British Infantry

[Sidewinder]

i played two quickbattles tonight, both times as british.

i won each battle, and the thing that won it for me?

arty.

both battles i knew where the enemy was, and pounded him with 4.2 and 4.5 inch respectivly, then i sent in the infantry to secure ground.

the 4.5 even disabled a StuG's gun.

just my 2 canadian cents

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:

Those who are on the defensive, tend to stockpile ammunition reserves.

Therefore, as the Germans were primarily on the defensive, they would have more ammunition on hand than would the attacking Allied force.

But then, what about those occasions when it is the Germans who are attacking?

And how do you account for defending troops leaving extra ammo behind if forced to vacate their prepared positions? And don't say they would have shot it all off by then, because that may not be the case.

Michael</font>

[Phorncastle]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:

Those who are on the defensive, tend to stockpile ammunition reserves.

Therefore, as the Germans were primarily on the defensive, they would have more ammunition on hand than would the attacking Allied force.

But then, what about those occasions when it is the Germans who are attacking?

And how do you account for defending troops leaving extra ammo behind if forced to vacate their prepared positions? And don't say they would have shot it all off by then, because that may not be the case.

Michael</font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Phorncastle:

However as many German inf squads were a mix bunch and Volks SMG squads etc it would be accurate having them leg it rather than sit there gunning away at hapless British troops who cant do much due to their lack of firepower and the inability to charge.

I am sorry, but this seems to differ from the reality I have read about. I can not remember hearing that the British made up for lack of firepower through bayonet charges, and would be interested in some sources.

I have also never noticed that troops on the defensive have more ammo. I think you maybe confusing that with casualties and moving HMGs/Mortars/AT teams.

[Guest PondScum]

Originally posted by Phorncastle:

If you read the manual all this is modelled in CMBO. Defending units regardless of nationality if dug in recieve ammo bonuses, when they move they lose this extra ammo as they cannot carry it.

Er, no. If you had played the game you would realise this I think you're getting confused with the fact that if a weapons team (e.g. HMG, schreck) takes casualties it loses a corresponding amount of ammo when it next moves - but if it stays stationary it keeps it (Fred dropped the extra mortar rounds when he died, but you're still right next to his corpse so you can pick them up and use them)

[Phorncastle]

Regarding bayonet charges, I read somewhere in the early stages of the Africa campaign in which the smaller British force defeated the Italians there were a number of battles in which commonwealth troops overan positions using the charge and cold steel. Regarding another incident Ive been reading a book about this BRitish horse racing trainer who used to be in the commandos called Ryan Price. The company cleared an woodland area of Luftwaffe/Navy raised infantry using a bayonet charge and nothing else(well apart from Price blowing his hunting horn!), which illustrates the psychological effect of such tactics against poorly trained troops.

As Im not really a WWII junkie I dont have loads of sources to quote etc so cant really put up any convincing argument. If you were to do the above in CMBO the Green/conscript troops would stay and shoot, and I doubt the attackers would recieve any bonus, which maybe they should do is all I am pointing out. Of course it would be difficult to model and you could end up with people charging left right and centre.

If you dust off your manual, you will see that it states that "stockpiling" of ammo is modelled in the game(under a section titled ammo I expect) Wether or not if it works or has been actually coded I dont know as I havent got the game to hand, but I am sure it mentions that this is modelled and once your troops move from their defensive postions they lose the extra ammo as they cant carry it, so the intention by the developers was there.

[Andreas]

Phorncastle - I don't doubt the British charged with cold steel and all that against the Italians. I also don't know how much firepower the Italian squad could bring to bear in 1940. Not a lot, compared to a German squad in 1944 would be my guess.

In CMBO, why should green troops break? They could just say 'thank you very much for coming right at us' and let rip. I have read a fair number of the generally available books containing personal memoirs, and I do not recall one instance where it said 'we were pinned down by the Germans, so our Lieutenant ordered to fix bayonets and we charged them'. Most of the time it goes 'we were pinned down a) but 14 Platoon outflanked them; and could advance no further; c) until the tanks arrived; or d) so we had to call down artillery'. Does not mean it did not happen, but it indicates that it may have been a rare occasion and it should not be modeled.

Regarding ammo - not sure where my manual is, but I just started a QB to check (Ugh - I had to look ata QB map the first time in ages) and the defenders kick off with 40 units of ammo. As do the attackers.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:

Those who are on the defensive, tend to stockpile ammunition reserves.

Therefore, as the Germans were primarily on the defensive, they would have more ammunition on hand than would the attacking Allied force.

But then, what about those occasions when it is the Germans who are attacking?</font>

[Brian]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:

Those who are on the defensive, tend to stockpile ammunition reserves.

Therefore, as the Germans were primarily on the defensive, they would have more ammunition on hand than would the attacking Allied force.

But then, what about those occasions when it is the Germans who are attacking?

And how do you account for defending troops leaving extra ammo behind if forced to vacate their prepared positions? And don't say they would have shot it all off by then, because that may not be the case.

Michael</font>

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by PondScum:

Originally posted by Phorncastle:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If you read the manual all this is modelled in CMBO. Defending units regardless of nationality if dug in recieve ammo bonuses, when they move they lose this extra ammo as they cannot carry it.

Er, no. If you had played the game you would realise this I think you're getting confused with the fact that if a weapons team (e.g. HMG, schreck) takes casualties it loses a corresponding amount of ammo when it next moves - but if it stays stationary it keeps it (Fred dropped the extra mortar rounds when he died, but you're still right next to his corpse so you can pick them up and use them)</font>

[xerxes]

In scenario design there's all kinds of reasons to tweak ammo, dpending on, duh, the military situation. In GENERAL, increasing rifle ammo some and decreasing smg ammo some is probably a good idea. If you're simulating a beaten down force fighting it's third batle in a day trying to escape, you'll probably reduce ammo. If you're simulated a heavily entrenched, very well supplied and prepared defender, you might increase ammo.

As always, scenarios and QBs are oil and water when it comes to most of these types of issues.

-marc s

[flamingknives]

I hate the way my keyboard has a key that'll delete everything I've written. Bah :mad: .

I'll try again.

Falklands war:

Bayonet charge. IIRC one used by the Paras to overrun an Argentinian position. Psychological effect

Gurkhas. Weren't able to use their Kukhris as the Argentinians abandoned the position when they heard that the Gurkhas were coming. Apparently they thought that the Gurkhas could fly and had other supernatural powers.

I'm not putting the relevant quotes in, as they whole post will just get eaten again. Still :mad:

[WWB]

Redwolf:

Some good points, but you seem to have missed some of what I wrote.

Hm, the size of the battle plays no role, only the relation of flags and knockoutable points.

Yes, the size does count. More units=more knockout points. I suspect your point is mainly that in larger battles designers do not use nearly enough flags, such as 3 majors (3x300 points) on 5000 points of units. Obviously that is a bit too few, especially for those really into scoring.

That is exactly what will not work. If the battle is rather even, and knockout points are about equal, then it is very likely that flags are neutral. Neutrals flags are removed from the calculation, raising the importance of knockout points.

That does work, actually. Even KO points, neutral flags=draw. Makes sense in my book.

Assuming that the attacker comes with 1:2, and the defender destroys 1/4 of attacker force and then retreats from the map, the game is a draw. If he manages to kill half the defending force and captures the flag, then he will get a draw when he loses 1/3 of his fleet.

It is a pretty good showing if a defender destroys a force roughly half his size and then withdraws without losses, he has won. Keep your forces alive to defend again is a laudable goal, and that probably deserves the draw.

I am not sure that is what you want. For starters, as I said the force value is not exactly what you see in the editor summary. Battalions and companies lose their rebate, crews and prisoners come on top.

Basically you are saying that the two factors balance each other to some extent. Moreover, I think people should be penalized for using their crews as infantry and get bonuses for taking prisoners.

But more importantly, losing 1/3 of the attacker's force, capturing the location while destroying half the defender, who was weaker to start from, is that historically correct

Consider that the attacker, if he wins, can recover all his wounded and many of the abanonded tanks. If he loses 1/3 of his force in the CMBO sense, this means temporary loss. At the next morning a major part of these losses may be available again.

The defender instead lost 1/2 of his combat mission points? But what does it mean in reality terms? Lots of heavy equipment lost. Ammo dumps lost. Rehicles not recoverable.

In my opinion, a 1:2 attacker, when getting 1/3 CMBO short-term losses in an attack where he kills 1/2 of the defender in CMBO terms, and securing the terrain, is a winner. That is not a draw.

Attackers who took 33% losses in each attack would soon not be attacking for very long. Sustaining those kinds of losses made continued attacks impossible. Unless you were the Russians attacking Berlin with an overall 4:1 superiority in manpower.

Moreover, the short advance one sees in a CM scale battle is next to nothing. Ammo dumps, etc, would be located several KM behind the front at the very least, so a 1km advance would hardly even threaten them, presuming it did not create a total rout.

The other presumption is that this attacking force, after taking horrendous losses, would be ready to attack the next day, with much of its losses replaced. Show me an example of such miraculous recovery. More likely, when companies were down to 80 men or so, they were rotated out of the line and completely refurbished.

I don't understand that. You may not care if a player pair ends up with 81:19 or 61:39 score, but you surely care whether they come up with 60:40 or 40:60?

That would be what playtesting is for.

I don't think it needs an especially game-mechanics oriented player to run into fun degradation with these issues.

As I said, the problem I see goes this way:

- the scenario designer has something in minds for his/her battle

- he/she places flags to guide players while in-game

- he/she write a scenario briefing where the intention is being formulated in historical terms

If the scenario designer chose a wrong number of flags (and locations to a lesser extend), then you will immediately run into problems with players who know the scoring system and those players who enjoy to play by the briefing.

And don' understand me wrong: I *want* to play by the briefing and the designer's intend, but what do you do if you see that you are better off parking the halftrack APCs in the rear forever, snipe his armor from a distance, rain your artillery and win the game without ever moving? When the scenario designer spent days or weeks on fine-crafting those pathways through the woods where true gameplay was supposed to happen?

I am not saying that most people do not understand the mechanics, but I will say that a small minority understands them almost too well. I know people know better than to risk a king tiger for a small flag, but I really cannot control if someone plays with a calculator in hand.

You do hit on one key factor: flag location. I tend to put them way, way back, almost on the map edge, therefore forcing the attacker to really come at the defender. Moreover, it is a badly designed battle if the attacker can sit there and just pound the defender without being forced to move by some means.

Another thing I have noticed in testing is that most players pretty much ignore the briefings anyway. Designers are notorious for telling outright lies and using more than a little deception to speed things along.

I do still await the full writeup.

WWB

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

I believe I read somewhere in this forum that standard british infantry loadout was 50 .303 rounds per man.

That is the figure given as standard in "The British Army Handbook 1943" and mentioned in passing by GMcDF in "Quartered safe out here" when off on his jaunt to see the wonderful Captain (or was it Major?) Grief. I don't think it's enough for serious infantry work, though.

My copy of "Infantry Training vol. IV: Infantry section leading and platoon tactics" dated 1950 suggests a basic load of 100 rounds for the riflemen in the section, which seems much more reasonable. The basic load for the section suggested includes 800 rounds of rifle amn, 5 Sten mags, 19 Bren mags, 18 HE and 4 smoke grenades.

Recall that amn replen under fire was one of the things for which the carrier was very useful; this is not modelled in CM.

All the best,

John.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by M. Bates:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Skipper:

What I mean to ask was - how and why?

The Gurkhas' probably used their kukris (if they got a chance) in the Falklands, as their preferred method of close combat. </font>

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Skipper:

What I mean to ask was - how and why?

Oh, the usual way.

I don't pretend that this is by any means a complete list, but here are a couple of snippets from Nick van der Bijl's "Nine Battles to Stanley" (Leo Cooper, Barnsley, 1999):

At Top Malo house (the order to fix bayonets having been given previously), the M&AW commander "ordered the assault group to advance in skirmish order, as had been practised so often before and which he had briefed the previous night, with two teams of four leapfrogging each other. But, to his utter astonishment, the carefully thought-out plan was totally ignored and all eleven Royal Marines rose, and yelling and screaming, charged down the slope, leaving their commander behind". This attack drove the Argentines out of the house and then seems to have degenerated into a confused shooting-match at close range until the Argentines surrendered. The defeated Argentines were elite naval commandos, adequately equipped with self-loading and automatic weapons.

During the night attack on Mount Tumbledown, Major John Kiszely, CO of Left Flank Coy of the Scots Guards "found himself in front of 15 platoon and was heard to shout "Are you with me, 15 platoon?" Silence. "Come on , 15 platoon, are you with me?" Silence, and then a reluctant "Och aye, sir. I'm with you!" and "Aye, sir. I'm f****** with you!" from the other side. Led by their company commander, 15 platoon surged up the slope and charged the marines with bayonets fixed. Kiszely stabbed a dark figure who collapsed back into his trench holding his chest. The Argentine marines and army were slowly overwhelmed, losing seven marines and five army killed, several wounded and others missing. Left Flank bit deep into Vasquez' defences and eventually Kiszely and seven men reached the summit. There was a violent scuffle in the darkness among the rocks before the last of the defenders were driven off. Far below the British saw the lights of Stanley, the ultimate objective."

Here is the account from Martin Middlebrook's "Task Force" (revised edition, Penguin, London, 1987) of "Dytor's Charge", for which Lt. Clive Dytor won the MC on Two Sisters leading 8 Troop, Z Coy, 45 Royal Marine Commando. These are Dytor's own words:

"It came to a point where I realized it was a stalemate and I actually remembered, at that point, a piece from a book I had read once -- in a book called "The Sharp End" -- a bit about the Black Watch in the Second World War. The adjutant had got up and waved his stick and said, "Is this the Black Watch?" and been killed immediately, but the whole unit had got on then, surged forward. I remember thinking about that and then, before I knew it I suppose, I was up and running forward in the gap between my two forward sections. I shouted "Forward everybody!" I was shouting "Zulu! Zulu! Zulu!" for Z Company. I talked to my blokes afterwards; they were amazed. One of them told me he had shouted out to me "Get your ****ing head down, you stupid bastard!" I ran on, firing my rifle one-handed from my hip and I heard, behind me, my troop getting up and coming forward, also firing. The voice I remember most clearly was that of Corporal Hunt, who later got a Military Medal. I think what happened was that Corporal Hunt was the first man to follow me, his section followed him, the other sections followed, and the troop sergeant came up at the rear, kicking everybody's arse.

"So 4, 5 and 6 sections came up abreast, pepperpotting properly. I could hear the section commanders calling "section up, section down." It worked fantastically; it was all done by the three section commanders and the troop sergeant at the rear shouting to keep everybody on the move and the hare-brained troop commander out at the front.

"That assault up that hill was the greatest thrill of my life. Even today, I think of it as a divine miracle that we went up, 400 metres I think it was, and never had a bad casualty. Only one man was hurt in the troop, with grenade splinters from a grenade thrown by a man in his own section. When we had been waiting on the Start Line, I had prayed that the Lord would give me the strength and courage to lead my men and do with me what you will and He did just that."

I believe that Clive Dytor became a clergyman after leaving the Royal Marines.

Middlebrook's narrative continues:

"Marine Oyitch, left behind with the casualty group, heard his comrades charging.

"We could hear them calling out, "Commandos, Royal Marine Commandos!"; that was to let the Argies know who was going to go in and kill them. If they chose to mix with the best in the world, they were going to get burned."

Dytor's men were under fire from automatic weapons the whole way.

All the best,

John.

[JonS]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

... "Don't Cry for me, Sergeant-Major" (which fulfils the test of a good book in that I've lent it to someone and not got it back) ...

I've only ever seen that book once, years ago, while sitting in the back of a 'PC on a rainy day. I only got to read a few pages, but based on that thought it pretty funny. The bit that sticks in my mind is the authors diatribe against the use of the word "kit".

Paraphrasing: 'kit' is a great word and it can be useful for describing all sorts of military equipment, usually of the portable kind. Examples such as "these tin-openers are a great piece of kit", "I've got too much kit in my bergen", etc being common. However it does get overused - not least when applied to large pieces of military equipment, like a Hercules, or an air-craft carrier. Even worse is when the word is used to describe non-military pieces of equpment - like girlfriends ("that Lisa is a great piece of kit").

It still makes me laugh all these years later.

Regards

JonS

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Phorncastle:

If you dust off your manual, you will see that it states that "stockpiling" of ammo is modelled in the game(under a section titled ammo I expect) Wether or not if it works or has been actually coded I dont know as I havent got the game to hand, but I am sure it mentions that this is modelled and once your troops move from their defensive postions they lose the extra ammo as they cant carry it, so the intention by the developers was there.

Okay, I got out my manual (v1.0) and there on page 61 I found these words:

"During prepared defense situations, units often are awarded (by the scenario designer) [emphasis added] extra ammo to "stockpile" within their fortified positions. Even if a unit suffers no casualties, the extra ammo is lost once the team decides to leave its defensive position, because there's no one to carry it!"

In other words, this applies only to scenarios and not to QBs.

Michael

[ March 26, 2002, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Simon Fox]

Let's face it Andreas is understandably reticent about acknowledging his countrymen's widely documented aversion to cold steel.

"The Tommy's method of using the long steel blade on the end of his gun has been found decidedly nasty, from the German standpoint. But let the Germans see that a hand-to-hand struggle with the bayonet is imminent, and up go their hands, and cries of 'Kamerad,' 'Kamerad,' resound, the allies have found."

http://call.army.mil/products/newsltrs/2-88/chpt1.htm

http://www.mishalov.com/Porteous.html

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~vcweb/winners/edmondson.htm

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/Gallery/crete/day8.htm

http://www.ean.co.uk/Bygones/History/Article/WW2/John_Green_MBE/html/body_battle_of_ornito.htm

"COLE, ROBERT G.

Rank and organization: Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army, 101st Airborne Division. Place and date: Near Carentan, France, 11 June 1944. Entered service at: San Antonio, Tex. Birth: Fort Sam Houston, Tex. G.O. No.: 79, 4 October 1944. Citation: For gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his own life, above and beyond the call of duty on 11 June 1944, in France. Lt. Col. Cole was personally leading his battalion in forcing the last 4 bridges on the road to Carentan when his entire unit was suddenly pinned to the ground by intense and withering enemy rifle, machinegun, mortar, and artillery fire placed upon them from well-prepared and heavily fortified positions within 150 yards of the foremost elements. After the devastating and unceasing enemy fire had for over 1 hour prevented any move and inflicted numerous casualties, Lt. Col. Cole, observing this almost hopeless situation, courageously issued orders to assault the enemy positions with fixed bayonets. With utter disregard for his own safety and completely ignoring the enemy fire, he rose to his feet in front of his battalion and with drawn pistol shouted to his men to follow him in the assault. Catching up a fallen man's rifle and bayonet, he charged on and led the remnants of his battalion across the bullet-swept open ground and into the enemy position. His heroic and valiant action in so inspiring his men resulted in the complete establishment of our bridgehead across the Douve River. The cool fearlessness, personal bravery, and outstanding leadership displayed by Lt. Col. Cole reflect great credit upon himself and are worthy of the highest praise in the military service."

[Andreas]

Simon, far from it. I am just a bit at a loss as to why anyone would think that the British used bayonet charges as SOP when they were pinned and that this should be modeled.

Your examples include two charges, as far as I can see. One seems to have been in a different context (Naples), dispersing a disorganised attacker.

The US citation I knew - I have also seen that described as the only bayonet charge a US unit did in the MWE theater.

So this regular event (three times in four years of war so far) needs to be modelled why?

[Wisbech_lad]

Because it is a truth universally acknowledged that the Germans don't like it up 'em. Corporal Jones said so. Allow us our stereotypes!

[Simon Fox]

Well someone asked if there were any bayonet charges in WW2 and I gave 6 examples. I can fink of another 2 large scale ones off the top of me head, by the RM Commandos as part of the commando brigade and 2/13th battalion at Tobruk, plus a whole host of them in the Pacific (not including the Japanese).

[Brian]

As someone I know, once said, "nothing fixes the mind on the task ahead as the fixing of a bayonet on the end of one's rifle".

Bayonet charges, did occur, Andreas. There are the classic, "up and at'em!" type, as described by Simon and John but more often than not, they would have been the final assault on an enemy position, when a unit makes that final walking advance into the hopefully empty position, rather than charging for several hundred yards across open ground screaming like a crazed Dervish.

In the British Army, it was SOP to fix bayonets before an assault. Still is, as I understand it. There are literally hundreds of photos showing British and Commonwealth troops advancing with fixed bayonets in existence (yeah, yeah, I know the usual arguments against using photographic evidence) during WWII.

More often than not, as in John's recounting of the battles in the Falklands, it was the moral effect, rather than the physical one, which resulted in the enemy "melting away" in the face of that final assault. People just don't like the idea of some bugger sticking a bloody great knife in them, even in the middle of a battle, it would appear.

While the myth is that the Germans were unwilling to face bayonets, in reality, they did in engage in some quite bloody hand-to-hand fighting, particularly on the Eastern Front.

Drawing on the experiences of the diggers I've known, one who served in Korea pointed out that the only time he took part in a bayonet charge was just after the breakout from the Pusan Perimeter. 3 RAR conducted it for the movie cameras. Apparently they charged up a steep hill, against a suspected DRKA position only to find that (a) the enemy, if they had been there at all, had taken one look at this mob of lunatics and departed for safer climes, post haste and ( the newsreel cameraman had not kept up with them and had the temerity to ask, "Please, could they do it just one more time?" Being by this point rather knackered, one can imagine what the general response from the soldiery was to that proposal...

Yet, the last preparation for a bayonet charge (which to this day is still very contraversial within the Oz Army) was in Vietnam, over 15 years later, at Long Tan. Thankfully, the situation improved and the order was never issued. I can still remember learning bayonet fighting in 1977 when I joined the Oz Army.

[Jeff Duquette]

I can cite several examples of Bayonet Charges conducted by either US ARMY Infantry or USMC Infantry during the Korean "Conflict" if this will add at all to the discussion. The effect of a bayonet charge is very much psychological for both the attacker and defender…as already indicated in John Salt's erudite post earlier on in this thread. Even the days of what might be considered classic bayonet charges; Napoleonic Era, Crimean War, American Civil War, etc the incidence of actual bayonet wounds was relatively miniscule when compared with artillery and small arms inflicted wounds. However this did not detract from the psychological impact of the bayonet charge. Typically one side or the other breaks before "physical' contact actually occurs; Butt strokes and bayonet thrusts are rarely occurring in melee. It is apparently the anticipation of such nasty things occurring which triggers the flee instinct.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Simon, far from it. I am just a bit at a loss as to why anyone would think that the British used bayonet charges as SOP when they were pinned and that this should be modeled.

It's an SOP after you've won the firefight, when the *enemy* is pinned. Incidents of "flight to the front" do occur, but a bayonet charge is the planned climax of practically every British section or platoon attack. It's the way I was trained to do things in the TA, 1978 to 1983.

The point about bayonet-work is not its frequency; it is the ultimate nature of the threat it represents. I would imagine that the psychological effect of a bayonet assault is much more likely to get defenders to break and run than any amount of bullet fire. Even in a state of extreme fear, it should be fairly obvious that you can't outrun a bullet, and if you are in a slitter or behind any kind of cover, you are better off keeping your head down than getting up and running (if you're so far gone with fear that you can't even figure this out, then I think the tendency will be to freeze into immobility, not to run for it). It makes more sense, though, to run from men with bayonets -- if you don't, they are going to come into your hole with you, brandishing nasty pointy things. I can find examples of bayonet charges successfully dislodging a defender with a quick flonk around the web. How many instances can people find of bullet fire forcing a dug-in enemy to break and run, as happens in CM?

Your examples include two charges, as far as I can see. One seems to have been in a different context (Naples), dispersing a disorganised attacker.

The US citation I knew - I have also seen that described as the only bayonet charge a US unit did in the MWE theater.

So this regular event (three times in four years of war so far) needs to be modelled why?

It needs to be modelled because it is a critically important part of how minor tactics work, and influences them strongly by its threat, if not so much by its execution. There are plenty more examples to be found from all theatres in WW2 and from Korea, and more still of people closing the enemy in an apparently suicidal rush but using automatic weapons or grenades rather than rifle and bayonet.

A quick exploration on the web produced the folowing examples, all specifically described as "bayonet charges", all from NW Europe 1944-45 and against a German opponent:

Capt Robert H Shulz, 2 Bn 358 Inf Regt, 90th Inf Div, La Haye du Puits, France, June 1944. Awarded Silver Star.

Sgt Hulon Whittington, 41 Armd Inf Regt, 2nd Armd Div, Grimesnil, France, 29 Jul 1944. Awarded MOH.

I & K Coys, 3 Bn 442 RCT, nr. Biffontaine, France, 30 Oct 1944. Awarded PUC.

Richard Durkee, 551 Para Inf Bn, 82nd Abn Div, Rochelinval, 05 Jan 1945.

That's four more American examples, so Cole's can hardly have been the "only" bayonet charge in NWE even if one doesn't count non-Americans, such as:

Lt Tasker Watkins, 1/5 Welch Regt, Barfour, France, 16 Aug 1944. Awarded VC.

Lt-Col Payton-Reid, 7 KOSB, Arnhem, 17 Sept 1944.

Maj Geoffrey Powell, 156 Para Bn and Brig "Shan" Hackett, Oosterbeek, 19th Sept 1944.

I have little doubt that a more thorough search would throw up many more examples.

All the best,

John.