HQ casualties and armament in CMBB

[Tero]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

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.

What was his rank during the battle in Arnhem ?

And didn't the commander of the force defending the position at the other end of the Arnhem brigde carry a SMG ?

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

[MichaelU]

<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>

There certainly was in the book of the same name by Cornelius Ryan.

[Slapdragon]

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

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

[qb]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.

What was his rank during the battle in Arnhem ?

And didn't the commander of the force defending the position at the other end of the Arnhem brigde carry a SMG ?

[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: tero ][/QB]<hr></blockquote>

He was a Major. No, John Frost never carried an SMG according to what is mentioned in Ryan (not much that is). There are mentions of British officers carrying SMGs, especially near the end.

A story of the Irish Guards does mention lower level lieutenants with Webley revolvers, but this is narrative and not a TO and E.

[Michael Emrys]

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

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.<hr></blockquote>

The Walkie-Talkie was that big job you see packed on the radioman's back. The smaller hand-held job issued to platoon leaders was called a Handy-Talkie, though the movies have gotten the public hopelessly confused on this score.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>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.<hr></blockquote>

Not sure about that last part, since comand radius in CM does not depend on radio communication. However, since it does depend in part on runners, maybe you're right after all.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The same goes for FO units BTW.<hr></blockquote>

Hmm. You mean slowed down because the FO is having to hump his own radio? I'm not sure he'd be any slower than his radioman. I think you'd have a stronger case that they should never be fast units at all. Either that or they should tire quickly if required to move fast.

Michael

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

[Wisbech_lad]

Sydney Jary in his book mentions:

- Shortsighted, so no rifle (as Simon Fox said)

- Bought (privately, for 9 quid, presumably in the black market) a 9mm Colt automatic, as he didn't like Webley pistol. Had to scrounge ammo from US units

- Also carried an umbrella. Useful for keeping dry, and poking at mines.

But his men disliked the umbrella, thinking it marked him out too much, and was pretentious. So during a night patrol they "lost" it for him by sticking it in the middle of a german position they were reconning.

He also didn't wear government issue battledress, or helmet, using his own clothes instead (comfortable khaki jumpers and trousers, with insignia sewn on)

[Ogadai]

As I understand it, the Australian experience and SOP has long been no embellishments and officers carry longarms, rather than just pistols. The first was to prevent them being marked for special treatment by snipers or if captured (after the experience of WWII with the Japanese and Korea) while the latter was becuase they were expected to contribute to the firepower of their platoon/company. Saluting in the field has also long been discouraged, for the same reasons. In Vietnam, even Chaplains were known to carry an unloaded rifle, because of the danger of snipers. In WWII, it was long recongnised that a pistol is only useful as an absolute last ditch weapon for most people and then they'd most probably be better off throwing it at their opponent than firing it.

I believe that as the war progressed, the weapons that HQ personnel carried tended to resemble more and more those of the standard infantry soldier, both for self-protection purposes and to make ammunition resupply easier.

[Michael Emrys]

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

- Bought (privately, for 9 quid, presumably in the black market) a 9mm Colt automatic, as he didn't like Webley pistol. Had to scrounge ammo from US units<hr></blockquote>

Er...why? The Sten used 9mm, right? So there should have been plenty around. On the other hand, I don't recall that the Amis had a regularly issued weapon that used that caliber. Sure it wasn't .45? If it was 9mm, then it was more likely a Browning than a Colt (I think; I'm not a sidearm grog and there are several on the board, so I may get my comeuppance here ).

Michael

[Slapdragon]

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

Er...why? The Sten used 9mm, right? So there should have been plenty around. On the other hand, I don't recall that the Amis had a regularly issued weapon that used that caliber. Sure it wasn't .45? If it was 9mm, then it was more likely a Browning than a Colt (I think; I'm not a sidearm grog and there are several on the board, so I may get my comeuppance here ).

Michael<hr></blockquote>

Colt made a 9mm 1911 and a 38 Super. Ammo would have been no problem with 9mm, but a big problem with .38 Super. Since the 9mm 1911 was extremely rare, and the .38 Super was a more powerful round and fairly common in civilian use, more than likely it was a .38 Super. .38 Super has nearly the same bullet diameter as 9mm, only loaded to a higher pressure.

[Tero]

The Walkie-Talkie was that big job you see packed on the radioman's back.

I have had the (mis)fortune of carrying the modern LV-217 (IIRC the US designation is AN/PRC-25 or something like that, anyways the one used in Vietnam). I would hesitate to call it a walkie-talkie. Being a bulky piece of equipment you really prefer to stop for talking.

I have also had the (mis)fortune of being in the wirelaying gang and while the radio was preferred because it was easier overall (no reeling back after the job was done) the wirelaying apparatus allowed faster movement (after a fashion ) and was less conspicious (no aerial).

The smaller hand-held job issued to platoon leaders was called a Handy-Talkie, though the movies have gotten the public hopelessly confused on this score.

I do not recall seeing that definition before.

Not sure about that last part, since comand radius in CM does not depend on radio communication.

If this is true it does defy the premise of superiority of radio equipped HQ teams in combat CC as it is now represented in CM.

However, since it does depend in part on runners, maybe you're right after all.

Either way.

Hmm. You mean slowed down because the FO is having to hump his own radio? I'm not sure he'd be any slower than his radioman.

The assorted units (like HMG's) which are unable to run can not do so because the "load balancing" brings down the average speed of the men.

How much did a WWII era portable radio weigh ? The LV217 weighs around 10kg. Add that to basic combat load

I think you'd have a stronger case that they should never be fast units at all. Either that or they should tire quickly if required to move fast.

True.

What about the weapons they should carry (the original topic) ?

[Kanonier Reichmann]

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

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.<hr></blockquote>

What did he do, bash them over their heads with his brolly?

Regards

Jim R.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

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. .<hr></blockquote>

I doubt it - the 9mm was not standard issue until November 1944. Paratroop officers carried a mix, including .45 M1911A1s, which the Canadian government held from the First World War. The 9mm replaced the .38.

Didn't matter, most infantry officers carried Stens or Lee Enfield rifles in the field, I presume these were over and above establishment?

[Wreck]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

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

<hr></blockquote>

Keep in mind this is a game.

In the real thing, regardless of what weapon a leader was actually carrying about, if he was doing his job he did not have a lot of time to use it. That would seem especially true after losing all of his staff. So the pistol does not necessarily mean that what is being modeled is an officer with a pistol. Instead what is modeled is an officer doing his job, which leaves him precious little time to exert firepower.

[Michael Emrys]

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

Colt made a 9mm 1911 and a 38 Super. Ammo would have been no problem with 9mm, but a big problem with .38 Super. Since the 9mm 1911 was extremely rare, and the .38 Super was a more powerful round and fairly common in civilian use, more than likely it was a .38 Super. .38 Super has nearly the same bullet diameter as 9mm, only loaded to a higher pressure.<hr></blockquote>

Thanks for the info, slappy. I was hoping you would turn up in this discussion. But this raises another question. If the gentleman in question was really packing a .38 Super (is that the same as a .38 Special BTW?), where would he get ammo from? I would be really surprised if it was in the logistics pipline (but then I've been surprised before...). I know some flyboy types preferred the .38 (because it was more compact and comfortable to carry, I suppose), but was that the standard or the Super?

Michael

[Tero]

Originally posted by Wreck:

Keep in mind this is a game.

Harsh Realm this is not.

In the real thing, regardless of what weapon a leader was actually carrying about, if he was doing his job he did not have a lot of time to use it. That would seem especially true after losing all of his staff.

If the officer had lost all of his staff it means that he is in mortal danger of getting snuffed. What would he do in a situation like that: haul ass to save himself by abandoning his command, stick it out with a pistol or pick up the most appropriate piece of hardware he can find (rifle, SMG or even an LMG) and fight to the end ?

So the pistol does not necessarily mean that what is being modeled is an officer with a pistol.

Yes it does. Check out any HQ unit with 1-5 casualties and what the survivors are fielding. I started this thread because I saw a 4 man HQ unit with 1 casualty fielding 2 pistols and 1 SMG while the rifle had been dropped. The disabled radioman carried the rifle. OK, fair enough. Why should the officer all of a sudden stick to the pistol when the private humped the radio AND the rifle ? Dropping the rifle is IMO bad procedure because the LR firepower of the unit is seriously diminished and letting enemy units come close is something a HQ unit should be able to at least hinder somewhat at longer range if they are not able to stop the enemy from getting close.

Instead what is modeled is an officer doing his job, which leaves him precious little time to exert firepower.

Wrong. If the HQ unit has taken casualties it means the enemy most likely has a fix on the command unit and is likely to take steps to neutralize it. At that point the main task of the officer is to get his hands dirty and take steps to preserve his remaining command staff. This includes fighting it out with the enemy units. He can use the radio and do his job as a commander but he is in no way excempted from taking care of his of security if no friendlies can come to the rescue. You can kill the enemy indirectly with the radio but you have to be physically alive to be able to operate it.

[Affentitten]

Reagrding the Commando officer who killed a German with a bow and arrow, his name was Major "Mad" Jack Churchill MC. He was one of the founding members of the Commandos and was involved in their first raid on Vaagso, Norway, coincidentally named Operation Archery!

[Michael Emrys]

It seems to need repeating that in WW II the platoon leader did not use his radio (assuming he even had one; more likely in most armies he would have used a field phone) to control his squads. That was for reporting back to company HQ and receiving orders from same.

Michael

[Slapdragon]

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

It seems to need repeating that in WW II the platoon leader did not use his radio (assuming he even had one; more likely in most armies he would have used a field phone) to control his squads. That was for reporting back to company HQ and receiving orders from same.

Michael<hr></blockquote>

The farthest you will find in this vein is a US platoon, equipped with three radios (two hand talkies and a pacxked radio) using the radios to coordinate sections of the platoon. This means the PL and PS both got a hand talkie, and the rto ran around with the PL for contact to the rear.

Even with these radios, the hand talkies where still more commonly used to call artillery rather than control the platoon. Even as late as the 1980s squads did not carry individual radios for tactical use.

[Ogadai]

Seems to me you are making some assumptions, Slapdragon. The first is that all units were always up to full establishment and strength in the US Army. The other is that the range of the handy-talky was sufficient to reach far enough back to call in artillery. As you've ducked out on the discussion about US Artillery practices, I'm still wondering how the US platoon commander called in artillery. Did he call back to company and they called to the artillery unit or did they call to battalion and they called the artillery unit which actually provided the fire support?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

It seems to need repeating that in WW II the platoon leader did not use his radio (assuming he even had one; more likely in most armies he would have used a field phone) to control his squads. That was for reporting back to company HQ and receiving orders from same.

The presence of the field phone did not quarantee there was no need to use runners to keep in touch with Company. The platoon CO would be dispatching runners to squads AND Company at the same time.

BTW: the small HQ team is historically inaccurate at least if the text book OB of the Finnish army is observed. There was 2 rifle squads and 2 LMG squads in a Finnish platoon. The leaders would of course convene but in combat their place was with the squads.

[Michael Emrys]

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

The presence of the field phone did not quarantee there was no need to use runners to keep in touch with Company. The platoon CO would be dispatching runners to squads AND Company at the same time.<hr></blockquote>

Not disputed.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>BTW: the small HQ team is historically inaccurate at least if the text book OB of the Finnish army is observed. There was 2 rifle squads and 2 LMG squads in a Finnish platoon. The leaders would of course convene but in combat their place was with the squads.<hr></blockquote>

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. CMBO is not trying to represent Finnish force structures. Best wait to see how CMBB deals with the issue.

Michael

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. CMBO is not trying to represent Finnish force structures. Best wait to see how CMBB deals with the issue.

Agreed. I just added that so people can see where some of my POV is coming from.

[Wreck]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

So the pistol does not necessarily mean that what is being modeled is an officer with a pistol.

Check out any HQ unit with 1-5 casualties and what the survivors are fielding.

<hr></blockquote>

Pistols. So what?

You completely failed to understand what I was saying. I was suggesting that the officer in question might "really" have a SMG or rifle. But he is only getting the firepower of a pistol, because he is too busy doing his job to spend much time firing.

Telling me that the game shows him with a pistol proves nothing. I just told a way that a man with a virtual SMG might be modelled as a man with a pistol. OK, he has a "pistol". Is it an SMG that he is not firing much, or is it really a .45?

Furthermore, note that my interpretation of this has nothing to do with casualties. Even at full strength, maybe the officer is really carrying an SMG, not a pistol. But because he is spending time talking to runners, giving orders, yelling into the radio for more arty, etc, he does not get full firepower.

He gets the firepower of a pistol, and so he is shown as having a pistol.

[Brewmeister]

As I understand it if the HQ unit sustains casualties the last man standing is the officer and therefore can still maintain command of his platoon. Is this realistic?

Would it be possible to have a feature in CMBB that if a HQ unit takes a casualty there is a random chance that it is the officer that goes down and not one of the grunts? The net result would be a HQ unit that is incapable of exerting command over the platoon and is considered from this point on just a half squad with its firepower depending upon the remaining weapons. This would force the company HQ unit to step up and exert its command over the now leaderless platoon.

[Michael Emrys]

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

As I understand it if the HQ unit sustains casualties the last man standing is the officer and therefore can still maintain command of his platoon. Is this realistic?<hr></blockquote>

Not as stated. The attrition rate among platoon leaders was very high in all armies.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Would it be possible to have a feature in CMBB that if a HQ unit takes a casualty there is a random chance that it is the officer that goes down and not one of the grunts? The net result would be a HQ unit that is incapable of exerting command over the platoon and is considered from this point on just a half squad with its firepower depending upon the remaining weapons. This would force the company HQ unit to step up and exert its command over the now leaderless platoon.<hr></blockquote>

That would be overkill. There is also a platoon sergeant in the HQ group who would be capable of taking over and running the platoon, albeit at perhaps reduced efficiency. In fact, after the autumn of 1941, a sizable proportion of German platoons (and even in some cases companies) in Russia were being led by sergeants due to the loss of so many junior officers.

My alternative would be that the HQ would continue to function, but with every casualty would have to role the die to see if it loses any of its bonuses.

Michael

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]</p>

[Peaveyyyyyyyy]

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

Originally posted by Peaveyyyyyyyy:

[qb]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.

QB]<hr></blockquote>

Tracers work BOTH ways, so I'd rather wear a white fur coat. At least I'd be warm! The only weapon that had ANY tracer was the GPMG, and I don't think the lads were that keen on using it!

[ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: Peaveyyyyyyyy ]</p>