Loadsa FTs

[Wisbech_lad]

I must admit I know nothing on the subject, but was surprised to see late war CW units come with a flamethrower per infantry platoon, as well as PIAT/ 2" we have all come to know and love.

Did Alanbrooke have shares in a FT factory? Enquiring minds want to know...

I presume in action, these things would normally get left in the platoon truck/ with the guys being left behind, unless street fighting was expected? Seems unlikely they would get carted along every time.

Editted to add this link

http://www.stormpages.com/garyjkennedy/British/british_army.htm

which doesn't mention the extra FT's

[ January 21, 2004, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: Wisbech_lad ]

[Mark Gallear]

Er No - should not have a Flamethower per platoon - British Army didn't like using them - ungentlmanly don't you know - alright for the odd Royal Engineer to have a go with them on bunkers tc.

As for the PIATS 1 per Platoon is probably too many as well!

[flamingknives]

PIATs were issued 3 per company, which is... 1 per platoon.

At least according to George Forty's "Hand book of the British Army"

[Mark Gallear]

which page is that on? Says nothing in the section on the PIAT does not show a PIAT in the 1944 Platoon structure for the Infantry Battalion structure it shows a theoretical 25 2 in mortars against 23 Piats and remmber the Carrier platoon needs equiping with them as well, which has them at ne per sec and no 2inch mortars pg 165 and 167 .

[flamingknives]

Page 165, "(I) Organisation of Infantry Battalion"

Right hand side of the wire diagram. next to 'Coy HQ'

(2 Offrs + 14 ORs)

3 x PIAT

In any case, just 9 PIATs would fill the battalion requrement for three per company (or 12 if you have a four company organisation)

[Mark Gallear]

It does and at the same time shows that there are not enough in the Battalion for each Company to have 3!

Theoretically, the PIAT are held in the Support Platoons and as part of the Support Battalions, which have the Vickers HMG, these could be doled out to individual companies.

I think they should be shown as being held by the Company HQ and have a max of 2, rather than be in each platoon. This gives a more realistic actual battle organization (at full strength). If the player wants 3 per company, he can always buy the extra one separately at the higher price!

I noticed the Canadians discussing the Empire Battalion structure maybe they will sort it out for us but hopefully without all those snipers!

(Don't see why we can't have a tank hunter unit with Sticky bombs and a sten and rifle. The Germans should really be a SMG and rifle as well!)

I did put up a post on the (early) Australian Battalion structure to try and get a debate going but it didn’t.

Got to rush off and get some saves for Red wolf !

[flamingknives]

Eh?

23 PIATs per Battalion

4 PIATs in Carrier platoon (1 in each section of three, four sections)

19 PIATs remaining

3 companies per battalion (for this particular TO&E)

3 PIATs per company

10 PIATs remaining

So there is 10 more PIATs that we know what to do with.

There is a 2" mortar issued to the No.2 carrier for each AT gun section (1 gun, 2 Lloyd carriers)

Theoretically, the PIAT are held in the Support Platoons and as part of the Support Battalions, which have the Vickers HMG, these could be doled out to individual companies

Why would the PIAT, with a maximum effective range of 200m, be lumped in with MGs and mortars at Divisional level.

In the case of the Airbourne Companies, a large number of PIATs are held in a Support platoon, attached to a rifle battalion (?). That being said, Airbourne Battalions (as opposed to Glider Battalions) can't really take 6pdrs with them.

[Kozure]

To the best of my knowledge, PIATs were available one to a platoon in the rifle companies and nominally operated as part of the HQ section of an infantry platoon in Commonwealth infantry battalions, along with the 2 inch mortar team. (ref: J. Bouchery)

I had commented in the Canadian Infantry Battalion Composition thread that it did seem odd to have a flamethrower per platoon. I suppose they include as a nod to the urban combat in Italy towards the end of the war, but I don't believe they were quite as common as one to a platoon. Easily fixed by deleting them from the force mix, leaving maybe one or two (total) in the lead company.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

It does and at the same time shows that there are not enough in the Battalion for each Company to have 3!

Theoretically, the PIAT are held in the Support Platoons and as part of the Support Battalions, which have the Vickers HMG, these could be doled out to individual companies.

I think they should be shown as being held by the Company HQ and have a max of 2, rather than be in each platoon. This gives a more realistic actual battle organization (at full strength). If the player wants 3 per company, he can always buy the extra one separately at the higher price!

I noticed the Canadians discussing the Empire Battalion structure maybe they will sort it out for us but hopefully without all those snipers!

(Don't see why we can't have a tank hunter unit with Sticky bombs and a sten and rifle. The Germans should really be a SMG and rifle as well!)

I did put up a post on the (early) Australian Battalion structure to try and get a debate going but it didn’t.

Got to rush off and get some saves for Red wolf !

You're out to lunch on this one Mark. Piats were issued one per rifle platoon.

Also, the bit about the British not liking flamethrowers (except for the RE) is rubbish. The Crocodile and Wasp were favourite support vehicles, and they were not RE types using them.

As for anti-tank teams; one of our VCs was from a "Tank Hunter Platoon" organized by the Seaforth Highlanders of Canada in October 1944 in Italy. His tank hunting team consisted of two men, one with an SMG and one with a rifle. Trouble is, they also had a PIAT rather than Gammon bombs, etc.

[ January 21, 2004, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Soddball]

I find myself agreeing with DaleM about the disappointing range and variety of allied units in CM:AK when compared to the axis one.

[Kozure]

Originally posted by Soddball:

I find myself agreeing with DaleM about the disappointing range and variety of allied units in CM:AK when compared to the axis one.

Better than any other game out there (AFAIK) and fixable with a few tweaks and additions/substitutions in most cases.

Combat Mission is one of the few, few games I know of to feature Canadian, New Zealand, Australian or - gasp - South African units in any capacity, much less a more or less correct one.

Wehrmacht enthusiasts tend to be more -er- enthusiastic about their formations and with the Heer creating so many new unit compositions and formations all the time, they can be forgiven for wanting more variety than your run-of-the-mill Allied types. Not a bad thing - just makes playing Allied more interesting - different targets to shoot at.

[MikeyD]

The U.S. High Command during WWII were a pig-headed bunch. Not only did they actively supress rush shipment of the M26 Pershing in favor of producing more Shermans (bad idea) they also held fast to the notion that a thoroughly trained G.I. was the equal to any fancy-pants specialty service like the SAS or Rangers. It was probably an attitude like that that got a young and green Bob Dole shot-up while trying to advance against a mg pillbox.

Lack of specailzed Allied unitsis more the fault of Pentagon thinking at the time than BFC research today .

[JonS]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Why would the PIAT, with a maximum effective range of 200m, be lumped in with MGs and mortars at Divisional level.

Who knows? Maybe the infantry were sick of having units overrun with no A-Tk defence.

Anyway, 1 x PIAT was standard issue in each Vickers Pn (4 x Vickers, 7 x carriers). There were no men specifically detailed to man it, but it was available, and it was held at platoon level. (ref: R. Fendick, A CANLOAN Officer, among others)

Re: Flamethrowers

They weren't just used for city fighting. The fireplan which got the NZ Div across the Senio in April 1945 (which lasted about 12 hours, and included many 25-pr regts, several medium regiments, B-24s, loads of fighter-bombers, 4.2-in mortars, Shermans firing indirect, etc etc) culminated in Wasps, Crocs, and presumably men with lifebouys, advancing to the nearside stopbank and dousing the enemy stopbank with fire along the full length of the assault sectors.

Oddly enough, there wasn't much resistance when the infantry finally attacked ...

Regards

JonS

[JonS]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Lack of specailzed Allied unitsis more the fault of Pentagon thinking at the time than BFC research today

Perhaps, but the Pentagon had very little say in the organisation of Commonwealth formations

Also while it is true to say that the Germans had more, and more varied TOEs than the Allies, it is just as true to say that the Allies had more and more varied TOEs than are depicted in CMAK. That's true even without considering such exotics as Popskis Private Army, the SBS, the LRDG, etc etc. There are loads of 'standard' Allied unit types that didn't make it into CMAK.

Regards

JonS

[ January 21, 2004, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[flamingknives]

It would be nice to see TO&Es in the armour as well - the old 3 vanilla + 1 Firefly mix.

[Mark Gallear]

Ok, I do not appear to be numerate !

This is a good site discussing the British Army and discussing the differences between the Commonwealth countries. I used it for my post discussing the Australian Battalion, which I can’t find in fact the search index does not work at all. (He does other Armies as well – anybody want to do some research to criticise the Italian list?)

http://www.stormpages.com/garyjkennedy/British/british_army.htm

I don’t think the British Army should not have flamethrowers or Wasps or Churchill Crocs. However, I don’t think they should appear in the run of the mill Battalion structure. The Pioneer platoon does normally do combat tasks as you can see from their titles, if you want a flamethrower here I think you should buy it extra. Don’t think Wasps or Crocs should appear or as part of a standard tank structure, if you want to have specialist troops such as the 79th some of which were Royal Engineers as I have heard Mr Dorosh talk about them. I think the players should buy them extra or in their own “speacial” unit organizations.

OK, you could get infantry in the Canadian Version of the Wasp, but I don’t think even Canadian infantry were insane enough to regularly ride about in them and have them in every battalion structure. I think Mr Dorosh quoted a production run of under 200 vehicles to be used presumably in NW Europe and Italy for all the Commonwealth. Ok the British Army produced hundreds if not thousands of the orginal versions of the Wasp. The British Army used the extra space in the Candian version to man the Bren AA gun – which is missing from the game Brens! This gave the vehicle firepower at ranges beyond the reach of the flame projector.

I did discuss the Boys AT rifle in the Battalion structure here and give a number of different tows some actual some theoretical – saying very different things. (The PIAT would have basically replaced them - but I suspect they were being dumped and soldiers were relying on the Sticky bomb before the PIAT came out.)

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=000838;p=3

I discuss why I agree with Mr Dorosh that the Boys AT rifle and PIAT teams would be considered “Tank Hunters” but there is still room for a tank hunter team with sticky bombs in the British list.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=001161

Oh – found the Aussie Disscusion after all –

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=000980

I do think there should be a Support Company in the lists with the Vickers HMG etc. (Makes MGs cheaper in big QB games and scenarios!)

I will go through my various Tows tomorrow list them out and try to put together a CM list. Which you can then bang me over the head about – Ok.

Just to upset flamingknives - I cann't find any battle accounts of 4 tanks in a troop for the Italian theatre. (Yes, they do appear in NW Europe.) (Does not mean to say there wasn't any but I have looked and cann't find any.)

The last troop change for one unit was 2 Sherman 76mm with a Firefly in the last Battles of 1945 when they were up against a lot of Tigers and Panthers!

[ January 21, 2004, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

... I don’t think [Wasps] should appear in the run of the mill Battalion structure. ...

Gah! How many times? In this you are simply wrong. The Wasp kits were an infantry battalion asset.

[ January 21, 2004, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

... I don’t think [Wasps] should appear in the run of the mill Battalion structure. ...

Gah! How many tinmes? In this you are simply wrong. The Wasp kits were an infantry battalion asset. </font>

[Mark Gallear]

Have you got some web link,document or Tow I can look at?

As Far as I know the first use of the Wasp in Italy was by 2 RTR, who were converted to a 79th Hobarts funnies type organization and were equipped with Churchill AVREs and Wasps. (They got the Croc later.)

[JonS]

What is a Tow?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

What is a Tow?

I think he means TO&E. English composition is not Mark's forte.

Michael

[JonS]

From the 23rd NZ Bn Official History:

... Before returning to the line on 29/30 December [1944], all companies did some route-marching and learned something about flame-throwers and kapok bridging. The men were impressed by the converted tank Crocodile flame-throwers, but some of the men in the carrier platoon had doubts about the 'Wasp'. "One of the carriers has been fitted with a flame thrower known as a 'Wasp'. 'Chopper' Johnson is on it and declares he is a certain candidate for the posthumous V.C. when he brings it into use. Tried it out in the afternoon with good effect."

...

Of some importance to other units was the 23rd's experiment in constructing and using ramps from which Wasp and Crocodile flame-throwers were able to shoot their flames across a stopbank. So impressed was General Freyberg by the demonstration that the battalion's Wasps staged on the Lamone that he asked that it should be repeated two days later for the benefit of officers from other units. ... The Churchill Crocodiles belonged to an English unit, the commander of which made a wisecrack at the expense of some Support Company men who were struggling with a bogged Wasp: "I fail to see how you can keep up your adjectives and your identity as 'H Div' too." ...

...

Major Cox anticipated trouble from the Germans now fully alerted along the front. He therefore called up the unit Wasps ...

etc etc. Similar quotes can be found in the other Bn Histories.

Regards

JonS

[Mark Gallear]

Is this in NW Europe or Italy? I was aware that Wasps were available in NW Europe shortly after D-Day, but not that every battalion had at least one.

(Ok you say TOE then! I can learn and improve!)

Done some research to get my composition better!

“One other task of the Carrier is worthy of particular mention. The British were not much taken with the backpack flamethrower, reasoning the operator was extremely vulnerable and had to fire at particularly close range. A vehicle mounted weapon offered the possibility of much improved range and sustainability. Ideally to survive it should also be armoured. The Carrier fitted this role perfectly, and after much delay the Wasp appeared. This mounted a flame gun in place of the Bren, and displaced two men to fit the fuel tanks. The Canadian Army had also been pursuing the idea and opted to place the fuel tanks outside the machine at the rear. This cleared sufficient space for a third crewman to return with his Bren, firing from the rear troop compartment though as the gun slit was still occupied by the flame projector. This improved Wasp 2 quickly took precedence over the earlier model.

The stated aim was to provide each Battalion with eight units for fitting to existing machines as required, extended to Motor Battalions and Reconnaissance Regiments on the same scale. Actual availability varied enormously, with preference being made for units slated to take part in assaults I would suggest.”

http://www.stormpages.com/garyjkennedy/Tactics/Formations/FireSupport/carrier_platoon.htm

Describes a typical carrier platoon.

http://members.shaw.ca/calgaryhighlanders/carriers.htm

http://members.shaw.ca/calgaryhighlanders/queslyster.htm

This interesting document seems to suggest that not every Candian Unit had the Wasp in NW Europe.

This site on Polish Equipment lists the Wasp in NW Europe not Italy.

http://www.republika.pl/derela/polish.htm

PDF document of Polish division org in NW Europe with Wasp.

www.fireandfury.com/britinfo/firstpolarm.pdf

US Army Intelligence document on the Organization of the British Army saying Wasps held in the MG company.

www.battlefront.co.nz/documents/intel-british.pdf

The Carrier platoon site with the history of the Uni carriers development!

http://www.universalcarrier.org/history4.html

http://www.spearhead1944.com/toe1.htm

Not in the Candian TOE but in the British Armoured and Infantry TOE with the heavy weapons company.

http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/nikolas.lloyd/wargames/crossfire/carriers.html

Another game site doing the carrier platoon.

My conclusions so far are that CMAK is following a theoritical TOE, but which was never implemented. JonS is correct for NW Europe but Wasps do not apppear in all units and seem to appear singly in the Support Company.

For Italy the only evidence I can find of Wasp use is in 2 RTR in April 1945, I think of my head the Croc appeared in March were the Wasps then farmed out to the ordinary support companies or retained and sent out to Battalions who requested them?

Am Icompeletly wrong and the wasp was common as in NW Europe? Quote me humble!

[ January 22, 2004, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

http://members.shaw.ca/calgaryhighlanders/queslyster.htm

This interesting document seems to suggest that not every Candian Unit had the Wasp in NW Europe.

That's MY website - and where does it say they didn't have WASPs? The only mention of the WASP is where it asks "which weapons did your unit use in battle", and WASP was pencilled in by the officer making the return.

[Michael Dorosh]

However, from "The Seaforth Highlanders of Canada 1919-1965"

The unit went forward on the 12th (of April 1945, after the unit left Italy where it had served from 10 July 1943 to Feb 1945)....Swinton, therefore, realizing that he must have help soon owing to the exposed positions so close to the dyke, asked for "Wasps" - the flamethrowers mounted on carriers with which the Seaforths had trained but had never used in action....

Their first look at a Wasp had been in November 1944 where

The Seaforths had the opportunity to see two new pieces of equipment which were to be used in a division. One was the "Lifebuoy" flame-thrower...The carrier-mounted "Wasp" was also demonstrated. The battalion was also issued with several "Weasels"...

Considering that the BFC boys own a Weasel, shame it isn't in the game (or is it? I haven't checked many of the purchase screens for 1944-45)

The source doesn't mention the "one per platoon" issue of FTs as we see in CM, unfortunately.

In any event, it would appear - for this battalion at least - WASPs were not common in Italy, and this hints that the same was true for the entire First Canadian Division until Nov 1944. Will try and find more.

[ January 22, 2004, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]