JWorthing

Good thread. (if only people would stop being so negative about it) I read in a book, (keep forgetting its name) that the American Army was the only one who learned how to attack in the hedgerows. The only thing was that the American Army did not have an effective means to pass on this experience to newer divisions coming in line. They did manage to have commanders write proper doctrine but, stupidly, the newer commanders would have to request this sort of information -yet they did not know this information was available. I hope I remembered that correctly. I should borrow it again from the library. Question: I keep hearing about "Closing with the Enemy". Someone talk about something specific from that book that the author talks about. Specific evidence (from the book) that "proves" that the U.S. were pretty good in World War 2. Thanks! Oh yeah-I second Meeks' request for additional Allied squads only if it was historic. [This message has been edited by JWorthing (edited 10-11-2000).]

the source for an argument is always important because bias does exist (even when it is not intentional). On another note, I don't think taking a class on anything makes you an expert (or even learned). Also, for what its worth, there is a "feel" of german bias (not just on the board but in documentaries and books). just my opinions

One reason i've read why Omaha was so bloody was because of the bombing method used there. In all other beaches (utah, gold, sword, juno), low flying mauraders were used, flying as low as 500 feet. While the b-17's dropping bombs for Omaha (and other places) were flying at 20,000 feet (plus there was a thick cloud cover) thus they usually missed their targets, as much as 3 miles inland if i recall correctly. The bombs never hit their targets, never supressing, shocking, scaring the enemy as they should have. This is from only one book so... anyone else have any opinions? I think this whole thing about "cakewalk" subject is OT. As one guy said I heard on the history channel talking about some other place: every soldier who was there was a hero for just being there (something like that)

"When only like 20% of your soldiers are fireing their weapons its kind of hard to break the enemys will to fight." I think that was proved to be a fallacy. How that most American soldiers did not fire their weapons since they were trained to shoot their weapons at individuals instead of area fire (which supresses the enemy). One point to refute this was how much ammunition was used up and how much needed to be sent up to the front. Plus, in combat mission all our soldiers shoot their weapons!=) proof enuf for me!

Don't mind bates. I feel he is only trying to 'bait' us into arguing with him.=)

Well, I don't think they 'sucked' (as blandly as I put it). Just wanted to see other people feel the same way. The reason I say this though is the very general statements you read, see, and hear. (like this one: that D-Day was the biggest invasion ever when in actuality it was the biggest seaborne invasion ever) How about that History Channel deal about the sherman. If I didn't know any better I would believe the sherman 'sucked' flat out. But, from learning it here on this board, the shermans were a match for most/some? of the german tanks when in closer ranges. The show kept perpetuating that basically the shermans were weaker. I was disapointed that they did not discuss the upgrades that the sherman went through, though. Thanks for the book suggestions. I've read D-Day by Ambrose although from what I hear he is a bit biased towards Americans (that's okay). Excellent book either way. Closing with the Enemy? I haven't had a chance to read that one although I only hear good things about it. The one I read is American GI's in europe or something like that. Mark IV: good to hear from you. I haven't been up to pbem since CMMC is coming up. Did you sign up?

uh, cause the book I read was all about americans and I'm not about to talk about stuff I don't know about.=) I guess we could broaden the discussion to encompass any of the allies. Would you like to add anything?

You always hear how the Allies in the ETO won by sheer numerical superiority. It seems the general consensus leans to this idea of sheer weight of numbers and that the allies basically "sucked". =) OKay, I know there must be people here who prefer to play the Americans/allies (as I do). What are your opinions about this view? correct? somewhat correct? incorrect? I read a book a while back arguing that despite the allies numerical superiority they (the Americans) got good at what they do. It took a while and required the proper leadership but Americans showed that if they were led properly and integrated into the battlefield properly then they would do extremely well. They had trouble immediately after D-Day but later on many American divisions became excellent fighting machines. It just took them longer because training usually was lacking (plus the long boat voyage decreased effectiveness; usually the soldier forgot most of the things they had learned in boot camp) and basically they had to have 'on the job training'. Even the commanders seemed to be lacking but they did learn from their mistakes! The book even sites German sources, commending the Americans on their ability to adapt and learn from their mistakes. Another thing the book points out is that American commanders in the Divisional level were actually pretty good. It was that the higher ups usually weren't that imaginative or bold. (case in point: the Failas pocket. how many germans escaped that? They could have closed the pocket earlier but something happened -don't remember what- probably misreading of the situation). I'm not an expert so don't come down on me too hard about anything I get wrong. And I'm not going to rant on further. I would love to hear other opinions on this. I don't wish this to turn into Americans/allies vs. Axis thread! just would like to hear if anyone else feels the Americans always get a bad break. I apologize if this has been discussed before.

Thanks a lot for the replies, especially to Sgt. STeiner. Your info has been valuable. sincerely, JWorthing

They fought on June 6, 1944, D-Day, right? They were also part of the British Expeditionary Forces in 1940, right? What did they do in between. As far as I know, they only fought in france in 1940 and in france again in 1944/45. If this is true, why such a long wait in between. Thanks in advance for any knowledgable replies. If you have any info, please send to taruc@earthlink.net (or reply here, if you must!)=)

If you see a picture of a squad sitting on a tank it does not look too spacious. So, I'd imagine it would be hard to try and spot anything. As said earlier, the soldiers are holding on for dear life. Even if the tank is stationary, there is not much space to move around on and be a look out.

Team work is possible in team oriented games, you just have to be with the right people. A commander needs good soldiers in those games although I'm not a fps player. I beta tested Allegiance just for the fun of it and in that game you needed much cooperation to win a game. I hooked up with a squad that had no problems with listening to the commander and they kicked butt. Or chain of command, if you listen to the commander then it is easier to win games. I have no opinion on WW2 Fps, although I'm hoping to be part of the ww2 online beta test, also just for the fun of it.

Yeah, I loved jagged alliance 2, especially the ending. I also enjoyed 101st Airborne in Normandy but didn't finish it for the same reason, "the slow motion" feel. Also, I hated for my guys to get killed, I usually reloaded when that happened=) I think turn based squad games are fun nonetheless even if they are unrealistic. Have you played SAW? (soldiers at war) It's pretty cool although the graphics suck.

And remember that there is FOW in that kill stats so you might be inflicting more casualties than you think. I remember playing VOT in the demo and having no trouble with the AI's infantry charges. I took out a lot of them that way. I can't help but think you are doing something wrong (no offense meant). I've been playing mostly pbems so maybe I'm not the most qualified to answer.

As with everything in the game, it's the way you use it and luck. I've played against the AI where I knocked out all those shermies with the stugs in just a couple of turns. I've had games with the ai where it knocked out all of my stugs. I've played CE pbem where I've I had one stug left vs. 2 Sherms. Both KO'd in the same turn. You have to be patient with those stugs, I guess. They seem to work better in ambush roles.