Do you feel your respective Nationality is Represented Well?

Aries

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
4,187
Reaction score
5
Location
Earth
Country
llCanada
I might grant that the US 666 standard squad should have been the 667 as standard.

The true problem, I think lies in how the numerical range was never originally designed with the sheer volume of nationalities it now possesses.

Squad Leader had Americans Germans and Russians. That was it. The numbers were easier then.

I feel ok giving Canada an 8, we kicked butt on a regular basis.

But the whole numerical range would be less of a burden, if the sum total range was based off of a greater numerical range.

Maybe the next squad tactical WW2 game will pick a greater numerical range for its counters to avoid this plight :)
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
17,449
Reaction score
3,395
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
The "6" US morale just does not fly when you consider the reality of the performance.


Sure it does. The standard US troops were just girly men who ran away at the first look of the enemy:cheeky:
 

Ronnblom

Swedish Terminator
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
1,213
Reaction score
142
Location
Linköping, Sweden
Country
llSweden
FrankH. said:
Why not come up with a proposal for this? Consider combining it with the other "neutrals" including Turkey & Spain.

Not sure how many scenarios they could be involved in, however.

Frank
For DYO, you mean? I'm not sure I think that would be very interesting. Sweden had some volunteers in Finland, but other than that, the Swedish army saw very little action (if any). I guess the same goes for Turkey? The Spanish Blue Division is already in the system, in the form of German counters.
 
Last edited:

Ronnblom

Swedish Terminator
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
1,213
Reaction score
142
Location
Linköping, Sweden
Country
llSweden
Darrell Andersen said:
Air-f***ing-borne
Maybe each squad could have an attitude value as well as morale level? Airborne could be 7-4-7-10. As compared to the quite and timid 6-4-8-6 Finnish 'Supermen'.
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
17,449
Reaction score
3,395
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I'm quite happy with the way the Commonwealth forces are pepicted in ASL, slightly FP light but this is compensated for by the lack of cowering.
One thing which is often missed is the fact that MMGs were not organic to infantry units but belonged to machine gun companies so tended to be issued in groups rathers than singly.
 

King Scott

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
2,274
Reaction score
372
Location
Fullerton
Country
llUnited States
Pitman said:
There is nothing about Marine Corps amphibious doctrine which would suggest it comes with higher morale...
I have to dispute this. One very simple thing that you overlook about Marine Corps amphibious doctrine...failure to quickly secure the beachead, means death for you, your buddies, and the follow-on forces. Plain and simple, more than Army troops, Marines *MUST* take the beach and push in or face guaranteed death. That is pretty damn motivating.

Marines are trained from day one that they are elite troops, the best of the best. Certainly every branch of service in every country are taught that they are the best...but the Marines are taught that they are trained to specialize in *the* most difficult of all military missions...the seizure of enemy beaches from the ocean...where you have no room to fall back if you fail...failure equals death.

The Marines were trained and equiped to perform just this...and they were ingrained with the knowledge that they were the world's leading experts in this. To those outside the Marine Corps, their pride in their history and job borders on hubris...to the Marines, it is pride in a job well done...a job that few can do as well, and that most would shirk from.

The 8ML for the Marines *is* justified. They are some "hard chargers".

I do believe that the Airborne and Ranger units should also have a 8ML...they *were* better and more motivated than the regular Army troops...they trained harder, and had a much higher standard of fitness and proficiency than regular Army troops did.

Semper Fi!
Scott
 

FrankH.

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Messages
962
Reaction score
171
Location
New Mexico York
Ronnblom said:
For DYO, you mean? I'm not sure I think that would be very interesting. Sweden had some volunteers in Finland, but other than that, the Swedish army saw very little action (if any). I guess the same goes for Turkey? The Spanish Blue Division is already in the system, in the form of German counters.
Correct me if I am wrong. Were there not some battles between Sweden and either Finland and / or Norway in the very far north early and in the middle of the war?

The Spanish Civil War has not officially been recognized by MMP as far as an ASL compatible module to my knowledge, although a TTP has done some work there, yes.

Did not Turkey take part of Greek Macedonia during the German invasion in 1941?

While theorically interesting, other than hypothetical DYO scenarios I am not sure there is enough material to justify a module for Sweden and/or Turkey.

"Don't forget the Swiss if you want to depict neutrals.
And what about the Irish (Eire) ? Or were they too much "pro-German" to be counted as neutral ?"

I am unaware of any Swiss or Irish units that actually independently fought a battle in WWII.

"There is nothing about Marine Corps amphibious doctrine which would suggest it comes with higher morale, and there is certainly nothing in the performance of any Marine Division that would suggest it is any better than, say, the 82nd Airborne Division."

Not to denigrate other American unit types but did not the Marines train for a take more casualties than any other American unit and yet continue to function as a combat force? That might justify their 8 morale.

7-6-8 self deployment capability never made any sense to me, however. I think a leader should be needed, perhaps with a -1 DRM to his NTC.

(here we go again....)

Frank
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,646
Reaction score
5,627
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
FrankH. said:
I am unaware of any Swiss or Irish units that actually independently fought a battle in WWII.
I don't think there were any.
I thought all proposals about neutrals were jokes...:cheeky:
 

Ronnblom

Swedish Terminator
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
1,213
Reaction score
142
Location
Linköping, Sweden
Country
llSweden
FrankH. said:
Correct me if I am wrong. Were there not some battles between Sweden and either Finland and / or Norway in the very far north early and in the middle of the war?
No, we didn't fight Norway nor Finland. There existed strong bonds between Sweden and Finland (and Norway as well, to some extent). "The Finnish cause is ours" was one of the Swedish mottos of the time. We bothered less about the Norweigian cause, however.

There were a couple of Swedish volunteers in the Norweigan army fighting the Germans. And the Swedish government permitted the organization of a Voluntary Corps sent to Finland, which saw limited action against the Soviet invaders during the closing stage of the Winter War. (There is a scenario depicting one of these actions in the Friendly Fire Pack 1.)

There were also some Swedish Waffen-SS volunteers, serving with various Waffen-SS outfits fighting the Soviets. Most went into the Nordland regiment/division.
 

Matt Book

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
1,984
Reaction score
411
Country
llUnited States
Really ?

Vinnie said:
The "6" US morale just does not fly when you consider the reality of the performance.


Sure it does. The standard US troops were just girly men who ran away at the first look of the enemy:cheeky:
Yeah, maybe in Africa, but that wasn't the case in Sicily, Italy (Guy's at Anzio deserve an 8 morale...lol), France, and Germany.
 

sswann

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
2,914
Reaction score
1,387
Location
Middle of Kansas
First name
Steven
Country
llUnited States
Frank H

"The Rangers as they appeared in North Africa would be the best Rangers in ASL terms. Being fresh from their British training, the morale would be considered as a underlined morale and a ELR of 5. Each company was issued a M1903 Springfield rifle, which was used by the company sniper in 1942. Therefore the original Rangers would have higher sniper capabilities, which would rate a SAN of 4. These fresh Rangers would be considered both Elite and Stealthy, and receiving all Commando abilities as stated in the ASL Rulebook [H1.24].

The combat in North Africa would have taken its toll on experience personnel as well as the diluting effect of starting new units. These effects on the Rangers in Sicily would be represented by some decreased abilities. The ELR would remain at 5 but the morale would not be considered underlined. This will allow squad quality reduction, as the Rangers are worn down. The SAN would be reduced to 3, but the Rangers would still be both Elite and Stealthy.

Their use in conventional combat was telling on the Ranger abilities by the time of the invasion of Italy. During training the Rangers found that they could not move silently without extra training, but the press of events at Anzio did not give the time needed. For all scenarios in Italy (1st Phase), the ELR would still be 5, the morale would not be underlined, the SAN would be 2, and while the Rangers are still Elite they would no longer qualify as a Stealthy unit. The only difference that would be made between the two Italian Phases would be that the ELR would be 4 for the 2nd Phase in Italy."

The above is an excerpt from my Darby's Rangers article which was printed in the late 80s in THE GENERAL magaizine by Avalon Hill. You are correct... the Ranger capabilities changed as the war wore on.

Steve
 

sswann

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
2,914
Reaction score
1,387
Location
Middle of Kansas
First name
Steven
Country
llUnited States
FrankH. said:
"There is nothing about Marine Corps amphibious doctrine which would suggest it comes with higher morale, and there is certainly nothing in the performance of any Marine Division that would suggest it is any better than, say, the 82nd Airborne Division."

Not to denigrate other American unit types but did not the Marines train for a take more casualties than any other American unit and yet continue to function as a combat force? That might justify their 8 morale.

7-6-8 self deployment capability never made any sense to me, however. I think a leader should be needed, perhaps with a -1 DRM to his NTC.

(here we go again....)

Frank
Frank

Below is more about the USMC in ASL as it was printed in a GENERAL mag in the 1990s by Avalon Hill. It includes a quote directly from the official history of Marine Operations in World War II.

And yes... Marine units could and did historically take up to 70% casualties and remained combat effective.

Steve

"From history the Marines have always prided themselves on their self-reliance and their fighting ability. Due to the tremendous manpower need in World War II mobilization, the draft was instituted on December 5, 1942. Many will say that since the Marines were using the draft, that the troop quality would be the same as the Army. But wait... this turns out to be deceptive. The Marine Commandant, Lt.Gen. T. Holcomb, assigned liaison officers to all State Governors' offices and draft boards to defer all draftees that indicated a preference for the Marines and hold them until Marine training camps could take them. The rest of the story can be best stated by a direct quote from the "History of Marine Corps Operations in World War II", vol. 2, page 35...

"... This program, which was quite successful, resulted in the seeming paradox that most of the draftees in Marine uniforms were still volunteers, in fact if not in name.

The intangible but clearly evident atmosphere of a volunteer outfit was retained by the Marine Corps throughout the war. This spirit was especially evident in the units of the Corps' striking arm - the Fleet Marine Force - where officers and men alike were intolerant of anyone attempting to get by with a marginal performance. The prevailing attitude was that every man had asked to be a Marine and no complaints were expected when the going got a little rough."

One other attitude prevailed in the Pacific that was not in evidence in the European theater. In the Pacific we were fighting the Japanese, a nation who attacked Pearl Harbor without warning and without a declaration of war. Most Americans were so outraged that they flocked to join the military services so that they could fight the Japanese. The war in Europe had not touched the majority of Americans on the emotional level since they had not been personally attacked. Thus the Pacific war was a personal war to many Americans at home, while the European war was a distant war involving distant people. This difference in attitude has a large effect on the determination and mental willingness of a soldier to face deadly combat."
 
Last edited:

Jim McLeod

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,332
Reaction score
11
Location
Manitoba
Country
llCanada
Fezz'

I agree with almost all you say, the exception being this bit of heresey

[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig] I have no issue with a 7 ML for Rangers or Paras;[/QUOTE]

Indeed, other than that, all you spake is sound.




=Jim=
 

Jim McLeod

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,332
Reaction score
11
Location
Manitoba
Country
llCanada
Pitman said:
And there is no evidence out there that would suggest to me that Marine troops are elite enough to have an 8 morale,
Mark, you ever hear of Tarawa, Peleiu (sp?) or Iwo Jima to name but three.

The guys who took those pieces of ground were all of '8' morale level and then some.




=Jim=
 

Jim McLeod

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,332
Reaction score
11
Location
Manitoba
Country
llCanada
King Scott said:
I have to dispute this. One very simple thing that you overlook about Marine Corps amphibious doctrine...failure to quickly secure the beachead, means death for you, your buddies, and the follow-on forces. Plain and simple, more than Army troops, Marines *MUST* take the beach and push in or face guaranteed death. That is pretty damn motivating.

Marines are trained from day one that they are elite troops, the best of the best. Certainly every branch of service in every country are taught that they are the best...but the Marines are taught that they are trained to specialize in *the* most difficult of all military missions...the seizure of enemy beaches from the ocean...where you have no room to fall back if you fail...failure equals death.

The Marines were trained and equiped to perform just this...and they were ingrained with the knowledge that they were the world's leading experts in this. To those outside the Marine Corps, their pride in their history and job borders on hubris...to the Marines, it is pride in a job well done...a job that few can do as well, and that most would shirk from.

The 8ML for the Marines *is* justified. They are some "hard chargers".

I do believe that the Airborne and Ranger units should also have a 8ML...they *were* better and more motivated than the regular Army troops...they trained harder, and had a much higher standard of fitness and proficiency than regular Army troops did.

Semper Fi!
Scott
Hey Mark, what Scott says, in SPADES!




=Jim=
 

Jim McLeod

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,332
Reaction score
11
Location
Manitoba
Country
llCanada
Robin said:
I am half British and half Swiss.
I have a preference for the Brist in ASL, and I do find them well represented.
Among the appreciable elements : no cowering for 1st line and elite - very decent smoke availability - 6-4-8 airborne are fine - LMG 7 hex normal range - cool HoB -1 DRM...
Since we are talking about Brits, lets not forget that they were splendid dancers all, most excellent company over a pint and they always say "please" before they tell one to "f*** o**".

The Canadians are identical to the Brits except for the saying "please" part.

Indeed, a most civil group of cardboard warriors those Brits.

:)




=Jim=
 

'Ol Fezziwig

Repressed Dissident
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
6,642
Reaction score
730
Location
hazy fold of reality
Country
llUnited States
Certainly, the US morale level(s) has been a hot topic from day one. Just as certainly, I have cursed the 6 or 7 morale Army troops for their unique ability to fail morale checks based on scattered fire. Of course, the same can be said for any nationality unfortunate enough to be under my command. Still and all, many players have played and been successful with Army units as they currently stand.

Even me.

Setting aside Paras/Rangers/Armored for the moment, Army troops (very simplisticly here) advanced until they made contact and called for support. Efforts would be made to flank the contact while the supporting fires were under way. MARINE doctrine was to nearly bull rush any contact, with complimentary flanking moves made concurrently under supporting fires. At any rate, the MARINE doctrine was to continually apply pressure where Army units would increasingly ratchet up pressure in an effort to minimise casualties.

Paras and Rangers, due to the differing nature of their employment (in theory anyway, they often were employed as line infantry) were expected to utilise more in the way of initiative, though often without the benefit of set-piece support. They certainly rate elite status, but I fail to see why they 'need' to have "...the same morale as other nations elite units...". The measure of a squad type's potency is not held within the morale value alone. The 7-4-7 (and 6-6-7) are uniquely imposing units, especially when wielded skillfully. I actually get more of a kick winning with 7-4-7s than 6-5-8s, 4-5-8s, 8-3-8s or 6-2-8s. There's more of an "I don't steenkin' need that extra ML" attitude to it, especially when playing those guys that whine about the 'lower' ML of the Paras.

Of course, that is all experiential. And, just as much a matter of course, is the subjective matter of performance. I'd venture the 1st, 4th and 6th Marine Divisions rated fairly well in terms of performance, and against some of the Japanese' best formations. Then we can mention the Raiders...
None of this, is meant, by the by, the impugn either the Paras or Rangers. I don't feel that units developing their doctrines during the war, no matter how successfully, are in the same class as an established branch of service, especially one already known at that time as being an elite branch of service.




And, no, I did not serve in THE CORPS...I was but 24 hours from doing so, however...:salute:
 

Pitman

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
14,104
Reaction score
2,371
Location
Columbus, OH
Country
llUnited States
King Scott said:
I have to dispute this. One very simple thing that you overlook about Marine Corps amphibious doctrine...failure to quickly secure the beachead, means death for you, your buddies, and the follow-on forces. Plain and simple, more than Army troops, Marines *MUST* take the beach and push in or face guaranteed death. That is pretty damn motivating.

Semper Fi!
Scott
Since when must Marines take the beach more than Army troops? That doesn't even make any sense. There were more Army amphibious invasions in World War II than Marine amphibious invasions, in any case.
 

Pitman

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
14,104
Reaction score
2,371
Location
Columbus, OH
Country
llUnited States
Jim McLeod said:
Mark, you ever hear of Tarawa, Peleiu (sp?) or Iwo Jima to name but three.

The guys who took those pieces of ground were all of '8' morale level and then some.
=Jim=
Uh, right. They were so much braver than the G.I.s at Salerno and Omaha Beach. :rolleyes: :hmmm:
 
Top