Magpie_Oz

Hear hear, the debate of city v country is just rubbish and relies on achretypes and prejudices. Are you suggesting that people in the country live in tents or under trees, eat out of tins, carry their home on their back and have people shooting at them? In my experience, granted much later than WW2, people with prior experience with firearms were in a lot of cases a detriment as there is a whole bag of bad habits they have to unlearn. I utterly reject that notion that the US forces had only brief training. Most of the initial US forces that landed in Normandy had been training for years, not months, for the landings. The 29th for example had been training in England since 1942.

Really ? No need for me to upgrade !! awesome !

The principles applied to breach the defensive positions in the bocage the Germans had prepared were much the same as the standard drills. The main thing was that certain solutions had to be thought up to counter the one or two unique problems that the bocage presented, just like any other multi-layered defensive position. Ironically the lack of organic fire power in the American squads was the main problem. The lack of a weapon capable of sustained suppressive fire (i.e. Squad machine gun) had the GI's outgunned once they were isolated from their support company. As the isolated nature of the fighting placed the emphasis on the very lowest levels of command the inexperience of the troops and variable leadership quality just made the situation all the harder. The innovation came from how this problem was alleviated and enhancing their tanks mobility and integration with the infantry was a big part in that. There was no real opportunity not any real need for special training in regards of the bocage as just like Aachen and the Hurtgen Forest which were to follow they were just another nut to crack and to their credit the GI's were able to do just that.

Where a soldier comes from has little tangible impact on his performance on the battlefield neither does his previous experience with firearms. It is a myth that country people are fitter than their city dwelling contemporaries, or that people who live in cities are somehow better suited to urban combat. Without doubt the single biggest factor for a soldier is how well they have been trained and how well their own psyche stands up to being utterly terrified it effects everyone differently regardless of background. As Perigrine said the training one receives puts everyone on a level footing to start with but the fear of combat makes marksmanship very difficult and most bullets fired miss !

..... or blow up the HQ and take out an army

Well it is the old thing isn't it, blow up a tank and you have taken out one tank, blow up a petrol tanker or ammo truck and you have taken out a company of tanks.

I'd think that picking up and using enemy weapons was an activity fraught with far to many dangers to become a viable option for your average soldier. Of course what ever you pick up might be booby trapped. you would have no idea how it works, it is unlikely that you would have been instructed on it, this would be especially so for the Panzerfaust. Another factor is that if you are firing it you tend to sound like the enemy so might attract unwanted attention, this is particularly so in the case of enemy MG's. You could be putting yourself in danger visually, something like a Panzerfaust has a distinctive shape and seen at a distance ... well we all know only the Germans carry Panzerfausts. In a lot of cases you are carrying a butt load of stuff to begin with so the last thing you want to do is pick up more things to carry, regardless of what advantages it might bring.

According to WO 291/1186, "The comparative performance of German anti-tank weapons during WWII", a report dated 24 May 1950, British tank losses to German ATk weapons were in the following proportions: Theatre (tanks) Mines ATk guns Tanks SP guns Bazooka Other Total NW Europe (1305 tanks) Mines 22.1% ATk guns 22.7% Tanks 14.5% SP guns 24.4% Bazooka 14.2% Other 2.1% Italy (671 tanks) Mines 30% ATk guns 16% Tanks 12% SP guns 26% Bazooka 9% Other 7% N Africa (1734 tanks) Mines 19.5% ATk guns 40.3% Tanks 38.2% SP guns nil Bazooka nil Other 2% Aggregate over all theatres Mines 22.3% ATk guns 29.4% Tanks 25.3% SP guns 13.5% Bazooka 6.1% Other 3%

He did mention Government in Exile but I do see on reading it again that he spoke of people. On what a person considers themselves to be and for what reason I cannot comment. I would have thought that the Polish Army in Exile would consider themselves Polish. But what ever the Polish soldiers might think : "The Commonwealth relates to countries not people."

Sure the penetration was greater but did that make it "better" I don't think so it was rather inaccurate compared to the other 2 and the shorter range made it great in towns but suicide in the fields.

Are you taking the piss? The Commonwealth relates to countries not people.

It is disputed that air attacks on tanks was anywhere near as effective as claimed. http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Busters/Mythbusters4.html " In the Goodwood area a total of 456 German heavily armoured vehicles were counted, and 301 were examined in detail. They found only 10 could be attributed to Typhoons using RPs (less than 3% of those claimed)." That link goes on to mention that air power was grossly over rated in terms of direct attacks on AFV

"MG42: Better than the BAR." - Certainly "Panzerfaust: Better than the Bazooka." - Not really do you mean Panzerschreck ? "Panther: Better than any US tank other than the Pershing. Relatively common by German standards." - I am not sure sure about that but that does not really have anything to do with soldier v soldier or squad v squad "Stug III: Better than any US tank destroyer primarily due to superior anti-infantry capability. Very common as well." The Stug was an Assault Gun and not really designed to be a tank killer as such, sure it ended up being in that role just as the American tank destroyers were not meant to fight infantry and thus did not have enough MG's. Where a TD will outclass a Stug every time is that the TD has a turret. But again not really relevant in squad v squad "The M1 Garand is better than the K98" - The rate of aimed fire from the M1 is no greater than the K98, 1 round in 3 seconds. Sure un-aimed rapid fire was a bit more but un-aimed fire is not all that useful. The big difference was that there were more M1's on average, i.e. the squads were bigger. "and US arty should be somewhat more flexible and responsive," by far the biggest killer on the battlefield is the arty. American arty doctrine, the speed with which it could react, the amount of ammo they had and their accuracy was the US Army's greatest strength.

Part of Cameroon became a British territory after WW1, hence dominion. "The Statute of Westminster 1931, as a fundamental founding document of the organisation, laid out that membership required dominionhood." This requirement has been altered in later years to allow membership to countries with more tenuous links to the British Empire. In Mozambique it was due to a prevalence of the English language and the part played by British companies in their early development. Rwanda was more a case of annoying the French which is reason enough for the British to do anything But this was well after 1945 when camping in Scotland was not seen as sufficient nor did the Polish ever express a desire to join. As for why it still exists? Well it is good to have friends and despite all that has gone on, being associated with the British empire or what is left of it still carries a certain amount of street cred.

"As an interesting aside, the kangaroo styled roundel design currently used by all RAAF aircraft nowadays was originally designed by a pilot in this squadron during the war. I'm not sure whether they ever flew with the design on their planes during WWII but it certainly took off after that." The kangaroo roundel was officially adopted in 1956, during the war in the pacific the red was removed from the roundels to avoid confusion with the Japanese after a Catalina was mistakenly shot down.

Because you have never been nor will ever be part of the British Empire, a prerequisite for being part of the Commonwealth.

Would you like to be an Associate Professor of the Order of the Pedantic Flower perhaps I can put in a word for you with the nay sayers ?

Big thanks for us to you Yankees : http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/05/3182594.htm Gotta love the bloke who brings your dog back !

Well true enough but many of the discussions in here to tend to be around points of very fine detail. I think the point of contention is that the answer to the original question is actually no but some think that it should be yes for various reasons. "60 years of literature", "because we say it is" and "because some of them went to Scotland once" have all been put forward as reasons why the module should be thought to contain all of the Commonwealth forces. I happen to not agree with those reasons, which makes me a Professor of the Order of the Pedantic Flower apparently.

For me that would be everyone outside of Australia and is kinda the point I was trying to make. Commonwelath is NOT "anyone who isn't American"

They do look a bit daft with the "BFC" notch

Sure the German tactical doctrine emphasised quick action with available forces and in many cases against an unprepared foe it worked well but in the main it was a flawed tactic. Allied action emphasised a considered and deliberate approach which, while not "spectacular" was in the end far more effective. Sure there are numerous examples of German units breaking the line and sweeping on but once the Allies learned not to panic when this happened and , with due regards to flanks, hold firm, the strikes petered out and resulted in heavy casualties. The Falaise pocket was a result of disregard for flanks as was the reduction of the Ardennes salient. The notion of allied company commanders awaiting orders from on high before occupying defensive positions or staging a quick attack is just silly.

"The British themselves called the Poles Commonwealth Forces" have you got a reference for that ? All I can say is the next Commonwealth games will be interesting, given the Poles, Dutch and Belgians will be turning up. We will still win but always good to have a bit of variety

The original question: "Correct in assuming that the first module will cover all Commonwealth forces including the Poles??" Later amended to : "What I should have written was; Correct in assuming that the so-called "Commonwealth module" will cover all 21 AG forces including the Poles" I have never assumed anything in fact right from the start I was stating that the other Commonwelath nations were not in the module, as it seemed the original post was asking. - yawn - Are we there yet ? Move on guys.

ASL for sure. Chapter H of ASL is an extraordinary reference for ww2 weapons and equipment. I am not sure if it is available separately. I have never seen anything that matches it's depth.