Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You're right, especially with the British, but pacifism was also a big part in many countries. Here in the Netherlands we had "het gebroken geweertje" (the broken little rifle) en "geen cent voor defensie" (not a penny for defence) movements. People didn't want the army and detested the ones that served. This led to cutting on army funds until right into 1937, after which only sparsely money could be made free for rearmament. By then it was too late and we only could try to get what others didn't want to have. Also many years people were hardly trained, so our whole army was a big club of untrained amateurs. The groups that were good, like our airforce were far too small and usually had second rate equipment. No wonder we only lasted for 5 days. I'm pretty sure it was the same with many other countries like Belgium, Norway and others.True. I would have used 'a movement for appeasement' rather than 'pacifist movements' but I know what you mean and English is my first language
This last bit is debateable and I'd have to look at the figures. The actual German submarine fleet never came close to sinking enough shipping to cause that, I remember posting the figures a while back, despite Churchill's much quoted view.
As for the rest I pretty much agree.
Cheers
Steve
Jim Dunnigan some years ago did a study on motivation. Why is it that the german Army, was so successful when armies like the Italians, which had a very similar military sytem for mobilzation and training , was so unsuccessful. Nationalism, and propaganda has very little to do with it. Those issues get people into the army, it doesnt make them good soldiers. At the end of the day, the important manpower issues psychologically are the desire to survive, and trust you have in your leaders. In the Italian army there was this enormous gulf between the men and their officers. Trust was zero. The soldiers were trained okay, but they just didnt believe the army would save them. the result is that they tend3ed to throw their arms up in surrender a lot. The heer did not suffer from this. Their soldiers were better educated, which in itself made them more effective, but there was not a huge gap between officers and their men. The men believed in their officers, and the ratio of officers (including NCOs) to enlisted ranks was fairly high. This meant the unit retained cohesion even when under stress, and the men kept fighting even when taking casualties.
One of the earliest mistakes made by the Germans was in their Naval Construction. They set their sights on a massive building plan that in the end came to nothing, because war came too early, and in any event was still not enough to overtake the British Navy. Building submarines, prewar, instead of the Heavy Cruisers, Battlecruisers, and the two dreadnoughts was a better optioon. And permissible under the Anglo German Naval Treaty of 1935.
Clause 6 of the treaty stipulated that "In the matter of submarines, however, Germany, while not exceeding the ratio of 35:100 in respect of total tonnage, shall have the right to possess a submarine tonnage equal to the total submarine tonnage possessed by the Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The German Government, however, undertake that, except in the circumstances indicated in the immediately following sentence, Germany's submarine tonnage shall not exceed 45 percent. of the total of that possessed by the Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The German Government reserve the right, in the event of a situation arising, which in their opinion, makes it necessary for Germany to avail herself of her right to a percentage of submarine tonnage exceeding the 45 per cent. above mentioned, to give notice this effect to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and agree that the matter shall be the subject of friendly discussion before the German Government exercise that right".
in 1921 the Royal Navy had 83 submarines. by 1935, only 23 of these remained in service, but by 1939, the RN had 103 subs in commission. If the Germans had not built their cruisers, Battleships and aircraft carriers, they would have freed about 300000 tons of naval construction and around 15000 naval personnel afloat. Roughly, that would have given them the tonnage to build and man up to 300 subs. if they had elected to not build the aircraft carriers (alone), they would have freed sufficient tonnage to build another 60 subs. 60 subs was well within their treaty obligations. If they had not built the carriers or the heavy cruisers, they could have gone to war with 120 subs, and have had about 80 additional subs being completed 1939-40. A submarine fleet of those proportions would have destroyed the British ability to resist, and forced them to th peace table
Its not a book as such, though I think he later wrote a book and included his study in that publication.What's the title of that book? It could be a very significant source for my planned master's thesis.
It takes 10 participants more than two year to fight 2.5 years of actual fighting.
Its not a book as such, though I think he later wrote a book and included his study in that publication.
It was a military simulation called 'Campaign For North Africa" written by Al Nofi, Richard Berg and Jim Dunnigan. It is a simulation used at Sandhurst andf Duntroon until fairly recently and fights the North African campaign at company level. It takes 10 participants more than two year to fight 2.5 years of actual fighting.
The actual article that this appears in is some of the supporting material. Its an essay entitled "Historical Notes", 16 pages.
Nofi has gone on to work for a Defence think tank in the US , and Dunnigan I believe worked for many years for the Pentagon as a senior analyst. Not exactly sure what Bergie is doing these days
Some links thqat might be helpful
James F. Dunnigan
Richard Berg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.russgifford.net/MovesScans/Moves49/CNAGPM49.pdf
Albert Nofi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Over the years ive met and spoken to these guys a number of times. Whilst the material they produce are often referred to as games, and in reality they are games, to be played, it is a better description to call them Simulations I think, and the research they do to underpin their sims is as good or better than most publications. these giys are at the cutting edge of military theory and military history, or were....they are getting on a bit now......
Nope thats correct. calling this a game doesnt do it justice. its about as close as commercial stuff gets to the military sims used to work out actual tactics. And really, unplayavle to be honest, unless the people are just about certifiable.I hope thats a typo
Cool! Thank you!
BTW, have you read "A Genius for War" by DuPuy?
That was not the question and the intention of the thread!
The thread starter asked explicit after the german military.
As always, if the topic German pop up, you always will foward your agenda of anti german biases, equal of the thread intention, essential anti-german!
Perhaps you should sit in a plane and visit this country, but I bet you don't have the nuts to do it, because your biases and view of the world got crashed!
Here we go again, same old **** again.
Jesus Christ this is getting old.
Don't even bother with another whining PM either.
I'm sick of this, I have never whined!
Read the thread from the beginning and the questions of the thread starter!
Ich habe echt die Schnauze voll!
Lies den ersten Post, die Fragen und was Lucky 13 wissen wollte.
Ich heule nicht, ich bin es nur schrecklich leid, dass Parsifal jeden Thread so gestalten kann wie er es gerne möchte, und die Regeln interessieren ihn einen Scheissdreck,
Hauptsache er kann seine übliche Agenda ablassen. Es ist vielleicht besser das ich gehe, weil anscheinend bin ich hier der Störenfried.
Bevor du mich rügst, oder beschimpfst/lächerlich machst, solltest du mich entweder rausschmeissen, oder nachprüfen was ich geschrieben habe und warum!
Er hat hier Narrenfreiheit, egal was er schreibt und in welchem Thread er es schreibt.
DonL said:Lucky wanted to know, why the german Army was such successfull at the beginning of the war and not why they lost the war.
That's are totaly different questions and issues.
Did I not say, the argument was over? To get back on topic? You are bone headed!
If I have to go over this again, you will be shown the door.