Andreas

Yes, but life is still not letting me deal with it.

Not so good if it crashes down on your head though. You are right Michael, tin is the word. I am not getting enough sleep these days. Regarding nicknames, I think Peiper's command HT during the Ardennes offensive was called 'Emil'.

Meaning sheet metal in English, I think. Now who says that the Germans have longer words for everything. Marcus, there was a T34/85 with two ear-shaped hatches as well. The one at Bovington is an example of that series. Not sure about the early T34, I always thought they had just one very big hatch.

For the French vehicles there would presumably at least have been the chance to produce spares at the original factories.

Hint: look for stumps. Michael </font>

Mark Great story. Does the Australian army provide sheep to its officers? I am sure that would get Mace going. To the recruitment office, I mean.

Will these work in CMBB?

Michael - my post was directed at the drive-by drivel from the appropriately named junk2drive, not at the whingy posts above.

What's your problem? Unhappy with being forced to fork over lots of money on a regular basis for a lot of shoddy hardware bolted together by monkeys so that substandard bloatware can run on it? Get a grip.

The Tiger rose. Then Joe Ekins retold how he killed Wittmann and his crew, standing in front of Tiger 131.

Not that much younger - I think the oldest British regiments may go back to the Civil War. So that is only about 50 years difference. Well, Regiments.org names a few that are older, but it seems the real wave is in the 1650s, and anything before then is a bit of an oddity. I am sure those Germans from 1701 had someone in their past too.

tero - they did not have decent infantry training. They may have had decent weapons training, but that is a different matter. Their leaders were not getting better. For many of the late 44 recruits, the 18 years old guy that I introduced may not have been representative, they had been previously 'UK' status, because of their occupation, so they were factory workers, and a bit older. The Marshall observation is of course for a different army, but in the German case, an alternative to individual fire was always there, on squad level. It was the MG42. Much more readily available and better to aim then the US indirect assets. I come back to Jary - when the MG42 went out, the German squad tended to fold. Why is that, if individually they had so much firepower? My suggestion is any or all of bad training, bad leadership, no interest to die for the cause, resulting in a lack of individual drive. Clearly anecdotal, but to me more convincing then a view based on the doctrine. But that is just where my taste lies. I am also not sure if I would give the squad MG to a rookie. Compared to a vet, he will waste ammo, be less observant, be more likely to jam it, be less effective in bringing fire on target, and be more likely to make any number of mistakes that can get me (never mind him) killed. Rookies make good ammo carriers.

I think there was certainly some Esprit de Corps in the divisions, especially if they had a strong commander. Primarily it would lie in the Regiment though. Needs must however, and so drafts of men from training battalions could well find themselves in the 'wrong' regiment very quickly. E.g. a group of Welshmen who ended up with the AS&H in Tunisia, and quickly regretted their choice, when they got their first Scots breakfast. I have come across one case (apart from complete reorgs, e.g. when the funny divisions with two infantry brigades and one tank brigade lost the latter to receive a third infantry brigade), and that was 78th 'Battleaxe' Division (note that this one did not have an explicit regional affiliation in the name), where the Guards Brigade was exchanged for the (an?) Irish Brigade shortly after Sicily, IIRC. There were some rumours that the Guards Brigadier and the GOC could not get along well. Otherwise, Brigades would mostly stay with their divisions.

Why? Because I missed them off the list? Have you ever been to Staffordshire? It is not worth mentioning.

Plus ca change. Now email me your telephone number or call me.

Just like everywhere else. You take three battalions and a brigade staff, and hey presto, you have a brigade. Take three of those, throw in some RA, REME, RASC, Recce Corps, etc. pp, and a divisional staff, and you have a division. Most divisions were based on regions, e.g. the 43rd on Wessex (ye olde English kingdom), 49th on the West Riding, 50th on Northumbria, 52nd on the lowlands, 53rd on Wales, etc. But this was not always adhered to, so you could find any sort of funny combination in the 78th Division (e.g. 36th Brigade with two south coast battalions, 5th Royal East Kents, and 6th Queens, and then a Scottish battalion 8th Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders).

John If I am not as vastly mistaken as the man who believes salmon are marsupials who live in trees and eat pencils, then both Tout and Jones were in the Northants Yeo, not the FFY. The numbers appear correct though.

Unlikely. According to the 9th DLI history, they were from Panzerlehrdivision, which is generally held to be one of the best the Germans could field at this point in the war.

I think I'd like to see some evidence based on action, not on numbers of weapons issued or doctrine, before I accept that premise. The implementation of doctrine depends on having the guys on the ground doing it - I have looked at implementation in a different context (environmental regulation) and you maybe surprised about the clash between reality and intention. What is on paper, and what happens in reality, can be two very different things. The question for me is: 'can a barely trained, badly led 18-year old with a Stug 44 bring the same firepower on target as a well-trained, well-led, experienced man with a K98? There is anecdotal evidence (Jary being the most prominent) against it, and I have a hard time believing that the German squad could rely more on its individual members when these were becoming less and less well trained. My guess would be that you probably could have observed a similar phenomenon as Marshall observed in the US infantry, i.e. that few men really contributed meaningfully. The presence of the MG42 may well exacerbate this, because it is so powerful just on its own that it could provide a good excuse to the aforementioned 18-year old to just keep his head down and pray that the nightmare ends soon.

Two words sum up Tank Ace - clueless troll.

Thanks both of you. Testudo, I think that technically the generals on the Halder project were also POW. Panther Commander, have you read the article that Grisha linked earlier? It is excellent.

Like the photo op during the Ardennes offensive, where on two pictures in a book I am reading it looks as if the German soldiers are carrying M1 Garands? Both, but it is just something I picked up, so it is at best anecdotal evidence, and weak one at that. Stories like 'the Stug 44 was always in short supply, but I was an officer, so I had one', or a whole formation kitted out with Italian SMGs with no ammo late in 45. S.L.A. Marshall rearing his head again. According to him you could also have given the US soldiers Megadeathblastersofdoom™, or toothpicks, since they were not inclined to use them in any case. But quite apart from that, your line of reasoning is at variance with the late-war Soviet doctrine of emphasising firepower from support weapons incl. tanks and assault guns. One would assume that the intense Red Army love affair with large-calibre direct fire HE guns would actually reduce the need for high personal firepower, since those 122mm guns are busy shooting you on your objective. Doctrinally speaking.

The German staff college was only for future staff officers. Truppendienst (field service/grade?) officers did not need to go to it, AFAIK. With these (like everyone else), later in the war, training got progressively worse.

BTW - anyone else hanging around in the UK at the moment, the IWM has a D-Day exhibition on. www.iwm.org.uk/dday

Your mother never told you about the pot and kettle, eh? Then again, you are an engineer, what use could you have for good looks? Would be wasted on you, really.