Jump to content

Soddball

Members
  • Posts

    3,497
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Soddball

  1. I noticed that you have managed to casually skip over with the two critical deficiences - armour and aircraft.

    Italian tanks were atrocious. We don't need to go into details - you know them as well as I.

    Some of their aircraft (MC202) were good but for the most part they were outclassed by everyone else in the field. They were being beaten over Malta by Hurricanes and Gladiators, both obsolete by 1941. Their medium bombers had insufficient payloads and inadequate protection.

    Banging on about how many artillery tubes they fielded makes no difference. Warfare is about Combined Arms, as you well know. And saying they had parity with the Russians in artillery and MGs means nothing when they couldn't field a single good tank for the entire war and failed to achieve anything of any substance with their air force.

  2. Originally posted by JasonC:

    Italians were "really good soldiers" if "really good" means "worst in the war", maybe, in the land of unhurt national pride where all children are above average. In the real world, they sucked at least as much as they do in CM. They never won a battle under their own command, and were smashed to atoms whenever they were in the main line of a major allied attack.

    You know full well that several of the units of the Italian army fought well and fought hard. They had inadequate supplies, almost no anti-tank weapons, and poor leadership.
  3. Originally posted by CanadaGuy:

    I cannot believe that we missed it. I met Steve at a gamers convention and he said that it would actually be the first war, i.e. two cavemen, but it would take a long time to complete because they wanted to model each hair on the mammoth togas as accurately as possible.

    And you would hate to hear what the grogs have to say about that.
  4. Originally posted by jacobs_ladder2:

    Just out of curiosity I thought I would see how you guys would answer a question posed in another (possibly less informed) forum.

    What books, covering any and all aspects of WWII, should be considered "must haves"?

    Patrick Bishop's "Fighter Boys" - covering The Battle of Britain.

    James Holland's "Fortress Malta".

    Antony Beevor's "Stalingrad" and "Berlin 1945".

  5. Originally posted by eichenbaum:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />BFC, why are you guys wasting so much time debating people who are commenting on a game about which they know almost nothing?

    Nah, it wasn't that much time. Maybe 10 minutes total. And I've been saving up some extra time each day knowing that sooner, much sooner, than later someone would say something silly like this. So now that its happened, and I've responded, the time to respond to unreasonable nonsense is just about used up smile.gif

    Steve </font>

×
×
  • Create New...