BluecherForward

Sorry, but I don't agree with this. The U.S. had the preponderance of for forces in Theater. It controlled the greater sea lanes, albeit in very close - and effective partnership - with the Royal Navy. It was bombing Germany in cooperation with RAF Bomber Command (ever been to East Anglia?).  The U.S. fielded many times the number of troops that the British Empire deployed in Northwest Europe in 1944-45 and should have had an interest in directly controlling the logistical train to the Continent. Then there was the massive Lend-Lease support to the British Commonwealth forces and nations - making British forces more dependent upon the U.S., than the other way around. Ask Winston, he was quite aware of U.S. material dominance of the alliance. So what happened?
Basically, the British senior military leadership was more practiced at the art of staffing things - and had all the answers, for the most part, when it came to key meetings. The U.S. wanted to win the war  - period - and then go home. The British, especially under Churchill, were interested in the long-term grand strategic impact of military decision-making.
Remember, the British Empire was about to go to the aid of Finland in the Winter War with the Soviet Union (that is what the Narvik operation was originally about). I think Churchill knew who he was dealing with when negotiating with Stalin. I am not so sure that Roosevelt did.
"During the early stages of World War II, the British and French Allies made a series of proposals to send troops to assist Finland against the Soviet Union in the Winter War, which started on 30 November 1939. The war was a consequence of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, which put Finland into the Soviet sphere of influence. The plans involved the transit of British and French troops and equipment through neutral Norway and Sweden."                                                                           https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-British_plans_for_intervention_in_the_Winter_War
So while the Cold War came as a great disappointment to the United States, I do not think the general outlines of that falling out with Stalin  were a great surprise to Winston Churchill. He was always thinking several steps down the road.

 

Ende Gut, alles gut. Happy reading Aragorn2002! Have you heard of the book - Traitors Among Us? Fascinating true story of uncovering of spy ring in U.S. Army in Germany during the Cold War.

Winston was a rare grand strategic thinker.  Here is a very good book abut him that I can recommend.

To understand what was happening to the British Empire at that time (taking the long view), I recommend this excellent work:

Cheers and happy reading!

If I recall correctly, the armor on the sides of U.S. tanks (not just the Sherman) was not sloped so that the tanks could be loaded, fitted into place, and unloaded more efficiently on/from ships. This factor was something that land-powers like Germany and the USSR did not have to be concerned about as much.

If I recall correctly, the armor on the sides of U.S. tanks (not just the Sherman) was not sloped so that the tanks could be loaded, fitted into place, and unloaded more efficiently on/from ships. This factor was something that land-powers like Germany and the USSR did not have to be concerned about as much.

This is such a fascinating period or warfare - and history. Enormous leaps in technology, equipment, and tactics; plus such a variety of forces and organizational types. Would love to see a re-working of CMAK.

Yes, Barbarossa!

The one German General of the Nazi era that comes to my mind - as a man of honor - was Ludwig Beck. We would all do well to remember his courage in the face of tyranny. Too bad the British and French caved in to Hitler over the Sudetenland - there might have been no World War II in Europe...although there would have been bloody civil war in Germany as the military and Nazi's went at it.
From Wikipedia:
"He increasingly came to rely upon contacts with the British in the hope that London would successfully exert its influence on Hitler through threats and warnings, but he failed.
Beck and his conspirators knew that Germany faced certain and rapid defeat if France and Britain helped Czechoslovakia in 1938. Accordingly, they contacted the British Foreign Office, informed Britain of their plot and asked for a firm British warning to deter Hitler from attacking Czechoslovakia. In September 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier and Italian dictator Benito Mussolini signed the Munich Agreement, handing the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia to Germany. That ended the crisis and hence Beck's efforts at a putsch."
More regarding the plot of 1938 from https://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-munich.htm
"Beck and Halder formed a group of conspirators consisting of several top generals, along with former diplomat Ulrich von Hassell, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris who was Chief of German Intelligence, and Berlin's Police Chief, Graf von Helldorf.
They hatched a plot to arrest Hitler the very moment he gave the actual invasion order. According to their plan, Berlin would be sealed off by special Army units to prevent the SS from interfering. Other units, aided by anti-Nazis in the Berlin Police, would seize important government buildings while top Nazis such as Göring, Goebbels and Himmler would be arrested. Assuming this all worked, Hitler would be hauled before a special court and charged with leading Germany toward a military disaster. (my note: and violation of the Weimar Constitution).
But there was one big if in this whole scenario. The plan would only work if both Britain and France maintained a belligerent attitude toward Hitler and made it known to the world that they would fight to preserve the little Czech Republic. This would serve to convince the German people that certain defeat awaited Germany if it attacked Czechoslovakia and would justify the overthrow of Hitler."
He died a hero after the failed attempt to kill Hitler and save what was left of Germany (physically and morally) in July 1944.

These are great ideas!

I'd like to see a North Africa module for Fortress Italy. Most of the factions AND equipment are already there. I would like for less families, and more modules for existing families. Giving each game more stuff to play with. Not sure how this would look on the software side. From what I understand, maintaining a large number of families is a bottleneck. Hopefully, CM3 will be one family, one love.
Here, here. Growing up, I was taught that Monty rescued the Allied situation in North Africa. Wavell and Auchinleck were seen as tired, dusty, and obsolete generals, that had let the situation deteriorate to a fiasco. Yet, it seems that they sowed the seeds for victory at El Alamein. Now, I hold Wavell in high esteem. After a bit of reading on Market Garden, I do question Montgomery's decision making.
All this being said, all these great generals and marshals (including Zhukov) were just men. During the war, propaganda made them seem as titans -- after the war, as legends. In reality, they sometimes made uninformed decisions. Often, got involved in sticky politics. Right place, right time. Wrong place, wrong time. Reality is very complex, and it's hard to attribute "good" or "bad" without a specific context.
My favourite US general of WW2 happens to be George Marshall. I don't think he won a single battle.

What about adding a "REPEAT" mission to artillery fire missions and registering fires on those target which have already been called in once? The arty in this game is very nicely done, even including the linear sheaf mission - so why not the "repeat" mission? Call for fires that are serviced normally result in that target be registered as well, so why not automatically insert a TRP onto every site in which artillery is called - like in the real thing? Maybe some nations were not up to doing this in the Second World War, but U.S. and British artillery certainly were - I assume the Wehrmacht was as well. Not sure if the Soviets used that capability.

We're simply saying that for a game, the pre-El Alamein battles are the most interesting period of the Afrika Korps "story" and battles.

Initially the first battle (July 1942) it was a strategic victory in that it stopped Rommel cold and depleted his resources so he couldn't continue to threaten Alexandria & Egypt - like Coral Sea in the Pacific was a tactical draw but a strategic victory since it prevented the Japs from threatening Australia.  After the 2nd battle (October-November) it was a question of the Brits having more resources and being able to grind down the Afrika Korps which was in retreat from that point on.  (Hence the reason why the 1940-42 period is the most interesting for gamers - rather like the 42-43 period is on the Eastern Front.)

Another way of looking at it: They charged those defensive positions in the desert in the early days because they knew they were out-ranged and over-powered by many of the German tank guns and AT guns (especially the 88). Closing the range by "charging" was a reasonable tactical response by the leaders of the British armored units confronted with this challenge. They needed to get in close for their weapons to be effective.
...and let's not forget that in the case of Operation Crusader (18 November – 30 December 1941) at least  - when it really counted - these tactics succeeded.

This is such a fascinating period or warfare - and history. Enormous leaps in technology, equipment, and tactics; plus such a variety of forces and organizational types. Would love to see a re-working of CMAK.

What about adding a "REPEAT" mission to artillery fire missions and registering fires on those target which have already been called in once? The arty in this game is very nicely done, even including the linear sheaf mission - so why not the "repeat" mission? Call for fires that are serviced normally result in that target be registered as well, so why not automatically insert a TRP onto every site in which artillery is called - like in the real thing? Maybe some nations were not up to doing this in the Second World War, but U.S. and British artillery certainly were - I assume the Wehrmacht was as well. Not sure if the Soviets used that capability.

I've joked before that BFC must have a limited list of (ahem) 'popular' wars to cover. The world is full of conflict but there's little sales potential in producing a 1979 China vs Vietnam war title or one covering the 1974 Cyprus invasion. In the past Steve had previously shown an interest in the modern Chinese army but there simply isn't a marketable 'counterfactual history' to set such a title in. I suggested the Chinese invasion of Taiwan but that got poopooed. WWII North Africa would naturally be on any short list of legitimate contenders.
Wild speculation, just knowing how BFC thinks, I'd guess a North Africa title would start at Operation Torch with a Kassarine Pass campaign included. Modules would bring in the Brits and take the timeline up to the Sicily invasion. And EVERYONE would complain because it doesn't include El Alamein.

This is such a fascinating period or warfare - and history. Enormous leaps in technology, equipment, and tactics; plus such a variety of forces and organizational types. Would love to see a re-working of CMAK.

I was thinking the same thing, but I am not a programmer and I know they have a lot of things in the planning stage. Sure would buy it though.

It can't be the end of Red Thunder anyway... we still need 'Barbarossa'  

What about adding a "REPEAT" mission to artillery fire missions and registering fires on those target which have already been called in once? The arty in this game is very nicely done, even including the linear sheaf mission - so why not the "repeat" mission? Call for fires that are serviced normally result in that target be registered as well, so why not automatically insert a TRP onto every site in which artillery is called - like in the real thing? Maybe some nations were not up to doing this in the Second World War, but U.S. and British artillery certainly were - I assume the Wehrmacht was as well. Not sure if the Soviets used that capability.

+1   Good idea.  I often wish I could repeat a fire order when the first barrage wasn't effective and it's excruciating having to wait through a whole spotting cycle.

What about adding a "REPEAT" mission to artillery fire missions and registering fires on those target which have already been called in once? The arty in this game is very nicely done, even including the linear sheaf mission - so why not the "repeat" mission? Call for fires that are serviced normally result in that target be registered as well, so why not automatically insert a TRP onto every site in which artillery is called - like in the real thing? Maybe some nations were not up to doing this in the Second World War, but U.S. and British artillery certainly were - I assume the Wehrmacht was as well. Not sure if the Soviets used that capability.

What about adding a "REPEAT" mission to artillery fire missions and registering fires on those target which have already been called in once? The arty in this game is very nicely done, even including the linear sheaf mission - so why not the "repeat" mission? Call for fires that are serviced normally result in that target be registered as well, so why not automatically insert a TRP onto every site in which artillery is called - like in the real thing? Maybe some nations were not up to doing this in the Second World War, but U.S. and British artillery certainly were - I assume the Wehrmacht was as well. Not sure if the Soviets used that capability.

Very good points, Bluecher