Siege

I can remember a lot of trips down what used to be "Gravel" roads at Ft. Drum in New York. Over a few decades of tank travel, it's all been ground down to a find chalky substance and just a couple people walking can kick up a 20ft high dust cloud. A couple of Trucks or tanks at 5mph could block out the sun! Not an easy thing to be the 2nd guy in the convoy, and a real risk to be further back. And from experience... yes, even backing up 20-30m WILL kick up one hell of a dust cloud, especially if you loose traction and start spinning a tire. -Hans

42nd Infantry Division? Man, it's odd to see my unit mentioned anywhere. But I can't claim to have been part of any historical portion of it. The 42nd Aviation Brigade just goes down in size the further back you go. Didn't even exist until the 1960's, and even then was just a company. Long way from piper cubs to Apache's, Chinooks, Huey's and Blackhawks. But I don't miss it, glad to be a civilian again. Oh, and the majority of the Fighting 69th is from out on Long Island and not Manhattan. My wifes family lives about 2 blocks from one of the company armories, and another is in Queens. I believe only the headquarters, one company, and some support elements are in Manhattan... but the entire division is all jumbled up right now between reorganization from Mech Infantry into a Homeland Defense quick reaction unit and a lot of it being deployment overseas in pieces, so depending on the actual date I might be mistaken. -Hans [ May 24, 2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Siege ]

Very possible, I don't know the social or political situation in Spain in that era very well. Would have made things quite interesting for sure, at least it would have opened up a western front sooner if that were the case. -Hans

.30-06 penetrate a sherman? Maybe a stowage bin, but not the armor. Dad was in the National Guard in the 1950's, and in the insanity of it all they actually trained with .30cal MG's and live ammo by having somebody drive a sherman back and forth to act as a moving target. He mentioned something about occasionally a round got to the radiator by richocet, causing the tank to break down, but the driver was never in any danger. Even if the guy got ahold of a SLAP round, he would have to take it out of the .308 casing, and handload it into the .30-06 since modern 7.62mm is a different shell casing. So doubtful that is the situation. -Hans [ May 21, 2004, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Siege ]

Actually, "Doorknocker" I belive came from the Russian front relating to the ineffectiveness of the 37mm to penetrate a T-34 from the front. Apparently the only routine successes they had were when a round struck the drivers hatch, causing it to unlatch and open by the lifting springs.... I.E. Knocking on the front door to open it. Or, at least that's what the story says in "PanzerJager". Since it's the story of an actual Pak crewmember, it has at least some authenticity to it. The book also refers to "Sturmgeshutzes", but when I get home I willl see how it refers to panzers. -Hans -Hans [ May 21, 2004, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: Siege ]

Let us not forget the geographics of it all either. One of the main strengths of Italy at the beginning of hostilities was their dominant location in the Med, and a very powerful surface navy. If not for the strike at Taranto harbor, the British would have been very hard pressed to resupply and fight to defend North Africa and Malta. Operations were difficult enough in the Med even with the Italian Navy being crippled, but had the Italians been able to deploy in strength... the entire North African campaign may have gone quite differently. The end result may well have been a triumphant Rommel taking control of the Middle Eastern oil. This would have left the UK even more dependant on American supplies. But think of the situation with Italy being a Neutral power. There would intially be no significant Axis naval or air presence in the Med theatre other than dubious help from the Vichy. Greece and Crete would have been significantly easier to support provided that Germany even attacked them. A year round supply line to Russia would be possible either through the Black Sea, or overland through Turkey if needed. Logistically there is no benefit to Germany of letting Italy remain neutral. But, it would have given the Allies a much more viable alternative in being able to attack through southern France. Right from the start the Royal Navy would have had to use far less assets to control the Med, which would have left them in a better position to support Norway when Germany attacked north. More material and equipment would be able to be diverted to the home front. The British Home Isles would have been far stronger, far earlier in the war rather than being stretched so thin. The downside is that the RAF and Commonwealth armies would have less opportunity to develop good armor and tactics, nor be able to gather as good intelligence on German equipment and tactics. It is also very possible that more equipment and personell may have been diverted to the Pacific Theatre, which may have further limited the Japanese advance. From the way I see it, Germany absolutely needed Italy, maybe not for their combat prowess but definitely for their location and the ability to stage from Italy and Sicily. Now, here is a good question. What would have happened if Franco had made Spain into an open combatant for the Axis?

The M-20 was used for scouting and utility, most were part of the Tank Destroyer battalions. It's hard to use them properly in Combat Mission because you can't model the dismounted scout team properly. Normal dismounted scout team was 4 soldiers armed with M-1 Carbines, 1 of which also carried a Bazooka. Think of it more like an armed APC, along the lines of the White M3 scout car. -Hans

While not a General, I really wish I could remember the name of the Admiral that ordered the relief mission to Wake Island to turn around. With the extra airpower from the Saratoga as well as more ground troops, and an already demoralized and reduced Japanese force, Wake could have held. From what I had read, the lookouts on the picket ships could actually see Wake Island and there was almost a mutiny on the bridge of the Saratoga when the order to turn around came in. -Hans

The Bombard was definitely not a man-portable weapon like the PIAT, but both were developed by Lt. Col. Blacker. But it was portable similar to a mortar, since it essentially was originally developed as a mortar. The PIAT is a scaled down version of the Bombard, and was originally even called the "baby bombard" with the emphasis on the anti-tank role rather than a mortar.. When you look at pictures of both, you can really see the resemblance between them. Other that the top loading cutout and the size, they are very very similar. http://www.flamesofwar.com/Article.asp?ArticleID=194 It's interesting how they list the Bombard as a 29mm weapon everywhere that I have looked, I suspect they go by the size of the spigot rather than that of the warhead. -Hans

I've always thought that the CM engine would work great for Warhammer 40,000. -Hans

I'd gather it would be a problem any time that the firer was a decent angle above the target. Even just steep hills or any building of a decent height could do it. Yeah, thats the one. IIRC they renamed the newer version as the PIAT when it was developed from the Bombard because of the horrible reputation it had developed. -Hans

Of course you all have missed the other fun factor of the PIAT. Aim it down and the round falls out! From what I have read, the actual projectile was such a loose fit in the trough that they issued them with thin straps that went across the muzzle to hold the thing in place until firing. But then again, they were derived from an oddball mortar design and it took a couple major revisions before they were considered ready for combat. I don't remember the name of the earlier version of the PIAT that was only issued to home guard units as it wasn't considered suitable for front-line use. -Hans

You are correct, the Brits actually built quite a few DD Valentines. I don't know how late into the planning that it was switched to a Shermans, but most of the pre-Normandy landing exercises that the British did were all conducted with DD Valentines. Same process, just applied to a different tank. -Hans

Speaking of airborne artillery, since it was mentioned there. Any of you folks "in the know" happen to have information on the parachute packing crates for the M1A1 75mm pack howitzer and the associated parachute ammo crates and cassion? I've been looking for good photos and drawings of those suckers to scratch-build them for a diorama. The official nomenclature is the M1-M7 Paracrates, M8 Parachest and M9 Paracassion.

I still want US equipment with the VERY early tri-color stars that matched aircraft markings. I admit, they are ugly... but they are an interesting ugly marking on tanks. -Hans

I think there are some other major problems with usefulness if you bring something like an M1A2 or Leopard back that far. Firstly, these tanks primary mission is against armor. A modern HEAT round is NOT the same as a WWII HE round, and won't do the same against soft targets. Currently I am not aware of any Smoke, HE, WP or Canister round for the 120mm. You would probably be better off using a straight M-1 with the 105mm where you have all of those options. It's still going to dominate against anything else in the era, and with only 1 you wont miss the IVIS system. Also, what the hell is going to pull a 65 ton tank out of hull-deep mud in 1945? It will be a beast for M31's and M32's to try and tug out of anything, even in numbers. No matter how good the survivability of an M1A2 is against tanks, landmines are just as capable against modern armor as WWII era stuff. I'm sure that in urban combat, even molotov's and grenade bundles in sufficient numbers will take out an Abrams. 1 critical electronics component breaks, it just aint gettin fixed in that era. And that thermal sight is a pretty big target for somebody good enough with a PTRS. Personally, if I was going to zap back in time I'd take a single B-1B loaded with JDAM's and hit the eagles nest at a time that Hitler and crew were present. A good grog book is wonderful intel if you have a time machine. Then I'd turn it east and drop one right on Uncle Iosef. Considering the range of a B-1, and the fact that over 30,000ft you are invulnerable in that era... you could probably do it in 1 trip. Then just punch out over the mid atlantic, and it they would be building the things again by the time technology exists to dive down and retrieve it to back-engineer anything. -Hans

Don't the halftrack mounted German AA guns also have facing restrictions? If the truck is facing AT the airplane, the guns won't fire in that direction. Try turning the trucks around so that the airplanes attack from the other direction, that might do it. -Hans

So what happens if somebody else puts a new thread into the forum? Does that screw up the evil plan? Where else will we complain about the bad clovers in the grass tiles in CMX2? -Hans

I'd put it right in there with the M-14, G-3, L1A1, FN-FAl and CETME. It's a semi-auto, magazine fed battle rifle that fires a full powered rifle round. -Hans

So, how do you pronounce that one? Pee-Bem Pee-Bee-Em Pee-Bee-Eee-Emm Pih-Bem -Hans

I never have figured out the relation between FN and Browning, but they do a lot of the manufacturing under the Browning name. Belgian manufactured Brownings are very highly regarded firearms by most collectors and serious shooters, and fetch top dollar both new and used. -Hans

Right before I got out, I had been tasked to use the SAW... but never got to fire it unfortunately. Only had some classroom time with it. I do have to agree that it's not a very aesthetically pleasing weapon. Probably just the traditionalist in me, but I really do like the look of wooden stocks and long barrels. In the US military we do use the same 200rd boxed belt, and the general consensus is never use the M-16 magazines with it as they tend to jam it up far too easily. I did have some concerns with the barrel on it, seemed to be about the same thickness as that on the M-16, and it just screams out "overheating problems" to me. I guess thats why they have a little quick-latch for barrel changes. I believe it's Belgian made, by the same manufacturer as the M240 line of 7.62 guns. There is definitely a lot of family resembilance between the two, kinda like Browning .30 and .50's -Hans

It is possible to spot enemy landmines, but it's not automatic as it is when you can see your own mines. It depends on a few factors such as the type of mine, type of terrain, weather and what kind of units you have. Biggest difference is between AT mines and "Daisy Chain" AT mines, the Daisies are quick scattered mines that are not concealed, and will be spotted much easier. Normal AP and AT mines are buried and concealed, which obviously makes them harder to spot. Units such as engineers will tend to spot mines from varied distances, while something like green buttoned tanks usually won't see anything until it blows a track off. -Hans

Ahhh, now people understand what I meant when I told them that the Germans weren't always the ones with the Uber tanks. You had your fun with Tigers and Jagdpanthers, now it's our turn The Germans had serious issues dealing with them both in France and in the desert. The Matilda's were one of the prime reasons for the panic to mount Russian 76.2mm guns on Pz38(t) Chassis to make the Marder III. Once those, the long 50mm guns and the PzIV F2's arrived, the Matilda's day was basically over. -Hans

I'll definitely agree that the M-1 Carbine has a near useless cartridge with it, and here in the US it's illegal to hunt with in most states simply because the cartridge is viewed as too weak for that use. But, I have a number of friends who own Carbines, and all of them have nothing but high praise for them. I've also read a lot of accounts (unfortunately my books are all in storage now, and I can't access them) that it was considered an extremeely well engineered and manufactured weapon which was highly prized by the Germans. Considering the other designs of the period coming from Winchester, who designed the M-1 carbine, those sentiments would fit in very well with other contemporary Winchester guns. What do the grog references say about the M-1 Carbine? -Hans