Ken Talley Posted October 16, 1999 Share Posted October 16, 1999 I am curious how the jeep and bren carrier's transportation capability is modeled. Will they be able to transport small infantry teams, bazookas/piats, machinegun teams and tow small anti-tank guns? Also will small vehicles such as jeeps/bren carriers have an inherent driver? Or must they be occupied by a unit before they can be driven? I am also curious about roadblocks. I read some of the AAR's of the 38th Cav this week and roadblocks were frequently encountered. They were usually trees downed across a road. Sometimes they were mined and sometimes not. Although I know that different types of roadblocks existed in towns and cities. How will CM handle roadblocks graphically? Will we be able to remove roadblocks? While we are on terrain, here are a couple of terrain types on my wish list for the future. Barns would be a nice as an additional building type. They are kind of unique in that both vehicles and towed anti-tank guns can easily enter a barn. They provide complete concealment, even from the air, except in the direction of the barn doors. Which of course, if closed, provide 100% concealment. Another interesting terrain type for the future could be haystacks. When in season, they can be as tall as a building. They provide very good concealment and block LOS but offer no hard cover. Great potential ambush positions when on defense. I don't know who remembers the Cavalry debates from the past, but the 38th Cav AAR's provide very detailed information on the activities of US Cavalry. I am now convinced that US Cavalry frequently attacked and defended with organic dismounted troops. I believe the infantry component was provided by jeep carried infantry of the recce platoons. I believe halftracks were also used to carry the recce infantry. Although I also read accounts of even M-8 crews dismounting to serve as infantry which really surprised me. I think for all practical purposes the jeeps served the same role as trucks in transporting infantry w/i the recce units. Although the jeeps also provided a pure recce role as well. The AAR's also make many references to flares in prepared positions. Even going so far as to state that flares were preferred over mines due to casualties caused by friendly mines. Some very interesting reading. Anyway some thoughts while we wait. Ken [This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 10-15-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 16, 1999 Share Posted October 16, 1999 Jeeps, Universal Carriers ("Bren Carrier" was an earlier model), and Kübelwagens can take small teams (3 or less men) and some AT guns. Since team weapons and their crews can not be seperated, and neither can vehicles and their drivers, we had to abstract the AT thing and the smaller vehicles. You can tow an AT gun, and carry its crew, with a Jeep, even though the reality is that this isn't possible. With medium to large transport the AT gun crew fills the vehicle so there are no problems there. Generally the small vehicles weren't meant to tow stuff so this isn't a big deal. Yes, more buildings would be nice. We want to do that, but have to wait for a finer resolution of base graphics first. Man, that cav thread was a LONG time ago, wasn't it! Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Deans Posted October 16, 1999 Share Posted October 16, 1999 "You can tow an AT gun, and carry its crew, with a Jeep, even though the reality is that this isn't possible" The jeep was the prime mover for the 6pdr AT gun in airborne and airlanding units. The gun det consisted of the gun, a jeep and its crew. An obviously limited ammo supply was present too. A wee addition..... Rob Deans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 17, 1999 Share Posted October 17, 1999 Yup, knew that The Jeep was also the standard mover for the outdated 37mm AT gun as well. I just meant that if you looked around a division, you would far more likely see a Jeep without something in tow. Funny note... even though the 37mm AT gun was a joke by even 1941, I know plenty of Jeep owners (today) who absolutely go nuts when they hear of one for sale. See, the gun might have been useless for most of the war, but it looks cool behind a restored Jeep in a parade (and doesn't take the much room in your barn/garage either!). Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted October 17, 1999 Share Posted October 17, 1999 Hehe... I'm sure that a 37mm would even look good behind a Weasel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 18, 1999 Share Posted October 18, 1999 Yeah, but those buggers cost as much as my Weasel Oddly enough, a working 57mm AT is not that much more expensive than some of the 37mm ones I have seen for sale. Rarity I gues is one factor, bulk is the other. The bigger something is the less most people are willing to pay. Why do you think you can pick up a T34/85 for about the same as a Kettenkraftrad (if you can find one!)? Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted October 18, 1999 Share Posted October 18, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Funny note... even though the 37mm AT gun was a joke by even 1941…<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Consider this (from the US Army’s Combat Lessons (Number 1) May 1944, pg 28): Miscellaneous Comment (Various Small Infantry Unit Commanders): "…37mm AT gun: Very mobile. It’s artillery; good against anything - vehicles, pillboxes, personnel, houses. Gets in faster than the mortar. If I had to throw away any heavy weapons, the ‘37’ would be the last to go." Most wargamers tend to be overly fixated on tanks, especially big German ones. Don’t let the "AT" in "37mm AT" deceive you - there’s a whole bunch of stuff to shoot at on a battlefield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 18, 1999 Share Posted October 18, 1999 True enough, as it was the same gun mounted on the highly regarded M8 Greyhound and (not so highly regarded <g>) M3/M5 Stuart Light Tank. High rate of fire and plentiful ammo supply is a plus in many circumstances. However, the towed 37mm AT did not see much action in the ETO (especially Normandy on) because of its lack of punch. However, it was found to be very effective in the Pacific Theater as it was light, easy to move, and effective against most anything the Japanese posessed (includin their tanks). It would appear that the quote you dug up was talking about its usefullness in the PTO, not ETO. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonFox Posted October 18, 1999 Share Posted October 18, 1999 I dislike the term "Bren carrier" as it has led to the unfortunate assumption (seen in many wargames I might add) that it was the only way it was seen. Universal carrier is more appropriate but less frequently used. Any reading of British or Commonwealth AARs show the usefulness of this nifty little vehicle which has apparently not been adequately modelled in any wargame I have played. It was quickly recognized that the single Bren was insufficient firepower and numerous field modifications were made some of which were very common. For example by mounting a Vickers which was cooled using the vehicles radiator system a higher sustained rate of fire was acheivable than for the standard Vickers mount. When added to the Bren and the good mobility of the vehicle one had a good source of mobile fire support. The 3" mortars were also very commonly mounted in the carrier to provide mobility when attacking. I have also read a number of reports of carriers laying smoke screens to cover a withdrawal-quite how they did this is a mystery to me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted October 18, 1999 Share Posted October 18, 1999 Your comments about the 37mm in the PTO are quite right; it was better suited for that theatre for various reason. The quote I gave was actually from Sicily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonFox Posted October 18, 1999 Share Posted October 18, 1999 To answer my own question the carrier was equipped with a smoke discharger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bryan Corkill Posted October 18, 1999 Share Posted October 18, 1999 The beauty of the 37 was the cannister round, when in doubt, go back to basics. Was a cannister round also made for the 57mm and 3"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 18, 1999 Share Posted October 18, 1999 Simon, you probably know this but for the others out there... "Bren Carrier" is actually the official designation for a specific model of first generation of the vehicle, and since it was the most common variation in at least the early days (from what I can tell) it looks like the name carried over to the updated version, the Universal Carrier. Once a name sticks it is hard to, uhm, unstick it As you say Simon, this has lead to a misunderstanding of what this useful little vehicle carried. We even include the WASP flamethrower version Brian, no kidding? Well, in that terrain (i.e. rough and hilly) I can see this being a valid point. Trying to lug full sized artillery or a decent AT around in Italy must have been a REAL pain in the butt. But as with all weapons, some swear by them and some swear at them. Their use after 1943 in the ETO seems to have been quite limited (US Airborne had them, for obvious reasons). Bryan, you mean the bigass shotgun shell they made for it? I don't think they did make them for other guns, but am not sure. Certainly sounds lethal! Steve P.S. I saw (in person) a Universal Carrier and two T-16s (larger US version) for sale a couple of weeks ago. I was tempted, but I don't even have time to work on the Weasel I already own, so perhaps another day Plus, the wife would have nixed any attempt at practical application of that temptation! [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-18-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonFox Posted October 19, 1999 Share Posted October 19, 1999 Yea, it gets really confusing when a common name for a vehicle is applied to a number of different variants and marks. The carrier came as the original prewar "Bren" carrier then the MkI and MkII universal carriers, then there was the US built T-16 which was bigger but also the Canadian built Windsor which was evan larger again. The later versions were used extensively from Normandy onwards (CMs time frame!). The later types were larger because the MkI & II couldn't really handle towing a 6 pounder and carrying ammo etc. Also these larger versions could just about accomodate an infantry section. So which one(s) are you planning on putting in? This problem also applies to the Kangaroos which were initially Priests (M7s) with the guns removed and could accomodate 20 infantry and one crew. One driver of these vehicles earned himself a MM by ramming a Tiger, tipping it over and capturing the crew. Hence the name Ram Kangaroo (hehe just joking ). These Priest Kangaroos were replaced around Sept/Oct 1944 with the Ram Kangaroo which was a Ram tank with the turret removed. These could carry only 8 infantry (1 section) with a crew of 2 but had a hull mounted .30 cal machine gun and better protection. Take your pick . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 19, 1999 Share Posted October 19, 1999 I'll have to get back to you on the final list of various Universal models which we will include, but we are paying attention to the fact that they aren't just "Brens" in an armored box We are planning on having 3 types of Kangaroos. The field modified Priests, the Ram Kangaroo, and the Stuart Kangaroo. Not sure how common the last one is, but since we have a texture set for it, and the model is just a turretless Stuart, why not? Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted October 20, 1999 Share Posted October 20, 1999 Your list of vehicles is more than enough to fight the vast majority of NW Europe battles. I like the inclusion of the captured French H39s. If I could make a request (perhaps for the future) it would be for the Becker conversions which consisted of German SP artillery on French chassis. The most common used the Chenillette Lorraine armoured transporter ('Lorraine Schlepper') but Hotchkiss tanks, Somua HT's and Renault 35R's were also used. 21st Panzer Div. mainly used substantial numbers of these vehicles throughout the Normandy campaign. Alfred Becker was a German artillery officer who used his family's industrial contacts in Germany to have the conversions done at Alkett in Berlin-Spandau. They included 75mm Pak 40, 150mm howitzer and multi-barrel mortar versions . Cheers, Mike O'Brien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted October 20, 1999 Share Posted October 20, 1999 I just can't wait to tool around in a 'Bren Carrier' (sorry I still call them that). I have loved them ever since Panzer Leader. They made GREAT scouts in that game ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 21, 1999 Share Posted October 21, 1999 Mike, Becker is a dirty word around the BTS virtual offices That guy made sooooooo many screwed up, marginal vehilces it isn't funny! OK, some were decent, and a few were made in somewhat respectable numbers, but the others were marginal or "one offs". Also, the data for some of these vehicles is really lacking to say the least Our problem is that we don't have the time to create our own texture sets for these guys. Remember, our textures, for the most part, come from 1/35th scale models. These are still time consuming to make into texture sets, but since few people make Becker conversions we can't draw upon this resource. However, we are trying to get the single most important of his conversions in -> Marder I. This is one that was made in somewhat decent numbers (130+ still in Normandy) and was actually very usefull. We shall see! Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted October 25, 1999 Share Posted October 25, 1999 Hehe, LOL, yes Becker's 'panzers' are a bit of a problem. Please DON'T delay CM v1.0 just to include them as one of us is likely to get lynched Perhaps I should be forced to scratch-build a model as penance for mentioning them Only 1/35th scale currently available are some of those pricey resin kits. 'Cri.El. Models' do both the Pak40 and 15cm versions of Lorraine Schlepper and 'ALBY Miniatures' also do the Pak40 version. 'On Track Models' do the 10.5cm on H39 chassis and 'Ironside/Azimut' do the 4.7cmPak/Renault R35. Must admit I just think they look 'cute'. Don't have any stats but I assume the superstructures were made of the same thin, low-grade armour as Marder II/IIIs or Wespes. Probably slow too considering the top-heavy, overloaded chassis. You probably already know this stuff, Steve, but in case anyone else is interested here are some 'Becker' facts. Virtually all SP artillery in 21st Pz Div. in Normandy was a Becker conversion. The artillery regt. had 43 15cm howitzers on the H39 and 45 on Lorraine chassis. 'Stug' Abt. 200 had 20 Lorraine Schleppers with PAK 40 ('Marder 1') and 30 with 10.5cm howitzers. It also had a platoon of Somua MCG half- tracks mounting 16X81mm mortar barrels rigged to load and fire simultaneously. The hvy comps of the two PzGren regts.were each equipped with Somua MCG half-tracks mounting PAK 40s. Total known numbers used in NW Europe:- 4.7cmPak/R35 - 110 according to 'D-Day Tank Warfare' by Zaloga and Balin Pak40/Lorraine Schlepper ('MarderI') - 184 ('Panzers in NW Europe', Quarrie) Pak40/Somua 307(f)MCG H/T - 16 (German Army Semi-Tracked Vehicles Pt2, Chamberlain and Doyle) Cheers, Mike O'Brien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts