Maj. Battaglia

Cassh and others, some very good posts. Thanks. Cassh, I fully agree with you regarding the movement of MGs during battle, especially to within, say, 100m of the enemy. Other than in dense urban settings, I can't imagine this was too common, if only because of your point about ammo. As for resupply, one thread Dorosh started partly covered this topic. Ammo resupply has been a contentious issue here, and if we are to discuss it again, I suggest a new thread be started. Link.

This is one of the interviews that I linked to before in the other threads but will post again. The interviewee, Lt. Gen. DePuy was in WWII an infantry battalion commander in the 90th infantry division. Here he talks about suppression fire: The entire interview is worth reading and can be downloaded from MHI. So the number of M2s in a rifle battalion jive with what Emrys posted, and this is something I have not overly doubted (although TO&Es vary on the issue). But as I said before, getting them into a position to help the infantry took initiative (and see the last sentence of the quote), and that cannot be taken for granted. Note also he differentiates between the eight heavy machineguns in the heavy weapons company and the M2s in the trains. I have to infer this, but I suspect he does so because the former are the M1917. I think Dale's comment is on the money. I feel M2s should be optional or random, not automatically issued to rfile companies.

Thanks, YD, a good post. I won't have time in the next couple of days to add much to this, but before I consign myself to Thanksgiving prep let me just add a thing or two. I've seen the site you linked to. It is sites like these that cause me to wonder about my findings. But then they put in things like "BAR for AA defense" and do not cite their sources generally. So I have to wonder about the veracity of their info. One of the sites I rely on I have linked to before: 100th Division. There is a really nice hyperlinked chart where you can see what's what in an infantry division, all the way down to platoon level. And then there's George Forty. In his org chart he does not list an M2 in the rifle company, but then asserts in the text that there was one. "What gives?" I have to ask myself. But he makes other mistakes in "The US Army Handbook" that make me wonder if maybe there might be a mistake there, as well. In the end it is the oral histories of infantrymen that makes me think the M2 was not standard kit for the rifle companies. So I would argue that the kind folks at BFdotC should NOT make the M2 standard for the rifle companies, rather it should be available for separate purchase or inclusion by scenario designers. The M1917, which was the rifle battalion HMG through Korea, by the way, is in my opinion under-represented in CM:BO (can't say for AK). But if someone provided strong evidence to the contrary, I might change my tune. And given the M2's power against light armor (versus pretty much none for the M1917), it does tend to sway things in favor of the US when the Germans field a halftrack or a Nashhorn or a Puma. Nice picture, by the way. In the previous discussion about 50 cal on Shermans I found a picture of the loader firing at ground targets. So perhaps as the war ended they were more commonly moved to the front. According to Irwin's "Another River, Another Town," his TC could not fire the 50 from within the turret, but when he was assigned to a Pershing later in the war, this was rectified.

It's true I said I'm not 100 percent sure. But that does not mean what I wrote was pulled out of, well you get the idea. It just means I do not feel my research has been exhaustive and therefore I am not completely satisfied. I would be happy (I'm not being facetious) to have you post any sources you have because it will help me. But I feel strongly that the evidence I have found supports the conclusions I posted, and it is at your peril to ignore them My summary was just that, and there is a lot more in the links I posted. The reason I mention this is because I have researched both intended usage and practical usage. It seems as though people are sort of arguing around one another, in many cases both are correct but still disagree. I think this is because it comes down to "it depends" and there is no easy, definitve answer to these questions. For example, as to which is best, you have to ask "for what?" As a MG for infantry use, you probably have to go with the MG42 for its advantages (over the M2) in portability and ROF (plus the ballistics Dorosh refers to--I think you might be talking about the M2's flat trajectory, but I can't explain well why this is important). But if the enemy infantry is behind some cover, you might decide the M2 is better. Certainly as an AA MG, the M2 is superior. So you can't just say which is better without qualification. Another thing to keep in mind is that local commanders have flexibility to best employ what resources they have. And that makes a pretty big assumption that the commander is, in fact, flexible and has the initiative to make the changes in question. What appears obvious to a wargamer with 60 years of hindsight and weapon effectiveness charts may not have been so obvious to a citizen-soldier. So again, the German and US rifle battalions relied on the MG34/42 and M1917/1919. The German 20mm AA gun and M2 had other intended purposes (but were not the equivalent of one another) and were mostly assigned to other units in the division, but depending on a lot of factors, might be available for use by rifle battalions or companies. It should certainly not be taken for granted.

Just curious, what are your criteria for a HMG? There is a lot more to a tripod mounting vs. bipod mounting than the number of legs. Mounting on a tripod allows the reliable use of a long range sight. In turn this allows the gunner to better determine a "beaten zone" for effective fire at distance. In addition, the higher number of crewmen in the CM model allows for faster ammo reloads, barrel changes, etc. All this allows for a greater rate of fire. The LMG and HMG may have the same theoretical rate of fire, but in practice the LMG will have to fire more slowly.

Oh good! We're discussing the US 50 cal again! That's something I can't resist joining in. This was my impression until I started doing some research into it. I got into it by accident. Everything I found supports the position that the .50 was NOT standard front-line equipment for rifle battalions. Please see the following threads: Most Common US HMG: M1917 or M2? Use of the 50 calibre MG on the Sherman against infantry Germans overlooked making a 50 caliber machinegun To summarize my position based on a lot of time researching the topic (and I'll be happy to share sources if anyone wants to explore this further): The M2 was not the intended HMG for rifle companies and rifle battalion heavy weapons companies; the M1917 was. Rifle companies had just two M1919s in their weapons platoon. However, M2s did find their way into such units, either because of the initiative of the commanding officer or because a particular GI decided he liked the gun and did not mind carrying it (and the much heavier ammo). The intent of these weapons was to provide rear-area troops (who possessed (relatively) more vehicles than the rifle units and moved less frequently) some protection against aircraft (which was considered a major threat when war planning began and the Luftwaffe controlled the skies) and light armor. I would suggest it would be more likely to be seen in use by rifle units on the defensive, and in the offense in fixed overwatch positions, probably several hundred meters behind the action. On vehicles, it was intended as an AA weapon, but was used whenever practical. On the Sherman, this was rarely since one had to leave the turret and stand on the rear deck to engage ground targets (unless you had modified the mount). This was changed in the Pershing, for example. Regarding all these assertions of mine, I am not 100 percent convinced, but this is where the evidence has led me. And one thing you find in researching these things is that there is no definitive "truth." But there is an ability to know what was more or less standard and what was an exception.

fiaros, thanks for your time and trouble. It is interesting that the Kiriakopoulos book I have lists about half of these sources and is also listed as a source in the first bibliography. I do often find it interesting to compare books on the same battle and find differences of opinion and fact. It just goes to show that there is no "truth" in reporting on the chaos of battle. I guess I brought up my point originally because I always wondered about the veracity of the claim that a portion of Greek troops were armed with Syrian swords, etc., especially the number Kiriakopoulos implies. To something like that there is no definitive answer. Will someone be able to mod this? Oh wait, no Greek troops this time around.

Thanks Fiaros and Determinant. As I said, I got the information from a source citing Clark. I would bet Clark got his info from British/Commonwealth sources and interviews. The Kiriakopoulos book, as I said, is a somewhat light treatment of the battle, but probably accurate enough and a good entre to the battle.

These links have been posted before (we've actually had a couple of threads about the Indian Army), but they are worth putting up here: Indian Army in the Second World War The Tiger Triumphs: the Story of Three Great Divisions The Fifth Indian Division There is some good reading (and pictures) at all of these sites for those who want to know more about Indian troops in WWII.

Are there figures on South Africans serving in British Army units? A friend from high school, whose family came from SA, had a grandfather who served in 5 RTR. At the time he may have only been living in SA (i.e. had moved there from UK). How did this work? That is, how could a Commonwealther join the British Army as opposed to his local army? BTW, my friend used to wear his grandfather's uniform at halloween. A tad geeky perhaps, but I thought it was pretty cool.

fiaros, just curious: is this from a translated (by you or someone else) Greek source, or is it from something available in English? I'm interested in order to compare to other sources. For example, I have "Ten Days to Destiny" by G.C. Kiriakopoulos. It is not the most authoritative book, but has some informatin about the First that is different, and if I read his notes correctly, he gets the following information from a 1962 work by Alan Clark "the Fall of Crete." Kiriakopoulos writes of the First (from pp. 61-62): So, this would imply that about a third of the regiment was unarmed. I'm not saying my source is correct, just curious what your source is to perhaps compare. By the way, the book I reference has the same story of the group of Fallschirmjäger falling nearby the First's position and after chasing them around, capturing 17 survivors (and later these POWs escape when their prison walls are blown out by a German bomb, and they capture the NZ major commanding the First).

Thanks for the post, Trommelfeuer. Interesting read.

Certainly, Commonwealth actions on mainland Greece can be simulated. But AFAIK, there won't be Greek troops. I have a hunch BFdotC said "Crete" instead of "Greece" so there would be no confusion over the non-inclusion of Greeks. JonS and Sergei, thanks for the useful info. Sergei, it is my understanding also that the forces on Crete also included Greek regulars, but I did not have numbers at my fingertips.

Yes, it can be worth getting a RR once in a while. As flamingknives suggests, on of the main points of them was to give light and airborne troops some direct-fire AT/arty, primarily for defense against tank counterattack after dropping behind the lines. So if your QB is simulating such a thing, include them. But if your QB has no quasi-historical basis, they can still be useful attacking a town when you don't have the points for an SP gun. I think bang-for-the-buck wise, on defense, a traditional AT gun is better. [ November 07, 2003, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Maj. Battaglia ]

Feldgrau has a quick and dirty listing of where the 12th SS was during its existence. As others suggest, there is alot written about its role in Normandy. Books are much, much better than links in this case. An inexpensive one (I picked it up for $6.50) is Reynolds's "Steel Inferno." As for Fourth Panzer Army, I think JonS's incredulity regarding your request is because that unit fought practically the entire war, all in the East (and note that 12th SS was never assigned to 4th Pz Army), including a major role in the drive for Stalingrad and against the Soviet counterattack. For a quick listing of where the Fourth saw action, see Lexicon der Wehrmacht.. Since the link is in German, I can help you a bit (assuming you don't speak it). In the tables, "Datum" is date, "Heeresgruppe" is Army Group (Nord is North, Mitte is Center, and Süd is South), and "Ort" is location (all East, all the time). From here, you should find some general history of the Eastern Front and it will give you a clue as to what unit was where, and then find more specific resources regarding each battle. It's a lot of work, and there is no easy fix.

Yeah, wider interests like realism! I understand you were ranting, no problem. But deep down, the root cause of what you were ranting about is that not enough product, representing any period, is out there to satisfy those interested in realism. And I think there are more who fall into that category than big publishers realize. We have to be patient and proactive. The more who are intersted in realism, the more non-popular (and I say popular only because you point out the size of the US market) topics will be covered (or you could have a baby boom in the UK--get cracking!). And besides, if you did "Battlefield 1645" you couldn't have ore miners and Tesla coils. In some ways you should be happy no one has perverted English history! And Michael, I was also thinking about Talonsoft's Battleground series that covered Napoleonic campaigns and "Age of Rifles." Both had pretty good success. With the last one, the beauty was covering battles like Port Arthur, etc. But these are the exceptions.

Guilt and remorse are both a part of the realism.

In general, it would be highly unrealistic to have a CM-style game for ACW. You could do 3D and have WEGO, but you would be best to have the smallest unit be company, have longer turns, and possibly have a longer command delay as well. Not to mention no gamey puppchen. Ant, your conclusions about the ACW being over represented because of the size of the US market may be correct, but let me be a bit picky. In general, computer game titles, including a lot of war games, are made for the mass market, whether US, Europe, or Asia. The realistic combat simulation, of any period, is somewhat of a niche market. Just look at a lot of the offal that gets passed off as WWII, for example. So you can dress up baloney in lesser-known (to Americans) wars, but it is still baloney. And that's most of what is out there. But on the other hand I do think the market is bigger than some of the big publishers realize (although they probably only think in millions anyway). I would bet that if you came out with a title that covered a war that the US had no part in (or predated the US) in as groundbreaking a way as the CM series does WWII, most of the people who bought CM would buy it as well. We (gamers into realistic sims) are a hungry bunch. We will snap up Cromwell or Agincourt or Balaclava or Jan Smuts as readily as we will Breitenfeld or the Peloponnesian Wars or Mitla Pass or Japanese Civil Wars. It doesn't have to have a US flag. But it does have to be good. Now light a fire under some UK game programmers (or Kazakh for all I care!) so I can re-enact Killiecrankie!

Jim Belushi? Made for TV? I seem to remember hearing about this now. I think I just decided to give it a miss, and it was pretty easy to do so. Boo, thanks for pointing that out.

Frenchy, you are correct. Adolfo Celi was not only in Von Ryan's Express and Thunderball but also in OK Connery, which I did not know. I actually did see this last movie, which featured Sean Connery's younger brother Neil, but there were these two robots and some dude making funny comments from the lower right hand corner. Ruined the movie for me. Adolfo Celi's IMDB profile And I can't find a Belushi movie called Sahara in IMDB. There's that bad one with Brooke Shields. Are you guys thinking of 1941? Belushi's IMDB profile

Oh, and if you want to talk about Italian campaign, how can we forget Von Ryan's Express? Sinatra's second best movie. Now what was the name of the Italian POW camp commandant?

I'm with Mr. Furious (as long as he's talking Bogart). While an obvious propaganda film, it still has some great elements in it. When it was made, Italy was out of the war, so the Italian character is shown sympathetically, and helps out the good guys. Not to mention great footage of the M3 Lee in action!

Avalon Hill's Air Assault on Crete comes with a mapboard and OB for a "what if" Malta invasion by the Axis in 1942. You can get this on e-bay, but I have a copy and can give you the OB they use: Germans: 2 regiments of the 7th FJ div with some supporting elements (airdrop) Italians: Folgore div (airdrop) XXX Corps comprising 4 Inf divisions with support, plus a few armor companies and 6 commando battalions. British: 4 infantry brigades, a few troops of armor, a lot of AA, some arty, and a ot of coast defense arty. According to the notes, it seemed like invasion was always a second priority to other matters, such as Rommel's drive on Egypt. And a number of technical issues came into play, such as availability of landing craft.

A friend in high school had it, and it truly was groundbreaking because it was a computer game without the computer. I say that because in e.g. Squad Leader, your squads were abstract and hits on AFVs were abstract. In Tobruk, hits, hit location, penetration were all modeled. Number of troops in a squad was modeled. It was the CM system, in a simplified way, on cardboard. When CM finally came out, I thought perhaps Tobruk had provided as much inspiration as SL/ASL. I think because it was so time consuming it never made it to other theaters of the war and other terrain types: I don't think it was popluar in other words. But a grog's dream, it certainly was! By the way, it is commonly available on e-bay for pretty cheap.

I was reading about the Fifth Division after North Africa in the link you posted, and noted that they went to Iraq as a reserve formation. An interesting thing I did not know before, that this history mentions in passing, is that the Poles were in Iraq as well to guard against any German threat from the Caucasus. I guess now is not the first time for a Polish Army to be in Iraq! These are very good links, and thanks for posting. These readings certainly show how important Indian troops were to the Allied war effort. The Fifth, for example, was sent all over which is also noteworthy. I certainly hope Indian troops are a separate option. Certainly, if Australia and New Zealand are separated out, Indian troops should be since many more fought in the Med than did the two former.