Soddball Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 It's hard for me to compare the two. Two good reasons are the Sherman and the StuG. Who would have thought in CM:BB that the StuG would be such a killing platform? Good armour, precise weapon. Who would also have thought that the Sherman would prove to be so good in CM:BB - sturdy, fast, and top armour for the early part of the war. I would love to return to the Western Front with the CM:BB engine. I have to agree that the British 6pdr and 17pdr solve any armour issues I have. For me it comes down to infantry staying-power. At very close ranges, British infantry is too vulnerable. That said, I think that the American organic MGs would swing my vote in their favour. I would love to see the impact of the new MG modelling with 30cal and 50cal mgs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest konrad Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: I agree. Just ask any Italian WWII veterans from the North African campaign what they thought of the Gurkhas. I'm betting the response would not be one of indifference. Regards Jim R. what about Maoris? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 Originally posted by Tigrii: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jbertles: The T34 was just so damn fast! *cough* HELLCAT *cough* </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grisha Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 Looking at this from mid-1944, I'd say the Soviets. Why? Well, at the tactical level the western allies would've demonstrated greater responsiveness with their support arms, if not infantry or tank forces. For the Germans it would be a case of fighting the western allies and risking tactical envelopement. Thus, it might be necessary for the Germans to order a tactical retreat to the next defensive position. In the case of the Soviets, German forces would've either been totally blown away (main attack sectors) or possibly able to hold their own, maybe even exceptionally so (secondary attack sectors). However, in either of these cases, the Germans would very likely be risking operational encirclement, and regardless of their tactical performances or situations an order for a general retreat would've been the only sensible choice. The exploits of Patton of the US 3rd Army are exceptional as much for the relative uniqueness of his operational methods as for his expertise. In the Red Army, Soviet tank forces in general were expected to operate 50 to 100 kilometers behind German lines. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 The British use of AP shot might handicap them in the AT area though. Long range infantry fire from the Brits would go on for ever though, and one would hope that provision for squads to carry more SMGs for close quarter fighting would be incorporated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coe Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 the trick to figure out who's better is to be able to make the british, russians and americans fight eachother in the next game.....ha ha 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Actually coe that might be pretty cool. I wanna see the rest of the war modelled of course, but a 'what-if' with the Western Allies vs our Comrades in the east with maybe a few battered German formations thrown in the for the west would be very cool to be done in CM form by battlefront... =D 'WW3 1945' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.