Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So yeah we are getting a new supplement from BF, Russians and possibly Gerries for Early war.

What I want to know how can us other EW players beat T34 and PZkpW 4 tanks with tankettes?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry for the oversized picture, I am posting from a phone

On the T34-front, exploiting the fact they'd probably be expensive, conscript, and possibly unreliable (the Soviets took huge T-34 losses in O: Barb. simply because of fuel shortages and mechanical failures, for example) would be the answer.

In June-December 1941 as the supplement says, it's likely you'll be facing the same Panzer IVs EW Germans already get, which are horribly expensive and few in number.

I have a feeling that you'll be seeing more BTs, KVs, 35(t)/38(t)s, and Panzer IIIs than you will be T-34s and Pz IVs.

I suppose youre right. I read somewhere that early T34s were built to last two weeks.

I wonder how BF will represent the superiority of German equipment and things like Stalins purges of the red army.

I'm sad that my Romanians don't look they'll get to play in EW :(. You'd think that this is the probably the most anticipated of the EW books (I know I've been waiting years for it) and yet from the looks of it it's only going to be a softcover.

 econtutor wrote:
I'm sad that my Romanians don't look they'll get to play in EW :(. You'd think that this is the probably the most anticipated of the EW books (I know I've been waiting years for it) and yet from the looks of it it's only going to be a softcover.

I'm also missing the Hungarians,

And I thought it would be hard back too, but I would expect to see Hungarian and Romanian PDF's at some point, but as we are still waiting on the Belgians it might be a while.

Ben

Daemonhammer wrote:

I wonder how BF will represent the superiority of German equipment and things like Stalins purges of the red army.

German kit wasn't superior in the main and the effect of Stalin's purges shouldn't have any in game effect beyond extensive confident/conscript ratings, plus the RKKA already had a lot more professional and flexible (relatively speaking) officers thanks to the reforms prompted by the drubbing administered by the Finns during the Winter War.

In effect this book will be Blitzkrieg Germans (with near enough the same kit and ratings) fighting Rising Sun Soviets (with near enough the same kit and ratings) with the addition of a sprinkling of toys for both sides.

Yeah, the superiority of German Armour is something of a myth. The majority of armored vehicles involved in those early campaigns where training tanks never intended to see front line action. Not to mention they where still using horses as prime movers.

The real secret to German success in the early stages of the war was that they had learned to combine arms successfully.

No, the real key is the radio.

And most tanks were not 'training tanks' used in 1941. Horses also remained their main prime mover for the whole war.

 econtutor wrote:
I'm sad that my Romanians don't look they'll get to play in EW :(. You'd think that this is the probably the most anticipated of the EW books (I know I've been waiting years for it) and yet from the looks of it it's only going to be a softcover.

Yeah. My initial assumption was that the Romanians and Hungarians had not been mentioned merely because they wanted to put more text in focusing on the Germans and Soviets (who will sell more product). But if the book's only $30, then they probably aren't going to be included.

And most tanks were not 'training tanks' used in 1941.

iirc, the Panzer IIs had been intended as training tanks. And iirc, they were still in use during the start of Barbarossa.

Panzer II was a light tank, it wasnt a training tank. It was something of a stop gap, untill more Panzer IIIs were built, but it was designed as a combat vehicle.

And yes, it as used in 41 as was the Panzer I on occasion. The Panzer II was still in use at Kursk in 43.

The real key to German succes was the cowardice of British and French.

Daemonhammer wrote:
The real key to German succes was the cowardice of British and French.

I would hardly say they were cowardly, thats board line offensive!

The problem the British and French had was they did exactly what the Germans wanted them to do and their Generals hadn't caught up with the pace of Modern War at that point of time, they were thinking in terms of infantry pace and not 40 to 50 mile a day advances, combined that with what LuciusAR says about the combined arms tactics the German had and they had a walk over.

Daemonhammer wrote:
I suppose youre right. I read somewhere that early T34s were built to last two weeks.

I wonder how BF will represent the superiority of German equipment and things like Stalins purges of the red army.

This is something of a commonly held misconception. Russian engineering was excellent, even at the outbreak of Barbarossa, and some of the incarnations of the T34 were commonly held at the time to be some of the best tanks in the war. The majority of tanks lost to mechanicals would have been due to some of the horrendous terrain they were forced to fight over and bad supply chain. Also, that lots of the tank divisions were miles away from the front lines as Stalin was desperate not to give Hitler any excuse to attack.

German AT units commonly used their Russian equivalents when they were captured because they had more punch.

As the guys above have mentioned, horses were still used in massive quantities. I did read that more were involved in Barbarossa than used by Germany in the entire first world war! And they were losing more than 10,000 a day at the height of the war. It's hard to imagine the scale of that German/Russian conflict on the Eastern front, and in many ways it is probably the biggest war in terms of numbers involved and scale in the entirety of the history of armed conflict.

Where the Germans excelled throughout the war (although in the early stages of Barbarossa it was more pronounced) was in their application of tactics, the Russians suffered a lot in the earlier days through lots of their military leadership having been killed off in Stalin's purges and replaced by yes-men that didn't have a clue what they were doing, and a return to almost Tsarist-Russia type tactics. Read some of the accounts of the Russians just throwing Infantry into the Germans guns, the disregard for the lives of their soldiers (especially in the early days) was absolutely horrendous.

Daemonhammer wrote:
The real key to German succes was the cowardice of British and French.

Its not borderline offensive, its just offensive.

Indeed, lets try not to insult two whole nations with a single post, especially nations which lost so many in the war being discussed.

Daemonhammer wrote:
The real key to German succes was the cowardice of British and French.

I would make the argument that human beings in general are cowardly. Not being blown up is a good way to pass on ones genes, and has therefore become a trait that has passed through multiple animal species, including ourselves..

What can appeasement be called if not cowardice?

Daemonhammer wrote:
What can appeasement be called if not cowardice?

The word that you should have used is 'appeasement'. Plus the context of your post was way too broad. If you wanted to discuss the failings of the British government under Neville Chamberlain then you should have stated as much instead of painting all British citizens with the same broad brushstrokes.

Chamberlain's actions have been debated for seventy years and his motives could range from failing to act to stop Germany to doing what he felt best for Britain at the time. Calling him a 'coward' is not going to solve anything and runs contrary to the forums rules (Rule #1).

Following the Munich conference when the British and French betrayed the Czechs, Chamberlain came back to England and was greeted as a hero, the people believed he had stopped a war. In France both the left and right did not want to fight Germamy, and when Germany invaded many French soldiers preferred to surrender to the Germans rather than fight.

Daemonhammer, I don't mean this to sound rude but I think you really need to read a few more history books in order to not make such sweeping (and actually, untrue) generalisations.

Words such as 'cowardice' carry a lot of emotional connotations, and it's utterly fallacious to apply them to a particular race or group of people. The Russians had entire divisions that surrendered to the Germans virtually unscathed on the Eastern Front, while at the same time divisions that flung themselves into the paths of machine guns, climbing over the bodies of their compatriots who had just been gunned down in front of them and attacking with no weapons. The point being that there were examples amongst all forces of troops that fought on all fronts of both what could be termed 'easy' surrender, and of fighting on beyond what they could reasonably be expected to.

But, I wouldn't use the term of 'coward' for anyone who took part in that conflict, or any other for that matter. That war is an utterly dreadful business should be obvious to anyone that has even the slightest bit of imagination.

Daemonhammer wrote:
Following the Munich conference when the British and French betrayed the Czechs, Chamberlain came back to England and was greeted as a hero, the people believed he had stopped a war. In France both the left and right did not want to fight Germamy, and when Germany invaded many French soldiers preferred to surrender to the Germans rather than fight.

Prey tell exactly which nations / national leaders stood up to Germanic and other nations agression in this period?

Must be that monthly time again,ww2 politics.

But i am kinda surprised that it is not a hardback,Bf must be planning on a three book series for it.

 col. krazy kenny wrote:
Must be that monthly time again,ww2 politics.

But i am kinda surprised that it is not a hardback,Bf must be planning on a three book series for it.

Three softbacks, then re-released as two hardbacks, with minor changes which will generally be for the better and a few extra bits that didn't make the cut the first time.

Then each book re-released a year later with more minor changes...


Any time someone says "x" are cowards or whatever, just metally replace it with the more accurate "x politicians are cowards", because lets face it thats probably more accurate and in general politicians are one fo the few groups you can still insult (because few like them), the other two being the stupid and the lazy (one won't notice and the other won't do anything anyway).

Speaking as a paid up member of one of the latter two, and someone who helps the other out when they are busy that is..

I stand by what I said, When Czechoslovakia was given to Germany and Poland burned what did Britain and France do? Nothing. Both countries gave their word that they would do everything to help yet they did nothing.

But it dosent matter what I say, I have never met a Brit (or an American for that matter) who would admit they did anything wrong.

And again, you're painting the entire population of those countries based on what the politicians did. Would you like it if we based our opinions of you based on what the Irish Republican Army did during the Troubles?

Daemonhammer wrote:
I stand by what I said, When Czechoslovakia was given to Germany and Poland burned what did Britain and France do? Nothing. Both countries gave their word that they would do everything to help yet they did nothing.

But it dosent matter what I say, I have never met a Brit (or an American for that matter) who would admit they did anything wrong.

Without sounding rude, do you think the french soldiers should have just assaulted germany against the orders of their superiors? Or the british populace should have swam over the channel to halt the German offensive?

I mean, 99% of the soldiers and citizens (assumption percentage here) have their trust in the guys that are in charge to make the best decision with the knowledge they had at the time (which is more knowledge than what we probably have). I know that if my country declared war on Fiji if a second military coup happened and they decided not to attack immediately, I would trust my government to have a good reason for it. I simply dont have the info or stupidity to say what they are doing is wrong or an act of cowardice.

So unless you are gonna be the first guy on the row boat in WW3 to defend the first nation that was attacked on day one, you too are a coward in your books.

Yes it may not have been the best decision, but its certainly a decision you are in no means able to criticize whole nations for. But its a complicated and futile argument to make and frankly doesnt make sense. I can say with certainty there are french and British men who have done things during that time that you are not capable of nor have done in your life.

A tragedy it was, not a national showing of cowardice. Its easy to be a tough guy with hindsight in your favor. Im sure a lot of people had many sleepless nights after making the decisions they made during those events.

In short... Shut Up Dude.

OK guys, let's move on from that comment, rather than getting dragged off topic let's get back into discussing the book

On topic more early war stuff is cool. Whats a motor company like for both sides?

I have always wanted to do an army thats fully mounted in light vehicles.

Czechoslovakia was not given the assurances of support from Britain and France as Poland was. You also have to understand that there was a great deal of sympathy for the Germans on the British side over the Versailles Treaty, which really drove the appeasement policy.

In regards to Poland, yes, there was a commitment to defend its neutrality. It's easy to say that they sat back and did nothing, but the truth is that Britain wasn't in a position to do much about it and the French military at the time was plagued by defeatism and were certain the war would be fought the same way as WWI. On top of this, the citizenry of both nations did not want war and public opinion is pretty important to a democratic regime.

I'm not saying that the British and the French were faultless in their conduct of those early years, in truth much could've been done to stop Hitler before the Allies actually did, but that's the benefit of hindsight. It's absolutely unfair to characterize their actions as cowardly.

Ok, the warning is in red now. Back on topic after those posts, or else.