Andreas

Thanks - something on topic after all the interesting stuff on 12cmGrW or 4.2" mortars. That is quite interesting, and I think goes to show that on an infantry battalion level, the Commonwealth (I include the British here for ease of reference) was seen to be weak in firepower, unless supported by attached weapons from higher echelons. This attachment argument is IMO a bit of a smokescreen. The Germans also did not intend to have their battalions fight unsupported, and they did certainly not do worse in terms of cross-attaching support units, or indeed developing units specifically for the support of infantry battalions (Stugs, anyone?). German Artillerieabteilungen also had FOOs, and these were also accompanying infantry battalions. They had fewer guns, but the same amount of batteries per battalion in the division, and in the reigmental gun company held some guns that did not exist in the Commonwealth OOB. The question then is whether it is correct to say that the Commonwealth infantry battalion was purposefully designed as a weaker formation, and if that view is correct, why that was the case. It may of course have been unpurposefully been designed in such a way. Or maybe the view is wrong, and the Commonwealth battalion was not actually weaker?

Just as an aside: German recon battalion, infantry divisions of 1. and 2. Welle: Battalion HQ 1 Horse Squadron (they were from the cavalry arm, hence squadrons, and it would be commanded by a Rittmeister). 1 Bicycle Squadron 1 Heavy Squadron Weapons in the heavy squadron included HMG, IG18, Pak35/36. The Abteilung also had 3 light armoured vehicles, either German or captured (e.g. Panhard). All in all this was a mini-Kampfgruppe that could look after itself for a bit.

If you read the link I provided, you'll know something about Iassy-Kishinev (Romania August 44) as well.

a) their recon elements a Vorausabteilung (forward detachment), but not for long c) any part, if the German commander has a case of the nerves and decides to hold and wait until the big stuff was brought up All of it unlikely, but not impossible. At the least it may also slow them down, and their reaction will give you a clue as to what you are dealing with.

I am wondering - what were the 'pretty' operations the western Allies conducted in 1943? The Kasserine Pass? The not very neat landing at Salerno? The successive bashing their heads against mountain lines in Italy? The failure to stop Axis forces from escaping across the straits of Messina? Monty's and Georgie's p*ssing match in Sicily? So many to choose from... (and yes, I know there were great successes too, and they were still learning - but so was the Red Army, and it did have its 'pretty' successes too).

Read this. How to attack like a Soviet Rifle Corps in 1944

What's the story Lewis? Google failing you? Another time you throw out stupid statements that you can not back up? Heelllooo - anyone home?

Are there houses in the set-up I sent to you? Are you still reeling from your defeat in our last game (let's face it, you were saved by the scoring error). Where's my turn?

Why?

That is about as interesting as the statement that 'night follows day'. Factually correct. Just not very impressive as a news item. That's what I mean by 'spam', you see. Meaningless, pointless, googled up statements. Interspersed by plain wrong stuff. You are a master at providing that.

Wow. Really? You are my hero for your ability to do math. Shame you have your facts wrong though (as usual). I mean, how difficult is it to figure out that 19,588 or 26,341 are numbers considerably in excess of 1,000/month, when we divide them by 12? There are four months in the whole war when production ran 'around 1,000'. From mid to end-44 it ran comfortably above 2,000, with 3,950 reported in December. Stop pulling stuff out of your a** and either contribute something meaningful, or stop spamming the forum with your idiotic statements.

Utter rubbish, seeing that they started using it at regimental level a long time before meeting any of the western allies. Does it take a special talent to make up BS statements like your's, or is it easily done?

There's going to be more of it. You are doing well in being on the right end of things, while others [cough]Mark[/cough] make fun of my hair. I wonder if he went to boarding school? Please continue, you are on the right track. Always think about it - that poor chap on the receiving end of that 107mm Corps artillery FOO, it could be you. If you are not careful.

Observed on-board mortar fire on T-26s rocks. Ask Elvis.

You were always marvellous at pointing out the obvious.

The Wehrmacht an 'advanced' army. That still makes me giggle. What next? Charles Manson a friendly neighbour? The Concorde an efficient plane? Quentin Tarantino a highbrow movie director? South Park skillfully done animation? Wartgamer an oxymoron?

The other reason is of course that all of today's militaries have full-auto assault rifles that mean you can have your cake, and eat it too.

Germany produced 211,806 MG42 in 1944 - 51% of the total production. I am sure the odd one will have found its way to VG divisions. It produced 26,341 GrW34 and 4,557 12cm GrW42 in 1944. Again, some of these may conceivably have found their way into the VG divisions. All data from Lexikon der Wehrmacht. I find it hard to believe that equipment of light infantry weapons was a major issue for these divisions. A quick look through Nafziger shows that TO&E for VGD was either the standard 9lMG or even a 13lMG rifle company.

Um - radios were not that reliable then (although you would still want to have them). So you use runners/riders and wire, just like people did in previous wars. That this did not work particularly well is another story.

YD - couldn't agree more. Tero - I really think you are using Harrison-Place for something that he should not be used for. His book has a title - closer reading reveals that the title is not 'Battletactic implementation by British infantry sections in a real combat environment, 1944-45'. If he had meant to write about how things were really done, he would presumably have done different research, chosen another title, and another focus.

Hi - I think the light tanks were actually the tankettes that are also in CMBB (BTW, wrong forum, mefinks). I know at least one division where the light tanks were present, in the Arctic.

Care to explain why George Forty and the battlion war diary of the 1st Bn, the Royal Berkshire regiment think that they did? More to the point (and more relevantly): HOW did they come up with the methods they used ? </font>

Coherent means something quite different. Understandably, accessibly explaining how, why, and when or when not they could defeat the German squad and the MG42, without tanks and artillery. Using coherent tactics, even if these were not universal.

a) define coherent. otherwise (and probably even then) rubbish. You are confusing doctrine and tactics. Jary was on the receiving end. He explains in quite some detail about the MG42 and its effects. I have not seen other 1st-hand accounts that do it so well, but you are welcome to provide them.

Harrison-PLace