book accuracy

[Hockler]

I remember the quote "don't believe everything you read," so what can you tell me about this quote since you said captured weapons were rarely used.

"Whenever possible the troops in the front line opted for the Thompson M1 or used captured German MP38's and MP40's," (instead of the M3's.)

That came from the fat book "The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II."

Also does weapon weight effect troops? I mention this because in CC2, Tommy gunners would tire quicker than MP40ers, when in fact they both weighed a little over 10lb fully loaded. I thought this was an inaccurate portrayal. What's CM's like?

[Moon]

I've heard something similar about the paratroopers of the 101st and 82nd, which exchanged their M1A1 carbines against the Thompson M1 on any available occasion. Looking at the pure numbers of both weapons I can hardly understand why, but on the other hand one should not underestimate the psychological effect that a full auto weapon can have on a soldier.

I could imagine that the ability to muster a lot of firepower (in terms of rounds per minute) FEELS good from the subjective perspective of a single soldier, better than the one shot capability of the carbine or M1 Garand. I remember reading a very interesting article about this (I promise I will find out where it was, can't remember now), where pure statistics showed that a soldier equipped with an automatic weapon (I think the example was the BAR) would be MUCH more active on the battlefield in comparison to standard rifles.

------------------

[Guest Michael emrys]

Well, he'd certainly shoot off a lot more ammo. Not always a good thing if you are depending on an air drop for resupply.

BTW, General Gavin carried an M1.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Rule #1: be careful of ANYTHING you read in ANY source Even good authors, in an otherwise very well researched book, make mistakes. Generally stay away from sources that are "all knowing" unless written by a single, well established author (i.e. Ian Hogg on WWII Artillery is great, American Heritage's America in WWII is junk).

Rule #2: check out as many sources as you can, even on the little stuff. It is amazing how much disagreement there is between sources! Generally adopt the view of the prevailing argument, tempered by quality of source and your own sense of things related, but not directly applicable.

Rule #3: use your head! If three sources say that something could happen, and one disagrees, this does NOT mean the "one" is wrong. Maybe they are ALL correct if you just change the nature of the question you are asking, or consider that the "exception" might be talking about circumstances that the other three weren't covering. Basically, this is what separates a good researcher from a poor one. I never knew what good my History degree would do for me, but MAN, it has paid off over the last 7 years of wargame design and research!! Also note that veteran's recollections aren't to be taken at face value as "typical" or even accurate! I mean, when you see some guy talking about how German "77mm guns had us pinned down" you have to wonder...

Our sense of the M1 carbine is that it was generally preferred by certain troops, at certain times, in certain places. Marines seem to have loved it in the Pacific because the gun and ammo were both much lighter in a place where temperatures made weight much more of an issue. Also, carbines were less prone to fouling. Airborne troops also seemed to like the M1 for the same reasons. But many individuals didn't mind the extra weight and problems of the Thompson because of the extra stopping power and psychological effect, even though it had less range. Officers who carried more than a side arm seemed to go with the carbine because they were less likely to shoot ANY weapon, so might as well take a lighter one that didn't require such care as the Thompson! In short, generalizations are hard to make

In terms of weight... gun and ammo weight were a bigger factor for the individual man more because of the day to day hassle of lugging it around, rather than its use in combat. However, heavier weapons sometimes do have real tactical implications in battle. CM simulates this in different ways. For example, the heavier US 57mm AT gun is slow to reposition compared to the lighter and almost equal German 50mm AT gun, but the German 88AT can't ROTATE at all on its wheels because of its massive weight! It also seems that the 57mm was not as well balanced as the either the German 50mm or 75mm AT guns. For small arms, CM simulates weight in places like making the US MMG .30cal team tiring more quickly than the German HMG 42 team, while both move slower than a squad.

Weight might also have played a historical factor for deployment of weapons. The MG42, fully functional on a light bipod, was much lighter than the US .30cal weapon, which wasn't so hot on a bipod (so bad, in fact, that few saw active service!). Weight was probably one factor for its poor performance in this role. Because of this, there wasn't a chance that a squad would get armed with a heavy, not so great, MG when its likely result was to simply weigh them down with ammo and a burdensome weapon. Because of this, German squads in CM have much greater firepower than their Allied counterparts.

Steve

[Guest Michael emrys]

VERY good post, Steve.

I especially agree with Rule #2. One of my pet peeves is the guy who reads one book on a subject and then proceeds to pontificate as if he had just come down from Sinai with the clay tablets hot in his hand! The more I read, the less certain the whole picture becomes. That's the way reality is. The best strategy is, as you point out, to gather as much information as you can and make the best educated guess you can. And hang loose; somebody is bound to disprove you sooner or later.