The Brits?

[bram1979]

I'm not sure if this has been asked or explained yet. I can't find anything regarding it.

When will the Brits make their apparence on CMFB?

[Michael Emrys]

1 hour ago, bram1979 said:

When will the Brits make their apparence on CMFB?

The first module?

Michael

[Ts4EVER]

My guess is that there will be a "crossing of the Rhine" themed expansion pack that will include the Brits and other Commonwealth forces, including their latewar equipment (Comets, Land mattress etc), as well as more German stuff that fought against them (Kriegsmarine organized like Volksgrenadiers for instance).

[Warts 'n' all]

Hopefully it will include my granddad Paddy, a Meathman, and a veteran of "Monty's army". But NOT a "Brit".

[Vergeltungswaffe]

A what if campaign with British forces holding the areas historically held by the US during the BoB would be fun.

[MG TOW]

The Brits are already in Final Blitzkrieg since it was Montgomery who essentially took command of the 12th Army group, which would be the those allied forces you are using in that module . Even Hasso von Manteuffel said they fought more coherently under Monty's leadership... OK I'm running and ducking now.

[Ithikial_AU]

7 hours ago, gundolf said:

The Brits are already in Final Blitzkrieg since it was Montgomery who essentially took command of the 12th Army group, which would be the those allied forces you are using in that module . Even Hasso von Manteuffel said they fought more coherently under Monty's leadership... OK I'm running and ducking now.

*Cough* Only two of the armies within the 12th Army Group, the 1st and the 9th.

[Bulletpoint]

16 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:

Hopefully it will include my granddad Paddy, a Meathman, and a veteran of "Monty's army". But NOT a "Brit".

Was he with Monty when he liberated Denmark by any chance?

[LUCASWILLEN05]

As Emrys says I expect there will be a Battle of the Rhineland/Rhine Crossing theme to the expansion which I suspect will take us to May 1945.

Apart from the opening of the Scheldt Estuary, Walcheran Overloon and Geilenkirchen I am hard prssed to think of major British/Canadian operations over the autumn/winter of 1944 - 5. In FB Battlefront#s policy of "US forces first" makes even more sense than usual.

In addition to the obvious Volksturm I would like to see the German  2nd Marine Division so we can game their battles in the final weeks of the war http://www.feldgrau.com/2kms.html

The Free French would be a good addition they were equipped and organised as US but it wouuld avouid having to come up with a lot of French names :-)

 

[Sublime]

Id love to see varsity and grenade modelled and the Scheldt Estuary too. That said the Brits suffered abiut 500 casualties in the battle IIRC. This isnt a slander on the Brits its just simple fact that it was very much a German /American battle just like if I mentioned El Alamein it.d be silly to demand US forces in the actual BULGE AO. Maybe more silly because Idk if there was even one US casualty at Alamein.

Still the Brits and CW are def needed as well aas fleshint out the Germans i.e. Volkssturm etc.

[Michael Emrys]

13 minutes ago, Sublime said:

Idk if there was even one US casualty at Alamein.

I don't know about US casualties either, but there were some USAAF squadrons¹ involved and they may have lost some men.

¹ Specifically IX Fighter Command and IX Bomber Command.

Michael

Edited August 4, 2016 by Michael Emrys
More information

[Sublime]

Yea that may be true. Ill dig when im not doing biz but it seems like it.d still be too early for even USAAF units to be involved in Alamein.

[Pak40]

On 7/31/2016 at 4:07 PM, gundolf said:

The Brits are already in Final Blitzkrieg since it was Montgomery who essentially took command of the 12th Army group, which would be the those allied forces you are using in that module . Even Hasso von Manteuffel said they fought more coherently under Monty's leadership... OK I'm running and ducking now.

As if Monty were on the front line directing fire . And I'm almost certain that it was not common knowledge that Monty had been given control until SHAEF announced it some time later.

But seriously, the only reason he took control was because Bradley, located south of the Bulge, could not even communicate with his armies on the north side. So it makes sense that Von Manteuffel would come to that opinion. In my opinion the northern shoulder was plugged up quite brilliantly between Dec 16-20th before Monty was given command. It may have been rag tag ad hoc units that barely made it to the choke points in time, but it's quite evident that these units did the job to contain the SS and the rest of the 6th Panzer Army.

[Sublime]

Ahh the krauts were always saying they thought the Brits were better fighters than us.  Gunter Rall did a  interview before and said he thought the Brits were the best Allied Ww2 pilots then backed off and insured his statement with " zee Amis came in the war so late we didnt really get to see how well they fought" :eye roll:

[TrailApe]

Ahh the krauts were always saying they thought the Brits were better fighters than us.  Gunter Rall did a  interview before and said he thought the Brits were the best Allied Ww2 pilots then backed off and insured his statement with " zee Amis came in the war so late we didnt really get to see how well they fought" :eye roll

 

What the German Generals said post WW2 was very much dependant on who was interviewing them - they were not daft and were obviously trying to keep all options open.

 

I've seen plenty of quotes from German generals that said the Brits were crap, usually when being interviewed by US representatives.

 

The thing is either way - which ever Allied army they were criticising, it must have sorely hurt them to be kicked all the way back to the starting point - although of course it was the sneaky way the Allies fought rather than their skill at waging war - fancy resorting to such underhand tactics as Strategic AND Tactical bombing, and how cowardly to use all that artillery...

[Bulletpoint]

4 minutes ago, TrailApe said:

The thing is either way - which ever Allied army they were criticising, it must have sorely hurt them to be kicked all the way back to the starting point - although of course it was the sneaky way the Allies fought rather than their skill at waging war - fancy resorting to such underhand tactics as Strategic AND Tactical bombing, and how cowardly to use all that artillery...

Is that a quote? From whom?

[TrailApe]

No quote, just a general feeling from the various reads I've done.

Nothing ground-breaking just human nature. You invest time and energy in a plan and it doesn't come off (especially given the cost of failure under the Nazis) you are hardly going to hold up your hands and say - "Sorry lads - bit of a cock up - I underestimated the enemies resolve, totally blew the logistics but I'll get it right next time"

No it's because of the weight of resources against you or because your troops weren't up to it.

Even Allied Generals were guilty of this - Monty questioned the quality of his troops in Normandy, comparing them unfavourably to the soldiers of WW1, it stands to reason doesn't it - they were not making the progress that he anticipated, it couldn't be the plan ergo it was the soldiers not being up to the job.

 

Simples.

[Bulletpoint]

1 minute ago, TrailApe said:

No quote, just a general feeling from the various reads I've done.

Nothing ground-breaking just human nature. You invest time and energy in a plan and it doesn't come off (especially given the cost of failure under the Nazis) you are hardly going to hold up your hands and say - "Sorry lads - bit of a cock up - I underestimated the enemies resolve, totally blew the logistics but I'll get it right next time"

No it's because of the weight of resources against you or because your troops weren't up to it.

Yes it certainly is human nature to explain away personal failures like that, but I believe it's quite common knowledge that the Germans were completely overmatched in the latter part of the war.

Is it your impression that the German generals really thought the allies were fighting "unfairly", or were they actually just doing an objective analysis of the situation? Would any of the Allied generals have succeeded where the Germans failed in the Ardennes, if they had been in their shoes?

[Michael Emrys]

18 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Is it your impression that the German generals really thought the allies were fighting "unfairly", or were they actually just doing an objective analysis of the situation?

While I don't have any direct quotes on the subject, numerous sources that have passed before my eyes alluded to an expressed sentiment that the Allies' infantry was not up to snuff and if they didn't have absolutely tons of artillery they would never have made any progress. And don't forget about the Jabos. There is a certain amount of truth in that observation, but the appropriate reply is, "So what?" The Germans never seemed to consider it unsportsmanlike when they were doing the same thing to the armies of weaker nations.

Michael

[Bulletpoint]

13 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

an expressed sentiment that the Allies' infantry was not up to snuff and if they didn't have absolutely tons of artillery they would never have made any progress.

This is quite interesting, because it seems nearly all accounts of WW2 battles I read portray the Germans as acting very incompetently, on both the strategic and tactical levels. I'm often asking myself how they managed to keep the war going for five years with that level of ineptitude.

(BTW I'm not trying to make a heated argument here, I'm just genuinely interested and always puzzled about this when I read about the war or watch documentaries)

Edited August 5, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[Michael Emrys]

1 minute ago, Bulletpoint said:

This is quite interesting, because it seems nearly all accounts of WW2 battles I read portray the Germans as acting very incompetently, on both the strategic and tactical levels. I'm often asking myself how they managed to keep the war going for five years with that level of ineptitude.

Wow, this is pretty much the complete opposite of most of what I've seen. The consensus has generally been that on the tactical level they were superb, on the operational level they were pretty good most of the time, but where they fell down completely was at the strategic and grand strategic levels. As for how they managed to keep going so long, that can be attributed to a number of factors, I think. One is they staked out huge areas of very valuable land early on from which they had to be pried out very painfully. Once they had lost possession of those lands, the ultimate collapse proceeded rather quickly. The second big factor is that their servicemen were very determined and mostly well trained in some of the most advanced combat doctrines. They also enjoyed very good staff work, which the Allies could not always match.

But the point is, despite their very real skills it was not enough. There is some reason to believe that the wiser heads among them apprehended that fact from the beginning, but the wiser heads were not running the show. And even the wiser heads were caught out in their loyalty to the nation and to the army and were dragged along in service to a fundamentally insane dictator.

Michael

[Pak40]

All these old quotes are quite generalized. You could ask one soldier who maybe only encountered German Ost units and he might tell you that they weren't that good. Ask another that had to deal with determined Wehrmacht or SS troops and you 'll get a totally different answer. 

However, it's hard to deny that despite the fact that the Germans in 44-45 were outgunned, outnumbered, didn't have air superiority, naval superiority, or adequate men and material to replace what was lost, they were still quite an effective fighting force.

[Bulletpoint]

It just seems to me most narratives go like this: Either the Germans stubbornly attack straight into well prepared defenses and get beaten back while taking great losses, or they try to defend, take great losses despite being dug into some of the world's best defensive terain with several years to prepare, then withdraw taking even more losses, then stubbornly try to counterattack against all odds, because ze book zays zo, getting beaten back at great losses.

Or take the story of the Tirpitz, which I was just reading about yesterday. They build this huge battleship, then for some reason decide to park it up a fjord in Norway. Then they just let it sit there while it gets bombed repeatedly. They try to call the Luftwaffe to protect it but apparently nobody got the memo, then they try to use some new AA shells but apparently forgot they don't have the necessary range to hit anything, and eventually the whole thing is bombed to the bottom. One of the most powerful and costly assets, taken out at a loss of what, 10 Allied aircraft and a couple of miniature submarines?

It's always easy to judge history after the fact, and it might just be that I haven't read enough to really understand the topic yet.

Or maybe what I'm reading is all heavily influenced by propaganda during and after the war. Certainly the Allied had an interest in depicting the Nazis as bumbling fools, reckless in attack and fanatic in defense, truly skillful only at commiting horrible atrocities, but basically incompetent like some kind of ork-army out of the Lord of the Rings.

[Duckman]

Even late in the war a lot of captured German soldiers were, to Allied dismay, found to have quite a lot of experience and even peacetime training. (This actually goes for both world wars.) The Wehrmacht also had a sensible replacement policy (unit replacements, as opposed to the infamous American individual replacements) and managed to keep units fairly cohesive and training standards fairly high until late in the war. The Western Allies, meanwhile, started from much smaller peacetime armies and were playing catchup.

In the air and on sea it was very different, and the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine entered their death spirals (high losses leading to reduced training, leading to even higher losses, etc) much sooner than the Heer. 

[TrailApe]

[quote]Is it your impression that the German generals really thought the allies were fighting "unfairly", or were they actually just doing an objective analysis of the situation? Would any of the Allied generals have succeeded where the Germans failed in the Ardennes, if they had been in their shoes? [/quote]

 

Ahh – Mr Emrys has obviously came away with the same impression – glad it’s not only me.

 

1)Dirty Rotten Allies

 

I probably overdid the ‘dishonourable’ bit, but from the various memoirs there emanates a feeling of frustration. The Germans were fighting the war as it should be, with maneuver being the driving force – they were military professionals and even had the language going for them with Auftragstaktik, Schwerpunkt and Schwerpunktprinzip.

 

This worked well for them in the early years however (in the West) after Alamein the Allies started to fight to their own strengths and began a war not on maneuver but of material. This became more evident after D-Day. So you as a German Infantry Battalion commander have laid out your defences immaculately, overlapping fields of fire, kill zones, the terrain has been used to force the enemy into corridors and even if things go badly you have an appreciable reserve to counter attack immediately. You are just waiting for the first Yank/Tommy to stick his head out and by god he’s toast!

 

Then the RAF/USAAF strategic heavy bombers unload on your defenses.

 

Then you are hit by 16” naval guns

 

Then an Army Group of Artillery open up on you,

 

Then your armoured reserve is attacked by jabos.

 

Only when your defencess are in tatters and half your men are mad do the enemy then start appearing – but they are so CAUTIOUS, even hesitant, and have a never ending amount of heavy, accurate artillery on call.

 

Even when the Allies did go head to head – as Operation Goodwood, you shoot their tanks down like rabbits, but within a week they will be back up to strength yet your own losses are never made good. You successfully defeat the biggest Airborne operation of the war in September (Market Garden) but six months later they hit you with an even bigger one (Varsity)

 

Enough to make a grown man weep.

 

So whilst it’s true the German army might have had better tactics, better trained men and certainly snazzier uniforms and sexier camouflage schemes, it was the Allies that were better at fighting war. Why piss about using fire and maneuver to outflank a dug in platoon when you just need to keep them under observation and hit them with artillery, then go in to pick up the bits? I think that’s when the German Generals really ‘got’ what war was about, and they had nothing to counter it.

 

 

2) Eisenhower does Unternehmen Wacht am Rhein

 

Just not going to happen is it?

 

The Allies didn’t have to gamble with a **** or bust throw of the dice, they were winning. Even if you went to the most press on type of  Allied General – Old Blood and Guts Himself he would have like the idea but would have looked at the terrain and logistics and regretfully refused. Even if they had went ahead, the equipment and logistical support was probably better suited to the task than the fuel hungry mecanically unreliable  panzers the Germans used. Can you imagin Monty doing this type of madcap thrust (we’ll ignore Market Garden) – he would only do it if he had enough artillery to blast his way through.

 

Horses for courses, the Germans had some brilliant doctrine but sometimes they were a slave to it.

  

Or maybe what I'm reading is all heavily influenced by propaganda during and after the war. Certainly the Allied had an interest in depicting the Nazis as bumbling fools, reckless in attack and fanatic in defense, truly skillful only at commiting horrible atrocities, but basically incompetent like some kind of ork-army out of the Lord of the Rings.

 

I suppose it depends on what books you read.

 

For a long time the German Army was portrayed as a superb machine, and in the UK especially, the Brit portion of the Allied army was given a reputation of slow half hearted bumblers

 

 

 

“The British had fought workmanlike campaigns in North Africa, Italy and France since their victory at El Alamein in November 1942. But their generals had nowhere shown the genius displayed by Germany’s commanders in France in 1940, and in battles since”

 

Max Hastings

  

“The real link between D-Day, Villers Bocage, Epsom and Goodwood is that none of them were carried out within the spirit of mobile warfare…What the British Army lacked were officers who could recognize such momentary opportunities when they arose and a military culture that encourage them to sieze those golden moments”

 

Robert Citino

 

Carlo D’Estes ‘Deciscion in Normandy’ devotes a whole chapter  - The Price of Caution’ to British tendency to evade close quarter fighting where possible and rely heavily on indirect firepower.

 

Just read any book from the 60’s through to the 90’s and the Allies are often portrayed as timid bunglers (British) to enthusiastic amateurs (US) whilst the Wehrmacht are praised for their skill and superior equipment.

 

In my opinion of course.