At the moment we are all talking about content, chances and wishes for the upcoming next CoH instalment. With the Mediterranean theatre of operations Relic said that they want to display as many aspects as possible and parts of the theatre with its battles and stories. One of these aspects is the colourful mix of the British armed forces – the Royal Army.  

The British Army was a wild mixture with units from all over the “Commonwealth” plus any potential army in exile that made it to British held territories. 

For the following i will ignore the African theater of war because at the moment we dont have any information for the "african content" beside the small teaser in the teaser. The current - obvious - focus is the ITALIAN theater of war!

To start the analyse I would like to recommend my first thread “THE ITALIAN FACTION - A SHORT ESSAY ABOUT A POTENTIAL RSI ITALIAN FACTION” .

Some of the following design principles and ideas are based on the basic work I have posted in the linked thread. So when u have question or when u are asking what I’m talking about please have a look into the linked thread. Thank you very much.

The British – the Canadian – the South African – The Australian – The Indians – The New Zealanders – The Polish – The Italians – The Jewish – The Greece – The British Forces in Italy!?

With the “short” list of nations u can already see an interesting problem – or chance – or the next topic here. 

With the pre-alpha and the British faction introduction post we got a first look into the potential “British faction” and with the first look there were some answers and some questions. 

In the pre alpha we got some first intel on the British soldiers. We had seen British fighting along Indian soldiers. There was no sign of other nations or “commonwealth factions” in the pre-alpha. Perhaps I have missed some nations here with the two out of several candidates mentioned above. 

With the dev post from early October things started to get – interesting. Here the “British” faction was called “Commonwealth Forces” without any real “in depth” information – or mention of commonwealth forces at all? – beside the mention of the “British soldiers” aka Tommies and the already established “Indian Gurkha” units (I know. Gurkhas aren’t “Indian” but it seems to me that they were part of the planed “Indian battlegroup” so I said Indian here to get the link ?).

With some of the additional released screenshots we had spotted some Australian soldiers – our first “Commonwealth” unit. 

With this limited information lets have a look into the historical background of the theatre. The Royal British Army had suffered from 2 world wars now. In 1943 the British started running out of soldiers. When the British 8th Army landed on Sicily one of its 6 divisions was a Canadian division. Later when the British 8th Army landed in mainland Italy the British loses started to rise and the British needed more soldiers to men the expanding frontline with troops. Between October and December 1943, the British 8th Army was reinforced by the 2nd New Zealand Division and 8th Indian Division. In early 1944 the army got more reinforcements. With the arrival of the 6th South African Armoured Division, 5th Canadian Armoured Division, 4th Indian Division, the Corpo Italiano di Liberazione (Italian Liberation Corps – CIL) of the Esercito Cobelligerante Italiano (Italian Co-belligerent Army – the Army of the South (Esercito del Sud)) and the Polish II Corps with 2, later 3 divisions the British army in Italy grew in numbers and strength. Later the Jewish Brigade and the 3rd Greek Mountain Brigade joined the 8th Army too. All in all the British Army deployed 20 divisions and several brigades in Italy. 9 of the 20 Divisions were “non-british” division. In late 1944 the majority of the “British” fighting power” in Italy were non-british forces. Interesting fact here; No Australians!? With the loses in Africa the Australians couldn’t support its “Imperial Forces in Africa” any longer. After the capitulation of the Axis forces in Africa the Australians demanded to retreat its last division, the 9th Australian Division, to Australia. The British and US army accepts the request. With the withdrawal of the 9th Australian Division no additional Australian ground forces took part in the Italian campaign, only some aerial and naval forces stayed in the Mediterranean region.

With all that said there is an interesting option for the “British Forces in CoH 3”.

Why not separate them? 

The British Army

We could split the British forces into the “Royal British Army” (The Titel Royal is added here to have a CLEAR naming distinction between the "BRITISH" and the "IMPERIAL ARMY") AND the “Commonwealth Army”.

Why should Relic do it? Well. To sell an additional faction! Nah. Sry. I had to take the chance for the joke here ^^ With all the different factions and all the players demanding for “their nation ingame” and for “more content” the split would offer the opportunity to fulfil the demands of the community.

What could happen to the “Royal British Army” with the split? Well. It would change the arsenal. All the weapons and vehicles we had seen ingame could be kept for the British Army. The biggest change would be the battlegroups. At the moment we have no information about the British battlegroups beside a “Indian based battlegroup” with the Gurkha rifles and the Bishop SPG. With the “elimination” of the “commonwealth soldiers” the potential British battlegroups would be focused on the British Commandos, Parachute soldiers and heavy Churchill tanks. 

To add some variety to the British mix here one battlegroup could bring the CIL with Italian soldiers, Italian vehicles, and Italian artillery. The CIL (Italian Liberation Corps) used the old Italian army uniforms and equipment. They supported the US and British forces until the end of war. In 1945 the Italian Allied Army had formed several small “light Divisions” replacing and free up many British men for the frontlines in France and the lower countries. Fun fact here: The CIL used at least 3 Autobilda 41 in combat. They had access to a company of 12 CV flamethrower tankettes and (perhaps) a company of L6/40 light tanks. The tanks were never deployed in combat but hey, it would add some “additional weapons” for the proposed “Royal Army”. Furthermore, the CIL made good use of some experienced and skilled Italian artillery gunners armed with some leftover Italian guns like the Cannone da 47/32, Obice da 149/19 (one of the most modern Italian heavy artillery guns), Obice da 100/22 and some other Italian artillery pieces. The Italian artillery got some fame within the British forces when they supported the British forces at Cassino with their heavy railway artillery guns that counter fire the german heavy batteries. 

Another battlegroup for the British faction could be modelled around the Polish Forces in Italy with their uniforms, weapons and with the bear – sry – Corporal Wojtek. 

We have seen that a split wont harm the “British Army” at all. They would keep their Gurkha rifles – because India wasn’t part of the Commonwealth in WW2 – it was a colonial army – and their heavy tanks AND they could get some special units and abilities AND factions (here India plus Poland and Italy AND when needed the Greek and Jewish Soldiers too!). The Italians could field special artillery, some flamethrower tankettes and/or special mechanized units (universal carrier callin), the polish could send in Sherman Fireflies, US M3 halftracks, Sherman IB 105mm and special munition-based abilities, the Indians have the mountain combat focused Gurkha infantry, Bishop SPG ect ect.

So there would be plenty of content for a British faction with foreign nation battlegroups, Royal Paratroopers, British Commandos, Chruchill heavy tanks and some air support and artillery weapons.

Before we look into the potential new “Commonwealth army” we will look into the vehicles and weapons we have seen in the current coh3 pre alpha and faction design post.

We have seen the Dingo Scout Car (did I smell the Italian Lince here too), the CWT 15 heavy truck, Stuart Light Tank, Bishop SPG, Humber Armoured Car, Valentine tank, Archer tank destroyer, “Crusader III, AA Mk I”, Churchill heavy tank and the Black Prince Prototype tank. Based on the dev post we know that there will be the 25pdr and BL 5.5inch artillery gun, Bofors 40mm anti air gun and the 2pdr anti-tank gun (okay!?) and the 6pdr anti-tank gun. 

The Commonwealth Forces

With the look into the proposed “Royal British Army” lets have a look into a potential “Commonwealth Army”. 

We will need the following units;

• Construction unit (when there is base building)
• Base Infantry
• Light scout (fast cap/anti sniper)
• Heavy weapon – suppression
• Heavy weapon – indirect fire
• Heavy weapon – anti tank
• Infantry based anti-tank
• Supporting infantry (additional role/setup)
• Armoured car
• Armoured personal carrier
• Main battle tank
• Tank killer
• Artillery weapon
• Special infantry unit
• Special armoured unit
• Support unit (bonus/modifier unit)

Optional:

• Armoured Artillery
• Heavy tank destroyer
• Elite infantry
• Flamethrower
• (sniper)
• (heavy tank)
• (rocket artillery)

When u want to know why I will use the posted setup please have a look into the RSI faction essay HERE (click).

A short history of our commonwealth army

The list in mind we could look into the candidates of the new “Commonwealth army”. With the elimination of the British Divisions, the Polish Divisions, the CIL and the Indian Divisions we have the Canadian, New Zealand and South African Forces.

The biggest faction here is the Canadian army. The Canadians were involved in the battle of Italy from the beginning until the early 1945. With the landing in Sicily Canadian Infantry soldiers, tank crew men, artillery gunners and many other men saw active service. In late 1943 the 1st Canadian Corps joined the frontline. With the 5th Canadian Armoured Division, the 1st Canadian Infantry Division and the 1st Canadian Armoured Brigade the Canadian had thousands of men at the frontline in 1944. The situation changed in 1945 with the bitter fighting after the failed Market Garden campaign and the german Ardennes offensive. Now the British need all available men with combat experience at the german boarder so in early 1945 all Canadian units were removed from Italy. 

Unlike the Canadians the New Zealand Army and South African Army stood in Italy until the capitulation. But both armies send a single division only. Both countries had problems to mobilise men to maintain a combat field division. South Africa had suffered in Africa by losing one of its 3 divisions in Tobruk and New Zealand had a limited manpower pool from the start and was very careful with its limited manpower. The South Africans fought with the 8th Army until summer 1944 when they were transferred to the 5th US Army where the South Africans replaced US units that were removed for the planned Invasion of southern France. The 2nd NZ Division stood under British command until the end of hostiles in Italy. One of the interesting episodes was a New Zealand tank clash near Trieste in April-May 1945. Sherman tanks of the 4th New Zealand Armoured Brigade met tanks of the german 5. Polizei-Panzer-Kompanie. The 5. PolPzKp lost one or two of its soviet T-34/76 tanks in battle against the New Zealand Shermans.

Because of the numbers – surprise – the Canadians will form the core faction of our “commonwealth army” supported by the “specialists” of the New Zealanders and South Africans.

The Commonwealth Arsenal

With that said it time again to look in the Commonwealth Arsenal. 

Like with the RSI faction we will first look into the potential infantry units. Unlike the RSI concept the section here will be short because of the limited pool.

Maori

The Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand. The formation of a full Maori battalion was forced by the Maori society to raise their profile and to prove themselves alongside the “British people”. With ww2 the New Zealand Army approved the formation of a Maori battalion. The 28th (Maori) battalion was formed in 1940. They first saw combat in Greece in 1940. They fought at Crete and in North Africa. When the 2nd New Zealand Division was sent to Italy they followed. In Italy they were trained for close combat fighting and spearhead operation. In Italy the Maori fought in many major battles like Orsogna, Cassino, Florence, Rimini, Bologna and Trieste. Soon they earned the respect of both armies – allied and axis. 

Unlike the Maori it is difficult to “find” special names beside some regimental or battalion based names like “Highlanders” (48th Highlanders of Canada Regiment or Seaforth Highlanders of Canada, Cape Town Highlanders SAF), “Dragoons” (4th Recon Regiment CAN, 9th Armoured Regiment CAN), “Saskatoons” (The Saskatoon Light Infantry Regiment CAN), “Hussars” (5th Armoured Regiment CAN), “Fusiliers” (MG gunners of the Princess Louise Fusiliers Regiment, CAN), “Guards” (Princes Louise Dragoon Guards Regiment CAN, Prince Alfred’s Guard SAF) and other terms.

With the limitation we can look into the unit types. The Dragoons are a suitable name for potential patrol and scouting units. Hussars could be used for armored support infantry, Highlanders for special combat units, Fusiliers for Supporting Infantry. It is the same trick I had already used and established for the RSI army thread.

Small arms

With the infantry it is time to look into the small arms arsenal of the proposed “Commonwealth Army”.

Lee-Enfield No. 4 (CAN, SAF, NZ)

The standard British service rifle was the working horse of the royal army infantry men. With a 10-round magazine the rifle had a good rate of fire and with its round it was good on long ranges. All “Commonwealth Armies” made use of the standard service rifle. 

Thompson SMG (CAN, NZ, SAF?)

The famous US SMG. The Thompson was a heavy but loved sub machine gun of ww2. Because of the limited British equipment and the lack of SMG the Commonwealth Forces got many rifles and weapons by the USA. The Thompson was adopted by many Commonwealth units. The Canadians liked their Thompson SMGs. During the heave battle of Ortona some Canadian platoon dropped their old rifles to fully adopt to Thompson SMGs for the close combat engagements in the street battles at Ortona.

Sten SMG (CAN, NZ, SAF?)

The British SMG of ww2. A light and easy to produce SMG. Used in large numbers and adopted by many Commonwealth nations. The 32 round magazines allowed for a long fire burst but like many SMGs the Sten gun was not suitable for long range engagements. The gun was used in limited numbers by the Canadians and New Zealand soldiers because of the large number of Thompsons SMG in their service.

Bren Gun LMG (CAN, SAF, NZ?)

Standard British light MG. In use by all Commonwealth forces. The box fed MG had a limited rate of fire. It was often used in small burst fire support to protect advancing infantry, suppress enemy’s soldiers and to add some more firepower to the rifle equipped commonwealth rifle platoons. In gameplay terms the weapon is closer to a long-range hitting weapon instate of a suppression MG – a British “BAR”.

Lewis MG (CAN, SAF?, NZ?)

The WW1 MG was reused in ww2. The Commonwealth needed any rifle and MG in storage to equip and train their soldiers. The Lewis gun was a slow firing MG with limited accuracy. Some MGs were used in 1943 in second line units to add some anti air firepower and some protection. Most likely no Lewis MGs were sent to Italy. Most of the old MGs were used in the United Kingdom for training and arming the Home Guard units. 

Vickers HMG (CAN, SAF, NZ?)

Standard heavy water-cooled MG of the Commonwealth forces. Like many British small arms the Vickers HMG was a ww1 proven weapon. Before ww2 the British army planned to replace the Vickers gun with a more modern design but the outbreak of ww2 forced the British and Commonwealth Armies to use any Vickers MG at hand to supply the MG units of the new infantry formations with heavy MGs. The MG was okay; it was reliable, had a moderate rate of fire and a powerful round. The Vickers MG was used by the heavy MG units of the Canadians, South Africans and (most likely) New Zealand units. 

M1919A4/A6 cal.30 Browning HMG (CAN, SAF, NZ)

With the US industry and the US Army on the allied side the Commonwealth Forces got access to US arms. With the limited British small arms production, the Commonwealth Forces were in need for new modern equipment. The US MGs were a welcome reinforcement. Light, belt-fed and air cooled they were easy to handle and add a great firepower. The small tripod allowed the gunner to lay on the ground to operate the MG. With the M6 version the allied had access to a light bipod MG similar in combat performance to the german light MGs. Both versions were liked by the Commonwealth soldiers.

M2HB ca.50 Browning HMG (CAN, SAF, NZ)

The heavy US MG was developed in ww1 to stop tanks. With the heavy 12,7mm round it had enough firepower to suppress soft targets, destroy light vehicles and to protect the infantry against aerial threats. Like its small brother the M2 cal.50 MG had a small tripod allowing the infantry to operate it from laying on the ground. With its 600 rounds per minute, it was a “slow firing” MG but the allied soldiers accepted the “drawback” because of its impressive performance.

PIAT (CAN, SAF, NZ?)

The Boys anti-tank rifle was heavy and outdated. In Africa the British infantry had to realise that the Boys cant penetrate the modern AFVs of the Axis forces. Tanks like the Italian M13/40 or the german Panzer III were close to be immune against the Boys rifle. With the raising tank threat, the British Army need a new tank defence weapon for the infantry. The result was the Projector, Infantry, Anti Tank – the PIAT. The PIAT was a result of a British program started in 1939-1940. It was the “logical development” of the Blacker Bombard – an improvised emergency spigot anti-tank mortar – and the hollow charge warhead concept. Unlike the US Bazooka and the german PzFaust or Panzerschreck the warhead was launched by a manual tensed spring. The warhead was “thrown” by the spring. The weapon was strong enough to destroy most armored targets. In the Netherlands the PIAT was often used as emergency mortar against german gun emplacements. The PIAT was first used in Tunisia in 1943. With the Italian campaign in full swing the Commonwealth army was supplied with PIATs to protect the infantry against the german armored units. In 1944 any Commonwealth infantry company had a number of PIATs. 

Bazooka (CAN, SAF, NZ?)

The US Bazooka was much lighter compared to the PIAT. The Canadians adopted the 60mm M1A1 Bazooka. They used them for mobile combat teams whenever the PIAT was too heavy for the job. It had a better accuracy compared to the PIAT and the reload was easier compared to the PIAT. With PIAT and Bazooka available to the Canadians the Canadian army kept the PIAT in service for the heavy weapon units and deployed Bazookas to the regular rifle platoons. The New Zealanders and South Africans didn’t adopt the Bazooka. Unfortunately, there is no information why they weren’t adopted. 

Boys Anti-Tank rifle (CAN, NZ, SAF?)

The Boys Anti-tank rifle was a “child” of the ww1 anti-tank rifles. The weapon was heavy and slow firing. Its armor penetration value was limited. With the experience in Africa the Boys anti-tank rifle was dropped on the European frontlines. It was replaced in the anti-tank role by the PIAT and Bazooka. The Commonwealth forces kept some Boys in their lines to use them against small point targets like MG nest, bunkers, field fortifications and soft vehicles. The rifle wasn’t used as a sniper in combat, but the heavy round allowed some usage against sandbag positions and against concrete emplacements. 

Charlton Automatic Rifle (NZ LMG/Assault rifle)

With ww2 New Zealand got in a desperate situation. Isolated on the other side of the planet New Zealand needed the support, equipment, and arms of the British homeland. With the setbacks of the first war phase New Zealand realised that it needs its own resources and manpower to protect its nation. One result was the Charlton Automatic Rifle. It was an impressive weapon. The New Zealand army had large number of outdated Lee–Metford rifles in reserve. Two New Zealand engineers developed a new automatic rifle based on the stored pre-ww1 Lee-Metford rifles. They redesigned the gun and add new firing systems. The prototype – the entire project – was a success. The New Zealand army ordered the Charlton rifle. Until the end of the war 1500 rifles were rebuild. When the Australian army got details of the gun they were so interested in the model that they started to setup their own factory to convert their old Lee-Metford rifles too. Unfortunately, the history of the rifle is difficult to track down. The Charlton rifle was used by the New Zealand Home Guard, but some units were sent to the frontlines with Charlton rifles in their ranks. I can’t track down the units. I can’t say whether it was used in Italy or in the Pacific only. But with its interesting design, its semi auto firing mode and the emergency full auto fire, its unique design, and its special place in history it could work as the “Kiwi CoH FG 42”; A special weapon for the Commonwealth Army in CoH 3. Today only small numbers had survived. Many Charlton rifle were lost in warehouse fire destroying the stored rifles. The rifle was nearly forgotten so I think it would be a welcome addition for CoH 3.

Like any other army the Commonwealth forces fielded a number of heavy weapons. Many weapons are well known and were seen in CoH 1 and/or 2 as part of the British arms arsenal. Don’t accept many surprises here.

Heavy arms

Mortars

2inch Mortar

The Ordnance SBML 2inch mortar was a small and light weight mortar of the royal army. Like many other small mortars, the weapon was “weak” compared to the standard mortars of the armies. On the other side the mortars allowed soldiers to “throw” grenades over longer ranges compared to pure “muscle power”. Was used by the rifle platoons for “more” firepower.

M19 mortar

The US M19 mortar was another small and light weight mortar. The Commonwealth armies adopted most of the US M19 mortars to fill up their ranks and to compensate the lacking British supplies. Like the 2inch mortar the M19 mortar had only limited combat capabilities because of its small rounds.

3inch Mortar

Ordnance ML 3inch mortar was the standard service mortar of the British army. It was available in sufficient numbers. All Commonwealth forces used the 3inch mortar too. It is the standard mortar in CoH gameplay terms.

Anti-tank guns

QF 2pdr gun

The 2pdr anti-tank gun was the standard early war anti-tank gun of the royal army. With the 40mm gun calibre it was a quite suitable gun. With the increasing armor thickness of the axis tanks the 2pdr had more and more problems in destroying enemy’s AFV. After the Tunisian campaign the gun was dropped from active service in the European theatre of war. No gun was used in Italy.

QF 6pdr gun

With the end of the 2pdr gun the British army adopted the 57mm 6pdr gun to counter the new axis tanks. It was a good gun with good ballistics and performance. It was light enough to allow the infantry to move it in a prepared position. For long marches the gun needed a towing vehicle. The gun could deal with the axis MBTs but it had problems with the “heavy Panther and Tiger” tanks. It was the standard service anti-tank gun of the commonwealth anti-tank units.

QF 17pdr gun

The British army started to develop a new heavy anti-tank gun before they had introduced the 6pdr. The British were speculating for bigger tanks the axis side and they were right. When they met the Tiger tank in Tunisia the first time, they were shocked and brought the first guns without carriage to Africa where they were put into the carriage of the 25pdr gun. The 17/25-pounders ‘Pheasant’ helped the British to counter the Tiger tanks in Tunisia. With the Invasion of Sicily, the first “regular” 17pdr guns were ready for combat deployment. They replaced the “improvised version”. The 17pdr had a big problem; it was TOO heavy. With 3 ton the gun needed a towing vehicle. The gun couldn’t be moved by its own crew. On the other side the gun was powerful and had excellent gun ballistics. For that reason, the British forces put the gun on many tracked vehicles to get mobile tank killers. The 17pdr was used in rising numbers by the commonwealth forces in 1944-1945. They were deployed by the divisional anti-tank units in static emplacements to defend their units against axis armor counter attacks.

Artillery

QF 25-pounder

The 25pdr was THE standard service artillery gun of the artillery heavy British army divisions. The 25pdr was build in Great Britain and in Canada so the gun formed the backbone of the commonwealths too. The gun had a “small calibre” and shell weight in comparison to other army’s standard field guns, but it had a great range and good rate of fire for suppressive fire. The gun could be used against soft and hard targets. Sometimes the gun was used as improvised anti-tank gun.

BL 4.5inch Medium Field Gun

The 4.5inch gun was developed for counter battery fire. Like many British artillery guns the calibre was small compared to the guns of other nations (114mm compared to 150~155mm guns of Germany, USA and USSR) but it allowed rapid fire action. The gun was used by the British and Canadian Army in the heavy gun units. 

BL 5.5inch Medium Gun

The British realised that they would need large guns to replace the old outdated ww1 guns. The result of the development was the 140mm 5.5inch gun. The gun was produced in large numbers to equip the medium artillery units of the commonwealth and British division. Thanks to is calibre the gun could bring down destructive fire on enemy’s position. The gun was used by the polish, south Africans, kiwi (New Zealand), Canadian and British medium artillery regiments in Italy. 

Anti-air guns

20mm Polsten gun

The Polsten 20mm gun was the counter design to the famous swiss 20mm Oerlikon. The Polsten gun was developed in Poland and brought to Great Britain with the polish soldiers and engineers fled to UK. Here the gun was built for the commonwealth forces. The Canadians built a double, triple, and quadruple mount for the field forces. The Canadian Polsten triple mounts is well known for the colour photo often shown in magazines and on websites. Unfortunately, there is no real information about the deployment of the Polsten guns in combat in Italy. 

40mm Bofors gun

The STANDARD anti air gun of the commonwealth forces. A small rapid fire anti-air gun against aerial and ground threats. The gun was used in large numbers and formed the backbone of the commonwealth anti-air units. Thanks to its weight the gun could be moved on the battlefield by soldiers and small motorized vehicles. 

QF 3.7inch AA gun

The 3.7inch heavy anti air gun was the “British version” of the german 8,8cm Flak and the Italian Cannone da 90/53 anti-air gun. The gun had excellent gun performance against armored and aerial targets. Until the deployment of the 17pdr gun the 3.7inch gun was often used against axis armor as emergency anti-tank emplacement. The gun was used by Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and British Forces. 

Vehicles

With the heavy weapons finished our last branch is missing; the vehicles of the Commonwealth forces. First of all we have to talk about the elephant in the room; the main battle tank of the Commonwealth Forces. The British Army hadn’t sent any Cromwell/Comet tanks to Italy. Italy was dominated by 2 tanks and their subversions: The Sherman and the Churchill. Both tanks were used in large numbers and many subtypes in Italy. In 1945 no other frontline had so many tanks in relation to manpower numbers like the Italian Theatre. Because of the manpower shortage in the British empire the British Army tried to compensate the lack of men by sending more tanks to the Italian frontline. To simplify the supply and logistical systems the allied forces in Italy were supplied with Shermans only – and some special vehicles. The US Army, the British Army and all Commonwealth Forces were equipped with Sherman tank. Shermans with short 75mm guns, Shermans with 76mm guns, Shermans with howitzer – It was the backbone of the allied tank forces. Interesting is that the Sherman is missing in the current British Royal Army setup so I will use the Sherman as the core tank for the Commonwealth proposal. 

The Churchill is a different story. The Churchill was used in large numbers by the BRITISH Army. The Commonwealth forces weren’t supplied with Churchills at all. Canada had dropped the Churchill before the Italian campaigns; the polish hadn’t deployed any Churchill tank in combat in Italy and New Zealand and South Africa hadn’t got any Churchill at all. With these limitations the Commonwealth Army will be limited to the Sherman tank. This will lead to an important aspect of the Commonwealth Army; It will be an aggressive army. The Relic dev post had presented us a more defensive orientated British army faction. The Commonwealth army is the opposite because they can’t hide behind weapon emplacements and Churchill tanks. They had to push to prevent the enemy from sending the big cats into combat. The emplacements and heavy Churchill first more to the British doctrine of the methodical battle. The Canadians, Kiwis and South African soldiers were more adopted to the doctrine of movement warfare. This will be the core element of the proposal; a mobile and aggressive army.

Sherman

The Sherman tank was the backbone of the allied tank forces in Italy. All Commonwealth units deployed armored units to support their infantry in combat. The Canadians sent an armored brigade and armored division, the South Africans sent an armored division and the New Zealand army sent an armored brigade to support their division. All this units were equipped with Sherman tanks of various types. There were 75mm Sherman I (US M4), with and without HVSS suspension, Sherman IB with 105mm guns, Sherman II (US M4A1), Sherman IIA (US M4A1(76)W), Sherman III (US M4A2 diesel – the “main commonwealth Sherman”), Sherman IIIA with 76mm gun (US M4A2(76)W) and with HVSS (Sherman IIIAY – US M4A2(76)W), Sherman V and many other versions. 

The Sherman was a result of the US armored doctrine to separate the “tank-vs-tank combat” and the “infantry support”. The tank-vs-tank concept was moved to the US tank destroyer forces. The Sherman should support the infantry in combat against enemy’s soft targets and fortified positions. The Sherman tank wasn’t designed for tank-vs-tank combat. For that reason, the Sherman had a remarkable strong frontal armor (76mm angled welded armor to push against fortified positions), good strategic mobility (marching long distances) and easy to maintain and repair. On the other side with its narrow tracks and “weak 75mm” gun the Sherman was inferior in tank-vs-tank combat and in cross-country movement. In Italy the Sherman was used in many battles. Here it met german Panzers and StuGs but because of the limited number of german armor the Sherman was more often used in its intended infantry support role and here it was loved by the commonwealth forces.

M10 tank destroyer

Used by France (7eme Regiment de Chasseurs d’Afrique), Polish (2nd Anti-tank regiment, 2nd polish armored division), New Zealand (7th Anti-tank regiment, 2nd NZ Division) and South Africa (1/11th anti-tank regiment, 6th SAF armored division).

With the split of the tank roles in the US tank doctrine the US army developed a tank destroyer based on the US medium tank chassis. The first full armored vehicle was the M10 Wolverine. Armed with a 3inch 76.2mm gun the M10 was a mobile open top tank destroyer. The US anti-tank doctrine favoured speed, manoeuvrability and firepower in contrast of armor. Whenever the enemy deployed tanks the US tank destroyer should counter the attack by speed and firepower. The production of the M10 ended in 1943 but it was used until the end of the war. The M10 was used by many commonwealth forces to boost their anti-tank performance and to counter the german Panzer threat. It was used in Italy until the end of the hostilities. In Italy the M10 was often used in direct fire support against the field fortifications of the german forces.

M10 Achilles tank destroyer

Used by British 93rd Anti-tank regiment, polish 7th Anti-tank regiment, 2nd polish amored division.

The M10 Achilles was an improved version of the US M10. With the 17pdr gun the Achilles could deal with any axis tank in battle. Unfortunately, it had the same weakness as the M10; weak armor and the open top turret. In Italy the number of Achilles TD was limited. As far as I know no Achilles was given to the commonwealth forces in Italy. They were deployed by British or polish forces only. 

M7 Priest

Used by British 24th Field Regiment, 95th Field Regiment and 152nd Field Regiment,6th SAF armored division and 2nd NZ Division.

The Priest was developed to allow the artillery to keep up in battle with the armored units. Mounted on the M3 medium chassis the Priest SPG fielded an US 105mm artillery gun. The British - always interested in artillery combat - adopted the M7 Priest for the Battle at El Alamein. They used large numbers of M7 Priest SPGs because they were lacking such a mobile long range artillery vehicle. Some guns were used by Commonwealth forces acquired by the land lease program. The US industry had built so many M7 Priest guns that the allies had the luxury to convert M7 Priest into other vehicles like APCs (armored personal carriers). A small number of M7 Priests was used by the New Zealand and South African Army in Italy. Canada didn’t need a SPG thanks to their own vehicle; The Sexton SPG.

Sherman Firefly Mk VC

Used by New Zealand 15th Armoured Regiment, 2nd NZ Division, Pretoria Regiment, 6th SAF Armored Division.

With the heavy 17pdr gun ready for battle the British were looking for any possibility to mount the 17pdr on a vehicle. The Sherman was a logical choice, but the turret was too small. The British developed a new turret. They were successful. The Firefly was soon adopted in large numbers and any British tank company fielded one or two Fireflies to counter the heavy german Panzers. With the Firefly available in bigger numbers the commonwealth forces adopted the Firefly too. In Italy the Kiwis and South Africans were using Fireflies for sure but I cant find numbers for the Canadians. With the Sherman chassis the Firefly adopted all the positive and the negative aspect; strong frontal armor, easy to maintain but limited offroad capabilities. With the new gun the Firefly replaced the “anti-infantry” gun of the Sherman with a powerful anti-tank gun. But with the gun change the Firefly had less rounds compared to the regular 75mm Sherman forcing the Firefly to resupply more often in battle compared to the Sherman.

One of the side stories of the Italian front is the History of the 755th US Tank Battalion in March 1944. The 755th Battalion was often in combat and supported many formations and nations at the Italian Front. As firefighter unit the unit encountered german armor more often than other allied units in Italy. For that reason, the 755th Battalion was asking for long barrel Shermans. The US Army Ordnance HQ in the USA didn’t send any new 76mm long barrel Shermans so the 755th Battalion looked for other weapons. With the Sherman Firefly they found their anti-tank answer. They adopted 12 Fireflies and used them until the end of the battles in Italy with success. It is one of the many unknown histories of the Italian theatre – and it is an indicator for the importance and success of the Sherman Firefly tank. 

M5 Stuart Recce

Used by 6th SAF armored division, 2nd NZ Division and 5th Canadian Armored Division.

The Stuart Recce was a turretless Stuart tank. With the turret removed the tank was used for fast reconnaissance missions. The crew could spot from the vehicle. The converted vehicles exchanged fire power for a free 360° field of view. They were often used as HQ command vehicles or for armored resupply missions. To get some heavy firepower in reconnaissance missions the crews added an additional heavy US cal.50 MG on top of the chassis. Thanks to its tracks and its small size (without the turret the small Stuart got even “smaller”) it was a suitable vehicle for reconnaissance missions. The Stuart Recce was sometimes used as “emergency APC” too but it couldnt transport as many soldiers as the US M3/5 halftracks. 

Sexton SPG

Canada started to develop a combat tank after the defeat in France 1940. With the British occupied by replacing their losses in equipment the Canadians knew that they would have to supply themselves. The result was the RAM tank. Before the Canadians could deploy their tank in combat the USA joined the war and sent weapons and equipment. Soon the Canadians had to realise that the Sherman was superior to their RAM design, so they used the Ram for training only. With the RAMs in reserve the Canadians were now looking what they could do with the stockpiled RAM vehicles. The Canadians build large numbers of 25pdr artillery guns so they made the decision to put the 25pdr on the RAM chassis. The result was the mobile rapid firing Sexton SPG. The Sexton had one big advantage compared to the US M7 Priest in commonwealth usage: the 25pdr ammunition. The 25pdr ammo was available in large numbers. To simplify the supply lines the Sexton was adopted by the British too. The Sextons Mk I (based on the RAM tank) and Mk II (based on the canadian Grizzly tank) were deployed by the Canadian and British forces in Italy. Perhaps some Sextons were used by the 6th SAF armored division too.

Otter Mk. I Armoured Car - CAN

The Otter Light Reconnaissance Car was a Canadian development. Based on the Canadian Chevrolet C15 army truck the Otter was armed with a Boys Anti-tank rifle and a Bren LMG. The vehicle was light armored with 12mm armor only. The vehicle had a smoke discharger to defend the vehicle by a smoke screen. The car was used by the reconnaissance units of the Canadian and south African forces in Italy.   

Sherman III Kangaroo - CAN

In 1944 the allies were in a bizarre situation. The commonwealth forces needed a suitable armored personal carrier (APC) to protect their infantry against artillery and MG fire. Unfortunately, in 1944 US halftracks were needed by the US army to enforce their own protection for their GIs and the US Industry hadn’t built enough APCs to satisfy the US Army demands. The Commonwealth forces on their side had many tanks and SPGs in reserve so they decided to “defrock” (remove the gun and/or turret to make space for tank riding infantry) tanks and SPGs to turn them into improvised APCs. With the experience in Normandy the idea of “defrocked APCs” spread to Italy. In Italy the Canadians converted some Sherman III tanks into APCs by removing the turret. Without the gun and ammunition the Sherman III Kangaroo could transport 8~10 soldiers into battle. The Sherman III Kangaroo was used in late 1944 until early 1945 (when the Canadians in Italy were transferred to the dutch-german boarder).

Priest Kangaroo – New Zealand

Like the Canadians with the Sherman III the New Zealand forces used surplus Priest SPGs to “defrock” the Priest. The unarmed Priest Kangaroos had place for 10 or more soldiers. The improvised APC got a heavy cal.50 MG and a Boys Anti-tank rifle to support the mounted infantry in combat. With soldiers would leave the APC in combat attacking the enemy. The Priest Kangaroo would support the attack with suppressive MG fire. The Boys AT rifle could deal with enemy’s armored cars or APCs. Furthermore, the heavy Boys rifle allowed the Priest Kangaroo crew to demolish/damage field emplacements and sandbag positions to allow the infantry to overwhelm the attacked position. 

Lynx scout car – Canada

The Lynx was the Canadian copy of the Dingo Scout Car. The Lynx was armed with a single weapon – a Bren LMG or a Boys AT rifle. The open top vehicle was designed for fast reconnaissance missions. With the 16km ranged wireless radio the Lynx could send the collected information back to the HQs. With its 30mm frontal and 12mm side armor the vehicle was protected against fragments and small arms fire. With 90km/h it was a fast long-range (300km) vehicle. The Lynx was small. It was easy to camouflage. 

New Zealand Universal Carrier Mk I “Maori Carrier” 

– 2x cal.30 US MG OR 1x Bren LMG, 1x cal.30 and 1x cal. 50 MG.

The New Zealand Forces acquired large numbers of Universal carriers to mechanize the “kiwi infantry”. With its small size and weak armor the Universal Carrier was not suitable for ferrying infantry in combat. On the other side the carrier was a suitable platform to carry support weapons in combat. One of this field modifications was the New Zealand version fielded by the Maori regiment of the 2nd NZ Division. The New Zealand forces had added a number of MGs to the Universal Carrier platform. Some NZ vehicles were armed with an US 12,7mm cal.50 HMG only. The Maori carrier was armed with 2x US cal.30 M1919A4 for heavy fire support. A second “Maori” version was armed with a light Bren LMG, an US M1919A4 cal.30 and an US M2HB cal.50 HMG. The Carrier crews would use the MGs to supress the enemy to allow their comrades to charge the enemy’s position.

Staghound – Mk I, II and III + AA

The Staghound was an US armored car with a 37mm gun turret. The US forces replaced the vehicle with the light M8 Greyhound. The British on their side were looking for a heavy recon vehicle and with the US Army no longer interested the British placed a large order for the Staghound. More than 3800 vehicles were sold to the commonwealth forces that liked the robust 4-wheel design. Here they formed the backbone of the heavy armored car units in Africa (too late to see combat here), Italy and later in northern Europe. With an operational range of up to 600km and more it was an outstanding recon vehicle ideal for the HQ units of the armored car units of the British Recon regiments. In Italy the Staghound was deployed by the Canadians, South Africans and Kiwis too.

The Staghound Mk II was a commonwealth field conversion. The 37mm turret gun was replaced with a 3inch Close Support Howitzer. The 3inch CS was an old British support weapon first fielded with the Cruiser tanks before the war started. The 3inch howitzer was developed for laying smoke screens. Later the British realised that they would need HE shells too. In Italy the 37mm gun of the Staghound was obsolete. The few tanks the allies met in combat were too heavy armored for the 37mm gun. The commonwealth forces – here Canada and New Zealand – replaced the 37mm gun with the HE howitzer to allow the Staghound to support infantry in close combat. The gun was effective in urban battles and fast raids.

In 1945 the New Zealand Division got reinforcements for their armored car units; The Staghound Mk III landed in Italy. The new version combined the fast and solid Staghound chassis with the firepower of the British 6pdr gun. The British had put the Crusader tank turret onto the Staghound. With its firepower it was a deadly enemy for the german armord car units. Unlike on the northern European theatre the germans didn’t sent their heavy armored cars to Italy. Most of the german armored recon vehicles used a 2cm gun at its best. When they met a Staghound on a patrol, they were no threat for the powerful 57mm gun armed Staghounds. A fast Staghound with such a powerful gun could outrun german and Italian assault guns or counter unprepared marching columns of axis armor. 

The last special version of the Staghound was the AA version with its twin-12,7mm-cal.50-US HMGs. The version was fielded by the Commonwealth army too but like many other anti-air weapons the platform was soon used in ground support only because of the total annihilation of the German Luftwaffe in mid-1944 in Italy.

Kiwi Dozer – Sherman Mk III with Dozer blade

The New Zealand Division had equipped a number of their Sherman III with Dozer blades to remove obstacles and to help their pioneers to overcome the obstacles placed by retreating german forces. The Dozer blades was fixed at the suspension allowing the gun/turret to operate without any problems. 

Kiwi M31B1 TRV – New Zealand “Bergetiger“

The allied forces fielded a number of specialised vehicles to help their units in the Italian theatre. One vehicle was the M31B1 tank recovery vehicle. The vehicle was a converted M3 Lee medium tank. After the African campaign the M3 tanks was obsolete, and many Lees were put in storage. Here they were transferred into recovery vehicles. The vehicle was filed with repair equipment, tools and recovery materials. The vehicle got a strong crane to lift and move heavy objects. The vehicle could tow tanks and heavy guns. The New Zealand Division had got a number of M31B1 TRVs to support their armored brigade in battle. Here the Kiwis made good use to keep their tank running.

Morris 40mm SP

Used by 6th SAF armored division.

The Morris-Commercial company started to develop a self-propelled 40mm Bofors anti-air vehicle (SPAAG). They planned to offer the vehicle to the British Army to help the British Force to field a mobile anti-air vehicle. The British liked the vehicle and ordered many vehicles. The SPAAG was first sent in combat in June 1944 to protect the allied armies in Normandy against the Luftwaffe. Later they were sent to Italy. Here they were fielded by the South African Forces. With the elimination of the Luftwaffe in Italy in late 1944 the South Africans used the gun for fire support and suppressive fire. The vehicle wasn’t ideal for those missions but without aerial targets the gun had no other role left.

Marmon-Herrington Armoured Car

Like the Canadians the South African forces got in problems when the British Forces had lost the battle of France in 1940. Like the Canadians the South Africans were depending on British arms supplies and with the losses in France the British were needing everything they had. So South Africa started to build their own weapons by due to the small heavy south African industry the country could build only small amounts of armored cars for their armed forces. The result was the Marmon-Herrington Armoured Car (MH AC). Based on a Ford 3ton truck chassis the MH AC Mk I had only 2 Bren LMGs. In Africa the South Africans met the german heavy 8-wheel armored cars with their 20mm autocannons. Here they realised that MGs weren’t sufficient for the MH AC. The Mk II version got a Boys AT rifle. Soon the crews were replacing the Boys gun with captured heavy axis weapons ranging from Italian Breda 20mm guns to german 3,7cm Pak 36 guns. The Mk III version got better armor and a 2pdr gun turret. Only small numbers of the Mk III version were used by the 6th SAF armored Division because in 1943 they were outdated and replaced by new armored cars like the Staghound, ACE and Dingo. Perhaps no MH AC was used in Italy at all.

The Commonwealth Forces - CF

Now it is time to merge to dry theory and concept with the historical background and content. At the beginning we had established a basic faction layout with some key unit and key roles. Now it is time to merge the concept with the weapons and units we had talked about before.

• Construction unit (when there is base building)

This could be done by regular Canadian or “kiwi” pioneer soldiers. At the moment such a unit is not need – or needed – depending on the base and field construction system we will see in the final version of CoH 3.

• Base Infantry

The first marginal problem here is the name and not the function. Canadians, South Africans and Kiwi (New Zealand) had regular rifle troops but it wont make sense to call them “Tommies” because the British Infantry is named Tommy too. What they had all in common; they were soldiers of the British Commonwealth Empire. They were Royal Rifles. 

With the name set we must think of the unit in gameplay terms. The Commonwealth Forces (CF) should be an aggressive faction so the base infantry should reflect the offensive setting. The problem is the weapon list available for the faction. The base rifle is the British Lee Enfield. With its rate of fire it is already a suitable weapon for “offensive firepower”. Based on the classic CoH offensive infantry unit, the CoH 1 US GI squad, the Royal Rifles got offensive power by upgrades and techs. Based on the GI example the Royal Rifles will need an offensive fast nade against units in cover and a good weapon upgrade. And the weapon upgrade is the problem here. The CF had no semi-automatic rifle or assault rifle. The upgrades candidates would be the Bren LMG and/or a submachine gun (Thompson/Sten). Both weapons would need suitable accuracy and/or range. The offensive squad will always move a lot and wont stay in cover for long engagements so it wouldn’t work to design the upgrade weapon to work from cover staying still. The Bren is the more likely candidate because it could be fired on the move and would work better in cover with the bipod on longer ranges. The guns is closer to the CoH 1 BAR and suitable for aggressive movement.

• Light scout (fast cap/anti sniper)

Scouting forces are important for the CoH gameplay. It is an advantage to know what u will face in the next battle. The classic scouts are light vehicles like the Krad, Jeep or Kettenkrad. Furthermore, the “vehicle scouts” were the counter to enemy’s snipers. With CoH 3 we will see the Dingo on the British side. The Dingo is a fast scout car. For the CF we could use on of the other scout cars here like the Canadian Otter Mk. I but it would be boring to bring another “scout car only” weapon system here. One of the most surprising aspects of the current British faction information is the missing of the iconic Universal Carrier. So with the Universal carrier missing it could be used for the CF. With a single Bren LMG it is a small versatile vehicle. Without upgrades it is a British “answer” to the german motorcycle or the US Jeep. 

For the gameplay of our proposed aggressive CF faction the Universal carrier could serve the early pushing power with a large number of upgrades. The Universal carrier was used with a lot of weapons. We have seen that the New Zealand Army used the Universal Carrier to support their infantry in combat. Here we could offer a Universal Carrier with a Flamethrower upgrade (Wasp Carrier), with a light mortar (2inch mortar carrier for HE shell barrage and smoke screens) or a heavy MG carrier (Maori carrier with suppressive firepower). With such a multi-purpose vehicle the CF could support their Royal Rifles in many situations. The biggest danger for the Universal Carrier would be an early anti-tank counter so I think such a faction would need a heavy weapon set beside the Carrier concept to field indirect or special weapons that cant be countered by a single anit-tank unit.

• Heavy weapon – indirect fire

With the aggressive universal carrier, a CF indirect fire weapon should be a “slow weapon” staying behind the frontline. Thanks to the large number of artillery guns the CF forces used their famous 25pdr gun for any indirect fire support needed. With the British Faction forum post and the pre-alpha experience we know that the British army will field a 25pdr emplacement/building. The 2nd NZ Division fielded a battery of ML 4.2inch heavy mortars for smoke screen missions. The 4.2inch mortar is a heavy mortar similar in size and performance to the soviet 120mm (and the german 12cm copy). Such a heavy mortar would be a suitable solution. Perhaps it could be worth to deny the retreat ability. Such a weapon would have a big range and would need protection against axis counter attacks. It would be the counterweight to an agile small harassing 2inch Carrier mortar. AND an anti-tank gun or anti-tank infantry weapon wont counter it. BUT u will see later that there is another – perhaps more interesting – alternative option for the indirect fire topic (spoiler: the 25pdr gun).

• Heavy weapon – suppression

Blob control is a core element of the CoH gameplay. Large infantry attacks could be stopped by a well placed (and well balanced) heavy suppressing fire weapon. The heavy MG team is the CoH core suppressive weapon of choice. With the CF there are two options; The old classic Vickers MG or the heavy US M2HB cal.50 MG. 

The Vickers MG is a ww1 vintage water cooled “slow firing” 7.7mm MG. It is the classic British MG of ww2. The CF on their side got some US made heavy 12.7mm ca.50 M2HB MGs. The Canadians deployed some of the US MGs but it seems to me that they don’t replaced the company based heavy MG with the US material. So from the historical point of view the Vickers MG would be the only choice here but to get some additional firepower we could think of a replacement upgrade that will exchange the Vickers MG with the heavy US MG that could damage light axis vehicles with its heavy rounds.

• Heavy weapon – anti tank

And here is our next problem. Based on the Relic post the British Forces will use the 6pdr gun and the CF had no other anti-tank guns beside the British 6pdr and 17pdr gun. On the other side when we circle back to our “indirect fire weapon” we could find a “improvised anti-tank gun”; the 25pdr. The 25pdr had shown its emergency tank stopping power in Africa. In CoH soldiers could move the 1 ton 7,5cm Pak 40 so there is no “ingame” problem with a movable 25pdr multi-role gun. The direct fire 25pdr AP round could penetrate ~60mm of armour on 450m. The gun would be sufficient to deal with Axis light armour and light vehicles. On the other side the gun wont be suitable against the Panzer IV, Panther and/or Tiger tanks. To be honest I don’t have data for the late war ballistic cap APBC 25pdr round. Perhaps the new round could deal with the Axis armor. Such a munition “upgrade” could be used for the gun ingame to allow scaling and/or specialisation. In late game a “munition upgrade” could turn the “multi-role gun” in a “special role gun” focused on anti-tank OR artillery role only – leaving behind the multi-role design from early/mid game.

• Infantry based anti-tank

U can guess our problem here – right? With the Boys AT Rifle, the PIAT and the Bazooka we have the standard set of infantry-based weapons we all know from CoH.

The Boys AT Rifle was already propped as infantry-based anti-tank weapon in Italy. Many Boys AT rifles were mounted on secondary vehicles to give them some power against enemy’s vehicles and light armored cars or field fortifications. 

The PIAT on the other side was the new infantry-based anti-tank weapon of the British Army. In comparison to the US and German small anti-tank weapons the PIAT was a kind of “mortar” throwing a hollow charge warhead against enemy’s armor. It was difficult to reload the PIAT in combat. Soldiers need a lot of physical force. Surprisingly the PIAT was loved by the soldiers in the field. The Canadians ordered large numbers. They used the PIAT against armor and field emplacements. Often, they were used to breach houses and strongholds. In the Netherlands the PIAT was sometimes used as emergency mortar against heavy german weapons like 88 Flak nests or heavy MG nests. Such a weapon could be added in CoH 3 with the breach aspect and a “ground attack” ability to bombard or stun heavy weapons or suppress infantry. 

The 3rd candidate is the US bazooka that was used by CF forces for light mobile infiltration units or fast blocking detachments. The Bazooka could deal with most threats. It could deal with the biggest allied infantry armored threat in Italy; the german assault guns – StuGs and Semoventes. 

The problem is – once again – that the proposed British faction will use the PIAT and the US Forces will use the Bazooka. Both weapons are already ingame but with the idea of a special ability PIAT I would prefer a special PIAT “Grenadier” squad ingame.

• Supporting infantry (additional role/setup)

This is one the classic wild spots to think of new stuff. With Canadian or south African or kiwi Fusiliers, Highland infantry or Dragoons we have a large number of names for the units. Such a unit could be a close combat unit with submachine guns and sprint ability or a squad using rifle grenades or Bren guns for fire support on long ranges. For an offensive faction a submachinegun unit would be the most logical choice. Sprinting and charge in infantry with anti-tank grenades and special shock grenades to breach fortified houses to maul down undefended heavy weapons or support weapons are likely design candidates.

• Armoured car

To be honest for the CF forces there is only ONE candidate: The Staghound! With its standard 37mm gun and MG it is the CF answer to the german SdKfz 222. Its biggest advantage – like the Universal carrier – is the large set of potential upgrades. The CS version with the 3inch “howitzer” (mortar), the AA version with a twin cal.50 US M2HB MG and the 6pdr gun version with the Crusader turret for late game hitting power against assault guns, SPGs and other armored targets are a large set of subversions of the Staghound. With a smoke discharger it is a small fast harassment unit ideal for aggressive midgame action.

• Armoured personal carrier

Here we have a lot of candidates ranging from a “semi-APCs” like the universal carrier or the Stuart Recce or the Daimler Dingo up to “heavy tank-based APCs”. The CF lacked “typical APCs” like the german SdKfz 250/251 series or the US M3/M5 halftracks. They got some halftracks in late 1944 when the units in northern Europe had sufficient numbers of APCs. The most interesting APCs are the Kangaroo versions used by the Canadians and New Zealand forces. The Sherman III Kangaroo would be a heavy APCs. The tank would be able to absorb some heavy damage. The Priest Kangaroo would be close to the Sherman III – less armored but with an additional upgrade option for a Boys AT rifle countering any axis Halftrack they would meet in battle. The problem with the Sherman III or Priest Kangaroo is the timing and balancing. Some of us are aware of the old CoH 1 RAM kangaroo balance nightmare; An APC filled with LMG or PIAT troops strong enough to deal a lot of damage against most possible enemies. The Ram Kangaroo could absorb some hits by heavy anti-tank weapons. The Italian Kangaroos would be Tier 4/late game units and here we must think of the function of such a late game APC. They could serve as mobile retreat point with healing and reinforcement capabilities to support the infantry in late game battles.

• Main battle tank

And here is where the fun begins. With a potential British faction focused on the Churchill tank the CF would be focused on the Sherman tank. The 75mm gun armed Sherman III (US M4A2 diesel version) is the backbone of the faction. With its HE shells it is effective against soft targets. With the Sherman IB (105mm gun) and the Sherman IIA (76mm gun) there are many upgrade options. The 105mm gun would enforce the anti-infantry values of the tank boosting its firepower against garrisons, buildings, and blobs. The 76mm gun version would enforce the anti-tank capabilities of the Sherman against the Axis armor. Like the Universal carrier and the Staghound, the Sherman would be influenced by its number of upgrade options. Beside the weapon upgrades an additional MG upgrade and a classic tank commander upgrade are standard options to boost the combat performance in late game engagements. 

• Tank killer

Here we have an interesting situation. With the US M10 GMC, the British M10 Achilles and the British Firefly there are 3 candidates. The US M10 should be ignored here. Sure, the 6th South African Armored Division used them in large numbers but with the M10 of the US Forces we don’t need it here. The M10 Achilles and Sherman Firefly are both 17pdr tanks. They are similar in role and design and with the heavy gun they are more likely candidates for the battlegroups. And that is the point where it is interesting; with a multirole Sherman and a hard-hitting Staghound plus a multirole 25pdr and an aggressive gameplay there is no need for a regular tech tree tank destroyer. Shermans in combination with 6pdr Staghounds could deal some nasty hits using the new side armor mechanic. The Sherman could absorb incoming fire and the Staghound could use its speed to hit the weaker side armor of the enemy. Firefly and M10 Achilles could be used for some heavy hitting battlegroups with a “heavy tank” like Firefly and a mobile M10 Achilles for hit-and-run-tactics. So, from faction design aspects the “tank killer” for the CF is a battlegroup unit with enforces stats and boni for combat and veterancy.

• Artillery weapon

Another problematic spot. The logical choice is the good old 25pdr gun here. We had talked about a multi-purpose 25pdr gun to break the repeating model usage. The gun could serve as improvised AT gun and as standard artillery piece. In CoH most of the indirect fire missions were conducted by mortars only. In CoH 1 the Wehrmacht with its Nebelwerfer and Stuka zu Fuß was something special. In CoH 2 we had seen the ZiS 2 field gun with its AT and artillery design. So often heavy guns are locked behind doctrines and/or battleground/commanders. With the 25pdr as AT gun for the CF it would be stupide to lock the artillery mission behind a battlegroup unlock. We had talked about the indirect fire unit for the CF before. Now with the 25pdr it could be worth to think about dropping any infantry-based mortar and keep the mobile Universal carrier 2inch mortar only and to add the 25pdr as multi-purpose unit here. In lategame the gun could be upgraded into a full conventional artillery piece by dropping its AT function. Such a transition would render an alternative heavy indirect fire weapon obsolete. So with the 25pdr a heavy mortar wont be needed for our CF faction.

• Special infantry unit

For an offensive faction specialised infantry is always a sort of a problem. The basic infantry is already designed for offensive actions. The special infantry had to fill a certain gap or fulfil a special combat role. The “classic example” is – once again – the US Army in CoH 1 with the Ranger elite infantry and the Airborne troopers. 

For the CF there are some candidates. Maori callin infantry with Charlton Automatic Rifle could serve as a Ranger like assault infantry with a “FG42 type rifle”; effective on most ranges and good in combat while moving. Maoris would be our first candidate. 

The second candidate is the US-CAN “First Special Service Force”. We know that Relic will implement the FSSF in an American battlegroup. SO why no Canadian version for the CF? They could serve as special camouflage infantry for ambush missions or placing explosives. In Italy the FSSF often assaulted mountain positions. With CoH 3 we know that there will be a heigh level modifier influencing damage output and received damage. The FSSF are a likely candidate for such a “mountain combat unit”. 

Our 3rd candidate is inspired by the Canadian infantry men of the Ortona campaign. Here the Canadians dropped their LeeEnfield rifles to adopt the Thompson SMGs for the close ranges urban combat operations. A nice addition is the Bazooka to add a callin anti-tank infantry option to one of the battlegroups. With SMGs and Bazookas, they are close to the CoH Rangers. The Canadian Highlanders are a versatile callin option for a battlegroup with infantry based anti-tank options.

• Special armoured unit

We had already talked a lot about the vehicles of the CF forces. One of the biggest chances of the CF is the upgrade potential of all the basic vehicles. On the other side the CF lacked “special armor units” like heavy Churchill tanks, flamethrower tanks or AVRE “funnies”. One candidate is the M31B1 TRV. The vehicle could recover, and repair destroyed vehicles like the CoH 1 OF “fake Bergetiger”. It would be an addition to the Sherman only tank arsenal. 

Depending on the overall faction design a defrocked Priest SPG could work as a callin APCs for a battlegroup. With the Boys Rifle upgrade, they would be a nasty surprise for SdKfz 222, 250/251 and other light armored vehicles (potential Italian vehicles like the AB armored cars or light tankettes). The non-doctrinal RAM Kangaroo of the CoH 1 british army showed the problem of a heavy armored APC so a battlegroup callin would fit better for gameplay timing. 

• Support unit (bonus/modifier unit)

There is the classic set of candidates like officers to boost combat effectives, add abilities or vet boni. Other candidates are medic squads supporting the infantry in the field to keep the pressure high and to get a constant manpower drain on the axis forces. The 3rd type would be Italian soldiers of the Italian liberation corps/army of the south. They could serve as an upgrade to increase the overall squad size of the faction or they could serve as spawn-able harassment unit popping up in neutral buildings behind enemy’s lines. 

A last candidate is a specialised armored car like the Lynx scout car or the Otter Light Reconnaissance Car. They could provide detection against stealth units. They could serve in a radio observation role, or they could manipulate the fog of war (reveal map areas). Even a CoH OF PE like “vampire” unit could be possible – stealing or generating additional resources is always welcome when u want to use more abilities or tanks in the CoH series. 

Optional:

• Armoured Artillery

To be honest for a CF there is only one unit here; The Sexton SPG. It is a solid vehicle with a rapid-fire howitzer. The 25pdr is already well established in the COH franchise so there is no real need to explain the role or function of a Sexton gun in the CF. Bombarding positions and vaporize axis bunkers is the most common type of mission for the Sexton SPG.

• Heavy tank destroyer

With the M10 Wolverine and/or M10 Achilles there is no “Elefant” or “Semovente 105/25” type “heavy tank destroyer”. So there is no candidate for such a vehicle for the CF at all.

• Elite infantry

With the specialised infantry we had listed 3 candidates that could be used here too. FSSF is the most likely candidate for a real “Elite unit”. Maori and Canadian “Highlanders” are more like specialised assault infantry with special weapons like the Charlton Automatic Rifle or full set of Thompson SMGs plus Bazooka AT launchers. The FSSF was the elite unit for special infiltration and sabotage missions and often used for the most complicated missions.

• Flamethrower

The CF had access to the British standard flamethrower; Flamethrower, Portable, No 2. The flamethrower was used by the Canadians for sure. For the Kiwis and south African forces I cant find any details but it is very likely that they used the British equipment like the Canadians. The flamethrower is the standard counter weapon against garrisons and cover. 

The other option is the Wasp Universal Carrier. The Wasp flamethrower carrier was used by the Canadians. It allowed for fast devastating flame attacks, and it offered some protection for the flamethrower operator. But like a regular soldier the Wasp wasn’t immune against enemy fire, and it was dangerous to operate such a weapon against fortified positions. That is one reason why the allies developed a flamethrower tank but unfortunately non flame tank was given to the Canadians, Kiwis or South Africans in Italy. The men portable flamethrower and the Wasp version are the only flamethrower weapons of the CF in Italy. 

With the PIAT and a potential rifle grenade launcher the CF had some weapons against units in cover and in garrisons. The CoH 1 PE showed that a faction could work without a flamethrower – from a certain point of view. It could be worth the trial to drop any flamethrower for the CF at all.

• (sniper)

Unlike some “myth” the Boys Rifle was never used as sniper rifle. The standard sniper rifle of the British Forces was a scoped LeeEnfield rifle. The sniper is a standard unit in CoH and the Canadian Army was equipped with scoped LeeEnfield rifle. With the Canadians the CF had access to snipers so there is no problem for the CF.

• (heavy tank)

Heavy tanks are a difficult topic for the CF. Canada had tested and used early Churchill tanks in combat but after the failure of Dieppe the Canadians dropped the Churchill tank. South Africa and New Zealand never adopted the Churchill at all. So, no CF army used the Churchill heavy tank in Italy. When they needed heavy tank support they were supported by the independent British armoured Brigades. The other allied “heavy tank” was the M26 Pershing. In contrast to the M24 Chaffee no M26 Pershing tanks were send to Italy at all and no M26 Pershing was used by a land-lease nation in ww2. 

• (rocket artillery)

The Italian theatre marked the beginning of the British army in experimenting with rocket artillery weapons. For the landings in Italy the British Army had tested and deployed modified LCT tank landing ships. The LCT(R) – Landing Craft Tank Rocket – over 1066 RP-3 rockets. The ship was designed for shore bombardment to break any possible resistance by saturation bombing. But the British never adopted a land based rocket artillery version. It took the British army until mid 1944 to develop a land based rocket launcher; the “Land Mattress”. The Land Mattress was the British answer to the german Nebelwerfer. The weapon was fielded too late and in too small numbers in ww2. The biggest deployment of Land Mattress batteries was the Battle of the Scheldt at the Belgian-Dutch Boarder. The few available Mattress batteries were kept in the Netherlands where they took part in operations against the German Forces in the Netherlands and the dutch-german boarder region. No Mattress rocket launcher was deployed in Italy at all. So there was no rocket artillery on the allied side here. The LCT(R) could served as an offmap battlegroup ability but that’s the best we could expect by the British rocket artillery in the Italian theatre.  

Special faction features

Time for a resume. 

The Commonwealth Army would be the aggressive brother of the “static” British Royal Army. The CF would relay on early aggression with mobile infantry and a large pattern of supporting vehicles. The Universal Carrier, the Staghound, the Sherman tank and the 25pdr field gun are versatile units with large upgrade options. The Universal Gun Carrier could offer a flamethrower, a 2inch mortar and heavy MG upgrade (Maori carrier) and when needed a Boys AT rifle upgrade. The Staghound could be upgraded with a 3inch close support mortar (howitzer) with HE and smoke shells, an anti-air gun turret or a powerful 6pdr anti-tank gun utilising the new flank armor feature of CoH 3. The Sherman could be upgraded with a 105mm Howitzer gun or with the powerful 17pdr AT gun. With this 3 munition heavy upgrade vehicles the CF could benefit from the M31B1 TRV that could recover vehicles to preserve the heavy munition and fuel investment.

In early game the Royal Rifles would push into enemy’s territory, establishing a forwarded battlezone. Elite/special callin battlegroup infantry could help building up pressure. The Universal Carrier would support the first phase requiring a repair unit next by to repair incoming damage. Depending on the situation the Universal Carrier could support with MGs or flamethrower or with a fast 2inch suppressive mortar shelling barrage. A regular heavy MG and a sniper could help with potential blob control. In Midgame the CF would field the universal 25pdr gun in a CoH 2 soviet ZiS-2 style or with a toggle firemode option. Because of the small shell the gun would be ideal to destroy fortified or garrisoned building. The Staghound could replace the Universal gun carrier in frontline harassment missions. With all the upgrades it could supplement the Universal gun carrier. A 2inch mortar UC wouldn’t need a 3inch CS Staghound but with the AT upgrade the Staghound could hunt down enemy’s armored cars and/or halftracks. Fast flanking could be a danger to enemy’s self-propelled casemate tanks like StuGs, Marders or Semovente SPGs. In lategame the Sherman would form the backbone of the CF armored forced. Depending on the enemy the Sherman could be used in an anti-infantry or anti-armor configuration. PIAT units could support pushing infantry by breaching into houses or firing an “emergency” mortar barrage. 

All in all the faction would be centred around mobile warfare. With all the upgrades the enemy couldn’t be sure what he will face next. Without very specialised units the CF would be weak against large suppression units (enemy’s MGs in garrisons or Nebelwerfer barrages). Heavy armor or ambush positions could turn into heavy casualties when an upgraded multirole unit is lost to enemy’s fire. Furthermore, mines and obstacles would hamper the CF gameplay by forcing the vehicle units into certain areas because heavy crush would be only available to the Sherman tank and/or a defrocked Priest.    

To support the units the CF would need a healing and reinforcement unit/point at the frontline. This could be a place for a Stuart Recce vehicle. The vehicle could be allowed to function as a mobile retreating point allowing infantry to replace loses at the vehicle in friendly territory. Healing could be provided by an unit based munition “first add” ability and/or an healing upgrade for base building to allow a non-munition heal for the prize of a full retreat.

Veterancy and unit training

Aggressive factions are always fast in getting veterancy on units. By staying as often as possible in combat the faction would earn vet fast. To balance the fast heavy vet gain the CF could be limited to 2 veterancy levels only. To gain a 3rd level they had to recruit veterans at the production building (longer buildtime, more expansive, need longer to build). The veterans would start with vet1 and could get 2 additional vet levels by combat experience. The 2nd option is an allied frontline training centre. Here the CF could retrain and/or reequip units. We have seen that the new Wehrmacht could “transform” infantry units from one type into another. The Frontline training centre could do the same for the CF forces; vehicles could be rearmed with other weapons for fuel/manpower – preserve the heavy munition drop by unit upgrades. Furthermore, CF could retrain units here to unlock the 3rd vet level. Such a system is micro heavy for sure but it would limit the “Fuk – full unit kill – potential” of an aggressive base faction by moving some part of the unit investment and coast into the lategame by forcing them to upgrade the units with fuel/manpower at the base. 

End note:

Why post another wall of text? The post should show that such a split is possible when planed and carefully designed. The post had showed that the CF would consist of many “universal units” and no heavy armor or special expert. With a recovery vehicle, armored personal carriers and some other “weapons” they would have an own identity. The CF played a crucial role in the Italian Campaign replacing British manpower for the invasion in northern France. Later they had to replace British loses in the western campaign because of the allied – or to be more precise – commonwealth manpower crisis. Weapons like heavy modified basic vehicles mixed with their offensive setup would be the “counterweight” for the more static British Royal Army. The Battlegroups could add self-propelled artillery, defrocked APCs, air force support and other elements. 

I hope I could inspire you to think about “non-common” factions and army setups. When u have reached this line u have read 21 word pages with 12930 word. 

Thank you very much!

Comments are welcome!

LordRommel wrote:

At the moment we are all talking about content, chances and wishes for the upcoming next CoH instalment. With the Mediterranean theatre of operations Relic said that they want to display as many aspects as possible and parts of the theatre with its battles and stories. One of these aspects is the colourful mix of the British armed forces – the Royal Army.  

The British Army was a wild mixture with units from all over the “Commonwealth” plus any potential army in exile that made it to British held territories. 

For the following i will ignore the African theater of war because at the moment we dont have any information for the "african content" beside the small teaser in the teaser. The current - obvious - focus is the ITALIAN theater of war!

To start the analyse I would like to recommend my first thread “THE ITALIAN FACTION - A SHORT ESSAY ABOUT A POTENTIAL RSI ITALIAN FACTION” .

Some of the following design principles and ideas are based on the basic work I have posted in the linked thread. So when u have question or when u are asking what I’m talking about please have a look into the linked thread. Thank you very much.

The British – the Canadian – the South African – The Australian – The Indians – The New Zealanders – The Polish – The Italians – The Jewish – The Greece – The British Forces in Italy!?

With the “short” list of nations u can already see an interesting problem – or chance – or the next topic here. 

With the pre-alpha and the British faction introduction post we got a first look into the potential “British faction” and with the first look there were some answers and some questions. 

In the pre alpha we got some first intel on the British soldiers. We had seen British fighting along Indian soldiers. There was no sign of other nations or “commonwealth factions” in the pre-alpha. Perhaps I have missed some nations here with the two out of several candidates mentioned above. 

With the dev post from early October things started to get – interesting. Here the “British” faction was called “Commonwealth Forces” without any real “in depth” information – or mention of commonwealth forces at all? – beside the mention of the “British soldiers” aka Tommies and the already established “Indian Gurkha” units (I know. Gurkhas aren’t “Indian” but it seems to me that they were part of the planed “Indian battlegroup” so I said Indian here to get the link ?).

With some of the additional released screenshots we had spotted some Australian soldiers – our first “Commonwealth” unit. 

With this limited information lets have a look into the historical background of the theatre. The Royal British Army had suffered from 2 world wars now. In 1943 the British started running out of soldiers. When the British 8th Army landed on Sicily one of its 6 divisions was a Canadian division. Later when the British 8th Army landed in mainland Italy the British loses started to rise and the British needed more soldiers to men the expanding frontline with troops. Between October and December 1943, the British 8th Army was reinforced by the 2nd New Zealand Division and 8th Indian Division. In early 1944 the army got more reinforcements. With the arrival of the 6th South African Armoured Division, 5th Canadian Armoured Division, 4th Indian Division, the Corpo Italiano di Liberazione (Italian Liberation Corps – CIL) of the Esercito Cobelligerante Italiano (Italian Co-belligerent Army – the Army of the South (Esercito del Sud)) and the Polish II Corps with 2, later 3 divisions the British army in Italy grew in numbers and strength. Later the Jewish Brigade and the 3rd Greek Mountain Brigade joined the 8th Army too. All in all the British Army deployed 20 divisions and several brigades in Italy. 9 of the 20 Divisions were “non-british” division. In late 1944 the majority of the “British” fighting power” in Italy were non-british forces. Interesting fact here; No Australians!? With the loses in Africa the Australians couldn’t support its “Imperial Forces in Africa” any longer. After the capitulation of the Axis forces in Africa the Australians demanded to retreat its last division, the 9th Australian Division, to Australia. The British and US army accepts the request. With the withdrawal of the 9th Australian Division no additional Australian ground forces took part in the Italian campaign, only some aerial and naval forces stayed in the Mediterranean region.

With all that said there is an interesting option for the “British Forces in CoH 3”.

Why not separate them? 

The British Army

We could split the British forces into the “Royal British Army” (The Titel Royal is added here to have a CLEAR naming distinction between the "BRITISH" and the "IMPERIAL ARMY") AND the “Commonwealth Army”.

Why should Relic do it? Well. To sell an additional faction! Nah. Sry. I had to take the chance for the joke here ^^ With all the different factions and all the players demanding for “their nation ingame” and for “more content” the split would offer the opportunity to fulfil the demands of the community.

What could happen to the “Royal British Army” with the split? Well. It would change the arsenal. All the weapons and vehicles we had seen ingame could be kept for the British Army. The biggest change would be the battlegroups. At the moment we have no information about the British battlegroups beside a “Indian based battlegroup” with the Gurkha rifles and the Bishop SPG. With the “elimination” of the “commonwealth soldiers” the potential British battlegroups would be focused on the British Commandos, Parachute soldiers and heavy Churchill tanks. 

To add some variety to the British mix here one battlegroup could bring the CIL with Italian soldiers, Italian vehicles, and Italian artillery. The CIL (Italian Liberation Corps) used the old Italian army uniforms and equipment. They supported the US and British forces until the end of war. In 1945 the Italian Allied Army had formed several small “light Divisions” replacing and free up many British men for the frontlines in France and the lower countries. Fun fact here: The CIL used at least 3 Autobilda 41 in combat. They had access to a company of 12 CV flamethrower tankettes and (perhaps) a company of L6/40 light tanks. The tanks were never deployed in combat but hey, it would add some “additional weapons” for the proposed “Royal Army”. Furthermore, the CIL made good use of some experienced and skilled Italian artillery gunners armed with some leftover Italian guns like the Cannone da 47/32, Obice da 149/19 (one of the most modern Italian heavy artillery guns), Obice da 100/22 and some other Italian artillery pieces. The Italian artillery got some fame within the British forces when they supported the British forces at Cassino with their heavy railway artillery guns that counter fire the german heavy batteries. 

Another battlegroup for the British faction could be modelled around the Polish Forces in Italy with their uniforms, weapons and with the bear – sry – Corporal Wojtek. 

We have seen that a split wont harm the “British Army” at all. They would keep their Gurkha rifles – because India wasn’t part of the Commonwealth in WW2 – it was a colonial army – and their heavy tanks AND they could get some special units and abilities AND factions (here India plus Poland and Italy AND when needed the Greek and Jewish Soldiers too!). The Italians could field special artillery, some flamethrower tankettes and/or special mechanized units (universal carrier callin), the polish could send in Sherman Fireflies, US M3 halftracks, Sherman IB 105mm and special munition-based abilities, the Indians have the mountain combat focused Gurkha infantry, Bishop SPG ect ect. Recently, my academic status has deteriorated. This, in my opinion, is a result of my inability to handle my task. https://www.nursingpaper.com/ I really needed someone who can to write my nursing paper for me usa And I found real professionals. I realized that I was going to require help to do this work.

So there would be plenty of content for a British faction with foreign nation battlegroups, Royal Paratroopers, British Commandos, Chruchill heavy tanks and some air support and artillery weapons.

Before we look into the potential new “Commonwealth army” we will look into the vehicles and weapons we have seen in the current coh3 pre alpha and faction design post.

We have seen the Dingo Scout Car (did I smell the Italian Lince here too), the CWT 15 heavy truck, Stuart Light Tank, Bishop SPG, Humber Armoured Car, Valentine tank, Archer tank destroyer, “Crusader III, AA Mk I”, Churchill heavy tank and the Black Prince Prototype tank. Based on the dev post we know that there will be the 25pdr and BL 5.5inch artillery gun, Bofors 40mm anti air gun and the 2pdr anti-tank gun (okay!?) and the 6pdr anti-tank gun. 

The Commonwealth Forces

With the look into the proposed “Royal British Army” lets have a look into a potential “Commonwealth Army”. 

We will need the following units;

• Construction unit (when there is base building)
• Base Infantry
• Light scout (fast cap/anti sniper)
• Heavy weapon – suppression
• Heavy weapon – indirect fire
• Heavy weapon – anti tank
• Infantry based anti-tank
• Supporting infantry (additional role/setup)
• Armoured car
• Armoured personal carrier
• Main battle tank
• Tank killer
• Artillery weapon
• Special infantry unit
• Special armoured unit
• Support unit (bonus/modifier unit)

Optional:

• Armoured Artillery
• Heavy tank destroyer
• Elite infantry
• Flamethrower
• (sniper)
• (heavy tank)
• (rocket artillery)

When u want to know why I will use the posted setup please have a look into the RSI faction essay HERE (click).

A short history of our commonwealth army

The list in mind we could look into the candidates of the new “Commonwealth army”. With the elimination of the British Divisions, the Polish Divisions, the CIL and the Indian Divisions we have the Canadian, New Zealand and South African Forces.

The biggest faction here is the Canadian army. The Canadians were involved in the battle of Italy from the beginning until the early 1945. With the landing in Sicily Canadian Infantry soldiers, tank crew men, artillery gunners and many other men saw active service. In late 1943 the 1st Canadian Corps joined the frontline. With the 5th Canadian Armoured Division, the 1st Canadian Infantry Division and the 1st Canadian Armoured Brigade the Canadian had thousands of men at the frontline in 1944. The situation changed in 1945 with the bitter fighting after the failed Market Garden campaign and the german Ardennes offensive. Now the British need all available men with combat experience at the german boarder so in early 1945 all Canadian units were removed from Italy. 

Unlike the Canadians the New Zealand Army and South African Army stood in Italy until the capitulation. But both armies send a single division only. Both countries had problems to mobilise men to maintain a combat field division. South Africa had suffered in Africa by losing one of its 3 divisions in Tobruk and New Zealand had a limited manpower pool from the start and was very careful with its limited manpower. The South Africans fought with the 8th Army until summer 1944 when they were transferred to the 5th US Army where the South Africans replaced US units that were removed for the planned Invasion of southern France. The 2nd NZ Division stood under British command until the end of hostiles in Italy. One of the interesting episodes was a New Zealand tank clash near Trieste in April-May 1945. Sherman tanks of the 4th New Zealand Armoured Brigade met tanks of the german 5. Polizei-Panzer-Kompanie. The 5. PolPzKp lost one or two of its soviet T-34/76 tanks in battle against the New Zealand Shermans.

Because of the numbers – surprise – the Canadians will form the core faction of our “commonwealth army” supported by the “specialists” of the New Zealanders and South Africans.

The Commonwealth Arsenal

With that said it time again to look in the Commonwealth Arsenal. 

Like with the RSI faction we will first look into the potential infantry units. Unlike the RSI concept the section here will be short because of the limited pool.

Maori

The Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand. The formation of a full Maori battalion was forced by the Maori society to raise their profile and to prove themselves alongside the “British people”. With ww2 the New Zealand Army approved the formation of a Maori battalion. The 28th (Maori) battalion was formed in 1940. They first saw combat in Greece in 1940. They fought at Crete and in North Africa. When the 2nd New Zealand Division was sent to Italy they followed. In Italy they were trained for close combat fighting and spearhead operation. In Italy the Maori fought in many major battles like Orsogna, Cassino, Florence, Rimini, Bologna and Trieste. Soon they earned the respect of both armies – allied and axis. 

Unlike the Maori it is difficult to “find” special names beside some regimental or battalion based names like “Highlanders” (48th Highlanders of Canada Regiment or Seaforth Highlanders of Canada, Cape Town Highlanders SAF), “Dragoons” (4th Recon Regiment CAN, 9th Armoured Regiment CAN), “Saskatoons” (The Saskatoon Light Infantry Regiment CAN), “Hussars” (5th Armoured Regiment CAN), “Fusiliers” (MG gunners of the Princess Louise Fusiliers Regiment, CAN), “Guards” (Princes Louise Dragoon Guards Regiment CAN, Prince Alfred’s Guard SAF) and other terms.

With the limitation we can look into the unit types. The Dragoons are a suitable name for potential patrol and scouting units. Hussars could be used for armored support infantry, Highlanders for special combat units, Fusiliers for Supporting Infantry. It is the same trick I had already used and established for the RSI army thread.

Small arms

With the infantry it is time to look into the small arms arsenal of the proposed “Commonwealth Army”.

Lee-Enfield No. 4 (CAN, SAF, NZ)

The standard British service rifle was the working horse of the royal army infantry men. With a 10-round magazine the rifle had a good rate of fire and with its round it was good on long ranges. All “Commonwealth Armies” made use of the standard service rifle. 

Thompson SMG (CAN, NZ, SAF?)

The famous US SMG. The Thompson was a heavy but loved sub machine gun of ww2. Because of the limited British equipment and the lack of SMG the Commonwealth Forces got many rifles and weapons by the USA. The Thompson was adopted by many Commonwealth units. The Canadians liked their Thompson SMGs. During the heave battle of Ortona some Canadian platoon dropped their old rifles to fully adopt to Thompson SMGs for the close combat engagements in the street battles at Ortona.

Sten SMG (CAN, NZ, SAF?)

The British SMG of ww2. A light and easy to produce SMG. Used in large numbers and adopted by many Commonwealth nations. The 32 round magazines allowed for a long fire burst but like many SMGs the Sten gun was not suitable for long range engagements. The gun was used in limited numbers by the Canadians and New Zealand soldiers because of the large number of Thompsons SMG in their service.

Bren Gun LMG (CAN, SAF, NZ?)

Standard British light MG. In use by all Commonwealth forces. The box fed MG had a limited rate of fire. It was often used in small burst fire support to protect advancing infantry, suppress enemy’s soldiers and to add some more firepower to the rifle equipped commonwealth rifle platoons. In gameplay terms the weapon is closer to a long-range hitting weapon instate of a suppression MG – a British “BAR”.

Lewis MG (CAN, SAF?, NZ?)

The WW1 MG was reused in ww2. The Commonwealth needed any rifle and MG in storage to equip and train their soldiers. The Lewis gun was a slow firing MG with limited accuracy. Some MGs were used in 1943 in second line units to add some anti air firepower and some protection. Most likely no Lewis MGs were sent to Italy. Most of the old MGs were used in the United Kingdom for training and arming the Home Guard units. 

Vickers HMG (CAN, SAF, NZ?)

Standard heavy water-cooled MG of the Commonwealth forces. Like many British small arms the Vickers HMG was a ww1 proven weapon. Before ww2 the British army planned to replace the Vickers gun with a more modern design but the outbreak of ww2 forced the British and Commonwealth Armies to use any Vickers MG at hand to supply the MG units of the new infantry formations with heavy MGs. The MG was okay; it was reliable, had a moderate rate of fire and a powerful round. The Vickers MG was used by the heavy MG units of the Canadians, South Africans and (most likely) New Zealand units. 

M1919A4/A6 cal.30 Browning HMG (CAN, SAF, NZ)

With the US industry and the US Army on the allied side the Commonwealth Forces got access to US arms. With the limited British small arms production, the Commonwealth Forces were in need for new modern equipment. The US MGs were a welcome reinforcement. Light, belt-fed and air cooled they were easy to handle and add a great firepower. The small tripod allowed the gunner to lay on the ground to operate the MG. With the M6 version the allied had access to a light bipod MG similar in combat performance to the german light MGs. Both versions were liked by the Commonwealth soldiers.

M2HB ca.50 Browning HMG (CAN, SAF, NZ)

The heavy US MG was developed in ww1 to stop tanks. With the heavy 12,7mm round it had enough firepower to suppress soft targets, destroy light vehicles and to protect the infantry against aerial threats. Like its small brother the M2 cal.50 MG had a small tripod allowing the infantry to operate it from laying on the ground. With its 600 rounds per minute, it was a “slow firing” MG but the allied soldiers accepted the “drawback” because of its impressive performance.

PIAT (CAN, SAF, NZ?)

The Boys anti-tank rifle was heavy and outdated. In Africa the British infantry had to realise that the Boys cant penetrate the modern AFVs of the Axis forces. Tanks like the Italian M13/40 or the german Panzer III were close to be immune against the Boys rifle. With the raising tank threat, the British Army need a new tank defence weapon for the infantry. The result was the Projector, Infantry, Anti Tank – the PIAT. The PIAT was a result of a British program started in 1939-1940. It was the “logical development” of the Blacker Bombard – an improvised emergency spigot anti-tank mortar – and the hollow charge warhead concept. Unlike the US Bazooka and the german PzFaust or Panzerschreck the warhead was launched by a manual tensed spring. The warhead was “thrown” by the spring. The weapon was strong enough to destroy most armored targets. In the Netherlands the PIAT was often used as emergency mortar against german gun emplacements. The PIAT was first used in Tunisia in 1943. With the Italian campaign in full swing the Commonwealth army was supplied with PIATs to protect the infantry against the german armored units. In 1944 any Commonwealth infantry company had a number of PIATs. 

Bazooka (CAN, SAF, NZ?)

The US Bazooka was much lighter compared to the PIAT. The Canadians adopted the 60mm M1A1 Bazooka. They used them for mobile combat teams whenever the PIAT was too heavy for the job. It had a better accuracy compared to the PIAT and the reload was easier compared to the PIAT. With PIAT and Bazooka available to the Canadians the Canadian army kept the PIAT in service for the heavy weapon units and deployed Bazookas to the regular rifle platoons. The New Zealanders and South Africans didn’t adopt the Bazooka. Unfortunately, there is no information why they weren’t adopted. 

Boys Anti-Tank rifle (CAN, NZ, SAF?)

The Boys Anti-tank rifle was a “child” of the ww1 anti-tank rifles. The weapon was heavy and slow firing. Its armor penetration value was limited. With the experience in Africa the Boys anti-tank rifle was dropped on the European frontlines. It was replaced in the anti-tank role by the PIAT and Bazooka. The Commonwealth forces kept some Boys in their lines to use them against small point targets like MG nest, bunkers, field fortifications and soft vehicles. The rifle wasn’t used as a sniper in combat, but the heavy round allowed some usage against sandbag positions and against concrete emplacements. 

Charlton Automatic Rifle (NZ LMG/Assault rifle)

With ww2 New Zealand got in a desperate situation. Isolated on the other side of the planet New Zealand needed the support, equipment, and arms of the British homeland. With the setbacks of the first war phase New Zealand realised that it needs its own resources and manpower to protect its nation. One result was the Charlton Automatic Rifle. It was an impressive weapon. The New Zealand army had large number of outdated Lee–Metford rifles in reserve. Two New Zealand engineers developed a new automatic rifle based on the stored pre-ww1 Lee-Metford rifles. They redesigned the gun and add new firing systems. The prototype – the entire project – was a success. The New Zealand army ordered the Charlton rifle. Until the end of the war 1500 rifles were rebuild. When the Australian army got details of the gun they were so interested in the model that they started to setup their own factory to convert their old Lee-Metford rifles too. Unfortunately, the history of the rifle is difficult to track down. The Charlton rifle was used by the New Zealand Home Guard, but some units were sent to the frontlines with Charlton rifles in their ranks. I can’t track down the units. I can’t say whether it was used in Italy or in the Pacific only. But with its interesting design, its semi auto firing mode and the emergency full auto fire, its unique design, and its special place in history it could work as the “Kiwi CoH FG 42”; A special weapon for the Commonwealth Army in CoH 3. Today only small numbers had survived. Many Charlton rifle were lost in warehouse fire destroying the stored rifles. The rifle was nearly forgotten so I think it would be a welcome addition for CoH 3.

Like any other army the Commonwealth forces fielded a number of heavy weapons. Many weapons are well known and were seen in CoH 1 and/or 2 as part of the British arms arsenal. Don’t accept many surprises here.

Heavy arms

Mortars

2inch Mortar

The Ordnance SBML 2inch mortar was a small and light weight mortar of the royal army. Like many other small mortars, the weapon was “weak” compared to the standard mortars of the armies. On the other side the mortars allowed soldiers to “throw” grenades over longer ranges compared to pure “muscle power”. Was used by the rifle platoons for “more” firepower.

M19 mortar

The US M19 mortar was another small and light weight mortar. The Commonwealth armies adopted most of the US M19 mortars to fill up their ranks and to compensate the lacking British supplies. Like the 2inch mortar the M19 mortar had only limited combat capabilities because of its small rounds.

3inch Mortar

Ordnance ML 3inch mortar was the standard service mortar of the British army. It was available in sufficient numbers. All Commonwealth forces used the 3inch mortar too. It is the standard mortar in CoH gameplay terms.

Anti-tank guns

QF 2pdr gun

The 2pdr anti-tank gun was the standard early war anti-tank gun of the royal army. With the 40mm gun calibre it was a quite suitable gun. With the increasing armor thickness of the axis tanks the 2pdr had more and more problems in destroying enemy’s AFV. After the Tunisian campaign the gun was dropped from active service in the European theatre of war. No gun was used in Italy.

QF 6pdr gun

With the end of the 2pdr gun the British army adopted the 57mm 6pdr gun to counter the new axis tanks. It was a good gun with good ballistics and performance. It was light enough to allow the infantry to move it in a prepared position. For long marches the gun needed a towing vehicle. The gun could deal with the axis MBTs but it had problems with the “heavy Panther and Tiger” tanks. It was the standard service anti-tank gun of the commonwealth anti-tank units.

QF 17pdr gun

The British army started to develop a new heavy anti-tank gun before they had introduced the 6pdr. The British were speculating for bigger tanks the axis side and they were right. When they met the Tiger tank in Tunisia the first time, they were shocked and brought the first guns without carriage to Africa where they were put into the carriage of the 25pdr gun. The 17/25-pounders ‘Pheasant’ helped the British to counter the Tiger tanks in Tunisia. With the Invasion of Sicily, the first “regular” 17pdr guns were ready for combat deployment. They replaced the “improvised version”. The 17pdr had a big problem; it was TOO heavy. With 3 ton the gun needed a towing vehicle. The gun couldn’t be moved by its own crew. On the other side the gun was powerful and had excellent gun ballistics. For that reason, the British forces put the gun on many tracked vehicles to get mobile tank killers. The 17pdr was used in rising numbers by the commonwealth forces in 1944-1945. They were deployed by the divisional anti-tank units in static emplacements to defend their units against axis armor counter attacks.

Artillery

QF 25-pounder

The 25pdr was THE standard service artillery gun of the artillery heavy British army divisions. The 25pdr was build in Great Britain and in Canada so the gun formed the backbone of the commonwealths too. The gun had a “small calibre” and shell weight in comparison to other army’s standard field guns, but it had a great range and good rate of fire for suppressive fire. The gun could be used against soft and hard targets. Sometimes the gun was used as improvised anti-tank gun.

BL 4.5inch Medium Field Gun

The 4.5inch gun was developed for counter battery fire. Like many British artillery guns the calibre was small compared to the guns of other nations (114mm compared to 150~155mm guns of Germany, USA and USSR) but it allowed rapid fire action. The gun was used by the British and Canadian Army in the heavy gun units. 

BL 5.5inch Medium Gun

The British realised that they would need large guns to replace the old outdated ww1 guns. The result of the development was the 140mm 5.5inch gun. The gun was produced in large numbers to equip the medium artillery units of the commonwealth and British division. Thanks to is calibre the gun could bring down destructive fire on enemy’s position. The gun was used by the polish, south Africans, kiwi (New Zealand), Canadian and British medium artillery regiments in Italy. 

Anti-air guns

20mm Polsten gun

The Polsten 20mm gun was the counter design to the famous swiss 20mm Oerlikon. The Polsten gun was developed in Poland and brought to Great Britain with the polish soldiers and engineers fled to UK. Here the gun was built for the commonwealth forces. The Canadians built a double, triple, and quadruple mount for the field forces. The Canadian Polsten triple mounts is well known for the colour photo often shown in magazines and on websites. Unfortunately, there is no real information about the deployment of the Polsten guns in combat in Italy. 

40mm Bofors gun

The STANDARD anti air gun of the commonwealth forces. A small rapid fire anti-air gun against aerial and ground threats. The gun was used in large numbers and formed the backbone of the commonwealth anti-air units. Thanks to its weight the gun could be moved on the battlefield by soldiers and small motorized vehicles. 

QF 3.7inch AA gun

The 3.7inch heavy anti air gun was the “British version” of the german 8,8cm Flak and the Italian Cannone da 90/53 anti-air gun. The gun had excellent gun performance against armored and aerial targets. Until the deployment of the 17pdr gun the 3.7inch gun was often used against axis armor as emergency anti-tank emplacement. The gun was used by Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and British Forces. 

Vehicles

With the heavy weapons finished our last branch is missing; the vehicles of the Commonwealth forces. First of all we have to talk about the elephant in the room; the main battle tank of the Commonwealth Forces. The British Army hadn’t sent any Cromwell/Comet tanks to Italy. Italy was dominated by 2 tanks and their subversions: The Sherman and the Churchill. Both tanks were used in large numbers and many subtypes in Italy. In 1945 no other frontline had so many tanks in relation to manpower numbers like the Italian Theatre. Because of the manpower shortage in the British empire the British Army tried to compensate the lack of men by sending more tanks to the Italian frontline. To simplify the supply and logistical systems the allied forces in Italy were supplied with Shermans only – and some special vehicles. The US Army, the British Army and all Commonwealth Forces were equipped with Sherman tank. Shermans with short 75mm guns, Shermans with 76mm guns, Shermans with howitzer – It was the backbone of the allied tank forces. Interesting is that the Sherman is missing in the current British Royal Army setup so I will use the Sherman as the core tank for the Commonwealth proposal. 

The Churchill is a different story. The Churchill was used in large numbers by the BRITISH Army. The Commonwealth forces weren’t supplied with Churchills at all. Canada had dropped the Churchill before the Italian campaigns; the polish hadn’t deployed any Churchill tank in combat in Italy and New Zealand and South Africa hadn’t got any Churchill at all. With these limitations the Commonwealth Army will be limited to the Sherman tank. This will lead to an important aspect of the Commonwealth Army; It will be an aggressive army. The Relic dev post had presented us a more defensive orientated British army faction. The Commonwealth army is the opposite because they can’t hide behind weapon emplacements and Churchill tanks. They had to push to prevent the enemy from sending the big cats into combat. The emplacements and heavy Churchill first more to the British doctrine of the methodical battle. The Canadians, Kiwis and South African soldiers were more adopted to the doctrine of movement warfare. This will be the core element of the proposal; a mobile and aggressive army.

Sherman

The Sherman tank was the backbone of the allied tank forces in Italy. All Commonwealth units deployed armored units to support their infantry in combat. The Canadians sent an armored brigade and armored division, the South Africans sent an armored division and the New Zealand army sent an armored brigade to support their division. All this units were equipped with Sherman tanks of various types. There were 75mm Sherman I (US M4), with and without HVSS suspension, Sherman IB with 105mm guns, Sherman II (US M4A1), Sherman IIA (US M4A1(76)W), Sherman III (US M4A2 diesel – the “main commonwealth Sherman”), Sherman IIIA with 76mm gun (US M4A2(76)W) and with HVSS (Sherman IIIAY – US M4A2(76)W), Sherman V and many other versions. 

The Sherman was a result of the US armored doctrine to separate the “tank-vs-tank combat” and the “infantry support”. The tank-vs-tank concept was moved to the US tank destroyer forces. The Sherman should support the infantry in combat against enemy’s soft targets and fortified positions. The Sherman tank wasn’t designed for tank-vs-tank combat. For that reason, the Sherman had a remarkable strong frontal armor (76mm angled welded armor to push against fortified positions), good strategic mobility (marching long distances) and easy to maintain and repair. On the other side with its narrow tracks and “weak 75mm” gun the Sherman was inferior in tank-vs-tank combat and in cross-country movement. In Italy the Sherman was used in many battles. Here it met german Panzers and StuGs but because of the limited number of german armor the Sherman was more often used in its intended infantry support role and here it was loved by the commonwealth forces.

M10 tank destroyer

Used by France (7eme Regiment de Chasseurs d’Afrique), Polish (2nd Anti-tank regiment, 2nd polish armored division), New Zealand (7th Anti-tank regiment, 2nd NZ Division) and South Africa (1/11th anti-tank regiment, 6th SAF armored division).

With the split of the tank roles in the US tank doctrine the US army developed a tank destroyer based on the US medium tank chassis. The first full armored vehicle was the M10 Wolverine. Armed with a 3inch 76.2mm gun the M10 was a mobile open top tank destroyer. The US anti-tank doctrine favoured speed, manoeuvrability and firepower in contrast of armor. Whenever the enemy deployed tanks the US tank destroyer should counter the attack by speed and firepower. The production of the M10 ended in 1943 but it was used until the end of the war. The M10 was used by many commonwealth forces to boost their anti-tank performance and to counter the german Panzer threat. It was used in Italy until the end of the hostilities. In Italy the M10 was often used in direct fire support against the field fortifications of the german forces.

M10 Achilles tank destroyer

Used by British 93rd Anti-tank regiment, polish 7th Anti-tank regiment, 2nd polish amored division.

The M10 Achilles was an improved version of the US M10. With the 17pdr gun the Achilles could deal with any axis tank in battle. Unfortunately, it had the same weakness as the M10; weak armor and the open top turret. In Italy the number of Achilles TD was limited. As far as I know no Achilles was given to the commonwealth forces in Italy. They were deployed by British or polish forces only. 

M7 Priest

Used by British 24th Field Regiment, 95th Field Regiment and 152nd Field Regiment,6th SAF armored division and 2nd NZ Division.

The Priest was developed to allow the artillery to keep up in battle with the armored units. Mounted on the M3 medium chassis the Priest SPG fielded an US 105mm artillery gun. The British - always interested in artillery combat - adopted the M7 Priest for the Battle at El Alamein. They used large numbers of M7 Priest SPGs because they were lacking such a mobile long range artillery vehicle. Some guns were used by Commonwealth forces acquired by the land lease program. The US industry had built so many M7 Priest guns that the allies had the luxury to convert M7 Priest into other vehicles like APCs (armored personal carriers). A small number of M7 Priests was used by the New Zealand and South African Army in Italy. Canada didn’t need a SPG thanks to their own vehicle; The Sexton SPG.

Sherman Firefly Mk VC

Used by New Zealand 15th Armoured Regiment, 2nd NZ Division, Pretoria Regiment, 6th SAF Armored Division.

With the heavy 17pdr gun ready for battle the British were looking for any possibility to mount the 17pdr on a vehicle. The Sherman was a logical choice, but the turret was too small. The British developed a new turret. They were successful. The Firefly was soon adopted in large numbers and any British tank company fielded one or two Fireflies to counter the heavy german Panzers. With the Firefly available in bigger numbers the commonwealth forces adopted the Firefly too. In Italy the Kiwis and South Africans were using Fireflies for sure but I cant find numbers for the Canadians. With the Sherman chassis the Firefly adopted all the positive and the negative aspect; strong frontal armor, easy to maintain but limited offroad capabilities. With the new gun the Firefly replaced the “anti-infantry” gun of the Sherman with a powerful anti-tank gun. But with the gun change the Firefly had less rounds compared to the regular 75mm Sherman forcing the Firefly to resupply more often in battle compared to the Sherman.

One of the side stories of the Italian front is the History of the 755th US Tank Battalion in March 1944. The 755th Battalion was often in combat and supported many formations and nations at the Italian Front. As firefighter unit the unit encountered german armor more often than other allied units in Italy. For that reason, the 755th Battalion was asking for long barrel Shermans. The US Army Ordnance HQ in the USA didn’t send any new 76mm long barrel Shermans so the 755th Battalion looked for other weapons. With the Sherman Firefly they found their anti-tank answer. They adopted 12 Fireflies and used them until the end of the battles in Italy with success. It is one of the many unknown histories of the Italian theatre – and it is an indicator for the importance and success of the Sherman Firefly tank. 

M5 Stuart Recce

Used by 6th SAF armored division, 2nd NZ Division and 5th Canadian Armored Division.

The Stuart Recce was a turretless Stuart tank. With the turret removed the tank was used for fast reconnaissance missions. The crew could spot from the vehicle. The converted vehicles exchanged fire power for a free 360° field of view. They were often used as HQ command vehicles or for armored resupply missions. To get some heavy firepower in reconnaissance missions the crews added an additional heavy US cal.50 MG on top of the chassis. Thanks to its tracks and its small size (without the turret the small Stuart got even “smaller”) it was a suitable vehicle for reconnaissance missions. The Stuart Recce was sometimes used as “emergency APC” too but it couldnt transport as many soldiers as the US M3/5 halftracks. 

Sexton SPG

Canada started to develop a combat tank after the defeat in France 1940. With the British occupied by replacing their losses in equipment the Canadians knew that they would have to supply themselves. The result was the RAM tank. Before the Canadians could deploy their tank in combat the USA joined the war and sent weapons and equipment. Soon the Canadians had to realise that the Sherman was superior to their RAM design, so they used the Ram for training only. With the RAMs in reserve the Canadians were now looking what they could do with the stockpiled RAM vehicles. The Canadians build large numbers of 25pdr artillery guns so they made the decision to put the 25pdr on the RAM chassis. The result was the mobile rapid firing Sexton SPG. The Sexton had one big advantage compared to the US M7 Priest in commonwealth usage: the 25pdr ammunition. The 25pdr ammo was available in large numbers. To simplify the supply lines the Sexton was adopted by the British too. The Sextons Mk I (based on the RAM tank) and Mk II (based on the canadian Grizzly tank) were deployed by the Canadian and British forces in Italy. Perhaps some Sextons were used by the 6th SAF armored division too.

Otter Mk. I Armoured Car - CAN

The Otter Light Reconnaissance Car was a Canadian development. Based on the Canadian Chevrolet C15 army truck the Otter was armed with a Boys Anti-tank rifle and a Bren LMG. The vehicle was light armored with 12mm armor only. The vehicle had a smoke discharger to defend the vehicle by a smoke screen. The car was used by the reconnaissance units of the Canadian and south African forces in Italy.   

Sherman III Kangaroo - CAN

In 1944 the allies were in a bizarre situation. The commonwealth forces needed a suitable armored personal carrier (APC) to protect their infantry against artillery and MG fire. Unfortunately, in 1944 US halftracks were needed by the US army to enforce their own protection for their GIs and the US Industry hadn’t built enough APCs to satisfy the US Army demands. The Commonwealth forces on their side had many tanks and SPGs in reserve so they decided to “defrock” (remove the gun and/or turret to make space for tank riding infantry) tanks and SPGs to turn them into improvised APCs. With the experience in Normandy the idea of “defrocked APCs” spread to Italy. In Italy the Canadians converted some Sherman III tanks into APCs by removing the turret. Without the gun and ammunition the Sherman III Kangaroo could transport 8~10 soldiers into battle. The Sherman III Kangaroo was used in late 1944 until early 1945 (when the Canadians in Italy were transferred to the dutch-german boarder).

Priest Kangaroo – New Zealand

Like the Canadians with the Sherman III the New Zealand forces used surplus Priest SPGs to “defrock” the Priest. The unarmed Priest Kangaroos had place for 10 or more soldiers. The improvised APC got a heavy cal.50 MG and a Boys Anti-tank rifle to support the mounted infantry in combat. With soldiers would leave the APC in combat attacking the enemy. The Priest Kangaroo would support the attack with suppressive MG fire. The Boys AT rifle could deal with enemy’s armored cars or APCs. Furthermore, the heavy Boys rifle allowed the Priest Kangaroo crew to demolish/damage field emplacements and sandbag positions to allow the infantry to overwhelm the attacked position. 

Lynx scout car – Canada

The Lynx was the Canadian copy of the Dingo Scout Car. The Lynx was armed with a single weapon – a Bren LMG or a Boys AT rifle. The open top vehicle was designed for fast reconnaissance missions. With the 16km ranged wireless radio the Lynx could send the collected information back to the HQs. With its 30mm frontal and 12mm side armor the vehicle was protected against fragments and small arms fire. With 90km/h it was a fast long-range (300km) vehicle. The Lynx was small. It was easy to camouflage. 

New Zealand Universal Carrier Mk I “Maori Carrier” 

– 2x cal.30 US MG OR 1x Bren LMG, 1x cal.30 and 1x cal. 50 MG.

The New Zealand Forces acquired large numbers of Universal carriers to mechanize the “kiwi infantry”. With its small size and weak armor the Universal Carrier was not suitable for ferrying infantry in combat. On the other side the carrier was a suitable platform to carry support weapons in combat. One of this field modifications was the New Zealand version fielded by the Maori regiment of the 2nd NZ Division. The New Zealand forces had added a number of MGs to the Universal Carrier platform. Some NZ vehicles were armed with an US 12,7mm cal.50 HMG only. The Maori carrier was armed with 2x US cal.30 M1919A4 for heavy fire support. A second “Maori” version was armed with a light Bren LMG, an US M1919A4 cal.30 and an US M2HB cal.50 HMG. The Carrier crews would use the MGs to supress the enemy to allow their comrades to charge the enemy’s position.

Staghound – Mk I, II and III + AA

The Staghound was an US armored car with a 37mm gun turret. The US forces replaced the vehicle with the light M8 Greyhound. The British on their side were looking for a heavy recon vehicle and with the US Army no longer interested the British placed a large order for the Staghound. More than 3800 vehicles were sold to the commonwealth forces that liked the robust 4-wheel design. Here they formed the backbone of the heavy armored car units in Africa (too late to see combat here), Italy and later in northern Europe. With an operational range of up to 600km and more it was an outstanding recon vehicle ideal for the HQ units of the armored car units of the British Recon regiments. In Italy the Staghound was deployed by the Canadians, South Africans and Kiwis too.

The Staghound Mk II was a commonwealth field conversion. The 37mm turret gun was replaced with a 3inch Close Support Howitzer. The 3inch CS was an old British support weapon first fielded with the Cruiser tanks before the war started. The 3inch howitzer was developed for laying smoke screens. Later the British realised that they would need HE shells too. In Italy the 37mm gun of the Staghound was obsolete. The few tanks the allies met in combat were too heavy armored for the 37mm gun. The commonwealth forces – here Canada and New Zealand – replaced the 37mm gun with the HE howitzer to allow the Staghound to support infantry in close combat. The gun was effective in urban battles and fast raids.

In 1945 the New Zealand Division got reinforcements for their armored car units; The Staghound Mk III landed in Italy. The new version combined the fast and solid Staghound chassis with the firepower of the British 6pdr gun. The British had put the Crusader tank turret onto the Staghound. With its firepower it was a deadly enemy for the german armord car units. Unlike on the northern European theatre the germans didn’t sent their heavy armored cars to Italy. Most of the german armored recon vehicles used a 2cm gun at its best. When they met a Staghound on a patrol, they were no threat for the powerful 57mm gun armed Staghounds. A fast Staghound with such a powerful gun could outrun german and Italian assault guns or counter unprepared marching columns of axis armor. 

The last special version of the Staghound was the AA version with its twin-12,7mm-cal.50-US HMGs. The version was fielded by the Commonwealth army too but like many other anti-air weapons the platform was soon used in ground support only because of the total annihilation of the German Luftwaffe in mid-1944 in Italy.

Kiwi Dozer – Sherman Mk III with Dozer blade

The New Zealand Division had equipped a number of their Sherman III with Dozer blades to remove obstacles and to help their pioneers to overcome the obstacles placed by retreating german forces. The Dozer blades was fixed at the suspension allowing the gun/turret to operate without any problems. 

Kiwi M31B1 TRV – New Zealand “Bergetiger“

The allied forces fielded a number of specialised vehicles to help their units in the Italian theatre. One vehicle was the M31B1 tank recovery vehicle. The vehicle was a converted M3 Lee medium tank. After the African campaign the M3 tanks was obsolete, and many Lees were put in storage. Here they were transferred into recovery vehicles. The vehicle was filed with repair equipment, tools and recovery materials. The vehicle got a strong crane to lift and move heavy objects. The vehicle could tow tanks and heavy guns. The New Zealand Division had got a number of M31B1 TRVs to support their armored brigade in battle. Here the Kiwis made good use to keep their tank running.

Morris 40mm SP

Used by 6th SAF armored division.

The Morris-Commercial company started to develop a self-propelled 40mm Bofors anti-air vehicle (SPAAG). They planned to offer the vehicle to the British Army to help the British Force to field a mobile anti-air vehicle. The British liked the vehicle and ordered many vehicles. The SPAAG was first sent in combat in June 1944 to protect the allied armies in Normandy against the Luftwaffe. Later they were sent to Italy. Here they were fielded by the South African Forces. With the elimination of the Luftwaffe in Italy in late 1944 the South Africans used the gun for fire support and suppressive fire. The vehicle wasn’t ideal for those missions but without aerial targets the gun had no other role left.

Marmon-Herrington Armoured Car

Like the Canadians the South African forces got in problems when the British Forces had lost the battle of France in 1940. Like the Canadians the South Africans were depending on British arms supplies and with the losses in France the British were needing everything they had. So South Africa started to build their own weapons by due to the small heavy south African industry the country could build only small amounts of armored cars for their armed forces. The result was the Marmon-Herrington Armoured Car (MH AC). Based on a Ford 3ton truck chassis the MH AC Mk I had only 2 Bren LMGs. In Africa the South Africans met the german heavy 8-wheel armored cars with their 20mm autocannons. Here they realised that MGs weren’t sufficient for the MH AC. The Mk II version got a Boys AT rifle. Soon the crews were replacing the Boys gun with captured heavy axis weapons ranging from Italian Breda 20mm guns to german 3,7cm Pak 36 guns. The Mk III version got better armor and a 2pdr gun turret. Only small numbers of the Mk III version were used by the 6th SAF armored Division because in 1943 they were outdated and replaced by new armored cars like the Staghound, ACE and Dingo. Perhaps no MH AC was used in Italy at all.

The Commonwealth Forces - CF

Now it is time to merge to dry theory and concept with the historical background and content. At the beginning we had established a basic faction layout with some key unit and key roles. Now it is time to merge the concept with the weapons and units we had talked about before.

• Construction unit (when there is base building)

This could be done by regular Canadian or “kiwi” pioneer soldiers. At the moment such a unit is not need – or needed – depending on the base and field construction system we will see in the final version of CoH 3.

• Base Infantry

The first marginal problem here is the name and not the function. Canadians, South Africans and Kiwi (New Zealand) had regular rifle troops but it wont make sense to call them “Tommies” because the British Infantry is named Tommy too. What they had all in common; they were soldiers of the British Commonwealth Empire. They were Royal Rifles. 

With the name set we must think of the unit in gameplay terms. The Commonwealth Forces (CF) should be an aggressive faction so the base infantry should reflect the offensive setting. The problem is the weapon list available for the faction. The base rifle is the British Lee Enfield. With its rate of fire it is already a suitable weapon for “offensive firepower”. Based on the classic CoH offensive infantry unit, the CoH 1 US GI squad, the Royal Rifles got offensive power by upgrades and techs. Based on the GI example the Royal Rifles will need an offensive fast nade against units in cover and a good weapon upgrade. And the weapon upgrade is the problem here. The CF had no semi-automatic rifle or assault rifle. The upgrades candidates would be the Bren LMG and/or a submachine gun (Thompson/Sten). Both weapons would need suitable accuracy and/or range. The offensive squad will always move a lot and wont stay in cover for long engagements so it wouldn’t work to design the upgrade weapon to work from cover staying still. The Bren is the more likely candidate because it could be fired on the move and would work better in cover with the bipod on longer ranges. The guns is closer to the CoH 1 BAR and suitable for aggressive movement.

• Light scout (fast cap/anti sniper)

Scouting forces are important for the CoH gameplay. It is an advantage to know what u will face in the next battle. The classic scouts are light vehicles like the Krad, Jeep or Kettenkrad. Furthermore, the “vehicle scouts” were the counter to enemy’s snipers. With CoH 3 we will see the Dingo on the British side. The Dingo is a fast scout car. For the CF we could use on of the other scout cars here like the Canadian Otter Mk. I but it would be boring to bring another “scout car only” weapon system here. One of the most surprising aspects of the current British faction information is the missing of the iconic Universal Carrier. So with the Universal carrier missing it could be used for the CF. With a single Bren LMG it is a small versatile vehicle. Without upgrades it is a British “answer” to the german motorcycle or the US Jeep. 

For the gameplay of our proposed aggressive CF faction the Universal carrier could serve the early pushing power with a large number of upgrades. The Universal carrier was used with a lot of weapons. We have seen that the New Zealand Army used the Universal Carrier to support their infantry in combat. Here we could offer a Universal Carrier with a Flamethrower upgrade (Wasp Carrier), with a light mortar (2inch mortar carrier for HE shell barrage and smoke screens) or a heavy MG carrier (Maori carrier with suppressive firepower). With such a multi-purpose vehicle the CF could support their Royal Rifles in many situations. The biggest danger for the Universal Carrier would be an early anti-tank counter so I think such a faction would need a heavy weapon set beside the Carrier concept to field indirect or special weapons that cant be countered by a single anit-tank unit.

• Heavy weapon – indirect fire

With the aggressive universal carrier, a CF indirect fire weapon should be a “slow weapon” staying behind the frontline. Thanks to the large number of artillery guns the CF forces used their famous 25pdr gun for any indirect fire support needed. With the British Faction forum post and the pre-alpha experience we know that the British army will field a 25pdr emplacement/building. The 2nd NZ Division fielded a battery of ML 4.2inch heavy mortars for smoke screen missions. The 4.2inch mortar is a heavy mortar similar in size and performance to the soviet 120mm (and the german 12cm copy). Such a heavy mortar would be a suitable solution. Perhaps it could be worth to deny the retreat ability. Such a weapon would have a big range and would need protection against axis counter attacks. It would be the counterweight to an agile small harassing 2inch Carrier mortar. AND an anti-tank gun or anti-tank infantry weapon wont counter it. BUT u will see later that there is another – perhaps more interesting – alternative option for the indirect fire topic (spoiler: the 25pdr gun).

• Heavy weapon – suppression

Blob control is a core element of the CoH gameplay. Large infantry attacks could be stopped by a well placed (and well balanced) heavy suppressing fire weapon. The heavy MG team is the CoH core suppressive weapon of choice. With the CF there are two options; The old classic Vickers MG or the heavy US M2HB cal.50 MG. 

The Vickers MG is a ww1 vintage water cooled “slow firing” 7.7mm MG. It is the classic British MG of ww2. The CF on their side got some US made heavy 12.7mm ca.50 M2HB MGs. The Canadians deployed some of the US MGs but it seems to me that they don’t replaced the company based heavy MG with the US material. So from the historical point of view the Vickers MG would be the only choice here but to get some additional firepower we could think of a replacement upgrade that will exchange the Vickers MG with the heavy US MG that could damage light axis vehicles with its heavy rounds.

• Heavy weapon – anti tank

And here is our next problem. Based on the Relic post the British Forces will use the 6pdr gun and the CF had no other anti-tank guns beside the British 6pdr and 17pdr gun. On the other side when we circle back to our “indirect fire weapon” we could find a “improvised anti-tank gun”; the 25pdr. The 25pdr had shown its emergency tank stopping power in Africa. In CoH soldiers could move the 1 ton 7,5cm Pak 40 so there is no “ingame” problem with a movable 25pdr multi-role gun. The direct fire 25pdr AP round could penetrate ~60mm of armour on 450m. The gun would be sufficient to deal with Axis light armour and light vehicles. On the other side the gun wont be suitable against the Panzer IV, Panther and/or Tiger tanks. To be honest I don’t have data for the late war ballistic cap APBC 25pdr round. Perhaps the new round could deal with the Axis armor. Such a munition “upgrade” could be used for the gun ingame to allow scaling and/or specialisation. In late game a “munition upgrade” could turn the “multi-role gun” in a “special role gun” focused on anti-tank OR artillery role only – leaving behind the multi-role design from early/mid game.

• Infantry based anti-tank

U can guess our problem here – right? With the Boys AT Rifle, the PIAT and the Bazooka we have the standard set of infantry-based weapons we all know from CoH.

The Boys AT Rifle was already propped as infantry-based anti-tank weapon in Italy. Many Boys AT rifles were mounted on secondary vehicles to give them some power against enemy’s vehicles and light armored cars or field fortifications. 

The PIAT on the other side was the new infantry-based anti-tank weapon of the British Army. In comparison to the US and German small anti-tank weapons the PIAT was a kind of “mortar” throwing a hollow charge warhead against enemy’s armor. It was difficult to reload the PIAT in combat. Soldiers need a lot of physical force. Surprisingly the PIAT was loved by the soldiers in the field. The Canadians ordered large numbers. They used the PIAT against armor and field emplacements. Often, they were used to breach houses and strongholds. In the Netherlands the PIAT was sometimes used as emergency mortar against heavy german weapons like 88 Flak nests or heavy MG nests. Such a weapon could be added in CoH 3 with the breach aspect and a “ground attack” ability to bombard or stun heavy weapons or suppress infantry. 

The 3rd candidate is the US bazooka that was used by CF forces for light mobile infiltration units or fast blocking detachments. The Bazooka could deal with most threats. It could deal with the biggest allied infantry armored threat in Italy; the german assault guns – StuGs and Semoventes. 

The problem is – once again – that the proposed British faction will use the PIAT and the US Forces will use the Bazooka. Both weapons are already ingame but with the idea of a special ability PIAT I would prefer a special PIAT “Grenadier” squad ingame.

• Supporting infantry (additional role/setup)

This is one the classic wild spots to think of new stuff. With Canadian or south African or kiwi Fusiliers, Highland infantry or Dragoons we have a large number of names for the units. Such a unit could be a close combat unit with submachine guns and sprint ability or a squad using rifle grenades or Bren guns for fire support on long ranges. For an offensive faction a submachinegun unit would be the most logical choice. Sprinting and charge in infantry with anti-tank grenades and special shock grenades to breach fortified houses to maul down undefended heavy weapons or support weapons are likely design candidates.

• Armoured car

To be honest for the CF forces there is only ONE candidate: The Staghound! With its standard 37mm gun and MG it is the CF answer to the german SdKfz 222. Its biggest advantage – like the Universal carrier – is the large set of potential upgrades. The CS version with the 3inch “howitzer” (mortar), the AA version with a twin cal.50 US M2HB MG and the 6pdr gun version with the Crusader turret for late game hitting power against assault guns, SPGs and other armored targets are a large set of subversions of the Staghound. With a smoke discharger it is a small fast harassment unit ideal for aggressive midgame action.

• Armoured personal carrier

Here we have a lot of candidates ranging from a “semi-APCs” like the universal carrier or the Stuart Recce or the Daimler Dingo up to “heavy tank-based APCs”. The CF lacked “typical APCs” like the german SdKfz 250/251 series or the US M3/M5 halftracks. They got some halftracks in late 1944 when the units in northern Europe had sufficient numbers of APCs. The most interesting APCs are the Kangaroo versions used by the Canadians and New Zealand forces. The Sherman III Kangaroo would be a heavy APCs. The tank would be able to absorb some heavy damage. The Priest Kangaroo would be close to the Sherman III – less armored but with an additional upgrade option for a Boys AT rifle countering any axis Halftrack they would meet in battle. The problem with the Sherman III or Priest Kangaroo is the timing and balancing. Some of us are aware of the old CoH 1 RAM kangaroo balance nightmare; An APC filled with LMG or PIAT troops strong enough to deal a lot of damage against most possible enemies. The Ram Kangaroo could absorb some hits by heavy anti-tank weapons. The Italian Kangaroos would be Tier 4/late game units and here we must think of the function of such a late game APC. They could serve as mobile retreat point with healing and reinforcement capabilities to support the infantry in late game battles.

• Main battle tank

And here is where the fun begins. With a potential British faction focused on the Churchill tank the CF would be focused on the Sherman tank. The 75mm gun armed Sherman III (US M4A2 diesel version) is the backbone of the faction. With its HE shells it is effective against soft targets. With the Sherman IB (105mm gun) and the Sherman IIA (76mm gun) there are many upgrade options. The 105mm gun would enforce the anti-infantry values of the tank boosting its firepower against garrisons, buildings, and blobs. The 76mm gun version would enforce the anti-tank capabilities of the Sherman against the Axis armor. Like the Universal carrier and the Staghound, the Sherman would be influenced by its number of upgrade options. Beside the weapon upgrades an additional MG upgrade and a classic tank commander upgrade are standard options to boost the combat performance in late game engagements. 

• Tank killer

Here we have an interesting situation. With the US M10 GMC, the British M10 Achilles and the British Firefly there are 3 candidates. The US M10 should be ignored here. Sure, the 6th South African Armored Division used them in large numbers but with the M10 of the US Forces we don’t need it here. The M10 Achilles and Sherman Firefly are both 17pdr tanks. They are similar in role and design and with the heavy gun they are more likely candidates for the battlegroups. And that is the point where it is interesting; with a multirole Sherman and a hard-hitting Staghound plus a multirole 25pdr and an aggressive gameplay there is no need for a regular tech tree tank destroyer. Shermans in combination with 6pdr Staghounds could deal some nasty hits using the new side armor mechanic. The Sherman could absorb incoming fire and the Staghound could use its speed to hit the weaker side armor of the enemy. Firefly and M10 Achilles could be used for some heavy hitting battlegroups with a “heavy tank” like Firefly and a mobile M10 Achilles for hit-and-run-tactics. So, from faction design aspects the “tank killer” for the CF is a battlegroup unit with enforces stats and boni for combat and veterancy.

• Artillery weapon

Another problematic spot. The logical choice is the good old 25pdr gun here. We had talked about a multi-purpose 25pdr gun to break the repeating model usage. The gun could serve as improvised AT gun and as standard artillery piece. In CoH most of the indirect fire missions were conducted by mortars only. In CoH 1 the Wehrmacht with its Nebelwerfer and Stuka zu Fuß was something special. In CoH 2 we had seen the ZiS 2 field gun with its AT and artillery design. So often heavy guns are locked behind doctrines and/or battleground/commanders. With the 25pdr as AT gun for the CF it would be stupide to lock the artillery mission behind a battlegroup unlock. We had talked about the indirect fire unit for the CF before. Now with the 25pdr it could be worth to think about dropping any infantry-based mortar and keep the mobile Universal carrier 2inch mortar only and to add the 25pdr as multi-purpose unit here. In lategame the gun could be upgraded into a full conventional artillery piece by dropping its AT function. Such a transition would render an alternative heavy indirect fire weapon obsolete. So with the 25pdr a heavy mortar wont be needed for our CF faction.

• Special infantry unit

For an offensive faction specialised infantry is always a sort of a problem. The basic infantry is already designed for offensive actions. The special infantry had to fill a certain gap or fulfil a special combat role. The “classic example” is – once again – the US Army in CoH 1 with the Ranger elite infantry and the Airborne troopers. 

For the CF there are some candidates. Maori callin infantry with Charlton Automatic Rifle could serve as a Ranger like assault infantry with a “FG42 type rifle”; effective on most ranges and good in combat while moving. Maoris would be our first candidate. 

The second candidate is the US-CAN “First Special Service Force”. We know that Relic will implement the FSSF in an American battlegroup. SO why no Canadian version for the CF? They could serve as special camouflage infantry for ambush missions or placing explosives. In Italy the FSSF often assaulted mountain positions. With CoH 3 we know that there will be a heigh level modifier influencing damage output and received damage. The FSSF are a likely candidate for such a “mountain combat unit”. 

Our 3rd candidate is inspired by the Canadian infantry men of the Ortona campaign. Here the Canadians dropped their LeeEnfield rifles to adopt the Thompson SMGs for the close ranges urban combat operations. A nice addition is the Bazooka to add a callin anti-tank infantry option to one of the battlegroups. With SMGs and Bazookas, they are close to the CoH Rangers. The Canadian Highlanders are a versatile callin option for a battlegroup with infantry based anti-tank options.

• Special armoured unit

We had already talked a lot about the vehicles of the CF forces. One of the biggest chances of the CF is the upgrade potential of all the basic vehicles. On the other side the CF lacked “special armor units” like heavy Churchill tanks, flamethrower tanks or AVRE “funnies”. One candidate is the M31B1 TRV. The vehicle could recover, and repair destroyed vehicles like the CoH 1 OF “fake Bergetiger”. It would be an addition to the Sherman only tank arsenal. 

Depending on the overall faction design a defrocked Priest SPG could work as a callin APCs for a battlegroup. With the Boys Rifle upgrade, they would be a nasty surprise for SdKfz 222, 250/251 and other light armored vehicles (potential Italian vehicles like the AB armored cars or light tankettes). The non-doctrinal RAM Kangaroo of the CoH 1 british army showed the problem of a heavy armored APC so a battlegroup callin would fit better for gameplay timing. 

• Support unit (bonus/modifier unit)

There is the classic set of candidates like officers to boost combat effectives, add abilities or vet boni. Other candidates are medic squads supporting the infantry in the field to keep the pressure high and to get a constant manpower drain on the axis forces. The 3rd type would be Italian soldiers of the Italian liberation corps/army of the south. They could serve as an upgrade to increase the overall squad size of the faction or they could serve as spawn-able harassment unit popping up in neutral buildings behind enemy’s lines. 

A last candidate is a specialised armored car like the Lynx scout car or the Otter Light Reconnaissance Car. They could provide detection against stealth units. They could serve in a radio observation role, or they could manipulate the fog of war (reveal map areas). Even a CoH OF PE like “vampire” unit could be possible – stealing or generating additional resources is always welcome when u want to use more abilities or tanks in the CoH series. 

Optional:

• Armoured Artillery

To be honest for a CF there is only one unit here; The Sexton SPG. It is a solid vehicle with a rapid-fire howitzer. The 25pdr is already well established in the COH franchise so there is no real need to explain the role or function of a Sexton gun in the CF. Bombarding positions and vaporize axis bunkers is the most common type of mission for the Sexton SPG.

• Heavy tank destroyer

With the M10 Wolverine and/or M10 Achilles there is no “Elefant” or “Semovente 105/25” type “heavy tank destroyer”. So there is no candidate for such a vehicle for the CF at all.

• Elite infantry

With the specialised infantry we had listed 3 candidates that could be used here too. FSSF is the most likely candidate for a real “Elite unit”. Maori and Canadian “Highlanders” are more like specialised assault infantry with special weapons like the Charlton Automatic Rifle or full set of Thompson SMGs plus Bazooka AT launchers. The FSSF was the elite unit for special infiltration and sabotage missions and often used for the most complicated missions.

• Flamethrower

The CF had access to the British standard flamethrower; Flamethrower, Portable, No 2. The flamethrower was used by the Canadians for sure. For the Kiwis and south African forces I cant find any details but it is very likely that they used the British equipment like the Canadians. The flamethrower is the standard counter weapon against garrisons and cover. 

The other option is the Wasp Universal Carrier. The Wasp flamethrower carrier was used by the Canadians. It allowed for fast devastating flame attacks, and it offered some protection for the flamethrower operator. But like a regular soldier the Wasp wasn’t immune against enemy fire, and it was dangerous to operate such a weapon against fortified positions. That is one reason why the allies developed a flamethrower tank but unfortunately non flame tank was given to the Canadians, Kiwis or South Africans in Italy. The men portable flamethrower and the Wasp version are the only flamethrower weapons of the CF in Italy. 

With the PIAT and a potential rifle grenade launcher the CF had some weapons against units in cover and in garrisons. The CoH 1 PE showed that a faction could work without a flamethrower – from a certain point of view. It could be worth the trial to drop any flamethrower for the CF at all.

• (sniper)

Unlike some “myth” the Boys Rifle was never used as sniper rifle. The standard sniper rifle of the British Forces was a scoped LeeEnfield rifle. The sniper is a standard unit in CoH and the Canadian Army was equipped with scoped LeeEnfield rifle. With the Canadians the CF had access to snipers so there is no problem for the CF.

• (heavy tank)

Heavy tanks are a difficult topic for the CF. Canada had tested and used early Churchill tanks in combat but after the failure of Dieppe the Canadians dropped the Churchill tank. South Africa and New Zealand never adopted the Churchill at all. So, no CF army used the Churchill heavy tank in Italy. When they needed heavy tank support they were supported by the independent British armoured Brigades. The other allied “heavy tank” was the M26 Pershing. In contrast to the M24 Chaffee no M26 Pershing tanks were send to Italy at all and no M26 Pershing was used by a land-lease nation in ww2. 

• (rocket artillery)

The Italian theatre marked the beginning of the British army in experimenting with rocket artillery weapons. For the landings in Italy the British Army had tested and deployed modified LCT tank landing ships. The LCT(R) – Landing Craft Tank Rocket – over 1066 RP-3 rockets. The ship was designed for shore bombardment to break any possible resistance by saturation bombing. But the British never adopted a land based rocket artillery version. It took the British army until mid 1944 to develop a land based rocket launcher; the “Land Mattress”. The Land Mattress was the British answer to the german Nebelwerfer. The weapon was fielded too late and in too small numbers in ww2. The biggest deployment of Land Mattress batteries was the Battle of the Scheldt at the Belgian-Dutch Boarder. The few available Mattress batteries were kept in the Netherlands where they took part in operations against the German Forces in the Netherlands and the dutch-german boarder region. No Mattress rocket launcher was deployed in Italy at all. So there was no rocket artillery on the allied side here. The LCT(R) could served as an offmap battlegroup ability but that’s the best we could expect by the British rocket artillery in the Italian theatre.  

Special faction features

Time for a resume. 

The Commonwealth Army would be the aggressive brother of the “static” British Royal Army. The CF would relay on early aggression with mobile infantry and a large pattern of supporting vehicles. The Universal Carrier, the Staghound, the Sherman tank and the 25pdr field gun are versatile units with large upgrade options. The Universal Gun Carrier could offer a flamethrower, a 2inch mortar and heavy MG upgrade (Maori carrier) and when needed a Boys AT rifle upgrade. The Staghound could be upgraded with a 3inch close support mortar (howitzer) with HE and smoke shells, an anti-air gun turret or a powerful 6pdr anti-tank gun utilising the new flank armor feature of CoH 3. The Sherman could be upgraded with a 105mm Howitzer gun or with the powerful 17pdr AT gun. With this 3 munition heavy upgrade vehicles the CF could benefit from the M31B1 TRV that could recover vehicles to preserve the heavy munition and fuel investment.

In early game the Royal Rifles would push into enemy’s territory, establishing a forwarded battlezone. Elite/special callin battlegroup infantry could help building up pressure. The Universal Carrier would support the first phase requiring a repair unit next by to repair incoming damage. Depending on the situation the Universal Carrier could support with MGs or flamethrower or with a fast 2inch suppressive mortar shelling barrage. A regular heavy MG and a sniper could help with potential blob control. In Midgame the CF would field the universal 25pdr gun in a CoH 2 soviet ZiS-2 style or with a toggle firemode option. Because of the small shell the gun would be ideal to destroy fortified or garrisoned building. The Staghound could replace the Universal gun carrier in frontline harassment missions. With all the upgrades it could supplement the Universal gun carrier. A 2inch mortar UC wouldn’t need a 3inch CS Staghound but with the AT upgrade the Staghound could hunt down enemy’s armored cars and/or halftracks. Fast flanking could be a danger to enemy’s self-propelled casemate tanks like StuGs, Marders or Semovente SPGs. In lategame the Sherman would form the backbone of the CF armored forced. Depending on the enemy the Sherman could be used in an anti-infantry or anti-armor configuration. PIAT units could support pushing infantry by breaching into houses or firing an “emergency” mortar barrage. 

All in all the faction would be centred around mobile warfare. With all the upgrades the enemy couldn’t be sure what he will face next. Without very specialised units the CF would be weak against large suppression units (enemy’s MGs in garrisons or Nebelwerfer barrages). Heavy armor or ambush positions could turn into heavy casualties when an upgraded multirole unit is lost to enemy’s fire. Furthermore, mines and obstacles would hamper the CF gameplay by forcing the vehicle units into certain areas because heavy crush would be only available to the Sherman tank and/or a defrocked Priest.    

To support the units the CF would need a healing and reinforcement unit/point at the frontline. This could be a place for a Stuart Recce vehicle. The vehicle could be allowed to function as a mobile retreating point allowing infantry to replace loses at the vehicle in friendly territory. Healing could be provided by an unit based munition “first add” ability and/or an healing upgrade for base building to allow a non-munition heal for the prize of a full retreat.

Veterancy and unit training

Aggressive factions are always fast in getting veterancy on units. By staying as often as possible in combat the faction would earn vet fast. To balance the fast heavy vet gain the CF could be limited to 2 veterancy levels only. To gain a 3rd level they had to recruit veterans at the production building (longer buildtime, more expansive, need longer to build). The veterans would start with vet1 and could get 2 additional vet levels by combat experience. The 2nd option is an allied frontline training centre. Here the CF could retrain and/or reequip units. We have seen that the new Wehrmacht could “transform” infantry units from one type into another. The Frontline training centre could do the same for the CF forces; vehicles could be rearmed with other weapons for fuel/manpower – preserve the heavy munition drop by unit upgrades. Furthermore, CF could retrain units here to unlock the 3rd vet level. Such a system is micro heavy for sure but it would limit the “Fuk – full unit kill – potential” of an aggressive base faction by moving some part of the unit investment and coast into the lategame by forcing them to upgrade the units with fuel/manpower at the base. 

End note:

Why post another wall of text? The post should show that such a split is possible when planed and carefully designed. The post had showed that the CF would consist of many “universal units” and no heavy armor or special expert. With a recovery vehicle, armored personal carriers and some other “weapons” they would have an own identity. The CF played a crucial role in the Italian Campaign replacing British manpower for the invasion in northern France. Later they had to replace British loses in the western campaign because of the allied – or to be more precise – commonwealth manpower crisis. Weapons like heavy modified basic vehicles mixed with their offensive setup would be the “counterweight” for the more static British Royal Army. The Battlegroups could add self-propelled artillery, defrocked APCs, air force support and other elements. 

I hope I could inspire you to think about “non-common” factions and army setups. When u have reached this line u have read 21 word pages with 12930 word. 

 

Thank you very much!

Comments are welcome!

Thank you for sharing this!

Thx.
I never really pushed the idea further because I was lacking a real concept idea for the "faction".
When u have ideas feel free to add ideas and suggestions.

Perhaps one day I will try to develop a faction concept for a "commonwealth faction" inline with my other concepts. 

sima1988 wrote:

The next factions will be Japan vs USSR and nothing else. This is what most players want to see. I WILL SAY RIGHT NOW FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN THE BUNKER!!!!! All infantry and vehicles of other armies can fit into a pair of combat groups per faction.

I cant see any reason for this? Italy is a far more likely candidate.

By looking into the board here the request for an Italian factions seems to be bigger compared to a japanese "outcry" PLUS keep in mind that players voted for the current theater and NOT for the Pacific. So why should Relic invest in a theater that was less voted? I'm not sure about the place of the japanese theater in that survey but perhaps it wasnt even 2nd or 3rd place? Perhaps John_RE can enlight us later.

Keep in mind that these concept here was born long time ago.
Sure. A lot of "commonwealth content" can be put into BGs but at the moment we got a african british faction and the idea behind the faction here was an italian-centric "commonwealth army".

I will tell you how the events will unfold because I know a little more..))) They will place all the equipment and the Italian infantry in six combat groups. Then there will be an addition with missions for Japan. As it was with the Ardennes in COH2. There will be a new Pacific theater without a global map, the price of the add-on will be the same as the game itself)))

LordRommel wrote:

sima1988 wrote:

The next factions will be Japan vs USSR and nothing else. This is what most players want to see. I WILL SAY RIGHT NOW FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN THE BUNKER!!!!! All infantry and vehicles of other armies can fit into a pair of combat groups per faction.

I cant see any reason for this? Italy is a far more likely candidate.

By looking into the board here the request for an Italian factions seems to be bigger compared to a japanese "outcry" PLUS keep in mind that players voted for the current theater and NOT for the Pacific. So why should Relic invest in a theater that was less voted? I'm not sure about the place of the japanese theater in that survey but perhaps it wasnt even 2nd or 3rd place? Perhaps John_RE can enlight us later.

Keep in mind that these concept here was born long time ago.
Sure. A lot of "commonwealth content" can be put into BGs but at the moment we got a african british faction and the idea behind the faction here was an italian-centric "commonwealth army".