Sentiments about wargaming in WW1/WW2

[Andym]

Possibly think of it this way....it's a way of remembering the stress and trials of ALL who fought in these conflicts.

My history knowledge is terrible. I mean rank rotten. By playing these games it brings to light some of the more important pieces of history. I've learned sooo much through wargaming. By playing these games and show casing these games to the best of our ability, we remember. Maybe your striving for accuracy on your table represents this?

[Nord]

I played WW2 games as kid at school, back in the days when Airfix tanks and 1/72 plastic figures ruled. I collected German armour because they had the "best tanks", bought a couple of books on tanks and armour, but never really gave a thought to the bigger picture. Also played a WW1 dogfighting game. Then I left school, went on to uni and gradually fell into fantasy gaming which I have pretty much stuck with for the past 20 or so years.

Throughout my life I have held on to an interest in history, not just military, different periods down the years. I enjoy collecting and gaming Dark Ages and a little medieval too, though none of it can match the fantasy stuff for me. I have played a handful of WW2 games using my mate's collection, playing eastern front encounters using Blitzkrieg Commander rules. However, it never really felt right to me - the old feeling of "wow, tigers are awesome" has gone, as I have learned more of what the wars actually entailed. So I don't play it any more, much to the bemusement of my gaming group - it's just a game, it's not real, they say.

To me, it does seem disrespectful to "play" games with this stuff. The more modern it is, the less comfortable I get. My stepfather served in Ireland and would not talk of the events, but something happened, enough to give him post traumatic issues years later, right up to a year or so ago when he died of cancer. And yet I have seen games played at wargames shows. I honestly cannot comprehend modern wargaming. All my relatives who served in the war are now dead, there's no one I can offend with what I do in the privacy of my gaming room, but it still feels wrong to me. I don't really understand the philosophy that by gaming we are honouring them, remembering them. I feel that is just an excuse to ease guilty feelings.

[Arlequín]

For those interested, I wholeheartly recommend the book "Achtung Schweinehund! - A Boy's Own Story of Imaginary Combat" by Harry Pearson. It deals with the British people's strange fascination with wars in general and "The War" (WW2) in particular. All written in a humorous manner, of course, and the focus is on miniature wargaming.

Like Nord, I'm of that same generation and in the UK at least WWII was more celebrated far more than it was looked back on with regret. War films galore, war toys everywhere, Airfix models... literally every toy store boasted a 'healthy' WWII boys toys section. Commando Comics and several "children's comics" heavily featured WWII stories too... and it was the WWII generation that was pushing it all. I imagine they are/would be overjoyed to see how popular 'their war' is still.

Those of us who had family members who served got a bit of balance to the 'glories of war' promoted by the consumer culture of the time, but otherwise the general message was that it was all 'a bit of a lark' when all was said and done.

One of the more regrettable aspects of the era Harrison does not touch on though, was that if anyone expressed the sentiments of some people in this thread, they would be labelled a 'softy' or worse and would invariably receive a dose of 'playground justice' for expressing those same sentiments publicly. There was no shame whatsoever in being the Germans when you played, but God help anyone who suggested that war might not actually be fun.   

 

[Nord]

The comic thing is an interesting point. One of my mates reckons that when he plays WW2 wargaming, in his head he is replaying the old comic style actions, not recreating historic events. Tales of stiff upper lip, get em lads, gott im himmel, etc. And yet he has an encyclopediac knowledge of the actual events, down to regiments involved. I do wonder if this kind of obsession prevents him from seeing the woods for the trees.

[Arlequín]

I'm inclined to say that the 'Boys Own' style comics and adventure stories stopped numerous generations of Britons from seeing the woods for the trees, right back to Victorian times. Even the Oxbridge students of the 'Pacifistic Thirties', who talked about not fighting in any future war, were seemingly out there yelling 'Tally Ho!' with the best of them in 1940.

I do wonder if we in the present do tend to place too much focus on not causing offence and reflecting on our own principles and values though. I caught a few minutes of a documentary on troops in Afghanistan a couple of years ago and while I was suitably shocked and saddened by 'our lads' being out there, it was all sort of spoiled by overhearing one of the soldiers say to his mate, after loosing off most of a mag at distant Taliban, "I f****** love this shit!".

[Nord]

It is very hard not to view history through modern eyes. 

[Arlequín]

Of course and I wouldn't ever want to swap my modern outlook of 'treat others how you wish to be treated yourself', or the Blackadder view of war, for the 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori' attitude of generations past.

[Cessna]

I'm former military and a combat vet myself, but I've always kept "games" separate from "real war" myself. I suppose this is a bit of denial or mental gymnastics, but it works.

I also don't see why more recent events are somehow more problematic. I understand that the participants may still be alive, but that doesn't make the people of the past less sympathetic. Maybe this is the former history major talking, but I've read some heartbreaking accounts from people involved in wars that were long removed from living memory - but again, "game" is separate from "real war."

[Hupp n at em]

I'm former military and a combat vet myself, but I've always kept "games" separate from "real war" myself. I suppose this is a bit of denial or mental gymnastics, but it works.

I also don't see why more recent events are somehow more problematic. I understand that the participants may still be alive, but that doesn't make the people of the past less sympathetic. Maybe this is the former history major talking, but I've read some heartbreaking accounts from people involved in wars that were long removed from living memory - but again, "game" is separate from "real war."

I suppose this is almost more of an argument for historical wargaming.  Gaming is the reason we go digging up the history and keep the memory of these people and their stories alive.  Sure, our initial reason for doing so is the same as those of us who game fantasy and sci-fi, but that's a fairly noble thing that's accomplished in the process, at least in my mind. 

[monk2002uk]

I don't really understand the philosophy that by gaming we are honouring them, remembering them. I feel that is just an excuse to ease guilty feelings.

Speaking for myself, I do not have any guilty feelings that I need to excuse. I respect the fact that you disagree with the sentiment that I expressed. I respectfully ask that you not ascribe alternative explanations as to why I hold such sentiments. Please note, as it is hard to tell in electronic posts of this nature, that there is no anger or malice whatsoever in what I have just said. Nor do I believe that your comments were made with malicious intent.

Robert

[James Morris]

Some excellent and well thought-out replies on here, but very characteristic of LAF, if I may say so. Ask the same question on certain other forums and you will get the equivalent of a Trump rally within a few replies!

Though I'm late to the party, I spent years only gaming ancients and medieval because I was uncomfortable with the idea of gaming any twentieth century warfare. Once I had developed an interest, what grabbed me was the plethora of firsthand accounts available, that invaluable resource to find out what people actually felt while caught up in all these momentous events. In that respect I think that my twentieth century games, despite depicting more destructive weaponry than those of previous ages, are actually better informed and I have more ability to talk to players and passersby at shows about the experience of the men on the ground. It's a curious mixture of commemoration and gaming, but as someone has already pointed out, it helps to remember things that might otherwise be forgotten.

It is interesting to discuss how WW1 has the public image of the most wasteful and pointless ever, yet WW2 probably killed 50 million people worldwide. In truth they are probably just bookends of the same period of history. I do not see WW1 as ungameable, but it has taken me several years to get to that conclusion, and it's very much a personal decision.

[fastolfrus]

My father was with 3RTR at Alamein and later on at Goodwood in Normandy.
But he was quite happy with wargaming and took me to Bovington tank museum one holiday.
He was always very impressed by German engineering.
He didn't express an opinion on Tigers (as far as I recall) but the King Tiger really impressed him.
The Jagdtiger was even better because we could get on top of that one (the museum was very "hands-on" years ago)

So I don't have any personal problem with gaming WWII, and have no issues with German tanks etc.

[SteveBurt]

The issue of 'no tactics in WW1'  is a bit of a myth.
There were lots of tactics, and they evolved a lot during the war.
The TooFatLardies set 'Through the Mud and the Blood' reflects this beautifully; there is a set of scenarios based on the actual training manuals.
So it may not have the glamour of armoured breakthroughs and the like, but small unit tactics in WW1 is a pretty interesting area, and one eminently suitable for gaming.