Fausts and TO&E

[Simon Fox]

I have a couple of questions which are basically unrelated.

1) I know you guys have discounted the use of captured weapons for simplicities sake and because by and large it was pretty rare at the level of CM. But I would like to make a point about panzerfausts which were very much covetted by allied troops especially elites such as airborne and commandos. I think that there are far too many references to both specific instances and general observations of this to discount it as rare. Is it possible to enable scenario designers to access fausts for allied troops at their discretion even if they can't actually be captured on the battlefield and used.

2)On the subject of TO&E. Obviously under battlefield conditions these would vary considerably from the official levels. Is it possible to design a scenario using depleted units or is this to difficult to implement? On the same subject there is plenty of evidence for to accumulation of additional automatic weapons by veteran units compared to the official issue. I quote Cole in "The Ardennes Offensive...": "Although by this time the veteran ETO divisions were carrying BAR's and light machine guns far in excess of authorized allowances". As I understand it often the organic AT companies of US regiments were used to man these. Is there sufficient flexibility in CM to account for this?

[Guest KwazyDog]

While we are on the topic of Panzerfausts (hmm, is that spelt right ), I read a couple of accounts lately stating that by the end of the war most German vehicles had at least on of these contained within. Has anyone else read this?

It could give bailed out vehicle crews a nasty sting if so . Any opinions?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Simon,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think that there are far too many references to both specific instances and general observations of this to discount it as rare.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion. Out of the dozens of books we have read only a few instances of PFs being used by US troops come to light. I have also never seen a picture of a GI standing around with a PF, and that says something too. Especially because I have seen them with practically everything else, from a Lugar all the way up to a Sturmgeschutz. From our perspective it was no more common than a GI picking up any other weapon, so we will not support it. The general lack of widspread use (in our opinion) might be because PFs were dangerous to use and bazookas were plentiful.

Your point about the BARs is, however, completely valid. Our readings show that some units had as many as 3 BARs!! It was simply a 1:1 swap of a Garand for a BAR. Don't know how they had a meaningful ammo supply, but there you go It would be easy for us to do this, and I will suggest to Charles that Veterans and up get 2 BARs instead of the normal 1. BTW, veteran units had a habit of "collecting" lots of stuff, including trucks, jeeps, and even Shermans! I read about one rifle company that had almost a platoon of Shermans manned by their own troops.

KwazyDog,

Never heard about this, but no reason to say it didn't happen. Vehicle crews tended to get whatever they wanted because they had the luxury of being able to store most anything in some way. This means they could pick up a case of Sardines in one place and trade them for whatever they liked in another But when a crew bails they don't generally have time to take stuff with them, especially in an AFV. So German crews will not have PFs in CM.

Steve

[Ken Talley]

Hi Steve,

Will CM have generic scout teams of 4 or 5 men? Will we be able to voluntarily divide squads into half teams as in ASL?

Will we have unit organizations to choose from as in WF when designing scenarios or will we simply pick and choose from a roster of squads, vehicles, and guns?

I tried to do some research on US cavalry squadrons a few months back with little success. The WF TOE indicated that the Cav squadrons were completely organized of vehicles w/o a infantry component. I suspect that this is based on an official TOE. Yet I have read several reports indicating that US Cav would fight dismounted in platoon and greater strength. Do you know if the US Cav had some organic armoured infantry with dismount fighting capability either as a field modification of TOE or as an actual TOE? I ran into a brick wall trying to find TOEs of these units except with what was provided in WF.

I have been trying to visualize map creation for a 3D map like CM. Am I right to assume that there is an underlying hex grid in which we choose heights by hex for the ground base and then the computer smooths out elevation differences between hex grids? And then we drop building, walls, hedges, etc. onto the overall ground base? Will certain terrain features such as ditchs alongside roads be too small in width to display in a CM Map?

Sorry for all the questions, but definitely curious,

Ken

[This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 07-02-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Simon,

Charles just reminded me that the '45 version of the US Rifle Squad has 2 BARs. This was an official acknowledgement that it was needed.

Ken,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Will CM have generic scout teams of 4 or 5 men? Will we be able to voluntarily divide squads into half teams as in ASL? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No generic squads/teams for scouting. In real life these guys came from one or more of the Platoons, and varied in size from 3-12 men (roughly). You can split units, but there is a penalty. Each becomes less effective because cohesion is disrupted. Since outpost/recon teams were not supposed to fight, just observe and get back with info, this is quite realistic. Also, you can not choose who gets what weapons to prevent cheating.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Will we have unit organizations to choose from as in WF when designing scenarios or will we simply pick and choose from a roster of squads, vehicles, and guns?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure how WF does it, but CM gives you the ability to buy Platoons/Teams, Companies, Battalions, and individual vehicles. You can then edit out individual units (like make a platoon only have 2 squads), but you can't screw around with internal squad/team organization.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do you know if the US Cav had some organic armored infantry with dismount fighting capability either as a field modification of TOE or as an actual TOE?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you mean Armored Cavalry Recon Squadrons... my TO&E (which is just totals for the whole unit) show 32 HTs and 20 trucks. So certainly they have infantry. This also make sense because no armored formation that I know of is supposed to operate without an infantry escort.

So if WF said it is vehicles only... I'd say it is wrong.

If we made such a goof, you could easily get around it by putting whatever vehicles and squads you want into the battle. AT CM's scale organic TO&E is not a big concern, so it doesn't matter if you have HTs and platoons that were not "officially" supposed to be together.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Am I right to assume that there is an underlying hex grid in which we choose heights by hex for the ground base and then the computer smooths out elevation differences between hex grids?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

UGH!! NONONONONONONO No hexes and massive height abstractions ruining CMs realism whatsoever There are several threads on this back last month I think. Do a search using words like "grid" and "hex" and you should pull up some interesting stuff. However, this is the motherload of information:

www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000223.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Will certain terrain features such as ditchs alongside roads be too small in width to display in a CM Map?

Sorry for all the questions, but definitely curious,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Glad to answer your questions as always. As you suspect, there are many subtle terrain features that are too small for CM's scale. We have each piece of terrain take these into account in an average way.

Steve

[Stephen Smith]

"Out of the dozens of books

we have read only a few instances of PFs being used by US troops come

to light. I have also never seen a picture of a GI standing around with a PF,

and that says something too."

I just recently read two books about General Ridgway, commander of 82nd Airborne. "On to Berlin" was one (by Ridgway) and "Ridgway's Paratroopers" was the other (by Claire something, or something like that). In one of these books, Ridgway said that by the time the Normandy battle was over, the 82nd had truckloads of captured panzerfausts-plenty to arm the division for Bulge, Market-Garden, etc. He didn't state numbers (i.e. one panzerfaust per squad, per soldier, per platoon, or what) but the implication was that captured panzerfausts were so prevalent, the were de facto part of 82nd airborne's TOE.

steve

[Fionn]

In essence though the Bazooka and Pzf served the same function so not allowing US troops to carry Pzfs isn't that big an issue.

I think this is one of those occasions where it occured in 1% of the cases but just isn't worth it to simulate.

Also, adding a corpse search command would lead to other difficulties with grenades and other basic ammunition types too IMO.

[Guest Big Time Software]

I have the "Ridgeway's Paratroopers" book somewhere around here. Been about 10 years since I read it. Dunno if I can find the references in there myself, as that book is thick

The thing that I remember about Ridgeway is that he is a typical general (i.e. stretches the truth a bit). But even if they *did* capture truckloads of PFs in Normandy, that wouldn't take them from Normandy into Germany. They would need an initial allotment of about a thousand to have all squads get even one PF. And since they are one shot, the supply would need to be many times that for it to last. Don't forget PFs were used against infantry, trucks, and also tanks.

Still, I don't doubt that some guys in the 82nd had some PFs some of the time for some of the war. But it probably wasn't true for all of the 82nd as a whole, and certainly isn't true for the entire US Army. Therefore, we aren't planning on support PFs for the Allies.

Steve

[Pak40]

"If you mean Armored Cavalry Recon Squadrons... my TO&E (which is just totals for the whole unit) show 32 HTs and 20 trucks. So certainly they have infantry. This also make sense because no armored formation that I know of is supposed to operate without an infantry escort."

You're way off with these numbers. Here's a typical Armored Cavalry Recon Squad:

3 Recon Troops, each containing: M8 Armored cars, a few halftracts, and several jeeps.

1 Assault Gun Troop: Consisting of 4 platoons of M8 75mm How.(2 each) and support vehicles.

1 Light Tank Co.: 3 Tank platoons of M5 light tanks(5 each) plus supporting sections.

There was also the HQ section and the HQ Service troop which supported the entire squadron.

There were no infantry attached to the squadron. This is suppost to be a recon troop, fast mobility, rarely staying in place. It was not meant to be a "slug it out" type of unit, therefore, infantry would only slow down the unit.

There were some cases in the Ardennes where these squadrons were told to defend the front lines. In these cases the men usually removed .50 cal MGs off of their jeeps and mounted them in fox holes, taking the role of infantry.

[Fionn]

Pak 40?

Even your stats below show they had infantry. Otherwise who did the jeeps and half-tracks carry?

By your own stats I figure we should be looking at several platoons of infantry. a few more of light tanks and some SP guns to round out the HE firepower.

[Ken Talley]

Hi Pak,

The problem is I have read of Cavalry units attacking dismouting. The following excerpt is from a description of the 113th Cavalry Group in Normandy from 7-8 July:

(((((Troop A, 125th Squadron passed through Goucherie at 0900 and advanced southwest. About 1700 yards southwest of Goucherie it was hit by the same heavy opposition which had been met by Troop C, and was forced back to Goucherie. This withdrawal was covered by the 113th Cavalry Squadron based on Goucherie. At 1100 the cavalry again tried to attack from Goucherie. This time the 113th Cavalry Squadron (Lt. Col. Allen D. Hulse) initiated movement to the west, but encountered considerable enemy resistance a mile west of the town.

The nature of the opposition met west of Goucherie soon indicated that not only the troops of the 639th Ostermark Battalion, but also the tough young Nazis of the 38th SS Panzer Grenadier Regiment were in that sector. Hampered by hedgerow terrain, the 13th Cavalry Group attack, which had been conceived as a cavalry advance, developed into a series of infantry fights in which the units kept to the roads and ran the gauntlet of heavy flanking fire from the hedgerows. Many of the troops had to fight dismounted, and full use of vehicular weapons was impossible.

Colonel Biddle, at I600 decided to take up a defensive position on a north-south line based on Goucherie-le Mesnil-Veneron. His decision was influenced both by heavy resistance in the le Mesnil-Veneron area, and by the knowledge that any advance due west from Goucherie would be exposed to a counterattack from the south which might result in uncovering the right rear of the 30th Division. The 113th Cavalry Squadron, with Troop A on the north and Troop B on the south of its zone, set up a defensive position a half mile west of Goucherie. Troop C established outposts in the town of Goucherie and secured the town proper. The 125th Cavalry Squadron organized defenses in the southern sector of the group zone with Troop A, reinforced, on the right, and Troop C, reinforced, on the left. A series of outposts was established, each consisting of two tanks and a squad of 12 men dug in about them for perimeter defense. Contact was made with Company I of the 120th Infantry on the southeast flank. ))))))

I am having a difficult time seeing cavalry units leaving vehicles unoccupied by pulling people out of their M-8's, jeeps, and M-5's to attack up a road. I am not sure where the 12 man squads came from either unless again, they are leaving vehicles unoccupied. These passages suggest some sort of infantry component. Steves mention of 32 halftracks may indicate an infantry component. To me, it makes sense to have an infantry component. Halftracks provide the mobility to fit into a cav unit. And mobile infantry can serve a number of roles w/i a recce unit. But I haven't seen an official TOE of a Cavalry Group specifically stating that infantry platoons were part of the unit. Also TOE's can be modified in the field w/o an official TOE modification. I am really curious but I don't really know the answer yet.

[This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 07-03-99).]

[This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 07-03-99).]

[Pak40]

Fionn,

"Even your stats below show they had infantry. Otherwise who did the jeeps and half-tracks carry?"

The jeeps' primary use was recon, they maybe had 3 people in one jeep (scouts). The half-tacks were ambulances. Many other jeeps had tailers that carried supplies.

There were NO infantry in these units. There's no infantry platoon listed anywhere in the TOE.

My sources are:

1)US Army Handbook 1939-1945 by George Forty

2)WWII Order of Battle by Shelby Stanton

The first book you can buy at Barnes and Noble for $10. The second book is harder to find.

[Moon]

Seems to me like a lot of ambulances for a few jeep drivers...

Seriously, I threw a look into the US Army Handbook from George Forty. When you look hard you will find that the "Cavarly Recce Squadron" had three "Recce Platoons" in each of its three "Recce Troops", and each Platoon consisted of 3xM8 Armored cars and 6 trucks (quarter-ton). My guess would be that the trucks carried infantry.

[This message has been edited by Moon (edited 07-04-99).]

[Pak40]

Hi Ken,

"These passages suggest some sort of infantry component. Steves mention of 32 halftracks may indicate an infantry component. "

Here are just a few stats on an Cav. Recon Squadron:

861 enlisted men & 48 officers.

52x M8 armored cars.

8x 75mm how. on motor carraiges

17x light tanks

32x Halftracks

4x Halftrack Ambulances

3x 81mm mortars

36x 60mm mortars

29x .50cal MG

68x .30cal MG

37x bazookas

20x 2.5 ton trucks

1x wreckers, heavy

107x .25 ton trucks(jeep)

3 Tank Recovery Vehicles

Take in to account there there are also food, ammo, gas, repair materials, personal gear. Everything else to support a mechanized battalion sized unit.

All of these halftracks, trucks and jeeps are supporting the fighting vehicles. They carry the supplies necessary to support 17 light tanks, 52 armored cars, and 75mm howitzers.

Every man is issued either a rifle, smg, or carbine. And of coarse, any man can be pulled out of his regular duty and be told to man a fox hole. This is where your 12 man squad came from. They were pulled from either a HQ section, maintence section, or ammo and supply section. They even could have been cooks.

[Pak40]

"and each Platoon consisted of 3xM8 Armored cars and 6 trucks (quarter-ton). My guess would be that the trucks carried infantry."

quarter ton trucks are jeeps, you can maybe fit 4 men in a jeep without any other materials. It's not exactly a good infantry carrier.

But in this case these jeeps were scout jeeps(that's why ther're in the Scout Section). probably had .30 cal mg mounted on them and only carried 2-3 people.

If there were an infantry platoon in the TOE, then it would show. For example, look at the TOE for an Armored Infantry Battalion. It shows Rifle companies with rifles platoons.

[Fionn]

32x Halftracks

4x Halftrack Ambulances

So by your own figures there's a distinction made between HT ambulances (4) and the other 32 which weren't HT ambulances.

37x bazookas

I'm guessing only dismounted infantry used bazookas.

I have no hard data one way or another myself its just that the data makes me think they had an organic infantry component.

[Ken Talley]

Hi Pak,

It sounds to me that if cavalry squadrons didn't have formal infantry components, they had at least defacto infantry components. If the unit felt the situation might require infantry, they would form infantry squads from excess personnel. If the need was on a relatively frequent basis, I would be surprised that the TOE was not field modified to reflect that need. It's seems wasteful to use specialized troops such as mechanics or cooks in the infantry role. I also doubt that they would be tremendously effective. It would make much more sense to have a dedicated infantry component if their need was relatively frequent. In particular, I could see a need when they performed defensive screening missions.

Also considering the reference to 12 man squads, aren't 12 man squads the standard size of US infantry squad? I am assuming the 15 stuarts were divided into seven outposts with seven 12 man squads. That is about 84 men detached from their regular duties which is a lot of excess personnel. I am also curious about the large number of bazookas. US armored infantry were issued larger numbers of bazookas than regular infanty.

So I am still not 100% convinced that they lacked an infantry component especially when I read about dismounted atacks. Well I just don't know. If there is an infantry component, the TOE's we have common access to don't reflect it.

I am assuming that is a typo on the 60mm Mtrs. Should it be 3 rather than 36?

I also ordered the US Handbook for $9.50 from Barnes and Nobe. I have been watching for that book for a year now. I really liked the Japanese and German ones.

[Ken Talley]

I just realized something. Jeeps can't be used to attack with their lack of armor. They wouldn't be very useful in defense either. Perhaps the dismounted infantry comes from the jeep crews. With 6 jeeps in a M-8 platoon, they could provide anywhere from 12 to 24 men. Park the jeeps and then you have the infantry component necessary for attack or defense. Jeep troops could be dual purpose infantry/scouts. They supply the troops for the Stuart outposts and the on-the-spot, unplanned dismounted attack by the 113th Cavalry Group. Perhaps that is the answer.

Of course if this is correct, you know what this means. CM will need to allow jeep crews to dismount and unite to form squads

[This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 07-04-99).]

[This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 07-04-99).]

[Fionn]

Ken,

I can just hear BTS groaning at the thought now ..

[Simon Fox]

BTS, I'm glad you've decided to do something about the extra BARs for veteran troops and I concur that the 'faust issue is not as widespread and probably not critical, but since I am a finicky argumentative bastard I am not going to let you off the hook this easily:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion. Out of the dozens of books we have read only a few instances of PFs being used by US troops come to light.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am currently compiling a list of references with relevant quotes (look out, hehe) but as steve points out if any unit comes to mind in this respect it is the 82nd. You can't dismiss Ridgeway just because he was a general, airborne generals tend to be a bit more involved and he and Gavin were well known for this. The 82nd first began using 'fausts in Sicily because they were sick of bazookas bouncing off german tanks and from then on they employed them "whenever they could get their hands on them" (Gavin).

Fionn,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In essence though the Bazooka and Pzf served the same function so not allowing US troops to carry Pzfs isn't that big an issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well theoretically they might be interchangeble but I think you might find the users might not see it that way! Neither the bazooka or the PIAT for that matter were a patch on the 'faust or 'schrek when it came to tank killing (other applications excepted). Of course they were all weapons of last resort.

[Fionn]

but since I am a finicky argumentative bastard

LOL Simon, welcome to the club .

I agree with you that the PzF and bazooka/Piat etc are different I guess I was just trying to say that its a small issue (but a relevant one nevertheless )...

I'm just glad to see we've got a more realistic 1 PzF per squad as opposed to the 10 PzFs per two men in CC3 .

[Pak40]

Ken,

There are definitly no organic infantry units in the Armored Rec Squadron just as there are no organic infantry units in a tank batallion. In fact, the only oragnic infantry units in the entire US Armor Division are in the 3 Armored Infantry Battalions.

The point I was trying to make by listing all of the equipment in the Squadron was this: There were so many support personell in the squadron that could easily be pulled off their jobs. There were over 900 men in an entire squadron but less than half did the actual fighting and recon. The rest were HQ, support, supply, maintenance peresonell.

The passage you quote about the 12 man ouposts could easily be supplied by any of these personell.

Another good example is an Infantry Divison: About half of the 13000 men in an Infantry Division did the actual fighting. The other half were artillery, supply, HQ, medical, engineers, cooks, clerks etc...

In times of dire need any of these personell could be pulled of regular duty and told to defend or attack. This makes them infantry for the time being but I wouldnt call them organic infantry.

[Pak40]

"I am also curious about the large number of bazookas. US armored infantry were issued larger numbers of bazookas than regular infanty. "

"I'm guessing only dismounted infantry used bazookas."

The large number of bazookas dont surprise me. Other units have large numbers of bazookas:

Armored Division Artillery - 120 bazookas

Tank Batallions - 35 bazookas each

Signal Company - 24 bazookas

usually these units were givin a large number of bazookas because this was there only defense against an armoured breakthrough by the enemy. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these bazookas "found" there way into some of the rifle companies.

These bazookas were issued to the recon saquadron because it was basically their only defense against medium tanks. 37mm cannons dont have much AP punch, so bazookas could be used if the situation was desperate enough(which was probably a rare occation).

Since a Cav unit has good speed, sometimes a it is used to get to a place fast and hold it until reinforcemnts arrive. Bazookas could come in handy in this situation.

[Ken Talley]

Hi Fionn,

I suspect it is worse than a groan...

The capability of dismounting vehicle crews and the uniting of units may already be in the game in some form. I know that crews abandon vehicles when knocked out. I don't know if you can do it voluntarily. And I know that squads can be divided into smaller units. I don't know if they can re-united. I guess the scenario designer could start the crews dismounted as squads. Although without dismount capabilities, you would lose the ability to reflect some of the versatility of US Recce units. I don't know if the programming difficulties are too extreme to provide this capability.

And Pak, thanks for the info on the Recce unit composition. I had been looking all over the place for that information.

Ken

[Guest Big Time Software]

First of all, I think everybody here can forget about dismounted vehicle crews fighting as infantry in all but the most dire circumstances. Uncle Sam did not spend all its money and time training someone to use a particular vehicle so he could run around with his carbine and .45 like a cowboy. There were times when this happened for sure, but on the scale described in the quote above? Must have been pretty desperate (or had some attached infantry) as one or two minor German attacks could easily have wiped out the crews of several vehicles.

As far as the US Cav Recon Squadron details go, I used Stanton's book. Details about the inner workings of formations are vague in general in his book, and VERY vague when it comes to a the Cav Recon Squadron. This is why Charles just ordered something that is far more detailed at CM's level. However, I find it amazing that 32 HTs were used to tote around nothing but supplies, cooks, mechanics, etc. Since there doesn't seem to be any organic infantry, I suppose they were used to haul around the mortars or some bazooka teams. Still, that is a heck of a lot of HTs... What we need to see is not weapons allotments, but formation TO&E. In other words x sections of this, y of that, and z of this armed with this and that. Hopefully we will get the data soon as Stanton has none of this for Cav Recon and is therefore largely useless.

Ken, any crew (vehicle/team weapon) can bail if it is immobilized. However, once bailed they can't reman the weapon system. Divided units can rejoin, but only with their original half.

Steve