BTS, Kangaroos & HTs: Possible coding glitches for CMBB, etc.g

[John Kettler]

In using Kangaroos I've noticed a problem which I believe is caused by a code carryover from halftracks. I think there are issues there as well.

A single casualty will not only shock and button a halftrack, but will deprive it of its MG's use as well for the rest of the game. The only exceptions to this rule for the Allies are the M-3A1 and M-5A1 HTs, which are presumed to sport a .30 and a .50, thus are allowed one casualty while still retaining partial MG function. Personally, I think once the vehicle unshocks, the other person not driving should be available to run the MG. After all, even an HMG in the game can fire with but one crewman. HTs have crews of three. While I'm at it, where are the ones I've seen sporting a .50 in the ring mount and two .30s on the skate rail?

The Kangaroos come off even worse, because their MGs are mounted in MG turrets, not flex mounts. Yet a single crew casualty in the three man crew completely deprives this converted, no main turret tank of all firepower for the remainder of the game.

Granted, having the 'roo commander shot in the head isn't good, but that still leaves me with

a live driver and a browned off MG gunner. These are enough to fight the vehicle as a weapon in its own right, rather than being instantly turned into a toothless cab with very thick fenders for the duration. Yes, I know it wouldn't be militarily optimal, but with German infantry swarming about armed with 'fausts, 'schrecks and grenades, having a working MG is downright vital.

Please look into this during CMBB, if possible, or at least during CM II (that's complete engine rewrite for the newbies). The present approach has cost me considerable combat power and a great many

casualties. I'd like to see it corrected in future versions of the game.

Sincerely,

John Kettler

[russellmz]

wait, if my us halftrack gets hit with one casualty it can still fire mg?

are you sure about that? (i WANT that to happen but i've never seen it fire when it had a man down)

[JonS]

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

wait, if my us halftrack gets hit with one casualty it can still fire mg?

are you sure about that? (i WANT that to happen but i've never seen it fire when it had a man down)<hr></blockquote>

Yes it can. You have to unbutton first though (of course).

[FFE]

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

wait, if my us halftrack gets hit with one casualty it can still fire mg?<hr></blockquote>

M3/M5 ... No *not sure why*

M3A1/M5A1 ... Yes, after it unbuttons *suppose to be this way*

[ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: FFE ]</p>

[Ogadai]

I was under the impression that all the Ram Kangaroos were disarmed. Either the MG or the whole subturret was removed, depending upon mark. Am I mistaken?

[Michael Dorosh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by John Kettler:

Granted, having the 'roo commander shot in the head isn't good, but that still leaves me with

a live driver and a browned off MG gunner.

John Kettler<hr></blockquote>

And no one to spot targets - ever sit inside a tank and look through the periscope?

Try it. Tell us what you see.

Driver is too busy watching his guages to see when he has to shift gears, and figure out where the hell he is going; the MG gunner - I don't know what the sights/periscope was like on a kangaroo turret, but I am betting it wasn't too great.

Actually, I will check with the guys at 1CACR.org and see what they have to say.

[ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]</p>

[Michael Dorosh]

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

I was under the impression that all the Ram Kangaroos were disarmed. Either the MG or the whole subturret was removed, depending upon mark. Am I mistaken?<hr></blockquote>

http://1cacr.org/

[Ogadai]

Thank you, Michael. It does appear I was mistaken. My question then, if the Ram Kangaroo was armed, were the Stewart Kangaroos as well? I seem to remember that in the game they aren't. Didn't the Stewart have a bow MG? Were they removed when the turret was?

[JonS]

Stuart. Or Honey if you prefer.

[Slapdragon]

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

Thank you, Michael. It does appear I was mistaken. My question then, if the Ram Kangaroo was armed, were the Stewart Kangaroos as well? I seem to remember that in the game they aren't. Didn't the Stewart have a bow MG? Were they removed when the turret was?<hr></blockquote>

Stuart Kangaroos had the hull MG position wleded over, although I have a picture of one that has had a US .30 cal MG on an eratz pintle welded onto the center "hatch". It looked bread boarded and hastily added. Montgomery was riding in it so perhaps it was his personal command vehicle. Another possibility is that, despite the docket caption, it is actually a one off converted in an Army Group shop just for the FM.

Stuart Kangaroos were also called Stuart Reece although I am not sure if they ever did that much recon work.

[Kurtz]

The MMG Carrier is also useless when they have taken a casualty.

The German HT:s, on the other hand, are "shocked" for the duration of the game it seems. They can still drive arund with normal reaction times, but it says "shocked" and they can (of course) not fire the MG.

[Kingfish]

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

And no one to spot targets - ever sit inside a tank and look through the periscope?

Try it. Tell us what you see.

Driver is too busy watching his guages to see when he has to shift gears, and figure out where the hell he is going; the MG gunner - I don't know what the sights/periscope was like on a kangaroo turret, but I am betting it wasn't too great.

Actually, I will check with the guys at 1CACR.org and see what they have to say.

[ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]<hr></blockquote>

Who spots targets for the bow gunner of a tank that lost it's T/C? Actually, who spots targets for the bow gunner of an intact tank? The T/C? In the middle of an armored battle I doubt he will, yet the bow gunners have no problems engaging on their own.

[Brian]

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

And no one to spot targets - ever sit inside a tank and look through the periscope?

Try it. Tell us what you see.

Driver is too busy watching his guages to see when he has to shift gears, and figure out where the hell he is going; the MG gunner - I don't know what the sights/periscope was like on a kangaroo turret, but I am betting it wasn't too great.

<hr></blockquote>

More than likey they weren't. Interestingly, in Gary McKay's new book on the RAAC in Vietnam, many of those interviewed make the point that the driver of the Centurions actually had a better view than did the tank commander in jungle.

[Michael Dorosh]

Some Stuart recces were, as far as I know, fitted with .50 cal MGs - I thought on a skate rail mount where the turret ring was.

As for tank bow gunners, I wonder just how much they were used quite frankly. In Commonwealth tanks they were also busy operating the radio, no, and designated as "co-driver". I remember reading that the Sherman's bow gun had no sights - you had to look through the periscope (or hatch) and eyeball with tracers where you were shooting. The main gunner with his coax and main gun sight was better equipped for engaging targets.

As for the Bren MMG - I don't know where the third crewman even comes from - you have a driver and a commander/gunner, no? I have seen pictures of field mounted Browning .30s in the rear (where the Bren would be mounted on a true "Bren" carrier), and on one of these I can almost see why the loss of a third crewman would affect the ability to fire (though these "Bren" carriers also had a bren up front for the commander).

Is the artwork on the MMG carrier wrong? I've also seen pics of the SLI with Vickers guns mounted in the rear portion of the carrier - meaning that the loss of one crewman there would leave the commander and driver up front and unable to fire?

Has this been discussed before?

[Brian]

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

Some Stuart recces were, as far as I know, fitted with .50 cal MGs - I thought on a skate rail mount where the turret ring was.

As for tank bow gunners, I wonder just how much they were used quite frankly. In Commonwealth tanks they were also busy operating the radio, no, and designated as "co-driver". I remember reading that the Sherman's bow gun had no sights - you had to look through the periscope (or hatch) and eyeball with tracers where you were shooting. The main gunner with his coax and main gun sight was better equipped for engaging targets.

As for the Bren MMG - I don't know where the third crewman even comes from - you have a driver and a commander/gunner, no? I have seen pictures of field mounted Browning .30s in the rear (where the Bren would be mounted on a true "Bren" carrier), and on one of these I can almost see why the loss of a third crewman would affect the ability to fire (though these "Bren" carriers also had a bren up front for the commander).

Is the artwork on the MMG carrier wrong? I've also seen pics of the SLI with Vickers guns mounted in the rear portion of the carrier - meaning that the loss of one crewman there would leave the commander and driver up front and unable to fire?

Has this been discussed before?<hr></blockquote>

Partially. It has been mentioned before. As far as I'm aware the SOP for the MMG carrier was for the Vickers to be dismounted and fired from its tripod. This was in line with the general view with the British/Commonwealth forces that the Universal Carrier was not an AFV but rather an armoured transporter.

While the Bren or Vickers could be mounted in the front-left co-drivers/commander's position, carrier crews were strongly discouraged from trying to fight from their vehicles.

As for the Stuart Recce/T-8 they often mounted various MG's, usually .30 and .50 cal around the fighting compartment. George Forty writes about a river crossing in Italy in some detail in one of his general armoured history books, where Stuart Recces were used. I'll have to try and remember which one it was.

Chamberlain and Ellis have a picture of a Stuart Command tank, which is a different beastie, yet again, of the Grenadier Guards with Monty aboard, in North Africa, is this the picture that you're talking about, Michael? It appears to have a pintle mounted .30 cal in the centre front bu not much else about it is visible in that picture.

[Hensworth]

It seems my vehicles never get "unshocked" after they've taken a casualty.

It doesn't affect them, they keep moving around, but they stay shocked for the rest of the battle.

Anyone else seen this ?

[Michael Dorosh]

From Geoff Winnington-Ball (credentials below)

The optimum Kangaroo carried a crew of three - commander, driver and wireless op/gunner. Any of them could do any job, but if a two-man crew was the case (often), a responsible infantry commander

with some experience (even a good Sgt) could direct the advance; if there wasn't too much incoming fire, the bow gunner would ride head-out and direct accordingly.

Arms wise, the average Ram carried AT LEAST two Browning 1919A4 machine guns - one in the hull position and one on a pintle fixed to the turret ring on the right side. Some tanks carried an additional .30 OR .50 M2HB similarly mounted on the turret ring, but pointed forwards over the driver's head.

The .50s were by and large not that popular because it was a bear to use and the ammunition took up way too much space. The thirties WERE popular because you could use them like a hose

to shoot your way onto an objective, and even if you were limited to a crew of two, infantry could be used to man the gun.

The Ram Kangaroo had two different hull types; the earlier version sported the machinegun turret (borrowed off the cupola from the old M3 Lee), and was faily cramped, while the later version replaced the turret with a ball-mounted gun. As with the Sherman bow gun, both were normally shot without sights, using a high proportion of tracer to guide the stream onto the target as viewed through the periscope and directed by those topside.

As you can imagine, a high degree of nderstanding and cooperation between infantry and tankers at all levels was necessary, and all efforts were made to train new infantry formations at least a day before any planned operation.

You could imagine a troop of eight Kangaroos with anywhere from sixteen to twenty-four machine guns blazing, deploying in line under covering fire from supporting Shermans. There were many

times when their volume of fire was such that their infantry was on the objective before the Germans had a chance to put up any kind of spirited defence.

The standard method of approach was inline, then fanning out into a left wheel onto the objective to provide massed suppressive fire from the right quadrant, while the infantry debussed over the left side. At that point, with the infantry deploying, and enemy fire slackening due to local engagements, the tanks would continue their wheel and go back for another load.

Most Kangaroo losses were from mines, and most Kangaroo casualties were from incoming mortars or artillery after debussing from a mine-disabled tank. Ideally, any advance involving Kangaroos

had direct support from a troop or two of Shermans, because it was proven that any German antitank defences in the immediate area would generally choose to engage THESE over the Rams. Where this broke down was in conditions like those endured in VERITABLE, where the lighter Rams could traverse muck which often stopped

Shermans (Churchills could keep up most of the time).

That's it in a nutshell. The Ram Kangaroos were far from "unarmed"...

Geoff Winnington-Ball

MAPLE LEAF UP! ==>

Zephyr, Ontario, Canada

<sunray@mapleleafup.org>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Maple Leaf Up - The Canadian Army Overseas in WW2

http://www.mapleleafup.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1st Canadian Armoured Carrier Regiment

http://www.1cacr.org

[Chad Harrison]

along those lines, even if its a german HT with only two crewmembers, if its not moving and shocked, why cant the driver hop up there and shoot the MG? in all seriousness, i cannot think of any reason why not. and i think we have all been in a situation where that could of been a big asset.

[Michael Dorosh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

along those lines, even if its a german HT with only two crewmembers, if its not moving and shocked, why cant the driver hop up there and shoot the MG? in all seriousness, i cannot think of any reason why not. and i think we have all been in a situation where that could of been a big asset.<hr></blockquote>

Why on earth would he choose to endanger himself like that? His best hope of personal survival would be to stay behind his armour and drive the hell out of there. Let's get serious.

[Ogadai]

Thanks, Michael, excellent post! That clears the matter up for the Ram very nicely. I had noticed the similarity between the subturret and the Lee's but I just assumed it was a case of parallel evolution, rather than they were the same piece of kit.

Going that, it seems that the the game undermodels the potential firepower available on the Ram Kangaroo.

A side question though, is if they were aware of the value of arming the Ram Kangaroo, why was the hull MG on the Stuart Kangaroo plated over? Why didn't the Stuart one also mount pintle MG's as well?

[Slapdragon]

The Stuart Reece MG was plated over to give more space in a cramped hull. The vehicle was not really intended for reece, but for liason work, and only mounted weapons as an eratz arrangement. (According to the Fact File on the M3/5 series at least.) Of course all Stuart Reece were a little eratz in nature, being constructed in Army ordnance shops from surplus light tanks. A similar thing occured with surplus M7 and with some M3, turning them into Kangaroos or into prime movers.

All allied divisions became over strength with these eratzs transports. The US 3rd Armored Division in July 1945 during the draw down of forces was twice over strength of transports including German halftracks, British Lorries, and trucks taken from bone yards and put back into service. British Divisions were much the same in the extent of their ad hoc mechanization.

[Ogadai]

What you say has merit, Slapdragon although it strikes me as a bit strange that the builders of the vehicle were removing the MG's whilst the users were replacing them. I'd have thought the bow MG was a sensible thing to retain, providing the users with a weapon and some armour from which to fire it.

By the way, does your keyboard have a sticky "e"?

[Michael Dorosh]

My friend Geoff has the following to add to the discussion, if you fellows find it of interest...

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

Universal Carrier outfitting and employment during the last three years of the war (in both Italy and Northwest Europe) was a function of

radical innovation at battalion or lower level. This falls into two rather broad categories; first, 'MMG carriers' and the doctrine surrounding their equipping and employment, and second, all other carriers used in any "offensive" role rather than as simple, tracked supply carriers.

With regards MMG carriers, the doctrine seems to once again emanate from Regiment or lower. Let's start by saying the the role of the MMG carrier, circa 1943, bore NO resemblance nor familial ties to that of the early "Bren" carrier.

It is important to note, right off the bat, that the Vickers Gun was NOT mounted in the commander's position, but on a strengthened pintle bolted to a reinforced engine top housing, complete with hardware and routing for the cooling lines, which allowed 360-degree use. There was a crew of four, commander (Sgt or Cpl for a section of four carriers, Cpl or L/Cpl

for individual carriers), driver, gunner and assistant gunner. The gun WOULD be used on the carrier in general support missions, IF a hull-down position could be found. The rest of the time, it could indeed be dismounted and used from the tripod, but as you might gather, on a fluid

battlefield, mobility was the key.

In Italy, particularly, we see many custom variations in MMG carriers. Our machine gun regiment there was the SLI, and we have seen pictures of some of their carriers stripped almost to the bone to lighten the load and increase mobility with a good load of ammunition. Yet they, too, in difficult battles, wouldn't hesitate to dismount the gun if it meant

better support for the PBIs. THAT was almost a religion with them; if it meant fighting from onboard, so bet it... if you had to dismount, that

was fine too.

I've met a couple of their vets, who could march up to our factory-fresh carrier restoration at a show and proceed to spend the next four hours

teling us EXACTLY what we had to take off the thing to make it "go", where we had to put what, and how to use it...

I know less about the TorScots et al in NW Europe, although THAT is about to change, shortly. By then, though, the pattern for the mounting of MMGs on carriers was fixed as described above (we have ordnance diagrams), and I can only surmise that the same "rules" prevailed. These were remarkably independent units charged with a great deal of responsibility on a brigade front, and it seems they took it seriously.

Regards other "offensive" carriers, there seems to be even MORE lattitude in terms of armaments and employment. While I can't speak for

the British, the Canadians were ertainly 'innovators' in the field of making loud, offensive noises, and you'll already agree we didn't particularly give a damn about "the book". We have photographs taken as early as Caen, of Canadian carriers (and T-16s) armed with all manner of .50 AND/OR .30 Brownings, in addition to the ubiquitous Bren. The availability of all these seemed to grow directly proportionate to the number of knocked-out tanks on the battlefield (we were nothing if not

good scroungers). As with the MMG carriers, guns were generally NOT mounted in the commander's position, but on locally fabricated mounts

just about anywhere on the hull. The fact that these were retained through the war (some of these photos are from Holland, May/June 1945)

suggests every intent to engage the enemy whenever they were encountered.

As an example, I have a great picture of a couple of Lake Sups clowning around behind a .50 and a .30 on a T-16 which ALSO has a Bren mounted

(unattended). What's interesting is that the .50 is a standard ground-mount M2HB which has had the heavy barrel removed and replaced with (no doubt a scrounged) aircooled aircraft barrel complete with jacket.

A good argument in support of this flexibility is as follows: once we broke out of Normandy, we were engaged in a remarkably fluid war which

we had not expected. Set-piece battles were basically a thing of the past, and even if you could make the case for such during the Scheldt

and Rhineland campaigns, all close support was still predicated upon extreme mobility and firepower. Even in both the latter cases, carriers

stayed up with the troops during the advance (to the limits of tractability of course), and whatever firepower they could offer was critical from moment to moment.

You have to remember that the basic carrier could go places no other vehicle could, and the T-16 was even better. The latter is reputed to be

one of the few vehicles which could actually transit the mud of VERITABLE without bogging, as well as the unarmoured Weasel used for

casualty evacuation. SImilar observations come out of the winter campaigns in Italy, which of course prompted us to employ the excellent

Canadian Armoured Snowmobile with such effectiveness.

Hey, and we won't even GO into the subject of the 14-PIAT carrier launch platform...

<hr></blockquote>

[Slapdragon]

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

What you say has merit, Slapdragon although it strikes me as a bit strange that the builders of the vehicle were removing the MG's whilst the users were replacing them. I'd have thought the bow MG was a sensible thing to retain, providing the users with a weapon and some armour from which to fire it.

By the way, does your keyboard have a sticky "e"?<hr></blockquote>

Well, the shops were removing the bow machineguns because some of the Stuart's radio gear is carried in the turret. Loose the turret and you loose those big radios, so it went in the hull. People in the field were sticking machineguns on the turret ring firing forward when they were doing it at all, so that would still leave room for 3-5 people in the Stuart hull (depending on how much crap you piled in it).

My keyboard does not have a sticky e, I just type fast and don't bother to correct spelling.

[ 10-26-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]</p>

[Marco Bergman]

A quick skim through my pictures of NZ Stuart Recces in Italy shows the following photos of NZ 4th Arm. Bgde Stuart Recces:

* no bow MG, welded on roof, ammo carrier with engine deck stacked high.

* group of 3, welded on roof, no external MGs ,supply carriers with stacked engine decks.

* Bow MG, .5 & .3 on top.

* group of 3, no bow MG, 1st and 3rd have .3s pintle mounted in a gun shield. (#3 towing a trailer)

* .5 on top.

* bow mg. .5 on top.

* .3 on top.