would presume perfect performance. LOL - Government and perfect performance!

But, to your question, why Military History and gaming. From very young always enjoyed games and playing cards was a regular family event. Enjoyed reading from an early age and a reward for good deeds was usually a Commando comic next time we went shopping. History always seemed exciting compared to our small town lives and especially military history. I think it was early 80's when I first spotted some guys playing a military board game (Squad Leader?). And since then has been part of my entertainment diet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I dunno ...
farm.jpg
 
Lethal said:
Interesting comment re the US military. Absolutely no doubt that the US was not the most diplomatic ally! However, they did universally put themselves in harms way and credit to them. The "lumbering giant" is a common call against the US military - even today. Interestingly, the WW2 German Army was well regarded re their flexibility and performance "pound for pound." A reasonable argument is this was a result of their formations being incomplete due to shortages. The smaller size of their formations allowed for better coordination and response. When managing the immense war machine that was WW2 USA, it is inevitable that it would, at times, appear unweildy and less than impressive. Not the troops on the ground fault or even the leaders - it is just the nature of massive organisations.
Click to expand...

The German Army (Heer) and Wehrmacht (Armed Forces - Army, Navy, Air Force) were over-rated, both by historians and by their contemporaries. That they managed such astonishing victories early in the war was due to the fact that their peace-loving adversaries had dismantled their militaries in the years between the world wars, through combinations of financial neglect, political opportunism, and pie-eyed optimism, and were actually worse off than the Germans in terms of organization, doctrine, equipment and training. There are a number of good recent books that seek to demolish the myths surrounding the Wehrmacht. They did not invent significantly new ways of waging war, as is sometimes believed, and they were not an apolitical "clean" organization without ties to the Nazi regime, but were in fact willing participants in mass genocide and the restructuring of Europe according to Hitler's vision.

Tactically, the Germans relied on First World War era strategy and tactics on the battlefield (admittedly updated with the closer coordination of air, artillery, tanks and infantry). German commanders did possess more initiative than Allied commanders often did, but in the last year or two of the war, forced on the defensive, their tactics were often unimaginative. Doctrine in the defence was based on the 1917-18 defensive strategy, where forward positions were lightly outposted and then heavily counter-attacked when the enemy assaulted them. Once Allied commanders got wind of this, they were able (not to imply they always managed to) to use these tactics against them. General Simonds of II Canadian Corps had outlined to the last detail German defensive doctrine following the battle of Sicily and briefed all his commanders on how to fight the Germans before the landings in Normandy. Again, the Allies didn't always operate with efficiency, but the theoretical advantages that historians sometimes assign the Germans really weren't there. Their bell was rung again and again from Normandy on. Operationally, the Germans at their best were never as good as the Russians at their best. And strategically, they had the ridiculous situation of having Hitler as head of the armed forces in addition to being head of state, prolonging a war that couldn't possibly be won on the ground.

The U.S. Army by comparison never lost a major battle against the Germans after Kasserine Pass. Their equipment was sometimes suspect. For example, they had no real light machine gun at the squad level, relying on the First World War vintage BAR or the heavier Browning LMG which was almost as old. The story of the Sherman is well known as is the material advantage they enjoyed (though this was often squandered, ask any GI who served in the winter of 1944 if they had a surplus of warm clothing, or check the official history to see how many men were employed in the Zone of Communication, luxuriously headquartered in Paris after Normandy). But a review of small unit actions will show that the British, Canadians and Americans also exercised a certain flexibility in their tactical units. And while they didn't reach the notoriety of the German Battle Groups (Kampfgruppen), the history of the latter is often not well understood - and the western Allies had similar organizations, be they Task Forces, Brigade Groups, or the Combat Commands of the American armored divisions.

The Germans were not nearly as good as historians have often suggested, and by comparison, the Allies were more than a match, man-for-man, pound-for-pound by the summer of 1944.[/QUOTE]
 
Absolutely no doubt that the allies, in the big picture, were superior in every department of war fighting from "Black May" 43 onwards - training, logistics, intelligence, electronic warfare, tactics, etc. The Germans had some very interesting ideas late war but paid for squandering their initial technical ascendancy. For instance, the V2 rockets were ahead of the curve but did not have the warhead. As far as getting damage on the enemy they were a military failure - the cruder bomber formations of the allies did the job. The Germans had jet engines early but did not recognise what a breakthrough this was. And as you say the calamitous nazi leadership.
A study of the Battle of the Atlantic will reveal how the course of the war evolved re the factors mentioned earlier and how the allies eventually dominated in every field to win this battle and the war.
The Wehrmacht was under-prepared in '39 for the task of achieving a "lightening" victory and the failure of Op Barbarossa effectively doomed Hitler's ambitions. Given the German limitations they gave it a good shake though!
 
Ithikial said:
War is sweet to those who have no experience of it, but the experienced

Finally, my grandfather who missed out on WW2 loved watching the classic war films of the 50's - 70's, while my other grandfather from the dutch underground avoided them like the plague. He thought the old TV show, 'Conflict' was an absolute joke, but one of his favorite shows was 'Hogan's Heroes.' He had some respect for the British Army but none for the Americans, who he thought were undisciplined idiots who relied on their superior numbers and excess in material to win battles. He did however, perhaps strangely have the greatest respect for the Germany army; hated the bastards, but had the most respect for them as adversaries.
Click to expand...

From which part of the Netherlands came your grandfather?
 
Meat Grinder said:
As to wargaming and fascination with military history, it's just a lot more interesting than peace time. A game about farming and raising kids probably wouldn't be all that interesting. ;-)
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people would disagree on this statement because they find military related things rather boring or even terrible. (just ask my wife)
In fact it is highly probable that the majority of society doesn’t care for those things at all.
Nevertheless we see some "few good men” having a thing about wargaming and military history.
Why are they attracted by this topic? Is there a typical wargamer? What is wrong with them?... ;)

The good news is that we can answer some of these questions due to a survey over at Armchair General.
They did a survey in 2005 to explore the passion for wargaming in combination with a quick and simple Personality test based on Carl Jung's and Isabel Briggs Myers' typological approach to personality.
(Yes, such Personality tests don’t provide valid, scientific results but provide a good starting point for discussion).

Quote from the survey:
“First and foremost, the data seems to absolutely support my theory that the majority of wargamers are indeed an introverted lot. An astounding 36.97% (237 people) of respondents put themselves in the INTJ personality type. [..] The truly interesting facet of this particular survey result is that of the population at large, between 1 and 3% fall into the INTJ category. Statistically speaking, this shows a very significant part of our community is drawn from a very tiny subset of the entire population. While we all seem to know this to be inherently true (we are an odd lot, and have always known it!), this illustrates it in a more concise manner. [...] Indeed the Rationals sub-group constitutes the majority of the wargamer community who took part in this survey.”
I myself did the test too and was also rated as INTJ (=Introverted iNtuitive Thinking Judging) what makes me a typical wargamer too...:shocknaz:
The survey delivers also some interesting answers regarding the biography:

Most of us started playing (war)games already as a child or during adolescence by own exploration.
I have the theory that we – as rather introverted and intellectual kids – liked to compete in this way since it suited better than just physical contest.
99% of the wargamers are interested in military history what made them reading about this topic too.

I guess that military history has a strong appeal for male adolescents as it provides them with positive male role models (= fighter, hero, victors, etc.).
As a consequence we see a strong identification with the respective fighting party and the desire to prove its superiority. (A typical example is the post #13 of @Michael Dorosh in this thread.)
So, wargaming and military history becomes a field of competition where one proves his masculinity and (intellectual) superiority.
While the default (introverted) wargamer is a rather polite and nice guy in Real Live, he reveals his aggressiveness and male dominance in the field of military history.
Please, don’t deter him from doing so, because he could turn into some Hulk in RL instead…:D
 
Ooooh cheers Bert, I may show my old man. He was only born in 1951 but interested in this stuff.

Yeah my late grandparents spoke about being liberated by the Americans but the Dutch resistance forces in the area my grandfather was a member of were eventually rolled into the British Army, mainly to serve as cooks and logistics. I've always assumed it was the Commonwealth manpower problem at the end of the war that led to these kind of drafts in theater.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom