Profile of AvNY

Actually it would. It has become ridiculous in the US and the PC Police are out in droves. Its gotten to the point where people go after books, blog posts, tv shows....they would go after a game in a heart beat if they knew about it. Sadly people lack the education and the discipline to understand history these days nor do people understand context.

Side note: it would be cool if they made the American Army more diverse in the same terms as the British, Russians, Germans. The Germans have Ostruppen that represent their Eastern Allies why couldn't the Americans have a 442nd Combat Team call in?

Heck, not just the 442nd (a unit made up of all Japanese American soldiers and immortalized in the movie "Go For Broke"). Why not model the voices after the Paragon Plattoon (Paragon Pictures) with Brooklyn, Midwest, Texan, Southern, etc. accents?

When politicial correctness reaches a Ww2 game. In reality Blacks were heavily discriminated in the American society and army. (Some exclusions like the Red tails but even that screams for racism because puttIng a unit together just on Skin color?)
Are osttruppen properly Modelled with east/slavic faces?

What you are seeing is the product of segregation, a subset of discrimination. In that sense units like the Tuskeegee airmen is part of the same, not an exception.

African Americans were drafted like everyone else, and many enlisted, like everyone else. But they filled more than their share of the support personnel like transportation and grave digging. But some combat units were formed like the 333rd Field Artillery Battalion that served with the 101st at Bastogne, the 332nd Fighter Group (the Red Tails), and the 78th, 758th and 761st Tank Battalions.

The combat units I think shared an interesting history. They were often put together for political reasons ("we have to have some black units to help keep the black population patriotic and pro-war effort, etc. etc.") but held out of combat longer than white units because there were suspicions of their ability to fight. But they often consisted of a higher caliber, on average, of men than the regulear white combat units. These combat units were rarer, and white soldiers could volunteer for the Airborne, Rangers, Mountain, etc. And the units were often held back from combat until well after they were formed they had years of training. When combat losses made the need for trained and equipped units a priority and they were finally sent into combat they performed very well.

Avny, the Arracourt engagement is certainly not a suitable benchmark to measure reinforcement strategies. You might want to read up on the two Panzerbrigaden in question. In fact, I don't think Arracourt illustrates much of anything, apart from the fact that formations that can barely operate their vehicles individually, let alone fight as a unit are not up to the task of mounting an impromptu attack in limited visibility.

Seriously, if you want to read up on US vs German reinforcement policies etc, I'd recommend you take a look at van Crevelds oldie but goldie "Fighting power". Not that I exactly agree with all his conclusions mind you, but its a good introduction.

I was responding to training.... Arracourt illustrates that it isn't about the kit, but about the crews.

Though on other forums I always liked the "apologists" for German performance in that battle ("well the US had CAS", "the germans were in disarray and not well supplied".) War is not meant to be fair. Much allied effort and materiele went into ensuring that if combat engagements happened they would as unfair in their favor as possible.

Avny, I've had conversations with a few people of that persuasion before (really just a handful). When you tell them you're a historian this usually brings out a veritable deluge of talking points to challenge the supposed mainstream narrative on the matter (and you as their agent or representative of sorts), and then you better bring alot of time, if you actually feel like engaging in that sort of exchange.
Now in my experience, for some its an idée fixe really and as such borders on the psychopathological, and there is very little one can actually do discoursively, as they will just fundamentally distrust the alleged comprehensive propaganda apparatus/scholarship on the matter. Mind you, there is not even primarily necessarily a conscious effort or anything of the sort at play, ie. an underlying desire to marginalise the extent of the Shoah or cast the Nazis in a more favourable light (even though it usually is), at least in one case it was definetly a honestly held conviction that the historical profession at large including yours truly is being duped by a gigantic falsification set in motion to smear the reputation of the German people and thereby keep them in subservience in perpetuity.
The "common sense" approach, occams razor etc., ie. my pointing out that there were dozens of archival meters documenting the KL/VL infrastructure, deportations and murders etc, that I had actually seen them and worked with them, and that it appears implausible for all of them to be falsified simply falls on deaf ears, as this has become an article of faith. Even the really obvious empirical indicators, such as a large part of the Jewish demographics being, well, gone after the war, is quite simply dismissed.

With actual antisemites of the more rabid kind/Nazis, Holocaust denial of course appears fairly amusing if not schizophrenic. After all, why would an individual of that persuasion not embrace such a course of action? An optimist might think that at least at a subconscious level, the enormity of the matter is somehow understood regardless.

Anyways, the point of my suada, you cannot, and will not convince some people as they lack the state of mind to engage in rational discourse in the first place, and this cannot and should not be the task of historiography anyways. I sure as hell would not even try unless I liked the individual in question.

You are right in everything you say with one caveat.... I still think it is important to take the time to counter the arguments. Not because you will change their mind. You won't. But because of the unseen and unheard from audience that might be reading the exchange.

Different sources give nubers from 274cm to 3m, so it varies from 10 to 30 cm giving about 10% more height. Also p4 is shaped prism-like while sherman is shaped more cube-like and thus much easier to spot and hit. Mind that for example t-34 was onlt 245cm heigh while stug less than 2 meters in smallest versions.

I recall that one of the differences is aspect ratio. The Sherman is narrower, particularly in relation to its height, than the German tanks. So it LOOKS higher than it is.