btm

Oops -double post

Auggy- I own an M1 Garand and shoot it regularly in competition. I will probably buy a couple more in the future, it is a superb rifle. If you are a U.S. citizen, and meet certain other requirements, you are eleigible to purchase an M1 Garand through the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The CMP program offers M1's at a price that is $300-$400 less than you will find on the regular market. The CMP site is here: Civilian Marksmanship Program ------------- As to the penetration question: I am assuming that the cartridge used was WW2-vintage .30-'06 M2AP. This exchange (http://yarchive.net/gun/ammo/armor_plate.html)describes a very informal test wherein M2AP penetrated 1/2" of armor (unknown type) angled at 30 degrees (at unknown range). 1995 British MOD standards for Class 2 and Class 3A armor use M2AP as the standard for testing armor plate from 5mm to <15mm, which seems to indicate that M2AP will normally penetrate up to 15mm of this class of armor plate. I will try to find better documentation of the performance of M2AP against armor plate and post it here.

Londoner- Aye, I am perfectly steady, thanks! I inferred from your previous post that you were suggesting that Van Creveld's work ought to have settled the issue. Apparently, this is not the case, and so I apologize for the aspersion. I do feel that there is a strong anti-American bias in many supposedly scholarly works. However, that does not mean that I feel that particular actions or aspects of the U.S. are above examination and constructive criticism. On the contrary, I feel that there is tremendous value in examining the past. I am confident that this feeling is shared by most with an interest in the past. As to the "tea-swilling bums" comment, I did not mean to suggest that the judgement was sound or even shared by me. I meant only to demonstrate that a little information can be dangerous, and lead to erroneous conclusions, ie: the well known story of the XXX Corps armor failing to reach Arnhem due to stopping to brew tea for a proper tea time.

I read Van Creveld's Fighting Power and was unimpressed. I've also read the recent refutations of Van Creveld and his school of thought: Closing with the Enemy by Doubler The G.I. Offensive in Europe by Mansoor American Soldiers by Kindsvatter And then there's When the Odds were Even by Bonn, and Draftee Division by Brown. So don't pretend that Van Creveld's work, or even S.L.A. Marshall's work are universally accepted or even respected. Needless to say, the debate is not going to resolved anytime soon. I highly doubt that it will be resolved in this forum, at that. I suspect that the pervasive anti-American tone will persist in "scholarly" and foreign histories for the forseeable future, just as it always has. In fact, such sentiment is hardly the exclusive domain of military history. On the other hand, there are significant numbers of Americans who still consider the British to be pompous, tea-swilling bums who had to be pried from their crumpets in order to take the fight to the enemy.

I don't want to get in the middle of this happy, stupid, little flame war, but I wanted to make a few corrections: 1) The M1918A2 Browning Automatic Rifle used the same ammunition as the M1 Garand, M1903 Springfield, et. al., this being .30-'06, typically M2 ball. 2) Loads for the British .303 are usually slightly less powerful than loads for the U.S. .30-'06. For a real comparison, you would need to compare specific loads, such as M2 Ball or M118 Ball versus a specific .303 load. Volkov - Amen, don't let the bastards get you down!

The short answer is yes, the U.S. G.I. did carry more ammo than his counterparts from other nations. Typical ammo loadout for a U.S. rifleman included: 10 x 8round en-bloc clips in M1923 Cartridge Belt 1 or 2 x 5 x 8round en-bloc clips in cloth bandolier(s) And in general, the U.S. infantryman was better supplied and more likely to be carrying a full ammo loadout than infantrymen from other nations.

JasonC- I would just like to express my appreciation for your posts. They always show good reasoning backed with verifiable data. If not for folks like you, we'd be forced to listen to guys like Rexford tell us that all German tanks were in fact invincible, and that as such, any American AFV kill claims from WW2 were merely propaganda.

Regarding aerial victory claims: Read Combat Kill by Hugh Morgan and Jurgen Seibel. This book examines in detail the procedures used by the major combatants for claiming and evaulating victory claims. As for best of the best, I would also suggest "Hub" Zemke, whose 56th Fighter Group was the top scoring FG in the ETO. Also, worth mentioning: -Carlson's Raiders -Any of the U.S. Army Ranger Battalions, both ETO and PTO (esp. 2nd) -Merrill's Marauders -Wingate's "Chindits" -U.S. 1st Air Commando Group, CBI -U.S. 601st Tank Destroyer Battalion: 155 AFV kills, 11 Aircraft downed

Marco, Thanks for the tips! I'll try to incorporate them into an update ASAP. Thanks for the offer for more help. There are indeed a few questions I'd like to ask you. I'll put them together in an e-mail. Thanks again.

Apparently, Northworst Airlines' baggage handlers ask that same question. When my flight arrived (uncharacteristically) 1 hour early in Minneapolis/St. Paul for connection to Grand Rapids, MI, Northworst sent my baggage to Minot. Yep, the opposite direction.

This is my first mod, so please let me know if you have any suggestions or requests. (Especially if you happen to be my hero, Marco Bergman!) Mod adds weathering effects, minor stencils, and grousers/water can to the (originally empty) grouser racks. It's available at CMMODS as BTM_M10_GMC. Screenie: http://www.cmmods.com/web/CMAKMods.nsf/b9aa3982b22d91ec85256c5300582977/46F8F4CA27FF5BFD85256E84000A8673

I have had the Osprey New Vanguard series books recommended to me. My only reservation is that in order to cover even a portion of the AFV's involved, I would need to invest in 30+ books at $15-$20 a pop. It seems like there ought to be some books out there in the $50+ range that offer the same amount of detail while covering more than a single vehicle. Of course, I've yet to find any!

Tried to post this in the general forum, but no one there is interested in discussing topics related to WW2. Rather frustrating. I am looking for a few high-quality reference books on WW2 AFV's. I am most interested in U.S., U.K., and German AFV's. I would prefer books that provide good illustrations and technical depth. I am also interested in finding some good books that deal with U.S. tank destroyers specifically. I would like to hear what the members of this board recommend. Thanks in advance!

Andreas- Roger, thanks for the correction. I'll buy that the SMG's in the German squad provide superior firepower at 40m. Sorry for the misconception.

Redwolf- 1) Try reading my post again. The subject of my query is in fact the firepower rating of the squad as a whole, not the weapons independently. 2) I raised the issue as a matter of discussion, not to claim that there is necessarily a problem. I really wonder why I have to point this out, as I think that I made this clear by my use of language in my original post. ---------------------------------------- Flamingknives and Andreas- I am using the data from the "CM3INF.xls" spreadsheet (I am at work and do not have the game available). There are two entries for '43 Jaeger. They are, respectively: 43 Jaeger (10): 2xK98, 7xMP40, 1xMG34: 301,108,33,18 43 Jaeger (10): 8xK98, 1xMP40, 1xMG42: 315,119,39,20 If these are incorrect, then I will abandon the issue. Otherwise, I am still interested to hear the reasoning behind these ratings.

In looking over the infantry squad firepower ratings, it struck me that the M1 Garand seems to be vastly underrated. For example: The firepower ratings at 40m, 100m, 250m, and 500m for the following entities are: '43 German "Jaeger" (10 man squad, with 8xK98, 1xMP40, and 1xMG42) 315, 119, 39, 20 '43 U.S. Rifle (12 man squad, with 10xM1, 1xM1903A4, 1xM1918A2) 170, 101, 49, 19 Now, according to most published sources, and my own experience, the K98k is good for 8-10 aimed rounds per minute (200 yard range). In contrast, I can fire about 30 aimed rounds per minute with my M1 Garand (200 yard range). [As an aside, Major G. H. Drewry of the U.S. Army Ordnance Department claimed the following in an official letter regarding the adoption of the M1 Garand: As I stated, my best to date is roughly 30 RPM. I have not been able to come near 50 RPM and stay 100% on target. Nonetheless, it does call into question the in-game firepower ratings. Granted, the MG42 has a high sustainable rate of fire. But does it really compensate for the fact that the German squad has 8 men with a rifle that can at best achieve 1/3 the rate of fire of 10 G.I.'s in the U.S. squad? I am open to debate on the subject, and would like to hear what others have to say. [ January 07, 2004, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: btm ]

My experiences have been similar to klapton's. No problems taking out M3's at reasonable ranges with the PzIII. As an aside- Mr. Emrys is correct in stating that overpenetration was far from rare in naval combat- especially at close ranges wherein shells were likely to hit a ship's superstructure at shallow angles. However, warships have a great deal of surface area relative to their vital components. A punchthrough hit on a warship has very little chance of destroying something important. I would think that the opposite would be true of tanks, due to the close proximity of multiple critical components. In other words, it would seem that even a punchthrough could potentially disable an AFV.

Horsesh1t. 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

Bump! Having encountered the same thing, I'm interested in hearing what the official position is.

Athkatla and SSG D- I don't debate anything that you have written. My argument is simply that according to my research, the 81mm mortar element of the heavy weapons company was not often employed as an indirect-fire, in-battery weapon in actual combat in Europe. And now that I have had some time to reflect on my post, I feel that I should revise my argument to add "after January, 1945." Admittedly, the veterans I have interviewed regarding this issue were in combat after this date. This also corresponds with the resumption of the U.S. non-stop advance following the winter of 1944. Also, just to note, I assume that when my grandfather states that they were able to knock out the 88 on the second, or at most third, shot, he means wiping out the weapon crew, not necessarily a hit on the piece itself. I thank you for your input. I am in the first stage of research for a book that will include this subject. Doubtless I will find that my theories and understanding of many issues will be modified as I go. I can state with certainty that my grandfather is an extraordinary man in many respects. Perhaps his combat experience was more extraordinary than I thought. Thanks, BTM

Los- Well said. You're right, I should have gathered some in-game stats on accuracy before making the post. I based my comments on my general experience with the game, but without structured testing. You're also right regarding the employment issue. It is really up to the scenario designer as to how mortars are employed, given that CMAK allows on- and off- board deployment. Perhaps I should retitle this post and direct it towards scenario builders. ----- Lars and Mr. Dorosh- 1. I'm not sure what you're trying to say regarding a typical late-war 88-crew's rate of fire. I did not suggest that any such crew fired slowly, only that it took them more than a couple rounds to realize that their fuzing was such that it was achieving the desired effect. The time that it took them to realize their error was enough for the mortar team to eliminate the threat. 2. Yes, the 81mm mortar was "a heavy bitch" in the words of my grandfather. He carried the 75 pound tube on his shoulder, walking (and on occasion, running), from Siegburg, Germany to Pilsen, Czechoslovakia. My grandfather is 6'4" and earned a scholarship to Michigan State University for running track before the war. Unfortunately, the war intervened before his first semester was complete, and his wartime tasks ruined his career as a runner. ----- Thanks, BTM [ December 09, 2003, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: btm ]

Again, I will post my print references ASAP. As far as anecdotal evidence is concerned, yes, I am thoroughly aware of the risks of using such evidence. I have conducted my interviews in a manner that I feel is professional and honest. That's the best I can do. These interviews will be used and quoted extensively in a book that I am working on. I would like to point out that my arguments do not contradict any known official TOE's. My arguments are aimed towards the historical, actual employment of assets (namely the 81mm mortar). ---- As far as TOE's are concerned, however: In a "standard" U.S. infantry division (7/1944): there were three infantry regiments, consisting of three battalions. Each battalion consisted of four companies: three rifle companies and one heavy weapons company. The heavy weapons company was always the "fourth" company (ie, "D" in my grandfather's case). The heavy weapons company included an HQ section, two heavy MG platoons and a mortar platoon. The mortar platoon consisted of a platoon HQ and three mortar "sections." Each section was made up of two mortar teams with a single 81mm mortar each (note the term "team" is only semi-official). So, Los is correct as far as the 81mm being considered a battalion-level asset as far as TOE is concerned, with 6x81mm mortars organic to the battalion by means of the heavy weapons company. ---- Thanks, BTM

Regarding sources- I will post my "in print" sources ASAP. I am currently away from my office, unfortunately. As to my first-person resources, you'll have to wait for my book.

Dear Battlefront, I have thoroughly enjoyed your Combat Mission series of games and the amount of historical research evident in the series. There is however, an issue of historical accuracy that has made its way from CMBO into CMAK. The way that the U.S. 81mm mortar is depicted in CMAK is, according to my research, totally inaccurate. This topic is one that is near and dear to my heart, as my grandfather was a member of an 81mm mortar team in WW2 (387th Inf. Regiment, 97th Inf. Div.). First, the 81mm mortar was seldom, if ever, used as a battery or barrage weapon. The entire advantage of the 81mm mortar over traditional artillery is that it was entirely man-portable (despite what several books have stated). A six man team carried the mortar and its ammunition: no trucks, no trailers. The 81mm mortar team was a front-line element. No forward observer was used. As a matter of fact, my grandfather states that his team tried to stay abreast or forward of the rest of the line of advance. There was a good reason for this. My grandfather's team specialized in taking out German 88's. When an 88 was sighted, it was already taking shots at my Grandfather's team. They had learned, however, that the German gunners tended to set the fuze for the precise distance to my grandfather's squad. The problem with this (from the German perspective) is that the forward velocity of the shell carried over into the shrapnel of the air-burst. In effect, the shell's shrapnel exploded into a cone-shape over the heads of the mortar team, rather than the imagined spherical explosion. As a result, my grandfather recounts, the guys in back often "bought it", but the team survived. As a matter of course, after the first shot from the 88, the mortar team would "run like hell for about 200 yards", set up the mortar and fire. The first shot was used to plant the base (they obviously did not take time to dig a spot for the base plate), and thus went wide. The second shot was almost always a hit that destroyed the gun. My grandfather states that the second shot HAD to be on target because the German gun crew would recognize their mistake with the fuzing. So, my second issue with the CMAK depiction of the 81mm mortar is the lack of accuracy afforded these weapons. It's amazing what a sharp crew can do when their lives are on the line. I cannot say that my grandfather's team was typical in terms of accuracy. I can say that my research, relying on numerous first hand accounts, shows that their method of employment (forward, independent, tasked with eliminating enemy guns) WAS the norm. Thank you for taking the time to consider my post. BTM

Absolutely first rate! For an interesting article relating to CMAK, (of course, most of the articles do) check out "Tank Destroyers at Anzio".