frogdeth

Axis vs Allied, Balance vs Bias: Myth vs Reality.

46 posts in this topic

This monologue is geared towards new players. Most of you vets already know all of this and can skip the whole thing. For those who are new, grab a pop because this is going to be a long one - but hey, it's educational. For those who don't know by my join date, I've been playing this game for basically a decade, now. I've got max rank (LtCol) in both the French and German armies. I'm familiar with the equipment, strategies and tactics used by both sides.

I'd like to begin by stating that I do not believe that CRS ever intentionally nerfs anyone or shows favoritism towards either side. Thinking that they do is a very popular form of "kool aid" thinking that snares far too many new people. It got to me too when I was younger, but thankfully I grew out of it. Not everyone does, however, so be careful when you spot it. This is also not to say that equipment balance issues do not exist - they often do. Again, however, I do not believe that CRS ever does this on purpose.

So the question most often asked is "Who has the better stuff?" And the answer to that is always "Depends on the situation and who is using it." Therefore, my opening thesis is this: Allied equipment is very general purpose while Axis equipment tends to be over-specialized.

Now what does this mean? It means that Allied gear tends to not excel at any one thing but is more easily adapted to multiple situations on the fly, while Axis gear tends to be really good at exactly one thing in a more limited parameter of situations. I'll give you an example: Let's look at the StugB and StugG tank destroyers. These are very powerful offensive units, able to deliver accurate, powerful rounds (HEAT in the former and plain old 75mm doom in the latter) over long range. This makes them far better at destroying tanks than units like the S35 and the Sherman. However neither of these Axis units has a turret, so visibility is limited and they can only engage what's directly in front of them. They also lack any machine guns, which makes them completely helpless against Sappers and RPAT infantry. Both the S35 and the Sherman, on the other hand, have fully functional turrets and machineguns to deal with infantry & other threats from any direction.

This, in turn, means that in the right conditions the Axis Stug units are superior to their Allied counterparts. Outside of those conditions, however, the Allied gear will be better off. Another good example is the Stuka. It is by far the most accurate bomber in the game, and it's 250kg bomb is as big as anything the Allies carry, making it potentially devastating to tanks. However, it's also slow, can't maneuver, has ping-pong ball launchers for guns and tends to fall apart if you sneeze at it too hard. Now contrast that with the Hurricane MkIIC (aka "Hurribomber"). Here we have a plane with four 20mm cannons and a pair of 500lb bombs. This suggest a far greater ground attack potential than the Stuka, and it would be, if it were anywhere near as accurate. But without dive brakes or the proper sights, it's bombing accuracy just can't compare. However if the Hurribomber finds itself in a dogfight all is not lost; it can just jettison it's bombs and enter the fray as a fighter of average ability. But now let's say that Hurribomber was going up against a FW190. Odds are it's going to lose, because it's nowhere near the dogfighter that the FW190 is - the FW190 is an excellent dogfighter. Of course the FW190 has virtually no ground attack ability at all. Once again, the Axis gear excels at only one thing, while the Allied version is only average, but does so in multiple areas at once.

Those on the ground may have also noticed that Axis cannons all have dial-in optics for extreme accuracy at long range, whilst Allied guns almost always have to rely on manual "hair reading" to determine range. This makes Axis guns more accurate over range, provided even a modicum of skill. The drawback is that they tend to be less powerful overall and have longer profiles (easier to spot) than a comparable Allied ATG. In other words, the French 57mm may hide better and hit harder than a Pak38, but the Axis gun is more likely to land hits over longer range.

See how this all works out? So long as everything goes according to plan and nothing unexpected happens, an Axis unit will potentially do better than it's Allied counterpart. Of course, no plan of battle survives initial contact, so making such a situation happens is nearly impossible.

The end result is this: If, that this is a very big IF, the Axis can muster the proper level of organization & teamwork, their units will generally outperform their Allied counterparts. But if they can't get their act together sufficiently (or if the Allies are good at wrecking their plans), the more versatile, flexible Allied equipment will shred the Axis in short order.

Herding cats and you: This phenomenon is where the legend of "Allied = Easy Mode" comes from. It's not really the equipment so much as the people. Despite this game's claim to fame being that it isn't just another Counterstrike clone, the reality is that there is still no shortage of lonewolves out there who serve no one but their own personal stats page. But everyone has a right to play the game the way they want, and if lonewolfing is your thing then yes, you will probably find that playing Allied is going to be more to your liking, because you won't have to depend on others to cover your weak spots as much. Playing Axis essentially requires a stronger sense of teamwork unless you're into getting creamed. Of course, the Axis side doesn't lack for lonewolves either, so it's not just choosing that side but getting in with the right group of people (read: squad) to make that happen. And this is not to say that there aren't well organized groups on the Allied side; rather that such level of organization isn't quite as necessary, nor does it pay off quite as much. The myth of "Axis = Hard Mode" is only true if you don't play well with others.

Either way, the game does offer something for everyone. Whether you consider yourself to be a casual player or a hardcore one, whether you like lonewolfing it behind enemy lines to cause chaos or prefer being part a well oiled machine, there is a place for you. The trick is simply knowing which place would suit you best.

Now on to dismissing claims of CRS bias: First thing you'll notice, Dear New Player, is that whoever is losing at the moment is always the victim of CRS bias. Funny how that works, eh? Depending on who you ask, however, the part of the game that's "clearly broken" can change. On the Allied side these days it's usually the HC system, TOEs, or TZ3 that is the cause of all evil in the world. In the Axis side the conspiracy is usually that CRS isn't modelling their gear to be historically accurate (read: nerfing). I'll dispel both of these in order thusly.

All of the aforementioned Allied bias claims ultimately come down to people issues, not equipment problems. Specifically, certain people on their own side who are dropping the ball and that ball running over everyone else's feet. Despite this clearly being an in-house issue, some feel that CRS must come to their rescue and change game mechanics for everyone to fix it for them.

Currently this means championing the removal of TOEs, player controlled brigades and everything that goes along with it. I find this amusing because when TOEs were first introduced the Allies latched on to it, the AHC figured it out faster, and the result was a series of humiliating Axis defeats that resulted in the Axis calling for removing TOEs because it was "breaking the game." The response was that the Axis were told to quit whining, get their crap together, and learn how to play the "chess game" properly. Which they did. The whining you see today is the result of that.

Meanwhile, most of the Axis equipment nerf whines are equally rubbish. Not that there aren't problems, but the problems aren't with the gear - it's the map; the terrain, to be more precise. Back in the "Axis Glory Days" when they consistently won a disproportionately high number of campaigns, bushes were only 2D and there was far fewer of them. This meant that even a poorly positioned unit could probably get good visibility on targets out to a kilometer or more with ease. What does this have to do with anything? Axis gear favors long range engagements. Remember everything I mentioned about "more accurate over long range?" You'll find that's a common denominator with almost every piece of Axis gear. Their strength was always being more accurate at longer ranges. However, when CRS made the bushes 3D and roughly quadrupled the number of them, the typical engagement range suddenly dropped by over half, or more. The long range advantage had become all but nullified simply by changes in the terrain graphics. It wasn't an equipment nerf or anything so sinister. It was a simple graphics change that was supposed to effect both sides equally.

The other, smaller, facet of many Axis nerf whines is simply people coming into the game with preconceived and entirely incorrect notions about the capabilities of Axis gear. They read a few stories about Whitmann once and assume this means that every Tiger tank should be an invincible monster that can defeat a hundred Allied tanks in a row without so much as a paint scratch in return. They enter with entirely unrealistic expectations and then can't handle it when realistic results slam into their face as they blindly charge their PzIVG (great gun, crap armor) into an enemy position and simply can't understand how they got blown up. So to this I suggest that before anyone even considers playing Axis to do your homework first. This game doesn't focus on end-war Panthers and King Tigers, and most of the gray-paint stuff you start with is a lot more fragile than you realize. As far as history goes, the real Blitzkreig worked because the Axis had radios and coordination, not because they had better gear (hint: because they didn't have better gear). And in real life the Germans went through Denmark because they knew that attacking the French Army head on was suicide. See? This game is more historically accurate than you realized.

Smarter forum surfing for the new player: You can bet your bum that this thread is going to draw the most side biased, tinfoil hat wearers from both sides to argue that everything I said about their side is false (but the stuff about the other side is totally true) and then, in all likelihood, accuse me of side bias on top of it.

Make note of those names so that you can ignore them later. :)

And finally, most of all, I encourage all new players to spend time playing on both sides. If nothing else you'll learn how the other team's equipment really performs and, in all likelihood, be rather surprised at how awesome it isn't. As they say in kung-fu, if you want to be certain of defeating an opponent, learn his style of fighting yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the german army in real life go through Denmark to defeat the French?

They actually broke through at Sedan to split the allied armies in two when they reached the coast. They also attacked the Low countries Holland Belgium which was done to entice the allied armies into Belgium.

The overrun of Denmark was done months earlier to facilitate their attack on Norway.

At least that's my understanding of events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thinking that they do is a very popular form of "kool aid" thinking that snares far too many new people. It got to me too when I was younger, but thankfully I grew out of it.

Damnit! You just made me shoot coffee out my nose. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the most part I'll agree, I've played both sides extensively, and both sides recently. It's not the equipment, it's the player in most instances. For instance. I can fly a Spit 9, the terror of the spitfire world. Hoko, Mingus, or any of the Zulu boys can fly an E1. Chances are pretty high that I will still lose that engagement. I would have the superior plane, but they have the superior skills. Same goes for the rest of the game. Sure, you can have a Tiger and roll right up and expect to blast everything, but if someone knows how to kill you with an ATG or Sherman, you don't really stand a chance. Equipment will only be as good as the players in it, and if you die a lot it's not because the equipment is bad, it's because you are bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The StuG is actually quite a good example of how proper use of equipment will grant you success while improper use will lead to disaster and ultimately frustration and in some cases suspicions of "nerfed equipment" or even "cheaters/spies on the other side".

Ever since I started running with Dandare (who is an excellent StuG driver), I've learned quite a lot about them and tend to use them much more like you *should* use them: As a stand-off weapon, maintaining a healthy distance to the enemy (like, 1300 - 2000m). Plus from a prepared position, meaning near your own (ammo-)FRU and preferably with a couple of gun-bunkers nearby to cover your FRU and your StuG's flanks.

This way you maximize the advantages of your vehicle (solid armor protection at the front, powerful gun, good optics) while minimizing the effect of its weaknesses: The short clip isn't so bad with a FRU nearby. At long range, the limited gun traverse doesn't matter so much (you can cover quite a wide area with it at medium to long range). Plus if you do have to turn your vehicle to keep an enemy within your field of fire, the longer distance means you'll only need quick adjustments and that you'll still have enough time to re-acquire and engage your target.

Ignore all that and use the StuG as a tank-substitute and most likely your sortie will end in tears. And you'll probably think it's a useless POS, too .. :D

S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above is indeed true, the OPs post.

There are some people here that has unbelievable skills in game.

But that does not take away the need for a tank revision of the damage models.

For example, a 57mm ATG can flame a Tiger frontally out to 2-3 hundred meters. At least I know how to.

Then strange things happen in game that can billed on the WTF account........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would the german army in real life go through Denmark to defeat the French?

They actually broke through at Sedan to split the allied armies in two when they reached the coast. They also attacked the Low countries Holland Belgium which was done to entice the allied armies into Belgium.

The overrun of Denmark was done months earlier to facilitate their attack on Norway.

At least that's my understanding of events.

Overrun of Denmark would threaten an amphibious landings and blockade on the French or Belgian coast bypassing low lying Holland completely, as it allows the Kreigsmarine to sortie into the North Sea and Channel.

Potentially this could have blocked a Dunkirk type evacuation attempt and trapped the BEF.

Edited by actonman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello actonman, how has your day been.

Overrun of Denmark would threaten an amphibious landings and blockade on the French or Belgian coast bypassing low lying Holland completely, as it allows the Kreigsmarine to sortie into the North Sea and Channel.

Potentially this could have blocked a Dunkirk type evacuation attempt and trapped the BEF.

From the outset, I would suggest you consult a map of Europe to get your bearings.

Denmark fell before Fall Gelb (Case Yellow - Battle for France) had even started. Denmark surrendered to German forces on or about 9 April 1940 at the very start of the Norwegian campaign. The Norwegian Campaign went from 9 April to 10 June 1940 while the Battle for France was 10 May 1940 to 25 June 1940. So as you can see from the timeline the Kreigsmarine was already in a position to Land and/or blockade the French or Belgian coast and sortie into the North Sea and Channel at will. This completely ignores the fact a major Naval Base for the Kreigsmarine was Keil which had access to the North Sea via the Keil Cannal and let’s not forget Wilhelmshaven just off the Jutland area.

Although the Kreigsmarine was already capable of Landing and/or Blockading the French/Belgian coast and also sortie into the North Sea and Channel prior to the fall of Denmark, I would suggest the Kreigsmarine was not really in a position to block the Dunkirk Operation (26 May 1940 to 4 June 1940) for two principal reasons:

1: The Kreigsmarine was still committed to the Norwegian Campaign whilst suffering losses of major units during that campaign.

2: I suspect the Royal Navy may have just had something to say regarding any Kreigsmarine Fleet operations in the North Sea and especially in the Channel areas.

Cheers

James10

Edited by james10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i`m fine thanks.

Well as you have just explained the contingency planning for a naval blockade of the French and Belgian coast had already taken place with the occupation of Denmark, thanks but in the event KM had taken too heavy losses in Norway.

Edited by actonman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice Froggie, I could quibble with a couple minor points, but overall a very good concise explanation that could help retain new subs.

If only people read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Balance is in a pretty bad state right now because historically CRS has tried to use changes in the spawn list to compensate for overall differences in player numbers and organization. The spawn lists would change constantly and Doc didn't even want to provide a change log most of the time.

For a long time axis had more squads and larger squads and more consistency at all hours, while the allies just had their prime time in US TZ and little else. The allied set was made really strong because it had to be damaging enough to compensate for the other 16 or so hours of the day. In the air the allied set is stronger but it was glossed over because there there were many more axis air squads with lots of veteran pilots. All that is gone now except for a relatively larger axis population during TZ3(the whole time zone which is on the chopping block). The most active squad is now AEF which is a US prime squad and nearly all the axis air squads have quit the game.

So I think that the allies will faceroll their way to victory once TZ3 gets taken out of the equation. Campaigns will be really lopsided just like first WBS campaign and will be that way until some significant buffs come around to the axis, either directly in the form of more stuff to spawn or indirectly by buffing ATGs and infantry versus tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello actonman, its good you are doing ok.

i`m fine thanks.

Well as you have just explained the contingency planning for a naval blockade of the French and Belgian coast had already taken place with the occupation of Denmark, thanks but in the event KM had taken too heavy losses in Norway.

I do feel you have neglected this detail from my posting:

“a major Naval Base for the Kreigsmarine was Keil which had access to the North Sea via the Keil Cannal and let’s not forget Wilhelmshaven just off the Jutland area.”

Also you seem to have overlooked the following as well:

“Although the Kreigsmarine was already capable of Landing and/or Blockading the French/Belgian coast and also sortie into the North Sea and Channel prior to the fall of Denmark, ...”

Overall I’m not really sure where you are coming from. I’m not sure if you are just “having a little fun” or are serious.

If you are “serious” have a read about the following naval battles: Dogger Bank and Jutland. Yes both are from WWI. While reading about the battles consider the following: the German High Seas Fleet (Imperial German Navy, WWI) had significantly more capital ships than the Kreigsmarine did during the 9 April 1940 to 25 June 1940 period of WWII.

Cheers

James10

Edited by james10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares, I`m right I`m always right if you want to agree with me that makes you right too - if you want to disagree then you are wrong.

I`m an expert on WW2 and have a BA Hons in European Studies.

Jutland is Denmark btw so if it was hostile it could block Kiel, Willemshaven, Bremeshaven, Cuxhaven and Lubeck.

With the Norway airfields in LW control Royal Navy was contained mainly in Scapa Flow in Scotland.

Edited by actonman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has your expertise in ww2 been ratified by an independent body or is it self proclaimed.

No where have I read or seen any documents regarding the german invasion of Denmark being for any other reason than aiding their Norway operation.

Both german and british navies lost ships during the Norway invasion by both nations.

The only really sizeable LW operations from Norway took place later during the BOB and they were handled roughly by the RAF.

I do not profess to be an expert on ww2 history but then I have only studied it for 50 years:D

However I have to admit that the passing of time plays havoc with the memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norwegian Invasion & Campaign

(see map above)

3rd - The first German troop transports sailed for Norway. 7th - German covering and troop-carrying warships headed for Norway. 8th - Operation 'Wilfred': Royal Navy destroyers laid minefields, simulated and real at three points off the Norwegian coast, including near Bodo. Battlecruiser Renown and other destroyers provided cover. One of the screen, GLOWWORM (Lt-Cdr Roope) was detached to search for a man overboard just as 8in-gunned cruiser “Admiral Hipper” headed into Trondheim. They met to the northwest of the port and the destroyer was soon sunk, but not before she rammed and damaged “Hipper”. + Lt-Cdr Gerard Roope RN was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross.

7th-8th - In response to reported German movements, units of the Home Fleet including Rodney, Valiant, Repulse, four cruisers and 14 destroyers sailed from Scapa Flow and Rosyth. Accompanying them was a French cruiser and two destroyers. Two more British cruisers and nine destroyers left other duties and headed for Norwegian waters. Next day, on the 8th, they were joined by the four troop-carrying cruisers of Operation 'R4', but after the soldiers had been disembarked back in Britain. More than 20 submarines, including three French and one Polish took up positions.

9th, Germany invaded Denmark and Norway (Operation 'Weserubung'): Copenhagen was soon occupied and DENMARK surrendered. In Norway, seaborne troops landed at Oslo, Kristiansand, Egersund and Bergen in the south, Trondheim in the centre and Narvik in the north. The southern forces and those from Trondheim pushed inland and joined up by the end of the month. They then moved north to relieve Narvik, which was isolated by the Allies soon after the first German landings. German Navy forces included a pocket battleship, six cruisers, 14 destroyers, torpedo boats and minesweepers for the landings at the six Norwegian ports, with battlecruisers “Scharnhorst” and “Gneisenau” covering the two most northerly landings. Thirty U-boats patrolled off Norway and British bases, but throughout the campaign suffered from major torpedo defects. Early in the morning of the 9th, battlecruiser Renown was in action with the two German battlecruisers to the west of Vestfiord. “Gneisenau” was damaged and “Renown” slightly. The Germans withdrew. As “Renown” was in action, German occupation forces heading for Oslo came under heavy fire from Norwegian coastal defences. Shore-sited guns and torpedoes in Oslo Fiord sank heavy cruiser “BLUCHER”. A Home Fleet cruiser force was detached to attack the German warships in Bergen, but ordered to withdraw. They came under continuous air attack and destroyer GURKHA was bombed and sunk southwest of Bergen. That evening, German cruiser “KARLSRUHE” left Kristiansand and was torpedoed by submarine “Truant”. She was scuttled next day.

ww2mR031Narvik.GIF

10th, First Battle of Narvik - The 2nd Destroyer Flotilla (Capt. Warburton-Lee) with “Hardy”, “Havock”, “Hostile”, “Hotspur” and “Hunter”, entered Ofotfiord to attack the German ships assigned to the occupation of Narvik. These included 10 large destroyers. Several transports were sunk together with destroyers “ANTON SCHMITT” (AS) and “WILHELM HEIDKAMP” (WH) in Narvik Bay. Other German destroyers were damaged, but as the British 2nd Flotilla retired, HARDY was beached, HUNTER sunk by the remaining German ships and “Hotspur” badly damaged. + Capt Bernard Warburton-Lee RN was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross.

By the 10th, the British Home Fleet was reinforced by battleship Warspite and carrier Furious. On the same day submarine THISTLE on patrol off Utsira failed in an attack on “U-4”. Shortly after she was sunk by the same U-boat. Fleet Air Arm Skua dive-bomber’s of 800 and 803 Squadrons flying from the Orkney Islands sank German cruiser "KOENIGSBERG" at her moorings in Bergen, the first major warship sunk by air attack. She was damaged earlier by shore batteries in the landings. .

11th - Returning from the Oslo landings, German pocket battleship “Lutzow” was torpedoed and badly damaged by submarine “Spearfish” in the Skagerrak. Cruiser “Penelope” on her way into Narvik was damaged running aground in Vestfiord.

13th, Second Battle of Narvik - Battleship

Warspite and nine destroyers were sent into the Narvik fiords to finish off the remaining German ships. Submarine “U-64” was surprised and sunk by “Warspite's” Swordfish catapult aircraft as it scouted ahead. The eight surviving German destroyers – “BERND VON ARNIM” (BA), “DIETHER VON ROEDER” (DR), “ERICH GIESE” (EG), “ERICH KOELNNER” (EK), “GEORG THIELE” (GT), “HANS LUDEMANN” (HL), “HERMANN KUNNE” (HK) and “WOLFGANG ZENKER” (WZ) were all destroyed or scuttled. The British “Eskimo” and “Cossack” were damaged. By the 13th, the first British troop convoys had left the Scottish Clyde for Narvik, but some ships were diverted to Namsos. German forces were well-established in the south and centre of Norway and had control of the air.

14th - Submarine TARPON on patrol off southern Norway was sunk by German minesweeper “M-6”. German gunnery training ship “BRUMMER” was torpedoed and sunk by submarine “Sterlet” .

14th-16th - The first Allied landings took place between the 14th and 16th. In the north, British troops occupied Harstad in preparation for an attack on Narvik. They were reinforced by French and Polish units through into May. Royal Marines led British and French troops into Namsos ready for an attack south towards Trondheim. The British went ashore in the Andalsnes area to try to hold central Norway with the Norwegian Army. Neither of these operations proved possible and on the 27th April the decision was taken to pull out of central Norway.

15th - As the Harstad-bound troopships approached their destination, escorting destroyers “Brazen” and “Fearless” located and sank “U-49”. Southwest of Stavanger, “U-1” went to the bottom after striking a mine.

Photo06caSuffolk1NPs.JPG17th - Heavy cruiser Suffolk (right - NavyPhotos) bombarded installations at Stavanger, but on her return was badly damaged by Ju-88 bombers and barely made Scapa Flow with her stern awash.

18th - Four days after sinking the “Brummer”, submarine STERLET was presumed sunk in the Skagerrak by German anti-submarine trawlers.

24th - After four days continuous AA duty off Andalsnes, cruiser Curacoa was badly damaged by bombs. Carrier Glorious flew off obsolescent Gladiator biplanes for shore operations.

27th - Allied plans to attack towards Trondheim and hold central Norway proved impossible. The decision was taken to pull out of central Norway, and the evacuation of Andalsnes and Namsos got under way.

30th - Sloop “BITTERN” was sunk by Ju-87 dive-bombers off Namsos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norwegian Campaign - continued

2nd/3rd - In three days and nights the last 10,000 British and French troops had been evacuated from Namsos and around Andalsnes following the failure to attack towards Trondheim and hold central Norway. Other troops were later landed further north, including at Bodo in an attempt to block the German advance from Trondheim towards Narvik. The Allies continued to build up forces for the attack on Narvik. + Lt-Cdr Richard Stannard RNR, commanding officer of HM trawler Arab of the 15th Anti-Submarine Striking Force, was awarded the

Victoria Cross for gallantry under air attack during operations off Namsos.

3rd - Retiring northwest from Namsos, destroyers AFRIDI and the French “BISON” were sunk by Ju-87 Stuka dive-bombers.

4th - As preparations continued in northern Norway for the attack on Narvik, Polish destroyer “GROM” was bombed and sunk.

5th - Submarine SEAL successfully laid mines in the southern Kattegat on the 4th before being damaged by a German mine. Trying to make for neutral Sweden on the surface, she was attacked and captured off The Skaw by German air and sea patrols.

17th - Cruiser

EFFINGHAM ran aground on an uncharted rock in Vestfiord carrying troops to Bodo to help block the German advance on Narvik. She was later torpedoed and abandoned.

23rd - By now carriers

Furious and Glorious had flown ashore the first modern RAF fighters.

24th - The Allies decided to pull out of Norway altogether, but not before Narvik had been captured and the port installations destroyed.

26th - During the attack on Narvik, AA cruiser

CURLEW was bombed and sunk in nearby Lavang Fjord.

28th - Two days after the loss of sister ship “Curlew”,

Cairo was badly damaged off the town of Narvik just as French and Polish troops completed its capture. The Norwegian Campaign shortly drew to a close

Britain - Following a 10th May House of Commons debate on the Norwegian campaign, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain resigned and Winston Churchill assumed leadership. Albert V Alexander succeeded him as First Lord of the Admiralty. The planned attack on Narvik was still to go ahead, but that same day the German Blitzkrieg was launched on Holland, Belgium and France .

Western Front

10th, Germany invades Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg (Operation 'Gelb') - British and French troops crossed the border into Belgium and took up forward positions, but the main German thrust was a planned encircling movement further south through the forests and mountains of the Belgium Ardennes.

13th - The Germans entered France at Sedan. After breaking through, German armour headed west for the Channel to trap the Allied armies now in Belgium and northern France. British Admiralty plans had already been made to withdraw shipping from the Low Countries, block main ports, demolish installations and remove gold and diamonds. Most of these duties were carried out with the aid of Royal Navy destroyers which suffered heavy losses over the next few weeks. Still on the 13th, Holland’s Queen Wilhelmina and her Government were now on their way to Britain aboard a Royal Navy destroyer to continue Holland's fight.

14th - The centre of Rotterdamwas blitzed by the Luftwaffe.

15th - Destroyers continued to support Allied land forces off the Dutch and Belgian coasts. Under heavy air attack, two were bombed and beached over the next few days, starting with VALENTINE in the Scheldt Estuary. The DUTCH Army surrendered to the Germans. On the same day, Winston Churchill’s War Cabinet, anticipating the Battle for Britain decided not to send any more RAF fighters to France. Thestrategic bombing of Germany was also ordered and raids made on the Ruhr.

17th - As the Allies retreated from Belgium, German forces entered Brussels.

19th - The second destroyer supporting Allied land forces, WHITLEY was beached near Nieuport on the Belgian coast with bomb damage.

20th - German tanks reached the English Channel near Abbeville, shortly turning right and advancing north on the ports of Boulogne, Calais and Dunkirk. Destroyers carried Allied troops to Boulogne and Calais and remained in support. Over the next four days, five Allied destroyers were lost and others damaged in the area. 21st - French destroyer “L’ADROIT” bombed and sunk off Dunkirk. 23rd - French destroyer “ORAGE” bombed off Boulogne and “JAGUAR” torpedoed and sunk by German E-boats “S-21” and “S-23” off Dunkirk. 24th - A fourth French destroyer, “CHACAL” was bombed off Boulogne. The British WESSEX was also bombed and sunk supporting the defenders of Calais.

26th - Both Boulogne and Calais fell to the Germans. The British Expeditionary Force and French Army fell back on Dunkirk.

26th May-4th June, Dunkirk Evacuation (Operation 'Dynamo') - Initial plans were to lift off 45,000 men of the British Expeditionary Force over a two-day period under the direction of Vice-Adm B. H. Ramsey. In the next five days, 8,000 men on the 27th May, 18,000 on the 28th, 47,000 on the 29th, 54,000 on the 30th and 68,000 on the 31st were carried to Britain - a total of 195,000, both British and French. Every phase of the operation was subject to heavy air, sea and land attack. Forty British, six French and a Polish destroyer took part, together with 800 other vessels, large and small. Losses were considerable. The Dunkirk evacuation continued into June.

28th - The BELGIUM Army surrendered on the northern flank, seriously endangering the Allied evacuation from Dunkirk.

29th - Apart from those damaged, three Royal Navy destroyers were sunk in the English Channel off the Dunkirk beaches on this day - GRAFTON torpedoed by submarine “U-62”, GRENADE by bombing, and WAKEFUL by a torpedo from E-boat “S-30”.

30th - French destroyers also continued to suffer losses. “BOURRASQUE” was mined off the Belgium port of Nieuport and sunk by shore batteries. 31st - “Bourrasque’s” sister ship “SIROCCO” was torpedoed and sunk by German E-boats “S-23” and “S-26”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from a low rank air (both sides) perspective, allied planes are far superior to the axis stuff, and are more fun to fly.

the allied planes are smooth and respond well, they can also take 40mm rounds. while the 09's are stiff, extremely unstable with low energy, and they loose control after MG fire.

111's struggle to get off the ground and loose control from a single 20mm round. while the db7's power and durability is legendary here.

there's trucks, Lafflys can tow bofors and heavy atg's.

medium atg's are still useful for allies even at the final tiers.

for the sake of gameplay, all allied peep sights have been replaced with open sights, and radios are everywhere.

allied armored cars are basically tank destroyers

allied heavy atg flips

axis have the only APC.

axis have almost 2x more tanks than allies.

axis production is incredibly buffed compared to historic germany.

the axis real life superiority had to do with ToE's, brigades, and tactics, the tiger is a legend because they ran 4-6 platoons of 5-7 tigers.

our ToE's favor general purpose roles, instead of stormtrooper brigade equipped with 100% automatics and a basic infantry rifle brigade focused on holding ground we have 150 bolts and 100 automatics in every single infantry flag.

no one ever said the gear is balanced, but the gear ratios is fair according to CRS.

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Allied LMG's are STILL garbage compared to the Mg34.

I'll trade you the Mp40 and Mg34 for the Grease Gun and both crappy Allied LMG's. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and they loose control after MG fire.

Sadly, yes. A single ping is often enough to render a 109 or even 190 (which was a much more durable plane than the 109 in RL) useless.

and radios are everywhere.

This point is probably more important than any of the other "nerfs", "fixes" or shortcomings of our simulated equipment. One reason why the Wehrmacht "blitzed" the French was that they had much better communication. Starting inside the tanks where everyone could talk to everyone else over the intercom. While French tankers had to live with one-man turrets with overworked commanders and had to use flag signals to communicate with other tanks.

Which leads to another point: One man turrets don't seem to suffer any penalties to their "effectiveness" in the game. Last I checked, an S35 or Char can reload its main gun just as quickly as a Pz III or IV. Considering that the commander had to command the tank, aim the gun *and* reload it between shots in the French tanks (while the German tanks had a dedicated commander, loader and gunner) this doesn't make much sense. At the very least, reload on one-man turrets should be slower and you shouldn't be able to keep looking through the sight if you want to reload your gun.

And unlike the absence of radios, this is a shortcoming that could be modeled in the game rather easily.

S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

""Blitzkrieg" in 1940's France, as a planned way of war, is a myth. Discuss."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.