PDA

View Full Version : The American Civil War!



WARLORD1863
12th Apr 2005, 03:51
Imperial glory looks to be a wonderful game that actually makes linear warfare work! Mixed in with artillery, cavalry, and a beautiful naval war aspect.

I think, for the next installment similar to Imperial Glory, they should do a game on The American Civil War.

3,867,500 Americans clashed all over America, from the fields of Gettysburg to the cities of New Orleans and Atlanta. 650,000 men died, and many more thousands were wounded. I think it would be fascinating to change history and to lead an army right into Richmond to put down the Confederacy early in the war, or change ALL of history by leading the Confederate army into Washington D.C.! Possibilities are endless, and when it comes to naval warfare you can use the mighty Ironclads and duke it out. Perhaps later in the game there could be the possibility of building entrenchments, just as both armies did.

Just an idea, a lot of Americans are waiting for a good civil war game to top Sid Meier's Gettysburg and Antietam.

andytimtim
12th Apr 2005, 15:05
Try this! (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/americancivilwargettysburg/index.html?q=gettysburg)

This game looks fantastic! :)


Or you could try this (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/takecommand1861thecivilwar/index.html?q=civil+war). this one is actually already out.

WARLORD1863
12th Apr 2005, 18:48
The new one coming out looks nice for a turn-based strategy game. But I think something like Imperial Glory, which is a Real Time strategy game, would definitely become a hot seller in the U.S. Sid Meier did a good job with his Gettysburg and Antietam games, but the technology used for Imperial Glory could potentially make the best Civil War game ever made. And and if there are any administrators reading, the Civil War is the top historical subject in America. Just imagine what could happen if an amazing game on the war came out.

HellAngel_666
12th Apr 2005, 19:35
lol all the deep south would try to win with lee and just lose over and over again like he did :D lol :p GO UNION! and when playing the north people would just walk over the south! :rolleyes: :cool: ;) like a hot knife through butter. :D but ya i know 10 names right now sitting here that would buy a American Civil war game! plus when i think about it another 20 ;)

HellAngel_666
12th Apr 2005, 19:37
lol nice quote. that is like from every history book EVERY! even in the offical US navy book!

WARLORD1863
12th Apr 2005, 21:34
No ****, I guess I better take the quote out cuz it's in a lot of books.... sure.

And those who have done a lot of research on the American Civil war would know that it was not a "piece of cake" to take the South. In fact, with a slight alteration of events at Gettysburg, a letter was prepared to be placed on the President Lincoln's desk in Washington to push for an end to the conflict. Two choices, end the war and allow the South to exist independently, or face the Army of Northern Virginia marching straight into Washington.

If Stonewall Jackson had lived and not gotten killed accidentally by his own men, he would have taken the offensive on the first day of the battle and taken the high ground. But the fact was, he was killed and General Ewell took his place. Ewell was too cautious and did not push forward when Jackson would have. That mistake costed them the battle and the war. Also, perhaps Lee would have opted for Longstreet's plan around the right, instead of going ahead with Pickett's Charge.

There are a million variations that could have led to victories on both sides. A neat feature that could be in a Civil War game would be the political aspects. For example: Let's say you're controlling the Union and you are Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln, at first, did NOT push for abolition of the slaves because the border states (which wanted to stay in the Union but wasn't sure) would have opted to secede for sure, since they did not want to give up slavery. A great thing the game could include is the ability to make such decisions. Perhaps the player could CHOOSE to fight for abolition at the onset of the conflict. Then the player discovers that a couple of the border states have seceded! (already history is changed) And therefore, the South gains more supplies and manpower which stacks up militarily and strategically against the Union.

All kinds of options could be included, such as the ability to draft and control the rate of the draft. The Union side would have to contruct naval vessels to create a blockade of the South, and the South side would have to create blockade runners and naval vessels to punch holes into the blocakde. And let's not forget the ironclads.

Both sides could contruct forts anywhere they deem necessary, but there could be different levels of forts. The big, advanced ones that would take some time to build (ideally to protect important passage ways or resources and cities) as well as smaller entrenchments.

Some newbies to the Civil War may wonder what kind of variety the Civil War would offer. Well the ability to fight was determined by experience. Newer regiments had the tendency to retreat sooner than veterans. Some regiments were tougher than others, such as the famed "Iron Brigade" from Wisconsin, and the Irish Brigade, as well as Stonewall Jackson's men. Cavalry played a big role too, and with the latest carbine repeating rifles the tactics changed to dismounted combat, however mounted charges did occur, especially between General Custer and General Jeb Stuart at Gettysburg (huge cavalry charge). Also there are varieties in tactics, most who think they know about the Civil War, surprisingly, did NOT know that there were actually attacks on several fronts around the country. There was frontier fighting in Arizona, California, and Oklahoma. There was General Grant's push into the South through Mississippi, when he took Vicksburg and attained control of the Mississippi River. There was General Sherman's infamous march to the sea when he went across the South (from west to east) and ultimately ending in the torching of Atlanta, Georgia. This, and many other conflicts, existed INDEPENDENTLY from the main conflict between General Lee and whatever Union general was in power at the time.

But what's so fascinating about the Civil War was that it was a heavily idealistic conflict. You always hear about how soldiers are patriotic at first, but once the bullets started to fly they didn't care about their country, they just wanted to survive. This was not true for the Civil War! Many thousands of men suffered great hardships and horrific battles, like my ancestor in the 9th Maine, but when enlistment ran out most men decided to RE-ENLIST. Soldiers on both sides were willing to charge head-first right into the enemy and die. Honor and national pride were evident in most letters sent home by soldiers, if they ran away then they would fail their country. For those interested in this aspect, a good book to read is "For Cause and Comrades" by the famous Civil War author, James McPherson.

WARLORD1863
5th May 2005, 20:51
I just tried the demo for the new Gettysburg game, while the effects are decent, the gameplay itself is rediculous. As a Civil War buff, I give the game a thumbs down. Although I'm still hoping for an Imperial Glory type of Civil War game! :D

screamingpalm
6th May 2005, 01:52
I just tried the demo for the new Gettysburg game, while the effects are decent, the gameplay itself is rediculous. As a Civil War buff, I give the game a thumbs down. Although I'm still hoping for an Imperial Glory type of Civil War game! :D


Except in an IG style American Civil War game, Picketts charge would be quite funny. None of the infantry would be shaken by the canister fire and run it over in seconds. :D

imported_mike_g
12th May 2005, 21:09
I agree with you, that would be something indeed.


Imperial glory looks to be a wonderful game that actually makes linear warfare work! Mixed in with artillery, cavalry, and a beautiful naval war aspect.

I think, for the next installment similar to Imperial Glory, they should do a game on The American Civil War.

3,867,500 Americans clashed all over America, from the fields of Gettysburg to the cities of New Orleans and Atlanta. 650,000 men died, and many more thousands were wounded. I think it would be fascinating to change history and to lead an army right into Richmond to put down the Confederacy early in the war, or change ALL of history by leading the Confederate army into Washington D.C.! Possibilities are endless, and when it comes to naval warfare you can use the mighty Ironclads and duke it out. Perhaps later in the game there could be the possibility of building entrenchments, just as both armies did.

Just an idea, a lot of Americans are waiting for a good civil war game to top Sid Meier's Gettysburg and Antietam.

Oststar
13th May 2005, 11:16
Look in the main IG forum and you'll see a thread called "Imperial Glory 2: Victorian Times" believe it or not the American Civil War occured during the Victorian era. Having a worldwide game would include the US though in less detail. On the other hand it would be much more popular outside the US than a civil war game would be.

NaPoLeOn_FusilieR
13th May 2005, 19:34
Imperial glory looks to be a wonderful game that actually makes linear warfare work! Mixed in with artillery, cavalry, and a beautiful naval war aspect.

I think, for the next installment similar to Imperial Glory, they should do a game on The American Civil War.

3,867,500 Americans clashed all over America, from the fields of Gettysburg to the cities of New Orleans and Atlanta. 650,000 men died, and many more thousands were wounded. I think it would be fascinating to change history and to lead an army right into Richmond to put down the Confederacy early in the war, or change ALL of history by leading the Confederate army into Washington D.C.! Possibilities are endless, and when it comes to naval warfare you can use the mighty Ironclads and duke it out. Perhaps later in the game there could be the possibility of building entrenchments, just as both armies did.

Just an idea, a lot of Americans are waiting for a good civil war game to top Sid Meier's Gettysburg and Antietam.

Yeah nice WARLORD1863, I think they should do a game on The American Civil War too. Not sure but I think they will for 65%.

NaPoLeOn_FusilieR
13th May 2005, 19:38
I think there should come a game like the war of U.S vs the Britons in the 18th Century.

Kokopelli
18th May 2005, 16:56
I think there should come a game like the war of U.S vs the Britons in the 18th Century.

Can't live with the fact that a rag-tag army of colonist sent y'all packing twice to Britain, got to have a game as a reminder? :D

Actually, I too would like to play a better game dealing with that era. (American Conquest sucked) It would be fun to change the course of history that found the United States. (yeah, I am an American. But I'm game for alternate-reality scenarios)

Stereophobia
21st May 2005, 00:16
Can't live with the fact that a rag-tag army of colonist sent y'all packing twice to Britain, got to have a game as a reminder? :D

Actually, I too would like to play a better game dealing with that era. (American Conquest sucked) It would be fun to change the course of history that found the United States. (yeah, I am an American. But I'm game for alternate-reality scenarios)
If it wasnt for those pesky french we would still hold america, and could have saved the world from George Bush Jr.

Kokopelli
21st May 2005, 04:28
If it wasnt for those pesky french we would still hold america, and could have saved the world from George Bush Jr.

Well, considering ole Edward Longshanks is supposedly his distant ancestor, I have a feeling we'd still be stuck with him. :D

imperialist274
27th May 2005, 20:42
Agreed :D

Anyways, I'm sure some if any modders are willing they could whip up something along the lines of Civil War. All of the components are there.

Captain.Crunch
28th May 2005, 05:26
Great Britain once owned the now U.S.A incredible aye! Whilst the lands of the U.S.A where claimed back..... canada was never reclaimed.

LONG LIVE THE KING! :D

Thrust123
28th May 2005, 13:43
If they release it someday, this is the "definitive" Civil War RTS:

http://www.walkerboystudio.com/html/wbts.html

Gelatinous Cube
29th May 2005, 22:09
I think a better model for a Civil War game to follow would be something like the Real-Time-ish Romance of the Three Kingdoms IX albiet with more refinements.

Just making a world-wide victorian age game, and lumping the Civil War in there with little detail would turn be off to the game. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest wars in modern history, as well as one of the most decisive. Any student of warfare should look into it as a matter of course, no matter what the nationality.

El pollo
1st Jun 2005, 10:32
Can't live with the fact that a rag-tag army of colonist sent y'all packing twice to Britain, got to have a game as a reminder? :D

OK, not actually true, but more to the point the only reason "you sent us packing" was because of the rich american aristocrats (who wern't actually any different from the brit ones at the time) didnt want to pay taxes and so set up a country where they could make up the rules

and maybe your not told about how the "rag-tag army of colonists" were actually professional militias set up by the BE so that they could keep their army elsewhere, so whent the fighting started there where very few british soldiers left

after that many loyalists moved to canada, which the USA tried to invade in 1815, but failed, and the british burnt down the Whitehouse. So don't say that a small bunch of freedom fighters beat a mighty empire, 'cos it ain't all true.

BTW i'm not trying to be insulting, i mean the british empire was no beter itself, for example the only reason it stopped slavery was 'cos it wasn't profitable anymore, not because they were kind people :mad:

just saying KNOW THE FACTS ;)

ps. an Civil war game using the Imperial Glory way would be good, but probably not very big outside the US

what i'd like to see is a game set in ancient mesopatamia, that is actually good, so more like imperial glory than AOE :D

Captain.Crunch
1st Jun 2005, 11:36
I WILL SAY THIS ONCE AND ONCE ONLY! THE BRITISH EMPIRE WAS EXTREAMLY VERY POWERFUL! MUCH MORE POWERFUL THEN THE AMERICAS.

U.S.A WAS TAKEN AND OWNED BY THE BRITISH EMPIRE. THE BRITISH EMPIRE STILL OWNS HALF OF YOUR LAND CANADA. IF YOU THINK THIS ERA WAS BIG QUEEN VICTORIA PAWNED THE MOST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD DURING HER REIGN. YOU HAVE A LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE IT IS REALLY HUGE! UNITED STATES HAVE ONLY BEEN AROUND THE PAST COUPLE HUNDREAD YEARS THE GREAT BRITISH EMPIRE HAS BEEN AROUND MUCH LONGER. IM SO HAPPY TO BE AN AUSTRALIAN AND APART OF THE GREAT BRITISH EMPIRE OF QUEEN VICTORIA IT MAKES ME FEEL VERY SPECIAL INDEED!
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN THAT SHE WAS A BEAUTIFUL FAT FACED QUEEN AND I LOVE HER.
:eek: :D

Captain.Crunch
1st Jun 2005, 11:44
RED COATS OWN! :cool:

Christopher Perry
1st Jun 2005, 16:14
Can't live with the fact that a rag-tag army of colonist sent y'all packing twice to Britain, got to have a game as a reminder? :D

Actually, I too would like to play a better game dealing with that era. (American Conquest sucked) It would be fun to change the course of history that found the United States. (yeah, I am an American. But I'm game for alternate-reality scenarios)

Can I remind you opinionated lot that in fact neither of the above is true!
The AWI was a victory NOT for the Continental Army but for the French Navy.
The Continental Army could not possibly have taken Yorktown unless the British line of supply had been cut by one of the few French naval victories over the Royal Navy. It was too heavily fortified. Cornwallis didn't surrender until he learned of De Grasse's victory. Also don't forget that we beat you at Bunker Hill. Why? because American rebels couln't stand up to the British cold steel i.e bayonets.
Moreover, the colonists were defeated time and again by British regulars and not until they were trained and led by French officers and backed by French regular troops did they show any military prowess what ever.
War or 1812 There is much misunderstanding about this "war". This was only a surgical strike by the British Army to encourage the U.S. Navy not to interfere with British Shipping. May I remind that the Royal Navy captured both the Constitution and the President during the course of the "war". Both vessels having a long career in the Royal Navy. Also if the U S Army of this time was so great why didn't they take Canada-they tried twice I think.

5/77 Armd
1st Jun 2005, 17:21
[QUOTE=Kokopelli]Can't live with the fact that a rag-tag army of colonist sent y'all packing twice to Britain, got to have a game as a reminder? :D

Please don't be an arrogant American ass, you make all of us look bad. We all know that the War of 1812 was a draw; and if Napolean wasn't ransacking Europe, Britain could have done a lot more damage to us. The US had essentially no professional soldiers, just a bunch of farmers, etc. I don't think the politicians thought about what the repercussions could have been when they declared war on Britain, (though the impressment of sailors would have chapped my ass as well)....

Coax74
1st Jun 2005, 17:57
Can I remind you opinionated lot that in fact neither of the above is true!
The AWI was a victory NOT for the Continental Army but for the French Navy.
The Continental Army could not possibly have taken Yorktown unless the British line of supply had been cut by one of the few French naval victories over the Royal Navy. It was too heavily fortified. Cornwallis didn't surrender until he learned of De Grasse's victory. Also don't forget that we beat you at Bunker Hill. Why? because American rebels couln't stand up to the British cold steel i.e bayonets.
Moreover, the colonists were defeated time and again by British regulars and not until they were trained and led by French officers and backed by French regular troops did they show any military prowess what ever.
War or 1812 There is much misunderstanding about this "war". This was only a surgical strike by the British Army to encourage the U.S. Navy not to interfere with British Shipping. May I remind that the Royal Navy captured both the Constitution and the President during the course of the "war". Both vessels having a long career in the Royal Navy. Also if the U S Army of this time was so great why didn't they take Canada-they tried twice I think.

The Battle of Bunker hill, just as in Lexington with the "shot heard around the world" showed the resolve of the American colonist. While the position of Bunker or Breed's hill probably was not the smartest move on the American's part (none of their guns could reach Boston), for two and a half hours of intense battle and greatly outnumbered the Americans held out until all of their powder was gone and they were forced to fight with gun butts and rocks. The British finally were able to overwhelm the Americans by bayonetting them out of the position (the Americans had no such "cold steel" to fight with so falling back was the only option besides just taking a blade in the gut). Yes, England took Bunker Hill, but at great cost and up against a very determined enemy who was undersupplied, untrained (at least not trained to professional British Army standards), and undisciplined.

It's true the Americans were beat numerous times and were constantly retreating, but again, did this sway their resolve? Obviously not. They relied on their few successes to keep up morale and to send a signal to the rest of the world that the rebellion was not just a flash in the pan.

But anyway, an ACW game would be cool, I agree with some here in that it would only probably appeal to an American audience. Imperial Glory has a nice charm about it because it is more or less a world war instead of a centralized Civil War.

Captain.Crunch
1st Jun 2005, 23:25
United States might be powerful now but there history isnt. Great Britian was in my oppinion and in truth the most powerful empire in the world and I think you need to adknowledge that people. Have read and watched the whole nepoleonic era and previous history right up to now. Im proud to be a part of the Great british empire. Thats twice i have said it now :D

I have a favourite commander of the red coats in india but that is another story :) lets just say he knew how to use his men.

Captain.Crunch
1st Jun 2005, 23:31
The Battle of Bunker hill, just as in Lexington with the "shot heard around the world" showed the resolve of the American colonist. While the position of Bunker or Breed's hill probably was not the smartest move on the American's part (none of their guns could reach Boston), for two and a half hours of intense battle and greatly outnumbered the Americans held out until all of their powder was gone and they were forced to fight with gun butts and rocks. The British finally were able to overwhelm the Americans by bayonetting them out of the position (the Americans had no such "cold steel" to fight with so falling back was the only option besides just taking a blade in the gut). Yes, England took Bunker Hill, but at great cost and up against a very determined enemy who was undersupplied, untrained (at least not trained to professional British Army standards), and undisciplined.

It's true the Americans were beat numerous times and were constantly retreating, but again, did this sway their resolve? Obviously not. They relied on their few successes to keep up morale and to send a signal to the rest of the world that the rebellion was not just a flash in the pan.

But anyway, an ACW game would be cool, I agree with some here in that it would only probably appeal to an American audience. Imperial Glory has a nice charm about it because it is more or less a world war instead of a centralized Civil War.


The Americans where taken my friend by Great Britain and it makes me so proud to read history like that. Lord Nelson read about what he did for the Great British empire and may i remind you that at the end of this year is a huge celebration 200 years since the battle of trafalgar and Nelson died.

Coax74
1st Jun 2005, 23:53
I have the greatest respect for the heroes of the Napoleonic wars. Wellington, Nelson, the incredibly badass Thomas Cochran, etc... I wouldn't slight Britain in the least. The culture is rich in history and tragedy and I'm proud my roots stem from that land (my ancestors immigrated to America from England in 1854). I will definitely raise a beer to Admiral Nelson's victory at Trafalgar this year just as I will raise a beer to our (America's) Independence Day on July 4th.

Captain.Crunch
2nd Jun 2005, 03:50
Well that is good to here aye aye to that! :D

It’s a shame war these days isnt the same anymore. Back then it was man and musket now its bloddy nuclear and all kinds of crap. Back then they actualy marched like an army and there uniforms where excellent.

Captain.Crunch
2nd Jun 2005, 03:52
I mean that white powder called antrax what a joke……. I hardly call that kind of warfare fair it isnt war at all... to spray someone with white powder what a joke :rolleyes:

cwr737
2nd Jun 2005, 16:49
While not up to the graphic standards of IG - at least from the screen shots, I don't yet have the program - the Bull Run title is a real steal. I am finding it very challenging (though I am a novice strategy gamer) - and it is really something to see the columns of men marching to the sound of gunfire.

El pollo
2nd Jun 2005, 18:02
United States might be powerful now but there history isnt. Great Britian was in my oppinion and in truth the most powerful empire in the world and I think you need to adknowledge that people. Have read and watched the whole nepoleonic era and previous history right up to now. Im proud to be a part of the Great british empire. Thats twice i have said it now :D

I have a favourite commander of the red coats in india but that is another story :) lets just say he knew how to use his men.


Oh so that's why the "great" british empire needed the americans to help them in the 1st and 2nd world wars, and this was at it's height, but they could not have done it without the americans

I am english by the way, so i'm not being biased for the americans, i'm just not a nationalist, i'm not with the BNP crowd :D

And one more thing, the BE was not that good, look at what they did in africa and india, admittedly they wern't as bad as the french and belgian empires, but they were not good
for example, when Cecil Rhodes went and mowed down the native africans with Maxims just to get some diamond mines, and that isn't just one event, that was what they BE was based on, i mean it started because of the brits sweet tooth and their need for sugar from caribbean plantations (for their tea :D )

PS. the "Great British Empire" doesn't exist anymore, just the commonwealth

Captain.Crunch
2nd Jun 2005, 23:28
Oh so that's why the "great" british empire needed the americans to help them in the 1st and 2nd world wars, and this was at it's height, but they could not have done it without the americans

I am english by the way, so i'm not being biased for the americans, i'm just not a nationalist, i'm not with the BNP crowd :D

And one more thing, the BE was not that good, look at what they did in africa and india, admittedly they wern't as bad as the french and belgian empires, but they were not good
for example, when Cecil Rhodes went and mowed down the native africans with Maxims just to get some diamond mines, and that isn't just one event, that was what they BE was based on, i mean it started because of the brits sweet tooth and their need for sugar from caribbean plantations (for their tea :D )

PS. the "Great British Empire" doesn't exist anymore, just the commonwealth


We are not talking about world war 1 or 2 we are talking about the time of this game.... You should have more respect for your history! if it wasnt for the Great British Empire you would be eating dirt my friend!

Great British Empire i have a lot of respect for they forged back in those times .

Christopher Perry
3rd Jun 2005, 15:23
No ****, I guess I better take the quote out cuz it's in a lot of books.... sure.

And those who have done a lot of research on the American Civil war would know that it was not a "piece of cake" to take the South. In fact, with a slight alteration of events at Gettysburg, a letter was prepared to be placed on the President Lincoln's desk in Washington to push for an end to the conflict. Two choices, end the war and allow the South to exist independently, or face the Army of Northern Virginia marching straight into Washington.

If Stonewall Jackson had lived and not gotten killed accidentally by his own men, he would have taken the offensive on the first day of the battle and taken the high ground. But the fact was, he was killed and General Ewell took his place. Ewell was too cautious and did not push forward when Jackson would have. That mistake costed them the battle and the war. Also, perhaps Lee would have opted for Longstreet's plan around the right, instead of going ahead with Pickett's Charge.

There are a million variations that could have led to victories on both sides. A neat feature that could be in a Civil War game would be the political aspects. For example: Let's say you're controlling the Union and you are Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln, at first, did NOT push for abolition of the slaves because the border states (which wanted to stay in the Union but wasn't sure) would have opted to secede for sure, since they did not want to give up slavery. A great thing the game could include is the ability to make such decisions. Perhaps the player could CHOOSE to fight for abolition at the onset of the conflict. Then the player discovers that a couple of the border states have seceded! (already history is changed) And therefore, the South gains more supplies and manpower which stacks up militarily and strategically against the Union.

All kinds of options could be included, such as the ability to draft and control the rate of the draft. The Union side would have to contruct naval vessels to create a blockade of the South, and the South side would have to create blockade runners and naval vessels to punch holes into the blocakde. And let's not forget the ironclads.

Both sides could contruct forts anywhere they deem necessary, but there could be different levels of forts. The big, advanced ones that would take some time to build (ideally to protect important passage ways or resources and cities) as well as smaller entrenchments.

Some newbies to the Civil War may wonder what kind of variety the Civil War would offer. Well the ability to fight was determined by experience. Newer regiments had the tendency to retreat sooner than veterans. Some regiments were tougher than others, such as the famed "Iron Brigade" from Wisconsin, and the Irish Brigade, as well as Stonewall Jackson's men. Cavalry played a big role too, and with the latest carbine repeating rifles the tactics changed to dismounted combat, however mounted charges did occur, especially between General Custer and General Jeb Stuart at Gettysburg (huge cavalry charge). Also there are varieties in tactics, most who think they know about the Civil War, surprisingly, did NOT know that there were actually attacks on several fronts around the country. There was frontier fighting in Arizona, California, and Oklahoma. There was General Grant's push into the South through Mississippi, when he took Vicksburg and attained control of the Mississippi River. There was General Sherman's infamous march to the sea when he went across the South (from west to east) and ultimately ending in the torching of Atlanta, Georgia. This, and many other conflicts, existed INDEPENDENTLY from the main conflict between General Lee and whatever Union general was in power at the time.

But what's so fascinating about the Civil War was that it was a heavily idealistic conflict. You always hear about how soldiers are patriotic at first, but once the bullets started to fly they didn't care about their country, they just wanted to survive. This was not true for the Civil War! Many thousands of men suffered great hardships and horrific battles, like my ancestor in the 9th Maine, but when enlistment ran out most men decided to RE-ENLIST. Soldiers on both sides were willing to charge head-first right into the enemy and die. Honor and national pride were evident in most letters sent home by soldiers, if they ran away then they would fail their country. For those interested in this aspect, a good book to read is "For Cause and Comrades" by the famous Civil War author, James McPherson.
re Monitor-You mean obsolete like H.M.S. Warrior?

Christopher Perry
3rd Jun 2005, 16:15
We are not talking about world war 1 or 2 we are talking about the time of this game.... You should have more respect for your history! if it wasnt for the Great British Empire you would be eating dirt my friend!

Great British Empire i have a lot of respect for they forged back in those times .
I knew WW1 & 2 would come up! The only nation in WW2,apart from the Germans, was the good 'ol USof A if you believe the output of Hollywood!
Let's look at some facts. First WW1:-
The USA didn't become involved until late 1917 and provided some 150,000 troops. By then the French had suffered around 3,000,000 casualties and the Brits only somewhat less. The Germans had lost around the same as the French. Despite this when Russia collasped they transferred their armies to the Western Front and came damn close to breaking through and winning!

WW2
On D-Day 1944 ,Saving Private Ryan notwithstanding,only about one third of the troops landed were American! The other two thirds were made of British and Commonwealth troops, Free French,Poles,Norwegians, and many other people from Nazi occupied Europe, a total of about 27 divisions in all.
On that same day the Wermacht (the German Army) lost 27 divisions during the Battle of Kiev. In fact during the entire war after 1941 80% of the Wermacht was deployed on the Eastern Front. During the entire war the then U.S.S.R. manafactured 96% of the equipment that was used by them. Also, the Soviet Union lost 48 million people during the course of the conflict!
IMHO these sort of figures make Allied losses look tiny.
Moreover, during the Allied bomber offensive the R.A.F. dropped two thirds of the bombs that landed on German soil and recieved 59,000 casualties. The U.S.A.A.F lost less than half this number.
Now I mean no disrespect to the brave U.S. serviceman that gave their lives to defeat Fascism, something that had to be done by someone. However, it does seem to me that many Americans vastly overestimate the contribution that America made to the defeat of Germany to the point of arrogance. My point is that America was only one of the nations that participared in the in the defeat of Germany/Fascism and to forget this is disrespectful of the sacrifices made by many countries during this conflict.

5/77 Armd
3rd Jun 2005, 16:26
I believe the US contribution to WWI was miniscule. We came into the war late because of our isolationist policy. I believe the largest contributing factor the US troops had in WWI was a morale boost to the other allies. The Germans could have easily won that war with their new troops fresh from the Eastern Front; had it not been for the catostrophic desertions and mutinees they were plagued by, (caused by elements of the 5th collumn communists).

I do believe the Americans had a significant impact in WWII however. Of course saying that the VE was just because of our involvement is ludicrous. We did though have to divert many resources to the Pacific theatre.

The reason for the enormous British casulty figures in the airwar was because the Americans bombed by night while their British counterparts bombed by day.

Man, this went off-topic, I hope it doesn't get moved!

Ryoken
3rd Jun 2005, 18:34
There should not be a Civil War game, in my opinion. The reason is that I dont think any realistic representation of the conflict would be any fun. Kinda like I dont think a Boer War game would be very fun either (though I may one day be proven wrong).

The Civil War should have been won by the South. Just like WWII should have been won by the Germans. Both sides suffered from the same problem, terrible leadership. General Robert E Lee has been deified; in reality he is the principal cause of the South's defeat.

Robert E Lee failed to realize that while defensive positions had a slight advantage in Napoleonic War, by the time he rode into battle things had changed DRAMATICALLY. Rifled barrels, improved artillery, railways making reinforcement much quicker, all made breakthroughs near impossible (save William Tecumsah Sherman's march to the sea). Lee decided to go on the offensive several times, only to suffer catastrophic losses.

WHEN YOU ARE FIGHTING A DEFENSIVE WAR YOU DO NOT GO ON THE OFFENSIVE!!!

It is pure idiocy. If Lee had just held back and fought a defensive war, he would have forced Lincoln to go into the 1864 elections with virtually no victories and Lincoln would have lost. He barely won the election AS IT WAS, much less if he had been losing the war. Any predecessor would have made peace, which would have been on the South's terms.

However, Lee did not and so he lost. The American South is the largest political entity, geographically and demographically, to seek to acquire independence by military force and FAIL to do so.


I dont see how any game which could represent the HELL that was the Civil War for the offensive army. Entrenched enemies with long-range accurate shooting, reliable long-range cannon, etc etc etc. No way.

Nial
3rd Jun 2005, 21:05
Your point has merit but your off on R.E. Lee. Your looking at the war in just military terms. To realise why Lee did what he did. You have to look at the political realities in the south. As well as the north. Not to mention. The vast difference in millitary equipment quality and availability between the north and south. I could go on about the supply issue in detail but wont. Suffice it to say that the South had 2 ordinance factories at the start of the war. The north had many. And the industrialized might to create many more. Lee surmised, and rightly so. That the North would win a prolonged drawn out war. Not to mention the incredible disparity in Navies. The North had the south blocaked shortly after fort sumpter and it lasted throughout the war. Therefor his offenses into the north were desperate gambles to force the north to the bargaining table. Lee's mistake was when he let the North choose the ground at Gettysburg. The south was rarely the more numerous army. In fact usualy they were outnumbered by at least 3-2 and frequently 2-1. Yet through the quality of their generals and troops, they were able to hold off a incredibly supperior foe for four years. It wasn't until Grant decided to just throw division after division into Lees meatgrinder with no thought or concern for casualties that the South finaly bent and then broke under the pressure.

Also....The South underestimated Lincolns resolve badly. Little did they dream that Lincoln would almost destroy the constitution to save the Union. Whether Lincoln would or wouldn't have lost the election of 1864 is mainly irrellevent. By 1864 the war was almost over. The soldiers of the south were frequently out of ammo. Had rags on their feet and starving. No succeeding president would have stopped the war at that stage. By then there was to much hate on both sides for a peacefull solution.

Once again this is my take on this particular war. Not a blanket Im right and your wrong.

Ryoken
3rd Jun 2005, 21:36
Supplied well, the South was not.

Better supplied if they had fought a defensive war instead of an offensive one? Yes.

Supplies determinant of victory? No


Imagine if I were to apply your principles to the Vietnam War. Vietnam represents an internal division of a nation into two halfs, North and South. Both sides were proxies for those that supported them; relative equality there. However, in terms of material wealth, technology, and supplies; the North was definitely lacking. They made up for that in other ways.

The North Vietnamese never had to defeat the Americans! They only had to cause sufficient casualties to undermine political support for the war at home! Which is precisely what they did and that is why North Vietnam WON THE WAR!

Had Robert E Lee died and been replaced by someone wiser, he could have fought a defensive war. Not a guerilla war, but a defensive one. The point is not to win, but to inflict severe damage on the enemy so that they give up. Had he not gone on the offensive, his army would not have been in rags in 1864. The North would have been tired of taking all these casualties with no foreseeable victory horizon; just like in North Vietnam.

Ryoken
3rd Jun 2005, 22:34
I want to note, however, that I am a citizen of Atlanta and have been since I was 4 years old. Prior to that, I lived in Chattanooga. So my family is full of southern pride and I am not ragging on the Southern culture in any way.

Nial
3rd Jun 2005, 22:44
Sorry.......your anology is flawed. North Vietnam was for much of the conflict, untouchable. It could not be bombed until 1969. This was a political descision. Not a military one. Therefor their supply base was virtualy untouched for much of the war.

Whereas the South was getting almost no supplies from other countries do to the blockade. Not to mention their main export (cotton) Was rotting on the dock, equaling sever cash flow problems.

Secondly. The North Vietnamese had a significant underground guerilla infrastructure in place at the beginning of the war, left over from the French occupation. The South in America started from scratch at the beginning of the war. Using your logic, Vicksburg should have never fallen. They were on defense the whole war. But Grant broke their back with hordes of troops and by deniing them supplies. The old adage certainly works as well today as it always has. An army is only as good as it's supplies. Or marches on it's stomach. No matter how good you are. You need bullets.

But all that is secondary to the political situation. Which you choose to ignore. In the South, just as in the north. It was very common for politcal leaders to pressure general officers into ill advised campaigns. If the president says. " I want an offensive". He's going to get an offensive.

Nial
3rd Jun 2005, 22:47
*laughs* No worries dude. Im from CA

Gelatinous Cube
3rd Jun 2005, 23:08
Actually an offensive war, and a good one, is all that could have saved them. The "Anaconda" plan quickly choked off the South's hopes of being on equal footing with the north as early as 1862. The South is rather lucky that McClellan was was such a cautious man (and had bad intelligence) or the Army of the Potomac would have mached on Virginia and won, also as early as 1862.

Nial
3rd Jun 2005, 23:43
Actually an offensive war, and a good one, is all that could have saved them. The "Anaconda" plan quickly choked off the South's hopes of being on equal footing with the north as early as 1862. The South is rather lucky that McClellan was was such a cautious man (and had bad intelligence) or the Army of the Potomac would have mached on Virginia and won, also as early as 1862.

Which is my point. The south needed a succesfull invasion of the north to bring Lincoln to the bargaining table. They could never win a war of attrition..And Lee and others knew it.

The battle of Gettysburg itself was an indirect result of the souths supply problems. Heths Division went back to town for shoes.

Captain.Crunch
4th Jun 2005, 00:07
I think it is safe to say that Americans only get involved/start wars for there own best interests have a close look at the American history most will shock you. Look at the Iraq war there was absolutely no need to interfere with the Arab people they are an entirely different culture of people they have been around for long time they are great traders the world’s best and they should have been left alone. The American sanctions stopped the Iraqi people from having clean water and all kinds of stuff….. Please do not get me started I really dislike what the Americans have done to the world recently.


You say saddam was an evil person because he shot heaps of people…….. Hello those Kurdish people he murdered for a reason they where uprising against his regime the Americans told them to and when those people asked for some weapons from the Americans they did not help them one little bit. Those people uprose against saddam which is the worst crime you can commit “treason” so he had the right to kill them in my opinion. Look at China and look at history you cant uprise against your country or it is death. Some people uprose not long ago to the Chinse president so he ordered tanks to go out and they fired them down in the street. I liked Saddam he had no mass weapons of destruction he threw them away after the golf war he was actually doing alright….. now look at that country it is like Vietnam going to take long time to recover however the oil will help them recover quicker then poor Vietnam look at Vietnam what the American people did to that country makes me boil inside.

My point being the Americans are don’t got there hands clean……. :eek: I recall them being the world’s most hated country that’s what I heard on SBS anyway.

You do know that you can only stirr up so many countries then they over run you.

Nial
4th Jun 2005, 14:10
Why are you bringing current politics into this game discusion? If you don't want to talk game, but just want to get in a shot at America?.....F.O.

Christopher Perry
4th Jun 2005, 16:20
I believe the US contribution to WWI was miniscule. We came into the war late because of our isolationist policy. I believe the largest contributing factor the US troops had in WWI was a morale boost to the other allies. The Germans could have easily won that war with their new troops fresh from the Eastern Front; had it not been for the catostrophic desertions and mutinees they were plagued by, (caused by elements of the 5th collumn communists).

I do believe the Americans had a significant impact in WWII however. Of course saying that the VE was just because of our involvement is ludicrous. We did though have to divert many resources to the Pacific theatre.

The reason for the enormous British casulty figures in the airwar was because the Americans bombed by night while their British counterparts bombed by day.

Man, this went off-topic, I hope it doesn't get moved!

It's the other way around- the RAF bombed at night and the USAAF during the day. The reason for this decision was because the B 17 (Flying Fortress) had more defensive armament than the Lancaster. Nonetheless, experience was to show that even the B17 was unable to stand against the later German fighters e.g the Fockwolfe 190 because they had become too heavily armed and tough plane though it was they were heavily punished at Schweinfurt. It was not until the advent of the Mustang that daylight raids became feasible.
I didn't say that the USA made no contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany. In fact America's contribution was vital. However, what annoys most Europeons is the claim by some Americans that the USA won WW2, ignoring the sacrific made by other countries.

Ryoken
4th Jun 2005, 19:29
The problem is that no one make any movies about non-American involvement; so Americans are bombarded by an endless stream of movies about American's winning WWII.

The only exception I can think of is "Enemy at the Gates" and that did not exactly present the Russians in the best light either.

baladure
4th Jun 2005, 20:48
i think they should do an imperial glory style game the incorperates the empire earth way of doing things. select the era you want to play who you are and what scenario. and i have to agree with Ryoken again about the films. i watched the film enigma and it was all about the americans capturing it. Then at the end of the film in realy small righting it said that it was the british did it and not the Americans. THIS REALY ANNOYS MEEEE :mad: :mad: :mad:

Mickalos
4th Jun 2005, 21:45
I think it would be brilliant if some non-american millionaire financed a film where the noble French save the cowardly, satanic colonist savages from certain destruction, just to see the look on their faces.

Ryoken
4th Jun 2005, 21:52
You are talking about a culture where the French are despised. I dont think it would sell many tickets. :) I find it hilarious as a Ph.D. student and teacher of International Affairs that we think this way here.

It is almost as if everything before 1815 is totally disregarded. Otherwise, this image of the French as cowardly and pacificistic would become totally unsupportable.

Between 1500 and 1815, the French participate in like one war per decade. Some decades are spent ENTIRELY at war. The French have fought every single neighbor multiple times and on the offense from essentially Richeleiu to Napoleon. How stupid to imagine the French as cowards

5/77 Armd
4th Jun 2005, 21:53
[QUOTE=Christopher Perry]It's the other way around- the RAF bombed at night and the USAAF during the day.QUOTE]

I know better than that! Yeah, I mixed it up....

"... what annoys most Europeons is the claim by some Americans that the USA won WW2"

I agree, the people that claim those things are merely ignorant.

Gelatinous Cube
4th Jun 2005, 22:36
The USA did win World War II. Do you think French Resistence fighters could have done it? Or perhaps you would prefer if the Soviet Union had come in and annexed all of Europe, one tyrant for another? Without US supplies and support, the allies couldn't have won World War I. Without US troops, the allies couldn't have won World War II. Any credible historian will tell you the same, and some stupid feeling that you need to bash America doesn't change historical fact.

Mickalos
4th Jun 2005, 23:20
I doubt mainland Europe could of been liberated without US manpower, I'll agree with you on that one, though it wasn't impossible, however...

Without US supplies and support, the allies couldn't have won World War I

By the time the US got into France in force the German army was broken, in both morale and manpower, after the second battle of the marne the Germans estimated that they needed about 200,000 replacements per month to hold the line, but they could only field 300,000 for the entire year, it doesn't take a degree in mathematics to see that the allies had won the war of attrition.

Ultimately it was the blockade that broke Germany and the US certainly didn't help with that, quite the opposite in fact.

Gelatinous Cube
4th Jun 2005, 23:52
I doubt mainland Europe could of been liberated without US manpower, I'll agree with you on that one, though it wasn't impossible, however...


By the time the US got into France in force the German army was broken, in both morale and manpower, after the second battle of the marne the Germans estimated that they needed about 200,000 replacements per month to hold the line, but they could only field 300,000 for the entire year, it doesn't take a degree in mathematics to see that the allies had won the war of attrition.

Ultimately it was the blockade that broke Germany and the US certainly didn't help with that, quite the opposite in fact.

During World War I, our actual manpower assistance wasn't the deciding factor. However, we'd been supplying France and England with supplies throughout the whole war. Without it, they'd never have lasted so long. It was the German Threat of unrestricted warfare on our merchant boats that drove us to join the war.

World War II is a whole diffferent monkey. The US brought in new technology, lots of fresh well-trained troops with good morale, and good generals. All of which was absolutely necessary at that point. Not to mention the war in the pacific--the Brits helped out some there, but the majority of that war was fought by US soldiers. There's no way Russia could have done anything in Europe if they'd had to worry about the Japanese as well.

Nial
5th Jun 2005, 00:31
Without US supplies. Russia would be speaking German. Without US forces, Britain would have lost in North africa. Without US manpower There wouldn't have been a D-Day. You can quibble over symantics all you want. But the US saved Europe's butt three times this century. Now I know thats hard for you Europeons to deal with, But it is the truth. So get over it. And have a nice day :)

Captain.Crunch
5th Jun 2005, 00:44
Why are you bringing current politics into this game discusion? If you don't want to talk game, but just want to get in a shot at America?.....F.O.

Well someone brought WW1 & WW2 into the game and that is how it becomes modern.

There is one country in the world that owns U.S.A! China and you guys are trembling in your boots over them.

Mickalos
5th Jun 2005, 01:12
During World War I, our actual manpower assistance wasn't the deciding factor. However, we'd been supplying France and England with supplies throughout the whole war. Without it, they'd never have lasted so long.

Yes the allies BOUGHT materials, america was a giant supermarket and the easiest place to go for them. You could be damn well sure that had the British lifted the blockade on Gemany the first thing the US would have done was loaded a few ships full of munitions and set sail for Germany.


World War II is a whole diffferent monkey. The US brought in new technology, lots of fresh well-trained troops with good morale, and good generals. All of which was absolutely necessary at that point.
The US did send some very well trained divisions, the Airborne and ranger divisions for example, but the average US soldier was not that well trained at all as proven at Kassering pass (the early ww2 army doctrine and command structure had a sizable part to play there as well though) and the battle of the bulge. The real trick up the US' sleeve was it's industrial power.


Not to mention the war in the pacific--the Brits helped out some there, but the majority of that war was fought by US soldiers. There's no way Russia could have done anything in Europe if they'd had to worry about the Japanese as well.

Yea, pacific Theatre was mainly US troops, South East Asia theatre was mainly British. It took a while but when they finally handed the riegns to Slim he sent the the Japs on the run


Without US supplies. Russia would be speaking German. Without US forces, Britain would have lost in North africa. Without US manpower There wouldn't have been a D-Day. You can quibble over symantics all you want. But the US saved Europe's butt three times this century. Now I know thats hard for you Europeons to deal with, But it is the truth. So get over it. And have a nice day

Still not able to get over being saved by the french in your revolution? :p

Benj
5th Jun 2005, 01:17
Britain would not have been defeated in World War II had the US not intervened.

World War I would have come to the same conclusion whether or not the US joined the Allies, infact, as said, they would have been more than willing to help the Germans if the Royal Navy had lifted the blockade.

Gelatinous Cube
5th Jun 2005, 01:21
Yes the allies BOUGHT materials, america was a giant supermarket and the easiest place to go for them. You could be damn well sure that had the British lifted the blockade on Gemany the first thing the US would have done was loaded a few ships full of munitions and set sail for Germany.

During World War I? No doubt. We were nuetral for most of that war.


The US did send some very well trained divisions, the Airborne and ranger divisions for example, but the average US soldier was not that well trained at all as proven at Kassering pass (the early ww2 army doctrine and command structure had a sizable part to play there as well though) and the battle of the bulge. The real trick up the US' sleeve was it's industrial power.

You're right, US troops weren't much better trained than German or British troops. However, our troops had morale, and considerably better equipment. Without US assistance, D-Day would never have happened. And without the US going on the offensive against Japan, Russia could never have lasted against Germany.

Benj
5th Jun 2005, 01:24
And without the US going on the offensive against Japan, Russia could never have lasted against Germany.

I don't claim to be an expert on the Eastern or Pacific fronts, can you elaborate on that?

Gelatinous Cube
5th Jun 2005, 01:34
I don't claim to be an expert on the Eastern or Pacific fronts, can you elaborate on that?

Stalin lived in abject terror of the Japanese trying to invade Russia again (go read about the Russo-Japanese war to see how they got whooped the first time), and had much of his army stationed in the east to prevent an invasion. It wasn't until the Japanese were tied up with the USA that he was able to free up those troops and have an army large enough to fight Germany. The russians beat Germany by sheer numbers.

Gelatinous Cube
5th Jun 2005, 01:40
Here's some good links for your educational pleasure:

Russo-Japanese War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War

Eastern Front: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29#Soviet_counter-offensive:_Winter_1941

Yorkie
5th Jun 2005, 04:00
If Stonewall Jackson had lived and not gotten killed accidentally by his own men,

No change there then :)

As for the A.W.I wasnt the fact that the british dint want to burn down every town where the rebels was hiding prove to be and error.
If they did wouldnt history be changed?
As for the french some posted it was a french victory , i must agree.

Gelatinous Cube
5th Jun 2005, 04:44
No change there then :)

As for the A.W.I wasnt the fact that the british dint want to burn down every town where the rebels was hiding prove to be and error.
If they did wouldnt history be changed?
As for the french some posted it was a french victory , i must agree.

The french logistical support was vital, but the french troop support was negligible. However, the British did refrain from burning down towns and whatnot, and this was because they wanted to keep the colonies for profit's sake. Burning down towns would negate that entire goal.

Keep in mine, however, that after the French Revolution, there was an undeclared naval war between the fledgling US Navy, and French Pirates.

bucephalus12
6th Jun 2005, 15:05
As far as the American Revolution:

Without the help of France, the rebellion would have been quashed. There would be no USA today as we know it.

The War of 1812:


May I remind that the Royal Navy captured both the Constitution and the President during the course of the "war". Both vessels having a long career in the Royal Navy....

I think you are wrong here. The USS Constitution was never captured, boarded or beaten in a battle. (She did run once when heavily outgunned.) "Old Ironsides" serves as the US Navy Flagship to this day and is moored in Boston Harbor.

I regards to WW II:

Let's not forget Hitler's "u-boat peril" as Winston Churchill put it. Without lend/lease Britain would have been starved right out of the war early on. No one doubts the exceptional bravery and fighting skills by soldiers of all armies of the day. But without the help of the industrial might of the USA the European map would look much different today. The US supplied war material to every ally in the war including Russia.

When the time came she fought and won the war on two fronts, European & Pacific, a remarkable military achievement.

No, America did not win the war alone however, without her lifeline Britain would have been out.

Let me also say I am not bashing Britain. I love Britain. Some of my ancestors
came from Britain and my business partner today is a British subject. It is my opinion that America has no greater allies in the world today than Britain and Australia.

Gelatinous Cube
6th Jun 2005, 18:10
Someone above tried to say D-Day was only 1 3rd american troops. Now, that bothered me, so I went and did some more research just to make sure. Let's take a looksie:

On D-day there were 5 beaches. 1 Beach was to be taken by Canadian Troops, 1 Beach by British Troops, and 3 beaches by American troops. And before that, American Paratroopers were to be dropped behind enemy lines where they would spend 5 hours without re-enforcements. 1/3rd indeed.

Benj
6th Jun 2005, 18:43
Someone above tried to say D-Day was only 1 3rd american troops. Now, that bothered me, so I went and did some more research just to make sure. Let's take a looksie:

On D-day there were 5 beaches. 1 Beach was to be taken by Canadian Troops, 1 Beach by British Troops, and 3 beaches by American troops. And before that, American Paratroopers were to be dropped behind enemy lines where they would spend 5 hours without re-enforcements. 1/3rd indeed.

Wow...... that's just..... wrong.

There were 2 American beaches, Utah and Omaha, 2 British beaches, Gold and Sword, and 1 Canadian beach, Juno.

There were not just American paratroopers, there were British airborne units as well. Have you never heard of things such as Pegasus brigde, or the Merville gun battery? Pegasus bridge being the first action on D-Day, falling to the 6th airborne during the opening minutes of the invasion.

Mickalos
6th Jun 2005, 22:02
It was actually more than a third but there were still more commonwealth troops involved. There we're around 73,000 American land troops and 83,000 British and Canadian. Plus there where twices as many Royal Navy sailors involved than US Navy and it was planned by a Brit, with Brits in charge of the naval, land and air parts of overlord. Saying that it was mainly an american operation is ridiculous.

Gelatinous Cube
6th Jun 2005, 23:06
Wow...... that's just..... wrong.

There were 2 American beaches, Utah and Omaha, 2 British beaches, Gold and Sword, and 1 Canadian beach, Juno.

There were not just American paratroopers, there were British airborne units as well. Have you never heard of things such as Pegasus brigde, or the Merville gun battery? Pegasus bridge being the first action on D-Day, falling to the 6th airborne during the opening minutes of the invasion.

I never claimed to be all-knowing. After looking for some alternative sources, it would look like most agree with your explanation, as opposed to the one I saw first.

I stand corrected.

joxer31
7th Jun 2005, 16:08
I dont know if we should be thumping our chests about which country took more of an active role in any particular war or who took more casualties. It becomes easy to forget that they are just numbers now but they were men and women with families. Their memory should be cherished, not tarnished.

Coax74
7th Jun 2005, 16:30
As for the french some posted it was a french victory , i must agree.

You'd be wrong. If the American War for Independence was a French victory we would be speaking French/English and be a French territory. The fact that America actually had allies to help them out should not negate the ultimate sacrifice the colonists gave for their freedom. Like someone mentioned before, French troops were almost negligible so the blood being spilt in most of the fighting was American.

Going along Yorkie's point of logic, WWI and WWII should be considered American victories instead of any sort of Allied effort. After all, it was our supplies and finally soldiers that eventually broke the enemy's back right? I don't think anyone is going to agree with that, plus it is a slap in the face to the many Brits, Frenchies, Aussies, Canucks, etc... who fought and died in those wars as well.

5/77 Armd
7th Jun 2005, 16:38
It was an allied victory period. No one could have won that war without each other. I'm including the Soviets, Americans, British and Commonwealth troops. (I think we all could have gotten along fine without the French though!)

Soviet manpower being hurled at the nazis, American resources and troops, British fortitude and staying power after being constantly terrorized by bombings/rocket attacks and Commonwealth loyalty to the motherland: fighting thousands of miles away from their homelands.

Let's stop arguing who should get the most credit for the allied victory as we all stood together. Wasn't this thread originally about the American Civil War?

Fiddlerpig
7th Jun 2005, 19:13
Actually, all of you are wrong.

The 4th American Inf Div landed at Utah, with the 82nd and 101st Airborne landing behind Utah to secure roads and protect the western flank; the 1st and 29th American divisions landed at Omaha. The 50th British division landed at Gold, the 3rd landed at Sword, and the 3rd Canadian division landed at Juno. The 6th British airborne division landed near Caen to secure roads and protect the eastern flank.

There were 9 land divisions involved during the Normandy invasion, 5 American, 3 British, and 1 Canadian. Bear in mind the French forces were part of the British forces, and landed with the British at Sword. Air forces included the American Eighth and Ninth Air Force and the British 2nd Tactical Air Force. Naval forces included the American Western Task Force and the British Eastern Task Force.

As you can see, over half of the invasion force was American.

1/3rd indeed.....

Mickalos
7th Jun 2005, 19:42
Actually, all of you are wrong.

The 4th American Inf Div landed at Utah, with the 82nd and 101st Airborne landing behind Utah to secure roads and protect the western flank; the 1st and 29th American divisions landed at Omaha. The 50th British division landed at Gold, the 3rd landed at Sword, and the 3rd Canadian division landed at Juno. The 6th British airborne division landed near Caen to secure roads and protect the eastern flank.

There were 9 land divisions involved during the Normandy invasion, 5 American, 3 British, and 1 Canadian. Bear in mind the French forces were part of the British forces, and landed with the British at Sword. Air forces included the American Eighth and Ninth Air Force and the British 2nd Tactical Air Force. Naval forces included the American Western Task Force and the British Eastern Task Force.

As you can see, over half of the invasion force was American.

1/3rd indeed.....


Errrm, no it wasn't. 73,000 american's, 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.

Numbers for the navy: 52,889 US, 112,824 British, and 4988 from other Allied countries.

Over half indeed :rolleyes:

Fiddlerpig
7th Jun 2005, 20:07
Copy/paste is your strong point, though, isn't it.

According to your figures, around 47% of the land invasion force was American, 39% was British (with mixed contingents of French), and 14% was Canadian.

My point is proven.

Benj
7th Jun 2005, 20:39
Copy/paste is your strong point, though, isn't it.

According to your figures, around 47% of the land invasion force was American, 39% was British (with mixed contingents of French), and 14% was Canadian.

My point is proven.

No, you are wrong.

Of the figures qutoed above, 38.5% are American, just over 1/3rd. Factor in the airforce and airborne numbers and I'm sure that would end up around 1/3rd.

Fiddlerpig
7th Jun 2005, 20:51
Lol, Try over 2/5, if you want to include all of the 2 million people involved.

I was including only land forces, including the airborne, mainly because they played the most important role.

Of the land forces, 47% were American.

Mickalos
7th Jun 2005, 21:06
Copy/paste is your strong point, though, isn't it.

According to your figures, around 47% of the land invasion force was American, 39% was British (with mixed contingents of French), and 14% was Canadian.

My point is proven.

I'm afraid I have a limited amount of space for five figure statistics in my head.


I was including only land forces, including the airborne, mainly because they played the most important role.

Of the land forces, 47% were American.
The land forces wouldn't of even got there if it weren't for the navy.

And BTW, there were only 170 odd free french commandos

5/77 Armd
7th Jun 2005, 23:23
What's a Free French Commando? A special cook unit or perhaps combat field orderlies?

Yorkie
13th Jun 2005, 12:47
It seems this thread has gone way off topic here. Everyone seem to dig history.. at the end of the day history is in the past ..

Who give a flying duck about you would be speaking this you would be speaking that. Let me put this to you all.,

Europe would be speaking latin if the barbarians didnt topple to roman empire, China would be a insignificant blot on the landscape if it wasnt for the Chin dynasty. America would be populated by the natives if the americans didnt massicare the natives. America wouldnt exist if the europeans hadnt set forth. France would not be the same had napoleon got his way germany would not exist if the berlin wall had not collapsed.

In short No one would be here if Homo-Erectus did not set forth out of africa to colonise the middle east..

History his filled with Ifs and Buts, but what matters is we learn from it.

Btw just before you post back biteing that china this, britian that and america this, I Was not pickin on any country but just using the examples already set.

Chin up, its the age of man ...

Captain.Crunch
15th Jun 2005, 00:52
Gotta love this thread its still going strong :rolleyes: :D

ArmoredCav
27th Jun 2005, 18:48
lol nice quote. that is like from every history book EVERY! even in the offical US navy book!

Yes, except that when HMS Dreadnought went to sea on October 3, 1906, every ship in the world again became obsolete. The next year, TR painted the Navy white and sent it around the world in a great show of American might. Of course, what the US Navy book wouldn't say was that all the "Great White Fleet" illustrated was its own obsolesence.

There is nothing like the Royal Navy.

5/77 Armd
27th Jun 2005, 20:15
And then 35 years later, every Battleship in the world became obsolete.

ArmoredCav, what unit were you in? I was in 5/77 Armored and 3/7 Cavalry, both in Mannheim Germany. Where you a tanker too? I know exactly where Wilmette is. I'm in Oak Park, west side of Chicago btw!

ArmoredCav
27th Jun 2005, 22:15
Sorry, man, I am not a veteran of the Army. I am a college student. I am doing OCS to become a Marine, but I'm sure as a soldier you don't want to hear about that, lol.

I picked "armoredcav" because I thought it would sound good on this forum, because "1st MEF" didn't have the same ring, ya know?

I know 3/7 is 3rd Battalion, 7th Cav, but what about 5/77? When were you in? I know where OP is, used to play hockey with a kid from there. One of my good friends is in the class of '08 at West Point, (although he's doing infantry) and if it wasn't for hockey, I would have gone to the Naval Academy.

Sorry if I misled you, what with the name and all, but I don't want to pretend to be something I'm not.

5/77 Armd
27th Jun 2005, 22:31
I'll private message you.

John Carter
28th Jun 2005, 02:46
I was in 5/77 Armored and 3/7 Cavalry, both in Mannheim Germany.

I was in BK with DIVENG 1AD when the brigade pulled out of Mannheim back in '94. I remember the EN BN there still had a CEV built on a M48 chassis.

5/77 Armd
28th Jun 2005, 13:01
Is BK Bad Kreuznach? Yeah, the entire 3rd Bde was deactivated. I was one of that group, we redeployed to Ft Lewis WA, and became 3rd Bde, 2nd Inf Div to support Korea. Man, I miss Germany!
The 12th Engineers had that old CEV, our mortar M113s were with 11th ACR in Vietnam, they still had bullet marks on 'em. I think we were the red-headed step-children of 1st Armored Div!

John Carter
28th Jun 2005, 17:41
Is BK Bad Kreuznach? Yeah, the entire 3rd Bde was deactivated. I was one of that group, we redeployed to Ft Lewis WA, and became 3rd Bde, 2nd Inf Div to support Korea. Man, I miss Germany!
The 12th Engineers had that old CEV, our mortar M113s were with 11th ACR in Vietnam, they still had bullet marks on 'em. I think we were the red-headed step-children of 1st Armored Div!

Yep, Bad Krueznach it was, Marshall Kaserne in my case. Had two tours in Germany, that was my second. Yeah, that's some old equipment, the 40th EN in Baumholder had newer stuff, so I'd say you're right about 3d BDE being the RHSCs. Big thing for Engineers back then was the ACEs' crappy aluminum road wheels breaking all the time, finally replaced them with steel after they figured out you really couldn't make an armored bulldozer amphibious anyway.