Question and complain about self defense crew weapons

[Darkmath]

What is the FP value of a support crew man small arms?

I don't understand why it would be unbalanced to give one or two SMG as a self defense weapon

to a support team. (Usually, the leader have an SMG, the other have rifle and pistols, or carbines in US side)

IMO, low ammo status simulates well enough the limited small arms capability of a support team.

SO why have they a low ammo AND very low FP?

[DerBlitzer]

I assume you're talking about a crew that has, for one reason or another, lost its main weapon (mortar, etc) and is now venturing off with only its limited small-arms firepower. You should remember that the FP values in CM are really all relative, and that a unit's FP also depends on the number of men. Since a crew usually consists of just 2 or 3 men, its FP is much lower than that of a squad of 10-12 men. At least I assume that's how it's modeled.

[John Kettler]

Darkmath,

Low, since the crew is considered to be armed with pistols. Starting in the CMBO days, it was discovered that some people would, rather than evacuate such expensive specialists whenever possible after losing their tank/SP/gun/mortar/rocket launcher/MG, use them as infantry. It made for exciting AARs, when, for example, enraged tank crews shot to pieces the offending bazooka/Panzerschreck team or seized a key flag, but it was pretty ridiculous at times, too. I believe their VP values were raised to 1.5x normal, then, when that didn't solve the problem, their ammo was preset to Low, gutting most of their combat capability.

In reality, AFV crews had access to SMGs and grenades, and plenty of imagery and footage exist to show weapons up through battle rifles on other crews. The M1 carbine, for example, was specifically developed for officers,

weapon crews, and others whose primary function wasn't that of line infantry. I've got a ZIS-3 crew sporting clearly visible Mosin-Nagant rifles.

HSU Loza describes using a tommy gun (PPSh-41) and lemon grenades while commanding Lend-Lease Matildas. I believe he said the Lend-Lease Shermans came complete with a prized real Tommy gun.

Regards,

John Kettler

[David I]

Darkmath,

There are whole threads about using/not using crews as infantry which a search will bring up for you. I come down firmly on the not using side - indeed I make a gentleman's agreement with all my PBEM opponents to that effect.

DavidI

[Darkmath]

Well , I think the AFV crews weapons in CM is ok.

Getting out of an AFV is a matter of seconds, so a cumbersome SMG would not be the best choice.

But the other csupport team , especially MG or on board artillery, should have one SMG to efficiently protect themselves.

The example you mention in CMBO could be still applied to CMAK; bazookas/ panzerschreck can be eliminated without problem by a AFV crew, because the self defense FP is so low that all the AT team can do is to pin the AFV crew.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Darkmath:

But the other csupport team , especially MG or on board artillery, should have one SMG to efficiently protect themselves.

What do you base this on? Given the vast scope of the war, it probably happened somewhere sometime, but it is so rare that I have never heard of an instance of it. Support weapons crews simply did not get armed with SMGs. The pistols many of them carried were just for moral support. Carbines and rifles, when present were more effective weapons. If the enemy was within SMG range (pistols too for that matter), they were probably better off to raise their hands...although not much better off. Compared to a pistol, or even most carbines, an SMG is a lot of weight to lug around, and was usually more expensive to produce. Sometimes much more expensive.

Again, except in the case of MGs and light mortars, your support crews should not be within range of effective rifle fire.

Michael

[Darkmath]

I base it just only on practical reason, not historical.

From my (very ) limited sources, the support team leader has a SMG (like the squad leader, especially in US/CW armies), the gunner and assistant gunner usually have a pistol (or a carbine in US) , while the other crew men have to carry as much ammunition as possible, then the secondary weapon for those would be a rifle . However, a rifle is heavier and more cumbersome than a carbine (US) or a SMG (CW/Germans).Moreover, for the same weight, you carry more ammo for your personnal defense when you have a SMG.

The crew used as assault infantry problem was often discussed in this forum.

Have you used a 6 man squad with low ammo to attack the enemy? IMHO,they would not be a big threat for a same sized squad with more ammo point. Infantry with low ammo are not that efficient in attack.

The same could be said about a support weapon crew; even used as a attacking infantry (as it was the case IRL when they could not use anymore the support weapon)they will be easily eliminated by the enemy.

[ August 13, 2006, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: Darkmath ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Darkmath:

I base it just only on practical reason, not historical.

In other words, you're fantasizing. Okay, fair enough.

From my (very ) limited sources, the support team leader has a SMG (like the squad leader, especially in US/CW armies)...

I can't address the situation in CW armies, but I have the TO&E for the Heavy Weapons Company of an infantry battalion of the US Army circa mid-1944 before me.

The personal arms for an MG platoon are as follows: 20 carbines, 4 pistols, 8 rifles. No SMGs.

The personal arms for a mortar platoon are: 31 carbines, 18 pistols, 11 rifles. Again, no SMGs.

(I went with entire platoons because I thought they would be more likely to list any odd SMGs on personnel not part of an assigned crew but in the immediate area.)

Now, this was an official TO&E and it is entirely possible that in the field a soldier would manage to scrounge an unofficial weapon. But I have yet to hear of a case such as you describe and I have yet to see a picture of a crewman so armed. Which means that IMO there is utterly no point in having BFS model a practice that for all practical purposes was non-existent.

Michael

[Darkmath]

Thanks for the enlightment .

BTW, do you know the weapon assignation for a gun company ?

What are the weapons assignation for the german support weapon, according to their TO&E?

[stoat]

I always thought the crew served weapons would do better with a bayonet mount, Japanese style.

[Darkmath]

Lol,

Why BTS did not issued katana to the support crews?

It is clear that all armies used it... and it is in their TOE. :mad:

Any WWII veteran who serve in support team will tell you they had a katana with many spare blades.

They should add a "seppuku" command to avoid the enemy to win extra point from the escaping crew and to decrease the moral of enemy adjacent unit.

AFV crews should have a knife throwing skill, the katana is too cumbersome for a tanker.

[ August 13, 2006, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Darkmath ]

[Darkmath]

Finally , I found this link :

http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/General/site_map.htm

This excellent website contains a lot of TO&E and information about the weapons used during the war.

In CW and German army, I notice the SMGs in support companies are mostly assigned to drivers.

In German army, the heavy weapon section or group leader have a SMG.

For the Red Army, it seems they don't issue SMG to support crews, except maybe SMG company or ver late in the war.

[ August 14, 2006, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Darkmath ]