My Army Essence Statement - The British and Commonwealth

Good point, and another reason why Relic should put right the wrong they've inflicted on my country!

The thing that grates about the Brits for me is (a) they ain't fun to play but (b) they are so easily abused.

My Brits owe more to the Panzer Elite than the OF iteration. Imagine a slightly tougher PE in terms of units but more fragile with map control and economy and that's where I'm at.

Good point, and another reason why Relic should put right the wrong they've inflicted on my country!

The thing that grates about the Brits for me is (a) they ain't fun to play but (b) they are so easily abused.

My Brits owe more to the Panzer Elite than the OF iteration. Imagine a slightly tougher PE in terms of units but more fragile with map control and economy and that's where I'm at.

You're talking exactly as I feel. I want to re-iterate that vCOH captures a tiny fragment of how the British fought 1) being based on the defensive strategy used around Caen/ Normandy and 2) based on a few particular companies/ regiments at the time.

What I want from CoH2 is a better representation of everything we saw from the Commonwealth forces from 1939 up until 1945. This was an army that fought in every theater of the world, and at times was stood very much alone, in relatively small numbers.

Overall, I don't find any the US or British generals audacious in the strategic or operational offensive by a long shot (I have studied both west and east fronts), at least by Soviet and German standards. Soviets and Germans/Axis routinely risked entire armies and army groups.

Is this not also partly to do with the fact that the German - Soviet war was between millions and millions of soldiers yet almost all of the engagements between Allied and Axis forces were relatively much smaller...

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.

You're talking exactly as I feel. I want to re-iterate that vCOH captures a tiny fragment of how the British fought 1) being based on the defensive strategy used around Caen/ Normandy and 2) based on a few particular companies/ regiments at the time.

What I want from CoH2 is a better representation of everything we saw from the Commonwealth forces from 1939 up until 1945. This was an army that fought in every theater of the world, and at times was stood very much alone, in relatively small numbers.

I think we have to bear in mind that, however well-intentioned, the Commonwealth in the OF expansion, were intended to turtle. It is on a broadcast, which off the top of my head, I cannot sadly provide a link. And that,combined with those dreadful movement mechanics, have soured the Commonwealth faction for potentially a gaming generation, unless Relic makes amends, which they should, since Canadians were also wilfully portrayed.

The British iteration of the Jackson TD was the Achilles. Note the 'Mickey Mouse Ear' bubble black and green camo pattern common to British vehicles.




This company makes loads of cool WW2 minis for wargaming, check out their new Pioneer halftrack for the Germans.

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.

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).

That is why the commonwealth should in my opinion be one faction, so as not to forget about our brothers who fought so gallantly as well.

We talked before about possibly having a commander for each nation and maybe also the free french/ poles etc. But this could be complicated to balance, and cause many issues such as similar units.

Personally I think they should make use of randomized infantry sections that function the same but could come out as anything from Englishmen to Scottish highlanders or even Canadian, Aussies or Indians etc. This would fit with the whole ideology of the British having to make do with what was available at the time.

Not sure how else they could represent all the nations that fought, without inevitably forgetting others. To be fair as well, think about it from the leadership point of view, Alexander at Monte Casino for example had a real mixed bag of units and nationalities to deal with, but that didn't stop him (as mentioned by BeltFedWombat)

Ill pass on brits. Been there done that. Not going down that road again

Nice write-up, sounds like an excellent conceptual framework for a faction.

Not necessarily.

The Red Army performed a strategic offensive about twice a month in WW2. There are so many that they are difficult to keep track of. These were often not millions of men- often just with Armies or a Front.

Soviet armies ranged from large to small (9 to 4 divisions) Many Soviet Fronts weren't that large either with only 4 armies. (11-4 armies)

Is this not also partly to do with the fact that the German - Soviet war was between millions and millions of soldiers yet almost all of the engagements between Allied and Axis forces were relatively much smaller...

The Wehrmacht way of war emphasized short and lively wars (the German General Staff inherited this from the Prussians). This was based on maneuver and attacking the enemy as rapidly as possible while they were still unbalanced. This would occur with scant regard to long range strategic planning and long term thinking. German armies on the offensive were to move as fast as possible with scant regard to logistics. This is why so many of their offensives resembled death rides and so many of their campaigns ended in disasters.

The Red Army possessed the 'cult of the offensive' even more but were as strategically focused as the allies. On the eastern front, it was the Soviets that were usually attacking. Stavka, like the OKW, generally gave 'stretch goals' during 1941-1942. It was only after the fumble in early 1943' where they moderated their ambitions.

The NKVD and other draconian security organs ensured that when Red Army Generals and Marshalls attacked, that the Armies would be obey and take their objectives with a 'whatever it takes' attitude. This extended to the quality of their assault armies, which was problematic until winter 1942.

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.

The Western Allied Armies were exceptionally mobile in the tactical sense (as in skirmishes and so forth) but also exceptionally weighted down by logistics, base building, and firepower oriented doctrine. They had a great many vehicles due to full mechanization but all this equipment required a dramatically larger supply chain and maintenance efforts.

This meant that they took a long time to accumulate materials before larger mobile operations. Meanwhile, the enemy could lick their wounds and reorganize. The advantage of being strategic, slow and steady is that the allies usually fought only battles they could win or get away with not succeeding.

The Wehr and Red Army were in comparison, light weight and fast moving in their strategic offensives. Both armies moved their forces with a supply chain that would be starvation level by US or British standards.

These are great ideas Wombat, doing the Brits proud!

There are so many awesome possibilities if Relic were to add the British into Company of Heroes 2, not just with units and doctrines but with skins, voice acting and the overall feel of the army.

There could be an SAS commander that allowed you to call in an SAS Jeep loaded with commandos with all sorts of abilities armed with Stens. Or there be an RAF/Airborne Doctrine that allowed for Typhoon runs, Supply drops (With a chance of Red Berets of course) and so much more.

Relic have to capture the essence of the British army during 1944-45 which I believe was an effective, mobile yet cautious beast capable of beating back anything that was thrown at them through the use of various elements within the company.

What would really be interesting is if Relic actually did the African Theatre of war, then we would have a truly unique faction when talking about the British. Crusader tanks speeding through the desert flanking Panzer III's, Infantry rushing through barbed wire assaulting fortifications and tanks. The Afrika Korps as I see it would be a faction that was flexible and tough, but also vulnerable in terms of supply. I'm just rambling on now but there truly are so many possibilities with not just the British, but with every other faction.