View Full Version : Who had the best army during WWII?
There may be many factors to take into account but, what are they and why did you pick the country.:smoke:
Where's the option for Germany? :surprise: :p
Not because I AM CANADIAN...... sounds like a beer commercial.:laugh:
Here are the reasons.
1) We were for the most part volunteers
2) We had the benefit of technology from both the US and British
3) We are to this day well repected by the countries we liberated
4) We were able to serve in both theaters of operations
5) When given a task we did it to our full potential, even if it was stupid.....Dieppe
freightshaker
05 Aug 06, 19:58
Before the war: France
In the beginning: Germany
At the end: USSR
Russia had learned operational art from the worlds best teacher in the worlds hardest classroom. By 1945 she could take on any nation in the world and win.
Where's the option for Germany? :surprise: :p
I have to see about that right now thanks.:nuts:
Before the war: France
In the beginning: Germany
At the end: USSR
Russia had learned operational art from the worlds best teacher in the worlds hardest classroom. By 1945 she could take on any nation in the world and win.
France never had the generalship which would not even make them a contender. An army is run from the top down.
Russia was fighting a opponent that was demoralized and poorly supplied. the only thing they had was man power. I would say if thing had been different and the allies decided to fight the USSR ,I do believe they could not of stood the test of time of bombing and the end of the lend least support from the allies.:smoke:
Germany is now an option Lurker.:p :smoke:
:Germany is now an option Lurker.:p :smoke:Thanks.
Germany, no contest. At least up to the end.
But then it depends on the definition of "best" that you're using.
US had the best economy. Russia had the best man power resource. Germany had the best Generals, military thinkers and some excellent creativity in the arms and weapons department. There are way too many what ifs to bother getting into it here, but what they accomplished inspite of their limited resources and numbers (compared to the cumulative rest of the world they were fighting) and a blundering meth-amphetamine junkie leader and Ultra, etc, etc, was pretty impressive.
You could also make a good argument for Russia, that managed to hold on (thanks largely to Hitler blunders) in spite of a purged officer corps and turn the tables at the end (again thanks in part to bozo) and win. Who blundered bigger - Stalin or Hitler? Probably the latter seeing that they lost. Another good point for the Ruskies were the next generation tanks they were rolling out - the JSiiis - so they may have been the best at the end.
And of course we could say the US due to the fact that they developed the A-bomb first and would have nuked Russia in short order had it come to blows, so they may have been champs - having the best ultimate weapon. :scream:
IMHO. :)
KGPanzerschrecK
06 Aug 06, 02:16
Before the war: France
LOL! You cant be serious can you? No generals. Stuck in the mindset of fighting the last war. The Maginot Line. Tanks handed out in twos and threes to Infantry units. Tanks only had enough fuel alotted to them go like 15 miles. I could go on and on.
With all due respect to 2054172, he should be slapped for even including them in the poll. :laugh: Well not really, i know he had to do it to be fair to all countries. Im just kidding 2054172. :)
I think Germany was pretty strong throughout WWII. There main problem was their leadership. One of the best guns ever came from Germany, the MG42 :D.
Tim
Neilm85uk
06 Aug 06, 06:50
I think the Russians at the end of the war. Not just because of the improved equipment and doctrine but because of the ruthlessness with which they persude their objectives.
LOL! You cant be serious can you? No generals. Stuck in the mindset of fighting the last war. The Maginot Line. Tanks handed out in twos and threes to Infantry units. Tanks only had enough fuel alotted to them go like 15 miles. I could go on and on.
With all due respect to 2054172, he should be slapped for even including them in the poll. :laugh: Well not really, i know he had to do it to be fair to all countries. Im just kidding 2054172. :)
I didn't include the french? Someone else must of? in regards to that slap do you want to duel?:smoke:
mangus2000
06 Aug 06, 07:52
We should have used Great Britain instead of England as well or even the Commonwealth if you want to get really picky.
I would have loved to have picked GB as the best Army of WWII but they could not reasonbly take the place of the German Army. They continued to hold out against tremendous odds on all sides and made an impact on modern warfare that no other army has.
Now if we were talking about best Arty of WWII the Brits would win hands down :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Now if we were talking about best Arty of WWII the Brits would win hands down :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
The Russians would win in that area also.:p :smoke:
mangus2000
06 Aug 06, 10:50
Which joker voted for the Italians:laugh: :laugh:
LOL! You cant be serious can you? No generals. Stuck in the mindset of fighting the last war. The Maginot Line. Tanks handed out in twos and threes to Infantry units. Tanks only had enough fuel alotted to them go like 15 miles. I could go on and on.
With all due respect to 2054172, he should be slapped for even including them in the poll. :laugh: Well not really, i know he had to do it to be fair to all countries. Im just kidding 2054172. :)You were right the first time - slap him!
And slap him one additional time each for Italy, Poland, China, New Zealand/Australia! You could probably do one for Canada as well, but I'll give him that one. :laugh:
Kerry, we really need a slap smiley! :cool:
freightshaker
06 Aug 06, 12:55
France never had the generalship which would not even make them a contender. An army is run from the top down.
Before the 1940 campaign France was regarded as the best army on the continent. While having a flawed conscription plan and poor political leadership she had superior armor and the beginnings of modern armored divisions.
Russia was fighting a opponent that was demoralized and poorly supplied. the only thing they had was man power. I would say if thing had been different and the allies decided to fight the USSR ,I do believe they could not of stood the test of time of bombing and the end of the lend least support from the allies.:smoke:
Russia's victory against Germany at Stalingrad in 42' and Kursk in 43' was not against a demoralized or unsupplied enemy but against Germany at her best. Russia mastered operational art from the Germans and, after 43', was well on it's way to developing a very good strategic doctrine. I don't think the Allies would be able to deal with the scope and size of fighting on the Russian front.
freightshaker
06 Aug 06, 13:05
LOL! You cant be serious can you? No generals.
I'll hate myself for saying this but DeGualle wasn't all that bad and even had the same concepts towards armor as Fuller and Guderian.
Stuck in the mindset of fighting the last war.
As was the rest of the world besides Germany and (believe it or not) Russia.
The Maginot Line.
Considering it forced the Germans to invade Benelux in order to reach France (which was the purpose of the fortifications) I would say the Maginot line was a success.
Tanks handed out in twos and threes to Infantry units. Tanks only had enough fuel alotted to them go like 15 miles. I could go on and on.
This is not including what was in the DCR's and DML's which were set up as armored division. Infantry tanks were parcelled out in the infantry divisions (just like in the British divisions). Poor doctrine is what kept the armor from being concentrated at the right place and time. The French just couldn't keep up with the operational tempo set by the Germans.
freightshaker
06 Aug 06, 13:08
It seems everyone is jumping on the Germany bandwagon. I've always been an admirer of the German military but, for being so good, they seem to have lost...:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=freightshaker]I'll hate myself for saying this but DeGualle wasn't all that bad and even had the same concepts towards armor as Fuller and Guderian.
Viva Quebec libre! That :mad: :freak: :curse: frog should of been taken out back and shoot. I don't believe we would have the issues with Quebec if it wasn't for that tit.:curse: :hurt: :censored: we should o0f given Quebec back to them. They think they have problems with north Africa? :nuts:
It's alittle of a soft spot.:o :smoke:
Mompariglia
06 Aug 06, 14:00
Which joker voted for the Italians:laugh: :laugh:
Don't look at me, I voted for Germany :ciao:
LOL. Canada?
They havent had the best of ANYTHING in centuries! ;)
It seems everyone is jumping on the Germany bandwagon. I've always been an admirer of the German military but, for being so good, they seem to have lost...:rolleyes:It's probably not fair to use the end result as a criteria. I won't get into too many what-ifs except to say I do not believe any country could have won if it had Hitler calling all the shots. Also the fact that a country smaller than texas took on 3 super powers and half of the rest of the world (slight exargeration) and still did remarkably well.
Don't look at me, I voted for Germany :ciao:
Don't see much from you lately. Are you up for a game?
:smoke:
freightshaker
06 Aug 06, 16:25
It's probably not fair to use the end result as a criteria. I won't get into too many what-ifs except to say I do not believe any country could have won if it had Hitler calling all the shots. Also the fact that a country smaller than texas took on 3 super powers and half of the rest of the world (slight exargeration) and still did remarkably well.
Without getting too far off-topic: Germany would never have won due to logistical and economic reasons. Her military was mighty but the country just couldn't support a prolonged war due to shortages of raw materials. Sea lion would never have succeeded due to logistics and lack of sea transport, Barbarossa was doomed to failure from the start because of the vast expanses of Russia, and without a navy the US would never have been invaded. Hitler's meddleing hindered all of the armed forces but his involvement also resulted in the conquest of France and the Low countries. For the most part he had a negative effect on operations but from mid 43' on it was just a matter of time before Germany collapsed.
Without getting too far off-topic: Germany would never have won due to logistical and economic reasons. Her military was mighty but the country just couldn't support a prolonged war due to shortages of raw materials. Sea lion would never have succeeded due to logistics and lack of sea transport, Barbarossa was doomed to failure from the start because of the vast expanses of Russia, and without a navy the US would never have been invaded. Hitler's meddleing hindered all of the armed forces but his involvement also resulted in the conquest of France and the Low countries. For the most part he had a negative effect on operations but from mid 43' on it was just a matter of time before Germany collapsed.
What is your oppion of the lend lease and support from the west. The Russians would never of pulled off the victory without the others assistance.;)
Without getting too far off-topic: Germany would never have won due to logistical and economic reasons. Her military was mighty but the country just couldn't support a prolonged war due to shortages of raw materials. I'm not saying they could or should have won. I'm saying no one would have if they had a mentally unbalanced amphetamine junkie like Hitler calling all the shots. The key to that is a prolonged war. Not all wars are prolonged. It could have ended earlier under the right circumstances.
Barbarossa was doomed to failure from the start because of the vast expanses of Russia,... Again we're speaking of a prolonged war. I watched an interesting episode of the history channel one night a few years ago, and a source very close to Stalin at the time claimed he was in a state of such despair, over the fact that nothing had come close to stopping the German army, that he would have thrown in the towel if Moscow fell. In fact, Moscow was virtually undefended and in a state of great panic when Hitler "wisely":rolleyes: halted the Moscow drive (at great protest from his generals) to encircle Kiev. They lost a full month in that effort and got stuck in horrendous mud when they resumed the drive. This same source claimed that a para drop in Moscow could have easily seized the city at that time considering it's chaotic state. That, or a straight non-stop push to Moscow (no Kiev) could have taken it. Such a what-if means the war in Russia very possible ends early.
Hitler's meddleing hindered all of the armed forces but his involvement also resulted in the conquest of France and the Low countries. That was Von Manstien's scheme (Ardennes). Halting before Dunkirk was Hitler's brainstorm. Taking of that port traps the 8th army inland and means they don't have to fight it a second time in Africa. It would also make Sea Lion more appealing. Declaring war on the US was also Hitler's brilliant move. Without that declaration does the US decalre it on Germany, or play a waiting game? Ton's of what-ifs...but it's fun to speculate sometimes. :)
freightshaker
06 Aug 06, 17:38
What is your oppion of the lend lease and support from the west. The Russians would never of pulled off the victory without the others assistance.;)
Lend lease added immense logistical support to the Russians but it was still their development of effective operational doctrine that turned the tide in their favor. NKVD had a steep learning curve to deal with but by 43' they had figured out how to use the forces they had at hand as evidenced at Kursk and Bagration a year later.
freightshaker
06 Aug 06, 17:48
Again we're speaking of a prolonged war. I watched an interesting episode of the history channel one night a few years ago, and a source very close to Stalin at the time claimed he was in a state of such despair, over the fact that nothing had come close to stopping the German army, that he would have thrown in the towel if Moscow fell. In fact, Moscow was virtually undefended and in a state of great panic when Hitler "wisely":rolleyes: halted the Moscow drive (at great protest from his generals) to encircle Kiev. They lost a full month in that effort and got stuck in horrendous mud when they resumed the drive. This same source claimed that a para drop in Moscow could have easily seized the city at that time considering it's chaotic state. That, or a straight non-stop push to Moscow (no Kiev) could have taken it. Such a what-if means the war in Russia very possible ends early.
This was an extensive thread on the other forum. If the Kiev forces hadn't been dealt with they would've posed a serious threat to the southern flank of any push towards Moscow. As for the airborne forces, after the Netherlands and Crete actions air transport was at a premium (even up into the siege of Stalingrad) and Germany's airborne forces were severely depleted after their losses at Crete.
That was Von Manstien's scheme (Ardennes).
Which Hitler pushed for even though most of his general staff advised against it.
Halting before Dunkirk was Hitler's brainstorm. Taking of that port traps the 8th army inland and means they don't have to fight it a second time in Africa. It would also make Sea Lion more appealing.
Even if the BEF is destroyed at Dunkirk there is very little sea transport inorder to cross the channel and no time to train forces for such. If England wasn't invaded before 41' it wasn't going to happen.
Declaring war on the US was also Hitler's brilliant move. Without that declaration does the US decalre it on Germany, or play a waiting game?
Agreed. Declaring war on the US and Operation Barbarossa are Hitler's biggest blunders.
Ton's of what-ifs...but it's fun to speculate sometimes. :)
Very true, such as in this and the other forum. :)
This was an extensive thread on the other forum. Sorry, I don't remember which one. :) :hmmm:
If the Kiev forces hadn't been dealt with they would've posed a serious threat to the southern flank of any push towards Moscow. Very possibly. But they weren't that highly mobile IIRC and they had been dealt with rather easily. The question is did that justify neglecting Moscow? With Moscow as a base for the coming winter they may not have lost such a large number to exposure. And it wouldn't have mattered if Stalin quit at that point.
Even if the BEF is destroyed at Dunkirk there is very little sea transport inorder to cross the channel and no time to train forces for such. If England wasn't invaded before 41' it wasn't going to happen. I doubt the success of Sea Lion as well. But with the BEF destroyed what would that have done to the Brit war effort?
Declaring war on the US and Operation Barbarossa are Hitler's biggest blunders. I still like to speculate that Barbarossa could have been successful. How many Russian divisions could they have recruited to fight Stalin if they hadn't let the evil organizations like the SS police loose on the population, which drove them to the partisan side. As it is they had one or two divs fighting for them. Agreed, a prolonged war was certainly not good for them. The speculative points are what could they have done to shorten it.
I chose Germany given the tactics they used and the equipment they developed.
Given better leadership and the industrial capacity of the US, we might all be speaking German now!:shock: :shock:
Put together as a package and the USA goes on to beat any of them over time.;)
freightshaker
06 Aug 06, 21:03
Sorry, I don't remember which one. :) :hmmm:
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27584&highlight=kiev
Very possibly. But they weren't that highly mobile IIRC and they had been dealt with rather easily. The question is did that justify neglecting Moscow? With Moscow as a base for the coming winter they may not have lost such a large number to exposure. And it wouldn't have mattered if Stalin quit at that point.
Considering what the Russians did to Moscow before Napoleon moved in I don't think the city would've been much help and actually could've resulted in a pre-Stalingrad considering the weather and the German policy of forming hedgehogs during the winter. I don't think Stalin would've quit if Moscow fell.
I doubt the success of Sea Lion as well. But with the BEF destroyed what would that have done to the Brit war effort?
I think the indirect effect of the destruction of the BEF would've been the removal of Churchill and that would've had a drastic effect on the war, if any at that point.
I still like to speculate that Barbarossa could have been successful. How many Russian divisions could they have recruited to fight Stalin if they hadn't let the evil organizations like the SS police loose on the population, which drove them to the partisan side. As it is they had one or two divs fighting for them. Agreed, a prolonged war was certainly not good for them. The speculative points are what could they have done to shorten it.
Yes, having the Ukrainians fighting for Germany would've made quite the difference.
Intersting link. I don't think I've seen that one before.
Considering what the Russians did to Moscow before Napoleon moved in I don't think the city would've been much help and actually could've resulted in a pre-Stalingrad considering the weather and the German policy of forming hedgehogs during the winter. Are you saying that Moscow wouldn't have been better than the sub-zero Steppes? I find that hard to believe. Probably anything would have been better then that.
I don't think Stalin would've quit if Moscow fell. I can only say what this reported close source claimed. He may have known better than our specualtions. But then, maybe not!
Many what-ifs that provide some interesting debate. :)
freightshaker
07 Aug 06, 00:46
Are you saying that Moscow wouldn't have been better than the sub-zero Steppes? I find that hard to believe. Probably anything would have been better then that.
No, but hulkering up in gutted and destroyed Moscow while Siberians run rampant thru the countyside would be inviting disaster.
No, but hulkering up in gutted and destroyed Moscow while Siberians run rampant thru the countyside would be inviting disaster.I read the first part of that link and there was some interesting independent analysis. It's easy to fall into the habit of using borg hindsight though. We know where every formation was and what condition it was in on both sides after the fact. But during that period knowledge was quite different. The Russians were reeling from staggering losses; the Guards were still east contending with the Japanese; the Germans were pocketing large formations too frequently; these formations may have been surrendering a little too easily seeing that the people in Western Russia had viewed the Germans as saviors from Stalin's terrorism, so perhaps that played a role - in spite of the Commisars sprinkled in; Stalin was in despair and considering surrender; the Russians had inexperienced officers; and there wasn't reliable intel to the German dispositions and strength, nor the mobility to quickly respond and counter-attack.
It's true Moscow could have been a graveyard with an encirclement, but considering Stalingrad I don't see it being worse and probably worth the risk. Calculated risk is what made them so successful, and caution at the wrong moments cost them dearly. Also Moscow was the hub of communications with virtually all major rail lines passing through or near. Seizing that area effectively cuts much of that rail network, and offers some shelter from the coming winter. Also, encircling the group inside Moscow with Germans guarding the flanks - instead of weak Italian and Romanian forces as with Stalingrad - may not have been that easy.
freightshaker
08 Aug 06, 00:08
True, hindsight is 20/20 but I'll still go back to my original statement that Germany never had a chance against Russia due to logistics and the sheer size of the country.
Doodlebug
08 Aug 06, 15:03
Quote:
Originally Posted by mangus2000
Now if we were talking about best Arty of WWII the Brits would win hands down
The Russians would win in that area also.:p :smoke:
Nah. You're flat wrong on that. The British had the best artillery setup out there. Not even the Americans could match the flexibility and definitely not the Russians. Don't forget it was the Germans themselves who said they'd never suffered artillery like it on the East Front after being bombarded in Normandy. It really is a shame that the artillery system is the bit of CM I like least and I think underpowered.
Nemesis Lead
08 Aug 06, 16:35
The Brits had the best artillery?
No offense, but that is way off target (pun intended).:laugh:
The Americans had the best artillery. There is no question about it. The Germans were terrified of American artillery. And not the number of shells. They were terrified of the American ability to put shells on target in a hurry.
The US were the first to pioneer Fire Direction Centers (FDCs), TOTs, and virtually all other WW2 innovations. The Americans also had more and better communications equipment than the British.
The Brits did invent the proximity fuse, but the Americans were the ones who successfully mass produced it.
The Brits were know more for centrally controlled barrages and had perfected WW I mass and rolling barrage techniques. The US had a more decentralized and flexible approach and pioneered the techniques that are still used today.
The Brits also over relied on the 25 pounder which was inferior to 105mm and 155mm artillery.
This is modeled in CM. US units have much shorter delays to bring artillery in.
Now the Brits many have had better armor than the Americans because they fielded the 17 pounder on some of their tanks and TDs. They also had lots of "special purpose" vehicles that the Americans (strangely) lacked.
mangus2000
08 Aug 06, 17:47
The Brits had the best artillery?
No offense, but that is way off target (pun intended).:laugh:
The Americans had the best artillery.
I can't back up why the Brits had the best Arty but I just know they did :cheeky:
Rule Brittania:salute:
Nemesis is right about the American fire control but I think Russians just on the shear numbers massed at one target. One could say " I can hit you with this here gun at a quater mile in 2 shots.":clap: or "one could say we can hit you with these here 1,000 guns at a quater mile, and we won't have to bury any part of you.":hurray: Still say Russians.:p :smoke:
Nemesis Lead
08 Aug 06, 18:09
I can't back up why the Brits had the best Arty but I just know they did :cheeky:
Rule Brittania:salute:
That is good enough for me!
All hail the wisdom of Mangus for he has spoken and, thus, it is true! :hail:
Behold!
mangus2000
08 Aug 06, 18:12
Nemesis is right about the American fire control but I think Russians just on the shear numbers massed at one target. One could say " I can hit you with this here gun at a quater mile in 2 shots.":clap: or "one could say we can hit you with these here 1,000 guns at a quater mile, and we won't have to bury any part of you.":hurray: Still say Russians.:p :smoke:
If it's just a case of numbers, then the Russian army must have been the best army in WWII and the PLA is now!
No file sent tonight Wayne, worried your Inf will be a bit soft now all your Tanks have gone:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
BRO Sapper
08 Aug 06, 22:44
I'd have to say that I favor the American Army for a variety of reasons, as long as you're talking about the quality in the field for comparably sized units, not the overall theoretical result of an all out war between one army or the other. The Americans had the best artillery, they and the british had mastered excellent coordination with air to ground and had pioneered a very flexible system that was devastating to their opponents in all theaters to include the pacific, they were the best at amphibious operations, their logistics systems were second to none in the ability to supply the troops. They might not have had the best tanks, but when you look at the big picture, the American Army was the most complete and capable, especially when you consider how capable they were in so many different theaters. Just the logistics alone would argue that.
Remember, amatuers talk tactics, pros talk logistics. Perhaps a bit overstated, but it does have some truth to the statement.
If it's just a case of numbers, then the Russian army must have been the best army in WWII and the PLA is now!
No file sent tonight Wayne, worried your Inf will be a bit soft now all your Tanks have gone:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Yah you maybe right , Let me know how you like the bear attack pics I sent you. :eek: :smoke:
freightshaker
09 Aug 06, 00:29
Yah you maybe right , Let me know how you like the bear attack pics I sent you. :eek: :smoke:
OT:
Are those the ones from the polar bear attack in Alaska? They've been circulating the web. Quite grusome.
OT:
Are those the ones from the polar bear attack in Alaska? They've been circulating the web. Quite grusome.
They were from Yukon ..... youyanks don't own it yet.;) :smoke:
Doodlebug
09 Aug 06, 15:55
The Brits had the best artillery?
No offense, but that is way off target (pun intended).:laugh:
The Americans had the best artillery. There is no question about it. The Germans were terrified of American artillery. And not the number of shells. They were terrified of the American ability to put shells on target in a hurry.
The US were the first to pioneer Fire Direction Centers (FDCs), TOTs, and virtually all other WW2 innovations. The Americans also had more and better communications equipment than the British.
The Brits did invent the proximity fuse, but the Americans were the ones who successfully mass produced it.
The Brits were know more for centrally controlled barrages and had perfected WW I mass and rolling barrage techniques. The US had a more decentralized and flexible approach and pioneered the techniques that are still used today.
The Brits also over relied on the 25 pounder which was inferior to 105mm and 155mm artillery.
This is modeled in CM. US units have much shorter delays to bring artillery in.
Now the Brits many have had better armor than the Americans because they fielded the 17 pounder on some of their tanks and TDs. They also had lots of "special purpose" vehicles that the Americans (strangely) lacked.
Rot. And you know it. The British setup was more flexible. A corps barrage could be called by a single FOO if needed within minutes. What the Americans lacked in flexibility they countered in supply chain efficiency. That's what CM doesn't allow. My lone British FOO calling in a corps strike ( or any number of batteries below that) in a few turns. As for the argument about two guns or 1000 firing for the Russians how long would it take them to get that many firing? If I can get 400 firing in minutes who needs 1000 firing long after.
Nemesis Lead
09 Aug 06, 16:52
Rot. And you know it. The British setup was more flexible. A corps barrage could be called by a single FOO if needed within minutes. What the Americans lacked in flexibility they countered in supply chain efficiency. That's what CM doesn't allow. My lone British FOO calling in a corps strike ( or any number of batteries below that) in a few turns. As for the argument about two guns or 1000 firing for the Russians how long would it take them to get that many firing? If I can get 400 firing in minutes who needs 1000 firing long after.
As you Brits would say......Bullox.
You need look no further than CM. US artillery is modelled as the best in CM because it was. Shortest delays, most shells, best ammunition. A Brit 25 pounder FO is simply inferior to an American 105mm FO in EVERY possible way.
You can criticize the US Army for many things, but its artillery is not one of them. It was the best with second best being far, far behind.
As you Brits would say......Bullox.
You need look no further than CM. US artillery is modelled as the best in CM because it was. Shortest delays, most shells, best ammunition. A Brit 25 pounder FO is simply inferior to an American 105mm FO in EVERY possible way.
You can criticize the US Army for many things, but its artillery is not one of them. It was the best with second best being far, far behind.
That's because the game was designed in The US.:p :smoke:
............most well designed things are:laugh: ;)
Doodlebug
10 Aug 06, 11:18
As you Brits would say......Bullox.
You need look no further than CM. US artillery is modelled as the best in CM because it was. Shortest delays, most shells, best ammunition. A Brit 25 pounder FO is simply inferior to an American 105mm FO in EVERY possible way.
You can criticize the US Army for many things, but its artillery is not one of them. It was the best with second best being far, far behind.
Ahh but I'm not criticizing and certainly not the US artillery. I happen to think they're just not as good. I'm more than happy to agree to disagree. Still think the artillery system is the feeblest part of the game.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.