Dogface21 Posted October 18, 2001 Share Posted October 18, 2001 In another post, I asked wether or not the M16 will be included, I got one pretty sure answer(which was YES) but any confirmation on that? Anyone know for sure? That thing would be BAD ASS! Seeing what one .50 can do( my record kills for one M2 is 20 somthing infantry, one PzIV, and a half dozen 250\1's.)a quad .50 would RAWK!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted October 18, 2001 Share Posted October 18, 2001 IIRC, BTS has said that the M-15 (International Harvester export version) quad .50 will be included in CMBB. For intents and purposes it is identical to the M-16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 18, 2001 Share Posted October 18, 2001 I am unaware as to whether the weapon was provided to the Soviets. If it was, the question remains whether it was available in numbers or used on the frontline in such a way as to justify its inclusion in CMBB. BTW, its omission from CMBO is a serious oversight. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 18, 2001 Share Posted October 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gunnergoz: IIRC, BTS has said that the M-15 (International Harvester export version) quad .50 will be included in CMBB. For intents and purposes it is identical to the M-16.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not so. The M15 was armed with a single 37mm and two .50 cals. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogface21 Posted October 18, 2001 Author Share Posted October 18, 2001 Thanks Micheal, I was about to ask what the differance was. A 37mm and two .50s still wouldnt be somthing to scoff at. If the M16 itself was sent to the Russ, was it on a M3, or was it only the weapons platform transfered onto the soviet equivelent of the M3? Also, what other vehicles(besides the 'ol Sherm) might we be likely to see from the lend-lease act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 18, 2001 Share Posted October 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dogface21: Thanks Micheal, I was about to ask what the differance was. A 37mm and two .50s still wouldnt be somthing to scoff at.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes indeedy! :eek: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If the M16 itself was sent to the Russ, was it on a M3, or was it only the weapons platform transfered onto the soviet equivelent of the M3?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So far as I can recall off the top of my head, the Soviets had no indigenous equivalent to the M3. That is, all their halftracks were Lend/Lease. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bog Posted October 18, 2001 Share Posted October 18, 2001 Dogface, we'll most likely see M3 Grants (coffin for 7 brothers), Valentines, Matildas, M4A1s, and some others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogface21 Posted October 18, 2001 Author Share Posted October 18, 2001 Ive never seen, or heard much about Matildas, but the name alone doesnt do much to instill fear in the enemy. It sounds like it would cook you pancakes, not blow you up. Tiger, Panther, Hellcat, those sound like ferocious hunters, but Matilda? Also, how DID these supplies reach Russia? Im geussing that the Germans wouldnt be accomidating to a bunch of American forces strolling through thier front lines, resuppling the Soviets. The same for Japan, they wouldnt take kindly to a massive American convoy hangin around their side of the Pacific.Ive never thought about it till now, but how was it done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Carrot Posted October 18, 2001 Share Posted October 18, 2001 By ship via the North Sea. A very hazadous journey. Extemly bad weather, U-boats, aircraft and surface ships to contend with. The Matilda is nothing to scoff at either. Very small, lots of armour and a good AT weopen (2-lber). Its only down side is lack of HE capability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted October 18, 2001 Share Posted October 18, 2001 You've never heard of the Arctic convoys from the UK?? Gak - what sort of history do they tach these days!! Also via Persia (now Iran), and yes, via Vladivostok, on Russian ships - Russia was neutral viz a vis Japan remember!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 18, 2001 Share Posted October 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dogface21: Ive never seen, or heard much about Matildas, but the name alone doesnt do much to instill fear in the enemy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It was well armored compared to its contemporaries in the first two years of the war. Its 2pdr gun was starting to show its age and weakness in 1941, but was adequate to handle the Mk. IIIs and short-barreled Mk. IVs through the summer of '42. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, how DID these supplies reach Russia?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> During the first couple of years, it was mostly British hulls and sailors hauling it to Murmansk or Archangel. During 1942, American merchantmen got heavily involved in the trade, but most of the escort was still provided by the Brits. Look up PQ 17 with Google sometime. After 1943, an increasing proportion of the Lend/Lease was provided through the Persian Gulf and then moved by train through Iran to the USSR. Soviet ships, since they were neutral with regard to Japan, could pick up materials on the US West Coast and carry them to Vladivostok. Aircraft were flown in from Alaska to Siberia and then points west. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted October 18, 2001 Share Posted October 18, 2001 Ok what's a M16? Thought it was an American rifle. I've read all the posts but still not for sure. Anybody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Eyes Posted October 18, 2001 Share Posted October 18, 2001 The US provided 100 Lend-Lease M15A1 MGMC to the Soviets. Also, 1000 M17 MGMC were shipped. The M17 was the M5 version of the M16. I'm only guessing here, but I believe that BTS will include at least the M17 in CMBB. The M16 is the most requested AFV not included in CMBO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted October 18, 2001 Share Posted October 18, 2001 A picture is worth a thousand words. I just made that up by the way. Thanks Snake Eyes no one could have said it better. Cool half track. It looks like one bad mother and like Dogface 21 said if one .50 cal. is bad what would this thing do. :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted October 18, 2001 Share Posted October 18, 2001 Thanks for pointing out my memory lapse...I was indeed thinking of the M-17 version which the Soviets got in some quantity (over 1000, I'll have to look it up...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogface21 Posted October 18, 2001 Author Share Posted October 18, 2001 Thank you for the good responses everyone. Yes, unfourtunatly, I am a casuality of the Average American Education System, which, in my opinion, is far below average. I think our history lesson on WW2 went like this: "....so, like, there was this big war, like, 60 years ago, and ummmm, all these people faught and died and there was some dude named Hippler or somthing, and some other people too, but, whatever...." Thanks also for the pictures, I started to drool when I thought of what those would do to a column of halftracks and PzIIIs, not to mention the unlucky troops around them. It is interesting to hear about the Arctic convoys, that is sadly the first Ive ever heard of them, is there any good documentry material on them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumvir Posted October 18, 2001 Share Posted October 18, 2001 Heck, the Matilda was the Tiger of the early war. Perhaps even the King Tiger; German tanks couldn't penetrate it even from the rear. Only the 88 could kill it; but just about anyone could run away from it. Also, it was heavily hindered by the lack of a HE shell for its 2pdr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted October 18, 2001 Share Posted October 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gunnergoz: IIRC, BTS has said that the M-15 (International Harvester export version) quad .50 will be included in CMBB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really? :cool: Musta missed that post. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Dogface, we'll most likely see M3 Grants<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve said at one point they might try to get this mutli-turreted vehicle in along with the T28, but in a later interview, Steve said the multi-turreted stuff was definitely out. Guess we'll have to wait for CM3 for the Lee/Grant. Vehicles I've seen mentioned so far as being in (or seen in pics): Axis Tanks Panzer IIIJ Panzer IVD Panzer IVF(F2) - maybe Tank Destroyers Tiger(P) Ferdinand (Jul43-Dec43) Tiger(P) Elefant w/ MG Assault Guns StuG IIIB StuH/43 Brummbar - coulda sworn they mentioned this one Sturmmorser (SturmTiger) Vehicles 251/10 HT AT - a possibility Allied Tanks BT-7 T-34/76A (M1940) T-34/85 (M1943) T-34/85 (M1944) - if that's the longer barrel in the pic? KV-1 KV-2 IS-2 (M1943) IS-2B (M1944) IS-3 - maybe, maybe not Tank Destroyers SU-76 SU-76M SU-100 Assault Guns SU-76p SU-76i - 76mm M1942 gun on captured PzIII chassis SU-122 ISU-122 ISU-122S SU-152 ISU-152 Vehicles ZiS-? 37mm AA - some half-tracked vehicle ZiS-5 Assault - w/ 76mm M1927 gun BA-10 Infantry Rifle 41 Rifle 43 Links to vehicle pics mostly found in the CM2 FAQ - Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argie Posted October 18, 2001 Share Posted October 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947: A picture is worth a thousand words. I just made that up by the way. Thanks Snake Eyes no one could have said it better. Cool half track. It looks like one bad mother and like Dogface 21 said if one .50 cal. is bad what would this thing do. :eek:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, not for nothing they called the M16 "the meatgrinder". :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted October 18, 2001 Share Posted October 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by argie: Well, not for nothing they called the M16 "the meatgrinder". :eek:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Meatchopper is what I'd heard it called. Either way, don't stand in front of one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogface21 Posted October 18, 2001 Author Share Posted October 18, 2001 I cant beleive they left that out of CMBO! I know its been said, many times, many ways, but anything nasty enough to have the name ' meatgrinder' should have priority. At least in my book. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 18, 2001 Share Posted October 18, 2001 About forty years ago I knew a guy who had been a gunner on an M16 in the 3rd. Army. Sadly, I didn't know him long enough to pump him for any war stories. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted October 18, 2001 Share Posted October 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947: ... if one .50 cal. is bad what would this thing do. :eek:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Watch Waterworld with Kevin Kostner and you will know what it can do according to Hollywood! Regards, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 18, 2001 Share Posted October 18, 2001 The US Army had a policy of not using the M16 as a frontal weapon, but that did not last a minute. They were used often as a long range suppressive weapon by commanders who just could not resist that much firepower in such an attractive package. At 1500 meters it is still deadly, and out of range of most small arms. Practice was to have another track filled to the rim with hoppers around if you were going to use this thing, get a nice hull down position covered by a few tanks, and start spraying to cover a river crossing operation, infantry advance, or other set oepration. Except in Bulge, it was not used in front line service otherwise, and at close quarters it was no better than any other MG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted October 18, 2001 Share Posted October 18, 2001 But how many are you allowed to use before it gets gamey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts