Commonwealth and German battalion organisation

[Wartgamer]

The US 1919a4 30 cal could fire 60 rpm for up to 30 minutes under most conditions. This is about as long as most CM scenarios. It was supported in the company through a platoon org that could resupply it.

Water cooled MGs can put this to shame. I have read of 10,000 an hour, maybe 1/3 the cyclic rate. But they are so cumbersome and vulnerable to attack that they are very defensive weapons. I just read a vets account where he was using the M1917 water cooled in the bocage and his gun gets blown up. The water jacket on these things are very vulnerable (perforations) and the actual barrel inside is very light. The vet gets a air cooled gun as a replacement and he melts it down because he trys to fire it like a 1917. No one told him he couldnt.

But a water cooled gun needs much more supply than any air cooled weapon. The weight of ammo that can be fired in minutes makes it almost an arty piece. Its no light load itself either. 10,000 rounds weighs something like 700-800 pounds.

The US would assign up to half the Battalion HMG to units in the Battalion. The Battalion heavy weapons company was more like a support unit than a storm unit.

[ March 29, 2005, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[cassh]

Wartgamer -

You reminded me of something I mentioned ages ago about HMG/MMGs and realism in CM.

The issue that needs addressing in CMx2 is resupply of heavy weapons and their actual physical tie to ammo bearing vehicles in a tactical situation.

Until you've moved a daily supply of ammo onto a gun position (5,000 rds in peacetime exercise, 10,000 in combat for an SF GPMG) from a vehicle less than 50m away, you cannot image how truly immobile a sustained fire weapon is.

Once you leave your initial gun position, unless you bring along a vehicle, you won't have much shooting ammo when you redeploy.

A CM gun team is on average 6 men:

1 gunner with MMG and 400 rds at a push

1 gun commander with tripod, sight-unit, barrel-bag, sandbags, marker pegs, aiming post/lamps, binoculars and maybe 200-400 rounds.

4 ammo bearers with 400-600 rds.

That's just 3,200 rounds with them all weighed down like squat-betty... not very mobile or tactical. They will be sweating just to reach plodding pace.

It really doesn't matter if the gun is an feather-weight SF MG-42 or a bulking SF Maxim, because if you plan on doing any serious shooting your main limiting factor in mobility terms will be your ammo weight/bulk, not your weapon weight.

This is not reflected in CM at present. I hope that CMx2 will have the mechanism to penalise MG ammo levels after any movement unless accompanied by a dedicated vehicle.

This will see these weapons employed more realistically in overwatch roles, moving forward in covered and organised bounds, rather than just bimbling up with the rifle sections as they can easily do at present.

We love CM because it seeks to capture an essence of reality, yet I feel that as a battalion/company level model it falls apart on these key weapon systems and allows us to use MMGs/HMGs in a completely ahistorical fashion.

[edited to make a historical read ahistorical... damn you keyboard, fingers, ineptitude]

If the company/battalion commander wants to move MMGs/HMGs up on foot, then we need to reflect this in their ammo. 2,000 odd rounds would be lucky to last you six or seven minutes if you were putting down covering fire with a vickers/M1917, and probably four or five with an MG-42. Somebody no doubt will come up with the exact maths, but I think we'll find the long and the short of it is that six men expected to move at the 'move' pace in CM wouldn't be able to carry much ammo forward at the best of times.

[ March 29, 2005, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: cassh ]

[Wartgamer]

A 1919A4 weighs about 30 pounds and its tripod about 12 pounds. 300 round ammo boxes prob weigh around 25 pounds. If it fires 60 rpm for 30 mins thats close to triple the guns weight in ammo.

The 60mm mortar is actually a lighter weapon due to its breaking down to 3 loads; tube, bipod and plate. Its ammo is also heavy and bulky though. The mortar weighed 42 pounds assembled and the ammo was 3 pounds each. If it fired 6 rpm for 9 minutes thats almost 4 times the weight of the weapon.

[ March 30, 2005, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

42:150 yes, but the British, if they so chose, could put all 42 in support of a single bn. Or coy. Or a single pn for that matter.

Which works fine as long as the GOC guesses correctly where they will be needed and there is time to get them there. I suppose things worked out well enough often enough to muddle through, but in the usual lash-up of combat, it would not be a system that I would want to stake my life on.

Michael

[Wartgamer]

The German 81mm did have a heavy round similar to the US 81mm HE heavy round. I wonder if these rounds could have been mistaken for 120mm mortar rounds? This could explain the reports about so many 120mm mortars.

The tube production of 120mm:81mm is about 1:5.8 in 1944. Ammo is about 1:9.4 or so.

120mm production was much greater than infantry gun production.

[Simon Fox]

All this rabbiting on is pointless. There's plenty of relevant evidence available. The British battalion underwent a wholesale reorganisation in 1938 which was accompanied by removal of some weapons (Lewis, Vickers etc) and addition of others (Bren, etc). The rationale and tactical expectations for the new organisation is well documented although relatively inaccessible. One of the questions that arises is whether this this reorganisation paid any attention to the looming prospect of war or was merely an implementation of an ongoing programme. In the context of the British armies principle task of colonial warfare the infantry organisation makes perfect sense. In the context of continental warfare possibly less so.

[Dandelion]

Originally posted by cassh:

We love CM because it seeks to capture an essence of reality, yet I feel that as a battalion/company level model it falls apart on these key weapon systems and allows us to use MMGs/HMGs in a completely ahistorical fashion.

I quite agree. And more painful in my opinion, it does not allow us to use them in a historical role.

Cheers

Dandelion

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

All this rabbiting on is pointless. There's plenty of relevant evidence available. The British battalion underwent a wholesale reorganisation in 1938 which was accompanied by removal of some weapons (Lewis, Vickers etc) and addition of others (Bren, etc). The rationale and tactical expectations for the new organisation is well documented although relatively inaccessible. One of the questions that arises is whether this this reorganisation paid any attention to the looming prospect of war or was merely an implementation of an ongoing programme. In the context of the British armies principle task of colonial warfare the infantry organisation makes perfect sense. In the context of continental warfare possibly less so.

Could you then outline the key points of the rationale please?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

All this rabbiting on is pointless. There's plenty of relevant evidence available. The British battalion underwent a wholesale reorganisation in 1938 which was accompanied by removal of some weapons (Lewis, Vickers etc) and addition of others (Bren, etc). The rationale and tactical expectations for the new organisation is well documented although relatively inaccessible. One of the questions that arises is whether this this reorganisation paid any attention to the looming prospect of war or was merely an implementation of an ongoing programme. In the context of the British armies principle task of colonial warfare the infantry organisation makes perfect sense. In the context of continental warfare possibly less so.

Could you then outline the key points of the rationale please?

[JonS]

See the chapter 'A fairly new model army' in Bidwells "Firepower".

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by cassh:

[snips]

Well, I'm afraid this is most certainly true at present at Coy level. Just had super last night with friends, one of whom FOO'd in the Gulf and he confirmed that if the OC got it, he was techically in command, which he thought was rather strange.

It seems I am gloriously and hopelessly wrong about this, which I attribute to the Johnsonian characteristic of "Ignorance, sheer ignorance".

I checked for myself with a pal who is a TA watchkeeper in 16 Air Assault and he confrimed that it is currently the done thing at Brigade, and based on long tradition (although the exact succession of command depends, as one might expect, on exactly what is laid down in orders).

When I get back to work I shall see if I can find anything in the electric battlebox that confirms it as doctrine sanctified by a waft of Upavon incense. But in any case, tradition carries more weight than doctrine...

All the best,

John.

[Simon Fox]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Could you then outline the key points of the rationale please?

Unfortunately I am going to have to decline your kind invitation as I have more pressing engagements and am unable to do justice to the topic.

I would like to add that everything I have read indicates that a Brit infantry battalion would have 1-2 MG platoons attached on a semi-permanent basis in most divisions. This might be upped significantly for particular purposes.

In addition I have seen it stated that the War Establishment for the Brit Bn was more like a "suggestion" than a rigid structure. Practice seems to indicate this was the case.

[Wisbech_lad]

http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-820641-0

http://www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-820641-0.pdf

Any comments on French's book "Raising Churchill's Army, The British Army and the War against Germany 1919-1945"? Haven't read it myself, but looks germane

[Wartgamer]

The Finns that fought as volunteers for the Germans disbanded thier 4th company and divided up the MG platoons and mortars amongst the battalions companies.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JonS:

See the chapter 'A fairly new model army' in Bidwells "Firepower".

Okay, so you made me order it, you redleg. Another book. I need another book like I need another hole in my head. :mad:

Simon, thanks a lot for taking the time anyway, I understand.

All the best

Andreas

[JonS]

Oh I don't know. I certainly think you could use a few more holes in your head :mad: