Georgie

It would have been the only viable target. Hitler would have welcomed the Atom Bomb as the just punishement to his people for their failure to have acheived "his" dream. So dropping it on any other target other than Hitler himself would have achieved nothing that the mass bombing wasn't already achieving.

Is the supposedly faulty US repacement system just another myth? What kind of replacement system would work? Men are killed and there is no way around that. Either the core of old timers remain to build upon or a new unit is built. Which one is better? Do you pull the unit out of line or leave it in line in reserve to train new replacements or just feed in the replacements as needed and train as the battle goes on?What was wrong with the US replacement system?

Still no input from BF. They must be deep in work, problems, party or?

My intention when I started this thread was to elicit exactly the types of responses that have happened. There is a huge amount of real knowledge on this forum as well as, especially in my case, a lot of myths about what happened in the Normandy campaign. Myths about the involved soldiers as well as their equipment and vehicles. Some of these myths hopefully will be cleared up and some of the real knowledge will be shared. It seems that BF has gained some different knowledge and or better capabilities and it has changed the way that the Normandy battles are presented in the game as opposed to the way they were depicted in CMBO and from my stantpoint they make CMBN more believable and fun to play than CMBO.

It's been awhile and the powers to be have been mostley absent for the last week or so. So. Howabout a bone about the new patch comming up?

This link is interesting but doesn't answer the question. http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/feature.pages/super.pershing.1.htm#anchor2238566

Was the Pershing capable of taking on the King Tiger from the front or did it use the same 90mm gun that the Jackson used?

Very interesting replies. The above quote opens up the question of "what would have happened" if the Germans and Russians had signed a separate peace or the Russians had surrendered. Would the Allies have been able to still win in Normandy with the massive forces that the Germans would have shifted from the Eastern front to France. Would make and interesting strategic level game. Has it already been made?

This thread is for the sake of constructive and revealing argument 1. US tanks were not effective 2, US CAS was not effective against tanks. 3. US troops were subpar. 4. US machinguns were not very good. 5. The Garand was not very good. 6. US artillery was what won for the US 7. Supply lines too long. I am a novice when it comes to these subjects. Those grogs who have info on these subjects are hereby petitioned to explain what happened in Normandy 44. If of course they deign to do so.

I should have clarified my statement better. I was stating the effectiveness of the Sherman vs the Tiger as it was portrayed in CMBO. In CMBO you could line up 5 Shermans at 200m against one Tiger and the Tiger would proceed to destroy all 5 Shermans without any damage to it self. Thats assuming all frontal shots. Even then CMBO was a great and still is a great game. You just had to learn to work your way around that if you played the US. Now you don't have to be so "stratigic". If there are 5 Shermans against one Tiger the Shermans are going to do some damage even in a frontal exchange. I don't know which scenario is the most accurate. All I know is that the CMBN presentation is the most fun for me to play as the US.

I hope that you are "correct" Michael. But for what ever reason it was done it does make the game much more enjoyable to me. Maybe the kill ratio in CMBO was found to be too slanted in favor of the Germans?

My opinion. It appears that BF has made an effort to balance the play between the US and the Germans. If the the kill factor had been the same as it was in CMBO then the US would not stand a chance in the battles with a Panther or a Tiger included. This would have resulted in a very boring game of "the Germans always win". My opinion again. This has made for a much more enjoyable and "up in the air":) game

Thanks womble, I wanted to make sure that I had it correct.

Does a CA have a "face" component included? In other words do all the troops find a position that allows them to see in the direction of the CA just as they would if they were ordered to "face" in the same direction? If that is so then it stands to reason that the spotting ability for the troops is the same for a face command as it is for a CA command.

I'm kinda confused. Take a given formation, say a squad, and give them a CA and take the same squad and don't give them a CA. Which one has the best spotting ability?:confused:

Or is is it better sighting inside the arc?

My understanding is that a tank or anything else can't be "spotted" by sound unless it has already been "spotted" visually so even if the unspotted tank is 5 feet away from an isolated gun crew and approaching from the rear it is silent unless a member of the crew turns around and sees it and then they can hear it. Am I correct? :confused::eek:

I agree, making the defense depend upon a clock doesn't work too well. I am a slow "advancer" so the clock runs out and the defense does some stupid things like moving a panther that had a perfect position to the rear where it is out of sight and in a much worse position for the defense. BF has so much on its plate to do that this problem is probably way down at the bottom of the to do list and that's too bad because its key to the long term playability of the game.

It is my understanding that the British and the Americans had to pay the French for any damage done to their land and buildings. Is this true?

The top armor of tanks in general was very thin. That how the tank killer aircraft on the Eastern Front were able to take out tanks with their 37mm aircraft guns. The Panther for instance had a top armor of 16mm. I recommend that any one new to CM buy a copy of CMBB load it up and use it as reference for armor specs for US, USSR and German tanks. The thickness of the armor and the penetration values of the various guns doesn't tell the whole story but it certainly gives a good starting point.

A good indicator of a ford is that the bank edges slope gradually down to the water on both sides. A river bank with a rocky edge on both sides indicates that there is "no ford here"

Thanks. Interesting article with a good reference link.

Good argument Tux, yes the stug 44 was probably the best infantry rifle of ww2 on either side and at a distance of 400yds or so over ground with little cover the mg42 would be very hard to advance against no matter what kind of rifle your troops were armed with. But I feel that under some circumstances that three men armed with Garands would have the advantage over one man armed with an mg42. Such as, medium to short distance, broken ground and the ability of the three to spread out and advance along different paths. I wonder if CMBN models the handling differences of machine guns used off the tripod versus the handling of rifles. The one man with the mg42 would be having to constantly change his field of fire as he tried to engage all three of the Garand armed men and the exposure he would get would, I believe, pretty much negate the fire power of the mg42.

Hello Tux, Russia did attempt to equip her troops with a semi auto rifle but for various reasons failed. The Germans also attempted to do so. Take a read on this link, very interesting. Great Britain didn't try, probably because they were already overtaxed by the time they realized that they needed one. http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Weapons/semiautomatic/semi_automatic.htm There are several other sources but this one sums it up.

I have my doubts as to the effectiveness of an automatic weapon in the hands of one man versus the effectiveness of three men with Garands in an area of good or fair cover at a range of 200 or so yds. I think that the three men with Garands would win the day. Only the first shot of each burst from an automatic weapon is aimed and then not very well due the sights of the weapon plus its clumsy and harder to change to a different field of fire. Only if the field of fire is open and long can the mg could be employed as a "mg". If the field of fire is limited and mid or short range then the mg is just a clumsy rifle.