Forget BREN TRIPODS I wanna know about body armour...

[Michael Dorosh]

I ask, most definitely tongue in cheek, if the following was ever considered for inclusion in CMBO: Medical Research Council Body Armour Article at canadiansoldiers.com

(In all seriousness, I would not expect this to be modelled - but it is an interesting and little known area of research. Brian Davis does talk about it in UNIFORMS AND INSIGNIA OF THE BRITISH ARMY, but basically little is known about how widespread the issue of these armour sets were. Blackburn mentions them in his GUNS trilogy. Does anyone else know anything about the use of this body armour in Commonwealth service? Because of the nature of the equipment (ie worn under the clothing) simple photographic analysis would be of no use, unfortunately).

[ February 15, 2002, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Bruno Weiss]

Nice butt plate, where's the athletic cup?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Nice butt plate, where's the athletic cup?

I think that WAS the cup. "Flatnut" is a common insult here in the Canadian Army...I guess now we know why?

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

Well, to toss in the ole tuppence:

In his excellent volume, "For King & Country: British Airborne Uniforms, Insignia & Equipment in World War II"(a veritable Red Devil Bible if ya don't already know), Harlan Glenn states that the MRC (Medical Research Council) Body Armour was "issued as an 'available extra' for the battle of Arnhem. It was worn by the Poles, Glider Pilots and Recce Squadron Drivers, and was usually worn underneath the Denison and over the Battle Dress." From the color photos, it looks to have been frequently 'blancoed'.

He writes that the Body Armour was largely experimental and, though it was developed in 1941, didn't see any widespread usage 'til Market Garden. As well, it was intended to be worn under the BD, but was understandably more comfortable worn outside, as was most often the case.

I can understand why the body armour didn't make into CMBO, but, the real Commonwealth gripe still remains:

Where in blazes is the jeep mounted Vickers "K" gun? The Vickers "K" was designated an 'aviation type' machine gun and had a ROF of 950 rounds/minute versus the 500 rounds/min that the standard water cooled Vickers kicked out. Twin pintle mounted on a Willys MB for maximum "gamey recon"!!!

[ February 16, 2002, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: Fairbairn-Sykes Trench Knife ]

[Battlefront.com]

I just happen to have an article on British "MRC Body Armour" This was in Militaria Magazine No. 20. It looks identical to the picture you posted above. Basic elements...

Continuation of experiments in WWI. In 1937 the Air Ministry started exploring the possibility of using it for flight crews to protect from flak and air-air combat. The Admiralty also looked into them for use with their China gunboats and other exposed deck positions on regular ships. Both groups rejected British and American designs as being impractical and (in fact) not much protection at all.

The War Office and Misistry of Supply (as well as General Staff) showed no interest in the prospect of armor when war broke out. They later took interest, but various tests found the armor to be unsuitable for one reason or another (weight or not enough protection) through 1939 and 1940.

From mid 1940 through early 1941 various prototypes were created thanks to interest by the Royal Society of Medicine. They began a program to develop one set of armor for more or less imobile troops, another set for those who still needed to move around. They selected the third prototype for further testing. It was estimated that it could reduce fatalities by 5%.

In February 1941 5,000 trial sets of the Type III armor were produced. The armor consisted of a square steel breastplate, slightly curved and connected by two straps to a backplate, which was formed as an inverted "T". An adominal plate was suspended from the bottom of the breastplate. Total weight was a surprising 2 pounds, 12 oz. The inside was lined with a thick rubber to absorbe shock. The whole thing was supposed to be worn *OVER* the stanard uniform.

Trials were carried out with the Home Forces from late 1941 until early 1942, and limited testing in the Middle East. The reports were satisfactory, but the rubber required for 1 million sets was too much for the Brits to muster. So they searched for a substitute and found that thick felt protected by canvas worked OK, so that was used instead.

Apparently preliminary field tests went so well that the research board decided that this was as vital as the steel helmet. Unfortunately...

There the article stops. It says "to be continued later", but although I have the next 4 consecutive issues, there is no follow up article.

Sorry, but that is all I gots

Steve

[Brian]

I'm sorry, Michael but utilising the same logic as was used against the Bren Tripod, we will have to declare this body armour "mythical".

Interestingly, however, it is mentioned in several books I've read lately on Market Garden, being worn by airborne forces and on this page which I discovered recently while researching the sound ranging thread. I can't remember where but the write mentions it after D-Day, I think.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Fairbairn-Sykes Trench Knife:

Where in blazes is the jeep mounted Vickers "K" gun?

Now there's a good question. I'd even like to see the bipod mounted K-gun.

[Brian]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Fairbairn-Sykes Trench Knife:

Where in blazes is the jeep mounted Vickers "K" gun?

Now there's a good question. I'd even like to see the bipod mounted K-gun.</font>

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Brian:

The only time you'd see one of those would be when you see Indian troops in CM. There was no bipod mounted K gun,

According to Ian Dear, eight bipod mounted K-guns were issued to the Anglo-French commandos assigned to take out the Ouistreham battery in Normandy. He says the guns 'proved their worth'.

[ February 16, 2002, 04:43 AM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

Originally posted by Brian:

...There was no bipod mounted K gun...

Hmm. Jean Bouchery's unparalleled book, "The British Soldier: From D-Day to VE-Day; Vol.2" states that the Aircraft Machine Gun, Class K (K-Gun, Vickers, Gas Operated), bipod mounted, was issued to the Heavy Troops Royal Marines as well as units of the Army Commandos. He claims that its use with a bipod replaced the .303 Vickers, Water Cooled - in certain units.

Bouchery provides a b&w picture of a smiling (bipod quite visible, weapon resting on his shoulder) "K" gunner advancing with his unit of the Army Commandos, having just landed at Normandy (Riva Bella), '44. Each man in this particular Commando section, the author says, was carrying 2 magazines for the K gun. A smaller picture illustrates the round magazine pouches that were attached to standard webbing in much the same manner as the long, Bren magazine pouches. My simplistic reasoning leads me to believe that enough units were issued bipod mounted K guns for these round magazine pouches to be issued.

Obviously, until we revisit the Western Front & the Mediterranean/North Africa - nobody cares about the Vickers K.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Fairbairn-Sykes Trench Knife:

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

...There was no bipod mounted K gun...

Hmm. Jean Bouchery's unparalleled book, "The British Soldier: From D-Day to VE-Day; Vol.2" states that the Aircraft Machine Gun, Class K (K-Gun, Vickers, Gas Operated), bipod mounted, was issued to the Heavy Troops Royal Marines as well as units of the Army Commandos. He claims that its use with a bipod replaced the .303 Vickers, Water Cooled - in certain units.

Bouchery provides a b&w picture of a smiling (bipod quite visible, weapon resting on his shoulder) "K" gunner advancing with his unit of the Army Commandos, having just landed at Normandy (Riva Bella), '44. Each man in this particular Commando section, the author says, was carrying 2 magazines for the K gun. A smaller picture illustrates the round magazine pouches that were attached to standard webbing in much the same manner as the long, Bren magazine pouches. My simplistic reasoning leads me to believe that enough units were issued bipod mounted K guns for these round magazine pouches to be issued.

Obviously, until we revisit the Western Front & the Mediterranean/North Africa - nobody cares about the Vickers K.</font>

[Hakko Ichiu]

Not directly relevant to your query, but many, many moons ago I recall seeing a picture of a Japanese officer in body armor, might have been during the China campaign. It was in one of those omnibus "Weapons of the Japanese Army in WWII" type books that was probably ten or fifteen years old when I saw it in the school library in 1975.

ISTR it said that it was phased out by the time of Pearl Harbor because ineffective and cumbersome.

Just one small bit of grist for the mill. Funny how memory works, especially as we drift into senescence.

[CMplayer]

Speaking of Japanese body armor, I remember as a kid my grandma telling me how Japanese soldiers would wrap a long bolt of silk cloth tightly around their body in many layers. This was supposed to distribute the energy from a bullet or shrapnel hit and protect the wearer. I've never heard of it since. Opinions?

[ February 16, 2002, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[Brian]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

Speaking of Japanese body armor, I remember as a kid my grandma telling me how Japanese soldiers would wrap a long bolt of silk cloth tightly around their body in many layers. This was supposed to distribute the energy from a bullet or shrapnel hit and protect the wearer. I've never heard of it since. Opinions?

Sounds a bit like the old wives' tale of giving your loved one a cigarette case/pocket bible/flask/etc, in the hope it will deflect that one fatal bullet.

However, your story is similar to that told of the Mongols who were supposedly reputed to wear a silk shirt under their armour, so that any wounding arrow could then be withdrawn from a wound by pulling back on the threads of silk. However, as one author I know points out, as they rarely washed, any such shirt would have been rendered rather moot after a few months of wear.

[Battlefront.com]

Just a reminder that CM never was, and never will be, a simulation of everything that was ever used by every nation in every conceivable role down to the last button or piece of crimpped steel. I thought this was as good of a time to remind you folks of this since I am reminding myself

For every one small Allied contraption/weapon not seen in CMBO, there were probably 10 German ones not simulated. Towards the end of the war the Germans threw just about anything they ever made or captured into the fight. Oh, like airplane MGs, including BIG stuff like the MG151 (15mm MG), and light mounted 20mm AA guns all designed for ground use. Then there are the crazy stuff like Krummlauf (shoot around corners) or the Goliath remote controlled demo vehicle. And of course, any Grog worth his salt could name at least a dozen German AFVs which did not get included in CMBO, while the better Grogs could probalby come up with three times that number. There were plenty more things not included other than the Sturmtiger!

Each one of these things which was not included could be argued for since a) they existed, some were deployed by the thousands, c) some had a significant impact on a battle or a particular formation's firepower, and d) they were "cool". But they weren't included because they weren't common and we only have so much time to deal with stuff like this. We need to avoid the slippery slope of oddball stuff or we will get ourselves stuck in mud deeper than what the Germans encountered in Fall 1941

Not to get back into a rather pitiful and pointless discussions about the Bren tripod in the past, but the device quite simply did not pass our "common" or "impact" test. Of course not everybody agreed with us on that issue, but since there is always someone who disagrees with any decision we have made, it doesn't bother us Just like the adapted bipod conversion of the US Browning 1919A4 wasn't included, even though they were made in the hundreds of thousands (I can pick up a conversion kit dirt cheap in any number of places). We also didn't simulate German Squad LMGs being used in the "heavy" role, even though each company was equipped with three tripods for defensive employment.

Were all of these things used in frontline combat? Sure. But to what extent and to what degree of significance? I've noted that supporters of the oddball stuff (regardless of nationality) really HATE trying to prove the "use" and "significance" cases

There were plenty of things used by all sides which we didn't simulate in CMBO and even MORE won't be simulated in CMBB. Everybody has their pet things they want included, but if we catered to each and every one of them I don't know when we would have time to do anything else. We are already quite late with CMBB as it is, and the main reason is the quantity of crap that had to be put into it (I have been doing almost nothing but TO&E for 4 months for example!)

If any of you were game developers, you'd understand why we tear our hair out sometimes

Steve

[ February 17, 2002, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Michael Dorosh]

So Steve, have you done any research into "elite" unit TO&Es, or just the standard stuff? I am trying to find detailed order of battle info for Infantry Regiment Grossdeutschland, and despite owning

Official history V.1 and V.2 by Helmuth Spaeter

Pictorial history by Helmuth Spaeter

GOD, HONOR, FATHERLAND

Soldat V. 5 (Uniforms and Insignia of Panzerkorps Grossdeutschland)

Germany'e Elite Panzerforce: Grossdeutschland by James Lucas

Squadron Signal's GROSSDEUTSCHLAND

I am also "pulling my hair out" trying to figure out basic organizations. Alex Buchner's book is of no use to me since GD did everything 'bigger and better' - as if they were from Texas or something.

I don't suppose you have any info...? I would rather imagine you are NOT bothering with the TO&E of every "oddball" unit on the Eastern Front, but thought I would ask nonetheless.

[Andreas]

Michael, do you own Dörfleräs pictorial history of GD? It is almost devoid of text, so that the bit that there is is German should not matter much to you

ISBN 3-89555-311-5

It contains pictorial TO&E for IR GD, ID (mot) GD, PzGrenD GD, PzGrenD 'Brandenburg' and 'Kurmark', and FBB (or whatever that weird one was)

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Michael, do you own Dörfleräs pictorial history of GD? It is almost devoid of text, so that the bit that there is is German should not matter much to you

ISBN 3-89555-311-5

It contains pictorial TO&E for IR GD, ID (mot) GD, PzGrenD GD, PzGrenD 'Brandenburg' and 'Kurmark', and FBB (or whatever that weird one was)

My God, one I missed. Better I should ask if you have a scanner!

(Pictorial TO and E? Is this like the ones in Spaeter's book, with the silhouettes of vehicles? I will check it out, but I didn't find the TO and E's with the silhouettes very helpful or substantial...)

Oh, and you mean FBB and FGD - Führer Begleit Battaillon and Führer Grenadier Division....or somefink

[ February 17, 2002, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Michael Dorosh]

How do I search by ISBN on Amazon? I don't see an ADVANCED SEARCH button anywhere. Talk about frustrating.

[Andreas]

Don't know Spaeter's stuff, but yes, that's what it is, and you are right,about it not being helpful. But you know what they say about beggars and choice

No scanner at present, since my beloved Canon did shuffle off this mortal coil.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Don't know Spaeter's stuff, but yes, that's what it is, and you are right,about it not being helpful. But you know what they say about beggars and choice

No scanner at present, since my beloved Canon did shuffle off this mortal coil.

I just started a PBEM of The Farm, expect another review soon - oh, and my PBEM buddy reviewed the Para BB that I reviewed.

[Battlefront.com]

Michael,

So Steve, have you done any research into "elite" unit TO&Es, or just the standard stuff?

Yes I've done research into this, but not decided about what to do (if anything) to single out such a small force for special treatment. As far as I can tell, for the most part Gross Deustchland, Leibstandarte, and Herman Göring Panzer Division had pretty much the same TO&E.

The main differences between these and "normal" units was they got the pick of recruits, equipment, and weapons. Not only did they get better stuff, but they got more of it (like having more HTs for PzGren Battalions). At CM's scale this is easily accounted for without any specialized treatment, like using PzIIIs instead of StuGs and issuing the troops with more HTs (etc.).

Apparently after the Neuer Art pattern change over in 1943 GD, LSSAH, and HG were exempted from the manpower reductions. This means that after 1943 they retained 4 Squads per Platoon instead of the reductions done to all other Army/SS/LW divisions. This change is most notable at CM's scale because it reduces Platoons down to 3 Squads. From what I can tell these three "elite" formations were once again exempted with the Typ 44 change was instituted, but I have no hard information about this one way or the other.

I am not an "elite" fanatic like many of you guys are, so my shelves are not full up with some of the fantastic (but expensive!) unit histories of these fine formations. If anybody can confirm the exemption from Typ 44 reformation I wouldn't mind hearing from you. As it is now I have information which is in direct conflict with each other. So I am inclined to think that these formations retained their larger organizations "unofficially" until the war ended.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Michael,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So Steve, have you done any research into "elite" unit TO&Es, or just the standard stuff?

Yes I've done research into this, but not decided about what to do (if anything) to single out such a small force for special treatment. As far as I can tell, for the most part Gross Deustchland, Leibstandarte, and Herman Göring Panzer Division had pretty much the same TO&E.

The main differences between these and "normal" units was they got the pick of recruits, equipment, and weapons. Not only did they get better stuff, but they got more of it (like having more HTs for PzGren Battalions). At CM's scale this is easily accounted for without any specialized treatment, like using PzIIIs instead of StuGs and issuing the troops with more HTs (etc.).

Apparently after the Neuer Art pattern change over in 1943 GD, LSSAH, and HG were exempted from the manpower reductions. This means that after 1943 they retained 4 Squads per Platoon instead of the reductions done to all other Army/SS/LW divisions. This change is most notable at CM's scale because it reduces Platoons down to 3 Squads. From what I can tell these three "elite" formations were once again exempted with the Typ 44 change was instituted, but I have no hard information about this one way or the other.

I am not an "elite" fanatic like many of you guys are, so my shelves are not full up with some of the fantastic (but expensive!) unit histories of these fine formations. If anybody can confirm the exemption from Typ 44 reformation I wouldn't mind hearing from you. As it is now I have information which is in direct conflict with each other. So I am inclined to think that these formations retained their larger organizations "unofficially" until the war ended.

Steve</font>

[Battlefront.com]

The problem with TO&E in general is that what you see written is most often "authorized strength", meaning that it has no meaning in and of itself Even when you find some TO&E that pins down exactly what wacky organization the unit had on x day of y month of z year, it is only good for that DAY. Next day it could be totally different, plus or minus (if in combat, almost always minus).

Nowhere is this more of a problem than on the Eastern Front. Not only due to the scale of units involved, but the years of changes and size of the battles. In France the TO&E didn't change, although the "return strength" reported of course did. But in the East, you could have two fresh Infantry Divisions coming into battle with entirely different equipment beyond basic small arms, not to mention ad hoc attachments, amalgamated formations, missing units attached to other places, missing units left behind at a depot or railhead, etc. It is a real mess, especially because many of these changes became unoficially "official"

Compounding this problem is the fact that officially the German infantry TO&E didn't change between 1939 and 1943. Then the Neuer Art change in 1943, then the Typ 44 in early 1944, then Speer and then Volksgrenadier later in 1944, then Typ 45 which was supposed to be standard from December 44 on. But what is on paper does not reflect this since in reality this was NOT the case, with all sorts of minor and major variations taking place during this time.

Long story short... any unit, elite or not, did not likely conform to TO&E on any given day of its existance. Even detailed returns, which rarely go below Battalion level, bear little relation to reality within a short period of time. So the best we can do is give our best list of "official" and defacto "official" formations for people to mess around with as they see fit.

Nothing is worse than the Hungarians though! All German formations were 100% up to official TO&E compared to the average Hungarian division

Steve