Mr. Tittles

Picture 7: Here is the radio setup for a platoon or company commander in a Panther A. Look familiar? There is the now familiar Fu.5 set on the bottom shelf, with an additional Ukw.E.e. receiver sitting up on the top, just like we saw in the previous illustration of the Tiger I setup, but with top and bottom shelves reversed. In this illustration the interconnecting wiring between the component boxes has been removed, providing us with a much cleaner looking installation than would normally be the case during actual operation. Most combat tank platoon and company commanders would have a setup in their vehicles like this, regardless of which vehicle it was mounted inside (tank, halftrack, truck, etc.). The Morse key and other accessories would be carried on the empty self up on the right, or in a storage box, and in this same area you can barely make out the lead and connection for the antenna mounted on the roof. This is also a nice photo reference for the hull machine gun ball mount in the Panther A, along with its monocular sight and head pad. Here it appears that twin recievers were in platoon/coy commander panzers only. They are also next to each other. In other words, the radio operator would have to operate each one himself. The StuG had one reciever by the vehicle commander.

Picture 3: Here's the 30 W.S.a. transmitter found in a Fu.8 set, these sets typically mounted in Sturmartillerie vehicles (StuG assault guns, for instance). If you were examining a StuG III with a Fu.8 set, you would expect to find one of these transmitter boxes sitting next to a Mw.E.c. receiver, the second part of the Fu.8 set. The 30 W.S.a. transmitter was also used in commander's tanks and SP antitank gun vehicles, particularly in signal troop units that were required to stay in communication with their infantry assets. Like the Fu.5 sets, the Fu.8 set was capable of transmitting both "Telegraphie" (telegraph key, also known as CW or Morse Code) and "Telefonie" (voice) amplitude-modulated (AM) signals. If these vehicles were stationary and were equipped with a frame roof aerial, the 30 W.S.a. transmitter had a voice range of over 15km. This could be doubled with the use of a big 9-meter winch mast with star aerial on top. The 30 W.S.a. transmitter had 6 tubes inside and was rugged and extremely well constructed.

Picture 2: This is the most common panzer radio set in use by mid-war, the Fu.5. The receiver, Ukw.E.e., is on the left and the transmitter, 10 W.S.c., is on the right, with the power transformers (sometimes called "dynamotors") for each component sitting on top of the cases. The transformers were necessary to convert the vehicle battery voltage to that necessary for the radios. Notice how cables connect the receiver and transmitter together, running from the right side of the receiver to the left side of the transmitter. Typically, if the radio set was mounted on a single shelf and the two cases placed side by side like this, the receiver was placed on the left and the transmitter on the right. As I mentioned earlier, there was a power transformer required for each radio receiver or transmitter, and these transformers were typically mounted below or to the side of the cases, but always very close by. Also in this image you can see on the right, sitting on the table, a black teletype (Morse) key, while in the center on the table is a voice microphone, and on the far left a set of headphones. Each of these transmitters/receivers weighed only around 20lbs, which was a very reasonable weight for a radio at this time. Did the FU5 have multiple recievers?

http://www.angelfire.com/wi2/foto/ww2/proh/page4.html

The Stug 4 man crew was much more efficient than the T34/76 4 man crew. The SP fixed gun design was a limitation but a good crew could make up for it in team work. T34/76 had both a commander/gunner design and a commander/loader design (I believe). The commander loader would probably be better. He could detect targets and then load the appropriate ammo while ordering the driver and gunner about targets.

This about the StuG radios.. Picture 4: A closer view of the FuG15 on the left side of the hull near the commander's position provides some detail about the radio equipment. The receiver operated in the 23000 to 24950 frequency range and was a handy addition to the other identical receiver in the FuG16 set on the far side of the vehicle. Having two receivers allowed the crew to listen in to two different frequencies at the same time, for instance both their unit commander as well as the battalion command. Notice the headphones hooked in the rear corner next to the rear firewall and the rubber speaking tube funnel for directly communication with the driver located right next to the headset. Also clearly visible here is the commander's scissors periscope SF14Z mentioned in the last picture. The periscope and swivel mount have been folded head down in their stowed position, but you can still see the unique clamp that held the periscope to the support rod as well as the binocular eye pieces. The StuG crews also had radio communication capability with arty units (reflecting the fact that they themselves were artillerymen). [ December 26, 2003, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bookshelf/losses/losses3.html

Kazatin operation. 23/12.1943-1/2-1944 start strength 749 (666) total losses 1317 (1181) battle losses 1056 (937) technical (mechanical) losses 170 (154) other 91 (90) (t34) This is also from 1st Guards. Its a 6 week period from the end of 43 to early 44. What was T34 production numbers? 1000 per month? Actually, most of 1943 was a showdown. The Germans big show was Kursk but the armored battles raged in intensity for most of the year. The Germans were being bled and the Soviets were willing to practice attrition as long as both sides bled. They prosecuted this strategy with T34/76 mostly. They knew that changing over a model design during this time would give the Germans a break. The Germans, with the new Panther, old Panzer IV and limited Tigers, were changing horses at the wrong time. [ December 26, 2003, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

The StuGs had more advanced radios than most panzers I believe. The layout of the StuGs allowed better internal communications since the commander, gunner and driver were all within touching distance (allowing facing the vehicle quickly by kicking/tapping a shoulder). The more advanced radio in the StuG may have allowed platoon/company communications with less load on the commander. The US was probably the most advanced as far as radios and I would think the British tanks would use them.

You can't go wrong with Carrol Shelby's chili (mix). In college, it was my secret ingredient. I was invited to many a kegger just to cook and drink free. Had the bags in my socks (yes, I shop lifted the mix but they bought the beans and beef and beer). [ December 24, 2003, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

I dont want the thread to become another BAR?BREN?LMG? quagmire. My thoughts are that BARs should be increased at the squad level. So if the game had a mechanism where a purchaser could spend extra to have a squad get anothet BAR, I would be happier. The player could split the squad and have a nice firepower enhancer. I would like to suggest that the 'screen-directional-bounce' (where the mouse hits the side of the screen and the view is either slewed or rotated), be tweaked. Could there be a dead-zone between the slew/rotation parts of the screen? I find it so annoying the way it is now. I would prefer a 1/3 top slew, 1/3 middle dead-zone, and 1/3 bottom rotation. This has been bugging me since I bought CMBB.

I agree that IF these weapons are separately available, then assaulting/advancing should be options. Likewise, depending on what they represent, the speed should not be medium if the squad based weapon can be fast. Also, tiring should reflect the weight of the weapons/equipment. The fact that they have no grenades/AT weapons/etc, should be offset with more ammo. In the case of BAR, they have the same ammo as a squad. Perhaps I am splitting hairs but I do not think a MG42 team, with its associated hardware can compare its mobility to a BAR team. The MG42 gunner has a 23-24 pound load if hes carrying weapon with a belt of 50 rounds. The BAR (without bipod) is around 17-18 pounds. The MG42 is 40 percent heavier. The assistant MG42 has at least a box of belted ammo in his hands (250 rounds) and a rifle on his back along with a spare barrel. The BAR assistant has no barrel or boxes but a vest with magazines in it. He carries the bipod for the weapon on his pack. He carries his personal weapon (more than likely a M1 Carbine) in his hands and can use it while moving. The BAR without bipod can be easily fired like a rifle from the shoulder. The MG42, with its nose heavy design would be best fired from the hip. I believe the BREN assistant main concern was swapping magazines for the firer AND reloading them. He wasn't just a mule but part of the crew served weapon. The BAR is more of a personal weapon. The BREN assistant usually carried a bolt action rifle and the spare barrel and mags, etc. His advancing firing contribution would be hampered just like the MG42. Can these LMGs jam? Do squad based weapons jam? [ December 24, 2003, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Kursk-Belgorod operation. Offensive period 3/8-31/8-1943 542 (418) 1040 (889) Here the unit has been built up to 418 T34. In a 4 week period of attacking, it loses 200%.

Losses of Soviet Tank Armies and Corps in 1942-1945 Operation Availability of AFVs at the start Total losses From report of 1st Guard Tank Army. Kursk-Belgorod operation. Defensive period 5/7-20/7.1943 start strength 631 (511) total losses 954 (783) note: numbers in parentheses are T34 Heres an example of how bad tank losses can be. In a 15 day period, 1st Guards tank army took an average loss of approx 50 T34 a day. It went over 150% losses. Other stats for 1943-1944 are similar for T34. It would be interesting to see the end strength. The unit must have been fed tanks and crews during this period. The average lifetime for a new crew during this time may well have been less than a week.

Some questions about the BAR: 1. Did you load individual rounds into the magazines or use stripper clips or some other method? 2. Did you use all armor piercing rounds? tracers? 3. Did US ammo really give off clouds of smoke?

Garand clips were stocked at dumps in 8 round clips. I believe the 'clips' were not gathered up typically and reloaded. They were expendable items. The 8 round clips are usually transported about in bandoliers. These were also used for tourniquets, tying up prisoners , etc after use. A runner could go back to a supply dump and drape quite a few of these bandoliers over his shoulder. MGs had loading devices and someone filled a hopper and another person cranked a lever and thats how the belts were loaded. This also was probably done at the supply/dump level and not in the front lines below battalion level. BARs and Springfields probably used stripper clips. This is a piece of metal that allows the magazines to be quickly loaded and the metal falls away after loading. It does not go into the weapon like the Garand 'clip' does. [ December 23, 2003, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

A squad costs 40 points. A BAR team, 8 points. Its ahistorical and technical issue really. Not a points issue. The BAR is not a slow weapon. I would love to see a foot race between a BAR team, BREN team and MG42 team (Given the other associated parts). The BAR bipod was usually carried by the BAR assistant. The BAR does not have a spare barrel. The ammo is all either in the mags or pockets. No one is carrying luggage and bags, etc. The BAR 'team' have weapons in thier hands. The assistant would have his own weapon and use it more than a MG42 or even a BREN assistant would. To have a BAR that can not assault or advance is not in the spirit of the weapon. To me, people should be able to buy MP44 teams or grenade launcher riflemen if they purchase BARs. [ December 23, 2003, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

BAR as support weapon. I brought this up in the BAR thread but will throw in here also. The BAR can be purchased as a support weapon. Its a 2 man team like the MG34/42. The only problem is that it has the same ammo and firepower as a squad BAR. It can not assault, advance or throw grenades, etc. Since it takes two men to operate, its actually inferior to the inherent BAR. For those interested, see the BAR thread. Theres a Korean war vet contributing great info.

I have updated again. Scenario depicts a small company sized reinforced US force attacking a weakened German strong point. As the German defender, you must button up attacking AFV, separate infantry and AFVs and hold the vital cross roads at all costs. Flares launched will bring some help for you once battle commences. Use your isolated rifleman to harry the enemy. Discretion is the better part of valor. Do not let attacking forces pound you to pieces, hide units and defend from other sectors. Position your forces to defend with cross fires. Good Luck!

I also use tall hedges but they do allow tanks to pass through slowly. I wanted some sunken lanes and the pines block vehicles.

sent. Please post comments, suggestions, insults, etc. The terrain is only 400x400 meters. Its very compartmented and tricky for tanks to move in. I have used pine lined roads, woods, etc to simulate hedgerows. I hope to make it playable as the US. The AI as the germans does not place trenches, etc very well and I may lock them.

Operation Air cooled, gas operated, magazine fed, shoulder type M1918A1 selective fire (fully and semi-automatic) M1918A2 fully automatic Caliber .30 (30-06) Muzzle velocity 853.4 mps (2800 fps) Capacity 20-round detachable box magazine (1) Bandoleer (BAR belt): 12 magazines (2) Magazine changeable in 2-4 seconds (but averaged 6-8 seconds in combat) Weight 8.33 kg (18.5 lbs) Overall length 119.4 cm (47 in.) Rate of fire 550 rounds per minute I believe the BAR weight here is with bipod and magazine attached.

Welcome BARMAN. Please comment on the matter of CMAK having a 2 man BAR support weapon. I mentioned this earlier in the thread. It has a medium speed, same ammo as a squad based weapon, can't assault or advance. Personally I feel the BAR should stay at the squad level in either 1 BAR or 2 BAR squads. On another note, can you comment on US 30 cal MGs? Did you use the bipod version of the 30 cal much? Would it overheat? Heres a link to Korean war weapons http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/arms.htm#weapons (Kitty make some s'mores..this could be a ten page thread...)

Ive made a 3rd iteration. Any takers?

I saw 'The Sand Pebbles' again the other day. Steve McQueen sure could run with that weapon.