Men of War (game)

[Saddletank]

WW2 was not about tanks it was a war about infantry and artillery

Which history book have you been reading?

Er... all of them?

The German attack on Soviet Russia in 1941 had a miniscule proportion of tanks and other armoured vehicles in the assault. 4,300,000 German and Axis troops were involved in the attack but only 3,171 tanks and self-propelled guns. That's 1 tank per 1,356 men, or approximately 1 tank per two battalions of infantry. 90% of the German army walked on foot and most of the guns and supplies were drawn by horses of which there were 750,000 used in the opening of the campaign.

Thats three quarters of a MILLION horses to 3,000 tanks.

The Russian army was the same. This condition was still prevalent in 1945.

Do you know which army was the first in the world to have only motor transport? The BEF in 1940, and little good it did them.

In some hostile environments such as the Western Desert both sides used exlusively motor transport but still most armies walked on foot and even then camels and donkeys and bullock carts hauled supplies in the rear areas.

In 1944 the Allies after D-Day had all motorised artillery and supply vehicles but most of the battles in Normandy, France, Holland and Germany were combats about infantrymen vs infantrymen with long ranged artillery support. Tanks did not play a major role in most combats in WW2.

If you think every battle in WW2 had tanks in it then you've been fed a combination of Hollywood and Computer games nonesense, not history.

How many WW2 combat RTS games have had horse drawn guns or wagons in them? None so far as I know. Inaccurate computer games slant people's idea of history badly.

@ Soldier - LOL, yes, that's Hollywood for you. 1:03 is priceless; a T-34 reduced to a blazing inferno by a few A/T mines. *chuckle*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bunde ... chlamm.jpg

[Michael Slaunwhite]

If the battlefield required tanks they used them. Same as artillery, Naval, Air etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... BI9d0-IfEM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... rQfw9sA5Ys

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... -FwkUQ7m1I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOpAAva5 ... detailpage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... IfbGtUwe2U

...and the list goes on.

[Saddletank]

*slaps forehead*

Yes. I know. They did have tanks. I know what a video of a tank looks like... What I'm saying is tanks were rare. Many battles were fought where they hardly made an appearance or had any tactical effect. Most of the fighting was pure infantry combat. The stats from Barbarossa show this.

And my point is that film makers and computer game developers place far too much emphasis on tank combat in their movies and games, so much so that people such as yourself are getting a distorted view of what WW2 combat was like.

In fact this mis-balance in reporting has been prevalent right from the time of teh war itself because tanks are sexy and make good reporting. A film of a tank driving across a field is more interesting than a line of infanytrymen walking across it, hence WW2 reporting has always focussed its coverage on tanks and tank combats, badly distorting what the WW2 battlefioeld was like.

An ACW analogy would be that almost every film made or computer game released would have troops dressed in green, armed with repeating rifles and be about Berdan's sharpshooters. It that's level of imbalance.

[Michael Slaunwhite]

*slaps forehead*

Yes. I know. They did have tanks. I know what a video of a tank looks like... What I'm saying is tanks were rare. Many battles were fought where they hardly made an appearance or had any tactical effect. Most of the fighting was pure infantry combat. The stats from Barbarossa show this.

And my point is that film makers and computer game developers place far too much emphasis on tank combat in their movies and games, so much so that people such as yourself are getting a distorted view of what WW2 combat was like.

In fact this mis-balance in reporting has been prevalent right from the time of teh war itself because tanks are sexy and make good reporting. A film of a tank driving across a field is more interesting than a line of infanytrymen walking across it, hence WW2 reporting has always focussed its coverage on tanks and tank combats, badly distorting what the WW2 battlefioeld was like.

An ACW analogy would be that almost every film made or computer game released would have troops dressed in green, armed with repeating rifles and be about Berdan's sharpshooters. It that's level of imbalance.

Haaa, I know.... I'm being bad again! I know what your saying, and I agree with you.

Don't slap the forehead too hard there saddletank. :ohmy:

[Saddletank]

That's called trolling. Please don't do it.

[Michael Slaunwhite]

That's called trolling. Please don't do it.

I apologize saddletank.

All other comments I can't take responsibility for though. :huh:

Cheers.