Profile of Imperial Dane

Who says they are tougher ? What is said is that infantry can't just rush out in the open and take on a tank. Rather how it ought to be. Mobbinb/blobbing should never be something you can just do. And you could just do it against a tank.

Ultimately. We still don't have the full picture on tanks, their LoS, and their armour, do they have more than front and rear this time around ?

Perhaps. But i still don't like Beevor . And there is Armageddon which does deal in the Eastern front.

Well i probably have a slight different approach from all of my historical reading

From there i generally see 3 levels mentioned. The Strategic, the Operation and the tactical levels.

The Strategy is the overall plan. What to do and how to do it. IE, beat player X through a large assault through the left side of the map with a highly mobile force.

The Tactical level is how you handle each battle, how you attack, how you use the forces the best, defence and so on. Say a smoke screen before charging in, or having an artillery strike ready for when your tanks roll in to neutralize AT positions.

The Operational level is how you connect the two. Getting the right resources, but also connecting all the battles to the overall strategy. So that you do your best to invest more resources in west battles and to hold the territory there gain and so on. And not say, go willy nilly all over the map Granted not really something you see much of in CoH or most RTS games. Although technically one could argue that most RTS games are in a sense more operational level games...

If you wanted Which i don't atm. A bit late here. But thought i might as well mention it.

Too bad Aimstrong is the one that actually looks like a Terminator

Well if you think Hastings is "racy" then i don't know what to call Beevor. Sure hastings makes effort to point it out. But Beevor seems to delight in it and then claim some sort of moral superiority.