Wartgamer

The Company HQ is actually larger than I thought. Its 2 Offs and 33 EM. While many are clerk, cook, potato-peelers, there are still many bodies that might be modeled for combat situations. 17 basic soldiers are listed. Are these all ammo carriers? Stretcher men? 13 men across the whole company are messengers.

The designated 'sniper' seems to be an actual rifleman and would be part of a fireteam and not an independant 'unit'. Much like a bazooka can be part of the fireteam concept.

Here is the actual 1:1 TOE for a US Infantry Company during 1944. So how will the company be represented 1:1? How can it be 'fireteamed'? I am making assumptions on the previously released info that: 1. 1:1 will be everybody. 2. Fireteams will be a feature The Company HQ section might be 'fireteamed' to a actual CO with only one or two others. A RO man and a senior NCO. Another 'Company HQ' fireteam may be a small fighting team led by a another NCO. A further 'fireteam' may be the cooks and others who are part of the company. Whether these are actually represented 1:1 in some situations could be debatable. In a defensive situation, they may actually be in the area of operations. In many meeting engagements, I would think they would be off map. [ March 14, 2005, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

http://www.100thww2.org/100org/hwcom.html The US followed a similar approach. But they had a bugler. Where weapons are TOE can really be driven by the range of that weapon, the weight of the weapon and the weight of its ammunition. And to some degree, the expertise to use that weapon. Take the US 60mm mortar. While its payload is not that much greater than many 50mm, but its range is. Its a company mortar. It covers a company area very well. Its a weapon with sights and lends itself to indirect fire. Its also a weapon that needs some more training than the typical 50mm weapon. And it needs much in the way of ammo. Sometimes a Bn could go through 400+ rounds a day when attacking. having the weapons closer together makes this task easier. Belt fed MGs are a company (or lower) weapon. Even the archaic water cooled weapons are Battalion level weapons. [ March 14, 2005, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Actually, it was intended to provide an even greater hinderance to the enemy's ability to move troops, either forwards or rearwards. The MGs would have blanketed the area with a continous rain of rounds, falling nearly vertically. Any position without overhead cover, which had been missed by the heavier weapons would have provided little shelter from such an MG barrage. It was a tactic well developed during the Great War. </font>

http://www.coulthart.com/134/kia_stats.htm These are KIA/DOW (deaths) from a US Infantry Regt on a month by month basis. An interesting phenom is the drop in Officer deaths compared to enlisted after November. It also breaks down by where in the org these kills happened. Certainly, being in a front line unit is lethal. Being in a Cannon Company comparatively safe. There are 118 men in a cannon company yet this unit only reports 3 EM killed and no Officers during the whole war. The 134th Infantry Regiment was a part of the 35th Infantry Division during World War II, along with its sister infantry regiments the 137th and the 320th. From the time the 134th Infantry Regiment landed at Omaha Beach on July 5- July 6, 1944 until they departed for the United States on the Queen Mary after the war's end on September 5, 1945, they liberated or captured 124 towns. In the process the 134th suffered more than 10,200 casualties including over 1,200 soldiers who were killed in action. [ March 14, 2005, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

As usual, you're wrong. Can you think what the word 'supporting' might be doing there, and what it means? </font>

Actually Alchohol, and cigs, are not what a soldier needs when it is cold. They might make someone 'feel' better, but it worsens the physical condition. Yes, I know about Rum rations and most modern armies think its archaic. I just thought there was a correlation between increased arty use and increased drinking also. At this stage of the war, German daily supplies to arty may have been extremely low, perhaps 5-10 rounds per gun. I suppose it may have self-neutralized in 15-30 minutes if it actully fired.

Veritible, CW Armor

Absolutely. One of the biggest reasons casualties are so apparent is the way morale is handled through squads. It is far too easy for an entire squad to break, then lose men by men as they all run away. 1:1 should prevent a lot of this 'ant like' behaviour. Really 1:1 will be the biggest change for the CM series. And it can't come soon enough. Yesterday I had a MMG turn an 11 man FJ Squad completely broken - and they didn't even lose one guy! They were rattled for no reason whatsoever, every single guy, and it ruined the entire squads combat effectiveness. 1:1 will be a godsend. </font>

Another item of particular interest during this battle was the issue of rum. During the complete campaign in NW Europe 53 Division issued 2894 gallons of rum; in the seven days of the Reichswald 1228 gallons were consumed!

Neutralisation was 'complete' however, and comms throughout the div were rooted, which among other things rendered the German arty that did survive - about 2/3 of the 147-odd pieces supporting the 84th Inf Div - useless. This number (147) must be the grand total of all howitzers, mortars, ATG, IG and whatever else they had. It was not all artillery like 105mm or 150mm. The 105/150 arty that survived was severed by loss of commo after the barrage. As I said before, this could have been accomplished with much less effort. I am sure there were AT, mortars and other pieces that survived that contributed to the CW infantry losses. Indirect arty battalion were neuted but the German division still fought. I assume that about 20% of the German division was lost through KIA/WIA/MIA? In other words, there was still a division left after the first day? Most of its trech strength was zapped though? [ March 13, 2005, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/dosdonts/index.html Most units just find a small depression or shell hole, drive tank over it and thats all thats needed. Digging is just more incredibly hard work that a crew would have to do. Many combat accounts describe crews staying in the vehicle if they can't leave the front line. Tigars in the Mud comes to mind. And yes sleeping in any vehicle is uncomfortable but I recall at least one description where certain positions were better than others.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could be expected to fight a days battle, reload/refuel, perform first line maintaince, dig a foxhole and then they can sleep? Its BS. Many German crews would sleep in the vehicle or under it after parking it for the day. Surprised the report does not say how many times the crew needs to chew its food before swallowing.

I believe it was supposed to be a battalion weapon but who knows if all German battalions could have had them. Also, some German inf regts had 120mm instead of heavy inf guns (or I have read as much). I believe its 4 120mm mortars per inf battalion.

So the MG company has 12 MGs? I assume tripods? 6 81mm? How did the later 120mm mortar fit into a battalion org? Directly attached to Bn HQ? Good commo info there also. The point of the German MG company is that it is a fighting unit. With command and control and coordination. Its probably to be used for nailing down opposition, while the infantry companies manuver for better advantage. It is not a MG supply company doling out its firepower (unless thats needed) but still retains the majority of its firepower under control even if it does penny packet a HMG or two. [ March 13, 2005, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

But the player, could see the map first in a newly designed game, place the mines, and be debited IF the purchase routine were revamped. Will the maps shrink in cmx2? I suppose you might not know till you find out, but in general what is the shoot-for size envisioned?

Here's an idea thats abstracted but fun. Variable Cost Minefields. When you put mines along the map edges, they don't 'cost' as much. Or how about a ..(drumroll).. GIGANTIC HEXAGON? [ March 13, 2005, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Yes my thought was, and still is, a belt fed weapon. Not sure why its now a LMG. The US air cooled 30 cals are much lighter than a water cooled weapon or even a tripod MG34 or MG42. The fact that belt fed weapons were being used by advanced armies at squad/platoon/company levels, as organic arms, seems to have been the trend. Seems to have been the trend after the war. Seems to still be a good idea. I guess thats just ignorance on everyones part now according to some people here. I know that everyone is proud of their armies and arms but a CW inf company is just a fat platoon in some regards. Perhaps a German company is just a skinny battalion to others

http://home.freeuk.net/henridecat/bluecoat/bluecoat.htm I meant Operation Bluecoat. I suppose that someones tag here stuck in my mind.

You can certainly look at one gun. At DBP, thats probably what was happening. Individual guns were targeting individual targets. 2% 7% 16% 25% 25% 16% 7% 2% This is about the layout that dispersion takes across a modeled rectangle. Imagine a rectangular field with 8 zones of equal area marked out. Depending on where the infantry 'front-line' is situated, the numbers there are used. So a 50% zone data means the two center sections. If a weapon has a 96 yd 50% zone, then the total length of 'all' shells is actually 384 meters long (?). Very few fall in the outer 2% zones (48m each). The lateral math is similar but its narrower. 10 yd lateral zone translates to 40 yds width. The infantry line is almost nearly perpendicular to the line of fire. In general, a line of front line positions are layed out so that each position is seperated by roughly equal distance. They are spaced out along the front. They are not spaced out in depth towards the rear. Most front line units adopt this posture. Even mortar platoons are arranged this way. They may have lucrative depth targets, like ammunition behind them, but weapons and people are always parallel to the front lines. So how good a shoot you have is really which of the zones the gun (s) get across the front line. In the case of one gun firing at one trench 2ydx4yd modeled vulnerable area (this includes near misses that will be caving in trench sides and injuring occupants), lets say that one of the two 25% zones has been achieved (about as good as it gets). That is, the small trench is physically inside the 25% zone for both length and width. Roughly, if 100 shells are fired at the target, 25 will land in the 25% box, the total box area of 48ydx5yds=240yds^2. Since the target is only 8yds^2, its only 8/240=0.0333 the area. Note that I am also using the fact that the trench is located in the 25% lateral area, in other words, its about as good as it gets for the arty. But the rounds in this box has to also reflect that 25% again are laterally 'reduced'. You would have to fire approx 460 rounds or so to get this target. Note that you would have needed to have centered the dispersion on the target. In other words, directed fire by some means. It would have taken a dozen or so rounds to achieve this. This is overhead and sould be applied also. It does not matter if you have 4 guns converging fire 120 rounds each or one gun firing 460 times. Technically, if the gun is fired at a slow enough rate that the heat does not effect the trajectory. In reality, if you were firing multiple guns to converge, not every gun gets its 25% zone on the target. They are errors and some guns may be long or short and only getting 10% zones 'applied'. Longs and shorts are generally wastes. They are also a danger to friendlies. Creeping abrrages have a habit of killing friendlies because of this. The rather narrow width of the dispersion compared to the rather long length means that troops will spread out along the front lines. If they must bunch up, they must have 'shell-proof' cover readily available. Keeping positions 50 yds apart is advisable. One guns dispersion is then not translated into collateral kills. Another improvement is using any fold in the land so you can dig in a protective position that benefits from any 'reverse slope'. A squad in the field would spread out with individual soldiers having intervals but once shells starting falling, they should all converge to small protected bunkers. Thats what really happens. [ March 13, 2005, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

I have someone sending me a copy of a document about German field fortifications. The basic practice is having weapons pits with soem means of getting to shell-proof cover. So you have troops that can low crawl, rush to arty defeating areas. They don't stand still like some zombie force. Getting the shell proof dug is a priority before developing the rest of the weapons pits, etc.

But the AAT gains are negligible compared to the NT gains, in this case. However, AAT can be repeated in many places tomorrow, the day after, the day after that, etc, until the enemy collapses. Grinding, remorseless attrition (well, duh!). You can't maintain this sort of firing rate. You would probably ruin 25 pdr barrels in a month of shoots like this. Also, manufacture/delivery of this rate of rounds can't be maintained. As an attriting device, light artillery (25 pdr) is probably the worst. As a cover defeating weapon, the 25 pdr is inadequate. Firing at real firing rate levels and attrition goes to zip against dug in troops.

TANK STANDING ORDERS 2nd Canadian Armoured Regiment Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) 4th Edition, 5 Feb 1945 To give an SOP or Standing Orders or whatever you want to call this bilge to combat vets must have elicited many chuckles. Essential maintenance over sleep? Then you can dig a hole and sleep in it? No sleeping in tanks? Its Mickey Mouse BS.