c3k

This. Not only is it an epic sized book, but the author does a great job of adding sidenotes throughout. I'm only a few hundred pages in, so that's just an introduction to it. I also recommend having several bottles of your favorite nearby while settling in to read it. The book is heavy. I have my intern hold it in front of me while I read. Others may need to use 2x4s laid over their armrests to keep from injuring themselves. Cholm was a great read about a battle I'd only heard of in passing. Any of the Leaping Horseman books are a must-buy in my opinion.

FG-42 fired the full size 7.92 rifle cartridge (K98k and MG-38/42). Magazine fed and belt fed.

Duel in the Mist, volume 3 specifies the unit (to the platoon) and the tactical number on the leading German tanks at Trois Ponts. They were Panthers. However, there is also specific mention that the ATG did not cause any damage to the tanks. So, the 57mm ATG did fire at the Panthers and did (apparently) get some hits. Then all the men manning the ATG were killed. A brief delay, and the column continued.

If you select the enemy unit (left-click on its icon), then that enemy icon lights up. Any friendly unit which has seen that enemy unit will also have their icon illuminate. That is the only way to know if your unit has spotted the enemy. If it looks like they SHOULD have spotted the enemy, but have not, then in the next command phase draw a Target line to the enemy unit. If it is light blue, then there is LOS and the only reason they enemy is not spotted is probably because the friendly unit has not seen them yet. The spotting system sometimes means that a unit can take a long while to see an enemy. Many variables play into this. Ken

Reinforcing my call, above, for every upgunned Stryker to add a Javelin to its 30mm cannon package. The sensors are part of the turret/autocannon. The Soviets/Russians have shown how easy it is to add a tube atop the barrel. We don't need a two-pack launcher like the Bradley's TOW box. (But, that would be nice... ) Heck, the Javelin(s) could be stuck to the side, like how the Germans in WWII stuck Nebelwerfers on the side of their halftracks. Vertical launch, baby. (The Navy packs a lot of missiles in that way...) But, I'm still partial to having the weapons platoon in an upgunned Stryker unit having their vehicles equipped with turreted 120mm mortars. Ahhh.... Autocannon are far nicer than .50s. Javelins AND autocannon are better yet.

I, too, was surprised by the dangly bits hanging out the back end of the turret for the reloading operation. That seems a bit too easily damaged, whether by enemy action, weather, or just mechanical operation. Also, the reload times seemed a bit long. There was one image of it firing in a snowed in scoop, with a fence to the left. It fired 3 times, with about 2-3 seconds between firing...but the snow which fell from the fence with the first muzzle blast was exactly the same as the next two times. Meaning, it was an edit showing the same firing, but spliced to make it look like 3. I wonder why? A minor point: at another part of the video, our host was walking to the rear of the vehicle along the track cover, next to the turret. The welds looked rough. Certainly sufficient to join the metal, which is what they're used for. Just an observation... Boxes on the front: They could contain the gun cleaning system, a radar (although, I didn't see an aperture on the front or anything else which made it LOOK like a radar), or some other fiendishly clever device. (It'll probably be discovered that it holds spare gear, since the rear of the turret is taken up by the reloading mechanism.) If it is radar, than, as mentioned above, you don't need to see the target, you just need to see your round's ballistic performance. As the round gets to the top of flight and starts down, the radar will give all sorts of real performance data which can be compared to theoretical performance data. This will help to get second round accuracy spot-on. Ken

Bah! If it means dropping the squad down to 5 men, then so be it!! Also, it'd be cool to let each Stryker have a vertical launched drone system. And anti-air capability. Solid state lasers should fit the bill. 2 man squads could work, if needed. And add another axle. But only if it could be amphibious. See? That's procurement. In a serious vein, the 30mm turret is a good upgrade. A passive defense against ATGM/RPG? Probably too heavy, if "passive" means armor, so we agree. Active systems which defend against ATGM/RPG pretty much defend against everything lethal...except for direct-fire cannon. If it's BMP fired autocannon, at least the Stryker has a chance to engage the enemy. It it's a MBT, then the Stryker is the in the wrong place. So, I stand by my turret with a Javelin launcher concept. That Javelin launcher doesn't add much weight...and if one is on each Stryker, at least it has a pretty good capability against enemy vehicles/armor and won't be a total sitting duck.

Did I just hear "Gavin"? (I am SO totally kidding!!! Please don't start. Err, "continue". ) Stryker needs more firepower. 30mm is a good start. A 50-50 mix of 30mm and Javelin doesn't make sense to me. It'll guarantee the wrong type will be in place at the wrong time. I'd make 'em all 30mm with a Javelin launcher built in. More is better. If the APS system gets put on-line, the Stryker will make more sense. As it is, the latest version has a much greater survivability than the initial versions. (Not vehicle survivability, but passenger survivability.) APS could/should significantly reduce the threat from ATGMs. I don't know how good APS can be against modern sabot rounds, but those are fired by tanks. If a Stryker gets shot at by a tank, I can't see any rational way of preserving it, short of having the Stryker have the same armor as on the front of an Abrams...which only has that armor on the front because it weighs so much and bulks out so much. So, accept the sabot round killing the Stryker: APS could save it against anything else. Toss in better sensors and integrated targeting/intel across the platoon/company, and you have something far better than what rolled off the assembly line 10 years ago.

Good to know and thanks (sincerely) for your service and for the input. But, you do know you're ruining the image of dozens of gung-ho Marines "training" on Jet Skis at beaches across the globe? "First squad! We've got TDY orders to Daytona Beach to practice our beach landing SOP/TTPs! Mount up!"

I did not see ANY effect upon the BRDM in the video. There is a hit (low, on the propped-up side: notice how the BRDM is positioned for optimum impact angle in the pre-hit/pre-shoot video. The side is jacked up.) There is no un-edited or cut clip which shows turret, rpo hit, then no turret. Shrug. Turret could've been lost earlier/later in the training exercise. It could've been "loose" and just fell off the down-side when the BRDM got hit. Nothing in the video shows any flame exiting from any internal location in the BRDM, like hatches or turret rings. There is no proof of effectiveness in the video. (IMO) Also, the solo firer has the extended boost phase internal tube...the salvo firers do not. Interesting. 7mm of armor is not a lot, but it is better than an open-windowed, sheet-metal bus. The RPO can pack a wallop...but that's a large front "soft" impact wave (relative to HE), typical of thermobaric explosions. I don't see an armor defeating mechanism inherent in the RPO. The video certainly does not change my opinion.

Shhhhhhh....... Kinda cool how so much specops gear has found its way to mainline forces. Could jet ski flotillas be next?

Some fun... http://www.military.com/video/guns/naval-guns/120mm-mortar-system-on-landing-craft/3547046540001 https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=120mm+mortar+turret&view=detailv2&&id=52ECDE8890E3C3D9B2CF842B9ECE308CAD25D396&selectedIndex=0&ccid=26kB8Xi7&simid=608008220205321391&thid=OIP.Mdba901f178bb1c8bec2deacab31f9bdao0&ajaxhist=0 http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1850.html C'mon...this brings the "boom" to the party.

Well, with the sleds behind the jet-skis, you carry enough for two men to fight for the beach. After that? Well, that's when you land the vehicles meant for land-warfare. (Tongue out of cheek, I don't see the Saic going back and forth to and from the beach until after the beach has been secured.) Another benefit of the jet-ski battalion? Think of the MWR rental opportunities. My magic procurement wand would wave about and create a vehicle which can transport a single squad, plus a few extras, and have enough room for about 2-3 days of combat supplies. It'd have some overwatch capability (Javelins, 120mm direct fire mortar (flat trajectory: look it up), or 35mm Bushmaster III, possibly up to 40mm. Machineguns? Of course. And sensors for them. About a 3 man crew. And air conditioning. Because it's nicer that way.) Do NOT split up a tactical unit. Or, just get a swarm of jet-skis. As for cluster munitions? Not a factor. The time the swarm is vulnerable is too short to target and get rounds on 'em. You need to know they're there, and have something which has survived the landing prep which can fire within the right timeframe. Ken

28 years. My experience has, admittedly, colored my perception of the procurement process.

Well, that still breaks the squad. The result will be that the two half-squads will be treated as individual tactical elements. They will become de-facto squads of 6 or 7 men. Splitting tactical elements up due to seats on a lift (be it a helo, truck, track, or "sack") negates all the doctrinal reasons for having that tactical element sized the way it is. Meaning, the Marines have a 13 man squad for a reason. If the SAIC ("sack" ) can carry 1/2 a squad, then that means that a platoon would require 6. (11 seats, with 6 or 7 occupied, means the 4 man platoon HQ can just ride along with one of the squads. Err, "demi-squads".) If the sack carries a full squad, with a few extra seats (as I posted above), then the platoon would require 3 tracks. What kind of footprint would that represent? What kind of maintenance? What kind of outlay/support? Let me ask: using WWII titles, have you ever used spw250s instead of 251s? Would you? A pzgrdr platoon in 7 250s sucks. The half-squads don't last long. They need to unite...with the CORRECT other half-squad. Now, if you follow the reasoning that more Sacks mean better survivability, then I suggest jet-skis instead. Seriously. Stick a ceramic armor shield on the front with some ballistic glass for a windscreen. Put two men on each jet-ski and have it tow extra gear (like what pro-surfers use to get out to the breakers or what life-guards have). Instead of a 6-knot behemoth smashing the waves into submission, you'd have maneuverable jet-skis flitting about at about 60 mph. Let's just call it 50 knots. If the amphib assault starts from 6 miles out, the sack-tracks would take one hour to close the distance. That'd give time for reaction forces to gather, allocate equipment, set up their ATGMs, and plink away. The same jet-ski force would be ashore in under 8 minutes. And they'd be more stylish while doing so. No dedicate crews needed: just ditch the jet-ski when they land. Each platoon would have 22 or so. One gets hit? Pshaw: just two men down. Carry on. Imagine the flocking algorithms needed for a defensive system to cope with a full battalion assault by a jet-ski landing battalion? That'd be pretty slick...eh? Small size, reduced time in the target zone (by an order of magnitude), damage tolerance (if one engine goes down, you've only lost 4% of your force, not 16% or 33%), simplified maintenance (commercial off-the-shelf), no development money needed (seriously, they work: just bolt a shield to the front), unit survivability is enhanced (reduced chance of a hit and much less impact on the unit if a hit does occur). Better situational awareness for the Marines before they hit the shore (ever sit in a box before landing? ugh). Drawback? The jet-skis aren't so good AFTER landing. Shrug. Gain the beachhead and then land some purpose built IFVs. LAVs, Strykers, Brads, whatever. Anything is better for land combat than an AAV. Or the sack. Ken

Good idea. That brittle, who knows what it looks like on the backside? The lowest HE impact gouge is interruped by the crack. I can't see the crack propagating fast enough to channel the gouge, so, at least to me, it seems like the big crack occurred before that lowest HE hit. Ken

Platoon is 3 squads plus HQ of 4 men. That's 43 total. To lift a platoon would require 4 vehicles...and leave just one open seat. It's incomprehensible to me that they'd do that. However, the Army did that with the Brad, so we ended up with the oddball crossloading requirement. The design requirement should've had at least 13 open seats. I'd make it 15. That way the HQ could split into 2 vehicles and a spare 2 seats would be left for attached personnel and you'd just need 3 vehicles to lift a platoon. If you're going to go with 4 vehicles to move a platoon, I'd still go 13 pax. Take one fire team out of a squad and put them with the HQ. 8 men in that track, 5 open seats for extras. 2 tracks are full. One track has 4 open seats for another attached unit. But, they didn't ask me. At 65 friggin' tons, with a 6 ton lift (10% cargo fraction), this is not a study in efficient transportation. At least get the squad together.

Looking at the saic vehicle, I'm surprised at the lift capacity of only 11 Marines. I would think a minimum requirement would have been a complete squad (13 men). I would've made the rfp for a complete squad, full vehicle crew, plus one more (2?) additional passenger(s), to be able to attach extra men as needed. It's a big vehicle. I wonder why they limited its capacity.

Looks like the cupola took a hit, as well. The armor looks mostly intact: enough to keep fragments and most (all?) of the blast from 75mm shells out of the turret, especially given the acute angle at which it appears the shells hit. (Did they even detonate? I don't see the typicale HE blast pattern.) I'm curious about what killed the turret crew. Should HE blast effect yield more behind armor effect?

500 rpm is roughly 8 rounds per second. Keeping that up over a week is actually pretty more impressive.

Using those numbers (I've got several Somme books, not worth double-checking the veracity: just using your numbers...) let's round up to 1 million rounds fired by 10 guns in 12 hours. That's 100,000 per gun in 12 hours. 100,000 rounds divided by 12 hours gives rounds per hour: dividing by 60 min/hr gives rounds per minute... The sustained ROF of these water cooled weapons was 139 rounds per minute. Various sources give the official ROF as being about 500 rpm. Very interesting that the real-world sustained rate was less than 1/3 of the official rof (closer to 1/4). Not taking away from the robustness of the design, just doing a bit of ROF calculations... (Using the 1963 test of 5 million rounds over 7 days and nights with no stops... 5,000,000 divided by the appropriate times yields about 500 rounds per minute. THAT'S a test...)

Squares: my understanding is that the actual LOS/LOF is independent of action spots and is drawn/calculated based on the unit's position. Die Patrouille (sp?) is a tough one. The low visibility and the steep terrain make long shots almost impossible. I've played this one a lot...from both sides. The first unit to fire will tend to win. Surprise counts. Plus, the Germans have a lot of automatic weapons. Popping up next to the MG foxholes at point blank range gives them the advantage, and that matters. If you saw any "?" contacts near the bridge, you should've fired, then repositioned. If you never saw any "?", and those two Germans were the first indicators you had of the enemy's presence, then you didn't outpost very well. Fog, snow, undergrowth, terrain undulations mean that you won't get much early warning. I've sent some guys down to the landing next to the bridge. Sometimes they get the drop on the Germans crossing the bridge, sometimes not. Playing as the Germans, sometimes my guys get shredded by unseen Ami's, sometimes not. One technique to help is to use Target command. Pick your MG team and Target various locations around them. You'll see just how far they may see, and you'll see all the blind zones around them. That covered arc is not a bad idea. However, it has a lot of blind zones. Just because yellow is draped over it, doesn't mean it is in LOS. Walls are bad that way. (There are foxholes on the other side of the road which can cover that side of the wall. I've had mortars wipe out my US teams as I've tried to man them. Other times, I've been successful.) The machinegun is a lot of your firepower. Use J or T to lay down suppressive firepower against "?" spotted by other units. Is the at-start location a good one? If not, move them. IanL is a slippery opponent, full of dastardly surprises. I doubt his men were whistling and singing marching ditties and came straight up the road. In short, a close-range ambush is what occurred. Your men will die. It's hard to react effectively to point blank ambushes with automatic weapons firing at you. Your best defense is to use sacrificial outposts (tight 360^ covered arcs) as listening posts. They can hear footsteps and orders ("?"). You, the all-seeing player, will then know that your enemy is coming and can act accordingly. Stick a scout team down by the bridge, off to the side, with a 10-20m circular arc. Finally, as I said, this is a tough one because of the LOS issues. It makes it play differently every time. It's a favorite of mine for quick plays. Ken

Interestingly, a superficial (Wikipedia. Sigh) search has shown that the bazooka's muzzle velocity is listed as 265 fps, and the panzerschreck's is 360 fps. I have no idea if either of those numbers are correct. If they are, then the 'schreck should have better accuracy (all other things being the same) than the bazooka.

John, This is tiresome. Really. Using your link (page 2) to the Dom Butgenbach study, here's a comment: Around 1000, five Mk IV tanks from KG Peiper tried to reconnoiter the road from Bellingen to Dom Butgenbach, but Kennedy's TO guns opened fire and knocked out three of the five. The surviving two hurriedly returned to Ballingen. 9 That's based on an attack on 17 December. My bold, my italics. Hmmm, using PzIVs to recce. From "Duel in the Mist", volume I, page 14, The author states that 2./SS-Pz.Rgt. 1 took over the spitz from 1/(same). That role begins on the 19th. In a confusing twist, although 2. is in the lead, 6. helps. (These are companies.) 6. is PzIVs,. The first vehicles the Americans saw were SPW251s. Go figure. So, we have the 1./SS-Pz.Rgt. 1 (Panthers) supposedly leading the attack, yet PzIVs are used to recce for them, until 19DEC when 2./SS-Pz.Rgt. 1 takes the lead. (I would assume due to combat losses to 1./(same). Shrug.). This time, halftracks were the first to see combat. "Taking the lead" does not necessarily mean "being the front-most vehicle", nor does it mean "no other vehicles were nearby". The PzIVs are held off. The point being, despite quoting OOB's, and unit TO&Es, you cannot know which tank was where during a battle. When a gunner says "I hit a Tiger II and stopped Pieper", well, maybe a bit of a harder look is warranted...especially if that ONE anecdote is being used to hang one's appraisal of the combat effectiveness of the 57mm atg upon. Does it matter to me if it was an SPW, a PzIV, a PzV or a PzVI? No. However, using a combat example to show effectiveness of a weapon means you need to understand what was engaged, where, and how. Using one sided anecdotes is NOT anywhere near close enough. I don't care how many authors repeat the story. Until/unless there is verification, it is an anecdote, not a fact. (Wouldn't it be nice if the authors had footnoted their source?) I'm out. Ken Edited to add: my italicized quote? Guess what: that number "9" is a footnote...and references Cole. Circular referencing. See what I mean?

Cole and Giles may be using the same after action report. We don't know. If two individuals perused the same allied fighter bomber squadrons debriefings for claims for tank kills, would that make those claims have more veracity? By crosschecking with German strngth returns, we find that allied fighter bomber kill claims bear little relation to reality. Similarly, the reports of stopping Panthers and Tigers must be regarded with scepticism until corroborated. This is basic. Did Giles merely reference Cole? Did Giles use the same US unit aar source document that Cole used? Peiper advanced into Stoumont using halftracks, infantry and PzIVs...in that order. That establishes one method he used at that time. Leading with Panther or Tiger would be a change in tactic. Is there support for that change, other than the report of the atg crew who fired the opening shot? This attack is well documented. I'm looking for support in the German records that, indeed, a Panther or Tiger was lost in that manner. Or a post-battle ops research study.