Where are all the Allied SMGs?

[Jeff Heidman]

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

I can see it now:

Squad List (continued)

>US Infantry 1944-32B

>US Infantry 1944-33

\/US Infantry 1944-34

(2) M1 SMG

(5) M1 Rifle

(2) M1 Carbine

(2) Captured MP40

(1) M1918 BAR

>US Infantry 1944-35

>US Infantry 1944-36

We could have like 300 different combinations of SMG, rifle, and carbine to choose from for the US assuming that this or that squad [icked up or dropped off this or that weapon..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, kind of like there are 300 different variants of German squads available?

There are currently 4 different types of American Infantry. There are an order of magnitude greater number of available German Infantry.

Maybe, just maybe, it would be possible to come up with a number greater than 3 but less than 300? Possibly?

Jeff Heidman

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Gee, kind of like there are 300 different variants of German squads available?

There are currently 4 different types of American Infantry. There are an order of magnitude greater number of available German Infantry.

Maybe, just maybe, it would be possible to come up with a number greater than 3 but less than 300? Possibly?

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except we would be going from a situation where we have a TO&E to act as our guideline to a situation where our only guideline is a made up squad that could have been. If the US had an officicial SMG heavy squad, trot out the document which records its existance. All of the German units exist as TO&E charts somewhere, the Germans did not standardize at all. The US did, and a rifle squad looked pretty much the same across all environments. Even an evidence of an unofficial but recognized change in squad make up would be of interest.

Of course CM:BO is frozen in time, these change discussions are just wanking, but if someone built a nice picture using sound evidence that some other sort of US squad was in use, then I am sure that it would come back for CM:II. And it is possible that the Infantry model will get fined down in a couple of years for CMII where it may be useful to give 1728 combinations of units to the US player (and in turn give the Germans 49,800 combinations).

[Mr. Johnson--]

My god slappy, you heard about making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Remember my second post on this thread.

It would be nice to see an Ad hoc platoon.

Do you think that troops in the Ardennes getting over run during Wacht en Rein maintained their nice and neat TO-E as their were being overun and out of contact?

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Except we would be going from a situation where we have a TO&E to act as our guideline to a situation where our only guideline is a made up squad that could have been.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, we would be going to a squad that was NOT "made up", nor is it a squad that "could have been", we would be modelling squads that anecdotal evidence clearly state existed, as opposed to simply insisting that official TO&Es are the final arbiter of what actually happened in real life.

That is the ultimate goal, right?

Your insistence that only TO&E be used as a model ignores reality. It *was* recognized that the rifle only squad was not always adequate, and the Germans responded by creating a huge mish-mash of "official" types. The Western Allies responded by providing vast numbers of weapons that were not TO&E, but allowing units to differ from "official" TO&E.

Funny that I do not see the people opposed to squads that do not represent "official" TO&E getting upset over the CM pattern 45 US rifle squads with 2 BARS...

Jeff Heidman

[Slapdragon]

Nope, you misread an earlier post of mine. Come up with even second hand data that a squad was semi-official, then when the next CMII comes around push it. Don't just say that the game is unfair to the US because they don't have enough squad variants. There is a difference between a well researched change in how squads were formed, and saying, umm, lets throw a couple of SMGs in just for kicks.

One thing that I am for is a squad arrangement that woudl kill off members of the squad to represent not enough replacements or previous battle losses. I am not sure how that could be programmed in the current CM, but maybe in the engine change it could be done.

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Nope, you misread an earlier post of mine. Come up with even second hand data that a squad was semi-official, then when the next CMII comes around push it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you read this thread? There has been plenty of data that these squads existed. You are insisting that it be "semi-official" only because you know that while it happened, it was not official.

Again, why are you not demanding that the 2nd BAR be removed? Or do you have some evidence that it was "semi-official"? Like a "semi-official" TO&E?

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

Don't just say that the game is unfair to the US because they don't have enough squad variants.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who ahs made that claim? Certainly not me.

Nice strawman.

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

There is a difference between a well researched change in how squads were formed, and saying, umm, lets throw a couple of SMGs in just for kicks.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And yet another. No one has amde any such claim, and people have provided plenty of research that it was common for US squads to have non-official TO&Es.

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

One thing that I am for is a squad arrangement that woudl kill off members of the squad to represent not enough replacements or previous battle losses. I am not sure how that could be programmed in the current CM, but maybe in the engine change it could be done.

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have made the same suggestion several times, but it has nothing to do with the discussion.

Jeff Heidman

[ASL Veteran]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

[QB]Who ahs made that claim? Certainly not me.

Nice strawman.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While this claim may not have been made by you, I believe it is pretty clear that others in this thread have made that very claim.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

And yet another. No one has amde any such claim, and people have provided plenty of research that it was common for US squads to have non-official TO&Es.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it's safe to say that no one has either 'proved' or 'disproved' specifically whether it was common for US squads to have non official TO&Es - and if common what specific variations they were. That question is still open. That was not the original issue in this thread though. The issues of SMGs and non standard TO&Es may be intertwined or they may not (the original post on this thread postulated that these 'extra' SMGs might be in crews). However, I do think the logic used in this thread, specifically in regards to allied SMG usage, is a little dubious. It would be shocking to me if someone as logically inclined as yourself did not find any fault in the reasoning used in the original post in this thread.

The specific thrust of this thread is the lack of SMGs in Allied TO&Es, not necessarily the possible 'field' variations that may have existed between squads. A careful reading of the original post on this thread will spell this out quite clearly.

For heaven's sake, someone stop this thread. I can't stand being on the same side of an issue as Slapdragon for very long! :eek:

[Slapdragon]

This is a typical disagreement on rules of evidence.

Your rules of evidence (much of this presented by others here)

Lots of SMGs were made

Someone had to use them

We know that sometimes people would pick up a different weapon

Ergo, it was a common practice extensive enough to model in the game.

This of course is a poor evidence chain, and using it I could prove anything that happened to be seen in a Hollywood. I have seen this on the Vietnam list, on the same subject, where people claim that US soldiers commonly used the AK-47 and threw their M16 in the bushes because they saw some movie where it was so, and because it makes "sense". Or they read that some guys in the Navy SEALs used AK-47s, thus proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that everyone in country from 1965 to 1973 had access to a free supply of the weapons and used them commonly.

Let us be more serious, since you are drawing the BAR out. The 2nd squad BAR was not recognized officially in the TO&E for infantry squads as it was drawn up in the 1941 Army reorganization, but BTS found considerable evidence that the BAR was added after Bulge at the Army level.

Now, if you want the BAR removed, then by all means research the subject well, come up with findings that suggest no BAR, and presnet them in an adult manner that BTS will listen to. Then I can assure you the next time the game is up for modification, it will likely happen.

Unfortunately, and something that is often missed, is that it takes more than spurious logic and wishful thinking to move the game. Why should BTS change their ways just to cater to urban legend?

\

So far nothing has been compelling enough, in my opinion, to sway an argument. No one has found an general order authorizing the addition of submachineguns to squads (as exists with the BAR January 1945 promagulated from Bradley's HQ in response to complaints from the field that US units were out gunned".

[Michael Dorosh]

Amen; if there is a God, Slapdragon and ASL Vet will have the last word on this, barring any actual "evidence."

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Amen; if there is a God, Slapdragon and ASL Vet will have the last word on this, barring any actual "evidence."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have an open mind on this. There COULD be a presentation of evidence more powerful than where did a bunch of subguns go. It should also be widespread enough to be useful, and organized enough to be modelled. It should in addition be resistant to gamey tactics, as would be the case if mix and match squads were created so that you could assign as many SMGs to your unit as you wanted.

I am betting right now that this evidence does not come out because it does not exist, but I could be wrong. Certainly I was wrong about the M1/M2 carbine sneaking into front line units, as now I have two chains of evidence that suggest it did, but I am still far away from suggesting how common it was with any certainty, and wont advance the idea unless and until I am.

[BloodyBucket]

OK, I asked my dad about this whole idea of "shopping" for small arms. He was an infantryman in the 28th division, in combat from June of '44 to December '44. Keep in mind, he is recalling events a half century ago and his view of the war rarely extended beyond his company ("Easy", 2nd Bn., 110th Rgt.) His thoughts:

Captured weapons were not common, due to the sound they made and the prospect of execution for the user if he was captured. Pistols were prized trade bait, but often chucked before "going in to the line".

Extra BARs were aquired, but not everyone was keen to have one. They were heavy and drew a lot of fire. An additional BAR or two per squad was not uncommon, and some thought went into who would get them, with the squad leader giving them to "reliable" men.

SMGs were not available on demand, and the demand was not all that great. A squad going on a night patrol might swap weapons to get a few extra, but if they survived they wanted their rifles back. Since they were generally trying to oust the Germans, the range and penetrating power of a rifle was thought to be of value, and an ideal fight had the Germans located at range and pounded with artillery. The idea of closing with the enemy and overwhelming him with SMG fire had few advocates in his little circle.

Carbines were available almost on demand, and if they knew they where going to attack a built up area some extra carbines were aquired, and sometimes the sears were altered to shoot full auto. Some soldiers altered their Garands to shoot full auto.

When they went out of the line to rest and refit, the extra BARs stayed, and no one ever told him to bring his squad/platoon into straight TE. It was expected that weapons would be lost or destroyed, and no one he knew was ever asked to turn in the same weapon he signed for.

Just one viewpoint on this. I am sure other units handled things in other ways.

[Renaud]

Here's an idea that I think would add to the you-are-there historical feeling and remove the cookie-cutter aspect of current squads, relieving the endless TOE arguments.

Why not have weapons for each squad you buy randomized based on some algorithm related to the type and/or date? So you might have one US rifle squad with 2 bars, 3 smg's, 7 garands, another with 10 rifles, 1 bar, 1 pistol. Same for Axis squads, again with random tables based on squad type. Maybe 1 german squad would have no MG, 2 scavenged MP44 and 7 rifles while the next would have a MG, 1 smg and 7 rifles. Come to think of it randomizing the starting number of men in squads, somewhat below or up to TOE (or even 1 or 2 above??), would highten the realism too. You would feel like you were in command of units that had already been through the reality-wringer, instead of miniature sets pumped out of a factory.

I know a lot of stuff in CM is hardcoded into the game engine making alterations difficult so this might not be possible. However I do note that stuff like satchel charges and panzerfausts are random by squad type.

Here's another pet idea: Give crews TOE-type weapon loadout but have them taken over by the computer once bailed with an algorithm directing them to seek exit from friendly map side.

Also, to the weapon owners out there: How hard is it to obtain a M1 Garand? I would really like to own one of these. I got to play with one a few weeks ago and it was fantastic.

Ren

[JasonC]

M-1s are very easy to buy, but new ones aren't cheap. You can pay $1500 for a vanilla rifle with a few accessories, and $2500 for a match grade rifle, scopes, etc.

Older M-1s are also sold regularly by dealers, sometimes for low prices (a few hundred dollars), but many have worn barrels or need other replacement parts. New barrels are made for old guns, and if you know what you are doing it is possible you could end with a finished and working rebuild cheaper than a factory-new one, by putting together the elements you need. If you don't know what you are doing, you can spend as much or more as the cost of an off-the-shelf gun and end up frustrated.

The main producer of new M1s is the Springfield Armory. Their website is here -

http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-rifles.shtml

They also sell 1911s...

[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Winchester-made Garands are rarer, thus more expensive (talking surplus here) - I bought my M-1 (Springfield) for 400 dollars Canadian about 10 years ago.

My dad bought his Lee Enfield for 10 dollars, and a 1936 dated Luger P-08, with all the birdies on it, for about 15 dollars. Don't even ask me when that was!

Most important thing is to check the barrel when you do buy one surplus and make sure the rifling is good.

If you are going to use it for hunting in Canada, you have to get a hold of special 5 round clips in order to be legal; kind of a pain in the butt.

Bloodybucket - excellent info - thanks! Great to get some stuff from the horse's mouth.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

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

The reason I mention this is because Patton, a true US tight ass and martinet, ruled no captured weapons, no weapons outside of MOS, no non standard weaopns, all weapon loss reports generate a potential court martial or administrative court. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about Patton's own pearl handled Colt 45's, were they standard weapons? Bloody hypocrite if you ask me. A classic case of do as I say not do as I do.

BTW Slappy, good to see you're back on deck after a long absence.

Regards

Jim R.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

What about Patton's own pearl handled Colt 45's, were they standard weapons? Bloody hypocrite if you ask me. A classic case of do as I say not do as I do.

BTW Slappy, good to see you're back on deck after a long absence.

Regards

Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Jim, glad to be back!

Yes -- he was a hypocrite, and not very forward thinking. Sure - he liked the tank, AFTER the Germans used them to such effect. He also wiggled his way into the famous 1941 Time Amrored Forces edition, and like MacArthur, was a real glory hog, and quite dangerous. He was also not very sane, which is why the Gremans feared him because he was the only US commander who would really throw away lives on a gamble and do the unsensible thing.

Building Patton up was part of the attempt by the US PIO for the AGF to counteract German hero worship -- a la Rommel etc, where US and others thought that the Germans could do anything. Usually the better commanders, Hodges and gang, also did not want to be involved in the spotlight. The ones that revelled in it usually were the commanders which were not all together in one peice mentally.

Patton wore the revolvers and dressed out of uniform while he was a tight ass about that sort of thing in 3rd Army. Hel yelled all the time because his normal speaking voice was high picthed and squeeky (read Bill Mauldin's encounter in "The Brass Rings"). He was always sure that everyone was out to get him.

What got him through was that his image had accumulated a core group of the most talented officers in the Army.

[Michael Dorosh]

They were ivory, not pearl!!!

I finally heard a movie clip of his voice - it was like a girl's!

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

They were ivory, not pearl!!!

I finally heard a movie clip of his voice - it was like a girl's!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, and he was forever embarresed about it. Later scholars feel that his effiminate dress, over compensation, and the like was a sign of homosexuality, but you can charge a lot of commanders with those symptoms without being closeted. Unless you have proof like in the case of Baden-Powell, the founder of the Boy Scouts, all you can really say about Patton was that he was a bit screwed up in the head.

[Username]

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

Yep, and he was forever embarresed about it. Later scholars feel that his effiminate dress, over compensation, and the like was a sign of homosexuality, but you can charge a lot of commanders with those symptoms without being closeted. Unless you have proof like in the case of Baden-Powell, the founder of the Boy Scouts, all you can really say about Patton was that he was a bit screwed up in the head.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isnt it about time for one of your brain clots to kick in? I noticed that the last time your brain chemistry went kablooey, you were making stupid posts like the above crap.

"Later Scholars"? Like who? Cite a "scholar" then.

I think you are screwed up in the head also.

Lewis

[IPA]

Post deleted by an intellectually impaired poster out of respect for Slapdragon.

[ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: IPA ]

[Renaud]

Thanks for the weapon info. I didn't know they still made them. It would be nice to have a M1 made during or around WWII for the historical value, but I could live with a new Springfield if it saves me a lot of $$$.

Ren

[PzKpfw 1]

Wel ppl can say or think what they want about Patton Ie, all the later revisionist attempts to down play his role or comparisons to Macarthur's vanity, etc.

Fact of the matter is he got the job done. He was their when we needed him & gone when we didn't.

Regards, John Waters

[Spook]

Just to note here quick: Lewis, that last comment of yours to Slap was out of line.

I think that one recent reference book iterates Patton's demonstrated skill with offensive operations; "Lorraine 1944" by S Zaloga. The book further adds in paradoxic commentary of Patton, however, that while he favored tanks and usage of mechanized movement in general, he wasn't technically "proficient" in knowing the full strengths & weaknesses of US tanks. (This was related by BGen Bruce Clarke, a commander of CCA in US 4th Armored Div.)

Some of Patton's logic and decisions can be questioned. In turn, Gen. Hodges (cited earlier) doesn't get a free pass from me either. He was a "steady" commander who's often underrated IMO, although I've seen some historians disparage his command skills fairly negatively. And who should properly be held accountable for the f&%d-up Hurtgen Forest operations? Hodges, Bradley, or Ike?

Trying to decipher the "technical proficiency" of an army commander (or higher), however, usually is an exercise that can easily get wrapped around a phone pole while missing discussion on the more important job of this commander---the ability to plan and execute military operations with the proper initiative.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Wel ppl can say or think what they want about Patton Ie, all the later revisionist attempts to down play his role or comparisons to Macarthur's vanity, etc.

Fact of the matter is he got the job done. He was their when we needed him & gone when we didn't.

Regards, John Waters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think anyone wants to downplay Patton's or MacArthur's importance (or shouldn't, anyway), but one does want to be careful about worshipping them. Like all mortals, they had their faults. When you're a general, your personal faults cost others their lives.

Regarding Lewis; his sig pretty much tells you how much respect he has for this forum or anyone with something signicant to contribute. A number of us have publicly welcomed Slapdragon back - it is sad when the intellectual lightweights get all jealous about things like that. Sadder still that they have to resort to namecalling.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I don't think anyone wants to downplay Patton's or MacArthur's importance (or shouldn't, anyway), but one does want to be careful about worshipping them. Like all mortals, they had their faults.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dunno all i saw was some negative posts concerning Patton, with the current revisionist theme. None indicated any hero worship in their content etc.

Regards, John Waters