Profile of MajorBloodnok

The CoH1 British seemed more like an anti-partisan force funny enough. They operate out of Command Trucks, patrol everywhere,The CoH1 British seemed more like an anti-partisan force funny enough. They operate out of Command Trucks, patrol everywhere, and rely on Officers to hold their hands.

As Relic have already broadcasted aspects of the new US army, I do not think I breach the NDA, if I say that the better Britz aspects have been borrowed and improved upon to US advantage. viz the Officers.

I do think that these aspects - and other OF features like Gliders, could be used to effect in a Burma campaign - entitle it something like "the Road to Mandalay". It involves Indian troops as much as the Brits. e.g. the Sikh regiments, or the Ghurka. this might appealto a sub-Continent audience, Many have written previously about Japanese lack of technology- without apparently realising that mountain warfare in the Burmese foothills was primitive - Pershings and battle tanks would be hopeless, authentically. OTOH, supply drops, mountain artillery, bicycle infantry, snipers, donkeys,partisan-equivalents - Chindits - could be interesting, You can involve the Chinese, as well as Merrill's Marauders.

As I write, I sense possibly the glowering presence of Uncle Sam,demanding why I ignore the heavy-lifting in the Pacific. to whit: the US Carrier fleets. Well,you can do that too, e.g. Corregidor, or the fights in New Guinea involving Australians,but honestly, if Relic do not divert into air warfare a la War Thunder, won't people get bored playing Beach Assault ad infinitum on Raibul, Guam, Tinian, Saipan, Iwo Jima, Okinawa etc? I mean, it's like Beach Assault to the power of infinity, unless you tske the action inland.

Both the British and US army were very conservative forces compared to the Soviets and the Germans.

They relied heavily on planning, firepower, equipment concentration, and logistics, and being armies of democracies they were very casualty sensitive. Thus, they rarely took the type of calculated risks (high risk, high reward) that the Germans and Soviets routinely took and this characterized their operations. Slow and steady wins the race.

Fair comment. Succinctly made. Democracies cannot afford to be as profligate with their men, as totalitarian regimes, although there is the caveat here that democracies hardened up in the face of total war. In UK,at least, the Emergency Powers Acts gave a democratic government powers equating to a dictatorship (however benign). e.g. requisitioning of land for military purposes;penalties for treason. Defence Regulations

You might also have added that Montgomery seemed to ignore the Canadians, who did the heavy lifting, for instance at 'the trial' of Dieppe, or by clearing the Scheldt. And Canadians were also a heavy punch on D-Day. though equally, it was the Canadians who did not quite complete the block at Falaise (correct me, please, if you think I am wrong).

The Western Allied Armies which attacked Normandy was always intended to be mobile, though you might well query the wisdom of this philosophy, which apparently ignored the lessons of the battle tanks on the Eastern Front, in particular Khursk (if they were even aware of those lessons). Reading contemporary accounts of the Western tankers in Normandy and beyond, I cannot help but be struck by how the presence of Tigers (in whatever form)struck dread into the hearts of crews of Allied battle tanks -even Fireflies.

Or make sure you have doctrine with Elephant.

Jaeger Armor. +1

Well done, Strummingbird!

I knew you had a talent for this,and it's good to see you recognised for it.

55. Soviet penal squads could blast a building or bunker to kingdom come with one satchel charge! (amazing )