Elite Units?

[Owen]

Which are the best infantry units in the game. Or are all units based on experience eg green, regular etc.. For example a regular US airborne would be the same value as a regular SS).

2nd question, which were the best units of the war eg divisions etc.. Opinions please

[This message has been edited by Owen (edited 03-31-2000).]

[Moon]

Experience, e.g. green, veteran, elite - is assigned on a unit by unit basis. An SS formation can be elite, or green, or even conscript - it depends on the scenario. It's even possible to have one veteran squad and many green ones within the same formation.

[Guest KwazyDog]

And damn, are those troops that are crack or above mean. I have a crack german pioneer platton in a scenario Im playing at the moment holding out against a company of regular to veteran US paratroopers.

They are taking their toll though, one squad is down to one many, but he hasnt broken yet If they can only hold long enough for the arety to arrive they may have a chance

[Aacooper]

If I may take a crack (ha ha) at how I´d rate some formations at Normandy (keeping in mind I´m not a priviledged Beta tester):

82nd Airborne: Mostly Veteran and Regular, 505th regiment might have more Elite

101st Airborne: All regular, except for the 507th?? regiment which had seen combat, they would be more Veteren

US 4th Division: Green and Regular, accounting for their training

US 90th Division: All green

Commandos and Rangers: Elite and Crack, probably

German 700 Divisions: Conscript and Green

German 352nd Division: Regular and Veteran

German 12th SS Panzer: Regular, but fanatical

German 1st SS Panzer: Veteran and Elite

UK 15th Infantry: Mostly Green

UK 6th Airborne: Can´t think of other action they might have seen, so Regular (but fanatical in some situations, Pegasus and Merrivile (sp) Battery.

US 1st Infantry: Veteran

If you search, BTS somewhere gave the criteria for each classification. When researching a historical scenario, a lot of books will mention the experience the division or unit has. Combine that with some judgements on how well that unit performed, and whether they got a lot of replacements recently.

[guachi]

You rang?

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000312.html

For a quick BTS description of unit experience

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000731.html has a very involved account of 20mx20m tiles as well as a longer description of experience

And last is a very funny description by Fionn. Check it out, you'll when you read it http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000974.html

Jason - some say 'links' and think of golf, I think of urls

[This message has been edited by guachi (edited 03-30-2000).]

[Owen]

Acopper I think you rate the American troops way too highly. It was the Commandos who were the crack unit, your American women in uniform (I believe that you called them Rangers)wouldn't stand a chance against top banana British troops. (Sorry I'm going into gimp mode now) You ever heard of the 15th Scottish or 43rd Wessex, British units such as these had seen far more service then any of your so called veteran formations. No disrespect to the Amercan soldiers who fought in WW2, but a point has to be made;The only reason you attempt to contemplate that so many of your American units were even half decent, (maybe I'll concede the 101st AirBorne) is bacause on the whole the you Yanks came up against crap opposition compared to what we and the Commonwealth forces faced eg 12th SS, Panzer Lehr ETC..... Bottom line is I think you've watched Saving Private Ryan too many times. Thankyou, case rested.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Oh boy, is that ever a load of crap

So the US besting the 1st and 2nd SS Panzer Divisions in Normandy is just glossed over so you can make your point? And which units had the easier time during the landings? Certainly not the American ones. Or how about the 116th Panzer Division, numerous Fallschrimjäger units, and the some of the best Wehrmacht units on the Western Front that the Americans slugged it out with? Battle of the Bulge had the cream of the German crop smacking into American units if you recall, including the reformed 12th SS that ws turned into an ineffectual Kampfgruppe in a matter of days. Nah, your arguments are pretty baseless.

The level of training in American units was quite high (especially in leadership unburdoned by class issues), though as with any Army quality varried greatly. The British Army is not different BTW, but since they had less units manning the front they had proportionally less chance to screw up. But Goodwood and Market Garden were pretty good attempts to make up for that

And if the Americans were so crappy, how is it that the war in the West was won? By a handful of British units that were overly cautious due to cronic "casualty aversion" and whose armor commanders felt that infantry just got in the way of things?

Sorry, you punched the Ignorant button a little too hard to be ignored. I suggest taking off your BritBlinders and doing some open minded historical research. I am not pro US by any stretch of imagination, but to push them down to the bottom of the heap with the British units on top is not supported by any research I have ever seen.

Steve

P.S. I am a historian by schooling, so I am a little more sensitive to unfounded extreme positions more than the average might be.

[Owen]

You creamed off the reformed 12th SS, only after they had first been destroyed at Caen like many other formations whether it was in Normandy or Russia, thus destroying their core of troops, lets face it replacements were never going to be of the original quality. Alright I give the Americans credit for stopping the Geraman advance in the Bulge, but they didn't half recieve help from the Germans lack of petrol and air support; although in the first few foggy days this didn't particularly matter, it sure did in turning the tide. A deluge of reinforcements also might have been a little handy, don't you think?

Goodwood was where the British finally succeeded and took Caen, you might say why didn't we take it earlier at Charnwood for example. Reasons being after the initial loss of drive the Germans were allowed to dig in, bringing up the great weight of their armour against the Commonwealth forces, this was demonstrated by the fact that when Epsom was taking place the Commonwealth forces were facig 513 tanks compared to the Americans who were up against 78 (figures extracted from 'Overlord' by Max Hastings),I could go on but I wont.

How can you even blame the British Army's performance at Arnhem for Market Gardens failure, the 1st Airborne held on for days after anyone else would have collapsed, I can't think of an example where a group of troops performed better in WW2. Quote coming up here 'The British had run out of all anti-tank weaponary, as a result the Germans were driving tanks up to buildings demolishing them at point blank range, but still they wouldn't surrender' (taken from A Bridge To Far: might it be added the book not the film) The failure of Market Garden lay in Montgomery's over optimism, and a lack of intelligence of the German forces in the area.

You say it was a fault of the British for being to cautious, I agree, however Montgomery did have substance behind this argument 1. The war was going to be inevitably won by the Allies, slower progress would mean lower casualties. 2. the British public would not except a high casualty rate after WW1. Anyway at Arnhem I think he threw his cautious approach out of the window (pressure to act more like Patton)?

I could go but I can't remeber what else you said, and I can't be bothered anyway. Besides I've punched enough holes in your argument. I have exercised the demons!

[This message has been edited by Owen (edited 03-31-2000).]

[Neutral Party]

Hi Steve

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!

I thought you knew that.

Joe

[Guest mch]

"I sensed that a difficult stage in Anglo

-American relations had been reached and

so I flew down and spent a night with Bedell

Smith..I had a chat with the Chief of Staff

and...later in the evening we had a long talk

with the Supreme Commander.."

-General De Guingand-

------------------

It is no disgrace to be defeated...It is a disgrace to be surprised.

-attr.to Fredrick the Great-

[All American]

Owen, your argument about Market Garden is flawed. Yes, the British and Polish paratroops did a fine job at Arnhem and the surrounding area, but let's face it, the operation failed because of British ground troops, XXX Corps (among other reasons). I know the terrain XXX Corps had to push across was terrible being that there was only one road that could support tanks and the ground was too soft for tanks. However, these troops still didn't get to the bridges fast enough. Even when they got their chance to go to Arnhem after Nijmagen bridge was taken, the British troops stopped and didn't press on. That night, there was only one German company (engineer maybe?) defending the road to Arnhem. I'm sure the British troops would of been able to break through that.

To say the British troops were so much better then American troops is also terribly flawed. One of the things about British troops, especially the "Desert Rats", was that by Normandy, the British veterans of North Africa had been fighting for too long. The troops themselves were being overly cautious.

All American

P.S. Can someone please explain why people like Owen are called trolls? It's been bugging me since hat "marketing" guy.

[Lorak]

Trolling: like the fishing term. You throw bait out and run it around in hope that something bites. On the net this refers to someone throwing out bait "comments" that try to get people upset and make them (bite)respond. So they get called Trolls. (also because they are most likely big ,green, ugly creatures with no life that exsist with the sole purpose of making other people as miserable as they are).

Lorak

------------------

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub

[This message has been edited by Lorak (edited 03-31-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Haha... OK, guilty as charged. I fed the troll It's just that I keep forgetting my history, inspite of being a student of WWII for about 15 years and having a degree in History. Even though I always slept through classes I somehow wound up with the higest marks possible somehow! Dumb luck I am sure. And the hundreds of books on my shelf don't seem to be helping at all either. Dang, I hate it when that happens

The fact is that the British won the war single handedly. Yes, the commonly held name for the 1st and 2nd SS Panzer divisions in Normandy were "1st and 2nd siSSy Panzy Divisions" because they were just a bunch of old untrained men. I also forgot that Arnhem was actually a victory and that Goodwood was a "smashing success" (the beginning part doesn't count, right?). And we all know that it was those bloody Canadians that were responsible for screwing up Falaise and not their British commanders (they also screwed up Dieppe too!). Sure, the Brits used crud loads of American equipment to replace all the stuff they left behind when they were kicked out out of France, but they of course put it to much better use than their makers could have. And the whole American Army they took to help them sit on their arses waiting to cross a river that the Americans had already pushed across down at Remagen was for their own good (since Jerry would have certainly killed them otherwise)... but I guess the facts speak from themselves. Although British forces might have only made up about about 10% of the total troops in Western Europe it was our good fortune that such few men were there because otherwise we'd all be speaking German now. God save the Queen!

Steve

P.S. Where is Simon when I need him? Maybe even our most pro British/Commonwealth supporter decided to pass on this one

P.P.S. Apologies to other British members of this BBS. Having lived in London for 6 months I found most knew their history a bit better.

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 03-31-2000).]

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

I must add my 2 cents here.

Why is it, that when the U.S. enters a war, the war takes a sudden lunge forward to ending?

Look at WWI, the war started in 1914. The U.S. joined in 1917. The war ended in 1918. While the Brits, French, & Belgiums all sat around slugging it out in the trenches, then the U.S. comes along and they help push the tide towards Germany.

Now WWII, the war started in 1939. The U.S. joined after Pearl Harbor in late 1941. While the Brits and French were running with their tails between their legs like from Dunkirk, the U.S. was steadily making ground in the Pacific, North Africa, and Italy. Remember, Patton beat Montgomery to Palermo in Sicily. The theory behind "attack" tactics was that the quicker you can win a war, the fewer the casualties. The longer a war goes, the greater the casualties.

As Market Garden goes, the "cautiousness" caused the operation to fail. You have to "Go, Go, Go!" when you send in paratroopers behind enemy lines. You just can't sit there and expect them to hold while you dick around worrying about a possible AT-gun in the woods ahead of you. Everytime I watch "A Bridge Too Far" I just cringe when I hear XXX Corps commander saying that they gotta wait for some goofball reason.

Battle-fatigue or not, when you have peoples' lives in jeopardy, you just can't sit around on your ass waiting for the "perfect" time to advance. That's like waiting to make a turn onto a road and making sure that there isn't any traffic for 2 miles in every direction before you turn. You have to feel a little froggy.

And oh, for I have a History Degree also.

[This message has been edited by Ol' Blood & Guts (edited 04-01-2000).]

[Major Tom]

I don't believe in the "Johnny come lately" mentality or the "we saved your ass in WWI and WWII" rhretoric either. You can't over generalize when it comes to history. I dislike most British Generals, their strategies caused the needless deaths of many of their, and Commonwealth soldiers, but, I also hate this misconecption that the Allies cannot win the war unless the Americans are around to do it right. Wasn't it an American who forced the Allies to advance on a broad front in France? This can be considered wasting lives just as well as a British General. And, during Patton's breakout, didn't the Americans manage to destroy virtually all the remaining Panzer formations with only a few Infantry Divisions? This is a pretty darned good feat!

I find both extremes to be pretty narrow minded. There were good American troops, and there were good British troops, and there then were some GREAT Canadain troops:)

PS. Steve, I also think that the Canadians were a little hampered during the Falise operation by a well timed RAF bombing of their start up lines:)

PPS. Ol' Blood & Guts, I can cite you a few instances of the instability of the Pacific in early 1942. Bataan, Wake and Guam come to mind. This can be countered by the "brilliant" actions of some very "competent" British Generals in Singapore and Burma though:) I wouldn't rate MacArthur very high either though. Just remember, the Americans had their share of defeats and setbacks as well.

PPPS. I have a history degree as well, focusing on 19th and 20th Century world history.

[This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 04-01-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Well said. Truth be told the British played a critical role in taking out the Third Reich. An English professor I had for 20th century European History summed it up pretty well. The most IMPORTANT thing the Brits did in the war was to NOT surrender. Their direct military contribution was marginal compared to the Eastern Front or the total of the other non-British Allies, but a few critical contributions here and there were decisive. ULTRA is by far the most important of these. One wonders if the invasion of Normandy would have succeeded without this secret weapon. Well, to give credit where credit is due, the German's total botch job of military intelligence certainly helped the Allies as well

My last response was pretty heavily tongue in cheek, even though based on facts.

Steve

P.S. I think the Broad Front strategy was at least justifiable, if not the correct one to make. The reason the Germans suffered so badly when the Allies got to Germany propper is because we ground them up with ruthless deliberation before hand (as did the Soviets). Can't defend one's homeland if you don't have any troops left

[von Lucke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Owen:

How can you even blame the British Army's performance at Arnhem for Market Gardens failure, the 1st Airborne held on for days after anyone else would have collapsed, I can't think of an example where a group of troops performed better in WW2. Quote coming up here 'The British had run out of all anti-tank weaponary, as a result the Germans were driving tanks up to buildings demolishing them at point blank range, but still they wouldn't surrender' (taken from A Bridge To Far: might it be added the book not the film) The failure of Market Garden lay in Montgomery's over optimism, and a lack of intelligence of the German forces in the area.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will always remember an annecdote given by one of the 82nd Airborne's battalion commanders about his experience with our British compadres during Market Garden: Once the 82nd had ably achieved their goals in the face of great opposition (and I'm refering to the rotting assault boats supplied by the British here!), this particular officer became somewhat concerned that the expected British relief column had yet to put in it's scheduled appearance. Fearing some mishap had befallen our gallant allies, he comandeered a jeep and headed South in search of the overdue Brits. He soon came upon a line of British tanks (Shermans, I might add!) parked in a neat row down the middle of a small Dutch hamlet. Hearing English accented voices coming from a nearby pub, the Airborne Major leaped from his jeep and dashed inside: He was greeted with the site of a group of British officers sharing a few beers with a couple of winsome Dutch lasses! Doing his best to maintain some semblance of military bearing (ie; standing there bug-eyed with his mouth hanging open in amazement), the senior British officer present noted the look of astonishment on the Yank's face, and inquired something along the lines of "Oh, I say, our tanks are still parked out front, aren't they?" The American officer declined to give the exact content of his reply, but needless to say, I'm sure it was less than polite...

And as for hanging on in the face of overwhelming odds and almost certain defeat, might I suggest you read up on what happened at a little Belgian town named "Bastogne"? But then, the 101st fared a bit better than the 1st, didn't they...?

[This message has been edited by von Lucke (edited 04-01-2000).]

[Owen]

I don't know how I can carry on this "debate", I'll call it for names sake, or feeding the troll, if you want to (I do actually live under a bridge).

I'll just make a few points. First Von Lucke at the beginning I appreciated that the 101st were of good quality. Now Steve you seem to endlessly go and talk about how you were at uni and thus the master of WW2 history (sorry oh mighty idol Steve I worship you, we are not worthy) however you didn't put up an argument to my third input.Instead you just slagged, much like I'm doing now. Oh yeah before I forget, Steve you are correct, God Save The Queen.

I've got to say Major Tom has just about got the balance right in his submission, nice one. As for Ol blood and Guts, oh dear my poor deluded friend. First of all you (Americans) did not save anyones bate in WW1. By the time the Americans entered the war it was decided in the Allies favour, very little was contributed by them anyway. Okay the Russians had just pulled out, but half of them (serious here) didn't even have weapons to fight with, save a wooden stick. As for WW2 yes the Americans helped greatly by entering the war, and had done before with lend lease, but you make them out to be the great saviour, don't forget when you joined so did the Japanese. I think Germanys decleration of war on Russia, and there later defeat at Starlingrad made vistory for them almost impossible. To be quite honest from there on is where things went pear shaped for the Germans.

I'll be back

[This message has been edited by Owen (edited 04-01-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

I learned years ago that it is impossible to have a real debate with someone who has already taken an extreme and indefensible position. What is the point? You'll dodge anything that is presented to counter your flimsy (and I don't use that word lightly) position. You've already done a smashing job of that.

Your original angle was that the American units fought against old men while the British only fought against the good German units. And therefore they were inferrior to British units. I mentioned a whole handfull of crack German units by name that Americans fought against, and you dodged that. You then latched onto the performance of the 1st Airborne (against depleted SS PzDivs that were in the process of taking in raw recruits) as if this one unit in one circumstance somehow represents the whole British Army vs. the American Army, yet ignored the performance of the 101st against MUCH greater odds, holding out for a MUCH longer time, in MUCH worse weather. So whatever anybody posts you will simply dodge because you aren't interested in learning and critical thought, only keeping some warped concept of WWII firmly intact in your mind.

You can try to make this personal if you like, but I have no interest in continuing this conversation because:

1. You will never look at this with an open mind.

2. You have no idea what you are talking about.

3. You are likely to stoop to insults and flames to cover your flimsy position instead of looking at this thing critically.

Perhaps after you get out of school you will realize that you still have much to learn.

Steve

[Aacooper]

One more "slow moving XXX Corps" story, taken from "Ridgway's Paratroopers", which focuses on Gen. Ridgway:

"...soon came upon some advance elements of the Guards Armoured Division, which had halted owing to alleged enemy fire sweeping the road. A young officer told Ridgway he and his party could not proceed farther until the enemy had been dealt with. Ridgway sat restlessly in his jeep for forty minutes. He saw no enemy fire, nor were the British shooting or attempting to outflank the "enemy"."

Eventually Ridgway walked past the Guards to reach the 101st CP.

I will say I believe the 1st Airborne in M-G fought harder than the 101st in Bulge - NOT BECAUSE ONE GROUP WAS TOUGHER OR BETTER - but because the Germans didn't mount as serious an attempt to clear Bastogne as they did Arnhem. The 101st also got a lot more help - there was a significant amount of armor in Bastogne. In other words, the 1st Airborne faced a tougher job, responded, and it's a shame XXX Corps was so phlegmatic that their sacrifice was in vain. The accomplishments of 101st are still considerable, it's just the Germans left only the 26th VG Division, some armored battle groups, and later a regiment of the 15th PZGren Div to deal with Bastogne while other forces pushed west. The 101st also had 400 tons of air resupply and 1,000 well-coordinated CAS missions on 12/23,24&26.

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

Get'em Steve!

Yeah, it seems that the British will stop to take a "tea break" whenever they see fit. Which is precisely what they were doing when the 82nd Air Borne Major went looking for them during Market Garden.

And as the Polish Airborne Commander said so eloquently, "I was just wondering what side you're on."

[Owen]

Thankyou Aacooper, taking note Steve? Steve if you actually check up on what I said, I comended the 101st.

Secondly basic fact Steve yes the Americans faced SS units in Normandy, basic facts, one, the Americans faced far more static formations, thus less of quality (there's that satanic word again) then the Commonwealth forces, check where ever you like, the facts are there. At the time of the Cobra strikes, the Americans had an Armour majority of 8 to 1. The Commonwealth forces faced 2 to 1 at Goodwood (just before Cobra Steve). Next fact Allied Commanders intended for the British to take on the great weight of German armour/quality units, who would naturally be drawn into defend Caen.

Steve personnlly I feel that you haven't checked up properly (that was a bitchy comment), as you proved with your Arnhem statement.I know you'll go on about your degree etc... YAWN; but I really couldn't care. Okay yes the XXX Corps could have been quicker however at the time they didn't know what they were facing. Driving on indiscriminantly as someone mentioned wouldn't have been worth it. The reason why tank commanders were sittting around drinking cups of tea is because they were waiting for their infantry support to catch up, believe it or not certain units did push on ahead of the main body. Believe me on this occasion the British desperately wanted to move with speed, however for all they knew it could have been tactical suicide. An old geezer wholives down the road and served in the XXX Corps (sounds like a kinky group of troops doesn't it) also told me this.

[This message has been edited by Owen (edited 04-01-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Yup, just the sort of immature response I expected. Cacoon yourself in whatever you feel passes for knowledge, but ignorant you shall remain. Slam me or education in general as hard as you like, but it will not make you right or a better person. Honestly, I pitty you.

Steve

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Major Tom said:

PPS. Ol' Blood & Guts, I can cite you a few instances of the instability of the Pacific in early 1942. Bataan, Wake and Guam come to mind. This can be countered by the "brilliant" actions of some very "competent" British Generals in Singapore and Burma though:) I wouldn't rate MacArthur very high either though. Just remember, the Americans had their share of defeats and setbacks as well.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you say is undobtedly true overall: the U.S. was woefully unprepared for the Japanese offensive of '41-'42. In the particular case of Wake Island, however, although the garrison had eventually to surrender in the face of overwhelming Japanese force, it was definitely a tactical victory for the Marines. They held out for, IIRC, three weeks despite the odds, repelled five separate Japanese assaults, scored the first U.S. kill on an IN ship and tied down Japanese forces that could otherwise have been committed elsewhere. All this with approximately 2,000 men, a few 5 inch naval guns, and one plane (7 of the original 8 Wildcats on Wake were destroyed in the initial Japanese air assault).

Ethan

[MikeO]

Ah, its Bunker Hill and Yorktown all over again

Owen, sorry but as a Brit I'm beginning to squirm with embarrassment at some of the things you've said here. I can't deny I've waded in myself when somebody from across the pond has started a bit of Brit-bashing (these 'debates' seem to crop up all over the place quite regularly). But this time I think its the other way round? I can see the under-estimation of Brit units in NW Europe being galling but to attack US units is going too far. I wouldn't agree with all of Aacooper's judgements if I were making an Op but some I would. For instance the 12thSS 'HJ' was mainly young conscripts with a cadre of 1stSS officers and NCOs. Most 'green', some regs, a couple elite and all certainly 'fanatical'.

However I don't think the US came up against 'crap' opposition either. One of the main reasons the Germans put most of their armour against the Commonwealth was that the bocage in that sector was more open and better suited to tank warfare (just look at a good small scale map of Normandy from the period). The US, from Bloody Omaha onwards, had to fight through extremely difficult terrain against some incredibly determined infantry units such as FJ divisions and the 17SS PanzerGrenadiers. The 2nd SS Panzers arrived later as did a heavily battered Panzer Lehr. Later still there was the Mortain counter-attack, though admittedly by this point many Panzer Divisions had all but ceased to exist (I assume Steve meant Mortain when he mentioned the 1stSS fighting the US in Normandy as it mainly fought the Commonwealth forces before that).

As for most British infantry in Normandy; I would rate them as 'regular'. Some might on the surface appear 'veteran', through length of service (eg 50th Northumbrian), but even most Brit historians accept that a certain war fatigue had begun to emerge in certain units that had little R&R time. A sprinkling of vets would suffice (such as Sgt Hollis's section- he won the only VC on D-Day and he came from my home town ) The same for other 'Desert Rat' Divisions such as 7th Armoured. In one history of this unit the author says there were grumbles that they were 'point' once again plus the tank crews complained about their Shermans being replaced by brand new Cromwells that hadn't been 'run-in'. The Guards Armoured? I don't know. Perhaps there should be a distinction drawn between units that were part of the pre-war volunteer army, territorials and the newly raised units. There is also a good case for making the Canadian units in Normandy 'fanatical' or such based on their 'volunteer' status and their record in Normandy.

Finally one thing I *did* object to was how late war Brits were handled in 'Steel Panthers' where their morale was so inferior to the Yanks they would run away at the first volley. Hadn't they heard of 'The Thin Red Line'? (oops, wrong war )