Hun Hunter
-
Posts
42 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Hun Hunter
-
-
Yes, it is always a group effort but when one unit makes claims to the denigration of others or says "we were the first, fastest, best" no matter the color, then evidence needs to be shown. If a unit claims to have spent more time in continuos combat in the ETO than any other US unit the burden of proof is on them, not on those that dispute it.Originally posted by Dave Stockhoff:...
It's always a group effort, and official estimates of casualties inflicted by individual units will always sum to more than the actual number. This inflation should never be taken as self-inflation, unless a unit claims to have done something entirely on its own.
Greg
-
I wouldn't be surprised if the 761st got Chaffee's to replace their M5's in early 1945. I agree it may be impossible to ever actually sort out the casualties they inflicted from those of the units they were attached to (well, unless you wanted to spend a few years pouring through after action reports in the National Archives). It was the common practice in the ETO to attach an Independent Tank Battalion (such as the 761st) to an Infantry Division and then the tank would be spread amongst the division's sub units to provide armored support. It's very common to read of infantry companies in infantry divisions having a platoon of tanks in support. Since these divisions didn't have their own tanks they usually were coming from the attached tank battalions.Originally posted by aco4bn187inf:According to Liberators, a very informative and eye- opening book, the 761st normally operated while divided into smaller units attached to other formations, so it might be impossible to separate their German casualty statistics from those acheived by the other US units involved. Also, the book shows a Chaffee tank of the 761st, so apparently they were not strictly limited to Shermans and M5's.
By the way, it also shows Black marines being trained in 1943.
I don't have the book "The Liberators" but the snippet's I hav seen about it claim that the 761st liberated Buchenwald, can you verify that's what the book says? Also, I believe the movie named the Liberators claims they liberated Dachau. I don't know if that's from the book or "artistic" license.
I also came across some information about Black Marines in World War 2. Not a bunch of them but there were definitely a few units. That was news to me, thats for sure.
Greg
-
Ok, the 130,000 number just fails the common sense test but if the only way to convince you is to get the total strength of every German unit in the 761st's areas of operation and add them up and see them fall short of 130,000 then I should start workingOriginally posted by BigMik1:Hun Hunter,
Not getting testy, but find numbers and facts to let us know the "truth" before saying, "It's bogus!" and "it's wrong!". Well let us know what you came up with? We are all historians in some degree and would like to see new info that will tell us more about a situation in WW2. So find some facts and disprove the info you think is wrong before you squash it to death.
And can YOU prove they were not in the field that long?
I am trying to find facts.
BigMik1
Seriously, for the 761st to inflict those levels of casualties every member of the 761st (including the clerks & medics) would have to have killed, wound or capture at least 163 Germans EACH!!!! (note I assumed 800 members in the Battalion as that is the high number I found on web sites, TOE strength was in the mid-600's I believe). Does that not even move the needle on your BS guage?As far as the "in the field", I accept the official chronology for now as it appears similiar to others. I don't think it is detailed enough to quantify each day of the 761st time in theater. I am perfectly content with the fact that they spent a significant amount of time on the line. I am not convinced that they spent more than all white units because I see no evidence presented, just a claim. Do I care to enough to do a quantitative study comparing WW2 US Army Tank Battalions in the ETO, not really though it would be mildly interesting.
Oops, I hear Mr. Slade pulling the whistle, quitting time, more later..
Greg
-
BigMik1,Originally posted by BigMik1:Truth, haven't we African Americans heard that allot. My Lord. Well here we go. How do you know the number is untrue? It took years for the only ace in the Tuskgee Airman to be given the 5th kill to become the first black ace, because the air force back then didn't want a black ace. Truth huh...okay I have emailed the website that claims to be the "official" site of the 761st and asked about some info. When I get it back I will let you know what they say.
And this unit deserves books to be told about them because they had to fight on two fronts, the Germans on one side and American racism on the other. All the "colored" units had to deal with this "two" front war in WW2 and when they came home they still had to fight the racism of American still.
And many books document these guys did not get a break and had to fight longer than white units. Go check YOUR facts before you doubt.
BigMik1 [/QB]
First off, no need to get testy, I respect the accomplishment of this unit (and other Black units). I also agree the story should be told. I also happen to think that the TRUE story is compelling and courageous enough. Using "facts" that are obviously wrong to embellish their great story tarnishes the whole story.
Yes, they were in action a serious amount of time. This basic chronology shows that. It also shows several periods of maintenance.
Can you PROVE they were in action longer than white units? I can't, but then again neither can I disprove it as I don't have the times in action for every US Battalion in the ETO. I do know that the 45th Infantry Division spent over 500 days in combat (not consecutive) so that at least makes me take the "longer than white units" claim with a raised eyebrow (Though I guess one could question if the 45th was all-white as they had a significant number of Native Americans in the Division).
Common sense tells me the 130,000 number is wrong. Furthermore, I see nothing in the official documents (so far, the Presidential Unit Citation mentions "thousands" which is a far cry from 130,000) that supports it, thus I await evidence that it is true, until then I assume it is an unfortunate embellishment to this excellent unit's record.
Greg
-
I just used a figure of 8,100,000 total German casualties (Killed, Wounded, Missing) that came from what seemed to be a reputable web site (don't have it with me at work here). I'm sure that number is not 100% correct but it does get the point across that 1 Battalion did not inflict 130,000 casualties on the Germans. Feel free to use whatever overall casualty figure you want for the Germans and do the math yourself.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Now, ...we haven't established that 1.6% figure is accurate either...
The Germans lost @ 250,000 casualties (Killed, Wounded, Prisoner) at Stalingrad? Is it believable that 1 Battalion of ANYBODY, Red, Green, Yellow, White, Black or whatever (except maybe Finns) inflicted 130,000 casualties on them?
Of course I am open to actual evidence that they did, I just believe that outlandish claims require proof.
Greg
-
Whoa there, that was probably one mistake. In many items I have read about this unit they do not make this claim about Dachau. So watch how you throw the bogus claim aroundOriginally posted by BigMik1:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hun Hunter:
There was also a film (based on a book) that asserted the 761st liberated Dachau. I'll bet that's news to the 45th & 42nd Infantry Divisions. This bogus claim even made it to MSNBC . WHY do people try to rewrite history (rhetorical question folks
) . And the casualities they put on the Germans is true. They were in the field sooo long without a break they could do nothing else but fight and kill the enemy.These men would not rewrite history to make themselves look good, they would like their REAL story to get out. Many have tried to put their story in the background for years. When most folks see the US soldiers in WWII, they see only white, when it was so many colors that contributed to the victory.
BigMik1 </font>
-
Here is the exact quote from the 761st Presidential Unit Citation ... "were responsible for inflicting thousands of enemy casualties and for capturing, destroying, or aiding in the liberation of more than 30 major towns"Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:On the subject of stats, actually, the "30" villages and towns mentioned earlier in the thread also seems low to me...
Not sure what a "major" town is defined as but it obviously omits any smaller villages and hamlets.
Greg
-
I was reading this article about the 761st and at the end I noticed this quote by Joe Wilson (author of 761st "Black Panther" Tank Battalion in World War II) ...During that time, the unit inflicted 130,000 casualties on the German army...
:eek:
One battalion inflicted 130,000 casualties!!! I saw him quoted other places claiming the same number so I don't think it's a typo. There was also a film (based on a book) that asserted the 761st liberated Dachau. I'll bet that's news to the 45th & 42nd Infantry Divisions. This bogus claim even made it to MSNBC . WHY do people try to rewrite history (rhetorical question folks
) The 761st earned their Presidential Unit Citation and served their country well, making up fake accomplishments for them just cheapens their actual ones.On the general subject of Blacks in the US Army this is a great starting place. Some fairly detailed info on the various combat units including those in the CMAK area.
Greg
-
In his book about Pegasus Bridge Ambrose does mention that there were two black soldiers in D Coy on D-Day (one was called "Darky" Baines).
Greg
-
That's interesting that the KIA/WIA were so close to the actual historical result. I too would be interested to see if a squadron of green P-38s in the same situation would pounce on all of the vehicles or just seek out the hidden FOOriginally posted by JasonC:Well I tried it. I put 12 M3 GMC, 4 halftracks, and 5 jeeps in open desert. I gave the Germans one hiding FO to avoid autosurrender, and 11 Bf-109s strafing - the nearest thing to P-38s without bombs. It took a little longer than 3 minutes. The result was 17 vehicles destroyed - all the plain HTs, 2 of the jeeps, and all but one of the GMCs. The remaining GMC was gun damaged and broken. The causalties were 5 KIA and 22 WIA - surprisingly close to the historical figures. The main reason is overkill. They knock out the 'tracks easily, getting only 1-2 men in each. Then they strafe the dead ones about as often as the live ones.
Greg
-
I don't think it's necessarily a matter of control if more realism is the goal. Just a reduction of the target acquisition skills & leathality (along with a adjustment of point cost perhaps), along with misidentifcation fom ground units and allowing units to defend themselves would IMO be "good enough" (and could probably be done within the current engine). Now if you got to the point of simulating each country's system, with FACs in vehicles, ground designation of targets, etc then you could really highlight the differences and capabilities of all the different countries (same with arty). The one thing is that a relativly high rate of Blue on Blue incidents with CAS was apparently common in WW2 and ANY game system that allowed the player to avoid them totally could not even pretend to represent reality. Again, all in my opinion.Originally posted by Kevin Kinscherf:The original intent of the thread was to question if designers should incorporate air power into scenarios. Looks like people dislike how airpower is executed in the game rather than
the random nature of the results. As someone said, once you start up CM you are in for random results. I think people want more control. For example, if my Tiger bogs I can at least blame it on me taking of the road into a damp field.
If the arty falls short, well I understand the turns are running out and I had to take the risk. How to provide control without making it unrealistic and gamey is open for debate. How about "phase lines" where CAS will only strike in "boxes" for a certain window of turns. Perhaps phase lines would only be available if the airpower is "regular" or better.
Kevin
Greg
-
I agree 100% about the leathality of CM CAS but in the P-38 attack note that they did manage to damage/destroy most of the companies vehicles/AT assets. That would have probably meant 2-3 per plane average, not out of line with many CM results. Perhaps the low # of personnel casualties was due to the fact that it seems most of the company were out of their vehicles waving at the planes :eek:Originally posted by JasonC:Friendly fire from the air is realistic. What isn't, is the high accuracy and damaging effect of typical CM air attacks. Note the P-38 incident, for example. 11 FBs attacked 5 times. 5 men were killed and 16 wounded. Try that in CM. You will get that score from 1 FB. Heck, I've seen 2 FBs knock out half a dozen tanks (including strafing immobilizations that bailed out when strafed again) - not halftracks without tops or unarmored trucks, but full tanks.
If typical air to ground sorties did as much in the real deal as they do in CM, CAS would have won the war singlehanded. The whole ground war would have been a side show. Think I am exaggerating? By 1944 the western allies flew several thousands sorties per day over Europe, which means on the order of 50k sorties per month. German KIA ran about 50k per month, all fronts combined.
The average ground attack flat missed. In CM this is rather rare.
But as I said Jason, I think you're right, they do seem to be way to accurate. Of course who would pay several hundred points for an asset that could be (is?) such a double-edged sword. Any changes like that and the point cost would, in my opinion, need to be adjusted, perhaps drastically. I'm sure the commander of the tank destroyer units felt he wasted his points on 11 P-38s!
Greg
-
A quick look through a few of my books produced these gems:
From An Army at Dawn (pg 201 in the paperback version)...
"On the rare occasions when allied planes dominated the skies, fratricide added to the ground troop's torment. Word soon spread of an incident near Medjez-el-Bab, where a company of American tank destroyers was helping to secure the town on Thanksgiving when eleven U.S. P-38 Lightnings flew over. Jubilant at the unexpected help from friendly fighters, the tank destroyer crews raced across the open terrain, waving and smiling. Built with twin fuselages, the P-38s languidly circled until the sun was behind them, then dropped to fifty feet and executed five textbook strafing runs in three minutes.
The attack all but destroyed the shocked company, which fired not a single retaliatory shot. Five men were killed - including the unit's only World War I veteran- and sixteen wounded; nearly every vehicle and antitank weapon was destroyed or damaged. One outraged company commander in the 1st Armored Divison ordered his men to shoot any airborne object larger than a goose. And another bromide circulated among American soldiers: "If it flies, it dies.""
So the Army Air Corps pretty much destroyed an entire company that was in action.
And this interesting bit from The Rock of Anzio (History of the 45th Infantry Division) (these incidents were in Sicily);
"Contact with the retreating Germans was again lost on October 1, but the 45th didn't need Germans to suffer casualties. The 179th was strafed by American P-51s, resulting in one man killed, one wounded and three trucks destroyed." (Okay technically this would not have been a CAS mission in CMAK term as they apparently wern't even in contact with the enemy!)
These were just two incidents of many. While they are anecdotal it is obvious that the problem of friendly fire from the US Army Air Corp was a very serious problem, especially earlier in the war.
From reading these and numerous other similiar incidents CMAK CAS should perhaps only change in these ways:
1. All units/sides would defend themselves against air attack even if the aircraft are "friendlies".
2. All ground units should have a chance of misidentifying air units and shooting at them (or not shooting if the misidentify enemy as friendly).
3. Maybe let the Axis player buy conscript American air support for the American player, expecially in 42-43.
Greg
-
Horsesh1t.Originally posted by btm:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Originally posted by Matthias:
If the RAF showed up the germans hide
If the luffewaffer showed up the Allies hide
If the usaf showed up both teh allies and the germans hide
hehe its a funny joke but true....
The U.S. Army and U.S. Army Air Corps were able to develop the most advanced system of close air support that the world had ever seen to that point in time.
Granted this took time, and the system was not perfect, but it was extremely valuable and effective.
Try reading any of the following books to educate yourselves:
Patton's Air Force: Forging a Legendary Air-Ground Team by David Spires
Angels Zero: P-47 Close Air Support in Europe by Robert Bulle
Tactical Air Interdiction by the USAAF in WW2 (Series) by Col. Dupuy </font>
-
Well, my information is not from the Hitler Channel but rather an actual book, US Infantry Weapons of World War I (by Bruce Canfield). Yes, the Americans originally used the French Chauchat Automatic Rifle and yes it had serious quality "issues" but it's not like we were hiding the BARs from the Huns as the first production sample wasn't finished until March 1918 with full production not until July/August (the weapon went from prototype to production in 10 months). BARs arrived in France in July 1918 to the US 79th Division. First combat use was on September 13, 1918 by Lt. Val A. Browning (son of the inventor). By the time of the Armistice 43,368 BARs were in France.Originally posted by wadepm:I saw a quick piece on the BAR last night on TV (history channel, natch) that said the reason it wasn't used in WWI is they feared it might fall into enemy hands! So the Amis were issued some French piece of crap instead. And the Lewis wasn't issued to the Americans because of some poltical squabble between Pershing and the British command. Any of you guys see that?
Oh, and the Lewis Gun was a LMG not and automatic rifle. Also, the lack of US use of the Lewis Gun appears not to be because the British wouldn't give us any but rather the lingering politics (and bad feelings) from when Col Lewis had first demonstrated the gun to the Army (he was an American). The Army did purchase 350 guns in 1916 (in .303) and the AEF also acquired some from the British which were used in combat. But generally we seemed to shy away from it because the Army considered it to heavy for an automatic rifle and not capable long range sustained fire in the role of a standard machine gun. In fact the AEF had the Marine units that had the Lewis Guns give them up for Hotchkiss MGs and Chauchat ARs in the name of "standardization". again all of this information is from Canfield's U.S Infantry Weapons of teh First World War.
Greg
-
Don't know how generous the US Army is, a friend of mine is a Warrant Officer of the Canadian Military Engineers who works for the Mapping and Charting Establishment in Ottawa. I've asked him about maps before, the answer was a solid no, as they are not allowed to reproduce maps for personal use. </font>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael emrys:
If you have any buddies still in the army, you might try having them give a shout to the Defense Mapping Agency,
-
If you are in the US, go to any large map library. These are usually located in your larger Universities. Your local library should be able to tell you where the nearest one is. Once you get there asked them if they have any AMS maps. These are Army Map Service maps of various areas of the world made during and after WW2. The excess was distributed to various libraries after the war. They may not have complete sets but you will be amazed at how detailed the coverage is. The Map Library I ran for 7 years had almost all of Italy at 1:25,000 (Sicily too if I recall correctly). Tunisia was at 1:50,000 I think. Also, there are many town plans at much larger (more detailed) scales like 1:10,000). If they are missing the sheet(s) you need they can sometimes borrow it from another library by Inter-Library Loan. If all else fails you can contact the Geography and Map Divison at the Library of Congress (or go there if you are near DC). They will have what you need (if it exists) but you will have to pay for reproduction. Remember these are the actual wartime maps used not some map made 30 years later, be gentle with them they do show their age (AND DON"T DRAW ON THE ORIGINALS!!! PAY FOR A COPY!!!)Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):Anyone got a source of these yet. I have found a couple but they are not very detailed. Looks like I'll have to rely on photos.
For the Commonwealth folks out there these maps are copies of British general staff maps from the war. I assume they are available in your map libraries.
Not sure about the availability of German maps (or maps in Gerany). The Library of Congress will have them but for North Africa they may just be reprints of British/French/Italian maps.
I'll do some research and see what else I can turn up.
Greg
-
Fantastic News!
Can we PLEASE have the Daimler Dingo in the game?
Greg
-
Considering that most of these SS officers probably fought for long periods in Russia, perhaps against the Brits in Normandy and then in the Ardennes Offensive, initially against some very poor American units, it should be no surprise they answered that way. Anyway, the American way of war wasn't (and isn't) based on any foolish idea of "toughness". There were plenty of dead "tough" Russians (not to mention SS). If you look at the win/loss record of each army (based on battles) I think you'll find the Americans did much better vs. the SS (and the Wehrmacht as a whole) than the Russians (with the Brits having a similiar record to the Amis, at least late war).Originally posted by Commissar:In Gordon Williamson's book, "Loyalty Is My Honor", he interviews several former Waffen-SS soldiers. He asked them to rank the "toughness" of their opponents. The majority listed either the Russians or the British as the toughest and the Yanks were almost always listed as last (Brits and the Russians tended to alternate between number 1 and 2). In all fairness, the Yanks did get better over time and certain units certainly have the Germans a hard ass time (like the 101st Airborne). However, most of these interviewees weren't all that impressed with the US in general.
Greg
-
I don't know about your use of smoke but I did get a win on this the first go. I just split up and drove through the village. Use "Hunt" and do NOT use covered arcs! Leave your TacAI free to deal with the Bolsheviks. It does ok. I'm not saying you won't loose any tanks doing this but they should loose more. Keep the Panthers back enough to minimize flank shots on them.
I actually had more problems with the anti-tank guns (problems like not being able to see the b*stards!) than the tanks.
Greg
-
I wouldn't say a must. Setting that arc for your tanks gambles on several things. In my EXTREMELY limited (one scenario) CMBB gaming, if I had set a covered arc for my tanks I would have taken a b*tt whipping from the AI on turn 5 instead of the mutual bloodbath that occured. You get to guess the scenario (its on the disk).Originally posted by Chad Harrison:The armored covered arc command is a must for hunting missions. If you dont give the command, your tanks just like to pick off meaningless infantry and they get waxed! Press the 'v' button and the hold down shift and point the direction where you suspect some armor. Your tank will keep its turret pointed at that point no matter where it moves, and will only engage tanks or AT guns. Hope this helps Jeff.
Chad
Greg
-
Well, I ordered (not preordered) on Saturday, game shipped Monday and it was waiting on me when I got home today. All worked like a well oiled machine. Maybe your postman is one of those stockpiling mail in his house instead of delivering it.
Greg
-
Well, my 1944 Jeep is currently undergoing completed restoration in my garage. Hopefully I'll have it ready for some gamey jeep recon by next summer
. With any luck I'll be able to slip the .30cal past SWMBO.It is really not that expensive of a hobby to get into, as long as you stay away from armor.
Greg
1944 GPW 219619
MVPA #20501
-
Did this situation last until May '45?Originally posted by Andreas:That von Luck quote is interesting, but describing what was an almost isolated incident. Following the major operation in early 1945 (Vistula - Oder), the Red Army had crossed the whole of what was to become Poland after the war, and had outstripped its air-cover. The reason for this was that they only had grass fields to operate from east of the Oder and within operational reach, which were useless in the weather conditions of Spring. The Luftwaffe had access to concrete airfields around Berlin that were just a hop from the Soviet bridgeheads. Thus it could re-establish control of the air for a short time.
Is the any place online that gives the aircraft numbers and types in each theater? About how much of the Luftwaffe was deployed on the Eastern Front (I'm mainly interested in 44-45).In general, from 1943 onwards the Luftwaffe ceased to play a major role in the east. Air superiority was with the Red Army, except in isolated circumstances. This was connected to the haemorraging of experienced (and new) fighter pilots in the air battles over the Reich. Desperation on the German side went to the extreme of using He 177 Greif strategic bombers in low-level attacks to stop the Red Army spearheads during Bagration. With predictable results.
I'm not getting the impression that these air activities were in direct support of the frontline troops (i.e. directed against targets the grunts could see and were being shot at by). They seem to be more in the character of fighter-bomber sweeps ahead of the advance. Probably nitpicking but in CM terms the difference between starting the battle with less or having 2-4 Il-2s showing up on turn 3. Maybe both :eek:Soviet air support was (like all the other support weapons in the Red Army) usually focussed at the point of breakthrough. If you read the quote in this thread (3rd or 4th post) you get an idea of the effectiveness.Thanks for any info / answers. I also apologize for 24 hours between posts, the job/wife/kids/lawn/dog/shooting at neighbors takes up too much of my day.
Greg
Seriously, for the 761st to inflict those levels of casualties every member of the 761st (including the clerks & medics) would have to have killed, wound or capture at least 163 Germans EACH!!!! (note I assumed 800 members in the Battalion as that is the high number I found on web sites, TOE strength was in the mid-600's I believe). Does that not even move the needle on your BS guage?
African Americans.
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
BigMik1 </font>