DaveyJJ Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 And for that matter the only Commonwealth units that served in Europe apart from Brits and Canadians were New Zealanders in Italy. This part of history isn't my strong point so don't be afraid to flame. Not flaming, but the 8th British Army in Italy had an entire II Polish Corps made up entirely of Poles (including my highly-decorated late father-in-law in the 5th Kresowa Infantry Division) under the command Lt. General Wladyslaw Anders. They fought with great distinction and intense dedication at Monte Cassino, Ancona, the Gothic Line battles (Ravenna et al) and Bologna, and were a very highly regarded Corps according to military historians of that campaign. A not insignificant portion of the troops were made up of former German Army POWs, who were Poles that had been forcibly drafted to fight for the German Army after the invasion of Poland in 1939 and captured in places like Yugoslavia, North Africa, and even Italy etc by Allied Forces. Offered the chance to fight the Germans who had invaded their country, many leapt enthusiastically at the chance. Among his British Army military effects, I have one picture of late father-in-law in a German uniform on leave at his family farm. Very weird. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 It is worth noting that the RAF had pilots and crew from all over the Empire. There were certainly Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, and even the occasional South African flier in the ETO. Often they had their own squadrons and wings. So did the Czechs, French, and Poles, BTW. All that said, this has nothing to do with CMBN since there are no air units in the game identified by nationality. The same is true of of naval units. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Where did they serve? I thought the South Africans, Indians and Australians only served in North Africa? There was at least one Indian division in Italy, I believe. There were South African and Rhodesian air contingents there as well. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barkhorn1x Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 Is that unreasonable? Umm...yes, cause - once again - you are missing the point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 ... In Normandy there were no South Africans or Indians correct? Where did they serve? I thought the South Africans, Indians and Australians only served in North Africa? ... There were definitely South Africans in Italy ( don't think Normandy ) as one of my Great-Uncles was killed in Italy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 OK quick summary. Aren't we talking about content in the second Normandy module. Poles are allies but not part of the Commonwealth. Not disputing the actual presence. So on the ground the only Commonwealth forces were Brits and Canadians (and Newfoundlers if they were separate to the Canadians). The point I am trying to make is that Battlefront has been indicating that the next module is the Commonwealth forces in Normandy which shouldn't include all the commonwealth nations as they simply were not there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barkhorn1x Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 The point I am trying to make is that Battlefront has been indicating that the next module is the Commonwealth forces in Normandy which shouldn't include all the commonwealth nations as they simply were not there. Yes. Correct. Exactly. But it should include the Poles (hopefully) since although not a Commonwealth nation (I knew that before I posted - I really did ): - They fought in Normandy as a descrete unit - They used a Brit TO&E - They were under Brit command - According to the way BF is structuring these modules if we don't see the Poles in the second module we won't see them ever. Now that this is settled can one of our Polish forum members get in touch w/ BF to do so damn voice acting? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Worst comes to worst couldn't they just sample Gene Hackman saying "but what about the Germans" from A Bridge too Far. Would be a little sad if they didn't make it. I remember a really good scenario from CMBO with them v SS. I think it was set around the closing of Falaise. If they weren't in the 2nd why couldn't they make the third which is Market Garden? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barkhorn1x Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 If they weren't in the 2nd why couldn't they make the third which is Market Garden? Because of this comment from Shullen...(the BF tech guy ): The idea behind modules is to break up the amount of content into cohesive AND WORKABLE chunks. The modules cannot be too encompassing since that would involve possibly more work than a module would be worth. But the modules MUST NOT require anything other than the base game. So no module must depend on its content beyond itself and the base game (though people can still make scenarios/campaigns that require more than one module). Modules allow us to get a product out the door in a reasonable amount of time and then add content to it at a later point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Here's my theory on the Market-Garden Module. The focus from the Allied perspective will be on the Airborne forces. The US Airborne gets essentially re-done with new TO&E between Normandy and Market-Garden. It makes sense to re-do the British Airborne as well then though I'm not sure of any re-organization or differences between the 1st and 6th Airborne divisions off hand. Since were focusing on Airborne the Polish brigade gets thrown in. I believe both the Heer and the SS went through a re-organization at this time so they get re done. One really needs the SS for Arnhem. So in summary the module will include: New Sept '44 TO&E US Airborne British Airborne Polish Airborne New Sept '44 TO&E Heer New Sept '44 SS New terrain. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 But all said and done this is a land based game. In Normandy there were no South Africans or Indians correct? Not as formed units, correct. Where did they serve? I thought the South Africans, Indians and Australians only served in North Africa? New Zealanders made it to Italy becuase they trusted us Australians to keep the Japanese away and the ****ty European weather is just like home for them with the bonus of pizza. There was at least one Indian Division (the 4th?) and the 6th Sth African Armd Div in Italy. Again this is not somewhere where I am strong in history especially the naval/air units but did Australian units actually participate at all in Normandy in any capacity. There were Austalian air force squadrons engaged in Normandy. And in Italy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Poles are allies but not part of the Commonwealth Polish fighters were assembled in England, recruited by England, equipped by England along English lines. To say they weren't part of the 'commonwealth' forces is a mere technicality. Like saying a Mexican immigrant who joins the U.S. army isn't an American soldier. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Incidentally, even using the term "Commonwealth" with regards to 1944 is problematic. For instance, in the context of 1944, this assertion: The Commonwealth is ... UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India is incorrect. There are two countries too many listed (possily three, depending on how you count it), and one that could be considered missing. However, that only matters if you're so semantically inclined. For those of a more pragmatic disposition there is no - and never has been an - issue 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 The 'Market-Garden' module is a mystery to me since the TOE/OOB changes would hit most of the other modules. I'm not sure how this is going to be carried out and it is possible that the rule I mentioned of not requiring other modules could get broken with this one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chops Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Speaking of Market Garden here is an interesting story - http://www.armchairgeneral.com/ginkel-heath-propaganda-and-reality-in-market-garden.htm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Incidentally, even using the term "Commonwealth" with regards to 1944 is problematic. For instance, in the context of 1944, this assertion: is incorrect. There are two countries too many listed (possily three, depending on how you count it), and one that could be considered missing. However, that only matters if you're so semantically inclined. For those of a more pragmatic disposition there is no - and never has been an - issue It is not being overly semantic. Lumping Poles as part of the Commonwealth is just not right. Whether they had similar kit and how their divisions were used is irrelevant. The colonisation practices (happy or not) of the British Empire that eventually evolved into the Commonwealth was long and for sure different nations in the list have different statuses at different times. But the point is the link that leads a nation into the Commonwealth simply does not exist between England and Poland. Never. Throughout the war they are simply two allied countries. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 New Module Name: "Commonwealth, Polish, and Other Assorted Countries." ( CM:CPOAC) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 The colonisation practices (happy or not) of the British Empire that eventually evolved into the Commonwealth was long and for sure different nations in the list have different statuses at different times. But the point is the link that leads a nation into the Commonwealth simply does not exist between England and Poland. Never. Throughout the war they are simply two allied countries. Look, I'm not the one getting my panties in a wad about using "Commonwealth" as a collective noun for all those forces equipped by, organised like, using the same doctrine as, and commanded by, the British Army. The link was merely to point out that even if your panties are in a wad, and you insist on using "Commonwealth" to mean only the UK and those nations that were politically part of the British Commonwealth in 1944, then you'd do well to get your own ducks in a row and find out just which countries that consisted of. And then perhaps ponder what collective noun you'd use instead. By the by; owls don't actually form parliments, ants don't actually form armies, and mormons don't actually form themselves into a book. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to use the convienient verbal shorthand of "Commonwealth" to refer to the 21st Army Group, and ALL of it's similarly equipped and organised elements. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Polish fighters were assembled in England, recruited by England, equipped by England along English lines. To say they weren't part of the 'commonwealth' forces is a mere technicality. Like saying a Mexican immigrant who joins the U.S. army isn't an American soldier. Actually they assembled in France and did their own recruiting but yes they were equipped by the British and shared a similar TO&E. Point is tho' they were in the POLISH army not the British, just as the other nations, Aus, NZ SA Canada etc were not part of the British army they merely fought with them. Just like the Brazillians and Mexicans that fought alongside the Americans, whom we would never consider to be part of the Untied States Army. It might be convenient to lump all of these people together under the erroneous label of Commonwealth but some of us in the Commonwealth find it a little insulting. I do get however that this module deals with the NWE side of things and as said before my concern was that the real Commonwealth would not be included if they are not in this module. I am forgetting of course the CMAK example so there is still hope for us Dominions yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemonade Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Just like the Brazillians and Mexicans that fought alongside the Americans, whom we would never consider to be part of the Untied States Army or Air Force. What? You got me here. Please don't misunderstand me for I love both countries, but I've never known that they fought in the WW2. It must have been obscured by either my ignorance or some kind of murky, twisted politics of the time. Could you perhaps guide me to some sources describing their participation in the conflict? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 They both declared war in 1942, and Brazil sent an expeditionary force to Italy in 1944. Mexico sent a fighter squadron to Philippines in 1945. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 There was a Brazilian division that served in Italy, organised and equipped like a US division. Dunno 'bout the Mexicans - maybe some air force elements, also in Italy? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 There was a Brazilian division that served in Italy, organised and equipped like a US division. Well I'll be damned - judging by their insignia, they were the BEST division in WW2! Nope, you can't beat that. BFC, we must have a change of plans! It's either about the FEB or nothing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Yep Brazillians were in Italy and there was a Mexican Air Force Fighter Squadron in the Phillipines with the USAAF 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to use the convienient verbal shorthand of "Commonwealth" to refer to the 21st Army Group, and ALL of it's similarly equipped and organised elements. How about "21AG" ? , shorter and less inflammatory that Commonwealth? 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.