Smack

I just got back into it, fun game

Hey, just got this game, very good! However, when I encircle large units, they enemy still manages to resupply them, or reinforce them, any idea of why this is?

ya that works...

DId they really think that highly of Canadian soldierS? I think Canada had great and almost suicidal troops, Normandy battles taught me that...

Its a really neat book, even if you dont believe it, you shouldnt dismiss it out of hand. Anyone read "The Rape Of Nanking?", its a neat book, disgusting though. But anyway, the JApanese people look upon the "The Rape Of Nanking" Book much like the people of this board look at "Other losses". They ignore it, because its something they know there country has done wrong and they don't really want to believe it has happened. Keep Open Minded, if there's anything I want to get across to young people it is to keep an open mind!! Never close your mind off to anything, no matter how far fetched it seems, sometimes you find truth in very unexpected places.

He Gives the names of all the archieves and Books cited. In all about 20 Archieves were visited, and even more books consulted. and of Course he interviewed a large number of German ex prisoners who are all thanked. he's also got alot of charts of prisoners death rates, from American Archieves. Which is quite a large amount of deaths. It seems they weren't fed for a long period of time and starved. The Excuse is "food shortages and all Red Cross parcels went to the Displaced Persons". Which is of course stupid, because the British fed there men, and same with the Canadians. American officers who had put in requests for food were denied food for thier prisoners.

You should speak to the German P.O.W's...I know I have and they said Treatment in American camps was awful, and when the British took over it was remarkably better. It is funny how a country that is bombed and blitzed can afford to feed its prisoners while a country that is left alone and not bombed cannot? And I dont see how this can be attributed to the "Holocaust didnt happen?" Mr Hedges. I have been to Auchwitz (spelling?) and I KNOW that the holocaust happened! I think you all realize now that your above posts make no sense to the topic at hand and should be re-writted to state your opinion. This book has givin me reason to believe that an atrocity did occur, lets keep an open mind...and prove me wrong.

Well whatever guys. Seemed like an interesting book, but its funny how the victors automatically put themselves above any wrong doing. Thousands died in overseas American/French camps and you guys dismiss it on a whim? Asking for the topic to be closed makes no sense, thats like saying the holocaust didnt happen. Its a factual book and it has recieved flak from people who dont want to believe that it happened. This isnt the first time ive come across atrocity stories about post WW2 Europe in Camps for Prisoners. In Fact, History Television had a large show about it. How can something like the deaths of almost a million soldiers of starvation not warrant talking about? Lets not put ourselves upon a pedestal and look down and say "I dont like that post because it isnt true" give me proof that what I have writted isnt true! Dont just say "Sounds like Crap"...Do reserch boys and girls. Prove me wrong, but lets not ignore what is being said...

I read a book and still have it and its called "Other Losses" By James Bacque. This Book has caused international scandal in 1989 because it revealed that The Americans and French P.O.W camps allowed almost a million prisoners to die of starvation. The American and French governments could not explain how so many died, as it is acknowladged by them as fact. The only reason why this author found out the deaths is because of the newly opened KGB archieves. The governemnts of the world now see these deaths as truthful. The suppression of the truth by the French and American governments is well documented. German prisoners often screamed to British Vehicles to help them. In the End, and this is 100 percent fact and widely admitted in all Military and historical circles, the British kept much better care, and indeed treated Germans better than in US/French camps. The treatment was so bad that Britain stepped in and took over many American camps and were horrified at the treatment of the prisoners in American camps. Many died that day of starvation. In the end, British camps were better and treatment alot more fair then in the American camps where prisoners died at a rate of over a thousand a day *in all French and American camps combined* P.S the book got good reviews from the Time Magazine and the New York Times said it was "A must read for any WW2 fanatic"

Why wasnt it used like the German 88mm? In Talonsofts west front it decimated German tanks and infantry... More importantly, what is the reason why the British Didnt use it as an AT weapon?

No The British were not equipped poorly armed at all. To say that goes against all historical fact! If the British were poorly armed then so were the Americans! The lee Enfield bieng a good rifle, better than the German 98k and the Bren gun was a good also. All British or Canadian books I have read say the Enfield was a great weapon, and that The Garand was not something that the Troops wanted. In fact, they liked the TOmmy Gun, but that was it. This Fact has shown up in Games, West Front has British and American infantry platoons equal. The write up on the British infantry platoon says that The Enfield was a extremely good weapon and could be fired at a very High R.O.F. Operational art of war shows no difference between the Americans and British. I think this is a product of where someone lives. In America everyone thinks that the Garand was great, and it was, but 8 rounds was a severe limitation, if it had 30 I could see your point, but 8!! The reason why we have semi auto's today is because of the 30 round magazine, now you CAN blaze away at a target, but with 8 rounds, you'll get yourself killed. It is sad the American government at the time did not fix the garand to stop the ping noise and the 8 round limitation. Alot of good people were probably killed because of this oversight...The Enfield was not a limitation as some of you seem to say, as once again I say the Americans fared no better anywhere than the British did! So how was their weapons a "disadvantage"...oudviously they werent...

Its a love story...it was a book first. Which I read. So It isnt a war movie, it is a romance in the setting of a war. Read the book first, it is good.

ICM1947 you werent bieng rude. I just dont think that it made a huge difference to the performance of the different armies. I think both of them were equal in terms of successes and defeats. So oudvioulsy there was n real difference between the two rifles in the grand scheme of things. I didnt see any difference in other games like West Front, D-Day or such other such games. The Americans and British armies differed little in such games..Operational art of war also made no real difference between American and Brit infantry

*The Americans broke out because the majority of the Panzer Divisions were on the British/Canadian front, had the Panzer Divisions been on the American front, the Americans woulndt have broken out PAK 40* . Well in the end the difference isnt large. The Fact that the AMericans fared no better than the British proves this fact. If the Garand was superiour, it wasnt by much. All things were equal except for rate of fire. In the end, to say again, the difference wasnt large and no army fared any better than the other...so I think they end up equal..

Then how did the Americans fare no better at Hedgerow fighting or street fighting the the British!!?! Thats because the Germans could suppress better than the British or Americans, and the diffrerence beetwen rifles/section weapons is virtually none. The Americans had no advantage because of thier rifles, this is proven because the fact that the British and Americans facing the same amount of troops in similar conditions fared no better then the British. You all seem to tell me that the Garand was better than the British Rifle at Suppression, yet there is no evidence of that bieng the case. The Americans didnt seemed to fare any better than the British. So I really, where was this advantage...I just dont see it!?

and dont forget the lovely "ping" noise letting the enemy your out of ammo, that was a stupid oversight that may have gotten Good American GI's killed...

Well I say that their both equal...I seriously don't think one was better than the other. I dont see a point in giving green troops a Semi Auto Rifle with only 8 rounds. The Reason why Semi Auto's became the mainstay weapon of armies is because they began to have clips of 30 rounds. You must remember that British Infantry was generally known as very good and well armed *cept for the Sten*. To say the US squad had an advantage just because of their service rifle isnt correct. The Enfield was just as good, And The British were drilled to death on Marksmenship. The British troops found fighting in the Hedgegrows adjacent to the American armies difficult, But, The Americans did not do any better than the British in the adjacent sector. Therefore, the Lee Enfield and Garand were oudviously not any better than each other. You guys seem to think that the Enfield wasnt as good as the Garand, yet, It seems amongst the Hedgerows the Americans held no advantage in their rifle. Hence, my conclusion is that no rifle was better, since the Americans didnt do any better in street fighting or Fighing close combat then the British/Commonwealth. So the difference beetwen the rifles in very small.

Ha! I was talking about world war 2 to a few friends of mine whom happen to be Americans (Im Canadian). They began to speak of the Sten Gun poorly, and I did admit that it was a poor gun and Thompsons were often issued instead of a gun that had the chance of jamming in combat. But what happened next blew my mind! They said that the Canadians shouldn't have used the Enfield'4 and should have used the Garand! Well I immediatly disagreed, stating that, although the Garand was great, both guns were of equal value and effiency so there was no use for the Canadians to change over. They then began to insult the Enfield, Calling it outdated and such. Of course I tried to defend it, saying that it remained in the British/Canadian armies frontline service until the 50's. My points for the Enfield were these.. 1. It had a excellent rate of Fire (15-20 RPM) 2. It shot straight and was accurate 3. It carried 10 Rounds, not 8 4. It was rugged and reliable... 5. It was a *better battle rifle than the German or Japanese rifles* (And That is what really matters!!) Their points against the Enfield were these 1. BOLT ACTION 2. Garand had Better supressive fire My response was... [8 lee enfields at 20 rounds a minute with 2 extra rounds more in thier magazine, with a better Light Machine gun *Bren Gun* (That was admitted by them) I think the British did just fine at Suppressing] 3. Better Close Range fighting (The Canadians fighting in Ortona seemed to do ok with the rifle, same iwht the Poles at Monte Cassino...) 4.Better Rate Of Fire...Agreed, but I dont think 8 rounds in a magazine was good...I mean, if youre gonna fire off shots in quick succession, then guess what? Youre gonna be out of Ammo Quite quickly with only 8 rounds in the mag. 5. Accuracy was just as good as the Enfield...(well I think the bolt action was good because a green rifleman couldnt just fire away at something and wasting his ammo. While the Bolt Action Rifle had a "Aimed shot" mentality. Well this rant is over. Once Again I dont think that ANY rifle was superiour..THats was the point of this argument. That nobody can say the Lee Enfield was better than the Garand, or the Garand was Better than the Enfield. Both had the plus and minus side to them.... I do think CM has undermoddeled British/Commenwealth/Polish Infantry a tad... Sorry for any typos or bad grammar...Its 4 in the morning and I just got off work Im normally quite well spoken Bye for now, thanks for listening P.S It wasnt a very big argument or anything, just a little squabble beetwen friends...something Americans and Canadians do often, but we do it as friends...

So yes, I do beleive that the 25 pounder is too weak. In fact the Germans facing the Canadians in normandy said that they had not experianced artillery bombardments as heavy, or spontanious, ever. Those men who made that remark had spent years on the Russian Front. and of course, the Germans also beleived that the British had "Automatic 25 pounders" Becuase they didnt believe that men could fire artillery that fast...of course they did.

Read the Books "Guns of Normandy" and "Guns of Victory" BOth these books seem to drive home the fact that Canadian/British Artillery was fast firing and well managed. As For the 25 pdr Itsealf...it was a gun that could be fired by a good crew at 10 rounds a minute, sometimes more! (Blackburn says "up to 17 RPM") and it was instrumental at stopping German infantry counterattacking. The ROF would soon persuade any infantry commander that, with the veritable rain of shells coming down, that it was futile to continue any attack.

Agreed, your work has been great . . . On the other hand, I believe we have a great community here! Lets keep it up guys!

*bump* I hope you find what your looking for!

P.I.A.T! At least its always been better for me, the bazooka is weak and awful in built up or dry wooded areas due to the blast...

Firefly tanks are best Jumbo Shermans are good too Sherman III's are good also

So the most common weapons were the Thompson, Bren and the Lee Enfield??