can we flatten them?? [Archive]

MikeT

11-05-1999, 11:37 AM

Last night I finally finished a game, been working on it for a long time now. Germans got a minor tac victory, yeah.

Now during the game an incident came up and I decided to solve it by ordering my halftrack to run over a MMG position, thinking that the vehicle could/might crush the unit. Thing is what happen is that the American unit went prone and then got up and moved to a nearby position.

Now did the vehicle actually crush the unit? An examination of the MMG unit didn't show any losses and he setup position nearby and continued firing at my troops.

I got the idea from some old combat footage of the Russian front. There was a very unusual scene which seemed to have been taken through the drivers hatch of a T34. A German 37mm ATG was setup and firing. Suddenly from one side another T34 arrived a literally ran over the ATG and crew. You could even seen a body being flipped upwards/around by the tracks. Look cool and tragic at the same time, cool because this kind of realism is rarely shown.

I used to do a great deal of Squad Leader and did an equally great deal of reading in those days. I do know that on the Russian front such attacks were not uncommon, it was a brutal no holds fight.

So my question is do we want to have overruns, literally?

Mike Thompson

Scott Clinton

11-05-1999, 01:16 PM

No, BTS makes the assumtption (correctly IMO) that it would be damn difficult to hit anyone with a vehicle in combat. The men would dive aside, etc.

Add in that vehicles would then be a menece to YOUR OWN troops and you would end up having a lot more of your own men run over than the enemy's. It would also be a real pain for the AI to sort out...

------------------
The Grumbling Grognard

M Hofbauer

11-05-1999, 03:45 PM

Mr Clinton,

obviously in your statement

"BTS makes the assumtption (correctly IMO) that it would be damn difficult to hit anyone with a vehicle in combat. The men would dive aside, etc."

you are ignoring that it was SOP for especially russian tanks to kill infantry by driving over them. You probably never heard (rather, read) of the Todestanz of russian Tanks rotating over german infantry foxholes to kill the inhabitant(s). No doubt very cruel but highly effective in subdueing the otherwise hard to eradicate entrenched infantrymen, something impossible in cm.

In one game I had a Hellcat drive in front of and over a german machine gun team - that btw was happily blazing *through* the tank into some infantry far away (realistic scale and all) - doing nothing to them. The germans seemingly weren't even scared, and rightly so, for the tons of steel did nothing to them. I once had a StuG chase an american HQ unit and instead of injuring them thy simply shoved them aside (though it didn't appear to be gently in the movie they weren't even scratched) out of their path.

This goes in line / hand in hand with BTS's "clean war"/p.c. attitude towards bodies on the battlefield (see other thread). Even if not realistic, and not that you have to agree, but you have to admit it's at least consequent.

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

PanzerLeader

11-05-1999, 04:24 PM

I just finished "The Forgotten Soldier" and it seems that the Russian tanks used this tactic quite often against dug-in infantry. It must be quite horrible to be buried alive in a foxhole(it takes too much time to get out of the foxhole and the tank's machine gunners would kill the men anyway.)
Great book BTW.

Scott Clinton

11-05-1999, 05:29 PM

"...it seems that the Russian tanks used this tactic quite often against dug-in infantry."

I don't think "quite often" is even close to the number of times this tactic was used in an engagment on the scale of CM. Face it something of this nature is gruesome and draws attention (by writers) way out of proportion to its actual usage.

Neither of you seem to address the AI issue, or the danger to your own troops. Both of which are much more important that how often it was done...

------------------
The Grumbling Grognard

NCrawler

11-05-1999, 05:39 PM

Scott Clinton>Face it something of this nature is gruesome and draws attention (by writers) way out of proportion to its actual usage.

And burning alive in a house or armored vehicle is not? Personally, I would rather have my head run over by a 45 ton tank than to be burned alive. Face it, WAR by it's very nature is violent and gruesome and trying to hide that fact is a bigger dishonor to those who served than by actually depicting it...

------------------
Jon Johnson
Steel Lightning Productions

Scott Clinton

11-05-1999, 06:30 PM

NCRAWLER please get down off of you 'soap box'. You have strayed completely off topic. And I really don't feel like having you preach to me about the 'horrors of war' on a GAME forum right now.

Try to re-read what I wrote: "Face it something of this nature is gruesome and DRAWS ATTENTION (BY WRITERS)WAY OUT OF PROPOTION TO ITS ACTUAL USAGE" (caps added)

Understand now?

------------------
The Grumbling Grognard

NCrawler

11-05-1999, 07:23 PM

Scott Clinton>Try to re-read what I wrote: "Face it something of this nature is gruesome and DRAWS ATTENTION (BY WRITERS)WAY OUT OF PROPOTION TO ITS ACTUAL USAGE" (caps added)

And you seriously believe that if someone writes that this game has gruesome stuff in it that it will hurt sales? I guess the game Kingpin was a fluke, huh?

I've come to realize after reading several of your posts that you are an idiot. I will have no further discussions with you...

Scott Clinton>The Grumbling Grognard

Heh, right...

------------------
Jon Johnson
Steel Lightning Productions

PanzerLeader

11-05-1999, 08:00 PM

Mr Clinton,

"The Forgotten Soldier" is (or is supposed to be) a TRUE STORY. Therefore the writer didn't mention those encounters to draw the readers' attention, he did it because it really happened. Maybe not on the WF, but on the EF at least this seemed common practice. The writer of the book participated in many battles and in most of them this happened...
Danger to the friendly troops, AI: CC3 deals partly with this: your troops don't get crushed when under friendly tanks...It's quite unrealistic, I agree. But isn't this problem simple after all? I mean, the AI would have to be VERY crap to run over his own troops. And the tanks anyway were not completely blind and they probably could avoid "friendly crushing" by spotting friendly infantry before running over them...
I really don't see the problem there.

M Hofbauer

11-05-1999, 08:06 PM

To me it seems there's a misunderstanding here.

The way I understood Scott Clinton he meant that the amount of writing about the tanks doing that is out of proportion to the real ocurrences of these incidents in reality because they appear especially spectacular / spectacularly cruel.

If I understood you correctly, you seem to have thougt that he was referring to (p)reviewers, critiques and general feedback of the game.

Either party correct me if I am wrong in my comprehension of your posts.

Btw I disagree with Mr Clinton. The intentional use of vehicles to kill infantry was(is) very real and frequent / ubiquitous IMO.

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

Neutral Party

11-05-1999, 08:25 PM

NCrawler's cheery comment was "Personally, I would rather have my head run over by a 45 ton tank than to be burned alive." I would be most upset to be asked a question to which this was a rational answer http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif
Joe

Big Time Software

11-05-1999, 08:30 PM

Er... let's keep it civil here.

First of all, from all accounts I have read, the Forgotten Soldier is fiction. VERY GOOD fiction, but not based on a true first person account. I too loved the book, but the arguments I read long ago pro/con convinced me that the book was indeed a fake. Still a GREAT work of literature, and that can not be taken away from it.

M. Hofbauer, we did *NOT* leave out running over infantry for some sort of "clean" mentality. Instead, Scott is correct that it was left out because there are limitations to what we can make the Tac/StratAIs. Sorry, we can't simulate EVERYTHING in ABSOLUTE realism. Just not possible to do.

I will double check with Charles about a morale hit for units that get out of the way of vehicles. There should be a pentalty, and if there isn't it is a bug.

Steve

Big Time Software

11-05-1999, 09:43 PM

Just some more thoughts to keep in mind with those above...

In Bastogne there were 101 guys who were regularly run over by Panthers while in foxholes (they weren't crushed). Some were killed by exhaust fumes. Others just hung out there and waited it out. Pretty much NO ONE panicked. And most, once the tank moved, popped up and started shooting advancing Panzergrenadiers.

And the Germans on the Russian front were similar, letting Russians run "over" them, then hopping up with some mines or grenades and blasting the T-34.

It's one thing to grind a SINGLE man under your tracks, but a whole SQUAD (up to 12 men)? That's just plain unrealistic. And the idea that the entire squad would definately panic (i.e. be cowering in fear after running out of the path) isn't very realistic either, except *maybe* for really green guys.

Steve

Brian Rock

11-05-1999, 10:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In Bastogne there were 101 guys who were regularly run over by Panthers while in foxholes (they weren't crushed).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee. And it didn't occur to any of them to get out of the way the second or third time?

(Yeah, really, really dumb joke, but I thought this thread could do with a bit of lightening up.) http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

Scott Clinton

11-05-1999, 11:28 PM

LOL!

I post...and I clarify...I even put it in all caps and some people still read what THEY WANT IT TO SAY!

...and I am an idiot?!? LOL!

M Hofbauer: Thank you. That is what I said.

PanzerLeader: Sorry to bust your bubble but I have owned the book for quite some time and I have read it cover to cover three times...and as Steve points out it has been pretty much determined it is fiction. Go the the Gross Deutchland web page and ask around. A man was never in that division by that name.

Guys a lot of misunderstandings can be avoide if you JUST read the words on the screen instead of trying to put YOUR own meanings behind them...pretty simple really.

Oh yeah, NCrawler...grow up.

------------------
The Grumbling Grognard

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 11-05-99).]

Big Time Software

11-06-1999, 01:59 AM

Jon, Scott... let's just stop it now, OK? Had I seen some of the comments in a more timely fashion they would have been deleted. I RARELY have to do this, so let's try and keep it that way, huh?

Steve

kingtiger

11-06-1999, 02:45 AM

Does anyone remember the Russian Tank (probably T34) reversing and rotating on foxholes in the snow/ice/tundra during a tank assault in the movie "Stalingrad"?

Richard Kalajian

PeterNZ

11-06-1999, 03:10 AM

Yup, i also noticed the rest of the squad getting out of the way of the tanks and nailing a few of them. If we're going to let Tanks run over inf, then we should also let the inf have a chance of sticking grenades and satchel charges in various orifi under the tank..

it's only fair http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

I for one would never bother trying then hehe, just mg them to death http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

PeterNZ

Scott Clinton

11-06-1999, 03:42 AM

Gee...and I thought I was being rather diplomatic too...considering... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/frown.gif
------------------
The Grumbling Grognard

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 11-06-99).]

Fionn

11-06-1999, 07:13 AM

Well, I'm avoiding the whole fight going on here and am sticking to some factual points:

1. A single tank crushed, at most a single infantryman. Even then it occured rather rarely AND despite what you've all seen in movies whichever tanks sat still crushing infantry were in SERIOUS trouble from this guy's squad mates.

2. Guy Sajer's book IS a work of fiction. VERY good fiction but fiction.

3. Stalingrad (the movie) is fiction too.

Most of the tanks running over infantry myths is just that, myth.. Sure it happened but its like an air crash.. Statistically its HIGHLY unlikely but if you've ever seen one your remember it forever.

If you wanted to scare your kids about the horror of war what better way than to tell them about T-34s running over your buddies. Things which aren't 100% accurate DO enter popular military history without accurate and extensive verification.

I'm not going to get involved in the issue which people fought here about but I just wanted to say that historically it was a lot less common than it would first appear.

------------------
___________
Fionn Kelly
Manager of Historical Research,
The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

R Cunningham

11-06-1999, 11:12 AM

It is far from proven that Guy Sajer's book was fiction. There was an articel which appeared in the Military Review (publication of the US Army Command and General Staff School) some years ago and it was rebutted. For your consideration I offer the following taken from www.militaria.com.
--------------------------------------
The Guy Sajer Follies
by Jonathan Gawne
Copyright 1996- all rights reserved-

Like clockwork, someone posts to the net every month or two asking if Guy Sajer is a real person. As I am tired of trying to reply to every query here is a compilation of what's what.

Guy Sajer is alive and well and living in Paris. He is a well known newspaper cartoonist and has never tried to hide his identity- nor has he tried to promote it (why should he, he is well known in his own country). He has illustrated a number of books and comic books on military themes- and has a personal interest in U-boats. Folks that work in Paris military bookshops know him fairly well.

On the other hand, Sajer does not like to talk much about the Forgotten Soldier. He seems to like having an aura of mystery about him. Responding to claims he does not exist- he thinks this is very funny. But again, why should he even care about trying to prove he is real if the book sells so well, and he is very easy to find if you use half an ounce of brain power?

A while ago a US Military Historian wrote an essay claiming the book was fake. In my opinion this essay was very poorly researched. Many of the reasons cited can easily be attributed to the fact that the book was written in French for a French audience. Hence FRENCH military terms (like PM for machine pistol) were used. Again, why would anyone but a diehard enthusiast worry about such details? Certainly not the book publishers who really do not care to re-do a book which keeps selling just fine as is.

Other small details have been cited to prove Sajer is a fake: GD title on wring sleeve- well, figure how easy this is to screw up in translation, or have a 'know-it-all-editor' see that all the SS armbands are on one sleeve, so he changes it. I do not think Sajer has ever even read the English translation. It is sloppy scholarship to use details in a translation of a book to claim the book is a fake! You must go to the original French version and cite the text as written by the author.

As to the non-existence of some of the names used in the book, and the use of certain famous other units (such as a famous Stuka squadron). How many other war books use altered names for whatever reason? So what? This is no big deal.

Keep in mind that this book was written in France during a time when it was NOT a good idea to let people know you served with the Germans- and definitely NOT a good idea to let them know you served in an elite German unit- and a NO NO if you were in an SS unit. Think about this- it is rather important to keep this in mind. Why write a book that may well get you into trouble, under your own name, when it is very easy to take a fake pen name?

Now- some people do feel that the style of writing changes about the time Sajer enters the GD. This has given rise to the theory that it is the tale of two different men- written by two different men and joined into one book. There does seem to be some decent circumstantial evidence that Sajer, the Paris artist, did not actually write the whole book- that he is either fronting for someone else, or that he did the first half and used the better combat tales from someone else for the final part.

And of course there are those that claim he was in a French SS unit (or fronting for someone who was). This is a possibility. But then, there are many possibilities.

For those that insist it is a fake because of a few translation errors and the "non-existence" of Sajer- well, too bad. That's not a good enough reason. Don't go looking in an old German archive for a French citizen who is not in hiding.

For those that wonder about the much smaller and possibly more interesting details... it certainly is an interesting tale. I for one would love to see someone do a computer examination of the original French version to see if the styles of the two halves are the same (in English would be a waste of time). I have also asked the people that have contact with him if he would care to be interviewed on the accusations leveled against the book. Should this come about- the answers may prove very interesting.
--------------------------------------

PeterNZ

11-06-1999, 12:29 PM

FIONN: "Most of the tanks running over infantry myths is just that, myth.. Sure it happened but its like an air crash.. Statistically its HIGHLY unlikely but if you've ever seen one your remember it forever."

I think to further this point worth noting that if one included it in the game it would be used disproporionatly often.

If one accepts that tanks running over infantry happened once every 100 engagements, (a wild guess by me http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif ), then i can guarantee that you'd see it happen one in every ten battles, (if not more!). This means that the tactic is, obviously, used ten times more often that it should be, and thus is disproportionately powerful.

For this reason, i say leave it out http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

PeterNZ

Regan Wood

11-06-1999, 12:34 PM

Has anyone read the Sven Hassel series? Interesting reading. He also portrays tanks grinding infantry as a common Russian tactic; however, if I remember correctly, it was usually during an overrun type assault by tank units. It could also be very expensive for the tanks if the men (not squads) involved were veterans, as some generally were. Also, these books, except maybe the first, are fiction based on fact, I think. Anyway, my suggestion would be that an overrun by a vehichle have SOME penalty for the overrun unit. Also, wouldn't that be a good time for a unit to switch targets and utilize grenades, etc.?

Reverendo

11-06-1999, 01:23 PM

I do not think the fact this tactic is often used or not is important. I don't play wargames to recreate history, but to rewrite it. It would be absurd to say 'Hey, I found a great tactic to take Riesberg, but I'm not going to use it because the Americans didn't take Riesberg that way'. The important fact is that if a Stug ran over me, dying would be quite a smart thing for me to do. It would be the ONLY thing to do, actually. It is not that it was used by the Russians or not, it's the fact that being ran over by a tank is bad for your health. During the occupation of Spain in 1812, throwing pots to French soldiers from windows wasn't a 'Commonly used tactic', but hell, go and tell that to the French soldiers who died this way!
We have seen infantry squads going THROUGH tanks. Not only in CM, but also in CC and C&C. So, why not making YOUR troops go through tanks, while ENEMY troops die if ran over?
The AI in CM is extremely advanced, probably the best AI I have ever seen, ok, fair enough, but sometimes it does weird things. And our duty as subscribers of this newsgroup is reporting them. I have seen a SINGLE volksgrenadier blow a Sherman tank up... from the INSIDE. That's not realistic. And don't talk about violence, since I think if we do so we will have the same problem we had with the 'Dead bodies' thing. I'm not asking for blood, guts and brains. I DON'T want the game to be a dismemberfest. But neither I want war to be simulated in a way so neat and fluffy. Running over soldiers is cruel, ok, but being shot down isn't either my idea of a good day, and people in CM actually shoot each other.
If I wanted blood, I would play 'Unreal' or 'Quake'. If I wanted an innocent game, I would play 'Barney the Cute Purple Dinosaur'. So let's not mess things up. I'm not pro-dead bodies, but I'm not against them either. The objective of a simulation is to... simulate. So, when personal conviction masks reality, we're no longer simulating.

------------------
Regards

Reverendo

Reverendo

11-06-1999, 01:36 PM

Whoa, I always forget something! :¬)

If the problem is plainly technical, then leave it out. I'm not going to get upset if I can't run over soldiers. Actually, I only tried to do it twice.
About realism, I ken it is extremely hard to run over a man with a tank. But I have to say this game simulates long range combat perfectly, but I see flaws (perhaps just lack of feedback' in close combat. Tanks aren't the only unit to have problems about this. Infantry makes some weird things while assaulting. And I have seen a full squad of veteran panzergrenadiere fleeing from half a squad of american riflemen. So, when I try to scare 1 or 2 soldiers who are under fire and have lost their whole squad, and I get a tank close, why don't they flee? Actually, why do they kill my tank? Hell, I would be far more scared if I saw a steel box with 2 MGs and a gun than if I saw 5 jerks running through open ground... Specially because I can shoot the jerks down with my rifle...
Oh, and one more thing. Panzerfausts kill tanks, that's true. And they do it veri good indeed. But, why do grenades (I mean hand grenades) kill my buttoned tanks?!. You see a guy swinging his arm, a black dot flying on an arc and falling over your tank, a huge explosion and the crew running away... Isn't that a bit strange?

------------------
Regards

Reverendo

Fionn

11-06-1999, 02:31 PM

Umm about Guy Sajer, I wouldn't dispute that he is alive and is Guy Sajer..

I merely stated the book is fiction.. He said he was in GD BUT the veteran association goes livid whenever anyone asks about him since that division has ZERO record of him being in that division.

Also, how many people who were in GD have come forward saying they knew him?

Exactly http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif.. Look, it's a work of fiction but its good fiction and better than a lot of "real" war books.

Reverendo,
Well, that's what happens in close assaults. 5 Emplaced men are quite capable of seeing off your full-strength Panzergrenadier squad. If tactics were easy then everyone would be a great leader http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif.

As I understand it that's a graphical abstraction to represent infantry close assaults on tanks a la Saving Private Ryan.

It usually costs HUGE casualties to the infantry though but can be done.

------------------
___________
Fionn Kelly
Manager of Historical Research,
The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

R Cunningham

11-06-1999, 02:43 PM

Fionn,

The points made by Mr. gawne include the possibility that Sajer was never assigned to GD. But that does not in and of itself make the work a fictional account. I am not in a position to read the original French to make comparisons, but I think the lack of recognition of his name by GD veterans and documents is far from conclusive proof that the account is fiction.

Fionn

11-06-1999, 05:25 PM

Sorry Cunningham but Sajer writes about GD's organically attached Tiger units and describes battles with them in support, he takes GREAT pains to explain why his training as part of GD was so strenuous and how the officers were consistently telling the men they were special etc..

He follows the timeline of deployments of GD very closely.

Give that he spends an inordinate amount of time talking about the training he had for the GD, discusses units of the GD and follows their deployments this makes his book a work of fiction.

If he was in the 333rd Infantry Division BUT writes a book in which he was a soldier in the GD then THAT book is a work of fiction.

If you accept he wasn't in GD then the book is a work of fiction since he makes copious references to actions of the GD (which he was involved in according to himself) in the book.

I have the first English translation (yes with flaws of course) here and I can quote chapter and verse of locations where he clearly states he was a member of the GD when it was being formed.. This has been shown to be false.

------------------
___________
Fionn Kelly
Manager of Historical Research,
The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

Supertanker

11-06-1999, 06:52 PM

It might be an error to simply state that tanks physically running over infantry either did or did not happen all of the time. Different war, different place, but in Tank Sergeant (IIRC), by Ralph Zumbro, he described numerous times where the US tankers in Vietnam would drive their tank onto a spider hole or a log bunker and do a neutral steer on top of it. This would simultaneously kill the occupants and destroy the fortification. With this in mind, my point is that it depends on circumstances as to whether or not this is a valid tactic. If soldiers are out in the open, it seems unlikely you could move the tank quickly enough to actually run someone over. If they are in certain types of fortifications, physical overruns perhaps might be a valid tactic. Zumbro also describes another close assault tactic of driving up to a bunker and inserting the 90mm (I think these were M48 tanks) into the firing slots of the bunker and firing an HE round inside. Very effective, from both the round and the expanding propellant gases.

PanzerLeader

11-06-1999, 07:00 PM

But are those Gross Deutschland veteran lists complete? Are you sure they have the name of every single man who fought in the GD during the war? Some administration papers were perhaps lost, in the confusion and chaos at the end, in May 1945...

tss

11-06-1999, 08:07 PM

I agree that tanks overrunning infantry was probably not very common occurrence. However, tanks running over equipment was more common. I can remember two concrete cases where Finnish tankers overrun guns:
First, in November 1941 sergeant Heino drove over an AT gun battery with his T-34 (if I remember correctly he had captured it himself some time before). The sources that I have read of the occasion differ on details. One source claimed that the guns were 45 mm AT guns that were positioned in a small orchard in a village and the guns had time to fire a couple of shots which failed to penetrate the armor. If I remember correctly, this version was attributed to a Finnish T-26 driver who witnessed the thing. The other account stated that the guns were 76 mm "crack-boom"s that were in tow and Heino overrun them before they couldn't open fire.
The second case happened on 14 June at Kuuterselkä. The Stug-IIIg of Lt Olli Aulanko run over a Soviet AT gun company that was on tow. The Soviet column blocked the road and after firing a couple of shots from the main gun Aulanko decided to run over the horses, carriages, and guns.
Both of the above occurrences are well-documented. BTW, both Aulanko and Heino received the Mannerheim's cross, the highest Finnish military award. Aulanko for destroying 22 Soviet tanks. I don't remember exactly what Heino did to receive the award but he was clearly the best Finnish tank driver of the war.

Someone mentioned Hassel's books on this thread (I can't check it right now). His books are 100% fiction. In fact, I have noticed word-to-word rips from at least three different war books. First, from "All quient on Western Front" he took some scenes, at least the one where the men receive triple rations because the field kitchen doesn't know about the heavy losses. Hassel plagiarized the "Good Soldier Svejk" heavily. Right now I can remember one case (there were more): the occasion when field kitchen throws the food away because they were only practicing occurred in one of Svejk's endles stories. From Linna's "The Unknown Soldier" he ripped the "Finland-Soviet Union Wrestling Championship" word-to-word.
My opinion is, that if there is some real occurrence in Hassel's books that is because he copied it from some authentic book.

-Tommi

R Cunningham

11-06-1999, 08:44 PM

Fionn,

I went looking for the piece that convinced me that The Forgotten Soldier is the real deal. I found it. It is from the March-April 1997 issue of Military Review. I have inserted the text below.
------------------------------------------

The Forgotten Soldier Revisited

I recently established contact with Guy Sajer, the author of the well-known autobiography The Forgotten Soldier, a military literature classic that describes the author's experiences fighting for Germany against the Soviet Union during World War II. With regard to a previous letter to the editor by Lieutenant Colonel Edwin L. Kennedy, published in your March-April 1996 issue--"Military Professionals do not Use Fiction as Fact"--I would like to set the record straight.

After 18 months of research, I was able to locate Sajer. He lives in a rural village approximately 50 miles east of Paris under his nom de plume. Although not his real last name (Guy is his real first name), Sajer is his mother's maiden name. She was born in Gotha, Germany. He enlisted in the German Wehrmacht in 1942 under a German name to avoid the ridicule he would have received had he used his real French last name. To verify his book's authenticity, I asked Sajer a series of questions that had been raised by Kennedy in a Spring 1992 Army History article titled "The Forgotten Soldier: Fiction or Fact?"

Sajer quickly responded to my query. Although he admitted that minor details such as uniform insignia, weapons nomenclatures and other such things were not important to him, he stands by what he wrote 30 years ago. He insists that he did not set out to write the definitive history of World War II, only what he had personally experienced while fighting in the elite Grossdeutschland division on the Russian Front. He admitted that he could have erred in describing locations and chronology, but that he wrote things as he remembered them. In his letter to me, he stated that "In the darkness of a night in Russia, you could have told me that we were in China, and I would have believed you." Further details on Sajer's wartime and postwar experiences are described in an upcoming article I wrote for Army History, scheduled for publication in their Fall 1997 issue.

Kennedy's own key witness, former Grossdeutschland Division historian and reconnaissance squadron commander Major (Ret.) Helmuth Spaeter, who claimed that The Forgotten Soldier was fictional, has now changed his thinking. After reading several letters from Sajer, Spaeter admitted in a letter to me that he now believes that Sajer could have been a member of that famous division after all. Spaeter wrote about his new-found admiration for Guy Sajer and planned to reread his own German copy of the book, titled Denn diese Tage Quall war gross: Erinnerung eines vergessenen Soldaten (These Days Were Full of Great Suffering--Memories of a Forgotten Soldier, (Munich: Verlag Fritz Molden, 1969) in order to examine it from a more unbiased point of view.

Hopefully, Sajer's efforts to clear his name will reestablish the prominence his book has earned on many a soldier's bookshelf. Readers can rest assured that when they pick up a copy of The Forgotten Soldier, they will be reading one of the best and most realistic books ever written from an infantryman's perspective, regardless of which side he fought for in World War II.

Lieutenant Colonel Douglas E. Nash, USA, US Special Operations Command, MacDill AFB, Florida
------------------------------------------

If you want to see it for yourself the link is: http://www-cgsc.army.mil/milrev/English/marapr97/letters.htm.

I have been unable to locate the Army History issues mentioned (still working).

Fionn

11-06-1999, 08:54 PM

Cunningham,

Well, I'm always open to new info. If I feel the proof is sufficient I will change my mind. I still think it's fiction but we'll see. BTW do the records show Guy's "Germanic name" as having served?

tss: Running over AT guns etc IS in...

------------------
___________
Fionn Kelly
Manager of Historical Research,
The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

Los

11-07-1999, 03:11 AM

BTW re: Tanks crushing infnatry and it being a myth.

I am in possesion of Panzer Marsch which is a compilition of among other things a few german Training films shot during the war. One covers the defense of tanks against infantry (when they are without infantry support) and covers running over and crushing infantry positions, showing specifically how it's done.

BTW re: Sajer and real or not, I kinda believe he's real. It's not enough that he got details wrong in his story. Some dickwad historian notwithstanding.

I'll tell you myself that I have been in the army for 22 years, and long before that I was into military history and wargaming. I have been very much attuned to everything I did, tactics, history, blah blah blah. I'm also here to tell you that there is a bunch of stuff that I am occasionally hard pressed to remember all the details from the early years of my own career including stuff like names, unit designations (not mine but units I've worked with), TOEs and OOBs of various units, spoecifics of deployments, and what not. I didn't keep the meticulous notes that I did later in my career. Sure I can remember with excrutiating details various incidents and anecdotes but if I had to write a detailed history of say some of the operations I was involved in, I'd no doubt get stuff wrong even major things. (AT the time I was worried about getting the job done and staying alive) And with a lot of vietnam vets I know (there's still four left in my unit), it's the same way.

SO it doesn't surprise me that a guy writing after the war, who probably wasn't even into things military but a regular draftee would have a hard time remebering some details even if he could tell you how many bubbles of blood frothed out of his best friends ernst shattered jaw in the long hour or two it took him to die.

Los

[This message has been edited by Los (edited 11-07-99).]

R Cunningham

11-07-1999, 10:07 AM

Fionn,

I have put in a request at the Combined Arms Research Library at Fort Leavenworth. I've asked for the Article from 92 where LTC Kennedy question the Sajer story and the 97 article by LTC Nash that rebutts it. I don't know how long it will take to get a response. When I get something back, I will post it here as a new thread. I will also go check the post libraries, but I think my chances are low since I'd never heard of the Army History: The Professional Bulletin before this.

Fionn

11-07-1999, 10:40 AM

Los,

I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just saying that I don't think it should be in the game since it was a 1 on 1 thing and not a tank vs squad thing. Also, I'm quite sure that training films showed how to do it.

As for Sajer, I'm not concerned with him getting things exactly right. Any cursory skimming of the book would show numerous errors etc which I don't mind at all and would expect in any book written by a veteran.

HOWEVER the fact that no-one from GD remembers him and that no records of him exist etc are VERY strange...

I would, at this point, agree he was probably in the German army but I definitely doubt he was in GD and think his book is a work of fiction based on real experiences.

I also don't completely rule out the possibility that he mightn't have fought at all.

BUT Los, just to make it clear, I wasn't all concerned about minor errors here and there. I AM concerned by the GD veterans association stating he was NOT a member of GD and that they did not find a SINGLE person who knew him in the GD. (Isn't it a little weird that ALL the people who he knew well died ? VERY convenient isn't it?)

Now, maybe that's what really happened but between the lack of records, the lack of friends who knew him and other stuff it makes his claims very difficult to accept without a LOT more proof from him.

------------------
___________
Fionn Kelly
Manager of Historical Research,
The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

CoolColJ

11-07-1999, 11:24 AM

What about artillery and mortars and HMGs?? I think a tank would run them over pretty easily, since the squad would just abandon ship.

------------------
CCJ
aka BLITZ_Force

My Homepage -

www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Beach/4448 (http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Beach/4448)

Fionn

11-07-1999, 12:07 PM

Artillery ARE included in my AT guns etc post..

others. don't know.

------------------
___________
Fionn Kelly
Manager of Historical Research,
The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

Los

11-07-1999, 12:09 PM

Fionn,

I agree re: tank crushing. Was only bringing it up for interest.

RE: GJ, not that's it's an issue even getting into, but do you have the slightest idea at all how many guys porbably served in the GD??? The unit was practically wiped out and rebuilt plenty of times and went from a regt to a corps, porbably a hundred thousand or more. The fact that one private is not remember by the few veterans that survived the war is not in the slightest bit surprising. I wouldn't even hold that up as an issue. Especially with eth state of records inmay units being what they were after the war. (Sure if the guy was purporting to ba a battalion commander or something....) Now if somebody produces a document saying here is a complete list of all soldiers that were in the GJ or better yet here is the list of soldiers in xx div between 1943-45 and you could see that private Sajer is in that unit well then that's a better argumnent.

Again back to my own example, There are probably plenty of people that were in my old division (82d abn) that would be lost to history unless there were records. The 82d amb div association is a large organization but not large enough to in any way encompass more that a fraction of all the guys that were ever in it.

Cheers...

Los

PanzerLeader

11-07-1999, 02:51 PM

Fionn,

Not all of his friends died.You forget some important guys: Hals(his best friend), Lindberg(the coward who fought with him from Belgorod onwards), Pferham(the priest),...It would be interesting to know if those soldiers really existed, and if they're alive today. Questioning them would give major evidence that Sajer did fight in the GD (or not). I wonder whether the military historians have already tried to find them. But it's probably very tough, maybe impossible.
And just for curiosity, how many men are part of the GD veteran association?

Fionn

11-07-1999, 08:42 PM

Well, I would generally accept that records could be burnt etc BUT you have to remember he was in the INITIAL cadre of GD for which, it seems to me, it is far, far more likely the records survived the war since these transfers wouldn't have been haphazard.

E.g. That road-clearing unit he worked for.. Can he show transfer orders from IT? No !

So he hasn't got proof he transferred out at that time and has no proof he transferred into GD. Just seems suspicious.

As for your example of the 82nd I agree. I see it with the Seals as well. I am a particular fan of the Seal Fakes expose page on the net and I agree that it is possible Sajer served but merely was lost to records...

It's not that any one part of his story is provably false its just that so many portions are unsupportable, off kilter and suspicious that just makes me doubt http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

Panzerleader is right re: those other guys who supposedly survived the war. If Sajer could even bring one or two of them up to testify for him I'd be more inclined to believe but, to the best of my knowledge he has failed to bring ANYONE forward who will support his story..

I am open to correction on that last part though.. Maybe he's found some of his old buddies?

------------------
___________
Fionn Kelly
Manager of Historical Research,
The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

Los

11-08-1999, 02:21 AM

First off, Sajer was a POW before the end of the war, so any personal documents or records (not that he was apt to even be lugging them around other than his paybook that stuff is usually kept by admin) would have been lost or confiscated just like every other POW in the history of warfare.

And how do you figure Sajer was in the initial cadre? He transfers to the GD sometime in the spring 1943 after Stalingrad. The GD was around long before the war started (initially as a regiment then expanding to a division around April of 1942) so he most definately is not a plankholder nor is it claimed so in the book. And as has been pointed out the guy that started the whole "Sajer is a fake trend" has since had his key witness (The GD division historian) retract his statement that Sajer was a fake.

Los

Big Time Software

11-08-1999, 03:25 AM

There is a source of info that would be good to go looking in -> POW records. My understanding of them is that they were VERY good, and are still very much intact (probably even the Soviet's are good enough). I also know that the Allies had a keen interest in any and all "elite" unit personnel.

I find it odd that the GD association would reject a bonified member, who wrote one of the most critically aclaimed books (and one that reflects fairly well on the German PoV of the war in Russia) if they didn't firmly believe him to be a fake. Not saying that he is for sure, 100% or anything, but I find it strange.

Although from the source Cunningham cited, perhaps this is changing?

Steve

Scott Clinton

11-08-1999, 03:53 AM

Steve: "I find it odd that the GD association would reject a bonified member, who wrote one of the most critically aclaimed books..."

FWIW That has always been the key for me. When the GD accepts him as 'real' so will I. I mean its not like he trashed them in the book or anything, what reason would they have to decline him?

------------------
The Grumbling Grognard

R Cunningham

11-08-1999, 08:15 AM

Couple of things to point out re: Sajer and GD while I'm waiting on additional information.

Sajer states he did not use this pen name while a soldier in the Wehrmacht. No GD member could possibly remember the name Sajer. Mr. Sajer himself seems uninterested in trying to defend his book and it seems he is/was unaware of the criticisms of it.

Mike Oberly

11-08-1999, 12:08 PM

Check out this site for a very interesting article on the book.I happen to believe it's mostly genuine myself,after reading many articles pro and con:

http://www.uwm.edu/~jpipes/sajer.html

Mike

R Cunningham

11-08-1999, 02:09 PM

Mr. Oberly,

You took the wind out of my sails! That is the article by Lt Colonel Nash that I have two libraries looking for at the moment. The article he is rebutting from Lt Colonel Kennedy is the other one they're looking for. I had intended to post both of them and let everyone decide on their own. Now I can only hope to get the original Kennedy article from 92.

Comment on the article. This cuff title issue figures prominently and it occured to me that there is a simple explanation for why Sajer got it wrong. What clued me in was he said THEY sewed it on the left sleeve. The right sleeve would appear on the left as the soldier looks at his jacket from the front. I'm guessing that maybe a translation error is at fault here.

Interesting note is that Mr. Pipes posted this article without crediting the author as the end notes indicate several letters to Nash, which how I take this to be his article. This is surprising given the fight he put up about the improper use of one of his images on the former CC3 gamestats site back in Feb/March.