Question to the SPWs

[Jochen]

Hi everybody,

as i´ve seen on a unitlist at Wild Bill and the Raiders, there are many types of the German SPWs (those cool transporters in LD).

Will the mortar and Howitzer SPWs also in the game? If yes, how are they to use - especially the 81mm mortar - i´m interested in - is it possible to use his mortar indirect - or only with a clear LOS?

As it was stated before, there is no use of indirect fire fo tanks - so, i´m a little bit confused how it will be handled with the SPWs.

Thanks for any answers.

Greetings from Germany

Jochen

[Jochen]

It´s me again - sorry i´ve forgotten my second question.

I´ve also seen, that there will be a LMG 42 squad in the game. My question is, how many men will this squad have - in the German army today, always two men are with a LMG. MG-Schütze 1 (gunner) and MG-Schütze 2 (the guy for the ammo and to help to change the (oh, i don´t know the english word for "MG-Rohr/Lauf" sorry...). As i know, even in the Wehrmacht only two men handled an LMG 42.

Will this be also in the game - or are there more men in such a squad? - BTW, do you really need 4-6 men for a HMG?

I know, some would say, Jochen - wait for the game, then you will get your answer - but, i´m so impressed by CM- that i can´t wait.

Thanks again.

[Moon]

Hey Jochen!

Mortar and Howitzer SPWs are in the game. The Howitzer SPWs are used technically like assault guns - i.e. the howitzer barrel sticks out in the front of the vehicle. No indirect fire is possible IIRC.

The mortar SPWs are used just like any other mortar units in the game. However, there is at least one or two mortar halftracks in the game which can fire the mortar rear-facing only due to the way they were built.

LMG42 teams in CM have two crew members (am at work so can't check, but I am 99% certain). The HMG teams really need this many men to carry all the extra ammo and equipment (tripod). Historically, they were also supposed to provide cover for the MG with their carbines.

[Jochen]

Thank you very much!

This answers my question.

Go on .... with your good work.

[Guest KwazyDog]

Dont forgot about the flame halftrack as well, thats one mean beasty

[Username]

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Pit/3515/251/index.htm

Heres the 251 everything you ever wanted to know about the "german purple heart box".

I will say that the kanonewagon was a poor mans sturmartillerie weapon. I guess so many of these stubs were laying around that the germans hated to waste them.

Lewis

PS Heres the "Bastables parody pre-emptive strike".

So Ok Lewis, why didnt the germans mount 800mm rail guns into the 251? Hmmmmm?

Because I will tell you Lewis, its because they were high velocity and they didnt get a moving shrapnel donut effect like a marine corporal that posted here told me about!!

Well Well Well, Hmm Hmmm HMM so there! I told you again didnt I?

(cringe)

[Bastables]

No Lewis it was more of a rich man 7.5cm IG because it supplemented the IG’s in the heavy weapon Kompanie. Interesting that they did not replace the IG’s with the 7.5cm PaK or any other high velocity gun.

But of course with your special omniscient Veteran powers you already knew that.

[Username]

ROTFLMAO!!!!

You never fail do you????

The panzergrenadiers never used IGs dude. I assume you mean 75mmIGs but who knows what you are talking about.

Please buy a book or something. Its getting beyond comical with your "comedy of errors posts".

Sorry man. Two part movement. Open mouth, insert foot.

(wooohooooooo!!!!)

Lewis

[Moon]

Lewis, are you sure that it's not somebody else posting under your username from time to time? I have a hard time imagining a person that combines this cheap "humor" with the more intelligent posts from time to time.

[Lee]

Jochen: I think the word you are searching for is barrel. That is

the English word for that long metal tube that the bullets are

fired out of.

[Bastables]

Yes the Panzer Grenadiers did utilize IG’s Lewis they were part of the oddly named [iG] Kompanie integral to the Panzer Grenadiers regt. The only requirement was that they were Sfl or self propelled, therefore vehicles such as the sIG33/1 auf 38(t) and the early Sturmpanzer I/II Bison mounting a 15cm sIG 33L/11. Mounting an IG on a panzer chassis. Your argument that a High velocity gun is superior in delivering HE hold no water when the IG Kompanie integral to the Grenadier Abeilung/Bataillon continued to be issued Sfl IG’s as opposed to StuK (assault cannon) armed Sfl’s. I assume you think that an IG is no longer an IG gun when mounted on a vehicle because only then does your attack make sense.

Oh and Tally Ho 'dude'.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 04-20-2000).]

[Jochen]

Ahhh ,,,yes, barrel - thanks.

Another question - as it is written here, the use of mortars should be able in the indirect way, if the mortar (on board) squad is in CC of a leader squad, wich has LOS to the target. So, my mortar-SPW is a vehicle, does this mean, that it can only fire direct or is it possible for the vehicle to be "linked" with a leadersquad and fire indirect???

Greetings

Jochen

[Guest Big Time Software]

Well, I'd take a SPW 250/9 or 251/8 (both 75mm armed) in the IG role for which they were designed than either a towed 75mm IG or a StuG G. Fast, manueverable, small, and with a decent load of HE. Pretty bad assed little buggers. Of course I would take a StuH 42 any day of the week over any other unit in CM right now if I am looking to support my infantry in close quarters situations.

Oh, and Lewis... you opened yourself wide open for that one. If Bstables hadn't jumped in there I know I certainly would have.

The 13th Kompanie (Heavy Weapons Company) had a total of 6 SP 75mm vehicles. Earlier in the war these were StuGs but they were eventually replaced by 250/8, 251/9, and probably a stop gap vehicle or two like the sIG 33. These vehicles were cheaper and quicker to make, required less maintainence, and provided very good support for the infantry. It was a very wise decision for the Germans to do this. Should have done it from the start IMHO.

Steve

[Gary T]

Steve,

I don't want to be pedantic (although I'm going to be anyway) but the 13./ organistaion you describe is only applicable to infantry divisions - and of course the IG's would not be SP. In a Panzer Division the 75mm IG's were part of the heavy weapons companies of the PzGr battalions (usually one section of 2 (towed) to each company - could be three or four pieces depending on the division). The SPW SP 75's formed an SP gun battery of six vehicles for the SPW equipped PzGr battalion. They were however regularly 'loaned out' to their truck borne colleagues in the other battalions when the situation demanded. In Panzer Divisions the IG company you mention was exclusively 150mm SP - I would guess most would be sIG 38(t) Grille/Bison.

[Guest grunto]

--StuH 42 --

After asking on another thread whether the jagdpanther was the best TD of the war -what do you all think - was the StuH 42 the best overall AG of the war?

Andy

[Guest mch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>rich man 7.5cm IG because <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

bastables

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I assume you mean 75mmIGs<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lewis

Funniest thing I ever did read on the BBS!!!

P.S.:is yankee understanding of the metric

system really this bad?

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

It is no disgrace to be defeated...It is a disgrace to be surprised.

-attr.to Fredrick the Great-

[This message has been edited by mch (edited 04-22-2000).]

[This message has been edited by mch (edited 04-22-2000).]

[MrPeng]

What's the "metric system"?

for a good, funny read I suggest you search posts by username, o.b.g, elvis, capt foobar and perhaps even (modesty aside) me.

then again, if arcana about 7.5cm v 75mm are the funniest things you've read...

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

Peng sez "die a lot now."

[Guest Captain Foobar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>P.S.:is yankee understanding of the metric

system really this bad? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey! Let me tell you something.

We dont NEED any metric system. We have the English Standard, and it works just fine. Oh sure, mathematically it is so much more convenient, but I'll be gosh-darned (pardon my Swedish) if a bunch of EU , UN, or unincorporated backwater countries are gonna PRESSURE us into taking on some commie pinko metric system.

If anyone wants to "foot" the bill for the enormous amount of retooling that would be required for such a thing, and the training to retool all the gray matter, than be my guest.

John Wayne & I were talking about this one day, and you want to know what the Duke said? Do you? well unfortunately I cant remember what he said, but what **I** say is WE'VE GOT THE BOMB, pilgrim. WE'VE GOT THE BOMB.

****You can have my footpounds when you pry them from my cold dead fingers****

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mch:

I assume you mean 75mmIGs<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funniest thing I ever did read on the BBS!!!

P.S.:is yankee understanding of the metric

system really this bad?

Is that what it was about. Bugger eh?

Jochen: I'd guess the 8.1cm mortar SPW would be able to fire 'limited' indirect in the same manner as the on map 8.1cm mortars. StuH cannot fire indirect so I suppose the SPW 250/9 or 251/8 are capable of direct fire only as well.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 04-22-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Gary, you are correct. German TO&E gives me a headache I was looking at the PzGren Battalion (Armored) for 43 and 44 pattern Panzer Divisions. I have conflicting info on the makeup of the HW Co for PzGren divisions, but towed 75mm seems to be the likely case.

And the "13th Company" thing actually doesn't apply to *any* 1944/45 Regimental pattern since they were binary and not triangular. My brain slipped a gear on that one

No, the mortar armed halftracks (don't forget US M4 and M21s!) can not fire indirectly in CM. At least I am fairly sure they can not. Basically the only way they could was if they never moved, which in CM totally defeats the purpose of having SP mortars.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 04-22-2000).]

[Guest mch]

hi!

Posted by BTS!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No, the mortar armed halftracks (don't forget US M4 and M21s!) can not fire indirectly in CM. At least I am fairly sure they can not. Basically the only way they could was if they never moved, which in CM totally defeats the purpose of <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you mean by "indirect fire" that said unit

can fire at units outside their LOS?if so,

wich units,are they any?,besides air support

can fire indirectly in CM?

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

It is no disgrace to be defeated...It is a disgrace to be surprised.

-attr.to Fredrick the Great-

[Guest mch]

Lil' idea......

for ON-Board art....

(larger than 60mm/6cm mortar)

What about giving FO's an ability to put

down a marker,like an "ambush" marker,

that ON-board artillery could tgt.

(regardless of LOS requirements)

ON-Board peies could recieve "orders"

from FO's.(assuming that the Art.in

question HAS a radio,like a Sp vehicle,

probably would.)

Did Inf mortar squads(not 60mm,of course,)

have radios?

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

It is no disgrace to be defeated...It is a disgrace to be surprised.

-attr.to Fredrick the Great-

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Well, I'd take a SPW 250/9 or 251/8 (both 75mm armed) in the IG role for which they were designed than either a towed 75mm IG or a StuG G. Fast, manueverable, small, and with a decent load of HE. Pretty bad assed little buggers. Of course I would take a StuH 42 any day of the week over any other unit in CM right now if I am looking to support my infantry in close quarters situations.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WOOOHHHH!!!!

I dont know where to start with this thread. I am playing catch up and still feel like I am doin 85mph from my trip.

Steve, these HT had a limited side traverse just like any nonturreted weapon. You cant lock up the tracks on one side and pivot like a stug to bring the weapon to bear. Thats not manueverable to me. Getting into and out of positions would have been a bitch. Being "fast" does not make up for that. I have read they were underpowered and did not have drive on the front wheels.

I cant believe you would prefer one over a stugIII. But lets not get into this now. I am sure you are busy.

Lewis

[Guest Big Time Software]

MCH, CM already has all of that and a bit more. Best to do a search of the BBS on TRP or Forward Observers. Basic gist is that if you keep 'em in position they can fire indirect, but as soon as they move they lose that ability. Since mortars in vehicles are meant to be moved at CM's scale, there is no point extending this behavior to them.

Lewis, to clarify my statement... while I would probably rather a fully armored vehicle over a thinly armored one in CM, the small 250/8 and 251/9 did have their advantages in both CM and the real world. I also think you overestimate their disadvantages when compared to a StuG. First, the StuG and the HTs both have limited traverse (in fact, the 251/9 had 2deg more freedom L/R than the StuG). The StuG also can't do a neutral steer so far as I know, so that point they are even too, although I bet the 250/8 has a MUCH smaller turning radius. As for getting in and out of positions... I don't understand your point other than a tracked vehicle is generally more mobile than a HT when all ground conditions are taken into account. But normally you drive, you park, you shoot. I'm not sure how it is that a vehicle several times as large and heavy would somehow have an *easier* time getting into position except in deep snow or mud. As for power to weight ratios, the 250/8 had a significnatly higher one than the StuG, though the 251/9 lower.

Here are some reasons why the HT IGs are better from a real world standpoint...

1. Easier to maintain. Meaning... higher readiness level.

2. Cheaper to make, therefore if I as a commander lost one then I would have a better chance of getting a replacement ASAP.

3. I would expect much better gas mileage, so easier from a logistics standpoint.

4. Better road performance. Fighting is important, but getting there can be half the battle.

5. Easier to hide (heeeeeeeelo USAF ).

Steve

[Mattias]

Aw common Steve

You can´t compare two weapon systems out of context.

I suspect this was not what you meant but the way you present your point, using a Panther would be sheer folly, while a Kübelwagen with a Panzerschreck is the pinnacle of efficiency

Your arguments are of course absolutely relevant even for the actual combat situation (comparable with arguments in favour of the Sherman tanks vs. German armour), but they nevertheless are dwarfed by the much superior battlefield survivability and firepower of the StuG.

Quite simply, no real comparison can be made between the vehicles as they had different tasks and capabilities.

I like both, I just don’t compare them

M.