BudtheCanuck Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 I'm reading a 3 book historical series on the Italian campaign by author and military historian Mark Zuehlke. The author does a great job detailing the Canadian action during the campaign from both the strategic and first-person perspective. It is a thoroughly researched and interesting read. Zuehlke has included in the books a detailed OOB and equipment description which differs in a number of areas from CMAK. Specifically: 1. Canadian armored units used exclusively U.S. Armor in Italy (the Canadian units initially had Brit. armor but left it all in England when they redeployed to Italy). They did take with them to Italy the Brit. light armor, guns, etc. 2. A Canadian Regiment (battalion) differed from CMAK in that each included the addition of: a) A Mortar platoon consisting of 6 X 3" on-board mortars. A Scout platoon consisting of 6 snipers, and mix of between 6-8 Bren LMG, and Thompson SMG. The Scout platoon total compliment of men rarely exceeded 18 men. The Scout platoon usually operated independently within the regiment. Sniper action (from both sides) played a significant role in the combat in Italy. 3. Canadian infantry platoons used the Thompson SMG. The Canadians were initially issued with Sten guns. However, they were "ditched" because of reliability and safety issues (the Sten trigger "safety" often failed). If a new patch of CMAK is planned it would be nice to see these changes, as it would give the Canadians some unique characteristics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Zuehlke's books are not a great source of information - see the amazon.com reviews of Ortona, pay attention to John Grodzinski's comments. I have left scathing comments in my review of Liri Valley. Battlefront has shown no inclination to respond to specific issues of OOB for the next patch. We started a thread many weeks ago devoted to specifics such as you mention - do a search for "Official Patch Request" and you will find the thread. BFC has not indicated which of these issues will be fixed or addressed. You may be interested in the Army's official response to user complaints re: the Sten. You are incorrect that they were "ditched" in Italy. They were not used there because the British 8th Army, from whom the Canadians were drawing logistical support, did not carry 9mm ammunition but did have stocks of .45 calibre Thompson ammunition. Since the Americans were using the same calibre in theatre, the Sten Gun was left for the UK and NW European troops. While many vets hated the Sten, and rightly so, the ARmy's official position was that it was a disposable weapon and most problems faced by the user were the fault of the soldier, not the weapon. The Army never "ditched" the Sten, and in fact issued it through the Korean War and until the adoption of the Sub Machine Gun, C1 (Canadian version of the Sterling) after the Korean War. Individual troops did "ditch" the Sten where possible, but this did not happen in Italy simply because they never received any to start with. They used the .45 Thompson from HUSKY right through to GOLDFLAKE. [ June 28, 2004, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fridge Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 I have read those books as well and find them to be a good source of information. Then again, I am not a historian and would be hard pressed to argue any particular point. I would be interested in hears of other books along the same lines, however, that give a particularly Canadian view point. Suggestions? Not sure if there is a resource that we can readily turn to to identify the Canadian OOB other than the official histories. Again, I am no historian, just an arm-chair general who does like to read. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Daniel Dancocks did a much better book on Italy called D-Day Dodgers: The Canadians In Italy 1943-45. We just had a discussion today on my forum about books on Italy; check out http://www.network54.com/Forum/28173 for some other suggestions. Zuehlke is not a military historian he is a social historian, from what I can tell. Military experience isn't necessary to being a good military historian - look at Ambrose or Michael Howard - but it doesnt hurt. Dancocks didn't have any either, but he produced some good books nonetheless because he had a deeper understanding of how things worked that I don't detect in Zuehlke's writing. As for order of battle, try the official CMHQ reports now online at www.dnd.ca - I think a google search for the Directorate of History and Heritage website will find the downloads; JonS should be along soon to provide the exact URL though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Originally posted by BudtheCanuck: [QB] 1. Canadian armored units used exclusively U.S. Armor in Italy (the Canadian units initially had Brit. armor but left it all in England when they redeployed to Italy). They did take with them to Italy the Brit. light armor, guns, etc. This is all in the game already - what are you referring to? The one biggie that we caught in the other thread was the use of Churchills - these were not used in Sicily or Italy, though some wargaming references list 1 CAB using them in July 1943. Shouldn't be so. Otherwise, US Shermans and Stuarts are in CMAK as used by the Canadians of 1 CAB and 5 CAD. 2. A Canadian Regiment (battalion) differed from CMAK in that each included the addition of: a) A Mortar platoon consisting of 6 X 3" on-board mortars. A Scout platoon consisting of 6 snipers, and mix of between 6-8 Bren LMG, and Thompson SMG. The Scout platoon total compliment of men rarely exceeded 18 men. The Scout platoon usually operated independently within the regiment. Sniper action (from both sides) played a significant role in the combat in Italy.But did they play a significant role in company and battalion level attacks? I'd suggest not. CM portrays, as the manual says, that time after the reconnaissance and preliminary barrage have gone in. The scouts and snipers probably didn't have a lot to do at that point; their losses were so high just doing the normal recce tasks that they probably didn't want to lose these skilled specialists in full blown battalion assaults. The mortar platoon is represented by a 3-inch spotter; for design your own, you can replace this with onboard mortars, which are already included. If a new patch of CMAK is planned it would be nice to see these changes, as it would give the Canadians some unique characteristics. Not really - they used the same OOB as the British battalions in theatre - can't speak for the NZ, SA or Indians however. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Dorosh is right. Kitty 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Oh, OK ... CMHQ Reports (Scroll down a bit) You might also try here: Military TsOE. Click on the type of unit you are interested in, then select the nationality and year of inteerst. It isn't clear whether the Canadian ones are for the Med or NWE, though I suspect that they are NWE-centric. I also suspect that it doesn't make a whole lot of difference (things like the Thompson/Sten excepted). Not really - they used the same OOB as the British battalions in theatre - can't speak for the NZ, SA or Indians however.The NZ Bn org was closer to the UK org than anything else. Early in the war (up to say 1942) they were indistinguishable. Later in the war (esp in 1945) there were some significant differences. In between there were some differences, but nothing too dramatic. Divisional org and divisional units (engrs, recce, MG, arty, etc), though, were usually different to a standard UK Inf Div. By the end of the war 2(NZ)Div had a unique org in many respects. From what I can tell, SA & Indian units stayed 'truer' to the UK standard. Regards JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Dorosh is right. Kitty 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Originally posted by Kitty: Dorosh is right. Kitty Be in kitchen shouldn't the you? Alphabetically am arranging days I my sentences these. Hope I understand you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 *flees* Kitty 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Originally posted by Kitty: *flees* Kitty Oh, I'm on to your little game; you just want me to introduce you round to the other Canadians on the board. Just dial 1-800-OCANADA and ask the operator for Bill from Yorkton, that's the first one, or else Jim from Moncton. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 You didn't alphabetize. :mad: *flees* Kitty 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Originally posted by Kitty: You didn't alphabetize. :mad: *flees* Kitty It's the Canadian alphabet, dufus! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BudtheCanuck Posted June 29, 2004 Author Share Posted June 29, 2004 I don’t want to get into a pissing match regarding which author is "good" or "bad". But I'll take the information (above) under advisement... Quote (Re: Armor): _________________________________________________ This is all in the game already - what are you referring to? _________________________________________________ I'm referring to M4 Sherman’s and M10s being available in the game as Canadian armor? Currently this is not the case. Quote: ________________________________________________ But did they play a significant role in company and battalion level attacks? I'd suggest not. CM portrays, as the manual says, that time after the reconnaissance and preliminary barrage have gone in. The scouts and snipers probably didn't have a lot to do at that point; their losses were so high just doing the normal recce tasks that they probably didn't want to lose these skilled specialists in full blown battalion assaults. _________________________________________________ oh, I was led to believe that snipers accounted for a (relatively) lot of casualties/suppression in Italy? If this is the case snipers seem under-modeled. But from just playing a CMAK game perspective, I need to use scouts and snipers for recon. in all the games I play (not having the benefit of an Intel. report at turn 1 in most games). They are a necessity - not an option...So it would be nice if they were integrated into a battalion. Quote: _________________________________________________ The mortar platoon is represented by a 3-inch spotter; for design your own, you can replace this with onboard mortars, which are already included. _________________________________________________ Ok. But 1 X 3" spotter is nowhere near as useful as 6 X 3" on-board mortars Also, I play a lot of QBs and the way BFC has it set up you pay a large point penalty in buying "ad hoc" units from the "support menu". Further, in buying "ad hoc" gear you quickly run out of HQ units to support the ad hoc units (so a mortar platoon (with an integrated HQ) would be nice already the a battalion structure). This (HQ shortage) is especially a problem in mid-to-larger games. For example, when defending, you are forced to either: bunch up your heavy weapons (MGs, Guns etc.) with infantry platoons and share a HQ...or leave some heavy weaps. without HQs units. As an aside - it would be nice to be able to buy a HQ unit "ad hoc". [ June 29, 2004, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: BudtheCanuck ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 M4 Shermans are in the game. All the M4 variants were relabelled in Canadian service. We used the Sherman III and Sherman V, but I don't recall off hand which corresponds to which US model designation. I think Sherman III was the M4A4 with Chrysler Multi-bank engine and 6 extra inches of hull length. Sherman V may have been M4A1 but you'd need to talk to a Sherman grog. They are definitely in the game, though, just look under S instead of M. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Pollock Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 ...and the M10 is called a Wolverine in Commonwealth units. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darknight (DC) Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: M4 Shermans are in the game. All the M4 variants were relabelled in Canadian service. We used the Sherman III and Sherman V, but I don't recall off hand which corresponds to which US model designation. I think Sherman III was the M4A4 with Chrysler Multi-bank engine and 6 extra inches of hull length. Sherman V may have been M4A1 but you'd need to talk to a Sherman grog. They are definitely in the game, though, just look under S instead of M. Creeeaaaakkk....CLANK!!! [opening my seldom used hatch] Sherman III = M4A2 Sherman (twin in-line diesel engine) Sherman V = M4A4 Sherman (Chrysler 30 cylinder multibank gas engine) Sherman Vc Firefly = M4A4 Sherman w/ 17pdr gun Sherman IB = M4(105mm) Sherman Errrr...uhhhhh...ugh.... Damn, the hatch is stuck.... Okay, who forgot to grease the bloody hinges on the hatch! [rumbling off to find a hull down position] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BudtheCanuck Posted June 30, 2004 Author Share Posted June 30, 2004 cool. thanks for the armor clearification oh...re: TDs. My understanding is that the M10 has the 3" gun and the Wolverine has the 17pdr. CMAK show the Wolverine with the 3" gun? [ July 02, 2004, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: BudtheCanuck ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.