Re: [Epic] Canada in Epic

From: Eugene E.W. <eug_at_...>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 12:44:30 -0400

<snip>
> > They succeeded because they
> > introduced the 'walking barrage'; a scheme whereby a steady curtain of
> > artillery fire would sweep forwards from the friendly trenches, with
the
> > troops walking only a few paces behind the barrage.
>
> reinforcing the idea at HQ that more artillery was the key to winning,
> not the quality of the troops on the ground, leading to the great
> slaughter at 3rd Ypres.

Yeah, the British command was a bit on the dim side. One of the major
problems they had was that they assumed that their troops could not
understand complicated plans, so they kept things as simple as possible --
no 'fire and movement' tactics for British troops, thanks muchly. One of
the major reasons that the Canadians were successful at Vimy was that they
practised their plan thouroughly, so the troops had a good idea of what
they were supposed to do, and lower echelon commanders were able to
effectively replace higher-ups who were killed and wounded.

The Canadians were also fortunate in that their artillery commanders were
really high quality; they were able to time the walking barrage very
precisely, and were also extraordinarily successful in knocking out the
German artillery, which otherwise could have really messed things up. The
average artillery folks were not nearly as competent, which meant that the
advancing allied troops were often pinned with artillery fire and lost the
cover of the walking barrage.

Incidentally, the Canadians were also slaughtered at 3rd Ypres, because it
turned out to be almost impossible to move through no-man's land because
the mud was so thick it literally swallowed the troops. The walking barrage
(which operated according to a timetable) kept on going, allowing the
Germans to leave their dugouts, man their machine-guns, and wipe out the
Canadians stranded in the mud.
 
<snip>
> >
> > > In WW2 the Divisions from Canada did very well in France and Italy
> > > and not sure of how they did in S.E. Asia
> >
> > They surrendered along with the rest of the British garrison in Hong
Kong.
> > Apparently they, and the Australians, were the defenders who offered
the
> > most resistance.
>
> Again, good troops betrayed by poor leadership. Very poor, in this case

True enough, although it must be said that the Commonwealth forces'
inexperience with jungle fighting was another nail in the coffin.

<snip>
> Eldar=Finns. Yes, real hard fighters, low on numbers.
>
> also, maybe
> Eldar=Germans. Few troops, hitech equipment, better tactics
> "we need more living space for our exodites. Give us this star system,
> or Die, puny human."
>
Maybe, but German infantry was generally excellent until later in the war,
whereas Eldar infantry is less so. I like chaos (or the Imperium) for
Germany because it has both kick-ass elite troops and swarms of second-line
troops, as well as a good selection of tanks. Epic doesn't really have
self-propelled artillery guns, however. Oh well.
> IG= Soviets. Lots of troops and arty.
Maybe. The Leman Russ is probably a fairly good substitute for the T-34,
and IG infantry is reasonably numerous and sufficiently expendable. The
soviets also did have excellent artillery.
>
> I would have the USA as Orks. Kult of Speed! We Love our cars! Ar. Ar.
Ar.
> More Power! Put that Blower AND Nitrous on that V8!
> Lots of odd behaviour, like Loudspeakers on Tanks or waterskiing
> behind Hueys or PBR's, using captured equipment.
> Take other countries technology as our own, and make it "better"
> Getting drunk on Beer that nobody else would even think to call beer
> We specialize in goofy hitech weapons that don't always work
> Nobody walks, because we have all those Jeeps and Trucks
> Nearly everyone in the the Good ol' USA has a big shooty gun, and the
> more the merrier! Gun control is being able to hit your target!
> Dakka Dakka! The bigger the gun, the better!
> Like the Orks, we like to order all the little people around.
> Like the Orks, We Know were better than anybody, and we will tell you so.

>
And the Sherman was probably about as crappy as the battlewagon, and
equally numerous. Under Patton, the US forces certainly had that 'ere we go
attitude. The only real problems are Ork airpower and Ork artillery, both
of which are not nearly big and shooty enough to satisfy Yankee
preferences.
> >Eugene
>
> mike
>
Eugene again.
Received on Mon Aug 18 1997 - 16:44:30 UTC