Binos and Brits

[c3k]

Gents,

I'm starting this as a separate thread to avoid derailing any others. There is a group of players who contend that the game incorrectly limits the distribution of binoculars in the Commonwealth forces. The game limits it to FOs and platoon leaders and higher. The contention by this honorable opposition is that binoculars should be distributed down to squad (section) leaders (and possibly to team leaders?).

This subject was brought up here:

However, that thread broke into tangents about 1970's kit, WWI, Airfix 1:72 scale box art and other interesting desiderata. We can have the same kind of thing here, but it will result in the same ending as the other thread: no resolution and no change.

1. The starting point must be that BFC has it right.  

2. If BFC is wrong, then some sort of documentary or contemporary photographic evidence has to be brought forward. Lacking this, see 1, above.

So....if you have some TO&E which shows 18 binoculars per infantry company (or somesuch), or a group photo showing every fourth man with a pair of binos, a even an excerpt from an account which states that, "Corporal Smithy could ID the troops as Boche and relayed that to the rest of the section", that would help. Really.

Feelings don't matter. (I can hear the snowflakes melting...) Present facts; or, failing a fact, a reference.

Hopefully, we can either put this to bed or effect a change to the game.

Ken

[Cobetco]

 

 

 

 

OH wait Binos..... opse

Edited December 1, 2016 by Cobetco

[akd]

1 hour ago, c3k said:

Gents,

I'm starting this as a separate thread to avoid derailing any others. There is a group of players who contend that the game incorrectly limits the distribution of binoculars in the Commonwealth forces. The game limits it to FOs and platoon leaders and higher. The contention by this honorable opposition is that binoculars should be distributed down to squad (section) leaders (and possibly to team leaders?).

This subject was brought up here:

However, that thread broke into tangents about 1970's kit, WWI, Airfix 1:72 scale box art and other interesting desiderata. We can have the same kind of thing here, but it will result in the same ending as the other thread: no resolution and no change.

1. The starting point must be that BFC has it right.  

2. If BFC is wrong, then some sort of documentary or contemporary photographic evidence has to be brought forward. Lacking this, see 1, above.

So....if you have some TO&E which shows 18 binoculars per infantry company (or somesuch), or a group photo showing every fourth man with a pair of binos, a even an excerpt from an account which states that, "Corporal Smithy could ID the troops as Boche and relayed that to the rest of the section", that would help. Really.

Feelings don't matter. (I can hear the snowflakes melting...) Present facts; or, failing a fact, a reference.

Hopefully, we can either put this to bed or effect a change to the game.

Ken

I'm not sure this is the only path to an answer.  We must also know if BFC has evidence that every US and German squad leader was issued binoculars.  If not, then CW squad leaders should also have binoculars.

[c3k]

11 minutes ago, akd said:

I'm not sure this is the only path to an answer.  We must also know if BFC has evidence that every US and German squad leader was issued binoculars.  If not, then CW squad leaders should also have binoculars.

Certainly. But, perhaps that can be spun off on the "Out on a Limb: The Boche and Bausch and Lomb" thread? Or the similar one: "GI Joe goes glassing"?

All is moot unless there is evidentiary reason to overturn the BFC position.

[Rinaldi]

Good idea on the seperate thread, thanks for making it c3k.

Here is a FM from the Canadian Army c. 1944 dealing with Infantry fieldcraft. It makes specific reference to Infantry and NCOs needing to be proficient in the use of Field Binoculars. Paragraph 71, page 41. Note that 'observer' in this instance is not referring to the actual MOS but rather being used colloquially. You can see that if you read for context.

Now, we all know field manuals and reality often varied wildly, and being trained to use something doesn't necessarily mean it will be issued to you. I acknowledge this. However, its a start - and a better one than box art

I also invite people debating this to use some common sense. Consider that the M3 Binoculars and EE Binoculars (US Army) have their own Field Manual (c.1942) on how to use it. Generally specialized equipment like this isn't given its own FM unless its issued relatively broadly - otherwise it would belong in a Forward Observer's FM series with a chapter (or two) dedicated to it. Also look at production numbers: The M3 alone had 300, 000 + produced in WWII. This is not including WWI vintage EE 6 x 30mm issued and later production binoculars that began to phase out the M3. Hardly the numbers of a specialized piece of equipment that would be exclusive to officers and supporting-arms troops. Besides, FMs from the period show that more specialized units were given 8 x (Artillery, Cavalry) or 10 x (Signal Corp, for issue to other branches per mission) powered binocs.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Rinaldi
Details

[akd]

32 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

Good idea on the seperate thread, thanks for making it c3k.

Here is a FM from the Canadian Army c. 1944 dealing with Infantry fieldcraft. It makes specific reference to Infantry and NCOs needing to be proficient in the use of Field Binoculars. Paragraph 71, page 41. Note that 'observer' in this instance is not referring to the actual MOS but rather being used colloquially. You can see that if you read for context.

Now, we all know field manuals and reality often varied wildly, and being trained to use something doesn't necessarily mean it will be issued to you. I acknowledge this. However, its a start - and a better one than box art

I also invite people debating this to use some common sense. Consider that the M3 Binoculars and EE Binoculars (US Army) have their own Field Manual (c.1942) on how to use it. Generally specialized equipment like this isn't given its own FM unless its issued relatively broadly - otherwise it would belong in a Forward Observer's FM series with a chapter (or two) dedicated to it. Also look at production numbers: The M3 alone had 300, 000 + produced in WWII. This is not including WWI vintage EE 6 x 30mm issued and later production binoculars that began to phase out the M3. Hardly the numbers of a specialized piece of equipment that would be exclusive to officers and supporting-arms troops. Besides, FMs from the period show that more specialized units were given 8 x (Artillery, Cavalry) or 10 x (Signal Corp, for issue to other branches per mission) powered binocs.

AFAIK, Britain used the same 1944 manual, so I think we have a reasonable answer.

Edited December 1, 2016 by akd

[c3k]

Rinaldi,

Excellent find. So...the Commonwealth (as represented by the "reprint" in Canada) assumed NCOs and Officers should be proficient in the use of field glasses. That's a start.  

300,000 M3? Nice, again.

 

[Michael Emrys]

Some things to consider: The Germans pretty lavishly provided binocs to officers and team leaders of support weapons. This from photographic evidence. I have seen far less evidence that they were commonly issued to NCOs of rifle companies. They might have been more common among elite units, such as paratroops or SS.

Another thing is that usage, especially among the Allied armies, was increased over and above TO&E due to GIs "liberating" the higher quality German instruments from POWs, corpses, and just found abandoned on the field. AFV commanders in all armies were issued binocs as a matter of course.

Michael

[c3k]

German binos: standard inf distribution was a 6x30 set. For tank commanders and other specialists, it was 10x50. FWIW. Internet citation will be edited in later...

[JonS]

300,000 x M3 for about 100 divisions (incl Marines) gives about 3,000 issued per division.

Assume 50% for pool, pipeline, training, and replacements. That leaves about 1,500 for TOE. Assume weapons company and arty used different sets.

Three regiments of three battalions of three companies of of three platoons of three squads (3x3x3x3x3) gives about 300 squad leaders, plus about 100 platoon leaders, plus about 30 company commanders. Plus some for the engineer bn. Say, about 500 commanders in a division using the M3.

The US certainly had enough M3s to hand them out to anyone who wanted them. Whether they did or not cannot be answered by the raw numbers.

[JonS]

Unfortunately I'm away from most of my sources, and will be for a while. I'll dig up what I can.

But I do have a strong suspicion that the problem isn't with the UK, per se, but that different research heuristics were used for different armies.

[Rinaldi]

1 hour ago, JonS said:

 

The US certainly had enough M3s to hand them out to anyone who wanted them. Whether they did or not cannot be answered by the raw numbers.

Yes its far from definitive, nor did I try to press that anything I've presented is. I'm not trying to sound like a know-it-all, so apologies if I come across as such. Even the FM linked above is far from what I would call overwhelming evidence. As I noted; you can be trained in something you might never be issued. Fieldcraft is fieldcraft.

It just irked me that when this discussion was first raised, even though there's relatively accessible info (albeit of dubious, mixed, and vague quality) on the subject that all the answers could best be summed up as absolute bollocks. 

My position isn't dissimilar to yours, ultimately, that something is wrong:

If I'm speaking frankly I'm more ambivalent to the issue then all this effort is really letting on: I just think its eyebrow-raising that there's such a disparity of optics between the playable nations with no real explanation. Why x but not y; I'm in agreement that the decisions were probably based on heuristic research - which makes its uneven application more puzzling to me. This stuff is hard to find too; I tore through my bookshelf this evening, albeit briefly, and this minutiae is just not well documented. Even www.archive.org seems to lack in the actual period TO&E's - which were often wildly outdated by the time they were publicized anyways.

There's a couple other things that just make me scratch my head, that I've brought up before. So I'll be brief; why do the Commonwealth units have these squad level optics in FI but not in CMBN? It just seems like an oversight in one game or the other, I can't think of why that might be, historically speaking. Or even where to begin to look source wise.

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2016 by Rinaldi
Grammar, Spellling, etc.

[Michael Emrys]

2 hours ago, JonS said:

300,000 x M3 for about 100 divisions (incl Marines) gives about 3,000 issued per division.

Well, one thing we have all overlooked so far is wastage. There was a war on and a lot of stuff got broken or lost and required replacement at some measurable rate. I expect that soldiers did not go through binocs at the same rate as boots, but that some percentage of that 300,000 was simply to replace missing equipment.

Michael

[JonS]

22 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

Well, one thing we have all overlooked so far is wastage.

Not me. In the very next step after the bit you quoted  I applied a 50% haircut for "pool, pipeline, training, and replacements". And I still have about 1,000 spares per division looking for someone's neck to be hung around.

PROTIP: around your neck is a terrible place to keep your binos. Don't put them there.

Edited December 2, 2016 by JonS

[JonS]

1 hour ago, Rinaldi said:

nor did I try to press that anything I've presented is. I'm not trying to sound like a know-it-all, so apologies if I come across as such.

Not at all. I thought it'd be worthwhile to at least do a gross error check - "how many would be needed if ever squad commander had a pair, and how does that compare to the amount available". That gross error check, using your data, rings true.

[Warts 'n' all]

12 hours ago, Cobetco said:

 

 

 

 

OH wait Binos..... opse

Brilliant!

[JonS]

Welp, my effort to prove a negative itself proved nuggatory.

Looking through what I have available I couldn't find anything that indicates the British issued binos below Pl Comd level. Similarly the Canadians also don't appear to have issued them to section comds.

And, using the same kinds of sources, I could find no evidence that the US did either.

The stuff I have for the Germans doesn't go low enough to say either way.

[Cobetco]

Might I make a suggestion as an alternative method to track evidence down? look for perhaps protective cases being issued. now a days we take good solid dependable optics for granted but this wasn't always the case. case in point being the quick detach scope mounts available on rifles of the era existed mostly as to allow you to keep a fairly good zero on an optic, but still carry it in a protected case 99% of the time. So in my head, I would assume Binoculars would be issued with similar protective equipment.

Edited December 4, 2016 by Cobetco

[Michael Emrys]

2 hours ago, Cobetco said:

...I would assume Binoculars would be issued with similar protective equipment.

It might be issued, but GIs, especially leg infantry, tended to discard anything they deemed inessential. I've seen plenty of pics of soldiers with binocs, but almost none with the binocs in cases. Admittedly this is beside your point of counting issued cases as a way of tracking issued glasses, but would they have been listed as a separate item apart from the binocs themselves?

We need to get Kettler interested in this topic. If there is anyone capable of tracking down an obscure document with the information we need, he's the guy.

Michael

[Rinaldi]

11 hours ago, JonS said:

Welp, my effort to prove a negative itself proved nuggatory.

Looking through what I have available I couldn't find anything that indicates the British issued binos below Pl Comd level. Similarly the Canadians also don't appear to have issued them to section comds.

And, using the same kinds of sources, I could find no evidence that the US did either.

The stuff I have for the Germans doesn't go low enough to say either way.

More of the same on my end. I'm not surprised. 

11 hours ago, Cobetco said:

Might I make a suggestion as an alternative method to track evidence down? look for perhaps protective cases being issued. now a days we take good solid dependable optics for granted but this wasn't always the case. case in point being the quick detach scope mounts available on rifles of the era existed mostly as to allow you to keep a fairly good zero on an optic, but still carry it in a protected case 99% of the time. So in my head, I would assume Binoculars would be issued with similar protective equipment.

That's not a bad idea per se, but finding if they issued bino cases is even more difficult and minute than finding out if they just issued the damn binos. Emrys is also right in saying stuff like that was routinely discarded or adapted to another purpose (re: German gas mask kits becoming a second bread bag/personal effects container).

Again, I'd love to find a T-AB that actually mentions this sort of stuff, but I haven't found one that mentions anything but weapons. Very frustrating.

8 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

We need to get Kettler interested in this topic. If there is anyone capable of tracking down an obscure document with the information we need, he's the guy.

 

Nothing against John, but hopefully he can find something a bit stronger than box art this time - but yes I'd love to see if anyone has something obscure and remotely decent as a source.

 

Edited December 4, 2016 by Rinaldi

[JoMac]

Hey now, Rinaldi, 

Most people should have no problem with JK's Airfix Box Art...In fact, it is good starting point for something obscure and remotely decent as a source 

Joe

Edited December 4, 2016 by JoMc67

[Wicky]

According to this in WW1 a deal for British Rubber for German Binoculars was stuck worthy of Catch 22!

http://greatwarproject.org/2015/07/20/a-clear-case-of-trading-with-the-enemy/

on topic - US Platoon leader D-Day Dress inc binoculars

[akd]

Well, did some more digging:

-US infantry were not issued binoculars at the squad level with some exceptions, e.g. scout squads. (Yves J. Bellanger, U.S. Army Infantry Divisions 1943-45)

-German infantry rifle squad leaders were issued with 6x30 binoculars, at least early in the war. (Alex Buchner, The German Infantry Handbook 1939-1945)

[Rinaldi]

1 hour ago, akd said:

Well, did some more digging:

-US infantry were not issued binoculars at the squad level with some exceptions, e.g. scout squads. (Yves J. Bellanger, U.S. Army Infantry Divisions 1943-45)

-German infantry rifle squad leaders were issued with 6x30 binoculars, at least early in the war. (Alex Buchner, The German Infantry Handbook 1939-1945)

Great finds, fairly solid sources too. I wonder if Battlefront will ever take a look at adjusting by squeezing it into the next planned patch or release.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Rinaldi
"forces" to "sources"

[Ithikial_AU]

Just when you think there isn't another topic we can find research Grogs for.

It's one of my personal wishes that the use of captured enemy infantry equipment will one day be included in the game for specific situations, but I realise the use of scavenged / captured equipment isn't being modelled in CMx2 given the potential for 'gamey abuse.' However could this be considered an exception worth looking at? It's not like giving an MG42 to each allied squad.