My Army Essence Statement - The British and Commonwealth

Hello folks.

Relic like 'army essence' statements. This is mine for the Brits, a completely new take on the faction that banishes the Men in Trucks of vCoH. It's also sort of modelled on the real-life flavour of the late NW European campaign.

You might wonder: why the Canadian sniper? First, it's Relic (duh) but second this is one of the coolest dudes in WW2 and a direct inspiration:

Sgt. Harold Marshall of the Calgary Highlanders.



Here we go, your thoughts are welcome...

The Commonwealth forces are advancing rapidly across Northwest Europe, adapting doctrine on-the-fly after the breakout from Caen. Gen. Montgomery has issued new doctrinal guidelines giving commanders more discretion and freedom to adapt to circumstances, unleashing his commanders to race east. Their objective: the all-important Rhine Crossings to deny the Germans the industrial heartlands of the Ruhr.

Prior to the breakout the British were hampered by outmoded tactics and the legacy of desert warfare, but now they are catching up fast by adopting Blitzkrieg-style mechanised infantry and armour tactics. The CW forces portray the British and Canadian armies from the period September 1944 to April 1945.

Considerations

• The post-Normandy British put a premium on speed with infantry / armour coordination but still faltered when faced with stubborn German resistance in Arnhem. This was partially due to overly audacious airborne strategy married with logistics problems.

• Formations were comprised of a mixture of veterans and new recruits, from Canada, the conquered European nations and men of ancient British army regiments. The British had also invested heavily in airborne and special operations formations. Elite new units like the Reconnaissance Corps Humber and SAS jeep are hardy light armoured troops. British infantry sections morph into support teams in the field after Command Vehicle upgrades are activated. The base section is modular, able to specialise in infantry, indirect fire or light AT support (Bren / PIAT / 2 inch mortar). Non-specialised rifle teams remain a potent and necessary part of the army though, as support teams can neutralise, but not capture, enemy points.

British infantry are not configured in an AT role, relying on towed, vulnerable AT guns and armour.

• Most armour is medium, cruiser-class models such as Cromwell, augmented by Achilles tank destroyers. Call-in access to Sherman Firefly and the mighty Comet, with its 77mm High Velocity gun is available for mission-specific tasks.

• British doctrine works on the synergy between armour and infantry – a correct matrix of combined arms provides passive bonuses to units working in harmony with one infantry unit ‘twinned’ with a mobile unit. Without this combined arm synergy the Commonwealth can suffer from a too-long ‘logistics tail’ with concomitant penalties to resource income.

• This was an army created to strike deep into territory assaulted by airborne forces and using manoeuvre tactics to exploit advantage. The British are able to convert unconnected points into denial zones by sacrificing resources.

• Air support was plentiful. As a result, British doctrine relies heavily on airborne reconnaissance, air drops and intelligence to make up for the occasional lack of immediate logistical support. British operations can be hampered by strong enemy AA capability.

Army Features

Point denial – spend resources to knock out, but not capture, enemy points. This specialist role is performed by Recce Corps specialists in light Humber ACs, Canadian snipers and SAS jeep squadrons.

Joint Doctrine Synergy – Twin an infantry unit to a vehicle to increase its potency within a small radius. When one of the units is destroyed, the other is penalised until re-twinning with another.

Airborne Operations – Command the mighty British 1st AB Division and the Polish parachute brigade, calling in airborne logistics and elite troops.
Mechanised Infantry – Deploy half-tracks and light multi-role vehicles to support infantry and conduct Blitzkrieg-style strikes deep into enemy territory and screen for your tank-destroying units.

Infantry specialisation – British infantry can convert into support teams in the field, choosing to concentrate on crew-served weapons or rifle sections. Support sections can put boots on the ground and de-cap points but not re-cap them.

I didnt get the half of it

Awesome post I was thinking about this the other day and I'm glad someone really put some thought into this, Nice one.

Nice post! This way the british would finally become a faction that's fun to play against/with!

brits Rule Britannia! brits

Thanks A_E. Dasheepeh, the tl;dr is this:

1. With some exceptions, you only build one non-doctrinal core infantry unit (rifle section) which then gets the ability to equip itself with support weapons.

Pro - flexibility
Con - Can't cap points

The vanilla rifle section can cap, but if you convert it into a Bren or Vickers LMG / HMG team then it cannot. A tradeoff.

2. To capture the feel of armoured infantry doctrine you can choose to twin a non-vehicle unit with any vehicle unit.

Pro - bonus to speed / accuracy
Con - the units stay close and if one is destroyed the other unit takes penalties until re-twinned (promotes micro / unit preservation)

3. Territory Denial - to get the vibe of special operations / airborne (a la Market Garden and the airborne Rhine Crossings) as well as the fact that the British would often advance faster than they could supply, the Brits can use elite troops to try to deny enemy resources. This involves three units - Humber ACs, SAS jeeps and snipers (the Humber is a 222 analogue, the SAS jeep a Kubel style fast scout) which can go to an area, cap it then with a resource spend deny it to the enemy for a period.

Pro - enemy denial

Con - the Brits can suffer OKW style logistics issues as they advance beyond their supply train

Airborne ops - The Brits can drop infantry and supplies

Pro - they can 'buy' air-dropped resources like the Luftwaffe Doctrine

Cons - planes can get shot down.

Thanks A_E. Dasheepeh, the tl;dr is this:

1. With some exceptions, you only build one non-doctrinal core infantry unit (rifle section) which then gets the ability to equip itself with support weapons.

Pro - flexibility
Con - Can't cap points

The vanilla rifle section can cap, but if you convert it into a Bren or Vickers LMG / HMG team then it cannot. A tradeoff.

2. To capture the feel of armoured infantry doctrine you can choose to twin a non-vehicle unit with any vehicle unit.

Pro - bonus to speed / accuracy
Con - the units stay close and if one is destroyed the other unit takes penalties until re-twinned (promotes micro / unit preservation)

3. Territory Denial - to get the vibe of special operations / airborne (a la Market Garden and the airborne Rhine Crossings) as well as the fact that the British would often advance faster than they could supply, the Brits can use elite troops to try to deny enemy resources. This involves three units - Humber ACs, SAS jeeps and snipers (the Humber is a 222 analogue, the SAS jeep a Kubel style fast scout) which can go to an area, cap it then with a resource spend deny it to the enemy for a period.

Pro - enemy denial

Con - the Brits can suffer OKW style logistics issues as they advance beyond their supply train

Airborne ops - The Brits can drop infantry and supplies

Pro - they can 'buy' air-dropped resources like the Luftwaffe Doctrine

Cons - planes can get shot down.

thanks

I like your thoughts, and moving away from the damn trucks, YEY. Although:

I would like to see a Commonwealth army that fought in the deserts of north Africa and Italy (being British myself). We are a stubborn bunch, we don't give up easily on anything (hence the nick name desert rats). Therefore the initial idea is to make us very defensive... No thanks relic, we were far from it and it was just Normandy and Caen in particular where this happened. The British has a far reaching empire to maintain, with a highly elite but fairly small professional army, extremely reliant on the huge power projection offered by the royal navy.

That being said, I dont want to turn us into the defensive army we saw in CoH1 (based on how we fought normandy+, no far from it. We were a very effective small and mobile force for most of the war, where at one point around 30,000 men defeated around 200,000 Italians. Now you can blame the Italians for this all you like but its not their fault, we are just too damn professional and hard working for our own damn good, we knew where to strike and when.

All biased aside I really hope they think a bit more about the variety of the Commonwealth when they release them. We had forces from all over the world fighting with us from the Englishman, Scots, Welsh and Irish all the way to Canadians, Australians, Indians and even free French, Polish and Norwegian forces helping out massively. A heavy emphasis should be on this variety and possibly also on the mobility given by the likes of the Royal Navy.

Think of the massive deception plans invented by the Brits (invasion of Corsica) (invasion of Calais), which diverted that huge Axis force into areas, leaving our actual objectives open for the taking!. Also lets Think about those Commando raids across Europe of many different designs from Norway Island raids to French ports, defying our enemies vital strategic resources and maintaining a constant distraction.

In CoH2 lets have a small army that really struggles to fight the masses we see with Germans, Russians, Italians and US but can still strategically be a pain in the A***, winning through ingenuity. Lets have the variety of nations fight for us giving us our Core combat units (call in a rifleman section and you don't know whether they are going to be Scots, Canadians, Aussies, Indians etc, it doesn't matter! who cares they all function the same, make do with what you've got and what you can get your hands on!). Lets have tanks that cannot match the German tanks, but don't need to! because they rely on diversionary tactics where necessary, and have the punch to deliver at just the right time. Lets have elite special forces such as SAS or SOE paratroopers and free fighting forces from Europe to do all our dirty work, and break down our opponents! Lets have commanders that offer a real range of capabilities fitting with British ingenuity and stubbornness (Strategic deception doctrine, Royal marine commando doctrine, Set europe ablaze doctrine, etc . Above all let the commonwealth suffer with that annoying British attitude that everybody hates, that spirit to survive no matter what. Just like the desert Rats.

Lets just make sure we don't have simcity + blob tactics this time... please.

Trucks are bad MKAY?

Yeah, I would prefer a base of operations like the other factions this time. The British love a good encampment

I love the idea of randomised CW infantry teams, you might end up with Highlanders or the Welsh Guards.

I don't know how much military history you're into, but if you read up on Monte Cassino and the Italian campaign you'll see Alexander's army was one of the most polyglot in history. Free French with the foreign legion and North African levies (camels!), Brits, Aussies, Kiwis, Brazilians (seriously), Americans and of course the Poles who led the final assault on Cassino.

A whole North Africa into Italy campaign would be brilliant, from the Afrika Korps to the Green Devils in Cassino and the bitter fighting on the Gothic Line, Screaming Eagles at Anzio, the Royal Marines fighting in Commachio...

I love the idea of randomised CW infantry teams, you might end up with Highlanders or the Welsh Guards.

I don't know how much military history you're into, but if you read up on Monte Cassino and the Italian campaign you'll see Alexander's army was one of the most polyglot in history. Free French with the foreign legion and North African levies (camels!), Brits, Aussies, Kiwis, Brazilians (seriously), Americans and of course the Poles who led the final assault on Cassino.

A whole North Africa into Italy campaign would be brilliant, from the Afrika Korps to the Green Devils in Cassino and the bitter fighting on the Gothic Line, Screaming Eagles at Anzio, the Royal Marines fighting in Commachio...

YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! Certainly the randomized infantry teams, no question on that! They can function the same, or different, I dont know much about balancing that or care, it isnt important but I want the different skins and accents at the very least! That feeling of true variety.

I know a fair bit and you are totally right. I must admit I was thinking much more about the whole desert back and fourth saga from the 40's to 42 ish. I said Italy as sort of something to finish it off, another stage in a long war I suppose.

Lets remember the desert, no actually the whole war in the Med. It starts with the infantry battles Italy vs UK turning into Italy vs Commonwealth and eventually Axis vs Commonwealth or Axis vs Allies when both the Germans and US come in to bail each side out. A very progressive set of battles which a lot of emphasis on Supply and logistics, both across the sea and by land. The war here also extends to Greece at once point, and Crete, and to some extent Malta too. All of this was fought by British forces which in the end relied so heavily upon the other nations of the commonwealth to come to their aid, no matter how hard they put up a fight.

Lots to think about but I just really want them to stay away from what they did to the British in vCoH with the whole Caen conundrum. Any army in that situation would have resorted to defensive based offence tactics because of the situation. It helped to create the Falaise pocket which was really a strategic master mind. And whilst we are on vCoH we all know that the Brits are seen as the blob/ spam faction, which was not intentional i believe.

Market Garden

Nicely written. It seems to really fit the same style as the other essence statements for the new factions.

SAS Jeep, used behind enemy lines for recce, intelligence and general spreading of havoc...

http://weaponsandwarfare.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/1270821975093_sas_francais_en_saone_et_loire_septembre_1944.jpg

And the Humber armoured car, used by the WW2 Recce Corps and Phantom teams...

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.

A fair point, but a generalisation too.

Patton was noted for his audacity. The notoriously cautious Montgomery sacrificed a division at Arnhem.

The British advanced across Europe at break-neck speed in 1944 / 45. Their logistics tail could barely keep up.

The vCoH Brits, lumbering and static, do not capture the essence of the post-Normandy army.

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.

In the tactical defense (lower level, down to corps/divisions), the Soviets and the Germans were actually the static ones, while the USA/British were highly mobile.

CoH is a company-level game.

This game is not a simulation or anything close to it, but the spirit of the times could be captured I feel.

The vCoH Brits, lumbering and static, do not capture the essence of the post-Normandy army.

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.