sburke

Very interesting perspective. Am curious as a play tester with the new model for spotting and 1:1 infantry, how have you found the game to play out in straight infantry vs infantry fighting in the bocage with limited visibility and fields of fire? Have you found it better depicts actual combat and scouting abilities and therefore your ability to react to the enemy significantly differently? I know that in and of itself is probably a "duh of course" question but am interested if you have any game play experiences to relate that would expand on that. Heck maybe another AAR, yes we are a greedy lot. Reading about the Normandy campaign only seems to make the wait worse.

I don't think anyone had a view they would rollover Axis forces easily. Considering the Mediterranean campaign, even Montgomery had to have learned something. Okay well maybe not Montgomery... Churchill for one was strenuously against Normandy and would have preferred a second front to be opened elsewhere with less risk. However once the meat grinder in Normandy started escalating casualty figures yes there was a lot of political pressure. Great Britain was scraping the bottom of the manpower pool and the US was already dealing with heavy losses in the Pacific War. At the same time though the Landings themselves went far better than predicted and the meat grinder worked both ways. Once the German defense in Normandy collapsed, the US army showed what it could do with some maneuver room. When you think about it, Germany conquered France in 6 weeks in 1940 and all hailed the blitzkrieg war. The Allies in 1944 were able to make an amphibious landing in France against an entrenched enemy with years to prepare, fight through heavy defensive terrain and drive Germany from France in about 12 weeks (excluding some portion of the border). An extremely impressive performance no matter how you look at it. By September the Allied line was a lot further forward than predicted hence creating an unexpected logistical problem. I think here you see the beginnings of a bit of over confidence more than what preceded Normandy when the idea that the war would be over by Christmas began to proliferate. As to political humiliation, not so sure there is anything to that. Am reading After D Day right now by Carafano. Very interesting, has some great descriptions of the breakout battles as well as a thorough review of the US army strengths and weaknesses. One may agree or disagree with what the author presents, but an interesting book nevertheless and one way to kill time till CMBN is out..... He goes into quite a bit of detail of the Cobra planning and comments Leigh Mallory being a former infantryman was all in favor of using the airforce in any way at all that could assist the ground troops. Other air commanders weren't so kind. The only comments regarding the feeling of the ground commanders comes up in their distrust of the use of bombers once they experienced the short drops. Even that though probably dissipated once they realized how well it disrupted the German ability to counter attack during the first critical days of Cobra.

no just had to run for towels to clean up the mess... no, not that! from drooling.

There is unquestionably some truth to this. However you are talking about a US army that was rushing divisions through training and then throwing them right into combat. Even Meindl the II Para Corp commander conceded the Americans "got better" as the summer progressed. To make a statement on German unit capability versus US unit capability, you have to also include what period you are covering as both sides capability changed over time. As regards the statement from Panzer Lehr, you could apply the same to their actions. Hedgerow country made it really difficult to maintain an offensive. Everything became so compartmentalized that unit cohesion was difficult in the extreme to manage. There are plenty of examples of German counterattacks toward the beachheads being diverted when German units flanks were exposed. A lot of IFs for the German army, but the reality is that despite throwing in the cream of the Wehrmacht, they were never able to seriously threaten the allied landings. Those pointing out the Axis would have achieved more without US air and artillery firepower never say well the Germans without the MG 42 and just using Pz IVs versus the US without .... you fight with what you have and your doctrine stresses. To the question originally posited I would have to agree that factoring in German experience when facing those units that actually deserve it would make sense. But the same would apply to US units. The 90th ID for example IIRC went through quite a bit of transformation during the Normandy campaign. This may be something for scenario creators to factor in when designing for specific units or battles. The units involved would vary in their combat capability depending on the timing of the scenario and the specific unit. The 90th for example might be consider green or inexperienced in June, but regular at least by late July. A German unit that might be considered experienced in June would likely be regarded as fatigued and well understrength by late July. I think we all get caught up too much in looking at a fixed point in time when the reality was all sides involved were in a state of flux. Part of what will make scenario design interesting is there are so many possibilities depending on what units are being included, when and where.

It sounds like you need to go back and spend a bit more time studying the fighting in the Ardennes. The reality was that for several days many small US units stood, fought and if necessary died totally disrupting the German schedule and allowing the US army to take advantage of it's superior mobility. During this period these men had no air support and artillery was not something that could be relied on as in many cases it was having to displace. Suggest you read a detailed account of the Battle of St Vith. It doesn't get the recognition that Bastogne does but was of at least equal importance. Also try reading detailed accounts of the battles along Skyline drive. To say that "they got totally crushed" is a disservice to the sacrifice of these brave men It also ignores the cost to the German units to overcome their positions and the impact they had on the overall battle..

A loaded question if ever I saw one, hope nobody in this room is drinking or this could get ugly. To be honest, the variables are too great for any real answer to come from this but it sure is fun to contemplate and see how folks develop an opinion. Interesting to see the hard factor data (unit firepower etc) vs soft factors (unit integrity and experience) being juxtaposed. Not sure if anyone can come up with a situation of "regular units" to support or disprove your theory, but curious to see. Just to throw out a different example - take a look at the US assault on Carentan. Airborne troopers on both sides, Germans defending. The Germans were elite with combat experience, the Americans highly trained and motivated but new to combat. The US prevailed. Granted the 6th FJR fought very hard and had resupply issues, but there will always be mitigating factors for either side. Very high potential for a campaign game there especially with the addition of the 17th SS and 2nd Armored Divisions. June/July 1944 is a difficult period to be able to equate the two forces. Allied forces were generally new formations with a scattering of experienced units. By the time that you could really consider the US Army a seasoned force, the Allies had broken the back of the Wehrmacht and you then find the opposite, poorly trained German units hastily committed to battle. For example the Axis Lorraine offensives against veteran US and French units resulting in the German debacles at Arracourt and Dompaire. I know this is outside the scope of your original question but as the topic of the Ardennes has already come up.. I have an Uncle who served with the 99th ID. A green division placed on the line directly in the path of of the Northern German pincer fought with distinction alongside the 2nd ID. The battle of the Twin Villages kind of put to rest the myth of SS superiority for anyone still believing it.

Of the lot I think Normany 44 offers the best potential in that the OoB is on company scale (and can be edited further if desired), individual tanks and AT guns are accounted for, air and artillery support can be defined, the addition of replacements to units especially when removed from the front line, impact of allied air surpremacy on German supply and reinforcements etc and the game scale of 1 km and 2 hrs per turn is about as close as you can get. You can also edit your saved games in a text editor allowing you to include the results of the battles you chose to fight through CMBN. I am not sure how well this will allow you to develop balanced scenarios though. I can't imagine being on the receiving end and of an assault by 2 infantry battalions with armor, air and artillery support trying to defend with 1 company from an Ost Battalion would be too much fun. What you may find is that you will fight battles in CMBN that you wouldn't try in PzC simply because you wouldn't have some magical odds number to succeed. The biggest issue if you are really intent on modelling this I think is the terrain is still far too generic. At best you will have roads and villages and some height changes to draw from. However as seen in the latest AAR, one of the real strengths of the tactical game is how to make best use of terrain and deciding the resources to use. The problem I think you will find using any operational level game is deciding how to take the very generic terrain depicted and adapt that to the depth of detail you get in CMBN scale. If someone would just do all 22,500 1 km hexes in detailed CMBN maps....... One game series that might have been better for this is the Tactical Games Series by The Gamers . At platoon level and a map that was not simply generic and a step closer to scale it would give you a campaign scenario potential of several days, depict delays in reinforcements, operational plans etc. Unfortunately they only developed one game in the series for this time period (Omaha) and it only covers the first few days for the 1st and 29th IDs. When we get Market Garden and Bulge modules they have I think 3 games in that time period to use. By the way, my lawyer says I must include a disclaimer as trying to manage an operational level game to develop scenarios may lead to mental stress and health issues. In no way am I suggesting or implying you should do this and am not accountable to the impact on your personal hygiene should you chose to do so. :-P

Simple, cause you guys scare the crap out of us! We sit here wondering, hey if I keep playing these games am I gonna turn out like that..oh wait I have been playing these games that long already...maybe I am like that and just don't know it! Then we see page on page of figures on ballistic characteristics of an unladen (African) swallow and we start remembering that teacher in elementary school with the yardstick she called Egore....oh god I need to go for a walk. Wait was that my outside voice? Seriously - I for one am just sitting back, watching and enjoying the AARs and counting the days till my pre order is available for download. I don't care about the cost, I don't care if it doesn't have beach surf or if some commonwealth soldiers third cousin twice removed has a name (whether he has Polish blood or not). I have waited for this game for 20+ years, a few weeks more is just a blip - Thank you Battlefront.

as long as I see CM campaigns...... sometime soon..... maybe....please