Profile of Burts

It was said by an Italian correspondant named Indro Montanelli that the Polish charged German Panzers using Lancers and horses. German commanders who were present at the battle also confirmed cavalry charges by the Polish.



I did look at the numbers and my research tells me the British Army was 860 thousand to 900 thousand strong in 39 compared to the Polish who had 940 thousand approximately. Did Poland have numerical superiority? Sure(Not by much though) but the Invasion of Poland proved that their tactics, equipment and troops were of low quality. This is supported by the fact that casualties for the polish during the Battle of Poland was 900 thousand(Lol!), compared to the British who lost around 300 thousand in total(Including civilians). This is early on in the war mind you, once the British Empire was operating at full capability, the amount of troops, weapons, ships and etc were increased tenfold.

As for modern weapons, do I need to remind you of the Lee Enfield and the 17 Pounder? The Lee Enfield was modern because it was still the best infantry rifle in WW2; the Enfield was the weapon of choice for Colonial troops in the Boer Wars, conflicts in the Middle East and WW1 and WW2; it was tried and true.

The 17 Pounder was also the only AT gun that could take on Germany's heaviest tanks; what did Poland make that rivaled the 17 Pounder? Nothing.






You can't win every battle. None the less, the British Army were constantly winning battles in 1941 and after, and often against enemies who had numerical superiority. Let's not forget though that the British Empire's bread and butter was the Royal Navy; it's the main weapon that established battlefield superiority, but the British Army weren't incompetent idiots and ill-equipped. Quite the contrary actually since they also had an extremely good Army on top of the World's greatest Naval force.




Again, you can't win every battle. The British Empire was decisively winning from 1941 and onward.



Poland had more troops than the British Empire during 1939, so where do you get "smaller Poland" from? Doesn't change the fact that the British Empire defeated Germany while Poland lost to them.


The British were fighting on all fronts from an economical and military perspective. They were busy fighting the Germans militarily in Eastern Europe, while financially supporting and militarily supporting the Mediterranean countries; let's not forget about Japanese aggression and movements in the Pacific and SEA, AND the Middle East on top of all that.

Well, i dont know, but i think India , Canada, British isles, Canada and a bunch of more islands is bigger in total territory than Poland. British fightning in eastern europe? What?
Maybe the fact that the army of britain was so small just proves the fact that they were not ready for war?

Oh, so apparently now we believe in correspondants, not actual historians, okay.

The fact that british casaulties are so low just prove that they didin't participate in much in the war.

Your post makes no sense whatsoever. Why are we talking about the 17 pounder? This is a late war thing, not an early war thing.


How in the world was the lee enfield superior? Sure it had 10 rounds over 5, yeah, big deal.

Really? You honestly think that the British Empire would've been defeated in 2 weeks if it wasn't for the English Channel? The British Army is possibly the oldest Army in the World along with the Royal Navy; the British Army might not be the best and have numerical superiority, but they were and still are one of the best armies in the World; if Germany got past the Royal Navy, they then would've had to go up against the British Army(soldiers from Canada, Australia, UK, India, New Zealand and etc). Unlike Polish soldiers, British troops were extremely well trained, equipped with the most modern weapons and had competent officers and Generals leading them.

Anyways, i'm not going to go into much detail about your cherrypicking(Claiming the Japanese had a better Army than the British Empire) but most of what you say is utterly wrong. Keep in mind, the British Empire was fighting on all fronts and for a while, they were literally the only country who stood up against the Germans while everyone fled and surrendered.


There's no doubt in my mind that without the British Empire(The UK, India, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and etc), Germany would've won WW2. As in practically every other war the British fought, they were one of if not the most important actor on the stage, and almost always emerged decisively victorious. It's why the British deserve to be a faction instead of being a support bitch; leave the support to countries who got wrecked like Romania, Poland and etc.

Also, go look up the British Army on Wikipedia or go to the British Army website and learn about their Army; they were one of the finest in the World and along with the Royal Navy supporting them, they were a force to be reckoned with. I can't say the same about Poland, unless you're telling me the Polish Navy was better than the Royal Navy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army

https://www.army.mod.uk/

Anyways, I don't see why people are upset regarding my comment about Polish cavalry charges. Several historians agree that the Polish tried to flank a German Panzer division using horses and cavalry sabres, and it makes sense since Poland used outdated tactics and weapons. Poland never was a superpower or even a regional power, so them resorting to desperate cavalry charges makes sense to me.

Which historians are you reffering to that said that Poland charged cavarly with tanks? I'd suggest you look at the numbers of the british army in 1941-1942 and how well they actually performed. What are these so "modern weapons" you speak of?


I'm interested in why exactly the british troops were well trained, had capable officers and extremelly well equipped yet still got horribly defeated in France, Japan and almost lost Africa.


Somehow the british empire consisting of india, canada and the british isles losing a bunch of battles againts germany, japan and what not makes them very well trained and experienced.

Yet a much smaller Poland fightning againts the biggest 2 armies in the world (soviet union, germany) is told to be "weak in tactics and experience" while still holding on for a month.

Fightning on all fronts? What fronts? They were fightning on one front. Africa, againts italians.

Months later germany declared war on the soviet union and after another few months the japanese attacked USA and UK.

The Polish Army in WW2 was horribly equipped(Relied on outdated weapons and equipment), had incompetent Generals and their tactics were horrible(Charging German steel with horses is one example); they're a prime candidate to be put into a German or US doctrine.

Like really, are you actually arguing that the Polish were instrumental in Germany's defeat in WW2, and not the British Empire? If what you say is true, then Poland, and no the UK would be on the UN Permanent Security Council.

If there was no water between the british isles and mainland europe, england would be gone in 2 weeks, if not faster. The british land army was not much in a better state than 1941 and 1942 than the polish or french forces. Remember, they were getting their asses kicked by the japanese in 1941-42 and even the soviets in 1939 were able to defeat the japanese in Khalkin Ghol, even though the state of the soviet army in 1939-41 was also completely backwards. While USA didin't really have an army in 1941-42.
The german land forces outclassed absolutely everyone in 1941-1942, while the soviet army was better on paper, it turned out to be a completely mess in 1941-1942. Of course even the wehrmacht was not perfect, since Barbarossa ultimately failed horribly at Moscow.
The soviet union was instrumental to the defeat of the germans. Its a very well proven fact. Whether they could of won alone is another question. Some historians such as Glantz believe that the soviets could of won alone.


Also, the polish charging tanks with cavalry is complete and utter bullshit. That said, horses were incredibly instrumental for the war. For example, the wehrmacht and the red army used horses as its primary mean of transport.

If you want to "win" as USF then this is how you do it.


Veto minsk, kharkov at all costs. Then veto either crossing or langres.

Pick airborne 100% of the time. No strategic decisions there. No thinking at all. Just do it. And do it fast if you dont want to lose.

Do this build order every. single. game. No matter what map or even if you are playing ostheer. This is the best build order and it works no matter what.


3 rifles > m20 > fuel cache (optional) > airborne > M4A3 sherman.

In the early game, blob hard and blob fast. When you win the engagement, cap.

Getting the m20 at around the 4:30- 5:00 mark is absolutely nessecarry for any USF player. If you see mechanized regiment HQ, plant the m20 mines quickly and plant more than one.

As soon as you hit 3CP immeadiatelly purchase a paratrooper squad. You will pretty much always want to do this. If you find yourself floating a bunch of MP before the 3CP mark consider a fuel cache. Now you want to get the sherman ASAP. No matter what, the sherman is always the right choice. Even though some people will say the M8A1 is OP for some strange reason, in 1V1 the sherman is ALMOST ALWAYS THE BETTER CHOICE. Your sherman should come out at 10-11 minutes. If it doesn't you fucked something up, and you should not fuck things up when playing USF vs OKW. Once the sherman comes out, DO everything to push the OKW player off the map. You give zero fucks about mines because if you do run over a mine, hop out and repair the tank in 1 second. Squish the volksgrenadiers, wipe them, and know no fear because he will have no panther until 17-18 minutes. Wipe squads left and right. The 10-15 minute mark is the time you WIN vs OKW. If something happens to your sherman and you lose it somehow to volk shrecks or a puma, THAT is very bad. This should never happen.

After you get your sherman, this is where you need to make some decisions. You definately want to get an ambulance. And you definately will need BARs, however only buy them if you are floating alot of munitions. If you aren't save for P-47 which is very important.

Alternitavely, you can get more than 1 paratrooper squad and get 2-3 and blob them with LMGs or just use thompsons. Consider air dropping the AT gun sometimes.

Look at your fuel income and fuel reserves at around the 16:30 mark if you haven't won yet.

Do you have fuel for both a sherman and a jackson? Buy 1 more sherman and a jackson.
Do you not have fuel for both a sherman and a jackson? Buy the jackson, you will need it againts the panther.

And generally from this point just do whatever you can. M4A3 shermans + jacksons + p-47s + paratroopers + BAR rifles is your late game mix. Micro these units effectivelly and you can win.


Also, no matter what the balance experts will say, i prefer thompson paratroopers over LMG paras. Keep in mind that their tactical assault is very useful, just don't use it for tactical assaults. Use the ability for chasing down retreating squads that retreat through your paratroopers, and stand still.

If you are playing againts ostheer, consider yourself lucky. Its much easier to beat ostheer , and this strat also works great vs ostheer.

coh 2 isint banned in russia. Infact russians make up a huge portion of the playerbase of coh 2.

The main distributor banned it, but you can still buy the game for example on steam.


Also wtf are people saying that poles wanted to ally with hitler, any evidence for this?


Last i remember hitler wanted to exterminate pretty much all slavs in the world because he thought they are sub-human, including poles.