blue division
-
Posts
197 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by blue division
-
-
I think you need to read some of the accounts about the use of the Sten - you could put a burst into the enemy at close range and they would keep coming at you.Originally posted by flamingknives:Oh, goody. Getting hit by a 9x19mm round is just like being hit with a rolled-up newspaper? I must remember to tell that to all the people hit by fire from Stens, MP40s, Owens, Stirlings, HK MP5s, Uzis etc, not to mention thso ending up on the wrong end of all those sidearms chambered for that calibre since 1908.
Except I can't.
Because a great many of them are dead.
Not to say that the Parabellum is a great combat round, but I certainly wouldn't stand around with a bunch of them whistling past my ears, whether they were being fired from 50m or 250m.
Oh yes, and the British army used the Sterling SMG up until 1982 at least.
But, most importantly, Andreas is right.
I think some 9mm weapons these days are modified to fire bursts or very rapidly to get around this shortcoming of the round (with a hollow point round)
9mm simply does not have the mass to definetely stop the target. That is why in the Pacific the Americans treasured the Thompson with its 45 cal round (much much better) that could stop a banzai charge in its tracks. (They also liked shotguns too).
Similarly a lot of people in law enforcement today go for a heavier round too for this very reason.
9mm was used simply because the ammo could be found everywhere - ideal for a stopgap weapon like the sten. After all, that was designed for quick manufacture from non-specialised workshops - a good way of quickly equipping new troops. I believe the 8th Army captured tons of 9mm ammo from the Italians, which made the case for sten guns even more favourable to the Brits in 1940/41.
As for having a 9mm round fired at you at 200m or so I expect the rounds would tumble everywhere. They wouldn't be landing anywhere near you.
[ March 24, 2005, 03:02 AM: Message edited by: blue division ]
-
A few points:Originally posted by Krautman:Because police officers usually don't take part in 250m distance firefights...
What they need is a lightweight weapon for self defence, effective in an urban area/close quarters.
This area was where the infantry was fighting.
With the tanks becoming more and more powerful, it was them who ruled the open terrain in ww2. The infantry was consequently driven to difficult terrain, where smgs are more useful than a rifle.
Remember: In 1941, you could take out many tanks with an AT rifle at long ranges- in 1945, you needed a giant gun to do so.
SMG's have a maximum effective range of 50m - you talk of fights to 250m. What do the VG troopers do for the other 200m?
Byt the way, 50m is for a skilled operator - for a recruit in the heat of battle, it is probably nearer 10m.
Also what about the ammo expenditure?
And also the Wehrmacht had to fight outside of cities and difficult terrain too. I think you will find a lot of it was fairly flat and open, what would you do with a weapon that could not fire over 50m away?
I think you are getting confused here with the argument for Assault Rifles, which can fire out to 400m or so.
Tanks were not everyhwhere on the front. And you can bet that the Russians would try and attack where there was only infantry in 1944.
Tank riders in the Red Army took terrible casualties. They were the first target for MG's as the men were exposed and bunched together. A perfect target.The perfect historical pair is soviet T-34/85 tanks with smg infantry riding on them- Extremely effective.
Agreed. But as these new division were quickly chewed up in a few weeks/months - they quickly turned into division of older men or boys. I wouldn;t have have thought then that they would be of much use morale wise - most of them would just want to get back in one piece.Thus, some Infantry Divisions were merely re-named to VG Divisions, and others were raised from newly drafted men. In CM, you could represent VG units with mostly regulars (representing experienced NCOs leading inexperienced draftees), some vets and some green.
Bit off subject here - but I think calling thing VOLKS was a bit of crude politics - the Nazi Party had effectively taken over the Wehrmacht after the July 1944 plot, and calling things 'Volks' was their way of trying to gloss over this fact (by giving the impression that the people are behind everything. And I suppose to give the impression that it is a 'peoples struggle' of Total War. I suspect Goebbels was behind this one.Also think of the almost mythical connotation the term "Volk" had for Hitler and Himmler. Giving new names (like making a "Schütze" to a "Grenadier") was also used to boost morale.
-
Originally posted by JasonC:
You say, for instance "SMG's are basically civilian use weapons". This is horsefeathers. The SMG was invented specifically with trench warfare in mind, as "trench brooms". Large numbers were issued by all sides in WW II for the obvious purpose, close in infantry fighting in terrain.
Why is it that you always see SMG's on civilian duty i.e. Police etc, but never with military?
Could it be that the military see the limitations of these weapons, and would only use them as 'stop gap' measures if they knew the recruit could not be trained to use a rifle? Surely that was the thinking behind the Red Army first mass issuing them, followed by the Wehrmacht?
Of course, the Allies were far more conservative in this respect, with a lot of the SMG's being given to rear echelon soldiers who had no need of a rifle. I have heard that GI's were given 2 years training. If true, that is a lot of time to learn how to shoot a rifle.
The Russians and Brits issued far more PPsHs and Stens than the Germans did MPs.
Sorry to reel you in - but we were talking about VG divisions here?
As for training, it takes 3 weeks to pass BRM today and the pace is decidedly lackluster.
Training and the lack of it for new soldiers in Germany in late 1944 was critical. You can't overlook it.
In combat is another story, but not one primarily driven by marksmenship. (Most rounds miss because they are fired to suppress, targets are rarely visible or for long, etc).
We are getting a bit off subject here - but - I agree. The main use for rifles at long range would be suppressing an enemy. And very good they are at it too. A single rifleman can halt and then slow down a company at long ranges if he knows his weapon.
Both the US army and the British army have at various times had fetishes for long ranged rifle fire, and advance notions only marginally less silly than the cult of the bayonet, on the subject.
You seem to have contradicted yourself here - didn't you just say that rifle fire can suppress the enemy - surely that is usefull? What have bayonets got to do with VG divisions (other than you can't fit them to MP40's)
The VG divisions had MG42s. Lots of them. They had mortars.
Can you check your facts here?
The Germans produced more than 75 million rounds of 81mm mortar (and even more than that, of 105mm howitzer). The Allies didn't suffer even that number of casualties.
As far as I know, the Allied soldier was not that afraid of the 81mm mortar round. It was the 120mm that really terrified them - if fired accurately, it could cause meny casualties.
There is a reason up to 70% of casualties are from HE fragments, while bullets are only a quarter or so (and MGs cause most of those).
So where does the VG division fit into your scheme of things, if bullets cause no casualties, and the VG were largely equipped with very short ranged machine pistols?
The rifle vs. MP decision turns largely on the expected defense scheme the infantry is to use,
As I said earlier - I agree - so when short range firing was on the agenda then ok. Over 50m, forget it.
Oh and even at TOE, part of the VG was standard pattern LMG+rifle infantry, and they weren't all equipped with MPs up to TOE.
I didn't say they were. But they were excessively equipped with SMG's - I believe the majority of the VG troops carried them. Issuing such a crude weapon in such large quantities to the VG suggests that the troops weren't that good!
Rifles remained common, with a loadout more like security infantry types in CM. Far from choosing MPs because they were cheaper, they still had rifles coming out of their ears and couldn't get enough MPs to equip units according to their desired plan.
I think you miss my point - I didn't say that Germany didn't have rifles any more. I pointed out issues with training and Germanys situation in late 1944 - and the connection of this and the new VG divisions.
I don't think you have addressed the inherent limitations of the 9mm round either here. What happened to the VG trooper when the enemy was further away than 50m?
[ March 23, 2005, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: blue division ]
-
I still don't see how an MP40 is a serious weapon to equip your infantry with as a standard weapon.
Surely a 9mm cartridge is designed for very close range shooting - I thought its maximum effective range was 50m - and perhaps only 10m in practice. I also heard that it lacked stopping power - lots of stories about the enemy being shot repeatedly with 9mm rounds and it failing to have an effect on them.
There is only one reason to solely equip your soldiers with SMG's and that is for either storming fixed positions or street fighting - both at very short range. And maybe for soldiers who needed the shorter weapon such as tank riders or officers / NCO's. Surely SMG's are basically civilian use weapons (for law enforcement) that have been adopted by western armies for specialist uses?
You say that they had MG42 - but surely the number of MG42's in the units were reduced for the VG units. And did they not remove the heavy mortar section as well (120mm)? Surely these were the two most feared weapons the Germans had at this unit level?
I think you need to address also the issue of training. To train a soldier how to use a weapon such as a full powered rifle takes weeks of tuition. To use an SMG at a low level of skill requires a lot less tuition. This is why they were used in the New Army of Fall 1944. You could take somebody from a factory or wherever, give them half a day on the firing range with an MP40 and they would be ready for the front.
Surely the MP40 was issued as it could be cheaply and quickly made from non-specialist workshops, rather than the specialised Mauser armouries.
Isn't this very similar to the story behind the development of the UZI in Isreal - i.e. giving a civilian militia a cheap weapon that is easy to operate, fires a standard cartridge and that can be made from non-specialised civilian workshops?
It just smacks of desperation to expect your infantry to take on full strength enemy formations with what is basically a pistol that has been modified for automatic fire.
-
As far as I know, VG divisions trained their new recruits for 2 - 4 weeks in late 1944.
And the average age dropped to 17 as the units got chewed up.
As far as infiltration in the Ardennes was concerned, I thought that it would have been easy to bypass American units as they were spread out, the short days and poor weather. And it is one enormous forest area - ideal for infiltration.
I would have thought that the fighting strength of the original VG formations would have been OK and would then have sharply declined as they got chewed up in the fighting. Weren't the Germans losing 1,000 men a day killed at the height of the fighting in 1944?
AS for the VG being well equipped I can't really agree. Increasing the number Machine Pistols in the platoon is really a bodge - they are too short ranged and expend their ammunition too quickly. I would think in an extended firefight in open terrain the average American unit would overwhelm the German VG one with greater long range firepower. I would have thought that the VG platoon would have to get in very close to effectively use all of those Machine Pistols.
I thought the main reason for giving large quantities of Machine Pistols to the VG was because this was what was being mass produced at that time in Germany. Rifles were too complicated to manufacture , whereas MP's could be rushed out in a quicker manner.
Also, MP's required a lot less skill from the operator - which fitted in well with the profile of the average German recruit in Autumn 1944.
-
I suspect that the truth of what constituted a VG division lies somewhere in between. Some were probably good, others fairly lousy.
I have heard descriptions of some of them as being constituted of regular experienced soldiers,
And :
I have heard descriptions of them as being looked down on by regular units because they were so hastily constituted and trained (one week for training for the Ardenne and being given their weapons from the back of the truck as they were about to attack the American positions).
Also that they had a preponderance of 16 year old boys and men in their '50's.
They were constituted very hastily, so it is probably very difficult to say what a VG division actually was like.
Both statements could be true depending on where you look.
Personally, I think they were sub-standard units that were not trained properly and not given equipment that required too much training.
I am sure that the German Army commanders would have far preferred having Parachute troops for example rather than VG. But they were all that was left as a strategic reserve.
-
Agreed that a six wheeler is better for off-roading, but that's more a function of having more traction and lower ground pressure.Originally posted by flamingknives:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by blue division:
True, but I know what sort of truck I would rather be in if I was offroading. One with as many wheels as possible. Particulary driving over improvised bridges and roads.
As for the front wheels losing contact - well if your load is in the back then that will keep you stable (ie the counter weight will keep you balanced). Unless you are going at speed, in which case you are f*****. But as the max speed of these vehicles is 45 mph, and probably a lot less over rough terrain, this isn't a factor.
And the heavier the load, the more this would apply. Apparently the Russians always overloaded their trucks.
Counter balancing only works if you have a significant weight behind the back axle. If the load is forward of the pivot point (back axle for both front wheels, a line between the front and opposite rear wheels for the other front wheel) then it will act to push the truck down. </font>
-
The Germans have always used counter-attack when they have lost ground, part of their doctrine as far as I know.Originally posted by coe:Hey all
I went away for little bit and
wow, I never thought my thread would go to 250 messages...(I wonder if it is due to my low membership number)....
Interesting that the ratio was 1.6:1 in terms losses on the eastern front in the last years of the war - in the German's favor.
From the accounts I have read of western front operations it seems that even when primarily on the defensive, the German losses were not favorable (e.g. Lorraine, first few days of Anzio (even when the Ranger unit was destroyed))...that I am puzzled about.
Conan
C.
Apparently during one part of the battle at Anzio the yanks were shooting them down as fast as they appeared. (When the Germans were trying to push them back into the sea). A complete turkey-shoot.
And given the amount of artillery that was used by the Allies and the Russians, no surprise that there are plenty of German casualties. Artillery being the big killer on the battlefield.
-
True, but I know what sort of truck I would rather be in if I was offroading. One with as many wheels as possible. Particulary driving over improvised bridges and roads.Originally posted by flamingknives:It would have to be one hell of a pothole, a very poorly loaded truck and a fair bit of speed. The worst occurance would be if a front wheel dropping into a big hole, and that would mess up a 6 wheeler as well, as the extra wheels are at the back (at least that's true of the ones of the period). Also, the rear wheels on WWII 6 wheelers are very close together, so if one wheel goes into the hole/over the edge, then the other would probably go in too. [/QB]
As for the front wheels losing contact - well if your load is in the back then that will keep you stable (ie the counter weight will keep you balanced). Unless you are going at speed, in which case you are f*****. But as the max speed of these vehicles is 45 mph, and probably a lot less over rough terrain, this isn't a factor.
And the heavier the load, the more this would apply. Apparently the Russians always overloaded their trucks.
-
You are correct about having a wheel in each corner, but ...Originally posted by flamingknives:Er. No. The stability of the truck is dependent on the distance between wheels, provided that there are at least four, one at each corner. You could have 30 wheels, but if all are in a line, it's no more stable than a single rollerblade.
Are you assuming that that the truck is driving across a surface that is completely flat?
What if it is a very uneven surface such as an improvised wooden bridge or road? One that also is slippery with mud and oil?
And if that surface is on a slope, and your truck is already overloaded (as I am sure they were in Russia) - what happens in a 4x4 truck when one of the rear wheels looses contact with the road? I would expect the truck to violently pitch to one side. And that could be enough to have your truck lying on its side.
This is very common on rough roads with overloaded trucks. Seen it myself in third world countries loads of times.
-
The more wheels you have, the more contact points with the ground you have and the less chance you have of the truck tipping over onto its side when negotiating uneven terrain.
If you are looking at six wheel drive vehicles, they also allow you to keep making progress in difficult conditions. Of course, stopping is no easier with the all wheel drive. (I am assuming that a truck called a '6x6' has six wheels, six of which have drive supplied to them).
I believe a a lot of the Studebaker's came with a winch on the front that was powerful enough to pull the truck out of mud. (Of course you need a fixed point to attach it to).
-
Correspondence between Stalin and Roosevelt, discussing the specific Soviet requirements for Lend-Lease.
'Sent on August 22, 1942
J. V. STALIN TO F. ROOSEVELT
With reference to what you say about the despatch of tanks and other strategic materials from the United States in August I should like to emphasize our special interest in receiving U.S. aircraft and other weapons, as well as trucks in the greatest numbers possible. '
'FROM PREMIER STALIN TO THE PRESIDENT, Mr. ROOSEVELT
October 7, 1942
It would be very good if the U.S.A. could ensure the monthly delivery of at least the following items: 500 fighters, 8,000 to 10,000 trucks , 5,000 tons of aluminium, and 4,000 to 5,000 tons of explosives. Besides, we need, within 12 months, two million tons of grain (wheat) and as much as we can have of fats, concentrated foods and canned meat. '
-
The mind boggles as to how that rejoinder makes any sense.Originally posted by flamingknives:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
We are talking about WWII remember? Or perhaps you have digressed again.
Please stay on subject, don't talk about horsefeathers.
</font>
-
Hot under the collar, FlamingKnives?Originally posted by flamingknives:Yes, I say, this is rather fun, isn't it.
-
The US trucks were the only ones that could have been reliable enough and have the off road capability to suit the military. They also didn't burn 1/4 gallon oil for every 1 gallon diesel.Originally posted by flamingknives:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by blue division:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives:
Or, alternatively, it was horsefeathers, as you've just moved the goal posts. We've gone from US trucks being the only ones available to being the only ones at the front.
</font>
-
Are you in law enforcement?Originally posted by Bigduke6:BD,
Answer the questions, pardner. Longer and longer.
If you are, can I have my lawyer present?
If you aren't, should you be talking to somebody in this manner?
-
Do you have a six-shooter?Originally posted by Bigduke6:BD,
Answer the questions, pardner. Longer and longer.
-
I think that this is actually a much bigger reflection on you.Originally posted by Bigduke6:I know Blue Division is sensitive to personal references, but IMHO his refusal to respond to even the most basic inquiries could be described as "weaseling".
Now, if I were to drop in on an internet forum and within a week or so find out people are using terms like "troll" and "weasel" to describe my comments on that forum, I personally would reconsider my remarks. Seeing as I am human and fallible and all. But that's just me.
Somehow, though, I doubt if you even stop to consider this yourself.
-
Did you whip out a copy of Glantz while you were talking to them and correct anything thing that you didn't like?Originally posted by Bigduke6:17. Have you ever talked to an East Front veteran?
2 down, fifteen to go.
-
Funny, you seem to have ignored my last post quite well...Originally posted by Bigduke6:BD,
Answer the questions, pardner. Longer and longer.
I will say you are very good at making lists.
-
I think a list of Big Duke's posts is probably in order now.
Modern armies dont need to be kept in supply. ('Remember, the Red Army had a "throwaway unit" mentality very different from the German or western Allied approach. ')
As is was solely the Russian infantryman who did all the work in the advances in 1944, so we can ignore supply issues for artillery and armour / motorized troops - (The [infantryman] only thing he could reasonably expect from his supply channel was ammunition and a tiny bit of medical, and then only if higher had decided he needed it.)
Trucks were not used to resupply the advances in 1944 (The idea that U.S. Studebaker trucks sustained Red Army combat advances with sort of an East Front version of the Redball express has no basis in fact.
)
Throw in Stalingrad, as if this is pertinent to the battles of 1944 (What about Stalingrad?
)
Throw in some thoughts from a political journalist in the UK (Max Hastings' book Overlord is pretty good on the subject.).
Assert that good ideologically sound Bolshevik armies somehow rise above the need to be resupplied. Using there sound socialist principles, they rise above such bourgeoise concepts as eating and fueling their vehicles. (My point is, trucks are spiffy for piling up supply prior to an offensive, but once it kicks off they're a good deal less important to a Soviet army than an western one.)
The use of subtle semantic changes when things aren't going right (I would not call the Soviet supply situation at Stalingrad outstanding. )
And putting words into peoples mouths (precisely when you say the Soviets were incapable of significant mobile operations.) There are a lot of these, so I just list the first one.
"Next, you argue with yourself (this is my favourite) : (1943: The Germans were sure no Soviet defence could hold out against a concentrated panzer attack. Further, they were convinced that even if things went wrong the Soviets had neither the resources nor the brains to organize a counteroffensive.
Wrong yet again. The attacks at Kursk stalled, and then the Soviets counterattacked with an entire front. Germans lose half of Ukraine."
And on to Glantz, of which BigDuke attributes magical, almost other-wordly properties, you will suddenly 'see the light '(I can't respond to what you say without repeating what I have said. I strongly urge you to read Glantz's "Clash of Titans" if you want to get a better picture of the Red Army,)
Now one of my favourites - a team of engineers laying railroad track can keep up with a moving truck. Yes, you read it here first. (If there's one thing the Russians had an endless supply of, it's more wood for railroad sleepers and laborers to cut it and then lay the rails. )
Next completely contradict your argument on how the Red Army doesn't need suppliers (This all took place under conditions of "scorched earth". So obviously somehow the Soviets figured out a way to not just move the materials, but also the men and machines and the supplies to keep them working.
)
Discount the reality of the destruction caused in Western Russia by the Nazi invasion, recounted by many, many historians and observers (I think you are overestimating the German ability to "scorch the earth." )
-
Getting hot under the collar, BigDuke?
-
Wicky,Originally posted by Wicky:BD - It was you that claimed that the Luftwaffe had absolute supremacy over the Soviet hinterland back on page 8
"Over the Eastern Front, it was impossible.
It is easy for single aircraft to roam over such a large front and hunt down vehicles.
That is why some ground attack pilots managed to destroy hundreds of vehicles."
I did not say that they had absolute air superiority over Russia. Please re-read what was said and you will see this is true.
Besides, I don't think anyone has ever had 'absolute supremacy' over Russia - even to this day. The USAF still has the abiltiy to overfly Russia if it so chooses.
An interesting thread, but you need to clarify your ideas before presenting them, and not using my postings to bounce them off.
-
Point 12 - do you know who Max Hastings is?Originally posted by Bigduke6:9. How it was that tens of thousands of Soviet-built trucks were destroyed by German direct fire during the course of the war, seeing as BD argues "US trucks were used at the front, USSR ones in the rear."?
12. Why does Max Hastings qualify as a political journalist? [/QB]
Point 9 - what is your point? I am assuming there is one actually.
Volksgrenadiers
in Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord
Posted
Perhaps they didn't trust a part time soldier with a full rifle such as an FN/SLR? I suspect this was the case....
Was it also not known as the Sterling SMG by then?
A proper weapon - unlike the Sten that looks like it has been made out of spare bits of plumbing pipe.
[ March 24, 2005, 03:27 AM: Message edited by: blue division ]