dalem Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Simply put - Where are the bazookas? George Forty lists 607 bazookas for a U.S. armored infantry division, Nafziger lists 74 zooks per arm inf battalion, and CM:AK gives me 21 per battalion. Anecdotally Zaloga and others comment on the abundance of zooks in the armored infantry (I believe the TO&E was actually 1 per M3 HT and M20 AC) as being part of the reason for the practice of often ditching the towed 57s. Clearly paper TO&Es, even if accurate (and I grant that Forty and Nafziger may have it wrong, and anecdotes are not authoritative sourcing), only tell part of the story. But culling the zook pile by 72% (in this case) is extreme to me. Can someone knowledgeable either reassure me or educate me about this issue? Thanks! -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted December 4, 2003 Author Share Posted December 4, 2003 Simply put - Where are the bazookas? George Forty lists 607 bazookas for a U.S. armored infantry division, Nafziger lists 74 zooks per arm inf battalion, and CM:AK gives me 21 per battalion. Anecdotally Zaloga and others comment on the abundance of zooks in the armored infantry (I believe the TO&E was actually 1 per M3 HT and M20 AC) as being part of the reason for the practice of often ditching the towed 57s. Clearly paper TO&Es, even if accurate (and I grant that Forty and Nafziger may have it wrong, and anecdotes are not authoritative sourcing), only tell part of the story. But culling the zook pile by 72% (in this case) is extreme to me. Can someone knowledgeable either reassure me or educate me about this issue? Thanks! -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 74 seems high to me. That means each company gets 24, or looking at it another way, each platoon gets 8. Even if we skim off 20% for headquarter staff or rear area security it still means each platoon gets 5-6 zooks. Edit: this site shows a total of 35. 2 for the Bn HQ 2 for each Co HQ = 6 3 per rifle platoon = 27 [ December 04, 2003, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Kingfish ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 74 seems high to me. That means each company gets 24, or looking at it another way, each platoon gets 8. Even if we skim off 20% for headquarter staff or rear area security it still means each platoon gets 5-6 zooks. Edit: this site shows a total of 35. 2 for the Bn HQ 2 for each Co HQ = 6 3 per rifle platoon = 27 [ December 04, 2003, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Kingfish ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 The answer is "in the halftracks". A single company of armored infantry had 20 M3 halftracks. Each one had a bazooka on board. The infantry usually did not take them on foot because they were heavy to lug around, there were rarely enough trained operators, and German armor wasn't exactly overabundant most of the time. But they had tons of them. Even the regular infantry had more when they needed them, they just didn't need them very often. You read AARs saying things like "Sgt so and so, arming himself with a bazooka..." They are being pulled off the vehicles. In some cases rear echelons had crates of the things - I've read of combat engineer battalions in the Bulge, on finding themselves unexpectedly about to face (1) combat and (2) German tanks, literally unpacking crates to get more zooks. Incidentally, anti-tank mines were also carried aboard the 'tracks, as an SOP. An armored infantry battalion could quickly fortify any position it reached for anti tank defense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 The answer is "in the halftracks". A single company of armored infantry had 20 M3 halftracks. Each one had a bazooka on board. The infantry usually did not take them on foot because they were heavy to lug around, there were rarely enough trained operators, and German armor wasn't exactly overabundant most of the time. But they had tons of them. Even the regular infantry had more when they needed them, they just didn't need them very often. You read AARs saying things like "Sgt so and so, arming himself with a bazooka..." They are being pulled off the vehicles. In some cases rear echelons had crates of the things - I've read of combat engineer battalions in the Bulge, on finding themselves unexpectedly about to face (1) combat and (2) German tanks, literally unpacking crates to get more zooks. Incidentally, anti-tank mines were also carried aboard the 'tracks, as an SOP. An armored infantry battalion could quickly fortify any position it reached for anti tank defense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 Myers TO&E charts (by no means an infallible guide, but usually in the ballpark) gives the 1944 armored infantry company 18 bazookas with another 14 in the heavy weapons company for a total of 68 throughout the battalion. That's a lot and I'll bet nothing like that many got fired in action, sort of like the carbines and SMGs that tanks carried for dismounted use. By comparison, there were 20 halftracks in the company. That means that nearly every HT carried a 'zook. Since there were 3 towed AT guns in the company as well, I figure that accounts for the same number of HTs. The TO&E lists 26 MGs in the company, but I figure at least 20 of those are the AAMGs mounted on the HTs. That leaves 6 and their crews. Then there are the 3 60mm mortars and their crews. There are 3 jeeps, I guess company HQ got those, and 2 deuce-and-a-halfs to carry ammo, food, fuel and whatever else the company needed lugging around. Michael [ December 04, 2003, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 Myers TO&E charts (by no means an infallible guide, but usually in the ballpark) gives the 1944 armored infantry company 18 bazookas with another 14 in the heavy weapons company for a total of 68 throughout the battalion. That's a lot and I'll bet nothing like that many got fired in action, sort of like the carbines and SMGs that tanks carried for dismounted use. By comparison, there were 20 halftracks in the company. That means that nearly every HT carried a 'zook. Since there were 3 towed AT guns in the company as well, I figure that accounts for the same number of HTs. The TO&E lists 26 MGs in the company, but I figure at least 20 of those are the AAMGs mounted on the HTs. That leaves 6 and their crews. Then there are the 3 60mm mortars and their crews. There are 3 jeeps, I guess company HQ got those, and 2 deuce-and-a-halfs to carry ammo, food, fuel and whatever else the company needed lugging around. Michael [ December 04, 2003, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 That's a good site, Kingfish. I am inclined to trust their numbers. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 That's a good site, Kingfish. I am inclined to trust their numbers. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted December 5, 2003 Author Share Posted December 5, 2003 Not to be petulant, but I know they are supposed to be in the halftracks. Why aren't they (or at least more of them) in the game? -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted December 5, 2003 Author Share Posted December 5, 2003 Not to be petulant, but I know they are supposed to be in the halftracks. Why aren't they (or at least more of them) in the game? -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 Sounds to me like they just went with the TO&E of the standard infantry battalion. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 Sounds to me like they just went with the TO&E of the standard infantry battalion. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted December 5, 2003 Author Share Posted December 5, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: Sounds to me like they just went with the TO&E of the standard infantry battalion. Michael I will be very disappointed if that turns out to be true. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted December 5, 2003 Author Share Posted December 5, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: Sounds to me like they just went with the TO&E of the standard infantry battalion. Michael I will be very disappointed if that turns out to be true. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 Why? You can buy all the extra support weapons and vehicles you want and mix and match to your heart's content. That's what I did in BO where they didn't offer any armored infantry organization at all. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 Why? You can buy all the extra support weapons and vehicles you want and mix and match to your heart's content. That's what I did in BO where they didn't offer any armored infantry organization at all. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted December 5, 2003 Author Share Posted December 5, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: Why? You can buy all the extra support weapons and vehicles you want and mix and match to your heart's content. That's what I did in BO where they didn't offer any armored infantry organization at all. Michael "Why?" Because I am childishly resentful of every litte Schwere GroggenButtonFrikkinChochki getting jeweler's loupe attention and simple things like, oh, the number of bazookas available for U.S. armored infantry platoons getting the finger. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted December 5, 2003 Author Share Posted December 5, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: Why? You can buy all the extra support weapons and vehicles you want and mix and match to your heart's content. That's what I did in BO where they didn't offer any armored infantry organization at all. Michael "Why?" Because I am childishly resentful of every litte Schwere GroggenButtonFrikkinChochki getting jeweler's loupe attention and simple things like, oh, the number of bazookas available for U.S. armored infantry platoons getting the finger. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 Hi all, I'm surprised that a bunch of guys with such low Member numbers could be missing the obvious reason why the full complement of zooks isn't found in this or any other Battalion formation for that matter. Bazookas were not assigned dedicated crews, yet CM requires them. 74 Bazookas = 148 men 148 men = a Rifle Company So... either we give the US forces a whole extra Rifle Company's worth of men out of thin air, or we give them a more modest number of Bazookas and "man" them by trimming down some of the HQ and support units (which the US had a plenty!!!). Like many compromises, going the route we chose to go down (smaller number) is FAR MORE realistic than going down the strict TO&E route (max number). The other option would be to strip 2 rifle men out of each Squad. That would obviously make the US Rifle Squad a joke in terms of firepower and staying power. Especially the already reduced Armored Rifle Squad. No need to think about this option since it is horrible We've had this discussion many times in the past, in one form or another, so hopefully we don't have to go through that all again Steve [ December 04, 2003, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 Hi all, I'm surprised that a bunch of guys with such low Member numbers could be missing the obvious reason why the full complement of zooks isn't found in this or any other Battalion formation for that matter. Bazookas were not assigned dedicated crews, yet CM requires them. 74 Bazookas = 148 men 148 men = a Rifle Company So... either we give the US forces a whole extra Rifle Company's worth of men out of thin air, or we give them a more modest number of Bazookas and "man" them by trimming down some of the HQ and support units (which the US had a plenty!!!). Like many compromises, going the route we chose to go down (smaller number) is FAR MORE realistic than going down the strict TO&E route (max number). The other option would be to strip 2 rifle men out of each Squad. That would obviously make the US Rifle Squad a joke in terms of firepower and staying power. Especially the already reduced Armored Rifle Squad. No need to think about this option since it is horrible We've had this discussion many times in the past, in one form or another, so hopefully we don't have to go through that all again Steve [ December 04, 2003, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted December 5, 2003 Author Share Posted December 5, 2003 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Hi all, I'm surprised that a bunch of guys with such low Member numbers could be missing the obvious reason why the full complement of zooks isn't found in this or any other Battalion formation for that matter. Bazookas were not assigned dedicated crews, yet CM requires them. 74 Bazookas = 148 men 148 men = a Rifle Company So... either we give the US forces a whole extra Rifle Company's worth of men out of thin air, or we give them a more modest number of Bazookas and "man" them by trimming down some of the HQ and support units (which the US had a plenty!!!). Like many compromises, going the route we chose to go down (smaller number) is FAR MORE realistic than going down the strict TO&E route (max number). The other option would be to strip 2 rifle men out of each Squad. That would obviously make the US Rifle Squad a joke in terms of firepower and staying power. Especially the already reduced Armored Rifle Squad. No need to think about this option since it is horrible We've had this discussion many times in the past, in one form or another, so hopefully we don't have to go through that all again Steve Thanks for the answer Steve. I can appreciate both the problem as you've outlined it and the decision made. To be fair though, I don't recall ever seeing a discussion directly related to this one no matter how low my member # may be, so don't get too cross at me. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted December 5, 2003 Author Share Posted December 5, 2003 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Hi all, I'm surprised that a bunch of guys with such low Member numbers could be missing the obvious reason why the full complement of zooks isn't found in this or any other Battalion formation for that matter. Bazookas were not assigned dedicated crews, yet CM requires them. 74 Bazookas = 148 men 148 men = a Rifle Company So... either we give the US forces a whole extra Rifle Company's worth of men out of thin air, or we give them a more modest number of Bazookas and "man" them by trimming down some of the HQ and support units (which the US had a plenty!!!). Like many compromises, going the route we chose to go down (smaller number) is FAR MORE realistic than going down the strict TO&E route (max number). The other option would be to strip 2 rifle men out of each Squad. That would obviously make the US Rifle Squad a joke in terms of firepower and staying power. Especially the already reduced Armored Rifle Squad. No need to think about this option since it is horrible We've had this discussion many times in the past, in one form or another, so hopefully we don't have to go through that all again Steve Thanks for the answer Steve. I can appreciate both the problem as you've outlined it and the decision made. To be fair though, I don't recall ever seeing a discussion directly related to this one no matter how low my member # may be, so don't get too cross at me. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Boggs Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Hi all, I'm surprised that a bunch of guys with such low Member numbers could be missing Steve Thank goodness my member number is high enough to ask pretty much anything! So: How come Berli's member number is lower than battlefront.com's? Is he special? 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.