Major Tom

Supposedly, it was noted that Americans cracked easily, but, recovered quickly, and the British were harder to crack, but, took longer to recover. If you believe in this sort of dribble... There can be no 100% factor to determine what one nationality will do in a certain situation. The US forces at Kasserine Pass were totally routed, and fairly easily. Some US formations (103rd Division?) were wiped out without much of a fight at the Ardennes, while others stood firm. You can't say for 100% how a certain nation's troops will behave in a battle. What most probably happened in Maximus' game, is, that the formation was advancing along a route covered completely by enemy guns, were caught in the open, from multiple sides, by an enemy that they couldn't see. (From what I gather from the description) That would route just about any force you put in there. You can't say for 100% that an American force with the same experience, in EXACTLY the same situation would not do the same thing. You can make it similar, but, it is impossible to get EVERY factor correct. Possibly you have to learn different tactics to maximise the strengths of these different squads/platoons? Remember, only a poor commander blames his troops for his defeats [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 10-28-2000).] [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 10-28-2000).]

TS9, could you post up either a colour picture you would have, and/or just a solid block of colour showing the exact colour of the Canadian, and British uniforms? This is my first attempt at making a graphical mod for CM, and I figure that since Canadian mods are not presently in production that creating one might fill up some sort of demand, eh?

I am pretty sure he means the colour. I was watching the History channel, and saw a preview for a program about 5-6 Canadians receiving the Victoria Cross throughout WWI and WWII, and the troops at Dieppe were wearing a distinctly greenish brown uniform. Unfortunately, all of the reenactment shots at Normandy were at night.

I have been watching many reinactments, uniform websites, and pictures, and have noticed that there is a variant of the British/Canadian uniform that is more green than brown. Is this just an early war version, with the late war uniform being brown? Or was this a Canadian variant?

From what I have seen/read it is pretty easy to kill a tank. Armour duels rarely get beyond 1-3 shots each. By that time either someone has found their mark, or, one side's numerical/qualitiative abilities have outflanked them and another tank joins in. Even big battleship engagements rarely lasted more than a few salvo's (with some rare exceptions). Remembering reading/watching stuff on the Battle of Kursk, that both the Germans and Russians lost hundreds of tanks within a span of a few minutes-hours. They were all of good quality, and quantity was similar. The truth to the matter is, tank battles are short and deadly. This is the main reason why I would never want to be in the Armour Corps, or the Navy if a war were ever to erupt.

Hi, sorry to get the big jump on this one (seeing it will be many years before this one appears!)! I was wondering if the timespan for CM4 could be extended beyond 1940? How about a 'Western Front 1939-1940 and 1941-1942' game? I would just like to see included some of the British/Commonwealth raids on German Occupied France/Norway. Some of them were fairly large (St. Nazaire, Dieppe) and CM capable. Possibly even just limit this to the specific dates and equipment used for these operations?

Preface: This isn't an American bashing statement, but, rather one that should have us ALL (since most of us are from western/1st World societies) open our eyes and take another look at our priorities in life and our positions (real and imagined) in the world. My main beef with the 'great' democracies of the west (more than just the US!) is the fact that we have all lost our way. It used to be all about "LIFE, Liberty and Property". Now all that it is, is "the Liberty to gain Property at the expense of Life". We judge our interests solely at dollar value. If an event will cause us to lose money we will act instantly. If an event will cause us to lose our morality, we will debate about the loss of money for acting and eventually do nothing. The true argument isn't the loss of American soldiers in a foreign war, it is the loss of American money (soldier's lives are never on a politician's mind, just re-election). Again, it is not just America, but, the entirety of the western/industrialized world. The US/West doesn't hesitate to send its troops to die if it will save/gain some money, but, it does procrastinate if it will save some lives. Presidents and Prime Ministers are elected to SERVE THE PEOPLE, not to SERVE THE CORPORATIONS. We better serve ourselves having a clear conscience and strong morality than a fat wallet. I can honestly say that ignoring horrific occurances around the world for the sole reason that they do not directly effect me is an absolutely horrible argument. Have our societies become (or have they honestly been) that pathetically selfish?

Ghengis Jim, You forgot about option 3) Switch to alternate fuels (Solar, Hydrogen, Natural Gas, etc...), increase the use of mass transit, etc... Possibly our (Canada and the US) consumption of energy us unaturally high for our relaistic needs rather than fuel prices being too high (instead of being overly and unjustly subsidised). We are told oil is the key, as, oil companies pay for politicians to get into power.

In order to be successful a game must be reliable, flashy and most importantly have good replay value. The main reason that these Id Software, etc. have to make their games open source is because they usually lack in good replay value. Once you finish a mission of Quake, why play it again? CM doesn't have this problem. You can model ANY single small action on the Western Front from 1944 to 1945, and if you want to get creative, 1942 to 1945! You could even try to model some battles on the Italian front! If BTS made their product open source it would mean the end of any further Combat Mission game. Why would they bother creating a game that there is no demand for (because of the multitude of mods). You can say that you would buy the product, but, what guarantee is that? Just because other compaines are doing it to their limited games doesn't mean that in order for any game to be successful they have to follow suit. Most of the greatest games that I have played are the most difficult to hack into, and thereby have less mods. These games are great because they don't require mods. They created Combat Mission: Beyond Overloard, not Combat Mission: Construction Pack. They are creating a game of a theme not a game for a games sake.

I seem to remember a battle, Austerlitz (SP?) that took place either in northern Austria or Southern Germany (what there was of it) where Napoleon defeated a combined Russian and Austrian army, and devestated them again by blasting away an Iced River they were crossing after the defeat. Plus, most of the battles in CM take place in France. Possibly the weather patterns are slightly different over there, eh? Maybe Germany is feeling the pinch of global warming?

If you are woried about the fall of the American, um, 'Empire', then you should probably read up more on British 19th and 20th Century history over that of ancient Roman History. The Brits, unlike the Romans, knew when their time as world leader was up, and quit before the peoples they militarily/economically occupied and exploited and left marginalized sacked London. It is the natural course of history for one major empire/nation to fall and another one take its place. The fall doesn't have to be that bad, or crippling if the falling nation realizes to not go down with a major fight. America can take the Roman route of disaster (and political/social extinction), or the British route of honourable resignation (and political/social endurance). IMHO. My major fear is that in the distant future some nut in the States might get elected on the platform of making the US great again, with the popoulation little knowing his plan requires the liberal use of Atomic Weapons.. I don't think that wearing some little black deelies on your head will cause the fall to occur or other branches get so jelous they refuse to fight along side of 'those army guys'. Of course, I do see you point that black berets will be easier to spot on Satellite Radar, and they could read your mind pretty easy through those flimsily constructed things, better issue all the US troops some hats made out of Aluminum foil and wire close hangers on their tanks to stop the evil mind rays from making them vote Democrat!! Sorry about the humour, I say, just go with the flow, and enjoy the future reigned by the "Great Canadian Empire" formerly known as "Canadian's Corner".

I guess they saw how cool our Canadian soldiers look in Berets and decided to join the popular fashion club!

Russelmz, unfortunately you get into the trap of still being cliche ridden, just in the complete opposite manner

The reason that war movies SHOULD be closer to reality (it doesn't matter if equipment is not replicated correctly!) is because they are representing ACTUAL HISTORY. You go to a War movie to see action that takes place in a conflict in our historical past, and since the Director, Producer, etc. USE an actual historic event they should be TRUE to that event as best they can. If they can't afford to buy a Tiger I, then it is OK if they use a facimile. People generally don't care about details like that. BUT, when you portray EVENTS, and PERSONALITIES to behave in a certain way people WILL believe it to be the truth. They could have made U-571 (or whatever) about some fictional event in the future/present (Red October was already made though!) BUT, they chose an event that ACTUALLY occured in history and bastardized it. Propaganda films should be taken with a different grain of salt. Usually they are contemporary pieces of work, where the producer cannot stray from a certain level of censorship and lies. They have to make their enemy appear to be sub-human and their troops collectively glorious. Movie makers have the right to modify history so far as to create an interesting plot or story, not to modify it solely to make the audience feel better. If they have to do it, then create everything out of fiction and don't use a real event. I liked the ending of Thin Red Line better than SPR (as I was so happy it was finally over!) mainly because it didn't end all happy (I did enjoy seeing Tom Hanks die, he should do that more in his movies, but, not wait until the end ). Thin Red Line Characters were less contrived (albiet I was confused throughout the entire film of who was who) than SPR. In SPR there was ONE coward with everyone else being more or less Rambo. In Thin Red Line everyone had a moment of fear and reluctance to move forward. I still have to say that Thin Red Line had better/realistic battle scenes than Saving Ryan's Privates (what little action scenes TRL had were fantastic).

OOPS! Got my terminology mixed up! Really!! Actually, replacing Martin Sheen with VANCE Degeneress would be a good move.

I actually didn't mind SPR until the VERY end, you know, when the cavlary arrived in time? I could look past the hollow characters, I could ignore the poor German tactics, but, I cannot believe that the US army arrived at the bridge right on time, with air cover at the very moment the infantry entered the town, and the P-51 hitting that tank square on. It ruiened any semblence of reality. P-51's were constantly used on the ground support role, but, with dire consequences for its pilot. Most of the P-51's sent on this role were shot down due to their radial engine getting shot to pieces by Flak. It was a dumb idea when there were plenty of P-47's to do that job. The problem is, is, that all of these directors think that their audiences are dribling morons and will only buy into certain formulas. This is what was wrong with SPR, as well as Star Wars 1. Movie directors and producers expect every film that they make has to bust the 100 million dollar mark and they feel that only big-name stars and simplistic plots will do it. Give me a deep plot and a no name actor anyday! My worst liked war movies... Tough choice... I can tell you what I don't do not like! I liked Big Red 1 (It was pretty faithful to its theme) Apocalypse Now (Even though it is dated it still makes for a great philosophical outlook on war) Cross of Iron (Enjoyable all around) Kelly's Hero's (More of a comedy than deep war movie) I actually didn't mind a Thin Red Line. Its action scenes were better than that of SPR on average, but, it lost out to a confusing plot. I guess the main war movies that I don't like have to deal with those that profess the most lies. Many US propaganda war movies were just horrible for accuracy. They portrayed the US soldier as either a tough veteran or an insecure child who said jee and golly a lot.

Welcome back Manieri. The Free French forces were primarily equipped with American uniforms and weapons. Sure, a few helmet's were left from 1940, but, most used American surplus. It was just simpler for BTS to model them after the American troops rather than wasting time and effort adding something that was rarely used. As far as I can tell the German uniform is done accurately. I have a multitude of pictures from that era, and theatre of war, and the Germans are uniformed in a British-Style-Grey uniform rather than the 1940 German-Green uniform. Look at most early movies made about the American Civil War, most Rebel troops are equipped with Grey uniforms, even though historians know that they were primarily equipped with Butternut coloured uniforms. Movies aren't the best judge on history! Possibly some units managed to keep a supply of older uniforms (elite formations, officers, etc.), but, the regular soldiers did not have this luxury and had to get replacements and made do with this simpler new uniform. Jeremy

From many of my readings I have come up with the conclusion that the British and Canadian Artillery arm might not have been the largest (US and USSR took this), but, it was the best organized (1944+). If anyone is to recieve better artillery accuracy, speed, and coverage it should be the Commonwealth.

The 4th RTR, along with the 7th RTR were the formations of the 1st Army Tank Brigade, forming the armoured force (barring the 2 Mechanized Cavalry Brigades detached to divisions) until the 1st Armoured Division was landed. The 4th RTR was equipped with the hefty, but, practically useless against anything other than Infantry, Matilda I. There were around 50 of these tanks, with around 7-8 Vickers Mk VI (B or C model). Plus there were a few Scout Carriers. The 4th RTR, with the 7th RTR along with around 2 battalions of Durham Light Infantry partook in the attack on Arras. Rommel thought that he was being attacked by 5 British Tank Divisions. I guess the Matilda I still had something to say in 1940, eh?

Hi, my stidues in Military history span the early war in Europe (1939-41) and the war in the pacific (1931-1945). I can clarify a few things... Regarding Poland, the Polish airforce did not have many modern aircraft, and what obsolete things they did posess, were in small numbers. Their morale was very high, their experience very low (same with the Germans). The Luftwaffe lost 500 planes against Polish AA and aircraft, a pretty good feat for a nation that fell so fast. The Polish Ponzan Army nearly cut off the entire 10th German army trying to secure Warsaw. It wasn't a cakewalk. France and the Low Countries in 1940. Neither Belgium nor Holland were willing to coordinate their defences with England and France (because of neutrality pacts). The Allies technically outnumbered the Germans in every aspect (this includes RAF not sent to France). The Allied equipment was also a lot better, in fact, the allied 1st Army Group was more mobile/mechanized than Army Group A! The Allied attack of 3 Battalions of Tanks and Infantry against TWO german divisions (The SS Totenkopf and Rommel's 7th Panzer) flew the two into disarray (Rommel though he was being attacked by 5 British Armoured Divisions. The Germans won because of superior Strategic tactics, and better coordination (all of their tanks had radio recievers). The main German attack hit the French 9th Army, possibly the poorest formation in the French Army. Once they broke through the Allies had little time to react. Many Allied tactics in the Battle of France were taken in hand by NATO forces post war. The Hedgehog tactic developed by the commander of the French forces after Dunkirk (Weygand) was a brilliant feat of modern thinking, but, lacked sufficient reserves to succeed. Regarding the Japanese and the Pacific. I have to agree that there was a certain level of racism in the West agaisnt the Japanese that wasn't felt against the Germans or Italians. Dead Japanese were shown in propaganda photographs WELL before and more often then German dead were allowed to be shown. This has nothing to do with their tenacity and unwillingness to surrender, but, due to the racial hatred felt by both sides. The Battles cited (regarding the duel between the Washington and Kirishima) do not fit the whole truth. The Kirishima was a Kongo class Battlecruiser built originally during the early part of WWI. It was heavily modernized in the 1930's, but, its protection was still 3rd Rate. It was armed with 8 14" guns. The Washington was a North carolina Class Battleship, completed in 1939-40. It had state of the art armour and guns. It was armed with 9 16" guns. Lest we also forget, the USS South Dakota (an even more modern version of the North Carolina Class) with 9 16" guns was in the same action. The Kirishima, outgunned and outnumbered managed to inflict damage on the South Dakota until it was overwealmed by the Washington. A pretty good feat for a ship built in 1915, a Battle Cruiser going toe to toe with two Battleships built 20 years later! So, my personal conclusions while reading a multitude of different soucres with different agendas is that the Germans during the early part of the war were either extrememly brilliant or magnificantly lucky. The Japanese posessed an extremely efficient fighting force hampered by the inability to wage a prolonged and global war. Both the Allies and the Japanese treated this war differently than the one in Europe. It was a war for the japanese to try to prove that asian peoples (well, just the japnaese) are not inferior, and it was a war for the europeans to try and prove that they were. Both the Allies and the Japanese used powerful racist propaganda that would make Goebbels proud.

The Russian KV-II. It is the most dangerous looking vehicle ever.

Glad to see that this didn't evolve into a direct flame war! From my years delving into the world of history I have come to trust only one thing. Never EVER trust a single book. In order to get a truer feeling for a historical event you have to read A LOT of books, by different authors, from different nationalities to get even remotely close to the truth. EVERY author has a bias, you should expect this in everything you read. We could cite quotes till our eyes bleed and never come close to the actual truth of the matter of quality of forces. We will never know how the British and Canadians would have performed on Omaha beach, just as we will never know how any other American formation would have performed on that beach. Could the Western Allies have won the war against Germany without America's help? Definitely not. Could America have won the war against Germany without the Allies' help? Definitely not. Citing a few particulars does not prove a universal.

Frankly I see nothing wrong with Montgomery other than the fact that he failed in Operation Market Garden. I can't see what is so wrong with him? He never hit one of his soldiers, he never tried to collaborate with Nazi henchmen to attack Russia after the end of the war, so what's wrong with the guy? He was cautious, which paid off in men's lives. The only time he was overly wreckless was during Market Garden. He was not hated by his men, he was seen as a good commander. Patton was seen as a good military commander and well liked, but, nobody wanted to serve under him because they knew they would be in the brunt of action all the time! The US has been gearing for war since 1939 at the latest, 1936 at the earliest. Roosevelt started US armament programs while still telling the population that it is a European war. How else would have America had been able to build so much war equipment in such a small time? You can't change a factory building cars into one building tanks overnight! The US War economy was a well planned operation.

I think foobar forgot to let us know he pressed the (sarcasm) button! But seriously, I think all that Tom should say when he meets this guy is... "..heh heh heh, he, heh heh, he said, heh, wiener, heh heh heh.." Where is this meeting taking place? Maybe I'll hop on one of our few remaining trains and take a gander at the fancy American!

Bringing it back up...