HQ casualties and armament in CMBB

[Tero]

I just noticed a HQ unit will hold on to the pistols rather than retain the rifle when it sustains casualties. And come to think of it, I would have thought a HQ unit would carry SMG's and rifles rather than pistols in the frontlines. Anyway, IMO the remaining men would have picked up the rifle in favour of that puny pistol when operating in combat conditions. And if things get really bad they should retain the SMG to the last.

Any word if that is going to be changed change in CMBB ?

[Michael Emrys]

I have a book called Military Science and Tactics by Col. P.S. Bond. It was published in 1944 and appears to be a training manual. In the back it has several very detailed TO&Es for everything from a company to a division of infantry and is current to February of 1944.

Anyway, it lists the HQ of a rifle platoon as having 1 commisioned officer and 4 enlisted personnel. The officer carries an M1 carbine and the 4 EM each carry an M1 Garand. No pistols or SMGs are mentioned.

It's worth remembering though that official TO&Es changed as the war progressed and actual practice in the field could vary from the official TO&E.

Michael

[JonS]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

... It's worth remembering though that official TO&Es changed as the war progressed and actual practice in the field could vary from the official TO&E ...<hr></blockquote>

True, but I think the trend would be from lighter to heavier ( e.g. pistol -> carbine -> SMG) weapons/firepower, ratner than the other way round.

Regards

Jon

[Michael Emrys]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JonS:

True, but I think the trend would be from lighter to heavier ( e.g. pistol -> carbine -> SMG) weapons/firepower, ratner than the other way round.<hr></blockquote>

In general yes. However, officers usually armed themselves according to perceived need and personal preference. While it is quite possible that the platoon sergeant carried an SMG, I have read of almost no officers doing so. Interestingly, General James Gavin of the 82nd. Airborne claims to have carried a Garand in preference to a carbine. Many if not most paratroopers jumped carrying a .45 pistol in addition to their regular personal weapon as they felt they needed something that they could quickly deploy as soon as they hit the ground.

Michael

[JonS]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

... Many if not most paratroopers jumped carrying a .45 pistol in addition to their regular personal weapon ...<hr></blockquote>

The key words here are in addition. AFAIK Officers were only issued with pistols (certainly in the CW anyway), so are starting from a low base - the only way they could go is up in terms of fire power. Unless they decided to ditch the pistol and rely on their compass and map

Also, carrying the same type of weapon (and the same dress) as the baggies makes them less of a target.

Regards

Jon

[Michael Emrys]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JonS:

AFAIK Officers were only issued with pistols (certainly in the CW anyway)...<hr></blockquote>

Yes. The B/C/E armies are a different case from the US. In the US Army, as stated, an officer could get most any weapon he asked for. So far as I know (which admittedly is less than I would prefer) other than a swagger stick, it was rare for a B/C/E officer to carry anything besides a service revolver, though there is one interesting case of a Commando officer wielding a Claymore... But Commandos, SAS, and such types were a special case in many ways.

Michael

[JonS]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

... So far as I know (which admittedly is less than I would prefer) other than a swagger stick, it was rare for a B/C/E officer to carry anything besides a service revolver ...<hr></blockquote>

Early war mebbe - but they got over it and started carrying standard infantry weapons. There is an interesting passage in Guns of Normandy where a coy commander rips all the embellishments off another officer (and hands him a weapon? not sure about that bit) to disguise his officer-ness.

There is a difference between what was issued and what was carried too ... in both the US and the UK I suspect

My knowledge of the US is probably about as strong as yours on the UK Anyway, Teros point about the HQs presumably applies to all nationalities.

Jon

[Affentitten]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>though there is one interesting case of a Commando officer wielding a Claymore... <hr></blockquote>

There is also an interesting case of one of the founding officers of the Commandos getting a confirmed kill during the retreat to Dunkirk using a bow and arrow! Apparently he was an competitive archer and retained this bit of personal kit when his unit packed their bags and retreated.

[Tero]

Originally posted by JonS:

Anyway, Teros point about the HQs presumably applies to all nationalities.

As it happens the observation I made was on a German HQ unit. And yes, all nationalities are implied. Finnish officers carried either rifles or SMG's in combat units.

[offtaskagain]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Affentitten:

There is also an interesting case of one of the founding officers of the Commandos getting a confirmed kill during the retreat to Dunkirk using a bow and arrow! Apparently he was an competitive archer and retained this bit of personal kit when his unit packed their bags and retreated.<hr></blockquote>

That would take some serious nerves of steel, which being a Commando he most likely had. Can you provide a reference? I'd like to read more on that. I'm a fairly skilled bowhunter and I can hit a human torso size target with the first shot only at less than 50 yards. And thats with a nice high velocity compound bow and a good sight.

[Affentitten]

panzerwefer 42, I'll have a look when I get home tonight. The story was in a magazine article on the founding of the Commandos. Iread it when I was at high school (15 years ago!) However, in moving house recently, I uncovered this stash of magazines so I know exactly where to look.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:

I just noticed a HQ unit will hold on to the pistols rather than retain the rifle when it sustains casualties.<hr></blockquote>

I suspect the reasoning behind this is that the officer is always assumed to be the last man killed in a HQ unit.

[Simon Fox]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JonS:

The key words here are in addition. AFAIK Officers were only issued with pistols (certainly in the CW anyway), so are starting from a low base - the only way they could go is up in terms of fire power. Unless they decided to ditch the pistol and rely on their compass and map

Also, carrying the same type of weapon (and the same dress) as the baggies makes them less of a target.

Regards

Jon<hr></blockquote>The critical point is the last. British officers would generally carry a rifle or smg so that they were not so readily distinguished from the rest of the unit. For example Sidney Jary says he was the exception because he didn't (short sighted and couldn't see far enough to hit anything, hehe). AIF platoon and Coy officers seemed to have frequently carried rifles.

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

I suspect the reasoning behind this is that the officer is always assumed to be the last man killed in a HQ unit.<hr></blockquote>

This is most likely so.

In US units, the officers of Company and Platoon grade were issued with carbines, but did not always carry them, depending on the situation. Officers almost never carried SMG since the M1/M2 carbine was seen as more effective than a SMG (and indeed probably was except at close quarters) and was much lighter, ammo and weapon all told. One reason why many officers in the US military did not carry their carbines was they carried radio gear when casualties sapped platoon RTO strength.

German infantry units issue depended on the type of unit. German infantry officers where issued with a pistol (infantry) or a SMG (SS Infantry) at the platoon and company level, but apparently this was very much subject to the whims of the officers. German doctrine did not favor arming officers with infantry weapons because their officers had a higher work load than their US/CW opposites (at least according to Stiener and Ezell), but SS TO and E shows platoon commanders issed with SMG.

I have a 1943 Canadian T O and E that shows a Canadian infantry officer carried a 9mm pistol. A 1940 British TO and E shows a British infantry officer with a .455 revolver. I have no idea if these stood until Normandy. Several troop commanders are mentioned in Arnhem (from A Bridge to Far) as having Stens, but the Airborne was not of course organized the same way as straight legs.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

I suspect the reasoning behind this is that the officer is always assumed to be the last man killed in a HQ unit.

Agreed.

But would it really be a pistol he would be carrying if he was the lone survivor ?

[Tero]

Several TOE and doctrine examples have been presented. I feel compelled to challenge the Universal Officer premise however. Even Finnish officers carried pistols. But they carried also rifles or SMG's in combat conditions. And it has been established that even Allied and German officers, even if the TOE said something else, would carry weapons if not for an other reason then to divert fire from themselves.

Also, MG crews and other assorted specialists would carry pistols. And AFV crews would have SMG's handy.

If all facts posted here are true then the CM modelling would be in line with the facts. Except it would be the officers who would be targeted first in a unit (being the obvious targets as they are the only ones not humping a stick). The current CM modelling assumes it is the officer commanding who is the last one in the unit to make the real estate deal. In the light of these contradicting facts it should stand to reason he would be carrying some weapon other than a pistol.

[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

[Monty's Double]

The clues are all there if you put them together: the Rupert starts with a rifle, forcing the the poor stubblehoppers (to mix a metaphor) to carry pistols, and therefore present themselves as prime targets. Once the rest of his squad is out of action, he is then forced to ditch the rifle because there's nobody else left to carry the radio. Simple.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Monty's Double:

The clues are all there if you put them together: the Rupert starts with a rifle, forcing the the poor stubblehoppers (to mix a metaphor) to carry pistols, and therefore present themselves as prime targets. Once the rest of his squad is out of action, he is then forced to ditch the rifle because there's nobody else left to carry the radio. Simple.

What if there are no radios ? There is a random chance even in CMBO there are no radios. In CMBB it will be a rule rather than an exception.

ADDENDUM:

WWII era radios were for the most part large and heavy, often requiring 2 (or more) men to carry it. The only exception I can think of was the US walkie-talkie. To call the radios "portable" is not really accurate.

The HQ unit can run (even with casualties), which should not be physically possible except for those HQ units without radios or with walki-talkies. With 2-4 casualties the HQ unit should become immobilized and/or its command radius should be cut down considerably. The same goes for FO units BTW.

[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

[Jarmo]

As personal weapons go. In "A Bridge too far" there was this officer who wielded an umbrella. Is there any truth behind that one?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Monty's Double:

Once the rest of his squad is out of action, he is then forced to ditch the rifle because there's nobody else left to carry the radio. Simple.

Forgot: wouldn't you think the man carrying the radio would be next in line when picking up targets after the man waving his hands and carrying nothing but a baton is whacked ?

[tss]

JonS wrote:

Unless they decided to ditch the pistol and rely on their compass and map

Then again, there's the old saying that nothing is more dangerous than a lieutenant with a map and a compass...

- Tommi

[Tero]

Originally posted by tss:

Then again, there's the old saying that nothing is more dangerous than a lieutenant with a map and a compass...

How is that modelled in CM ?

[Peaveyyyyyyyy]

As an ex-Officer in the British Army (in the 80's) I was told I could pick my own personal weapon. I realise this may only have come in as a doctrine after the war.

Subalterns tend to either be interested in leading from inside the platoon (take a rifle so you are one of the lads), or from 'the top' take a pistol as it sets you apart. I had no real leaning either way. It seemed to me that your first job was to lead the platoon, think and plan for them etc, so they can concentrate on firing their bullets in the right direction. You shouldn't be joining in too much.

I chose an SMG (Sterling) as I decided that I would really only need to be armed if we were actually overrun, so I went for the lightest thing with the highest ROF!

IN WW2, I would have thought reliability was a factor, too. Maybe the carbines were better in this regard than SMGs

To my mind, the Officer is there for his brain, not his marksmanship.

Oh, and the story about the Para with the umbrella is true, AFAIK. When I get home I'll look his name up!

[Tero]

Originally posted by Peaveyyyyyyyy:

It seemed to me that your first job was to lead the platoon, think and plan for them etc, so they can concentrate on firing their bullets in the right direction. You shouldn't be joining in too much.

In the modern Finnish army the platoon and the squad leaders carry tracers so they can direct fire. Or that was the SOP in the mid 80's.

IN WW2, I would have thought reliability was a factor, too. Maybe the carbines were better in this regard than SMGs

Actually IIRC in the US doctrine the carbine was classed as a long range pistol rather than a lighter rifle.

To my mind, the Officer is there for his brain, not his marksmanship.

Agreed. But should he make himself stand out like a sore thumb by appearing distictly different from the troops surrounding him ? This includes dressing differently (white fur coat among trenchcoat troops), acting differently (waving hands etc) and not carrying the same weapons (and being handed the mike once in a while).

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jarmo:

As personal weapons go. In "A Bridge too far" there was this officer who wielded an umbrella. Is there any truth behind that one? <hr></blockquote>

Yes,

Digby Tatham-Waltham carried an umbrella because he felt his leadership was more important than any weapon he carried (he did carry a pistol) and used it to direct movement and fire. He also carried it because he had a very poor memory and did not want to get shot for forgetting the password of the day.

Unlike what the movie said, Tatham-Waltham survived the battle, won about a gagillion initials after his name, then moved to Kenya and was instrumental in putting down the Mau Mau uprising.