Beyond the Beachhead

[Stephen Smith]

I'm reading a book, "Beyond the Beachhead," by (I think) Joseph Balkowski (I could be completely wrong on the author). He compares the American and German armies right after D-Day and has some pretty interesting things to say about squad differences-and those differences would have a direct bearing on a CM-level simulation. I'm wondering if you are aware/agree with him.

He writes that at the squad level, the arming of infantry squads was dramatically different. The American squad had no MG, just a BAR, and several good semi-automatic rifles. The idea behind this was that individual squad members were expected to use their rifles to suppress the enemy, to overcome the enemy with superior firepower.

The German squad, however, had a vastly superior MG (I think it is MG42, but I could be wrong), while the individual soldiers had crappy bolt action rifles. As a result of those rifles, the German squad member's role was quite different from Americans; they were there to support the MG-replace casualties, act as ammo bearers, etc.

He goes on to say that this MG differential is pronounced throughout the two organizations: so much so, that Americans actually could NOT achieve fire superiority, and were actually outgunned at the small unit level (he claims that the German 2nd Parachute Division, with even more MGs, had ELEVEN TIMES as many MGs as the US 29th Infantry division).

This would help to explain American reliance on artillery and support units-they simply needed it to achieve any kind of fire superiority. This would also help to explain (if it is indeed fact) German 'resilience' in the face of high casualties: if 6 or 8 members of a squad really only serve to support the MG, then a squad taking casualties will not lose too much combat effectiveness-as long as the MG remains manned and functioning.

I found it pretty interesting, in that I had thought American infantry was better armed and had more fire than German infantry (I recall some story-I am thinking it was in some of the Squad Leader literature from fifteen or twenty years ago, about a battle, perhaps in the Vosges, where American and German infantry just lined up behind adjacent walls or fencelines, and went at it. The German force was supposedly simply overwhelmed by superior American firepower).

Anyway, a very good book, with some interesting ideas that would influence CM.

Steve

[Dar]

That is an interesting point. My own opinion is that the American squad is much more suited to offensive action with its complement of light, semi- and full-automatic weapons. While the American squad did not have as powerful a central weapon in the BAR as the German squad had in the MG34/42, they did have a better base of firepower with the M1 as opposed to the Kar98K.

It would seem to me that this allowed the American squad leader more flexibility in establishing a position or breaking the squad into fire and movement sections. As a German squad leader, one would always have to base your position on the strength and field of fire it lends your primary weapon.

Yes, the MG42 was an incredibly effective and excellent weapon, and much better than any automatic weapon the Americans fielded. However, my opinion is the lack of a base infantry weapon with a higher rate of fire than the Kar98K for supporting the MG meant that you were putting all your trust in the MG when faced with an opponent liberally equipped with semi-automatic weapons.

Of course, this is all just conjecture. I'd appreciate reading other people's thoughts on this.

Dar Steckelberg

[Los]

Well I think it's been pretty much been determined through many sources that the German Squad had superior firepower due to the existance of that MG and the way they used it. Note that post war, most countries increased the number of MGs available to the platoon leader and squads. In fact TOE for a current bradley squad has 2 SAWs available for a measily 6 man dismount!

Nor should the differences between the Kar98 and the Garand ( great weapon!) be made too much of. (In fact every army in WW2 lugged bolt actin rifles except the US) The Kar98 is not a "crappy" rifle it is a very good bolt action rifle. The garand has a greater weight of fire but this is not as significant a factor in the overall squad vs squad comparison as the difference between a MG42 and a BAR. Nor should it be believed that in the German squad, riflemen spent all their time lugging ammo for the MG42, they also fought with their rifles, The German squad was broken into a MG team and a manuever element. Of course as with any army in the worlkd, when you loose your gunner you replace him. ALways keep your crew served weapons manned at the expense of riflemen.

ALso the MG42 was capable of being fired by one man, as a crew served weapon, from a bi-pod, from a tripod, or even with neither if necessary. (The MG42 is damn heavy though! More so than an M60.)

Anyway firepower is important but is nowhere near as important a factor in squad battles as doctrine, training, leadership and experience.

BTW Beyond The Beachead is a great book. I read it twice.

Los

[Dar]

Whoa, hey! Don't get me wrong--I never suggested the Kar98K was a crappy weapon! It was a damn fine weapon, and you can be sure that the German military wouldn't have used it for 47 years if it were anything less.

However, it is a bolt-action rifle, and I would much rather have had a semi-auto M1 than any bolt action anyday.

I agree that the BAR can not be compared with the MG42. However, being able to distribute more firepower to each member of the squad rather than concentrating it in one crew-served weapon makes a squad more flexible in my opinion.

And I agree with your statement about morale and training. From a raw firepower perspective, though, I feel the distribution in the American squad was a better practice than the concentration in the German squad.

However, the Germans, being on the strategic defensive from '43 on, with much more experience, and outstanding NCO training, pretty much compensated for any possible advantage in firepower the Americans may have had.

Dar Steckelberg

[Highlander]

Stephen,

The action you refered to which was mentioned in a Squad Leader article some years ago took place in Tunisa during the closing days of the campaign there. It was a battle for a certain hill, don't remember the number. Given that it was fought at close range, I believe that was the difference. At longer ranges, the Germans definitely had the advantage with their MG42s vs the BARs, but at close range the advantage shifted to the Americans who could wield more firepower with the semi-automatics vs bolt action rifles.

Scott

[Moon]

Just a few more thoughts:

- Late in the war (end of '44-'45), Germans were using far more automatic weapons than the US, MP44s and the like. That, together with the MG42 (and some squads had two I think), gave the Germans superior firepower at all ranges I would guess.

- CM simulates all these aspects very well. Everytime you hear the RRRRP of an MG42 you know that one of your squads most likely is just looking for cover. These things are deadly, and every German squad had at least one I believe. The BAR? Not bad, but by far nowhere equal to the MG42. Even the .30 cal seems slightly inferior to the HMG42 from what I see in the game.

[Dar]

Does anyone have any figures on the production and distribution of the MP44?

If I remember correctly, the special of German small arms of WWII on the History Channel's "History of the Gun" series on Sunday night mentioned around 300,000 were produced, but most of them weren't distributed due to bombing, oil shortages, and the like. Sounds like about the same thing happened with the advanced Panzerfausts (100, 150).

I agree, though, that any unit equipped with MP44s and MG42s would have been a VERY tough nut to crack!

Martin, taunting us with features of CM that you enjoy on a daily business while we suffer and beg for just one measly little AAR is very cruel!

Dar Steckelberg

[Guest Bryan Corkill]

Charles B MacDonald agreed with most of these assesments, and in an interview I saw on PBS granted the competence of VETRAN German NCO's. He pointed out that tactical doctrine was very different, and that howevermuch maligned, the US infantryman was a match for anyone at the squad level, mainly due to maneuver, fire support, the famed materialschlacht (sp, I took French and Latin) and INOVATION. I do recommend Company Commander as one of the best looks at US infantrymen in combat in WWII.

p/s, these scenarios are mine, mine, mine!!!!

pps, It must be late to edit and still forget the 'e' in these.

[This message has been edited by Bryan Corkill (edited 09-29-99).]

[This message has been edited by Bryan Corkill (edited 09-29-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

The big advantage of a US squad vs. a German one is numbers. Generally 12 vs 9, but as low as 8 and as high as 10. This was the standard problem with the German Army in the later stages of the war. Units of nearly all types (artillery probably excepted) had a higher firepower ability, but attrition could nullify that fairly quickly (i.e. modest to weak staying power).

As for the MP44... about 415,000 were made (nearly the same as the MG42), but indications are that only 1/3 of them made it to the front, and much of that the Eastern Front.

As for the Garand/Kar98k thing goes, I have fired both (my dad has one of each) and must say I would rather take the extra weight and sore thumbs and go with the Garand. Of course, my real love is the MP44

Steve

[Los]

The only problem I have with TOE numbers is that few squads are ever at our near TOE full strength even at the start of an operation. Units back then, in combat were lucky to ever be at 75% strength even with replacements. Heck in the past 21 years I have very rarely been in a squad of team that was at even 90% strength.

Los

[Guest Big Time Software]

Not to worry Los, reduced headcount is something that is on The List. In fact, Charles tells me it will go in VERY soon.

Steve