Part of the problem for this scenario is that the US victory locations are the riverside of the town itself which requires then a forward nearly immobile defense. Is that realistic? IDK but I'd suggest US victory condition be based more on soviet causalties than locations.
Will not happen. The designer wanted historical accuracy, If I am not mistaken, he was in the Cold War deployed in Germany. You could easily balance it by just deleting one motor rifle company on the Soviet side.
Never played with them to be honest, never played the British at all. I only played Polish forces once, they are something like the British without the good equipment.
I also don’t see how fhey are getting popular in CW, when somedays the expansion gets released. Sure some British and Canadians will jump on it for some days.
Why, oh why oh why, did the US not mount a light cannon on its TOW vehicles? the M150 could have had a low rate of fire 40mm or 50 cal. coaxially mounted with the launcher. The M901 had that big turret - , couldn't it had a 20 or 30 mm cannon attached? it would have been a versatile vehicle instead of a missile truck, which , at night, rain, fog, smoke, or close range would be usually hapless (haha0 against enemy AFVs
I am not an expert on US equipment. But Is it not the case, that the M113 had a relatively weak engine, which would mean that more weight needed to be avoided. Later models had stronger engines and there you find your desired additional armament. Maybe someone else can give a more qualified answer.
@@briansmithwins i mean you are forced really deep into the city just by pressence of t64 and they tend to be unkillable, so just their pressence keeps shore clear
@@wojszach4443 there was a whole heaping helping of arty coming down on that closest 100m of town facing the river in addition to the direct fire from the tanks
@briansmithwins I liked your fireplan with the anti-personnel shells shortly before the landing. It hit nothing, but it could have been very effective, as some players would be moving infantry in that moment forward to defend.
@@Herm.M that was the intent. I’m learning that impact fusing is better against troops in buildings but VT just works so well against infantry in the open I keep going back to it
A draw for the U.S. here is a WIN in my books.... Nicely done.... And holly crap the Soviet amount of arty is insane...
The draw only comes from one of the last units creeping into the objective under smoke. That is not a win. 😁
ha as i'm watching this video, i was moving my mouse and hitting number keys to change camera angle, my brain wanted to "get in the game" XD
A nigh impossible scenario for the US force to win.
I tend to agree now.
Part of the problem for this scenario is that the US victory locations are the riverside of the town itself which requires then a forward nearly immobile defense. Is that realistic? IDK but I'd suggest US victory condition be based more on soviet causalties than locations.
I suppose one could go in the scenario editor and adjust the U.S. forces a bit....
True, but that would be something, that the original designer would have to do to be really legit.
@@Herm.M Yes I agree... And I think he should....
Will not happen. The designer wanted historical accuracy, If I am not mistaken, he was in the Cold War deployed in Germany. You could easily balance it by just deleting one motor rifle company on the Soviet side.
By the way, ever going to get your RT turn?
Oh yes….
what is your opinion on late war british in last blitzkrieg, especially comets
Never played with them to be honest, never played the British at all. I only played Polish forces once, they are something like the British without the good equipment.
@@Herm.M i barely see brits in multiplayer games in final blitzkrieg
@wojszach4443 Never watch others multiplayer videos, but I also never played against British. They can’t be very popular.
I also don’t see how fhey are getting popular in CW, when somedays the expansion gets released. Sure some British and Canadians will jump on it for some days.
@@Herm.M shame, though this is what they get for not trusting their infantrymen with rapid fire weapons
Why, oh why oh why, did the US not mount a light cannon on its TOW vehicles? the M150 could have had a low rate of fire 40mm or 50 cal. coaxially mounted with the launcher. The M901 had that big turret - , couldn't it had a 20 or 30 mm cannon attached? it would have been a versatile vehicle instead of a missile truck, which , at night, rain, fog, smoke, or close range would be usually hapless (haha0 against enemy AFVs
I am not an expert on US equipment.
But Is it not the case, that the M113 had a relatively weak engine, which would mean that more weight needed to be avoided.
Later models had stronger engines and there you find your desired additional armament.
Maybe someone else can give a more qualified answer.
i would say that russian tanks did the most job by just standing there, they secured the crossing and then it was matter of mass of infantry i say
The tanks can really only do over watch and make mouse holes in buildings to support the infantry.
@@briansmithwins i mean you are forced really deep into the city just by pressence of t64 and they tend to be unkillable, so just their pressence keeps shore clear
@@wojszach4443 there was a whole heaping helping of arty coming down on that closest 100m of town facing the river in addition to the direct fire from the tanks
@briansmithwins I liked your fireplan with the anti-personnel shells shortly before the landing. It hit nothing, but it could have been very effective, as some players would be moving infantry in that moment forward to defend.
@@Herm.M that was the intent. I’m learning that impact fusing is better against troops in buildings but VT just works so well against infantry in the open I keep going back to it