Magpie_Oz
-
Posts
1,553 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Magpie_Oz
-
-
Magpie, in all those examples the Germans fought against the odds. Either overwhelming enemy numbers (Stalingrad), or total enemy air superiority, overwhelming firepower and logistical resources (Normandy, Ardennes).
It's quite clear that throughout the war, the Germans were able to maintain a greater fighting efficiency, mostly due to the reasons given in Gromit's excellent post.
Well no.
Stalingrad the Germans outnumbered the Russian defenders by a good margin but were fought to a stand still. In the counter offensive they were out numbered.
The Ardennes, no air, no logistics, no backup, no nothing for the Yankees
Accounts of the fighting in and around Caen the air superiority did hamper German resupply but did not weigh greatly in the smaller level battles.
I agree it is a pretty much pointless analysis as there is no clear way to determine what "better" really means but did the German army constantly best their opponents on the field and then lose out because of other factors? No they were regularly defeated at small unit level and really each side gave as good as it got so on average no the Germans were not better.
-
I want EVERYONE who called me pedantic in the Commonwealth thread is to read this.
Great eye for detail tho' I must say
-
The ones I point out are just some examples.
To use your own analogy which football team won the premiership in 1945 ?
-
I am sorry but history does not bear out German superiority of arms or higher quality of troops.
British/Canadian : Battle for Caen 3 Armoured and 11 Infantry Divisions face off against a defending and heavily entrenched 8 Panzer, including SS and Heavy Tank Battalions and 7 Infantry Divisions resulted in German defeat and equal losses on either side. Ultimately the German army in Normandy was utterly destroyed.
American : Ardennes Offensive. A Battalion size group of the 101 Abn supported by a few Tank destroyers attack the 2nd Panzer Division inflicting up to 1000 casualties and destroying 30+ tanks. Although heavily outnumbered and in a deteriorating tactical situation and without air support the Yanks handed them their butts. Infantry v Armour
Russian: Stalingrad. End of
The Germans enjoyed early success because of their tactics took their adversaries by surprise but really when it came down to the hard slog of battle at best they were on a par with their opponents and at worst I believe they were found wanting. The historical evidence is clear on that.
-
I agree that the integral MG42 was a leveller for the German squad but the BAR is not even remotely analogous to it. The BAR had too small a magazine and a fixed barrel which made it wholly inadequate for the fire support role. The true LMG for the Allies was the Bren gun in the British forces and even that did not compare to the firepower of the MG42.
Sure the M1 was a great rifle, had one myself once, but whether it was a telling factor over other infantry formations I am not so sure. The British army maintained the SMLE through out the war and performed equally well in infantry combat.
The hand grenade, that is just a difference in philosophy. The Germans used offensive hand grenades which basically means you can throw it farther than it can hurt you so do not need to seek cover. The US and British grenades tended to be defensive grenades with a larger lethal radius, requiring the thrower to take cover.
The big factors for me would be the larger squad size of the Americans and the exceptional supply line which is where the US excelled beyond all other combatants in WW2, still do in fact.
For me, "are German forces better on average ?" no.
The winners and losers were decided by factors beyond the match up of the individual infantryman which by 1944-45 was fairly indistinguishable.
"the German Army of World War II was, man for man, one of the most effective fighting forces ever seen." Is pure BS and someone would have to show me some solid proof of that that goes beyond hyperbole.
-
"If we were talking about the modern day Pentagon they'd have those stats, all done up into a neat Powerpoint presentation with charts and graphs and bullet points. "
I scares me to realise that your are probably not that far from the truth.
-
"I'd like to hear which WW2 SMG killed the most enemies. Note: only kills count, pls don't include the wounded."
I want to know which 9mm pistol, 9mm only, inflicted most grazing flesh wounds that caused a minimum of 4 days but no more than 1 month off from active duty.
-
I cannot even begin to guess what this thread is all about and I can barely understand the things you say. I get the words but not the meanings.
hmmmm guess I'd best ummm SOD OFF then.........
-
Maybe but the headphones often had a larynx pick up as well so getting them off could be a bit of a bugger.
In my rally car we have a female RCA jack in the cable just nearby that we plug our helmets into, that way when you get out you just automatically unplug as you go. Maybe the tanks are the same.
-
Read the original question, then read above
It's over mate. Case closed
-
Because tanks crews cost so much to train I'd think they would be under orders to return to the rear ASAP rather than become quasi-infantry.
Having said that it is fairly standard practise to dismount to do an appreciation of the ground ahead
-
only held on by it's own weight? so if they were cruising along then suddenly hit a major bump it could rock around or possibly come off?
I think a an M4 turret weighed about 6 tonnes, a Tiger II about 13 tonnes, so a "bump" on the road that a 30 to 70 tonne vehicle might run over is not going to upset the turret I think.
Also being several meters long and having numerous wheels a single bump won't translate to the rest of the tank all that much, many tanks will simply "flow" over a bump in the road.
-
No. From what I understand, this doesn't even really apply to the Western Front, it's more of a T-34 thing.
The turret of a tank is only held on by its weight so if all the hatches are closed I think the force of an internal explosion could quite easily lift the turret off.
The early T34's had a fairly small looking turret so maybe their turrets came off a bit easier than most?
-
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.
Yes mate you've got that one spot on, maybe one day we might see the rest of the Commonwealth forces represented in their own right but till then it's North West Europe for all. Can't wait to see it it on the shelves !
(I'm only a Doctor btw, I didn't go for the full Professorship)
-
No my beef has always been that to brand a small section of the total Commonwealth forces as "all the commonwealth" belittles the efforts of those not mentioned.
You have good point tho' now there is a thought the Canucks should strike now and take over, then THEY can deal with the 11% unemployment, Afghanistan, Al Qeda and there seems to be another Bay of Pigs brewing in Libya.
-
I think, not sure, that the term Empire or Dominion was more common in those days, especially in Oz because we were back then (still are technically) the Commonwealth of Australia.
LOL@Sergei I just LOVE your way with words mate.
I guess this makes me the traitor
-
It isn't about what the module is called it is about the original question:
"Correct in assuming that the first module will cover all Commonwealth forces including the Poles?? "
answer is no
-
Do you just love compromise?
-
Hang on isn't that CMBO ?
-
Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to use the convienient verbal shorthand of "Commonwealth" to refer to the 21st Army Group, and ALL of it's similarly equipped and organised elements.
How about "21AG" ? , shorter and less inflammatory that Commonwealth?
-
Yep Brazillians were in Italy and there was a Mexican Air Force Fighter Squadron in the Phillipines with the USAAF
-
Polish fighters were assembled in England, recruited by England, equipped by England along English lines. To say they weren't part of the 'commonwealth' forces is a mere technicality. Like saying a Mexican immigrant who joins the U.S. army isn't an American soldier.
Actually they assembled in France and did their own recruiting but yes they were equipped by the British and shared a similar TO&E. Point is tho' they were in the POLISH army not the British, just as the other nations, Aus, NZ SA Canada etc were not part of the British army they merely fought with them.
Just like the Brazillians and Mexicans that fought alongside the Americans, whom we would never consider to be part of the Untied States Army.
It might be convenient to lump all of these people together under the erroneous label of Commonwealth but some of us in the Commonwealth find it a little insulting.
I do get however that this module deals with the NWE side of things and as said before my concern was that the real Commonwealth would not be included if they are not in this module. I am forgetting of course the CMAK example so there is still hope for us Dominions yet.
-
I am not sure how to grokk something but when you explain it like you just did we are saying the same thing, just calculating it differently.
-
Ok well I fail to see what the Dutch, Czechs and Belgians have to do with the Commonwealth but you do illustrate quite well why I get annoyed/disappointed by all this.
The Commonwealth is NOT "all the other odds and sods that happen to be using British kit" It is UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India, each of whom have their own differences and nuances that goes beyond speaking differently.
It disappoints me to see that the Polish are considered worthy of a separate identity where as the others, who all made larger contributions to the western allied effort, are not, just because we didn't get a jersey for the North West Europe match.
My concern all along has been, as Mr Schurellenhaft has just pointed out, that the economics of the situation dictate that if the actual Commonwealth is not present in this module then it will never make an appearance in CM2.
Is that unreasonable?
Poles???
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
As I have said previously the issue is not the name, it is the answer to the question as to whether the assumption that the module contains all of the Commonwealth forces is correct, which appeared to me to be asking if the module was going to be like CMAK and as we have seen it is not.
A similar question would be "Does CM:Normandy contain all of the American forces" answer is of course no.