British TOE. Nobody uses it. Why?

[Guest Babra]

Boy_Recon, if you're playing brits, don't expect to see too many of your opponents doing the same

[Guest Babra]

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

Whenever I play the Canadians I usually have a reserve of American troops standing by, ready to bail them out of trouble, and to show them how to win the battle. The same for the British troops. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I usually keep a squad of Canadian civil servants handy to rescue large numbers of American marines from the embassy -- errr, enemy prison camps.

[Redwolf]

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

Well the Brits had some pretty fast tanks, the Cromwell IV is probably the fastest medium tank in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thick Cromwell version (VII and VIII) only has less top speed than the thin one (IV and VI), but in acceleration and movement up to 30 mph is about as fast. Movement in mud and scattered trees is almost equal.

All Cromwells are much better than any non HVSS Sherman in difficult terrain.

Historically, the lower top speed was a result of shorter gears, which also made the heavy version more mobile/as mobile at lower speeds.

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Blackcat:

In fact in my time (1970's) the infantry section still had one LMG (the lovely GPMG in bipod mode) and everyone else carried a rifle - the SLR (Self Loading Rifle, 7.62 version of the Belgian FN), a superb if somewhat heavy weapon - especially compared to the heap of junk they have to use now.

[Hussar]

Blackcat..

Dont think it was called the Owen-Stanley (thats a range of mountains in New Guinea), just the Owen.

When I did my nat service we were still equiped with them and yes they were a great gun. Our sargents told us they would fire under water, a slight exaggeration I think...

[ 05-06-2001: Message edited by: Hussar ]

[Guest Babra]

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

...(1970's)...and everyone else carried a rifle - the SLR (Self Loading Rifle, 7.62 version of the Belgian FN), a superb if somewhat heavy weapon - especially compared to the heap of junk they have to use now.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Having had the opportunity to get real familiar with the M-16/AR-15, AK-47, Glilon/Galil and FN, I still rate the FN light years ahead of the others. It's a heavy bitch, yes, and a bit long, but it's a battle rifle dammit, not some plastic pop can plinker. Range! Power! You can really reach out and touch someone with one of those. I was the happiest kid on the block when I managed to acquire the coveted para model (for $600 and a bottle of CC), which is easier to tote and gives up nothing to its bigger brother. Then my brigade C.O. "appropriated" it. Bastard. :mad:

Off to the general forum we go...

[Simon Fox]

Beryl wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I can only answer for myself... I never, given the choice, chose a British model force. I prefer to play heavy infantry forces, and British model infantry sucks. Trying the style tactics I favor with British model infantry will fail every time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ???? (momentary puzzlement) Mmmm....now what was berli's military backround? Oh that's right! (dawning understanding).

Using British infantry requires you to pace your attack. I like it because you must be more cunning. Unfortunately the German infantry's aversion to close combat cannot be exploited in the game There are many accounts of British attacks being pinned by the high firepower the German infantry could put out. Yet I have often seen the comment made that the profligate usage of ammunition engendered by the MG42 was a disadvantage in the long term. The german section/squad seems to exist mainly as ammo carriers for the MG42.

Blackcat wrote <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The standard ten man squad would have one man with a bren gun and the rest armed with the excellent long Lee Enfield<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I would have to dispute this. An SMG of some description was standard TOE for the British section of the time. In issue this would have been a Sten but in practice this would have most likely been supplanted with a captured MP40 or Beretta at the earliest opportunity. In a night operation the proportion of SMGs may have risen. In my opinion the most accurate historical representation of a typical British platoon from late 1944 onwards would be a glider platoon, though I wouldn't say it was dead on.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As a fine point of interest the Austrailians produced their own version of the Sten called the Owen-Stanley which was a much better weapon and was still carried by some Royal Marine Commando units into the late '50s.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The Aussie version of the Sten was called the Austen and it had all the faults of the original. The Owen gun was a wholly original SMG and completely distinct and vastly superior to the sten as you point out. The history of the Owen gun is particularly interesting since the Army wanted to adopt the Sten but they were overridden by the politicians who insisted on the Owen. An example of political meddling in procurement decisions which had a positive outcome, one the average digger could be thankful for. http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/owen.htm http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/tia/862.html

Moving on I think there are a few things that disadvantage the Brit infantry and don't feel quite right:

Vickers MMG: As pointed out before the capability for sustained fire of water cooled MGs seems undermodelled. Should be very effective in static situation. Should come as a cheap "unit" with a Bren-less carrier. The MMGs mounted on carriers were not generally permanently fixed nor fired from the Bren port.

Grenades: I am unsure as to the relative lethality of hand grenades. I seem to recall some previous discussion on this but I am unsure of the outcome. Anyway, anecdotal evidence suggests German (and Italian) grenades are not as lethal as British. This is confirmed by British testing which IIRC suggested the 'Mills" bomb was more effective than the US grenades (and German stick). This is fairly important as the grenade should play an important role on the close range stuff.

Rifle grenades: This is more of a question. I know the Brits had them, both HE and AP. I know they were used pretty extensively in the Far-East, certainly by the Aussies. But I am unsure of the use in NW Europe?.

2-in mortar: This applies to all on map mortars really but the inability to fire on board mortars out of los is quite annoying. Just because you can't see the ground directly behind that slight bump in the terrain doesn't mean you can't see the cloud of dust raised by your bombs or the tops of the trees either for that matter. If you bump into some nasties in the woods and want to mortar their mates you know are trailing along behind them or you know the enemy are lurking at the back of that copse of woods it would be nice to stir them up a bit.

Splitting squads: It would be nice if the Brit squad split according to it's organisation instead of evenly. It would be nice if such a standard practice didn't result in a penalty. It is unfortunate that Bren teams aren't in as a seperate unit, after all that's what a Bren carrier crew is when dismounted. Pretty hard to represent the carrier platoon when they're not in. The battalion mortar and AT platoons would also have bren teams for local defence.

Bren gun: I am not so sure if the advantages of more mobile LMGs (like the Bren or BAR [well it is sort of a LMG I suppose]) vs the MG42 when on the "move" are modelled in the game.

My advice when playing the Brits. Keep the nasties at arms length, when they start running out of ammo give them a taste of cold steel or better still buy a Croc . Buy extra PIATs, use them in pairs, I figure if you get them in a good position even with their inaccuracy you should be able to knock off at least one armoured vehicle with 12 shots. Not only that but they are the only one out of the other infantry AT weapons which are not suicide weapons. Plus it is not unreasonable to kill a Tiger with a PIAT. I send plenty of PIAT teams back to the rear to fight another day. That must do somefink for their morale surely? BTS please fix

[M. Bates]

I think that in CM, Commonwealth infantry is about the equal of standard German Heer infantry squads (not including mortars and piats, though you could if you like).

But do German players often choose standard Army Squads? In my experience, not all that often at all.

So what happens is the German player, knowing the medium range strength and close range weakness of the Commonwealth squads, will place his troops at the rear of buildings.

And so the Commonwealth squads have no LOS without actually getting to within 40m of the German Fallschirmjager or SMG squad... then guess what happens!

[Alex heritage]

im getting tvery tired off cheeky yanks calling us poms or limey's yes i just called them yanks but thats the first time i've done it in years it seems like it's okay for the YANKS to call us anything they like and when we get pissed off no-one understands. oh determinant i wouldn't be too afraid of modern american squads the tend to either turn their best weaponry on themselves or shoot at the sky like it just smaked em' inna gob ( any europeans agree) then drop me a line

[boy_Recon]

Damn,Babra! That's why then......

An interesting article in the papers a few weeks ago: the British army has just decided to update its wireless comms, as the technology it's currently using dates back to the 1950's. God knows what we were using before the '50's, then. Cocoa tins and string, presumably.

[Pvt.Tom]

No one mentioned the cool bagpipe mod you can get for the British.

[M. Bates]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex heritage:

[QB]im getting tvery tired off cheeky yanks calling us poms or limey's yes i just called them yanks but thats the first time i've done it in years it seems like it's okay for the YANKS blah [blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah /QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm getting fed up of cheeky limeys like Alex calling Americans yanks yes i just called them limeys but thats the first time i've done it in years it seems like it's okay for the LIMEYS.

:cool:

[ 05-07-2001: Message edited by: M. Bates ]

[Terence]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates:

I'm getting fed up of cheeky limeys like Alex calling Americans yanks yes i just called them limeys but thats the first time i've done it in years it seems like it's okay for the LIMEYS.

:cool:

[ 05-07-2001: Message edited by: M. Bates ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think its fine for the British to call us Yanks.

Yanks comes from Yankee Doodle Dandy, which as we all know, was a mocking song the British fife and drum players would play to antagonize the colonials. Its about what stupid bumkins the American colonists were, if you listen to the words...

During the American Revolution (or, as the British like to call it, the Colonial Uprising of 1776) the American troops began to play the song themselves, treating it as a sort of badge of pride, I guess.

It still is treated that way, I think.. Isn't there a newspaper called Yank or something? I mean, we call ourselves Yankees sometimes, don't we, especially when talking about New England...

Anyway, you can call us Yanks all day long. Just don't call us late for dinner.

[Dave H]

Is it so difficult to remember that somehow the troops of the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France, Poland, and dozens of other nations actually managed to cooperate fighting a common enemy on the Western Front? With the level of name calling, generalizing, and all-around bickering I've seen on thread after thread, I wonder how many of our fathers and grandfathers would be proud of our attitudes. I also wonder how much worse these attitudes are going to get when CM2 comes out and this forum adds (I hope) some members whose relatives fought on the Eastern Front.

[Stalins Organ]

I was under the impression tha the troops of varius nations didn't co-operate all that well at all.....certainly the number of times the NZ division was let down by British armour in the desert was disappointing, and "we" were at least nominally a closely linked nation!

[Moriarty]

Some folks avoid choosing the UK TO&E because the rifle squad firepower comes up a bit short when compared to the US rifle squad. Another factor is the lack of squad-level AT capability versus the US squad being equipped with rifle grenades and the Germans with panzerfausts.

I've used everything except French to date and do not have a strong preference on the Allied side.

Side note: I find the inaccuracy, slow movement and slow RoF of the PIAT to be aggravating (although sloppy bazooka work can get me swearing at the computer screen). And the snail-slow movement of the Vickers MG team is a good reason to buy a Jeep.

[ 05-07-2001: Message edited by: Moriarty ]

[boy_Recon]

The emphasis in the British Army has always been on 'marksmanship', best defined as "proficiency with a bolt action rifle". In WW1 what the Germans thought was LMG fire was the Tommy's swift yet accurate usage of the .303, which could reach up to 60rpm. The British army did not develop the concept of a squad-based LMG until the mid-30's, and only later made a very poor compromise with the Sten SMG. Bear in mind that German SMG technology pre-dates WW1 with , ie, the Mauser 'Broomhandle' 9mm pistol/smg.

[Stalins Organ]

Boy Recon you're showing a bit much boy, and too little recon recently!!

The soldiers of the BEF could manage 20 rpm in the "mad minute", not 60, and the Germans didn't think the fire was from LMG's because LMG's hadn't been "invented" in 1914!!

And the Sten gun was a SMG, not a LMG!!

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike the bike:

Boy Recon you're showing a bit much boy, and too little recon recently!!

The soldiers of the BEF could manage 20 rpm in the "mad minute", not 60, and the Germans didn't think the fire was from LMG's because LMG's hadn't been "invented" in 1914!!

And the Sten gun was a SMG, not a LMG!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sten Gun is a MACHINE PISTOL or MACHINE CARBINE if you want to get technical and use the official term for it.

Babra - I couldn't hit a damn thing with the FN; for us normal sized guys, the C7 was a godsend. I do know that many, like you, preferred the tried and true iron and wood, but it was just too much for some. I can shoot like Annie Oakley with the C7 though; managed a perfect score on the range last fall - to everyone's great surprise!

My favourite, though, is the lever action .22 Marlin....

[ 05-07-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]