Wartgamer

The Canadians never fought in the bocage and I'm led to believe many British battalions never did, either. </font>

I suppose it would be interesting to compare US and CW casualties during the fight across france. The US starts out way behind due to a bad showing on D Day. I believe that US casualties were 200K for the whole D Day to VE day. I actually agree with JonS about Jason's theories. It does not seem that the German division was that well entrenched. Its just another example how hard it is to defeat infantry with artillery if they are not out and about. And it does not take hours of bombardment to cut commo wire. It can be done rather quickly. 15-30 minutes. Even quicker when you have a general idea about the units dispositions (which was the case). The German command should have taken some Corp or Army action if such a barrage was going on. I suppose this battle is worth further reading. And the British arty during the Somme was nearly useless. One division commander DID use his arty correctly and achieved his goals. The French taught him how it seems. [ March 12, 2005, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Thats wargame thinking. You have to fight another day. The US had the lowest rate of casualties didn't they? Must have been a fluke huh? If those 25 pdr shells were replaced with 105mm shells, perhaps the battle would have been different? I am surprised that Jason has not jumped on that fact.

quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- comms throughout the [84 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All this says is that some weapons were destroyed during the barrage. Its apparent that you think it was because of counter battery. I disagree and since its apparent that the Germans did not fire, how do you show that it was counter battery fire then? For someone that feels at ease calling people names, you sure do show a remarkably silly logic patterns. You seem like a particularly testy fellow and I hope you get help. A German inf division being supported by 147 odd pieces? Seems a bit much?

It was actually in the thousands if you followed the earlier math. Lets say that German losses including POW were 1500, its still 266 shells for each German 'victory'. Many of them fought and it was no cake walk. The CW forces suffered 5% cas among inf? Perhaps they also had armor losses? Most people would recognize this is as a waste of arty. If the CW units had any good counterbattery, they could have easily just used 1/10th the shells in conjunction with detection units to achieve the main result of all those shells; ie. stopping the German defense by neutralizing the German arty. They could have smothered it once it disclosed itself. Creeping barrages could have been replaced with fast firing precision missions against definite enemy positions. I suspect the attacking forces had much in the way of armor advantage also. They probably had a OK advantage in infantry. They certainly had the arty advantage. And the air forces. But the Germans still fought. They were not completely neutralized. They were no where near destroyed (but heavy weapons may have had a loss rate). The CW won but still had casualties and expended an enormous amount of firepower. [ March 12, 2005, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

I respectfully think that you are changing the parameters. You are actually a very good poster and bring up good discussions. This is like the old board I remember from a few years ago. Not sure if you were around then. [ March 12, 2005, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Nah, they probably just have accounts of CW infantry companies with all kinds of weapons cross attached. I bet a German two company attack could easily defeat a CW inf company. One attacking company pins the british easily and the other attacking company closes.

Why not just wait for an enemy attack and then you get the best kills per round? The best Attrition is a Defense? The whole attrition aspect is another WWI throwback. The Veritible data shows just how difficult dug in troops are to get at with arty. Once they are in the bunkers, trenches, etc. They are like dugin ticks. You can't attrite what you can't get at. The absolute best way to use artillery, when trying to win a war of actually taking ground, is to have a very short duration intense bombardment that is followed up by quickly moving attack forces. It isn't a new concept, many good military units were doing it in WWI! This actually saves shells. You get maximum bang per buck. Fast firing artillery is the best followed by masses of slower firing weapons. The US actually had both with the 105mm. The TOT and Concentrations that the US practiced were superior to any other nation. Its becoming apparent that guns did not have as many shells delivered that they could fire. Even a 1 shell a minute rate can't be kept up. Shooting 200-500 shells and getting a casualty, who may be patched up anyway, is poor returns. You could get better attrition by using trained snipers. [ March 12, 2005, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

5. AMMUNITION. Tanks will normally travel into action with 75mm gun loaded with one round High Explosive set at delay. Troop and Squadron leaders tanks may carry Armour Piercing or White Phosphorous Smoke if preferred. I assume this means that the loaded round for the leaders could be AP or WP depending on the immediate threats? I believe the US tankers stored HE with delay being the normal setting. SQ being a commanded loader drill. Delay had the most uses under most situations then. There are reports that there were problems with the fuses also. Sometimes the delay would not work or took too long and the shell would fly skyward typically. So SQ may have been the stored state then. Some of that SOP is BS. Brits abandoned shermans and everyone knows it. So did everyone else.

I wouldn't knock it if it works. Simple concentrations are a much more "primitive" use of arty, in terms of the calculations needed to fire them. I beg leave to doubt that, given that the US had a doctrine of "fire for destruction" as opposed to the RA's "fire for neutralisation", and the characteristics of the 105mm howitzer (bigger bang, steeper angle) make it hard to follow up as closely as 25-pdr. Leaving aside the fact that Commonwealth gunners were the most professional and effective artillery of any in WW2. All the best, John. </font>

The CW infantry certainly were bled in the Bocage they had to fight through. The vickers, while an excellent weapon for many defensive situations, is not very useful in this situation. Having a light belt fed weapon like many armies had would have helped them.

The 25 pdr is somewhat of a light shell. Indeed, its a small HE carrier. They had to be used as a neutralizer/fragment-maker. Jason did have some interesting data as far as what is needed to stop 105mm class shells from getting casualties. Its apparent that the earthworks needed to stop a 25 pdr would be much less. 1.75 pds HE (25 pdr) vs. 4.88 pds HE (105mm)? Do not even compare them. http://nigelef.tripod.com/wt_of_fire.htm This website claims that a US 105mm is about 70% greater equivalent than a 25 pdr. I also disagree that a 25 pdr is good for a creeping barrage. One of the factors is the fragment size. Shells with small percentage of HE tend to make large fragment chunks. these fly great distances. Shells with high HE content blast the casing into smaller pieces that lose velocity over distance. Having a weapon with very tight 50% zones (or using a charge that attains that), would be a preferable creeping barrage method. The troops are trying to stay as close to the barrage as possible. Shorts would certainly be a problem. Some data I have for German weapons shows that higher velocity charges leads to tighter spread of the shells. [ March 12, 2005, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Table 2 - Shell and Filling Weights HE Shell Weight (lbs) HE % Weight 76.2-mm OF354 14 10.9 25-pdr 25 7.0 3.7-in How 28 9.0 10.5-cm Gr38 33 9.3 105-mm M1 33 14.8 122-mm OF 462 48 16.9 [ March 12, 2005, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Yes I feel that the CW infantry org is a little odd (or WWI-headed). The option for a belt fed MG is not at the platoon or company level and when available, its a water cooled fixture from a divisional unit. I don't need to read a book unless it can describe how a lone company WITHOUT non-organic weapons, could fare either attacking a platoon or defending against a multicompany attack. I would guess that they could not.

Yes I thought as much. So, were you a pisser or a crapper or both? As far as artillery tactics, this whole Veritible action kind of has a WWI feel to it. This is late WWII? [ March 12, 2005, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

The German MG34 could certainly be fired from the hip/slung. I would imagine that its semiauto feature would allow someone to put a fast string of single shots during a short rush. The MG42, with its terrific rate of fire and full auto-only 'feature' looked to be a hand full to fire while not on the ground. It would not allow very accurate firing on the move like a MG34 or a BREN. The BAR could be fired from the shoulder on the move and many took the bipod off also.

If thats what you have done, then I guess that was the start. I have had high velocity automatic weapons fire over my head. Also impact the ground near me. No HE beyond close proximity to hand grenades. I have extensive reading, just as many of the others here, in regards to this. I have had single shot HV rifles going over my head approx 20 feet. The only indication of where it came from was the report. In indirect MG, you would not get that since the MGs are so far away. Also, the bullets will have scrubbed much velocity at longe range. It would not have the same feel as a string of 30 cal going over your head that direct fire has. Being under a real arty barrage may be an experience few people have had here. Certainly no one has experienced anything like a TOT or massive shelling like Veritable. Readings indicate that the effects are like being bounced around, beaten up, gagging from dust/dirt/fumes, intense discomfort to say the least. Many report a feeling of being dazed, punch drunk, and needing time to shake the effects off. Deafness and ringing in the ears can effect anyone that does not cover the ears and opens the mouth to equalize pressure. The need for water is intense afterwards. Urinating on ones self can be common and there is the occasional crapper. A persons first experience of this is probably the worst. The odd occurance of someone actually fleeing under intense bombardment is typically a new person. Suicide also happens. larger HE like carpet bombing drives people crazy. [ March 12, 2005, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

And the book has examples of single infantry companies, using just its won organic weapons taking on the enemy?

My understanding of the initial fighting in france is that the CW were really the 'panzer' units and the US the 'grunts' (in a very broad sense). I just find it hard to imagine a CW infantry company operating in any 'lone' sense (JUST its organic weapons only) and taking on even an isolated German platoon. They would need to use the BRENs as suppressing weapons and endangering any, like assaulting with them, could deplete the firepower of the unit.

And you can tell if its friendly or hostile? And it isnt muffled out by all the other noise? The planes, the AA, the arty, the whole wall of sound? An explosion occurring in your vicinity has much more sinister intentions. And indirect MG fire is very spread out on the recieving end. Hitting anything is just luck and would be percieved as single shots and not the same as if you were being targeted by a directly firing MG. This is why I would not use individual guns but rather a dozen guns all targeting the same 'area'. This way, its a percieved mass of bullets dropping. And, as you can see, its very limited in actual area you can effect. If they all target a small farm lets say, about 100 yds square, then they can possibly keep it neuted as long as they fire. But they will eat up much ammo and it cant last forever. About 17min to maybe a an hour. And its a very small area considering the total area that is being attacked. Unlike a HE attack, once its stopped, its rapidly recovered from. Troops in trenches would have been safe and anyone with any overhead cover untouchable. HE deafens, shellshocks, creates massive dust and displacement of soil. MG bullets? c'mon. [ March 12, 2005, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

UK/Can inf cas during this phase were 459, incl 110 on mines, spread across 12 bns. And what do you attribute the 349 non-mine casualties to? A non-neutralized enemy I hope? The Germans did fight back is the bottom line. I am sure some POWs were taken without a fight, Many Germans fought first and then gave up and some still either ran completely away or withdrew after some combat. And, of course, some died during combat. I suppose that if you 'neutralize' the enemy, and do not followup with an assault on that enemy, you have just pissed away material and wasted an opportunity. The first part of the fire plan accomplished just that. The creeping barrage, with its inherent dependancy on troops arriving right after a position has been barraged, is such a primitive use of artys potential. The US would have used the shells better. [ March 12, 2005, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Did the CW not use Sherman tanks with 30 cal and 50 cals? They must have had an ammo supply for these?

CW Intel Officer: "Why did you surrender to our forces, you Nazi Bastard you?" German POW: "It vus your excellent use of ze Vickers Masheengunts hitting the woofs of ze dugowts! I knew ze var vas lost then!!"

Yes I am contesting Jason's theory (quite successfully and thanks for the data). But if the troops were already under such indirect fire, I would imagine that the MG fire would have another effect beyond the limited thinking of a 'thickening agent'. The arrival of MG fire would give the defending troops the impression of proximity of enemy forces. And yes, most firepower can have a neutralizing effect, most people, including me, know it. But the fact that even the smallest indirectly fired HE type projectile can have the neutralizing effect of the impression of danger (it make a bang) can not be said of MG bullets. They must land very close to actual enemy position. But I would challenge anyone that thinks JUST indirect MG fire is going to cause much of it. 188 x MMG (Vickers) (2,000,000 rnds) Each gun has about 17 minutes worth of 'neut' power. Spread out over the time period, it would have been best used at the tail end of a targeted area. IE. a known enemy held group of buildings that has just been shellacked by real indirect fire weapons. Just distributing bursts randomly across 260 minutes may have made some officer happy but its just pissing away bullets. I would attribute the POWs to many things. As anyone would. The war situation (prospects looking down at the time), just having an unreasonable amount of enemy attention, being out numbered (did you forget about this?) and some other things. My math is actually quite good. It needs no pants. And, yes, the CW is probably the least interesting to me until lately. Some have told me that it is difficult to discuss the CW with some fans of these forces. But I bet there are many nice ones just the same. [ March 12, 2005, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=003726 I think the data in the thread Veritible clearly defeats Jason's theories. You can't attrite what you can't get at. Fireplan for VERITABLE Main Plan: 576 x 25-pr. (221,758 rnds PD, 1,200 rnds VT) 248 x 5.5-in. (53,646 rnds) 32 x 4.5-in. (incl in 5.5-in total) 76 x 3.7-in. HAA guns (20,616 rnds, all airburst) 36 x 155mm (4,688 rnds) 40 x 7.2-in. hows (2,593 rnds PD, 432 rnds VT) 4 x 240mm hows (48 rnds) 2 x 8-in. guns (24 rnds) 12 x rocket projectors, each with 32 rails. (5,730 rnds) Total: 1,014 guns* (plus rockets), 306,047 rnds (5,433 tons) Pepperpots: 114 x 40-mm Bofors LAA guns (100,000 rnds HE) 24 x 17-pr A-Tk guns (4,000 rnds) 60 x 75mm (Shermans) (17,000 rnds HE) 80 x 4.2-in mortars (24,000 rnds HE) 188 x MMG (Vickers) (2,000,000 rnds) Total (excl MMG): 278 guns, 145,000 rnds (520 tons) Area to be assaulted was bombarded from 0500 till 0920 08FEB45, then from 0920 for six hours a barrage was fired to support the infantry as they advanced. Enemy consisted of German 84th Inf Div, in particular the forward 5 bns. 1,115 PWs were captured from these units, and it is estimated that the fireplan killed or injured a total of 60 men. An unreported number were killed during infantry combat. Total enemy strength in the area was estimated at 2250-2700 men, so about 3% of this combat strength was lost to the fireplan. 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. UK/Can inf cas during this phase were 459, incl 110 on mines, spread across 12 bns. Jon Edit: revised numbers based on better info. There is confusion in the sources between the amount dumped, the amount fired, and the time frame in which rounds were fired. The above info is from ORS Report No.26 - Fire Support in Operation VERITABLE, Effect on Forward Defensive Positions. * Guns were from: 24 fd regts 20 mdm regts 3 HAA regts 19 hvy btys 1 super hvy regt 1 rkt bty [ March 12, 2005, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]