The U.S. lobby in 'Combat Mission'

[C Dunphie]

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: C Dunphie ]

[bfamily33]

What was that saying? Oh yeah ... undersexed, underpaid and under Eisenhower!

[JonS]

Nice.

Gold Beach

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

You obviously have not been following things as closely as you claim as your post contains a lot of factual errors and unsupported supposition. In fact, the whole thing is way off-base.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by C Dunphie:

The most influential set of contributers to this forum are based in the USA.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You sure about that? I would be willing to bet that at least half of them are outside the US.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>US squads are tooled-up with an impressive tank killing capacity in those armour-piercing rifle grenades following a concerted campaign by these incumbents.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What campaign? The rifle grenades were in the game upon its release and have not been changed in any patches. The "impressive" tank killing capacity you claim is not backed up by my experience. In the year that I have been playing CM I have seen exactly one German AFV killed with a rifle grenade during a game (a 234/3). If you think that is impressive, I think you have not played the game much. If you think rifle grenade effectiveness is over modeled, state your evidence. "Because they are American" doesn't cut it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>US armoured vehicles are now blessed with an almost supernatural ability to fire and hit at fast speed which would impress any honest M1A2 Abrams commander. The justification seems to stem from an innate belief in the technological superiority of the US military - and ultimately in the US political system itself! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For non-gyroed vehicles, the hit-on-the-move chance is the same for US and Axis.

There is no US lobby. The game was that way when it shipped. It was not changed latter in a patch due to American lobbying. In fact the most vocal proponent of toning down tank accuracy while moving (Tom) is an American, and if you had actually read the threads regarding this issue (which you obviously have not) you would know that he is not the only one by a long shot. And as far as "supperior US technology" and the "US politcal system", you're way off in outer space there.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The British and Commonwealth forces are treated in an almost cursory manner. The recent debate on the effectiveness of the reliant 25pdr has highlighted this issue. British infantry squads are represented only by the regulation '8 rifles, a Bren and a Sten' despite the fact that in reality the Sten (the 'Woolworth's gun) was produced in such numbers it frequently equipped half a section, particularly for street fighting duties. It's not quite as bad as the Steel Panthers 'Late war British troops were terrible and suffered from bad morale' but its getting there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you had been reading a little less selectively, you would have noticed a couple of lenthy threads about the US not having as many SMGs as they should as well. Kinda shoots down your point.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>US troops had great confidence in their material advantage but often suffered from homesickness and confusion over their role in this theatre. British troops had the enemy that was dropping doodle-bugs on their homes on the run. The Germans I interviewed all impressed me with their sence of 'duty' irrespective of personal considerations. All these factors influenced small unit combat as represented here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What this has to do with the game I have no idea. Do you want BTS to introduce a "homesick" modifier for US troops in the next patch?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Oh and another thing; all the US tank crews I spoke too (NW Europe) insisted they disabled the gyroscopes on their weapons as they proved so defective.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for providing us with this information that we already knew. There are a lot of people who think there are too many gyros in the game (I am one of them). But they were not put in in response to the outcry of the pro-US forum.

BTW, gyro effectiveness was actually toned down in one of the patches, again shooting down your theory.

I certainly hope you research your books better than you researched your post.

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Guy w/gun]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by C Dunphie:

I have followed a number of threads in this occasionally interesting forum regarding this pre-eminent tactical wargame. I've found the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

What strikes me most deeply after poring over many months (years?) of messages is the passionate level of committment found in the hardcore fanbase represented here.

There is a form of strange 'democracy' that has pervaded the forum and then manifested itself in the game core. The game seems to change and evolve as 'causes' take hold and gather momentum resulting in the latest 'patch'. On the surface this appears to be the weight of 'evidence' influencing the designers to enact some change - usually minor, sometimes radical. Sometimes the sum total of those 'minor' changes appear (to me at least) to have a cumulative effect.

Let us come to the crux - this game derives from the USA. The most influential set of contributers to this forum are based in the USA. It is, in all probability, an unconscious nationalistic influence, but I contend that it exists. US squads are tooled-up with an impressive tank killing capacity in those armour-piercing rifle grenades following a concerted campaign by these incumbents. US armoured vehicles are now blessed with an almost supernatural ability to fire and hit at fast speed which would impress any honest M1A2 Abrams commander. The justification seems to stem from an innate belief in the technological superiority of the US military - and ultimately in the US political system itself! Dear me, how could those appalling political systems of 1940's Germany and Russia have come up with such weapon systems as the Tiger, Panther and T34, I wonder! It's all a tad cut and dried, I'm afraid. Yes, there is respect now for the old, redundant enemy (Germany) but what of the even older, still annoyingly proud foe, Perfidious Albion?

The British and Commonwealth forces are treated in an almost cursory manner. The recent debate on the effectiveness of the reliant 25pdr has highlighted this issue. British infantry squads are represented only by the regulation '8 rifles, a Bren and a Sten' despite the fact that in reality the Sten (the 'Woolworth's gun) was produced in such numbers it frequently equipped half a section, particularly for street fighting duties. It's not quite as bad as the Steel Panthers 'Late war British troops were terrible and suffered from bad morale' but its getting there.

In the course of writing my books I have interviewed many combatants of the NW Europe campaign from all nations involved. US troops had great confidence in their material advantage but often suffered from homesickness and confusion over their role in this theatre. British troops had the enemy that was dropping doodle-bugs on their homes on the run. The Germans I interviewed all impressed me with their sence of 'duty' irrespective of personal considerations. All these factors influenced small unit combat as represented here.

Oh and another thing; all the US tank crews I spoke too (NW Europe) insisted they disabled the gyroscopes on their weapons as they proved so defective.

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: C Dunphie ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect sir...I honestly don't have any idea what your talking about. :confused:

[Username]

Being from the US and firmly against moving fire from tanks, I guess I would stand out. In instances like Abram's (the guy not the tank) sherman battalion that trained extensively and specifically to fight on the move, maybe. But to give a converted late war towed AT unit moving on the fly talent because of its recently aquired M18 vehicle is just stupid.

But I digress. You have a big chip on your shoulder and whining wont change history or the game. Put up some info. I , and others, called for this in the Bren thread (to back up the claims for tripoded Brens or support Brens) and it fell off the board like an old scab.

The rifle grenades were well supported by rune or moon. I forget. But they put up the info aand not the complaining.

Lewis

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Ellros]

I have never killed a tank with the rifle grenades (couple halftracks though)... but I have had lots taken out by German panzerfausts.

[Vanir Ausf B]

List of changes made to CM in patches that make non-US units better/US units worse:

1.01 patch:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>* Pillboxes are slightly harder to spot (if in cover), and can 'hide'

(which helps save ammo). Also, they are now far more resistant to

artillery.

1.03 patch:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>* Vickers MG is available to British and Polish paratroops.

1.04 patch

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>* Tiger tank now models the varying thickness of its mantlet armor (up to

200mm in places).

* MG fire against vehicles is now less effective (i.e. less accurate) if

the firer or target is moving.

* Small-caliber shells that enter a pillbox's firing slit are less likely

to knock out the whole pillbox.

* British 2-inch mortar is now able to run for short distances (like

Panzerschreck), but ammo load reduced from 22 to 20.

* Canadians have use of 40mm Bofors AA gun.

1.05 patch:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>* JPz IV and JPz IV/70 now have a bow MG, but it's somewhat less

effective at short (under 100m) range than a 'standard' bow MG due to

its simplified and somewhat underprotected mounting.

1.1 patch:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>* Vehicle top speed over open ground reduced somewhat, especially for jeeps.

And all wheeled vehicles are slightly more likely to bog down in bad terrain.

* Pillboxes:

- Acquire targets a bit faster than other guns (it's assumed that they've

pre-ranged to landmarks).

* Data changes:

- MG Jeep cannot carry passengers.

- PzIV silhouette reduced.

- Marder III armor changed.

- Sherman Jumbo's speed and some armor values lowered.

- British Carriers now have smoke mortars.

1.11 patch:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>* Fixed a bug that allowed tungsten rounds to be overly effective against

highly-sloped armor.

1.12 patch:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>* Firing ordnance while moving is less accurate than before.

* Pillboxes have slightly better 'reaction time' and are slightly less easier

to spot at long range. It is also somewhat harder to hit their firing slits

from longer ranges.

I'd say the pro-German/pro-British lobby is doing a fair job themselves

[Bruno Weiss]

Whas a matter, you don't like our lil democracy here?

[Major Tom]

Just to play the devil's advocate, knowing how many Commonwealth and German changes through patches do not mean much unless they are compared to that of American changes. However, since I do not believe in a US bias in the game, then to me the point is mute.

Actually, I do have a picture of a Bren on a tripod in a Tamiya Modelling book (of the cover of another modelling book of small arms). However, the British/Commonwealth troops (in winter gear) look like they are from 1939/40. We cannot say wether or not the Bren was still used in 'tripod' form in 1944, and even if this Bren was used in this form in sufficient numbers in 1939/40 and if this picture is of an oddity rather than a common occurance.

[bfamily33]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by C Dunphie:

The justification seems to stem from an innate belief in the technological superiority of the US military

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me just point to the following observations about the superiority of certain U.S. infantry weapons:

"The Thompson was mainly used by Commando forces but was commonly seen in use by airborne forces as well in lieu of the standard issue Sten carbine. One of the main assets of the Thompson submachine gun was reliability; it performed better than most submachine guns when exposed to dirt, mud and rain. (The Sten was notorious for jams mainly due to faulty magazines which plagued all of the Sten models)."

"Like many of the weapons and vehicles manufactured by the United States during WWII, the 1911 found its way to England via the Lend-Lease Act where it quickly became one of the favorite sidearms of British forces due to its powerful .45 caliber bullet."

"The U.S. made M2 .50 caliber machine gun is still standard issue today. Mr. Browning's magnificent weapon may see its 100th birthday, still on active duty."

I dare not argue with such astute observations as it appears they were made by the British 1st Airborne Division Living History Association.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> how could those appalling political systems of 1940's Germany and Russia have come up with such weapon systems as the Tiger, Panther and T34, I wonder! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you wish to imply that U.S. tanks are inferior please remember "quantity has a quality of its own". Perhaps Hitler wished he'd cranked out a few Shermans in lieu of a King Tiger or JagdTiger?

As for those appalling political systems, at least you got that one right!

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: bfamily33 ]

[dalem]

Mr. Dunphie-

I'll credit you with one thing arising from your post: You've made me agree with Username (curse you!!). But seriously, your 'feelings' and opinions notwithstanding, you don't have a blessed clue as to what you are typing about. This is all moot now that CM:BO is locked in and won't see any more adjustments, but I guarantee you that if you had come onto this forum anytime up to six months ago and presented a case for U.S. troops being 'overpowered' or other troops being shafted in any way, and presented good, hard evidence for your position, the game designers would have considered what you had to say. Maybe they wouldn't have ended up changing anything (they didn't agree to everything of course), but you would have had a solid chance at it.

And did I mention that you have me agreeing with ...Username <shiver>? Bleah!

-dale

[dalem]

Oh, in case anyone is interested I found the following after a quick web search:

link to book coauthored by a Christopher Dunphie

"GOLD BEACH

Inland from King, June 1944

Christopher Dunphie & Garry Johnson

The two authors, both formerly senior professional soldiers, have compiled an easy-to-follow itinerary

to the British landings on 6 June 1944 on Gold Beach and the ensuing bitter fighting. Covered in detail

are the actions which earned CSM Hollis of the Green Howards his VC and other inspiring battle stories."

I'm assuming that C Dunphie here is the Christopher Dunphie cited above. Perhaps I am assuming in error.

-dale

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: dalem ]

[BigZergRat]

I'm not knowledgable enough to shoot a ton of holes on your complaints, like everyone else was nice enough to do. However I do know that in CM, the panzerfaust is FAR more effective than the rifle grenade.

Also, in everything ive seen/heard/read about allied victory in WW2, The germans had the superior technology and the americans had superior numbers.

just my 2 cents

[Major Tom]

Heh heh, I can see where this debate is going, probably to the General Forum...

Anyway, I wouldn't say that German technology was better than Allied tech. Judging the BEST of German, British and American units (Land, Sea and Air) the technology discrepancy was not very great.

The Allies could have built tanks like the Tiger and Panther, but due to POLITICAL decisions, they decided that MOBILITY and NUMBERS were more important than pure GUN and ARMOUR. Without Shermans and Cromwells the Allies could not have done the Breakout from Normandy as well as they did. The Lee Enfield and M1 Garand were both better than German Rifles. Sometimes the Allies has technology AND numbers...

Regarding tanks, the Cromwell and the Sherman were both more versitile tanks than the most common German tank, the Panzer Mark IV.

The RAM Kangaroo was a much better APC than the SdKfz series, since they offered much more protection and in a chassis capable of accompanying the tanks, since it was based off of a tank!

It is generally assumed that German equipment was universally better than the Allies, by looking at the Tiger's, Panther's and HMG's. But since these were more 'rarities' than commonalities on the battlefield (while the good allied weapons were commonalities), it cannot be said that the Germans held technological advantages to the Allies. Against an average German foe, the Allies usually found themselves with superior equipment.

[bfamily33]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by C Dunphie:

US troops often suffered from homesickness ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heck the only thing our guys were homesick for was good olde homecook'n like apple pie, Boston baked beans and a good cup of coffee.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by C Dunphie:

US troops often suffered from confusion over their role in this theatre. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was quite clear what our role was in that theatre not to mention the other theatre - you now the one where that other former British colony is. Our role was to save your a$$ or is arse? As far as confusion goes, I think it was Monty that was a bit confused when he hatched Operation Market Garden.

Sorry, I do apologize to you other Brits. but I just can't sit by and listen to this.

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: bfamily33 ]

[-Havermeyer-]

Is this just a ploy to get us to look at (and consider) buying your book?

[Ales Dvorak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by C Dunphie:

I've found the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: C Dunphie ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did You?

[Major Tom]

All that you are going to do is to start a debate between America and Britain, which he is trying to do. You are doing exactly what he wants. Saying remarks like "we saved your butt's" and "Monty was a fool" will only draw in British/Commonwealth people too refute you. Then this will turn into a Monty vs. Patton debate and that the US just sat on their a$$'$ while the UK/Commonwealth fought Hitler for 3 years. Now we don't really want to get into that, do we?

[Panzer Leader]

It sounds to me like this guy had a preconceived notion about how people feeel, and then he tried to mold it around the words and actions of this game. Personally I don't agree with his preconception, and I sure don't agree with its presence here in CM-land.

Dunphie, I suggest you open your mind a little more objectively and try to understand what people are actually saying, rather than trying to get some amorphous 'feel' for the general drift or trend.

Everyone here has very unique and independant ideas about what was best and worst, who won, lost and should've won, and there is simply no way to pin a stereotype on any group, especially one as diverse as this.

[Kwazydog]

Heya Guys

Im keeping an eye on this thread as I could see the second it was posted it would be a hot topic, and although I will leave it open for the time being for the origional author to comment, I suspect it will be padlocked sooner rather than later if things become heated.

It is hard to be certain but one could suspect that due to the tone of the origional post the author may be more interested in causing a stir that seriously commenting on the concerns that have been raised. Hopefully this is not that case and only time will tell.

I would also ask people to remember that things are not always what they seem on the internet. Other than the posters comments we have no way to be certain that he is indeed whom he claims to be (unfortunately there is no no email address to confirm), so lets not draw any conclusions on the books mentioned above too quickly for the time being.

Thanks Guys

Dan

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[The Commissar]

Excellent point, Panzer Leader.

Everyone already said what I wanted to say, so I won't bother. Basically Dunphie, you don't really know what you're talking about. Heck, I would be surprised if you even own CM and thus able to validly support your "pro US" claims in this game.

[bfamily33]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by C Dunphie:

Let us come to the crux - this game derives from the USA. ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NEW England to be precise!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The most influential set of contributers to this forum are based in the USA. It is, in all probability, an unconscious nationalistic influence <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only nationalistic influence I see these days is in europe. Perhaps we should pull out and let you go it alone?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> with an almost supernatural ability to fire <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you haven't heard about our supernatural weapons. Haven't you heard about the "shot heard around the world"? It was the start of the Revolution and the birth of that thing you refer to as "strange" democracy. Come try it, like millions of others, you may just like it.

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: bfamily33 ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

It is hard to be certain but I suspect that due to the tone of the origional post the author may be more interested in causing a stir that seriously commenting on the concerns that have been raised.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm starting to think the same thing. He was likely just trolling to see what reaction he would get, maybe get an entertaining flame war going for his own amusement. I doubt he even believes what he wrote.

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Andrew H.]

Trollus vulgaris

Observe the registration date and number of posts.

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Andrew Hedges ]