Jump to content

Out of the three majors in CMBO and CMBB who gives the germans the hardest time ?


Recommended Posts

Whose forces out of the USA, UK and USSR gives the germans the hardest time .I guess to be fair we have to limit the USSR to after D-Day . So would you rather face the germans with T-34 85s and Su152;s or would you rather have Shermans and m-36 .How about Cromwells and Fireflys ?How do you think the russian infantry and artilery fairs in comparison to the US and the UK ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Hannibal:

Whose forces out of the USA, UK and USSR gives the germans the hardest time .I guess to be fair we have to limit the USSR to after D-Day . So would you rather face the germans with T-34 85s and Su152;s or would you rather have Shermans and m-36 .How about Cromwells and Fireflys ?How do you think the russian infantry and artilery fairs in comparison to the US and the UK ?

...I think germans will prefer shermans..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

I would say the British myself mainly because of the availability of 3 inch mortars, Wasps, Churchill Mk VIII's, Fireflys and 2 inch mortars for quick supression jobs.

Regards

Jim R.

Hi, KR!

I would also tend to go with the Brits as modeled in CMB0--esp. because the tanks are cheaper relative to fighting value than the American tanks, where you have to pay a lot for every minor improvement in the Sherman. The Firefly can be cheaper than some less capable Sherm76s and the Churchill VIII really packs a punch and can stand a lot of punishment.

BUT...I'm also coming to appreciate the powers of the Russian forces: the T-34/85 is cheap and plentiful, you've got some good infantry options and lots of capable HE chuckers, plus scarcity limits a lot of the more arcane German weapons.

I think the pricing structure and some of the infantry modeling worked against the Yanks in CMBO. Scarcity rules and some minor modifications in pricing would have made the American armor more effective against the Germans. And the new CMBB suppression model would have really favored the US infantry, as would the removal of penalties for split squads. That is, the US infantry company has an organic suppression unit--the heavy weapons platoon--that could really keep the defenders heads down. And those large squads could be freely split, with a suppression unit (BAR) and an advance unit (SMG). Organic 60mm mortars in the coy would really count for something. And each battalion has its own heavy weapons coy. MORE suppression. Plus the arty advantages of the highly evolved US system would really show themselves, I think. So, I'd love to see the US post-D-Day forces at work in the CMBB environment.

[ February 08, 2003, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In RL terms, the US out of the Western Allies.

In CMBO I divided things up a bit. In armor, the British I feel have a slight adv. over the US: The Firefly. They also seem to use a bit more of hollow charge weaponry for their armor than the US.

The US though has a sizeable and rounded infantry force.

There's one thing that has made it very easy for me when playing the Germans against the USSR: No equivalent of Bazookas and PIATs. Once the T-34s, etc. are taken out of the picture the Soviets I feel have a harder time with the lack of weapons such as the bazooka/PIAT for their infantry. Demo Charges are great but you have to be damn close to make good use of it.

P.S.- I too would looooove to see CMBO updated with CMBB's level or somefink. One thing that I absolutely hated was the US artillery. Also, let's see how inexpensive those Sherman 75's really are :D

[ February 08, 2003, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: Warmaker ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think when taken as a package I would have to go with the Brits. They have enough heavy hitting armor to take on the Uberpanzers and their infantry is comparable to the Americans. Plus I just love those cereal bowl helmets.

If we could shift some PIATs or zookas to the Eastern front, however, I would have to go with the Russians. Nothing like hoards of hard hitting tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

I would say the British myself mainly because of the availability of 3 inch mortars, Wasps, Churchill Mk VIII's, Fireflys and 2 inch mortars for quick supression jobs.

Regards

Jim R.

Hi, KR!

I would also tend to go with the Brits as modeled in CMB0--esp. because the tanks are cheaper relative to fighting value than the American tanks, where you have to pay a lot for every minor improvement in the Sherman. The Firefly can be cheaper than some less capable Sherm76s and the Churchill VIII really packs a punch and can stand a lot of punishment.

BUT...I'm also coming to appreciate the powers of the Russian forces: the T-34/85 is cheap and plentiful, you've got some good infantry options and lots of capable HE chuckers, plus scarcity limits a lot of the more arcane German weapons.

I think the pricing structure and some of the infantry modeling worked against the Yanks in CMBO. Scarcity rules and some minor modifications in pricing would have made the American armor more effective against the Germans. And the new CMBB suppression model would have really favored the US infantry, as would the removal of penalties for split squads. That is, the US infantry company has an organic suppression unit--the heavy weapons platoon--that could really keep the defenders heads down. And those large squads could be freely split, with a suppression unit (BAR) and an advance unit (SMG). Organic 60mm mortars in the coy would really count for something. And each battalion has its own heavy weapons coy. MORE suppression. Plus the arty advantages of the highly evolved US system would really show themselves, I think. So, I'd love to see the US post-D-Day forces at work in the CMBB environment. </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gotta disagree with the majority. The Soviet forces have one gigantic advantage which we (locked as we are in the CMBO/B universe) tend to overlook - speed and manueverability. The T34 was just so damn fast! and with those wide tracks had such incredible "crossability" - power to weight ratio. In CMBO/B we tend to play games that are on a very small tactical level, so I think that don't notice that huge advantage that speed and crossability would give at the intermediate tactical/strategic level.

The other day I saw an atlas of WWII military history which had strategic maps which were all on the same scale (which was odd enough all by itself). What came out strongly was the gigantic distances covered by the Soviets in the last years of the war as opposed to the much smaller (though admittedly more challenging terrain-wise) distances covered by the Allies in Western Europe.

The T34/85 was a magnificent vehicle - cheap, abundant, great gun (rotten optics), excellent armor sloping, speed and crossability.

As for the Sovient infantry, the lack of a sufficiently kick-ass personal anti-tank weapon (Bazooka, Pzfaust, etc.) cripples them to an extreme degree.

But give me T34/85s against Panthers ANYTIME over Shermans (inc. Fireflys) or any other US/UK tank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't compared the penetration values between the Russian 85mm to the US 76mm but I believe it to be close. The advantage the 85mm has over the 76mm is that it seems to have a better blast value.

Because of this, I believe the T-34/85 a bigger threat to my forces since it can be more effective against infantry.

Regardless, my Panthers & Tigers eagerly devour any other tank :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one is really tough for me. I first have to separate the question in terms of the two games. To put it blountly, I find fighting as the Russians in CMBB generally to be more difficult than either as the Brits or the US in CMBO. I'll add to that when I discuss the Russians.

By the slightest of margins, I have to say I find the US to be the easiest force to use. Primarily, I say this because when all of the components are added together, I find them to have the strongest combined arms package (infantry, armour, artillery/air support).

The Brits definitely have a strong advantage in armour. The 17 pounder and the ready availability of the Churchill give them an armour one-two the US simply doesn't have (in practical terms). In terms of comparing the two countries' various arms, this is the most one-sided category. However, I greatly prefer the US infantry model over the Brits'. While the organic 2" mortar and piat are nice, they are not enough to offset the disparity in squad firepower, IMO. Finally, there is the question of artillery. Here, too, I give the edge to the US. Probably the biggest difference to me lies between the 25 pounder and the 105mm. I simply prefer the latter. Generally, I seem to get more bang for the buck with the US (3" mortar excepted, particularly onboard) across the spectrum of the two artillery branches. Add infantry and artillery, and they overcome the British advantage in armour. But, once again, it's a close call.

Now, the Russians. Simply put, the subtle but critical differences in the two games create an unlevel playing field when I compare commanding them to managing US or British troops. I consider this to be a good thing, however. Playing as the Russians requires new, and in some ways, more refined skills, IMO. There were comparatively fewer differences between playing as the axis or allies in CMBO. The unique conditions of the Eastern Front, and the very real doctrinal differences between the Russians' and the West's (including the Germans') conduct of the war should be evident in a game, and I think CMBB does a very strong job in capturing those elements. But the price to be paid includes such things as the ubiquity of green/conscript troops, unresponsive artillery support, and periodic armour disadvantages (usually related to command and control or fire control). The strengths and advantages are there (numbers, speed and mobility of armour, specialized and potent infantry, good air support, to name a few) but they take some coaxing to fully exploit. In the end, it is this fact that makes me both love, and hate, playing as the Russians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I really like about the Commonwealth forces is they truly have a tool for every job. Wether you need to get up close with a Croc, or stand off with any 17pdr vehicle or just the durability of the Churchill, they have it. And man do I love the 95mm gun, it can ruin anyones day at any distance even though it suffers accuracy at range. The Sovjets have a nice assortment of medium and heavies, either in regards to armour or armament, or quite often both. So I like them too. The US just have medium tanks, or vunerable SP gun and I don't rate the 76 to highly, compared to the 17pdr. Their vehicles lack diversity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget the hardware! Would you care what killed you; 75mm or 85mm? Death is death. The Russians were brutal with their revenge! I'd rather take on the western Allies and then sit out the rest of the war in one of their plush POW camps (compaired to Soviet gulags and camps) with a roof over my head, and three square a day!!! :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toe to toe in the game I worry less about the Americans than any other. Deadly artillery but weak in armour and anti-armour systems. There infantry has a lot of fire power however.

Brits, there armour is often well protected and their artillery is deadly also. The silent PIAT can be dangerous.

Russian, some nasty tank killers but their infantry lacks effect AT capablity and their arty is slow.

However in the "real" world I'd want to fight the Brits (gentlemen ya know) the Americans and lastly the Russians

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Gordon Williamson's book, "Loyalty Is My Honor", he interviews several former Waffen-SS soldiers. He asked them to rank the "toughness" of their opponents. The majority listed either the Russians or the British as the toughest and the Yanks were almost always listed as last (Brits and the Russians tended to alternate between number 1 and 2). In all fairness, the Yanks did get better over time and certain units certainly have the Germans a hard ass time (like the 101st Airborne). However, most of these interviewees weren't all that impressed with the US in general.

[ February 09, 2003, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: Commissar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Commissar:

In Gordon Williamson's book, "Loyalty Is My Honor", he interviews several former Waffen-SS soldiers. He asked them to rank the "toughness" of their opponents. The majority listed either the Russians or the British as the toughest and the Yanks were almost always listed as last (Brits and the Russians tended to alternate between number 1 and 2). In all fairness, the Yanks did get better over time and certain units certainly have the Germans a hard ass time (like the 101st Airborne). However, most of these interviewees weren't all that impressed with the US in general.

Considering that most of these SS officers probably fought for long periods in Russia, perhaps against the Brits in Normandy and then in the Ardennes Offensive, initially against some very poor American units, it should be no surprise they answered that way. Anyway, the American way of war wasn't (and isn't) based on any foolish idea of "toughness". There were plenty of dead "tough" Russians (not to mention SS). If you look at the win/loss record of each army (based on battles) I think you'll find the Americans did much better vs. the SS (and the Wehrmacht as a whole) than the Russians (with the Brits having a similiar record to the Amis, at least late war).

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

I've read of accounts where German soldiers rank the Polish soldiers as "the toughest".

That observation seems to carry through into CMBO for some strange reason. Not quite sure why but Polish troops just seem to have more staying power, at least from my observations anyway.

Regards

Jim R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

I've read of accounts where German soldiers rank the Polish soldiers as "the toughest".

That observation seems to carry through into CMBO for some strange reason. Not quite sure why but Polish troops just seem to have more staying power, at least from my observations anyway.

Regards

Jim R. </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking about tough, how about those Gurkhas?

Never read an account of Gurkhas doing the fighting where I wasn't impressed. Love to see them included in the new engine. Maybe they can be given higher morale then average because they really do stand out in that area.

To my understanding it still is the practice that Gurkhas are considered elite troops despite only undergoing regular infantry taining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...