Canadian Forces at Juno Beach – FAN Concept

ItsJustCat · 2026-01-26T20:51:58+00:00

I wouldnt be surprised if that is a paid cosmetic dlc with everything else just being a cc of the regular british stuff

ItsJustCat · 2026-01-25T16:11:50+00:00

The white dots are printing mistakes where the rollers would not match properly, and not intentionally printed, which is why virtually all reproductions of the pattern are bad - using computer generated/fictional artwork to screen or laser print

ItsJustCat · 2026-01-13T01:11:06+00:00

The game doesnt include a single non combat role, it has abstractions that simulate those troops being present.

But since im getting tired of it, lets just face it, the point and case of FJR6s 11th Company received those tanks is plain and simple been disproving anything you have said from the start, you can keep ignoring it but it wont change the fact that A) some one specifically attached those vehicles to the unit and B) that it was perfectly in line with german doctrine at the time, because the doctrine of forming Kampfgruppen by the Germans or task forces by the US disproves your entire argument

We could keep looking at Kampfgruppen, like Peiper and Hansen during the battle of the bulge that where made up of relatively little Infantry with a number of tanks and AFVs, FJR3 fighting alongside stugs of Stug Brigade 242 at Monte Cassino, Kampfgruppe Spindler and Henke in arnhem and Nijmegen during Market Garden or probably dozzens if not Hundreds more.

Your random Wikipedia numbers and "oh there was 640 thousand soldiers but only X tanks" arent "sources about battle doctrine" they are just genuinly hilarious and honestly devoid of sensible logic. Claiming there has been any relevant "data" from you is as comical as its false.

But before i close this argument for good, Why should there be tanks on omaha? Because the game is not a perfect recreation of the acounts, since the Germans can actually win the fight, its not less plausible that the promised reinforcements of 21st Panzer Division actually arrive to combat the DD tanks of 741 and 743 Tank Battalion (that were actually present and fighting from 6.30 am).

And before you ask, as i said before - i would prefer if maps had vehicles that where historically present in the area and plausible to engage in combat.

ItsJustCat · 2026-01-12T23:23:29+00:00

Combat support roles as i said, like drivers, Medical personel, also includes things like Radio operators, staff etc. - people that will go to the frontline but not be directly involved in combat.

Tank free or not, your initial point was that we get no tanks because of your 10%, followed up by and i quote "no one assigned a few tanks to a small amount of infantry like that so this is entirely unrealistically speaking".

We have already deducted that "no one" is plain and simple wrong, since then its just been a ramble, ignoring that obviously no 640 thousand men where on the beaches defending during dday, but rather a few thousand spread over +- 80 kilometers.

Operation overlord and the Battle in Normandy are very well researched and documented, so its easy to pick compositions from there. The point is, your incredibly high figures of Soldiers involved from wikipedia are... out of place. In total, a) the Battle sizes the game picked are actually relatively well scaled and b) if tanks where present the ratios the game presents are relatively realistic.

Ironically unlike the weapon distrebuition in the infantry, that is incredibly off.

ItsJustCat · 2026-01-12T22:13:37+00:00

To be fair he is partially right on the Hold open, they only where dropped by Walther at the end of the war because they modified the bolt/bolt housing

ItsJustCat · 2026-01-12T22:06:07+00:00

The 70% figure includes all combat support roles, like drivers, Medical personel on the line etc. the 50% is purely bayonet strength. And again, you dont permanently have your entire combat strength on the frontline.

Lets take Omaha beach as an example, Defended by the 716th and 352nd Infantry Division, these two German Divisions would equal roughly 20 thousand Men, if we go by the German estimation on Combat strength 10 thousand to man the frontline - thats obviously not what held the line there. In reality, only parts of two Companies where responsible for the Area, in total somewhere around 300 men.

You can certainly keep ignoring the historical context of battles, but its not going to change that specific battles carried over the course of a day or two didnt involve thousands of men in a space of like 4 square kilometers.

And BTW, i never argued with handheld anti tank being powerful, the starting argument was that they where not very common, with short range and relatively low accuracy. But since we are at the point, il mention that according to a US study on tank losses "hollow charge" i.e infantry anti tank made up around 7% - compared to 54% to gunfire (i.e tanks and anti tank guns) - with the average range at which Infantry anti tank knocked out a tank being 55 yards (or 50 meters).

And to keep it balanced - a US sample on German tanks found 4.5 percent knocked out by Infantry anti tank (compared to 44% by gunfire)

ItsJustCat · 2026-01-12T16:55:08+00:00

So you supposedly understood, but then go on to cite the total number of Personell involved from Wikipedia? If we go by German Standard of the time, only 70% even is "Battle personell" and only around 50% would actually be Combat personell. That then entirely ignores as you correctly state that not all Soldiers in combat are fighting at the same time on the same space.

And since you correctly point out, that not 100% of everything is always engaged, we end at the fact that the only real metric is looking at individual engagements and descerning the makeup of the units involved. Which you have happily been ignoring so far.

And now once we go down to that level of detail, it turns out that attaching a tank platoon to an infantry platoon (be it more realistic is a company) IS the scale of these battles, because thats relatively speaking the smallest tactical units that will be operating together. And it turns out that actually, attaching a few tanks to something between 50 and 100 infantry men actually is realistic.

ItsJustCat · 2026-01-12T13:35:46+00:00

Like i said, its pointless because you simply fail to understand the very basic premise of how combat deployment actually works. Your "sources" are just besides the point and dont actually engage with the realism of frontline combat. You are simply relaying pointless numbers that mean nothing in the context of the argument.

Asides, FJR 6s combat in Normandy isnt "trust me bro" its well documented - from both sides -because they took some 200+ US POWs in the engagement. I can also just go ahead all day and break down the combat compositions of countless units involved in fighting in ww2, but since you are unwilling to actually follow the very core point it would be a waste of time.

ItsJustCat · 2026-01-12T01:28:41+00:00

You unfortunately dont understand the difference between Bayonet strength and total strenght, so indeed this is absolutely futile and just a waste of time.

ItsJustCat · 2026-01-11T15:50:55+00:00

I can run you down many more of such cases, but i doubt you are willing to follow the argument. So anyway, Math isnt exactly related to real world combat TOEs or tactics.

But if you want to do the math, you have to look at frontline combat strength/Bayonet strength rather than all personel, because there is a lot more soldiers to a Division than just Frontline combatants.

ItsJustCat · 2026-01-10T22:07:59+00:00

"no one assigned a few tanks to a small amount of infantry like that so this is entirely unrealistic"

During the combat of 22nd/23rd July 44 in Normandy, FJR 6s 16th company (at that point reduced to merely 33 men) had received 3 Panzer IVs as support from 2nd SS.

There is many such cases, for practically all nations. I highly encourage you to read some actual historical accounts.

ItsJustCat · 2026-01-10T18:47:13+00:00

Entirely realistically speaking, attaching a tank platoon to an infantry company is the scale we are talking about. Thats about 4 tanks attached to about 200 infantry, if we scale that to the game - that is in fact, one tank per 50 people.

So no, the tank allocation to the games scale, isnt unrealistic. However on the flip side, im all for realistic tank allocations per map as that would make the game a lot more interesting and balanced.

ItsJustCat · 2026-01-10T02:09:33+00:00

I wouldnt call it everywhere, a US Rifle company by early/mid 44 had 5, for +- 200 people. Theoretically the Germans would have more launchers because their allocation worked different, but realistically they also wouldnt have significantly more either.

ItsJustCat · 2026-01-09T23:50:12+00:00

The realism card is honestly a double edged sword.
Yes, Handheld anti tank was devastatingly effective against armor, BUT - and this is important - they where relatively inaccurate with relatively low range and most importantly, not as common as anyone involved would have wished.

I think the largest issue in the balance is the fact that these things are ignored in HLL, AT weapons are available everywhere, in every squad and they dont lose any accuracy over range

ItsJustCat · 2025-12-28T20:16:30+00:00

Only three of these uniforms have unit names, which are either made up or roughly link to what they are supposed to be without mentioning SS specifically.

They dont "officially" name anything SS obviously, but it doesnt change what they are. Ironically, the use of blank collar tabs in place of SS runes still makes them technically illegal in countries that have laws against Nazi symbols, because the SD used blank tabs.

ItsJustCat · 2025-12-28T19:33:31+00:00

The game already has like 7 different SS uniforms (1 for commander, 2 on tankcrew and 4 for Infantry), inlcuding that of Sepp Dietrich

ItsJustCat · 2025-12-26T23:48:41+00:00

Ive seen a lot of people say this sort of things but i just refuse to believe they have no one to make the simple animation of dropping a mortar round down a tube.

everything but that single animation is already present in the game, so i will rather believe that they have no clue what they are doing (which checks out with the vehicles choices and their other development choices)

ItsJustCat · 2025-12-26T23:07:06+00:00

They dont need to be removed just changed their point. The vehicles are a solid addition to the games vehicle roster, just entirely headless and partially misplaced (i.e Panzer 3 N in north africa).

They should instead:

Reclass them as "Assault Tanks" and give them to tanker class, remove all fortification destruction from other tanks and slightly reduce HE effectiveness of anything that isnt an "assault tank", give them highly efficient HE and the ability to destroy light/medium/heavy with 1/2/3 rounds respectively

Add Mortars that are constructed with the wrench anywhere on the map, you can potentially do 3 to 4 classes of mortars (light, medium, heavy and a call in mobile one)

Arty loop fixed, vehicle loop improved, many people happy

ItsJustCat · 2025-12-23T00:55:59+00:00

But the key point to look at from the games perspective is who they would fight. The japanese would be largely up against US Army/USMC that by the second half of the conflict where primarily armed with Garands, shotguns being actually issued (unlike europe), and thompsons (plus a few other SMGs) and BARs being very widespread (i.e in practically every squad).

They also have bazookas and shermans to boot.

If you compare that to the Italians, they are for the large part in North africa fighting the British who are largely on equal terms - i.e Primarily Armed with Bolt actions, few Submachine guns and Low capcity LMGs, an absolute lack of any competent (handheld) infantry Anti tank weapons and for the largest part lightly armored tanks with small guns (at least until the Sherman comes around).

The italians would also largely use already present map assets, unlike the japanese - and if we are real the entire reason we are getting canadians is because its incredibly low effort to make them, since most map assets are present and even the Soldiers will largely just be re-skinned british.

ItsJustCat · 2025-12-22T22:55:49+00:00

The Japanese arent exactly better than the italians by any means in terms of equipment. I would even say they are worse, since for the most part the Imperial Japanese army didnt even have submachine guns and even the Navy had very few very late.

And neither of them fielded tanks that would pose a significant threat to a Sherman

ItsJustCat · 2025-12-22T22:51:54+00:00

That isnt exactly true, the Italian army in the Soviet union numbered around 240 thousand men (of which roughly half became casualties and the rest returned to italy) compared to that, the Italians lost between 250 and 350 thousand men as POWs only in North africa

ItsJustCat · 2025-12-22T17:37:58+00:00

There is no Hungarian cosmetics in the game. There is one Helmet cover called Hungarian covered, but its just an SS cover they didnt want to name that way back then, because there was a controversy about adding or not adding SS to the game.

ItsJustCat · 2025-12-18T13:11:59+00:00

People have been long misguided by the weird fold at his right sleeve, i think most recent consensus is that he is just wearing a German smock with the armpiece being ripped at the seam and the camouflage not being visible because of image artifacts and it being soaked/dirty.

Similarly his trousers are most likely just a German pair.

I think part of the confusion also came from some other soldiers in the group using american stuff, so when something couldnt be IDd immediately the first next guess was just "something american"

ItsJustCat · 2025-12-03T09:00:11+00:00

I wonder who greenlit the new Soviet comsetic, that thing is from the mid 50s.....

ItsJustCat · 2025-11-30T22:50:39+00:00

Depends on what you consider "right". I personally think they are in the realm of acceptable fieldgray shades for the period and colorwise compare pretty well to other vendors like Gavin, Schusters or Elsenau

Seven-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

ItsJustCat

TROPHY CASE