Terence Posted December 1, 2000 Share Posted December 1, 2000 Comrades I don't read much on the board about British tanks. Perhaps I just missed it, but people seem much more interested in the German and then the American tanks than in the British ones. And I wonder why? (also, I haven't seen very many scenarios for the British. (I mean, Ive seen SOME,(south of sword, for example) but not nearly as many as for the American forces. For the record, I'd like to see more, but I don't have the skill to design good ones myself yet.) Are the British tanks less fun to play? I always thought that they were rather clever-- the flame thrower tank, the mine sweeper tank, etc. I played one scenario with three Challengers and thought they were just fine. Of rourse, I was the Germans, and my jagdpanzer took all of them out, but that was cause i was terribly terribly clever about ambushing them. So what's the deal? Nobody wants to give the Boche what for with "Hobart's Funnies?" Terence PS. This is a fairly serious question. Im not trolling. I really do want to hear what people think about the British weapons (and troops for that matter) and why there arent as many scenarios that feature the British arms. If in fact, I have it right and there is an imbalance. PPS. If there are some particularly good British scenarios that people have done, let me know where they are, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunc Posted December 1, 2000 Share Posted December 1, 2000 yeah i agree totally. i wouldn't mind some more British Airborne/commando type scenarios as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wwb_99 Posted December 1, 2000 Share Posted December 1, 2000 Yeah, Comets are better than just about any medium tank the allies fielded. Also, one major vehicle omission from the game is the Centurion, as many of which saw action as Pershings or arguable Jagdtigers. WWB ------------------ Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say, Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve P Posted December 1, 2000 Share Posted December 1, 2000 I think there are more american scenarios simply because there are more americans playing the game than brits, and everyone likes to fight with their own troops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence Posted December 1, 2000 Author Share Posted December 1, 2000 exactly! Didn't the British practically INVENT commando operations, after all. I do recall hearing that the word commando came from Afrikaans, but didn't the British Commandos make a habit of nipping across the channel to break things and hurt people in occupied Europe? Now, again, i do realize that there are SOME of these out there, but when you consider how exciting and challenging the british operations were, it just surprises me that they aren't better represented in the pool of scenarios. Now, I'm a Yankee, (although my Godfather is a British Diplomat and was a soldier before that. He drove a Sherman during the Second world war and took on a King Tiger once. And won.) so I wonder -- is this just the US looking inwards? Would there be more british scenarios if there were more british/continenal gamers? since you can't walk into a store in Britain and buy the thing etc etc. Terence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crepitis Posted December 1, 2000 Share Posted December 1, 2000 I think steves right.I usually play as SS but I occassionaly like to take the Germans on as the British,the bagpipe advance sound mod fairly stirs the blood.Now if only someone could mod some kilts..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted December 2, 2000 Share Posted December 2, 2000 Some of my most fun battles EVER in CM were with British tanks. One is the epic tale of Tank Sargeant Finch and can be read here: http://combathq.thegamers.net/Hero/HC1.asp Another great battle was one I tested against Kwazydog and was basically a slug fest between Churchills and Tigers. It was awesome, each of us maneuvering to get a critical side or rear shot. Churchills are slow, underarmored and have TONS of armor. I love um! Madmatt [This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 12-01-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moriarty Posted December 2, 2000 Share Posted December 2, 2000 I'm beginning to use the UK/Poles/Canadians more. I've had some decent luck with the Croms in Villers-Bocage Tiger (a Crom I figured was dead meat whacked 2 Tigers at pretty good distance before the Firefly got in position) and the Churchill can take quite a beating. With the infantry, I guess the things that make me reluctant to use them are: 1) Squad for squad comparisons show less firepower than US counterparts, whether you're using regular infantry, paras or engineers/pioneers. It's a consideration if you know you're going up against FJs and GJs. 2) UK rifle squads don't carry AT weapons as do the US (rifle grenades) and the Germans (panzerfausts). 3) That infernal contraption known as the PIAT. Its only benefit, in my opinion, is the lack of the plume when it fires ... making it virtually invisible from the ambush. But, its slow rate of fire and horrible accuracy at greater than 100m or so (sometimes less) also can cause problems. (Once had 2 veteran PIATs fire, from ambush, with good LOS at a Puma that was 100m or less away and miss. 20 shots ... nothing but dirt. The only thing that saved their lives was that there was no plume to give away their locations. The Puma crew evidently was laughing so hard the vehicle didn't move until after all 20 shells had been fired. ------------------ "I came to Casablanca for the waters." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaffertape Posted December 2, 2000 Share Posted December 2, 2000 Count me as a big honking fan of the Churchill, despite their thrashing in round 2 of the NS Superbowl at the hands of CROSSBAR. GAFF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest grunto Posted December 2, 2000 Share Posted December 2, 2000 i played with the americans-only for the first several months (well germans too of course). recently i've been looking at british 'gear' and man, their tanks are really nice. in june the centaur iv is the ticket. crommwells with 75mm and 95mm are also nice. the churchill - even with just a 75 - is a good tank. it deals repeatedly with panzer 4s. the avre is an absolute terror when the visibility is bad (less than 100 meters). andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted December 2, 2000 Share Posted December 2, 2000 I quite often play as the Brits in QBs, and I invariably choose Churchills or Cromwells. As Moriarity says, the Churchills especially can take quite a beating. Mind, they can also get knocked out on the first turn, but I've been amazed at some of the hits they've taken and kept blithely on. I've seen them absorb hit after hit, and I've never yet had one show much concern when attacked by flamethrowers. Again, to second Moriarity, I have a love hate relationship with the Piat. They are somewhat slow to fire (this improves markedly with the experience level of the troops), and their accuracy is problematic at best. But when they hit, that is usually the end of the vehicle. I can only remember once or twice hitting with one to no effect. And, although I know it's a purely illusory observation, Brit infantry units seem extremely durable and steady. There are no 'nationality' factors built in, but there it is. Also, I find it confusing that the Brits don't have any squad level antitank capabilities. Is this because their overall policy emphasized close support tanks, and therefore they downplayed the infantry's need for this sort of capability? And I've agreed with Moriarity too much. I shall now use 3" mortars on his positions. ------------------ Tremble, tyrants and you perfidious opprobrium of all the parties, Tremblez! your parricidal projects finally will receive their prices! But these sanguinary despots, But these accomplices of Berli, All these tigers which, without pity, Bauhaus the centre of their mother! We will enter the career When our elder is not there any more, We will find there their dust And the trace of their virtues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moriarty Posted December 2, 2000 Share Posted December 2, 2000 And the other thing I don't like about the Brits is that they repeatedly disobey orders to retreat and turn to run headlong into full squads of crack fallschirmjaegers hiding in their fox holes, don't they Seanachai? Oh, so you think you're going to mortar my positions? You have to find them first. Muahahahaha! ------------------ "I came to Casablanca for the waters." [This message has been edited by Moriarty (edited 12-01-2000).] [This message has been edited by Moriarty (edited 12-01-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moriarty Posted December 2, 2000 Share Posted December 2, 2000 rats. double post. move along, now, nothing to see here. [This message has been edited by Moriarty (edited 12-01-2000).] [This message has been edited by Moriarty (edited 12-01-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaSCa Posted December 2, 2000 Share Posted December 2, 2000 Okay, try this one. I'm playing a QB with a friend who knows as much about WWII as I know about the inner workings of the female mind. Since I chose the 'no force restrictions' option in setup, he went on and bought a mixed force of Amis and Brits. My tanks are facing US infantry backed by piats.(Or would be if I'd bought any tanks. Since I'm defending on a flat rural map with moderate trees I opted for a 'shreck behind every bush, lot's of arty, at guns, mines, wire, trp's, and many many hmg's, but I digress) Did this mixing of nationalities ever happen? I believe at times that Monty had US divisions under his command, and Bradley may have had some British working for him, but now I'm wondering if the various allied nationalities ever comingled at the CM level? If it did I would expect that it would have been out of necessity, rather than planned. Have any of the grogs out there heard about it happening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raze Posted December 2, 2000 Share Posted December 2, 2000 The British had tanks? Oh yeah-the sherman ------------------ "The art of fighting without fighting..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moriarty Posted December 2, 2000 Share Posted December 2, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CaSCa: Okay, try this one. I'm playing a QB with a friend who knows as much about WWII as I know about the inner workings of the female mind. Since I chose the 'no force restrictions' option in setup, he went on and bought a mixed force of Amis and Brits. My tanks are facing US infantry backed by piats.(Or would be if I'd bought any tanks. Since I'm defending on a flat rural map with moderate trees I opted for a 'shreck behind every bush, lot's of arty, at guns, mines, wire, trp's, and many many hmg's, but I digress) Did this mixing of nationalities ever happen? I believe at times that Monty had US divisions under his command, and Bradley may have had some British working for him, but now I'm wondering if the various allied nationalities ever comingled at the CM level? If it did I would expect that it would have been out of necessity, rather than planned. Have any of the grogs out there heard about it happening? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If "no force restrictions" is agreed upon by both sides in a non-historical scenario, you've got nothing to worry about. However, if you're playing "historical" or "realistic," then you're better off not mixing nationalities. In a squad-level situation, you're not likely to run into these mixed-nationality situations. It can get a bit dicey for those (like me) who know little about historically accurate mixing of units, i.e. paras with leg units. Also, if you pick Fallschirmjaegers on the German side, you'll note that the only armor available to them are StuGs. This is historically accurate. Thus, a company of crack FJs supported by a company of elite King Tigers would be considered gamey. In short, you're always safe if you and your opponent work out the limits before the game begins. ------------------ "I came to Casablanca for the waters." [This message has been edited by Moriarty (edited 12-01-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted December 2, 2000 Share Posted December 2, 2000 The two maps I've released use British forces. The first has tanks and the second concentrates on armoured cars and such. Count me as a Churchill fan. =) David New map! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lord General MB Posted December 2, 2000 Share Posted December 2, 2000 Sir, Try my senerios from the CMHQ. 1: Road block. 2: The road to La pier. Road block is pretty tank heavy. ------------------ Salute! Lord General Mr. Bill Supreme Commander 1st Army Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPA Posted December 2, 2000 Share Posted December 2, 2000 CaSCa, As a rule I think the mixing of Nationalities (US and Commonwealth) was quite rare, and this normally occurred when relieving ground forces linked up with Airborne troops. Operation Market Garden and Operation Varsity are two campaigns where this did happen often. For OMG specifically the 101st and 82nd sectors of the highway. There were numerous instances of US Paratroopers and British Armour working together to keep the highway open. The original Nijmegen Scenario on the CM disc recreates the 82nd river assault to capture the Waal Bridges with British Armour in support. Note: There was an Ambrose bashing thread recently. Ambrose in his book "Band of Brothers" which tells the story of a company of the 101st in WWII. He sites numerous examples of the US Airborne Troopers being rather unimpressed with their British Armoured counter parts to say the least. I'm afraid that "I'd have to fall in with the bashers. IPA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hussar Posted December 2, 2000 Share Posted December 2, 2000 Yes Raze the British had Shermans, in fact the only Sherman that should have made it into Europe, the Firefly ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted December 2, 2000 Share Posted December 2, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CaSCa: I'm wondering if the various allied nationalities ever comingled at the CM level? If it did I would expect that it would have been out of necessity, rather than planned. Have any of the grogs out there heard about it happening? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The American 9th Army was part of 21st Army Group together with the British 2nd (?) and Canadian 1st Army. At some time, the US 104th ID 'Timberwolves' was put in the line (after their arrival in Europe) with the Canadian 1st Army in Holland, IIRC. I believe they would have had tank support from the Pommies if they had any at all. It is IMO perfectly legitimate to put Funnies (Crocs/AVREs) together with American Infantry if this is what you are trying to simulate. It did not happen very often though. Mixing Commonwealth and US Infantry on CM level, i.e. company or platoon level, is really not on, if you are playing realistically. Sure, that may have happened once or twice (apart from Market Garden), but I have yet to hear about it, and I have read quite a bit. ------------------ Andreas <a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a > Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-02-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aacooper Posted December 2, 2000 Share Posted December 2, 2000 Some examples of US/English forces at CM level: Paratroopers of the 82d and 101st in Market-Garden with English tanks Paratroopers of the 17th Airborne with Churchills in Operation Varsity Infantry of the 8th Division with English Shermans in Operation Clipper (reduction of Geilenkeirchen) Churchills and Crocodiles attached to the US 3rd ARMORED division in the battle between the Wurm and Roer rivers. I'm not aware of the 102nd Division having English tanks attached to it when it fought near Antwerp. However, they had Poles on their right and English on their left, so it was a very international force. Likewise, I'm not aware of English attachments to the US 7th Armored Division during the fight in the Peel Marshes. It was also common along the US/English boundaries to commingle artillery fires, both in Normandy and afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaSCa Posted December 2, 2000 Share Posted December 2, 2000 Thanks for all the answers. The question was really just a clever ploy to uncover the identities of the grogs out there. Moriarty: I agree about the agreeing thing. I'm not worried about the historical accuracy of his force selection, it just brought the question to mind. Heck, I'm happy to break him away from Red Alert 2 for awhile. (To his credit he has not tried a tank rush yet, although he keeps babbling something about wanting a 'Tanya', which I guess is a figure skater armed with a baseball bat, but I'm probably wrong.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted December 4, 2000 Share Posted December 4, 2000 A few of my opinions: - I quite often opt for Commonwealth/Polish forces. - As tanks go, the Cromwell is on par with the regular Shermans, and the Churchill is way better. The only one really lacking is the Black Prince. - The Vickers MMG is better than US MMGs, but lack the punch of a .50 cal. I've done a quite nice tiny scenario with Polish paratroopers vs German Volksgrenadiers. (Forest, night, heavy fog. 240m square map, IIRC.) Currently the briefing is in Swedish only, but on request I can do an English translation. Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kelly Posted December 4, 2000 Share Posted December 4, 2000 Terence, try my user made "operation goodwood." You'll get all the British tanks you want. Cheers, John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts