Hun Hunter

Very interesting. Also not real convincing on who had the better pilots (at least to me) but that's not the question anyway (Why do these discussions comparing the West & Soviets always turn into p*ssing matches? Of course if the Soviets really did have the best pilots they should have blown us out of the skies in Korean ) Ok, I'm with you. So the situation was in general (after 1943), were major operations were underway the Soviets had complete air superiority but elsewhere parity or even Axis superiority. I really interested in the claim that their CAS was better and why. Especially compared to the Allies in Normandy and after. Can you point me at anything that gives more accounts of Soviet CAS especially being directed by ground units and/or in immediate direct support of them (like on or near the MLR. Greg

"Then Rudel's fighter bombers appeared and dived on the Russian Tanks, antitank guns, and artillery positions. After so long it was a great feeling again for us old hands no longer to be exposed without hope to the enemy air force." - Hans Von Luck in Panzer Commander. Please note that Luck's Division had just been transfered from the Western front where it had been fighting since D-Day (the above happened on 9 Feb 45. The fighter-bombers he describes above were STUKAS! Now maybe he was just experiencing effective Western Allied "interdiction" while fighting in the west and not "CAS" but I have read many similiar statements from Germans who fought on both fronts. I have no doubt that Soviet CAS was effective to say it was more effective that the Western Allies seems to fly in the face of admittidly anecdotal evidence. Surely there are some detailed (and impartial) studies on the matter. Also, no matter what, against the Western Allies in 44-45 Rudel might have gotten a tank or two before he would have been splattered across the countryside by a (insert your favorite western fighter here). Yes, I know that's not CAS but it might have saved the Soviets a tank or two Greg

Oh lordy, a JEEP GROG!!! </font>

Very nice. A couple of very minor things The British Airborne Jeep has Ford script on the tub (correct for a GPW) but a Willys rear cross member. Okay maybe that's a bit anal and probably BFCs doing. Anyway a script Ford tub would be to early to have the trailer socket this one does (though it could be a retro fit). The registration numbers for US jeep start with a 20 and are either 7 or 8 digits. The bridge weight plates (numbers in yellow circles) were not the norm on US jeeps during the war (they were used, just not the norm). The bumper marking on the US jeep with whitewash is incorrect (which is no big deal as the regulations were only loosely followed). I think it would be better to remove the "HQ" from the bumper. This makes it a generic jeep (not a jeep from a HQ). Many jeeps didn't have unit markings on the bumper so that would be fine. No front view of the British Airborne jeep but the bumper on the British Airborne jeep should be chopped even with the lower part of the grill on both sides. I also think the grab handles were removed from British Airborne jeeps but I'm not positive on that. I would also drop (lower) the windshield on the Airborne jeep. Actually for CM since all the jeeps are in the combat zone I would have the windshields down. This was the norm (reflecting glass makes a nice target). I would also dirty up the stars on the jeep a bit to blend with the other weathering. Maybe a nice coat of dust/mud. Maybe rough up the seats a bit also. The passenger seat looks too clean. One last thing I thought of. Every jeep was issued headlight covers to keep those pesky headlights from reflecting light in the combat zone. If they were missing paint or mud would do the trick. Sometimes blackout drive lights were installed in the place of one or both headlights. In any case silver should NOT be showing on a frontline jeep. Greg (1944 GPW sitting in the Garage as if you couldn't tell ) [ July 16, 2002, 01:50 AM: Message edited by: Hun Hunter ]

:confused: So I take it you're not getting CMBB? :confused: </font>

Try old AND color-blind Greg

Perhaps these days but in WW2, the Americans rejected many gadgets that would have actually made their life easier in the ETO (funnies anyone?). Of course you are right for WW2 if the "gadgetry" you are referring to is HE. Greg [ June 12, 2002, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: Hun Hunter ]

Sounds a lot like a Boys to me too, Brian. Michael</font>

One of my favorites in the 45th Infantry Division Museum in Oklahoma City (about 3.5 to 4 hours by car north of Dallas depending on how heavy your foot is). Highlights: Vehicles (Shermans, M8 GMC, many other tanks and softskins), The Bill Mauldin wing has hundreds of his original works as printed in Stars and Stripes, Medal of Honor wing dedicated to the Divisions 8 ( I think, 7 WW2, 1 Korea) MOH winners, plenty of weapons (Bazookas, mortars, etc.) to drool over.Pre and post war stuff (including vehicles) is also covered. Basically a great museum dedicated to one of the premier US units in World War 2. Check it out at: http://www.45thdivisionmuseum.com/ The website is ok if you can't get there but it is no substitute for going. Also every time I have been there are a couple of vets at the door willing to chat. Greg

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Morgan: Dear Hun Hunter, Who is the publisher of Don Burgett's Road to Arnhem, and is it still in print? I want to get hold of a copy This seems to be a classic case of how two different accounts of the same event can completely contradict each other. The truth (as always) probably lies somewhere in-between. This thread is starting to become rewarding (at last.) If you want me to send you the whole DCLI account complete with map, I would be only too happy to oblige. This battle makes the basis for a very good scenario, only I lack detailed information on the American forces involved and their deployment. Anything that you could do to help in this respect would be greatly appreciated Cheers, Richard. P.S. A couple of comments on M1/Lee Enfield that need making after other posts in the thread. The M1 makes its TIING noise AS the clip is being ejected from the rifle. The dreaded musical note does not happen when the clip hits the ground. With regard to all this counting to 10 business,(Lee Enfield) closing a bolt on an empty rifle has a completely different feel from chambering the next round and is a reliable indication that the weapon is empty. Counting to 10 would still be useful though... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Richard, I agree the truth is somewhere in the middle. I'm glad you got that point and hopefully did not think I was Brit-bashing. My copy of The Road to Arnhem by Donald Burgett is the inexpensive paperback version published by Dell. It is still in print and easy to locate in stores (at least here in the US). Burgett was just a lowly trooper in the 506th. He fought in all three of their major campaigns and through to the end of the war. I believe he wrote his accounts immediately after the war (thought they were not published right away). He does cover this battle in quite some detail, though he may lack a little info on what you may need to make a scenario. At least he seems to be able to tell a Mk IV from a Panther or Tiger. His other books are Seven Roads to Hell (Bulge) and Curahee! (Normandy, with a bit about training). In my opinion you can't go wrong with any of them. I do find it funny that many people claim combining British and American troops in the same battle is gamey. While not the norm, there are many cases were it happened, especially in NW Europe. It would be great to get your info on the battle, send it to me at HnsGreg@aol.com , thanks a million. Greg

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Morgan: The following passage is from an account of an Anglo-American (5 D.C.L.I/ 506 Regimental Combat team - 101st Airborne)assault on the village of Opheusden that took place on Oct 6th 1944. A little after 4pm, on a prearranged whistle signal given by the American company commander, both forces attacked. On neither side of the road was much opposition met during the first two hundred yards, but thereafter German resistance stiffened and the solid houses that lined the village street made ideal strongpoints. All might have gone well had the Americans not begun to run short of ammunition. They had by now been in battle for several days and while quick-firing automatic weapons permit a tremendous weight of metal to be directed quickly on to a target the problem of maintaining a forward supply of ammunition in the fluid fighting that was now taking place was a very difficult one. There was nothing for it but to carry out an orderly withdrawal back to the mill. Major E.G. Godfrey M.C. The Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry 1939-45 Images Publishing (Malvern)Ltd 1994 p-344. I think that there may be some interesting comparisons to be drawn from this with regard to British and U.S. doctrines and the capabilities of their respective infantry weapons - don't you? Cheers, Richard <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is so rich it forced me out of lurk mode...... The name Opheusden rang a bell for some reason so I jerked my copy of The Road to Arnhem (written by Don Burgett 506th vet)off the bookshelf. This battle is covered well from the grunts (Burgett's) viewpoint. At no time does he mention an ammunition shortage but he does have some interesting things to say about the 5th Bn D.C.L.I. "The British 5th Battalion, Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry (DCLI), formed up in lines of skimishers to walk shoulder to shoulder across the open fields." (page 159 for those following along at home) A few lines later (after the Krauts open fire): "Many of the British went down but still they pressed forward, closing the gaps blown in their lines by the barrage. They marched steadily on, firing their Enfields from the hip, working the bolts, and firing again. The English soldiers were brave to a fault, staying in the line and moving forward through the crush of artillery, machine-gun and small-arms fire. They marched unwaveringly to their deaths. This sort of attack went out with the bloody assaults of our Civil War in the 1800s." (Page 160) A few lines later about his own unit (1/506th): "Meanwhile we ran forward in short rushes, diving into ditches, holes and doorways - anyplace that offered cover as we made our way forward. We were suffering casualties, but not like the English." and then... "The Germans began sending troops to the right and left around our flanks in an effort to envelop us. We pulled our flanks in and folded them back to protect us there. The British on our left were no more. They had been decimated, leaving us exposed on that flank. Our attack slowed. More mortar rounds rained down on us since they were no longer needed to hit the British lines. Finally our attack came to a stop. The intense artillery pounding we were taking was too much to withstand. We were forced to withdraw." (page 161) He does go on to complement the DCLI on being brave soldiers a few pages later. What I learned from this (sarcasm on): 1. Marching fire isn't just for Patton's 3rd Army, everyone can play, even allies! 2. Evidently crack units don't know when they are out of ammunition, only adjacent units do. (Burgett never mentions an ammo problem at all) 3. In an act of treason, many British soldiers did not use aimed fire as instructed (Unless they were such infantry killing machines that they could precisely aim their Enfields from the hip) (sarcasm off) Obviously there are two sides (at least) to every story. Also, more importantly, I highly recommend all three of Burgett's books. Greg -- edited for spelling (duh..) [ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: Hun Hunter ]

It appears that the term may have been in common vocabulary before it became "a marketing term". In the mid-30's there was a creature called "Jeep" in the Popeye cartoon before the term was applied to any vehicles. There is a pretty good article on the name jeep and it's evolution in the Jan/Feb 2001 issue of Military Vehicles Magazine. There were also several other vehicles (including large tractors) that people claimed to have called "jeeps" first but it stuck with the Willys/Ford 1/4 ton. I'm not sure what you mean by "the Jeep company", I guess Willys Overland (but they pretty much stole the design except for the engine from Bantam), yeah they claimed there product was the "best", kinda like every other automobile maker on the planet. I wouldn't hold it against them. ------------------ "The Germans found out who the 'master race' was when they met us" - Henry Havlet 45th Infantry Division "Thunderbirds"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by patboivin: Yes, I had to ask just to see if was still a link there... but no one answered so I guess Chrysler is a new company (post WWII), and so the humourous parallel doesn't hold. Too bad, irony makes life more interesting to watch. I see that the Volkswagen bug was recently re-introduced, Chrysler has a PT cruiser, who knows what car manufacturers will offer next. Put me down for an 8-wheeled SUV. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually Chrysler was around and you no doubt have seen some of their work in CM, namely the Shermans and Pershings ------------------ "The Germans found out who the 'master race' was when they met us" - Henry Havlet 45th Infantry Division "Thunderbirds"

Giving the Brits and Frogs the chance to save themselves, guess we should have known that wasn't going to happen based on previous experience [This message has been edited by Hun Hunter (edited 11-19-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: HH - that was a refreshing post. If I get around to it I will post a bit about what my grandfather did as counterbattery observer in Russia later in this thread. I would still like to see some evidence about German arty (adn especially mortar) delays, instead of unsubstantiated claims it took 15min and odes to superior US management practices. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I, for one, would love to see some info about your grandfather's experiences. As far as alledged US (& British) superiority, from the anecdotal accounts by German soldiers I've read they did fear US (and British) artillery, however you get the same fear in US soldiers under German artillery fire. Not having any kind of information at hand on German practices and only a vague idea about U.S./British ones I hesitate to jump to a conclusion but so many senior Germans commented on the "excellence" of American artillery in books I have read there has to be something there. Maybe I'll do a little more looking on this topic. I do think there are a few areas were CM could simulate the fire support process a little better. They did manage to leave out the most lethal weapon in the entire US & British arsenal, the artillery spotting planes (death by Piper), heck even Panzer Leader had that (board game, published in 1974 for you youngsters). I have a pretty hard time swallowing the fact the killing the FO will cause your artillery to write you off. If you have a radio (or telephone) and a target the FDC will talk to you (at least in the US Field Artillery). I think perhaps any HQ should be able to act as a FO (with a reduced ability). Perhaps any FO could call for fire from any available unit (especially in the US system) but with a reduced effectiveness (i.e. longer delay). Oh yea, and as others have said, the adjustment distance allowed is WAY too small. Once you have the FDC's attention almost any size adjustment can be made quickly, personally I have corrected over 1000 meters (hey I was a 2LT in training, I got better I swear). Greg ------------------ "The Germans found out who the 'master race' was when they met us" - Henry Havlet 45th Infantry Division "Thunderbirds"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Only the 57mm made it into service in the ETO. The 75mm model managed to see some service in the PTO. I don't know how well it works in the game as I have only used them every once in a long while. Looking at the stats they are significantly less effective at short (100m) range vs. a Bazooka, but have the advantage of being able to hit things at much, much longer ranges (dunno exactly, but 1000m+) Light and medium German armor has much to fear from this baby. Heavy stuff... depends on where the round strikes. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In his book, U.S. Infantry Weapons of World War II, Bruce Canfield indicates that the 75mm did see some action in the ETO. He actually quotes a couple of reports on it's performance. The 17th Airborne Div (507th PIR) knocked out at least 3 Mk IV's with them, at ranges of 400, 450 and 600 yards (8 shots total fired). BTW, Canfield's book is a must-buy for anyone interested in WWII U.S. Infantry (Army and Marine) weapons (knives to mortars). Greg ------------------ "The Germans found out who the 'master race' was when they met us" - Henry Havlet 45th Infantry Division "Thunderbirds"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson: In what way is it corrected? Except for the added author's note I can't find any difference at a quick glance. And what is the difference between a FO (Forward Observer) and a FOO (?)? I'm not too convinced about the supremacy of US artillery. Having something like one spotter per gun instead of one FO per battery or battalion lays the ground for confusion and faulty target priority. US spotters "request" fire, whereas the others "call" fire. i.e. the US spotter request a battalion of 155mm and get a battery of 105mm, the British spotter call a regiment of 25pdrs and get it. Cheers Olle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As a Redleg (in my youth anyway), a whole lot of this article just didn't jive. I have no idea about how German or British fire control (esp. in WWII)worked but what little I do know about US Fire Control in WWII (and later) made me wish the author had used some references and research instead of recalling a lecture at a gaming convention. The only book I have that goes into WWII Artillery Fire Control in any way is "Standard Guide to U.S. World War II Tanks & Artillery". It does have a nice chapter on US Fire Direction but it is vague on some points (like response time). The GFT (graphical firing table), which is basically a slide rule with firing data on it, is credited with being "20 times" faster than old-style calculations. I can attest that it does allow rapid calculations by math-weak artillery men (like me). In the mid 1980's I easily beat our (slow) fire control computers. It was fairly easy to have firing data for the guns in less than 30 seconds with this method, which was not very different than that apparently used by the US in WWII. As far as comparing the US & British FO methods (i.e. requests for fire vs. orders), well they both seem to work. The confusion you imagine might exist in the US system doesn't seem to have been a major problem. I can't speak first hand from this as I'm not a combat vet and was in Corps Artillery anyhow (general support, counter battery only, grunt boy don't call us we have bigger things to shoot at ). However, the US FDC is trained to do alot besides math, like prioritizing targets, determining proper ammo-target combinations, etc. I'm not sure about the WWII FO to Gun ratio but don't get the idea that each gun shot for one observer. I would think the library at the US Field Artillery School (Ft. Sill) would have reams of information on this subject (WWII fire control). Greg ------------------ "The Germans found out who the 'master race' was when they met us" - Henry Havlet 45th Infantry Division "Thunderbirds"