StuNZ Posted January 17, 2000 Share Posted January 17, 2000 I'd seen it mentioned a few times in earlier topics on the board, and when I stumbled across it here I snapped it up . Anyway, I could do with some assistance from those who already have it in decyphering the TOEs - in particular the Armoured Panzer Grenadiers - if the motor vehicles for the platoon = 4 x Sd. Kfz. 251 and the platoon is rated as having 9 LMG - does that include the four MGs of the 251's (I assume so)? Also does the 30 men of the platoon include the 2 man crews of those 251's - if so and assuming the same pattern as the rifle platoon (3 squads + hq section), that makes for some small dismount squads .... Hmmm, lot of assumptions in there. In short, helpppppp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted January 17, 2000 Share Posted January 17, 2000 One thing to keep in mind about this book is that it reflects the state of allied knowledge in 1944. As far as I know it was not updated post war so some of the information is either missing, incomplete or just plain wrong. It is a nice place to start looking but is not the end all be all of German TO&Es. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted January 18, 2000 Share Posted January 18, 2000 The book has some good info in it, but don't trust the OoBs. It is amazing how much we didn't know about the German army during the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted January 18, 2000 Share Posted January 18, 2000 This book's BEST value is as something showing how the US viewed the Germans in the war. Read it and then read whatthe German Army was REALLY like and spot the differences. They're very enlightening. it's a very good book but has some really systematic errors in it since it is based on intel reports during the war. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted January 18, 2000 Share Posted January 18, 2000 I like the book because it has a little bit of everything in it and the book gives me good ideas for topics I'd like to know more about. As others have said, it isn't entirely accurate. For those who have the book check out what is written about the MP43 and MP44 (p311). Quote from the Handbook, "This weapon has not proved very succesful because it is impossible to repair in the field and because of its poor firing characteristics" Quote from a book on German WWII Weapons "The value of the increased firepower made possible by automatic rifle fire, in both defence and assault, made a considerable impression on all who underwent or observed the experience." and "This latter point (the weapons good reliability) was greatly assisted by ease of field stripping for cleaning and any necessary repairs." Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuNZ Posted January 18, 2000 Author Share Posted January 18, 2000 Cheers for the reality check guys . guachi, I saw that bit on the MP44, and didn't think that sounded right, not from what others on the board here had said in other threads I would have thought the TOE on the more common platoons - rifle, panzer etc would have been pretty accurate, but ah well ... Any suggestions for books/websites that focus mainly on OOBs/TOE and equipment of the major countries in the war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 18, 2000 Share Posted January 18, 2000 OK, here are my opinions based on my original 1945 copy of the said handbook It is a great starting place for information. When we did the TO&E (OB's are not the same) for the German forces we started with the Handbook. Quickly you will find inconsistancies. One of them is its listing of small arms, especially for units with vehicles. Do the LMGs represent ones assigned to vehicles? For the most part yes, but not always. We also found out things like a Schutzen Company HQ would have one LMG. This showed up in the Handbook, but we later found out that this was for replacement purposes only and no ammo (probably a belt or two in practice) were kept for it. So if you didn't know this you would think that the Company HQ actually had a LMG to use when in fact it didn't. It was also a nightmare trying to figure out how the total headcount was distributed in larger formations. Sometimes they counted non-combat personnel, other times they didn't. So if we simply guessed that 4 guys from a Company HQ were no combat (medic, communications guy, runner, etc.) this solved a question here, but caused a problem there. Argh But again, it was a GREAT starting point. What we then did was used three other sources to flesh out the problems. The best source were TO&E taken from German records captured after the war. To get these check out the Nafziger collection: [url="http://www.infinet.com:80/~nafziger/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard III Posted January 18, 2000 Share Posted January 18, 2000 Steve said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You should see what the US Army had to say about the MG42!! Maybe a greenhorn would have bought it, but certainly NOBODY that went up against one would think it was more than BS. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What did it say?? Unreliable? Inaccurate?? [This message has been edited by Richard III (edited 01-18-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuNZ Posted January 19, 2000 Author Share Posted January 19, 2000 Thanks Steve, much appreciated . Like Richard III, I'm curious though - what did the US Army say about the MG42? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 19, 2000 Share Posted January 19, 2000 "Although the German machine gun is first-rate as to fire power, its dispersion is poor. One of my friends had so much confidence in his ability to get away from it that on one occasion he made a successful dash for safety, and then turned around and got the machineguner with rifle fire. Their light machine gun fire is harassing as hell, but I don't think mcuh about its accuracy. As to height, I'd say it averages about two feet off the ground - often enough to let you slither out of the dispersion area. It's true that a man can dodge fire in this manner. We've done it often." This is from a December 1943 Intelligence Bulletin. It apparently went on to make fun of the "cheapness" of the weapon. I also saw bits and pieces of a US training film that was made SPECIFICALLY to counteract the troops' fear of the weapon. The commentator said dumb stuff like "its bark is worse than its bite". Now, while the vet quoted in the IB report has a legit point about getting under the firing pattern, the same can be said for any MG firing if the conditions are right. But to paint a picture of some guy waltzing around the battlefield dodging MG42 fire, is simply misleading at best. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted January 19, 2000 Share Posted January 19, 2000 I've also seen bits of the same US training film on The History Channel. It made me laugh. On the other hand, I can understand why they said what they did. The last thing you'd wnat soldiers to do is become paralyzed with fear at the mere sound of an MG42. Heck, when I hear the sound of an MG42 in CM I look to see where it is coming from. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted January 19, 2000 Share Posted January 19, 2000 I was doing a search on TO&E just a couple of days ago and came across the site that Steve mentions, http://www.infinet.com:80/~nafziger/ , but I paid it no mind. When Steve brought it up as a good site for TO&E and OBs I checked it out. OH MY GOD! I thnk I'm in heaven. This site is a treasure trove of information. And like Steve said it isn't very expensive (unless you go nuts and by several hundred OBs) I think I'll start off with just the OBs that relate to CM's time period and see how that goes. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts