Subject: Fighting qualities of Italians

[quoted original message omitted]

> John Atkinson wrote:

> > Unfair comment.

Um, John? You know, I was quite unaware that Germany conquered all those

countries during World War ONE - which is the war you're discussing
here.

Similarly your description of French tactics seem rather more appropriate to
WW*2* than to WW*1*. If any army squandered resources needlessly during
the Great War, it was the Brits - a certain Mr. Haig in particular.

However, I don't think the Italian performance during WW1 was particularly
impressive - IIRC they got rather soundly beaten by the Austrians, who
were themselves not too successful during that war.

Regards,

From: "Derk Groeneveld" <derk@cistron.nl>
> > Lots of people suffered terrible losses in WWI. In

According to Keegan's history of the First World War, it was the Serbians who
suffered the highest percentage losses

> > As for the Germans, that's about as stupid a comment

I think I would know if we had conquered Norway and Denmark in WWI. And parts
of Belgium were still in Allied hands.

Greetings

> --- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:

> According to Keegan's history of the First World

Ah. I just remembered a chart, but it was dealing
only with Western Front.  34% of the 1914 draft-age
male population was killed in Belgium. No one else in the West came close.

> > The Netherlands? In WW I???

No, the conversation was about WWII.

> John Atkinson wrote:

> > I think I would know if we had conquered Norway and

Actually, and just to divert any rebuttals to John's above response, the

conversation was ORIGINALLY about WWII, and how WWI losses affected the
Italian army in WWII. Thus, buth John's comments about WWI losses AND about
German conquests in WWII were Germaine -- no pun intended.(I should
know, it was me shooting my stupid mouth off that started the whole thing).

2B^2

> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> Um, John? You know, I was quite unaware that Germany

People keep switching wars on me.

> Similarly your description of French tactics seem

Ah, yes. WWI French tactics were merely stupid (esp in 1914). If anything they
suffered from an excess of "elan" and a lack of common sense. By 1916 most of
their formations were burnt out and pretty much worthless for offensive
action.

> resources needlessly during

You wouldn't be referring to the Somme, would you?

> However, I don't think the Italian performance

Hrm... they did hold their own pretty well until about 1917, IIRC. And that
was when the Germans started committing troops to support their Austrian
allies, and both the Austrians and Germans started shifting troops out of the
East. Remember, a certain Erwin R. made his original reputation (Pour le
Merit) in command of an Alpine unit fighting the Italians, and he wasn't the
only German on that front either.

The Austrians were no Germans, but then again their opponents were Serbs,
Russian, and Italians so they didn't have to be.

> John Atkinson wrote:

> >Similarly your description of French tactics seem

As opposed to, eg., the British who ordered their soldiers to cross
no-man's-land at a slow walk, fully upright?

> >resources needlessly during the Great War, it was the Brits - a

I'm referring to all of Haig's battles. Somme was merely the biggest of the
slaughters :-(

> >However, I don't think the Italian performance during WW1 was

Hm... yes, you're right. Nothing wrong with the grunts, though their commander
(Cadorna) is another matter entirely. (Attempting to charge across a river
when the enemy controls the mountains on the far bank is
never a good idea, but to do it when you lack even half-decent artillery

support...!)

Later,

> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> As opposed to, eg., the British who ordered their

Yeah, that's pretty stupid. But there wasn't much of a functional difference
from the French who ordered them to run ahead with fixed bayonets. It still
worked out to lots of targets for German machine guns.

> (Attempting to charge

You know, I really upset some early modern players once when I refused to do
this.

Game: DBR

Defenders: 500 points of Ottoman Turks, which mean
about 4-5 stands of artillery and a bunch of archers.

Attackers: Mix of 200 points of Knights of St.John (mine), and a total of 300
points split between Italian Condotta (Papal) and French. 1 stand of light
artillery in the mix.

There's a river running down the middle of the board, and a hill in the middle
of the Ottoman line with all their cannons on it, with the archers deployed in
a line in front of them and cavalry on the flanks. I send my one stand of
light cavalry tearing up to the river to check it out. I discover it's
difficult to ford, and tell my opponents "I'm going home." They get all mad. I
tell them that only an idiot makes an opposed river crossing with artillery
inferiority. They argue until I've got my entire army packed away in the case
and my allies are looking at me like I'm crazy.

> John Atkinson wrote:

> They argue until I've got my entire army packed away

I really shouldn't read e-mails like this while taking calls from
customers
- it was all I could do keep from laughing.  The funniest/saddest thing
is, I can imagine a real life situation just like that, with the allies giving
the withdrawing commander just that same kind of look, and then plodding

their troops into the slaughter.

2B^2

There's another option:

Look at the setup, announce "OK, we lose. Now let's switch sides."

I'll play any scenario created by anyone if *I* get to pick who plays each
side. Solomon has yet to let me down.

> John Atkinson wrote:

> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> --- Michael Llaneza <maserati@earthlink.net> wrote:

Sure. With a properly supported division I can crack
my own defenses.  I'm a combat engineer--I know how to
deal with obstacle belts. Most gamers don't have the training to think about
them properly.

> John Atkinson wrote:

> > As opposed to, eg., the British who ordered their

Machine guns, yes. The German rifle seem to have considered upright targets
moving at a slow walk to be considerably easier to hit than crouching targets
moving at the run, though.

> >(Attempting to charge across a river when the enemy controls the

So have I. What intrigues me is that the Italians *didn't* refuse after the
4th or so attempt...

> Game: DBR

...*early modern*...? Ah, well, if you say so <shrug>

Players who routinely deploy in a strong defensive position when the enemy
has no superiority in strength should expect to achieve a stand-off. In
tournaments (where forces are, at least theoretically, at the same strength)
such players are not very well tolerated; in friendly games I don't see any
reason to not give the attacker a force advantage to make an interesting game
out of it.

Later,

> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> Machine guns, yes. The German rifle seem to have

Indeed. But it all comes back to, IIRC the fact that Germans had twice as many
machine guns per batallion as their competition. The French believed they were
too 'defensive minded' and the British had some sort of delusions about the
efficacy of rifle fire (which, granted were true: If your army consists
entirely of
long-service professionals most of whom have combat
experience).

> >Game: DBR

> From 1500-1700 or so. No other good term to cover

> in friendly games I

The problem with DBx series of games is that armies tend to large enough to
take up the whole table. I would have been wiling to fight the battle with
even numbers, but the solution to the tactical problem is