Barkhorn1x

Please everyone - you gotta use 21st Army Group or Brits/Canadians (B/Cs?) - NO MORE inaccurate shorthand you bunch of backwards hayseeds.

Barkmann has name recognition.

Here's hoping that the last "catch all" module gives us some exotic missing stuff like the M12/Wespe/Hummel/Brummbar, etc.

Here are some from my library: - "Decision in Normandy" by Carlo D'Este = good overall view but a bit to Brit focused as few details of the US First Army fighting are given. - The first few chapters of "Eisenhower's Lieutenants" by Russell Weigley - provides much of the detail missing from D'Este's book. - (With reservations) "Six Armies in Normandy" by John Keegan = "interesting" organizational approach makes it read like a novel. But there are many pieces missing and some details are just incorrect. Keegan is a deeper version of Stephen Ambrose. He writes good prose and his conclusions are spot on but he plays fast and loose w/ the source material. - "The Longest Day" by Cornelius Ryan = an early version of "oral history" centered historiagraphy with all the charm and faults of that approach. Not as polished as his masterful " A Bridge Too Far" but still valuable for the insightes offered by those who fought.

If you want to find TO&Es buy some Osprey titles or Google around. This info. is readily available today.

Correct, but each US Battalion TYPE did have a standard TO and often E as well *. I have no doubt that CMBN will feature a historically accurate representation of US forces. Now, I am no expert on the Wehrmacht and I don't know how many sub "flavors" of battalion existed within the overall Heer framework so I will not comment as to whether CMBN will feature a TO&E for the "Ear-ache bicycle Company of the 203rd Zeelander Volksdeutsche Battalion (Detached)". * "Ground Forces" commander Leslie McNair's great contribution to the US Armies war effort was battalion standardization. His less than great contribution was Tank Destroyer doctrine.

Here: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=276&Itemid=460

Wow! That is interesting and I'm sorry the good guys lost... Hey, wait a minute...

The generals and their staffs were too busy focusing on how to get ashore and failed to devote much effort to post D-Day tactics. Montgomery's boast about having his British tanks knocking about south of Caen on D-Day itself notwithstanding.

Damn straight. Bugger off troll!!

Wit? Hmm...wouldn't characterize these comments that way exactly.

Did the M5A1 carry Canister rounds in the ETO? Are these rounds modeled? If so, is the AI smart enough to use them against infantry in the open/woods as opposed to, say, a stone building where an HE round would be more appropriate?

Did you even bother to read the responses to your OP? Or do you have a comprehension problem? CMBN is based on the CMSF engine and benefited from all of the learnings that 2+ years of development makes possible. There is NO WAY that CMBN will be a buggy mess.

Oh geez - PWND! but good,

Yea, to put it mildley. Can I just state that day-glo - or some sort of Matrix-like computer character color is just wrong for the period? Cause it is!

Pardon me professor. What I should have written was; "Correct in assuming that the so-called "Commonwealth module" will cover all 21 AG forces including the Poles (although they were equipped and commanded by the Brits they weren't part of the "Commonwealth" you know)." Case closed on this one for me. Sheesh.

Because of this comment from Shullen...(the BF tech guy ):

Yes. Correct. Exactly. But it should include the Poles (hopefully) since although not a Commonwealth nation (I knew that before I posted - I really did ): - They fought in Normandy as a descrete unit - They used a Brit TO&E - They were under Brit command - According to the way BF is structuring these modules if we don't see the Poles in the second module we won't see them ever. Now that this is settled can one of our Polish forum members get in touch w/ BF to do so damn voice acting?

Umm...yes, cause - once again - you are missing the point.

I took a look at thread starters posting history. A handful of negative posts from 2005, one from 2007 and a few today. Guess he rises from the dead every few years or so.

Dftt!!! ************

OK - I am calling TROLL on this guy. DFTT!!

Gliders = Nope - again a lot of effort for little pay off Paratroopers = Yes, Amis in this base game and FJ in the first module Flooded fields = Doubtful but don't really know. Now, that is what I would call a controversial opinion.

- Apples to organges comparison - See Krilly's and Marty's comments - Moddeling a beach scenario is a heck of a lot of work for a setting that has a limited appeal.

Now that is a fair answer and thanks for the detailed info.