Dandelion
-
Posts
952 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Dandelion
-
-
...and if you don't have Paint Shop you could always download any of a number of freeware or shareware or demo screencapture programs, from Tucows perhaps.
Regards
Dandelion
[ April 29, 2003, 03:54 AM: Message edited by: Dandelion ]
-
I'll add some on the structure of German operations also, which might help.
Defence
Defenses were constructed in layers. Is it actually spelled defences? Anyway, there would normally be one main line of defense, called Hauptkampflinie (equiv. to Main Line of Resistance). In front of it there would be one or more lines of defense intended only to wear down and delay the enemy attack, called Wiederstandslinie (Line of resistance). These would be placed some 2-3 kilometres ahead of the main line. If several, they would use that spacing too. One should not imagine these things in terms of actual lines. They were patchworks of resistance areas capable of defense in all directions, vaguely linked to form sort of lines.
All lines had a second line just behind them, the so called Aufnahmelinie. This was some 5-800 meters behind the line it supported and contained prepared positions to fall back upon as well as the positions of the support weapons. Again, the term "line" is not really a very good one.
In front of all lines would be the pickets, Vorgeschobene Stellungen in German. Small outposts of maximum platoon size, intended to ambush, harass and deny an advancing enemy. Ideally, they could trick the enemy into believing he had hit the main position, thus dismounting and directing massive support on them. It often worked in fact.
Between all lines there would be outposts too, Vorposten in German. These were used to seize and maintain dominance over all no-mans land and areas between lines. This was considered essential by the Germans. Such outposts would be manned by patrols of up to platoon and could include passive recon positions too, to monitor terrain.
Combat would be very different depending on the scenario viewpoint.
A scenario depicting action in the forward lines would normally entail the Germans engaging at extreme distances, and retreating off map before the neemy comes too close. Might not sound very fun, but it can be in good scenarios.
Scenarios depicting outpost combat would normally include smaller forces sans support, in brief but violent clashes. As well as ambushes.
Scenarios tend to depict battles in or around the main line (area) of resistance. Where the German had decided to stay until he was literally forced to leave. These can be of any size, really, and including units from all the way to Armee if need be.
(btw, translated into urban warfare, the Germans built their main line in the heart of the built up area, and the other lines as radiating circles - they never manned the outskirts with anything but outposts, as it was too exposed).
The normal defense area allotments would be:
Battalion: 1000-2000 m wide and 1000-1500 meters deep
Company: 300-600 meters wide and 400 to 600 meters deep
If the defense was simply a delaying one, these Abschnitts (sectors) could well be doubled.
Offensive
In the West, Germans used armoured and motorised formations for attack, as the attack value for infantry divisions was considerted too low.
German doctrine of offense is complex and I will not go deep into it here. It will suffice to say that they used the normal system of assembly area-staqrting line-sector of attack. A scenario will look quite different depending on what stage of the attack is covered. But we stick to sector of attack here, as this would be normal.
Germans allotted lanes of attack to all participating units, down to company. These were like virtual corridors in the terrain. Depending on the power of thrust they wished to achieve, such corridors were narrow or wide. The narrower, the more dense the attack force, the more powerful. The narrowest point in any sector was called schwerpunkt.
Typical width of such lanes, ranging from Schwerpunkt to low-intensity probe, were:
Battalion: 400 meters to 2000 meters
Company: 200 meters to 400 meters
Platoon 1-200 meters
Squad 50-100 meters.
Width did not necessarily mean they deployed along the whole line, simply that they had a wide corridor, possibly enabling bypass of enemy strongpoints.
Germans normally advanced in "Keil", meaning one unit in front and two rear. This system was used at all levels, down to platoon. In front of the forwardmost units would be scouts, usually halfsquads advancing some 2-400 meters ahead.
Panzers used their own lanes of attack, that did not necessarily follow infantry units. Could even cross them back and forth. They rarely appeared in smaller numbers than platoon and if they had a choice, not in smaller numbers than company. They also advanced in Keil, except when they had to cross wide open areas, in which case they normally preferred line, to have all barrels pointing forward and ready to fire.
So. This is who you'd usually run into when facing or playing Germans, and how they would normally be deployed. Historically speaking and put simple.
All the best
Dandelion
-
Lee,
I will, as usual, elucidate some on the Germans.
The smallest unit thought capable of operational scale action was the Regiment. In any scenario featuring Germans, it would be reasonable to be able to draw from regimental units to compose your force.
Panzer Grenadier
(Companies)
1.-3. Infantry (ready-made in CM unit list)
4. Support (ready-made in CM unit list)
5.-7. Infantry
8. Support
9.-11. Infantry
12. Support
13. sIG (Infantry gun, 6x75mm 2x150mm)
14 FlaK (AA 12x20mm)
15 Aufkl (Recon, as infantry coy, usually mounted in Schwimmwagen)
16. Pi (Engineer - ready-made in CM unit list)
The infantry (Grenadier) Regiment was smaller, with only 10 companies. Companies 9 and 10 would be s.I.G. and Pi respecticely.
Companies 1-4, 5-8 and 9-12 formed I,II and III Btl respectively. The other companies were regimental and distrubuted as needed. Of course, many divisions were so weak they did not have the III Btl, meaning comapnies 9-12 were instead Rgt companies. Also, the Recon coy was luxury present in very few Rgts.
Both trucks and halftracks were left one or several kilometres to the rear and never used in combat by the PzGren, so you can always leave such out in a scenario. The same would go for support, so you can fairly exchange all barrels for FOs too without being gamey.
Panzer
(Companies)
1.-8. Panzer (nominally 4x5 tanks plus 2, in reality at best 4x4 +2, often 4x3 +1)
There were also two unnumbered Werkstatt (Workshop) companies (in reality often platoons)
Companies 1.-4. would form I Btl, and should ideally contain Panzer V (Panther). In fact, on the western front, most of them did too. Companies 5.-8. formed II Btl and would consist of PzKpfw IV.
But as we know, tanks could be substituted for assault guns and so forth.
In addition, there would be divisional units to draw from. I guess this would be the subject of player agreement. anyway, these were:
Panzerjäger
Battalion:
Companies
1.-3. Panzerjäger (should be 10 (2x4 +2) JgdPz or PzJg, could be just about anything, including towed PaKs or, late in the war, men on bicycles carrying panzerfausts).
Aufklärung (recon)
Battalion:
Companies
1.-4. Aufklärung (as infantry)(in Armoured divisions, 1.-2. companies would be armoured car, 3.-4. would be halftrack infantry)
5. Support (support halftracks and armoured cars)
(The recon units made heavy use of their thin skinned vehicles, even in combat. So here you should not omit halftracks and such).
Finally the Pionier battalion, that is ready-made in the CM list.
In terms of artillery support, the total amount available in any division would be 6x4 105mm and 3x4 150mm.
Above division, there would be Korps and Armee units that one might draw upon. There were heavy Panzer (Tiger) and Jagdpanzer (Jagdpanther) units, both quite rare. More common was the Nebelwerfer brigade. Most units attacking enjoyed the support of such. In fact, so did most units defending. Of course, a normal sized CM scenario leaves little room for the proper use of these.
All the Best
Dandelion
-
On the issue of historically oriented QB, I think there are quite a few gamers out there interested in such and willing to submit to historical limitations on OOB. Though I guess it would be important to be very clear and specific beforehand.
Regards
Dandelion
-
Well yes you could fire the AAMG in all directions, because the mount could turn in all directions. Only the Japanese used mounts that could not turn.
The mounting, however, was fastened rear of the turret hatch (of the commander). The mount was a hollow pipe pointing straight up and not the circular type often seen today, surrounding hatches. So, the MG, while able to traverese 360 degrees, nonetheless remained fastened rear of the turret hatch. Sitting in the turret, you were able to fire rearwards. Turning the AAMG to point forward would mean holding on to the barrel, as you would be unable to reach the trigger.
Firing rearwards and up was the designed purpose, as in this position the commander would not have to expose very much of his body firing. If he wanted to fire at ground level targets (rearwards), he would have to expose his body in proportion to the depressing of his aim. Very dangerous.
If he was willing to leave his turret, he would be able to enjoy the full 360 degree traverse of this weapon. However, he would be 100% exposed of course.
The issue was of course different post introduction of remote control machineguns.
At this link http://www.granddadshobbyshop.com/Sherman.jpg there is a cover of a book on Shermans with a pic of the same at the bottom. You can clearly see the mounting of the AAMG, to the rear of the turret hatch. The weapon is pointing forwards, which makes it obvious where the trigger is in such a stance.
Regards
Dandelion
-
Hi again Lee,
Do you mean OOBs as in standard OOB for this-and-that kind of unit (e.g. a standard German pnzer company), or OOB as in the specific units participating at a certain place and time (e.g. which units participated in the Market-Garden operation)?
Regards
Dandelion
-
Fleixible MGs? You mean the AA MGs? At least they often had such mounts that they could be fired rear and up, as this was the typical approach of enemy aircraft strafing. No it was not normally possible to fire them forward, unless you stood on the rear plate of the tank, behind the turret. We see this happening in at least one episode of Band of Brothers. Shermans are assaulting German positions and tank commanders are firing AAMG standing behind the turrets. My guess is that this was a very undesirable job. I know I would never do it. Until I meet someone who would, I'll write those parts of BOB down to fiction.
The coaxial MG of German 5-man crew tanks was fired by the gunner, using a simple button. It was used to help him aim, exclusively, as far as I have read. Thus aligned to main armament and normally using tracer rounds rather than standard ordnance. He sat (typically) left of the barrel in the tank and fired while looking into his optics, with a finger on the other button. When satisfied, he fired main armament. This operation was ideally very fast. The loader was standing up, "behind" the barrel, laboring, and as far as I know had no means of ever looking out of the tank from his position.
Infantry targets would be kept at bay using BMG rather than CMG. The CMG was moved by moving the main armament, so it was not as swift.
As for how crews of other nationalities divided labors in tanks, I am really unsure.
Hope it helps
Dandelion
-
No ideas,
Had the same problem. It is especially acute as, when he comes closer, he keeps targetting the Cromwells that sweep back an forth across his arc of fire. They are too fast for his turret traverse. So there he goes, rotating left and right turn after turn without ever firing, while the enemy takes pot-shots until the inevitable "Gun Damage" result...
Regards
Dandelion
-
Ryan,
CMBO is not a level game. It is a tactical combat simulation engine, in which you construct your own battles and campaigns, play those constructed by others or have one randomly made for you.
There are quite a few scenarios and campaigns made and available on the Arnhem and Pegasus battles. Some quite good too. Apparently we have at least one on D Day too, as evident above.
Specific units are not represented in CMBO as such, only branches of service. Thus you have infantry, airborne and armour units etc. Names, values and abilities of troops are adjustable. You can thus easily construct SAS troops if you want. You can even have them wear SAS patches
A problem is French SAS, as you must choose to either have them look like SAS or speak French, they cannot do both without some serious Wav. modding
Regards
Dandelion
-
Well Newb,
This is a CMBO Forum ya know
So whenever you feel like Pbem CMBO, let me know and I'll mail you on the above adress.All the best
Dandelion
-
What is a BFC? Apart from Bataillon Fusiliers de Chasse of course
I would also like to see the packages of which you write. And I'd buy them too.
Though I have problems accepting that it would take a remake of CMBO to get it to CMBB level. These two titles do not appear to be different enough to be separate games. They are like The Sims series - slight upgrades, bunch of new graphics, a few new functions and a totally new setting, same engine but tweaked a bit for improvement. I mean, both games use the same old ASL system as far as I can see. Having monitored the development of this game almost since it started (missed the first 6 months), I feel the differences between CMBO and CMBB are not even remotely as many as the differences between the intial series of models for CMBO.
But anyway, if they feel so strongly about it, let them move on to their next project in peace. I still feel they could issue a limited CMBO patch adjusting the few really serious issues, such as optics and accuracy and above all machineguns. These are errors and ought to have been adjusted in the patch we already have. It would take very little work and I would not be the only one willing to pay for it. It would probably be smaller work than the 102 patch was, and they did that one for free.
Dandelion
-
Thanks again all. I am working up steam (i.e. # obscure questions) for a new thread, on UK org, so keep an eye out
One last thing Mr Dorosh. I am sorry but my contemporary English fails me. What is the meaning of holdover? As in remnant from the past? What is the meaning of being a batman, in the sense that You use it? (I picture somebody with blue tights, a cape and a mask you know...). What is a gopher?
Sincerely
a much pleased
Dandelion
-
Yes. Problem is, I feel the Eastern Front has a depressing quality to it. I must say I am much more interested in the war in the West. The dream then, for me, would be a patch (I'd buy it) for CMBO upgrading it to CMBB standard. Shouldn't be too hard to make one. Can't see that there are all that many differences between the two systems (of course, I have only played the demo of CMBB).
Dandelion
-
Unbelievable as it first appeared, every last initial question is now actually answered. Busy copy-pasting. I can even see now why my first listing had no guide for 4th platoon. There wasn't any.
Just can't believe how many people there were in US squads. How the hoobaloo did the squad leader keep check on that crowd in a fight? They are well nigh twice as many as in the German squad. No wonder they had personnel shortage problems
1F The 1st SGT in the HQ platoon - this would be the same company 1st sgt as we discussed before right?
2F Of course, I gather nobody would know what the "bugler" did? I mean, he didn't really blow a horn, did he? Thought only the Japanese still did that.
3F And the armorer (hm, is armourer UK spelling?), was he actually an equipped and trained weaponsmechanic, or was he some kind of supply/storage function?
4F "Commo" would refer to communications? A signalist then? Or merely a storage function? Or a mechanic?
5F I take it the "Messenger" function was used for signal duties if signal equipment was available?
Yours
Dandelion
-
...no point in forcing a Kiwi to say Regiment. he will only mean battalion by saying so anyway
Dandelion
-
Odd function that, of the Guide. I am searching my mind but can't think of any real German equivalent. As I recall, the quartermaster(s men) finds and marks the spot for bivouac (no, I cant spell it in English, I mean the camp sortof). As for combat positions, higher echelons would send...well, guides I guess we can call them, to lead units in to their respective Gefechtsstreifen (lane of attack or area of defence). So they knew they'd end up where they were wanted. During movement, in combat conditions, the Germans used a system with an Anschluss unit, dont know how to translate, but this unit was earmarked as the unit which all others must adapt to. So if it moved right, all moved right and so on. Formation was thus relative to it. This unit would be accompanied by personnel from higher echelon also, who had scouted terrain and were intimate with the plans.
The term "Ldr", it comes as a second function though, apart from the plaoon ldr (the 2nd Lt). Says the Ldr was a S/Sgt.
Dandelion
-
....hey Mr Dorosh, do get started about warrant officers. Let's begin at "What is a warrant Officer"...
Parenthetically, would the term "drawl" be accepted or rejected by a Texan? I mean, can I use it in the future to describe this in one word, without receiving the rage of a large part southern US?
Sincerely
Dandelion
-
Well I was writing directly from reading, so to speak. So 28 it is.
13 years from graduating and still a captain or major was nothing irregular in my service. Of course, I know little of US promotion speed. Is it not possible to take a break and pursuit civilian careers for a few years? To join the reserve even though you have graduated? Over here, such a grduation would be the promise of quite a reasonable civilian job. In a slow-moving peacetime army, the civilian break is not an unattractive option if available.
As for the seemingly respectless behaviour, I do not find it strange. It seems to me it would require quite an abnormal personality to destroy an ongoing bonding procedure by authoritarian insistence. His men are quite obviously making place for him. By making forbidden jokes, you display trust. The officer arrived new to an already bonded unit. A unit of draftees, mixed ages and men of whom some had seen many years as civilians, family men. They were neither kids nor professionals. Such men do not shiver and shake simply because you have brass on your collar (or shoulder). I see no problem really.
Of course, I am no expert on US views on discipline either.
And of course, maybe the officer was unaware.
But every US major work on WWII that I can think of (which limits itself to Mailer and Joyce I fear) describes a remarkably lax and friendly tone between officer and men in the US Army. It appears this army turned ferociously authoritarian once it became all professional again. But the latter assumption, I base merely on such meagre foundation as popular culture movies (e.g. Full Metal Jacket).
What puzzles me more about the West Point lead is how his mother could be expected to recognise the term. But then again, who knows what he wrote in his other letters. Maybe she knew all about West Point.
Maybe he wrote it to emphasise how unsuccessful this officer was. Or it may be that in Texas by this time, the term 28'er did indeed refer to 1828'er, an officer with strong confederate sympathies. Or that he was a re-calledup officer as suggested above. Such a re-callup would have had reasonable chances of being familiar to the average civilian too, as it hit the households in the communities. Like the mother.
It does not really matter, the describing of these possibilities teaches more than the mere finding of the right answer. I mean, it may be quite a private remark, undecipherable for anyone except him and his mother, after all.
Dandelion
-
You're right sir, this is an extraordinarily interesting thread and I say it even though I started it
I am now crippled with a compulsory need to read it several times a day.I find all of these explanations for the term class of 28 plausible and what's more, they all teach me something new I didn't know about the US Army
According to my crude OOBs for the US Army, 36 Division fought in ETO. Is this correct? If so, this cannot have been the division, as the S/Sgt served in the Pacific, as did all letter-writers in the book. The unit in question, containg folks from "around", was either not Texan but...(well Icm47, who would a Texan call "from around", except other Texans?), or it was a smaller unit than Division.
No Jon I didn't have that link but I am all over it now. This is exactly what I was looking for. Things all make sense to me now, there's the Mess Sgt, the cook and even the cook helpers listed! MUCH obliged! Sad thing that in the comment, they adress modern US soldiers explaining the differences to their organisations (such as the G4 serving in the Rgt coy). They might have taken the perspective of an alien soldier
Strange denotation btw - "basic soldiers". I'll understand that as Pvt then. Which leads me to another obscure question:
Again in this list, the title "Guide" and "Ldr" respectively appears in the platoons. Just like in my old incomplete list. Who were the "Guides" and what did they do?
Mr Dorosh, thanks for the update on staff. There are a few functions in the German staff I also have not figured out yet. I guess one would have to have been a staff officer to know what to look for. I was recon. Anyway, an assistant function was termed the series IIA-C. If these were i.G. officers or not I do not know. Nor do these names make sense to me really. You see, Ia was actually a unit, namely the unit staff as a whole. Ib was the organisational code for the Qu.-Abt. or quartermaster battalion (or larger). Ic was a department within Ia, thus part of it. But II? Can't find any organisation corresponding to this. My guess is that these people were field officers just like the Ord.Offz. Simply because I have neveer heard of an Gen.-St.-Offz. called anything beginning with "II".
Other notes on the Ic is that he also was responsible for the unit paper (papers were mostly divisional, not higher echelon), as he had all printing press and personell for the job (they normally made maps). He also was responsible for all translations, as he had all interpretors (they normally interrogated POWs and translated captured documents and maps). He was responsible for organisaing all visits from field entertainment units and yes, he was in charge on any brothel activity too, if organised by the army. In addition, he was nominally responsible for divisional traffic - a big issue especially in motorised units. But in fact, the Ia had to plan any movement with traffic in consideration, and the Ib tended to be the guy in actual charge of the MPs used for traffic control (their most frequent task, btw). Any propaganda tasks fell on him too, as he had not only the printing press, but also the cameras and loudspeakers, with accompanying personell, of his unit. He was not in command of any recon units, but of course was a very close affiliate with (of?) this commander (all echelons had a recon unit suited to their needs, except in the Waffen SS where there were no Korps level recon units). His sole "field" command were the "Streifen-Dienst", the "patrol service" consisting of riflemen picked from various units on a rotating schedule, forming patrols for special tasks. These fulfilled all kinds of missions, such as security, counter intelligence, traffic control and the general maintaing of order among the men. This command entailed only the completion of schedules and such I fear. A jack of all trades, the Ic, indeed. Of course, it was the fact that he was the most junior that led to all crappy jobs landing on him.
On the other hand, the Ia, who was responsible for unit overall AA protection (i.e. the planning of the same), was weighed down with command over searchlight units(!) (when available).
Fritz Bayerlein complains of this and several other irrational organisational anomalities in his book. He was the Ia of Rommel in the Desert, before assuming command of the Panzer Lehr Division (another of these sideway promotions, although this one a success). In that same Ia unit, Count von Stauffenberg, who later tried to blow up Hitler, served as Ord.Offz. He lost his eye and arm in an amazingly precise air raid on the HQ, performed by the ever indomitable RAF, as they again tried to knock Rommel out.
The letters, G and S, what did they mean? Abbreviations? Organisational codes? Or just a system?
Splinty - the Technical Sergeant, did this title reveal any special skills learned in the technical department and if so, which?
Yours enthusiastically
Dandelion
-
I am very impressed by the research- and conclusion efforts on the "class of 28'er" question. I am now encouraged to put up even more obscure questions on US Army issues in this Forum.
Context for 28'er has been requested. The context is a S/SGgt (though drafted, I have concluded) writing to his mother about his service in an infantry unit, late 42. His unit - the division as a whole or just his unit is not entirely clear - appears to be all Texan. He is certainly Texan. This unit has gotten a new (at least new since last he wrote his mom) officer, rank unclear, who is in a position of command over the S/Sgt. The S/Sgt thinks this guy is hilarious. He understands nothing of what the men say and keeps saying "hunh?" whenever they adress him or answers his questions. The men, this S/Sgt suspects, therefore speaks extra stark and obscure Texan dialect with him, including apparently vocabulary (he makes no examples). Making fun of him. Though he does also comment that the officer is "true" and that he "protects" the men (from what he doesnt say). So the men actually like him, in spite of his linguistic handicap, it appears. This officer is the one he refers to when he writes - to his mother - that he does not understand the dialect of the men "[---]as he's not from around [not from the South was my conclusion]. He's a class of 28'er. He already knew Brett [another officer, rank unclear] before he came here. They stick together real tight now." Then he writes about the men enhancing their dialects as above.
If anyone wonders, he finishes the paragraph on this officer with "he will be fine." He then writes about how he worries about home - I have concluded he is into husbandry of some kind. He assures the mother that he will not end up in combat.
This S/Sgt was KIA, it says in the commentary, so lets hope he was right about the officer at least.
a puzzled
Dandelion
-
Thanks, it helped.
Maybe it's my browser, but I can see only one posting above mine in this thread, and I became curious of the answer.
Sincerely
Dandelion
-
...to make a final addition, the i.G. officer was considered to be from a separate branch of service. Thus, he was not an infantry officer and not a panzer officer, even if he served in such divisions. Perhaps this helps understanding why the iG officer was not required to have experience of field command, like infantry officers were, for advancement.
Dandleion
-
....and to answer the actual question, and not merely babble endlessly in my usual manner
, the German i.G. officer never had a field command, even that of a platoon. Nor was he ever an NCO (depending upon what one considers cadets to be). He started his post-basic-school career as Leutnant i.G., usually serving as Ic at divisional level. He normally had to pass the Ib position at least once in his career, to gain experience from quartermaster view, before assuming overall Ia responsibilities of any unit. But he could also advance along the Ic axis, becoming Ic of a higher echelon rather than Ic of a lower, and so on.Unless of course he was promoted to the General Staff from former field army service, but in such a case his field unit command experience would be a bonus, not a prerequisite.
Dandelion
-
I can elucidate some on the i.G. officer.
This system was introduced by Fredrick the Great (who else?) and served two purpouses: one was to keep the corps of officers in check, the other was to promote brilliance.
The corps of officers was at the time (and almost to our day) an exclusive and tight-knit club of nobility, especially but not only in Prussia. Loyalty to the King was uncertain, tactical ability was not a prerequisite to become an officer, your pedigree was. And so, the King introduced a Royal corps of Staff officers, consisting largely of talented non-nobility, trained and paid by the King and thus totally dependent on him. Spells: loyal. It also spelled tactically and strategically competent. In military history, this can fairly be called the first academically trained soldier to see light.
Because of the svere academic tests one had to pass, and the Royal status, this corps has had a tremendous prestige from day one. It has thus always attracted nobility to its ranks also.
Every officer held authority far out of proportion of his nominal rank. For example, the Chief of staff of a division would normally be a Major iG (remembering all the above about rank and appointment). In effect, this man had the same authority as his boss, the Generalleutnant, or kdr.-Gen. And the Chief of intelligence could be a Leutnant iG (as he was the most junior of them), in effect wielding authority akin to a Colonel.
The classic study of the "i.G" officers relation to the field officer is that between Ludendorff (who was an officer of the General Staff) and Hindenburg (a field officer). The pair is often called "the firm". Ludi was clearly the introvert brains, Hindi the fatherly, brave and hearty guy in this outfit. Archetypes.
iG officers actually formed a paralell chain of command and answered only to eachother up and down the chain, a chain leading straight up to the General Staff of OKW and then on to Hitler. But in practice of course they worked intimately with the units they served in. iG officers had both their own schools and held separate courses within the ordinary field officer schools. During WWII, admittance to their ranks was still barred by very demanding tests.
They did indeed wear crimson stripes on their pants, regardless of rank. Two such. They were identical to those worn by field Generals, except they were crimson and not the more plain red of the latter. They also wore crimson piping on shoulderstraps, collarpatches and officers cap. One could spot them on a mile, which was the whole idea of course.
In WWII, they served down to divisional level, but not below. They led the staff units of their respective units.
The chief of staff of any unit was nicknamed Ia (actual title was "Erste Generalstabsoffizier - but nobody used that). For example, von Paulus was the Ia of Reichenau before the latter died and von Paulus became CO of 6th Army. This type of promotion became more common as the war progressed - von Paulus would otherwise be destined to serve in the OKH as next pinhole in his career. The promotion was not a success. He proved archetypal iG - introvert and without real leader ability, fiercely loyal to the central power and determined not to have a political opinion, or just about any opinion on anything aside from tactical or logistical problems. Of course he was very good in his Ia role. He continuously constructed brilliant plans and improvisations. All in all a complete opposite to the charismatic, rash and somewhat ill-tempered Reichenau. Which Paulus kept being told, much to his annoyance ("Reichenau would never have thisandthat").
Anyway, the chief of Quartermasters was nicked Ib, Chief of Intelligence Ic. The German definition of intelligence meant the Ic had many duties alien to western intel officers. Such as responsibility for the fighting morale and moral dedication of the men. He thus was bossing over a bewildering mix of units, ranging from the military police to mobile field movie-theatres. It was the Ic that decided that the soldiers in SS PD12 were not allowed interaction with local women, and absolutely not allowed to visit brothels. They were too young, he thought (himself being around 25 and his men at 18 or 19). On the other hand, they were the only serving soldiers in the German armed forces who were allowed to wear fashionable haircuts (meaning somewhat longer and more similar to many US soldiers). Again a Ic divisional decree. They also had their cigarettes exchanged for candy - but this was a Ib decree.
To their aid, all iG had a number of so called "Ordonnanz Offizieren". These were field officers serving in a staff function. Possibly hoping for promotion to iG status?
I think the US had a system using "G#" which resembles this Ia-Ic system. Right? Please tell me I am right, wouldn't want to have to relearn the whole US Staff system.
The Waffen-SS had a problem, in that it didnt have any Generalstab Schools of its own. It was dependent upon the good will of the Heer to allow a certain number of its officers to pass through the courses. The Heer of course regarded the W-SS with a queer mix of contempt and admiration, so it was not at all without problems. Usually, though, they had enough iG officers to man most of their main field units. They tended to be of too low rank for their assignments, though.
German artillery did not use i.G. officers. (Not W-SS artillery either). Thats because initially, this corps of officers were already very talented, very loyal and unattractive to nobility. They were instead the sons of the bourgouisie, that had attended Fachschulen in the sciences (whereas nobility tended to study humaniora, theology, law at universities instead). The artillery officer enjoyed uch the same prestige as the iG´s did.
Another branch that did not use iG officers were the Engineers. of course, they did not usually form large units, but even when they did, they used no iG officers. The reasons are the same as for the artillerymen.
Overall, the iG officer had his own identity and archetypes separate from the field units he worked within, had also a separate social caste and tradition, and to a large extent was from a separate social background than the field officer (although by 1941, this had become untrue).
Of course, Hitler despised these men too, in spite of their not being dominated by nobility. He rapidly got rid of the Cheif of Staff OKW to replace him with cadavre-loyal men like Jodl. Jodl was also archetypal of the iG officer.
Sincerely
Dandelion
Questions about OOB
in Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord
Posted
Anytime Lee
Yes Andreas, all of what I wrote was relevant for the West and CMBO. Several points would be different playing the East and CMBB.
Small rider? I don't get it.
Regards
Dandelion