Paratroopers and Armor

[Marlow]

Firstly, I apologize for the size of this message, and secondly, I apologize for yet another thread about what exactly is or is not "gamey."

Based on what I have seen in the forum, many people consider the mixing of force types to be "gamey" (e.g. German mountain troops + Heer or American paratroopers + regular army). This philosophy has been incorporated into certain sets of "rules" or conventions designed to optimize "realistic" force selection. However, this rule has struck me as odd for two reasons.

First, from a playability point of view, it offers far greater choice to the Axis player who can choose a variety of different infantry types, and still have a good selection of armor from which to choose. Compare this with the allies who can either pick rifle squads and armor, or paratroops without armor support. Additionally, if playing combined arms, armored, or mechanized forces, the point allocation system virtually prohibits use of paratroopers as a sole force type.

Second, from a realism point of view, the mix of paratroopers and attached armor does not (based on my admittedly limited knowledge) fly in the face of what really happened. According to AIRBORNE TROOPS IN GROUND OPERATIONS at the Army's Center for Military History Website, armor was used in support of airbirne infantry in much the same way as it supported regular infantry.

"The one deficiency that definitely did affect operations was the lack of heavy antitank weapons. The 37-mm. and even the 57-mm. antitank gun were inadequate against the armor to be faced in 1944-45. But this affected the division's operations more in strictly airborne operations than it did in ground operations; for just as were regular infantry divisions, the airborne divisions were usually reinforced with tank and tank destroyer units after contact with ground troops was established."

Since American Airborne forces spent a considerable time in the line after airborne operations, often weeks or months longer than intended, it would appear that attachment of tanks and tank destroyers would be fairly common. The same document provides a list of units attached to airborne troops for all the major engagements. While the amount of armor support is not massive, it is far from insignificant or uncommon. At CM scale, armor support of a platoon of tanks per battalion of paratroopers would seem to be supported, particularly considering that any armor support would likely be concentrated where it was needed most. Note, I have omitted armored artillery from the list, as there is no way to determine if it provided direct or indirect fire support. I have also limited attached Commonwealth units to armor and antitank (when I can figure out what is what).

NORMANDY

Following their D Day parachute drops and glider landings on 6 June 1944, both the 82d and 101st Airborne Division remained in the line in Normandy for several weeks.

Attachments for the 82d during this period were as follows:

Troop B, 4th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron, 1-23 June.

Co. C, 746th Tank Battalion, 1-11 June.

Co. A, 746th Tank Battalion, 13-21 June; 1-8 July.

Co. C, 899th TD Battalion, 1-19 June.

Co. A, 607th TD Battalion, 19 June-4 July.

801st TD Battalion, 30 June-1 July.

803d TD Battalion, 1-8 July.

The following were attached to the 101st Airborne Division for the periods indicated:

Co. D, 70th (L) Tank Battalion, 6-16 June.

Co. A, 70th (L) Tank Battalion, 7 June (date of termination unknown).

1st Battalion, 66th Armored Regiment, 17-26 June.

Also attached for some portion of the period were the …4th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron; and the 1st Platoon, Co. B, 899th TD Battalion.

HOLLAND - OPERATION MARKET

Because of shortage of divisions and multiple responsibilities, the British 21 Army Group retained the 82d Airborne Division in the line for 57 days beyond D Day in Operation MARKET (until 13 November 1944) and the 101st Airborne Division for 71 days (until 27 November). For most of this time, the two divisions held defensive positions but were subjected to strong German counterattacks.

The following units were attached to the 82d Airborne Division for the periods indicated:

1st British Coldstream Guards Armored Battalion, 19-22 September.

2d Irish Guards Battalion, 16 September-23 October (2 sqdns. until 10 November).

Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry, 19 September-10 October.

Royals Reconnaissance Battalion, 19 September-9 October.

3d British Guards Battalion, 30 September-1 October.

304th British Antitank Battery, 30 September-3 October.

2d Grenadier Guards Battalion, 6-7 October.

13/18 Hussars, 10 October-10 November.

Canadian 27th Armored Regiment, 10-12 November.

The following units were attached to the 101st Airborne Division:

British 44th Armored Regiment, 19-25 September.

13/18 Hussars, 18-22 October.

4/7 Dragoon Guards, 2-11 November.

British 53d Reconnaissance Regiment, 5-6 October, 13-19 October.

British Squadrons A & B, Royal Scots Greys, 6-7 October.

British 61st Reconnaissance Regiment, 6-12 October.

Squadron C, Royal Scots Greys, 6-17 October.

Squadron C, 61st Reconnaissance Regiment, 10-12 October.

British Sherwood Rangers, 22 October-2 November.

British 304th Antitank Battery, 12-13 October.

British 74th Antitank Battery, 9-13 November.

THE ARDENNES

When the Germans launched a major counteroffensive in the Ardennes on 16 December 1944, the only strategic reserve immediately available to Allied Supreme Headquarters was two U.S. airborne divisions, the 82d and 101st, both of which were located near Reims following relief from the 21 Army Group in Holland. On 17 December, both divisions were directed to move to the road center of Bastogne, though this was subsequently altered to send the 82d to the north shoulder of what became known as "the bulge" where it came under the XVIII Airborne Corps. The 101st at Bastogne was under the VIII Corps.

The bulk of the 82d Airborne Division reached the north shoulder in the vicinity of Werbomont early on 19 December. Here the division fought defensively until joining a major offensive of the First and Third Armies on 3 January. From 10 through 27 January the division was in corps reserve, though one of its regiments was from time to time attached to other attacking units. The division was relieved on 4 February, then from the 8th through the 12th assisted in an attack on the Roer River Dams.Attachments were as follows:

14th Tank Battalion, 9th Armored Division, 23-24 December.

703d TD Battalion, 20 December-1 January.

740th Tank Battalion, 29 December-11 January, 27 January-5 February.- 1 -

628th TD Battalion, 1-11 January.

643d TD Battalion, 25-31 January.

32d Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron, 28 January-5 February.

629th TD Battalion, 31 January-18 February.

Co. B, 744th Tank Battalion, 9-19 February.

Two platoons, 893d TD Battalion, 9-11 February.

All the 101st Airborne Division had reached Bastogne by early morning of 19 December. Here the division would fight defensively through 1 January, engage in limited objective attacks on 2 January, and participate in the major offensive by First and Third Armies from 3 through 17 January. On the 18th the division moved out of the line for transfer to new positions in Alsace.

Attachments to the 101st were as follows:

2d Tank Battalion, 19-30 December.

Combat Command R, 9th Armored Division, 20-31 December.

Combat Command B, 10th Armored Division, 20 December-18 January.

Combat Command B, 4th Armored Division, 8-10 January.

705th TD Battalion, 20 December-18 January.

Co. B, 811th TD Battalion, 3-11 January.

Co. C, 704th TD Battalion, 4-6 January.

Co. A, 602d TD Battalion, 4-6 January.

611th TD Battalion, 6-7 January.

Co. B, 704th TD Battalion, 9-11 January.

Co. C, 609th TD Battalion, 11-12 January.

The document also goes on to provide attachments to airborne forces in the Alsace, Operation Varsity, and later, but you get the picture. The point is that airborne troops spent a lot of time acting as regular strait leg infantry, and when they did, they had reasonable levels of armor support. This makes considerable sense, given that for the Americans, neither regular infantry or paratroopers had inherent armor support, and both had to rely on attached units.

[Wreck]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Based on what I have seen in the forum, many people consider the mixing of force types to be "gamey" (e.g. German mountain troops + Heer or American paratroopers + regular army).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are number of reasons for this, some of which fall under the label "gamey" and some not. They are: play balance (one meaning of gamey applies), historicity (a second meaning of gamey applies), and variety.

One reason people generally don't allow force mixing for Germans, is that on balance it leads to unhistorical force selections. For example, if you allow g-jagers or VGs, a player should always take them, because SMGs are flat out superior to rifles yet they cost the same. So you will only see non-SMG infantry if a player is either ignorant, or not really serious about winning. Which may happen, but very rarely on a ladder, say. This is bad from the point of view of playing more-or-less historical battles. And that is one sense of "gamey".

Also, the proportion of SMG infantry to rifle-44s was small. So it is gamey in the sense of "unlikely even if possible" to allow them at all.

It is also bad from the POV of wanting variety in the game. When restricted to non-VG Heer, there are reasons to pick rifle-44s, security, and motorized. And perhaps even sturmcompanies.

As for force-mixing as allies, that is much more reasonable, for several reasons. First, play balance. The allies tend to be weaker and Allied paras+armor is a reasonably fair match for a single-force German. Second, because quite arguably allied troops probably did have a few more "extra" (non-TOE) SMGs or LMGs around than Germans did, which is not modelled in CM. And third, because as you note the allies paras saw a lot of action, probably more proportionate to their sides' rifle squads than was the case for German SMG infantry. (It would be interesting to try to qualify this to see it if is really true.)

Finally, because of the SMG modelling problem, many of us think it is better to model the Allies as having more SMGs than TOE would suggest, which makes for a less gamey battle. Let me explain that. Consider a German force with lots of SMGs vs an allied rifle force. Other things being equal, the German in this case has every incentive to find ways to ensure that all battles happen at as short a range as possible. This means he is likely to do infantry charges, exploiting a weakness in the CM engine (the ability to fire and run, and the lack of pinnability of moving infantry). Thus, the German will be rewarded for use of unhistorical tactics. The situation is thus gamey in the "unhistorical" sense.

If, on the other hand, the Germans and Allies have about the same amount of SMGs on both sides, then there is no disproportional incentive for either side to engage at short range. (Of course it is still a good tactic a lot of time, but that is not something one can change via force selection.) This means that on the whole there will be more engagements at rifle ranges, and therefore a more realistic (== less gamey) battle overall.

[Fieldmarshall]

Order a phone sanitizor

[Marlow]

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

One reason people generally don't allow force mixing for Germans, is that on balance it leads to unhistorical force selections. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, you are correct. Let me clarify that I am only refering to American Airborne/Armor mixes, and not mixed Axis types. I know that British Airborne troops spent some time in the line as regular infantry, but I have no information on any attached armor.

[MrSpkr]

I absolutely agree that force mixing Ami airborne and armor is both historical and fair for all the reasons stated above.

I would be interested in knowing whether the British or Polish paratroops had similar support. I would suspect the British paras did after the Normandy invasion, but I don't know how long they fought before being pulled back to England for R&R. Ditto the Polish Brigade - after Arnhem, were they pulled back or used as infantry in the line? Did they have armor support in that role (I would suspect they had some form of support from XXX Corp. at least during the period around the close of Market-Garden).

[Andreas]

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

Yes, you are correct. Let me clarify that I am only refering to American Airborne/Armor mixes, and not mixed Axis types. I know that British Airborne troops spent some time in the line as regular infantry, but I have no information on any attached armor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

British Paras had no tank support during MARKET GARDEN (the Poles were relieved by 43rd Wessex ID before armour came up, IIRC).

After VARSITY (Rhine crossing), 6th Airborne crossed the northern plain of Germany to end the wr in Wismar on the Baltic Sea, on e of the eastern-most outposts of the western Allies. They raced the 11th AD all the way, and were supported by 6th Guards Tank Brigade with Churchills. So any scenario involving UK paras post Varsity (March 45) can legitimately field these.

In Normandy, 6th Airborne was supported by organic armour, Tetrarch air-landing tanks in their Recce Rgt (not modeled in CMBO. can be modeled by a Stuart (same gun, equally paper-thin armour). They were at some point or other supported by one of the Armoured Brigades, but I can't find my reference now, and I may remember that incorrectly.

Hope that helps.

[Marlow]

Germanboy,

Since you are here, I have a question. Currently the British Airborne do not have the option of purchasing carriers (only jeeps are available under the vehicles category). Now, one (admittedly iffy) source, Avalon Hill's "Storm Over Arnhem" gives the Brits carriers. Is there anything to this? (I can't find my copy of "A Bridge to Far" to check)

[Andreas]

D'uh. Forgot that I have the 'History of the 6th Airborne', so I went and checked...

Battle of the Bulge - 6th Airborne supported by C Squadron Fife & Forfar Yeomanry with Shermans.

Normandy - there is a reference to Cromwells being employed in 6th Airborne Armoured Reconnaissance Rgt. late in the campaign.

Ealier, during the battle around Breville, 5th Parachute Brigade was supported by B Squadron 13/18th Hussars (Shermans), presumably from 27th AB.

All I can find now.

[Andreas]

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

Germanboy,

Since you are here, I have a question. Currently the British Airborne do not have the option of purchasing carriers (only jeeps are available under the vehicles category). Now, one (admittedly iffy) source, Avalon Hill's "Storm Over Arnhem" gives the Brits carriers. Is there anything to this? (I can't find my copy of "A Bridge to Far" to check)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Waddaya know I had already written a response that it probably will only be Jeeps, but then I flicked through the book and saw two pictures with carriers, attributed to 12th Devons. So there. Seems they had carriers.

Hmm, is it possible that these were for towing 17pdrs only? Could Jeeps pull 17-pdr AT guns? Anyone know?

Anyway, I think the carriers should only come as prime movers for guns or mortars. So if you are asking because of a scenario, if you have a gun, give it a prime mover, either Jeep or carrier. Otherwise you can take a carrier, but very strictly speaking, it would have been unarmed IRL.

[Marlow]

Just found this at the Britwar website:

Airborne armoured recce regiment, August 1944

[Forty 98]

The regiment has an RHQ, an HQ squadron, a support squadron and 2 recce squadrons.

RHQ has 2 scout cars and 3 jeeps.

HQ squadron has an intercom troop, an admin troop and a seaborne party.

The seaborne party includes 8 cruiser tanks.

The support squadron has a mortar troop, an infantry support troop, and two carrier troops.

The mortar troop has 4 4.2-in mortars carried in jeeps.

The infantry support troop has 18 motorcycles and a jeep.

Each carrier troop has 3 carriers.

Each recce squadron has a heavy troop and three recce troops.

Each heavy troop has 4 light tanks.

Each recce troop has 2 universal carriers and 2 jeeps.

The cruisers in the "seaborne party" might be the cruisers you mentioned. Also, it looks like they had a number of carriers for recon use.

[Dan Robertson]

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

Hmm, is it possible that these were for towing 17pdrs only? Could Jeeps pull 17-pdr AT guns? Anyone know?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I am sure that the Jeep could physically move a 17pdr, it really would not be a good idea to use it to tow one. The Major reason being that the 17pdr weighs more than the Jeep.

Also I don't think that a field gun is braked after all it realy would need to be since they are usually towed by much larger vehicles.

[IPA]

A few notes on ATGs with the British Airborne Divisions:

Airborne 17 Pounder ATGs were not towed by jeep, but the Morris Commercial C8/AT ('Quad'). The 17 Pdr being landed complete with tow in a Hamilcar glider.

By 1944 Each Airlanding (Glider infantry) Battalion contained eight 6 pounder AT guns divided into two platoons as part of their organic support company.

Parachute Battalions did not have organic AT guns, but in the field were usually allocated one troop of four 6 pdrs from the "Brigade" AT Battery. I say "brigade" because by 1944 British Airborne Divisions contained two AT batteries which were allocated one apiece to the two Parachute Brigades. Airlanding Anti Tank Batteries each contained 4 to 5 troops of 4 ATGs. At Arnhem for example, 1st Airlanding AT Battery contained 3 troops of four 6 pdrs and 2 troops of four 17 pounders. I believe the AT strength was increased for 6th Airborne during Varsity due to lessons learn at Arnhem.

Both airlanding and parachute battalions (excluding seaborne tail) were allocated two universal carriers each (landed in one Hamilcar Glider). Their principle function was to carry mortar bombs and reserve ammunition.

Only the 6th Airborne Division contained an Armoured Reconnaisance Regiment. Off the top of my head it contained 8 Tetrarch Light Tanks during D-Day. Their landings were disastrous and only two were able to be brought into action. During Varsity the regiment used Locust tanks, but they were equally unsuccessful.

The 1st Airborne Division's Reconnaisance Squadron was non-armoured, being entirely comprised of jeeps armed with Vickers "K" guns.

Peter

[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: IPA ]

[JasonC]

Great info on the Brit airborne support weapons, folks. Thanks.

[Andreas]

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

Just found this at the Britwar website:

Airborne armoured recce regiment, August 1944

[Forty 98]

The regiment has an RHQ, an HQ squadron, a support squadron and 2 recce squadrons.

RHQ has 2 scout cars and 3 jeeps.

HQ squadron has an intercom troop, an admin troop and a seaborne party.

The seaborne party includes 8 cruiser tanks.

The support squadron has a mortar troop, an infantry support troop, and two carrier troops.

The mortar troop has 4 4.2-in mortars carried in jeeps.

The infantry support troop has 18 motorcycles and a jeep.

Each carrier troop has 3 carriers.

Each recce squadron has a heavy troop and three recce troops.

Each heavy troop has 4 light tanks.

Each recce troop has 2 universal carriers and 2 jeeps.

The cruisers in the "seaborne party" might be the cruisers you mentioned. Also, it looks like they had a number of carriers for recon use.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah yes, John Salt, our hero . This got me going. So, according to the Divisional history, the 6th Airborne Armoured Reconnaissance Rgt had a B Squadron with carriers and Dingo SCs (use Humber?) (BTW, one troop is normally four vehicles), and A Squadron with Tetrachs, but the latter was converted in the beginning of August to receive twelve Cromwell Mark IV, which were employed from about mid-August around Troarn, where at least one was lost to a handheld AT weapon. They also captured and employed an Sdkfz 7/2 (single-barrel anyway, who cares about the designation of German vehicles?) claiming a Me109 and a FW190.

Hmmm, paras with tanks, whoaaaaa (does Homer Simpson impression)

They also used bicycles (what, no horses????!!!) and foot patrols.

[xerxes]

So, the informal anti-gamey force pick rule should be?

No force mixing for axis.

Force mixing of paras & regular for allies is ok.

Is some cross nationality mixing for allies reasonable? (i.e. american force with a couple brit vehicles attached)

- xerxes

[Olle Petersson]

For the Germans it might be considered "not gamey" to have airborne troops with tanks, assault guns and SP arty, IF they're considered part of Fallshirmpanzer division Hermann Göring AND they use regular panzergrenadier infantry (instead of fallshirmjägers).

I don't know if Hermann Göring was present in the ETO though...

Cheers

Olle

[MrSpkr]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

I don't know if Hermann Göring was present in the ETO though...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe the HG Division spent most of the latter part of the war in Italy. Certainly it was present in Sicily and through Salerno and Anzio.

[Andreas]

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

I believe the HG Division spent most of the latter part of the war in Italy. Certainly it was present in Sicily and through Salerno and Anzio.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were also in the east, I don't think they ever fought in the west. Also, weren't they organised and equipped like a Panzer Division, not like a FJ Division?

[MrSpkr]

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

They were also in the east, I don't think they ever fought in the west. Also, weren't they organised and equipped like a Panzer Division, not like a FJ Division?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I believe so. They were outside the normal military command structure -- for example, local army commanders could not issue orders to the division; they made daily reports to Reichmarshal Goering's office; etc.

I also understand they were used for anti-partisan activities, particularly in north Italy (at least, that issue was brought up at Nuremberg).

[Pak40]

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

Germanboy,

Since you are here, I have a question. Currently the British Airborne do not have the option of purchasing carriers (only jeeps are available under the vehicles category). Now, one (admittedly iffy) source, Avalon Hill's "Storm Over Arnhem" gives the Brits carriers. Is there anything to this? (I can't find my copy of "A Bridge to Far" to check)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The British 6th AB positively had carriers and jeeps with twin mounted MGs. Some of these made it to the Arnhem road bridge.

[jshandorf]

I don't have that big of a problem with people attaching armored elements to Allied airborne as much as people force mixing in general. That is, they select a couple platoons of rifle 45 and some paratroopers. That is my opinion is sorta "gamey" or more like cherry pickin if you ask me.

I would never mix infantry types but I could see some vehicle and armor crossover on force selections.

Jeff