This dude sounds like a really funny guy!

The liberals over at Air America The Young Turks found some really great quotes for their Fallwell Eulogy.

My favourite Fallwell quote must be this: “You should not sleep with prostitutes unless you’re married to them.” ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!

Also his vision that all good born-again christians will be sucked up naked on their judgement day is great fun! 
I would really have loved to see that, but sadly it seems the dude passed away to early.  ;-)

There are thousand of original film clips from WWII on youtube.

Here is a french clip from May 28, 1940:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_LVEZjNRYY&mode=related&search=

From there, just follow “related” to find many other original movie clips

Military history is full on encounters where one side uses terrain the other side believe to be impassable.

First rule of combat.
Impassable terrain is never impassable unless you defend it.

Baghdaddy couldn’t be more right here.  :-)

Another famous example that comes to mind occurred on Bataan where the extremely incompetent Gen. MacArthur failed to defend the “impassible Mount Natib”, therefore losing his stronghold on Luzon.

From Wikipedia:
“Mount Natib, a 4,222-foot-high mountain that split the peninsula, served as the boundary line between the two corps. The commanders anchored their lines on the mountain, but, since they considered the rugged terrain impassable, they did not extend their forces far up its slopes. The two corps were therefore not in direct contact with each other, leaving a serious gap in the defense line.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bataan

German infantry division 1939=17,200

Corps=3-5 divisions
Army=3-5 Corps

At Stalingrad germany lost 225,000 KIA plus 90,000 captured

Thanx for coming around…  :-P

To avoid any confusion we should also be aware that a field corps and a corps is actually two different things.
Where the definition of a field corps is (1) that it is a subdivision of a field army, the definition of a corps is (2) that it is NOT a subdivision, but actually a independent force that isn’t really big enough to be called an army (independent geographically (eg. British Free Corps) or according to task (eg. US Marine Corps)). Therefore a corps can pretty much have any size smaller than a field army. A perfect illustrating example of (2) would be The British East African Camel Corps with only 7.000 soldiers. Despite its very small size, this force is surely a corps because it’s not a subdivision of anything: It’s commander was the highest-level commander of British East Africa.

…and well…the British Free Corps never had more than 27 soldiers!!!  :-D

I believe DAK was initially a corps according to definition 2 (expeditionary force), - not a field corps. Initially it was only combined of two small divisions (5th Panzer & 5th Light) of less than 30.000 soldiers, but later it grew in size and thus became “Panzer Army Africa”, or even later “Army Group Africa”, allthough these organisations never reach a size comparable to a field army or an army group of the eastern front. This is why “Army Group Africa” was dubbed a “paper tiger” by the allies.

Cheers  :wink:

Cyan:

the poulation of the us in 1940 was 132,164,569. .2(132,164,569) = 26,432,914.

Yeah, I think we can agree that the US fought the war much like they had both of their hands on their back (busy with lots of other stuff). With your calculations the great US effort seems merely like spitting.  8-)

As for Germany it has been estimated that around 3-4 million soldiers were still in uniforms in may 1945 just before Germany surrendered.

Imperious leader:

an army would be made up of 15 divisions ( with 10,000 men each so thats 150,000 but its still to high and some units are just not gonna fit really any consistent system because the game was not designed that way. It was a balanced idea on deployment rather than historical.

I’m quite sure a full German infantry division at WW2 was much more than 10.000 men, rather 16.000-18.000 men, and consequently I believe the average German field army (at least before combat) was very much bigger than 150.000 soldiers. The average German Army corps was about 60.000- 120.000, more or less the size of a russian army.  The Russian equivalent to a German army was called a “front” and could number as much as 350.000 men. I also believe The German 6th army at Stalingrad initially numbered 200.000-300.000 men. Tell me if I am wrong.

Baghdaddy:

We should not assume that a “destroyed” army is actually representing 100,000’s of men dead.  It more accurately is the destruction of war materials and disruption of the organization that is what most quickly removed combat units from the front line.  2% to 3% causualties were enough to get most combat units looking for R&R.  10% casualties would be enough to make most units static and unable to do much more than hold ground.  Casualty rates higher than that would generally be the end of the unit but the “elements” of the unit would still be individually functioning and could often be pulled back together in R&R to rebuild the unit.

I think this sounds very reasonable to me, which is why I suggested that the visible inf-unit may be interpreted as the elite front-division of the corps it represents. Losing this front-division the corps would eigther be pulled back for reinforcement (symbolized by a newly purchased inf) or pinned down, unable to make offensive action (thus symbolized  only by the territory colour).

AJGundam:

Well that’s why it’s called a game

He,he, yes A&A is a game alright, but unlike e.g. RISK it is nevertheless designed to follow WW2-history more or less accurately.

Have you guys ever tried playing the CD-rom game? In this game the odds are very much manipulated to make the game even closer to WW2 history. Example: Even though the odds should be exactly equal, it sure seems UK will almost NEVER lose the bomber in the first SBR on Germany, where as Germany will almost ALWAYS lose the bomber in a first SBR on UK. So to win in the cd-r game one could say that knowledge of WW2 history seems more helpful than actual skills in calculating the odds.

ncscswitch:

Since a “turn” refers to 3-4 months of time, crossign your own territory would allow for refueling along the way, and actual “combat” movement would begin when you moved into enemy territory, or over water.

Yeah, if we agree to Harris’ “syncronized” theory, that’s an acceptable point of view, I think.

Imperious Leader:

Each Infantry has to be a army. Germany had about 15 armies in 1942.

It does not sound very realistic to me that Germany can put up 10 new armies every turn (every four months?) Also, this would mean that Germany could attack egypt with 4 armies + pz corps (1.0- 1.5 million soldiers?) in spring 1942.

….and there should be 250.000 - 300.000 soldiers on Midway island? - nah…  :-)

Then I would rather count the total ipc value on German units and then divide with 15.
A German field army= 258/15 = 17 ipc

Germany’s initially only got 11 ipc of units in Africa, (Africa corps - not entirely a field army) so this makes more sense to me.

Since Germany in first turn can attack Russia with 139 ipc of units, this would still be a strong offensive with more than 8 field armies.

Example: A possible attack on Caucasus on G1 with 3 tanks, 3inf, 3fig (60 ipc) could thus represent an army group (Army Group South) consisting of 3 field armies + smaller panzer armies, (The 4th Army, the 6th Army, 17th Army + 1st Panzer Army and 4th Panzer Army)

But I think maybe the range of fighters should be changed from 6 to 5 movements, as the typical range of fighters was max. 500 miles (max 800 miles with droptanks). At the Battle of England German fighters could cross the channel but not the North Sea (except Me-110).

Ha, ha ha, Did I really say that? I meant of course “from 4 to 3 movements”!  allow me to re-edit that, :-D

yeah but i think planes shouldn’t have to spend movement points when they cross into thier own terrtories.

How so? would they turn off the engines and glide?

“Col Cool”, how long have you been on this site?

Did you have a previous alias?

If so, why have you chosen to start a new name?

Ive played A&A for many years with a large group of friends. Therefore I have also been aware of this website for a few years, and once in a while I have frequenced this webpage reading threads and articles. But I have always done this as a guest only. I have never before been a member with alias.  :-)

If we start going into historical accuracy, we would have to make disparate units (e.g. German tanks hit at 4, Russian at 3, Japanese at 2).

Sure, I agree that changes like these would be necessary (allthough i disagre that German tanks was better than the Russian tanks. The russian tanks (like KV-2 and T-34) was the best in the world in 1942 IMHO).

But I think maybe the range of fighters should be changed from 4 to 3 movements, as the typical range of fighters was max. 500 miles (max 800 miles with droptanks). At the Battle of England German fighters could cross the channel but not the North Sea (except Me-110).