Soviet infantry question

[Prinz Eugen]

I'm pretty interested in that subject. It's just that I know so little. In one book it became apparent that the Soviet platoon consists of four ( !!! ) 9 man squads. Three platoons plus mortar platoon, MG squad and a medic squad forms one company.

Three companies forms a battalion, consisting also of : MG company, mortar company, AT-platoon ( armed with at-rifles ), AT-section ( with two 57mm-ATGs ), medic platoon and a "service" ( cooks etc. ) platoon. Three battalions forms an infantry regiment with strengths varying from 2000-2500.

What I'd like to know, is will the supporting elements, MGs, mortars, AT-assets be formed into platoons as in WW II they were, or will we still get the odd mortar separately ?

Also the armament of the Soviet infantryman fascinates me. I'm with the impression the Soviets valued automatic weapons, therefore at some stage in the war they started issuing the regular trooper with an auto/semiautomatic rifle, thus increasing squads' firepower in comparison to bolt-action rifle-equipped Germans. Is anyone in the know concerning to these kinds of rifle, when did they become available etc ? What was the Soviet squad MG ? The Degtyarev ?

And the Soviet MMG, the Maxim ? Was that the only MMG they had, and any info on that ? I'd like to know how that compares with western designs aswell !

Any replies would be appreciated !

[Zitadelle]

Originally posted by Prinz Eugen:

I'm pretty interested in that subject. It's just that I know so little. In one book it became apparent that the Soviet platoon consists of four ( !!! ) 9 man squads. Three platoons plus mortar platoon, MG squad and a medic squad forms one company.

Three companies forms a battalion, consisting also of : MG company, mortar company, AT-platoon ( armed with at-rifles ), AT-section ( with two 57mm-ATGs ), medic platoon and a "service" ( cooks etc. ) platoon. Three battalions forms an infantry regiment with strengths varying from 2000-2500.

What I'd like to know, is will the supporting elements, MGs, mortars, AT-assets be formed into platoons as in WW II they were, or will we still get the odd mortar separately ?

Also the armament of the Soviet infantryman fascinates me. I'm with the impression the Soviets valued automatic weapons, therefore at some stage in the war they started issuing the regular trooper with an auto/semiautomatic rifle, thus increasing squads' firepower in comparison to bolt-action rifle-equipped Germans. Is anyone in the know concerning to these kinds of rifle, when did they become available etc ? What was the Soviet squad MG ? The Degtyarev ?

And the Soviet MMG, the Maxim ? Was that the only MMG they had, and any info on that ? I'd like to know how that compares with western designs aswell !

Any replies would be appreciated !

I'll take the first stab at providing you some insight.

For infantry organizations, the more common Soviet AT gun was actually organized around the 45mm AT gun. It was not until mid-1943 that the 57mm started to be equipped to troops, and even still, the 45mm continued in the TO&E through the end of the war. Although the 45mm was based upon the German 37mm, it was capable of firing a large HE round, and thus, the Soviets continued to use the weapon in that role throughout the war.

As for CMBB unit purchase and inherent TO&E structures, I cannot give you any insight since I have not seen the game....

The Soviet automatic rifle (at work so right now I cannot provide the name) was actually equipped to some troops- typically squad leaders or some veteran units- in the beginning of the war (1941). This rifle proved to be unpopular with the troops- since it was difficult to maintain, inaccurate, and costly to manufacture. It was slowly removed from service. Automatic fire was eventually provided by the assortment of SMGs.

You are correct regarding the Soviet squad LMG. There were two versions provided to the troops- the DP and the DT. The DP model was the standard infantry LMG. The DT was the same weapon, but actually the version developed for tanks. This version was initially supplied to troops due to shortages of the DP. However, troops preferred the DT since it was lighter (metal stock) and easier to handle.

The Maxim was really the only infantry machine gun provided to infantry units. It was based upon the original German Maxim machine gun developed in the early 1900s which was the model MG for the Vickers, Browning, and others as well. It was a water-cooled, belt-fed MG, and the TO&E set the standard crew at six (I believe). Compared to the MG34 an MG42, it definitely showed its age.

The Soviets did have the DsHK heavy machine gun (12.7mm). However, this weapon was considered too heavy to be used for infantry use. Some units were equipped with the monster, but for the most part it was mounted and used for AA duties.

[Prinz Eugen]

Thanks for the reply !

I'll be really looking forward to acquaiting myself with the Red Army. My knowledge on that isn't on a "grog" level, but I'll learn through CMBB !

I've seen the Maxim in a museum, where there were earlier Maxims of Finnish and German armies too, the Soviet one wasn't all that much different. It looked heavy and a complicated design, much more so than the MG-42. And about the weight, the MG had wheels attached ! Any idea on its range and volume of fire ?

So much for the Soviets using the automatic rifle throughout the war. They used the regular bolt-action rifle, then ? Sure, the PPsh-41 SMG had tremendous fire power, but being an SMG lacked range.

Guess the German squad has better firepower, but atleast to my sources they had 4 squads in a platoon instead of 3, so that negates that advantage in some situations, IMO.

[PzKpfw 1]

Originaly the 1938 Shtat (TO&E) for a Soviet Rifle Squad was 12 men: 1 Sqd Ldr, 1 LMG, and asst gunner, 1 Rifle grenadier & asst, and 6 Riflemen, with a Rifle Company consisting of an HQ with 1 Co, 1 political officer, a 1st Sgt, 1, asst, & clerk, & 3 Plts with 4 Sqds each and 1 HMG Plt with, 6 officers, 180 NCO's & enlisted men, The Company had: 12 LMGs, 12 grenade launchers, & 120 rifles.

From July 1941 the Rifle Platoon was reduced to 3 squads. In Jan/Feb 1942 the size of the squad was reduced to 9 men. Their were 2 types of Soviet Rifle squad, each consisted of 9 men:

- Type 1 - Squad leader, 1 LMG gunner, & assistant gunner, 6 riflemen.

- Type 2 - Squad leader, 2 LMG gunner, & 2 asst gunners, 4 riflemen.

The Submachine gun Companies were formed after the war began, & consisted of sqds of 8 men with Companies consisting of 3 Plt's with 3 Sqds, each Plt, with a total of 80 - 95 men, with no Hvy weapons.

These Companies were not deployed in the same manner as Rifle Co's but instead were used at the Rifle Regt, Rifle Brigade, structure as an reserve, to seal penetrations etc, or commited where the effective range of their SMGs was feasible but only with full support of the Regts, artillery, or the Regt Recce elements etc.

The SMG sqd development was also influenced from the shortage of APC's in that the T-34 was modified externaly to carry exactly 8 men, which incidently was the same size as an Soviet SMG Sqd.

Regards, John Waters

[ August 19, 2002, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[flamingknives]

Righto, IIRC.

The Maxim matches the MG42/MG34 for penetration (roughly) as they both use full power rifle rounds. The Maxim has 1/2 the RoF of the MG42 and 2/3 that of the MG34. It's main advantage is that it is big and heavy and water cooled, which means that it can keep firing forever without overheating. Unfortunately, this means that it's big and heavy....

[Zitadelle]

Originally posted by Prinz Eugen:

....

I've seen the Maxim in a museum, where there were earlier Maxims of Finnish and German armies too, the Soviet one wasn't all that much different. It looked heavy and a complicated design, much more so than the MG-42. And about the weight, the MG had wheels attached ! Any idea on its range and volume of fire ?

So much for the Soviets using the automatic rifle throughout the war. They used the regular bolt-action rifle, then ? Sure, the PPsh-41 SMG had tremendous fire power, but being an SMG lacked range.

Guess the German squad has better firepower, but atleast to my sources they had 4 squads in a platoon instead of 3, so that negates that advantage in some situations, IMO.

Remember, the Maxim was literally a copy of the German Maxim gun from World War I. It would look nearly identical to the weapon of the "War to End All Wars." The wheels on the Maxim probably did not add that much for mobility. It helped with level ground (and paved- even better), but in your typical combat conditions the small wheels did not really help. And, they probably added additional weight for when you had to carry the damnable thing.

Yes, the Russians used the classic Mossit-Naggat (sp?) bolt-action rifle through the war.

Starting in 1942, the Red Army modeled the triangle structure (platoon through corps) for unit organization; so the advantage of having four squads disappeared.

In my opinion, Steve Zaloga's book _The Red Army Handbook: 1939-1945_ presents an excellent overview of the changing structure of the Red Army through the Great Patriotic War. He presents multiple TO&Es for the various organizations that the Soviets had for their units.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Zitadelle:

The Maxim was really the only infantry machine gun provided to infantry units. It was based upon the original German Maxim machine gun developed in the early 1900s which was the model MG for the Vickers, Browning, and others as well.

The Maxim PM-1910 was not the only MMG provided to infantry units; one might also meet the Goryunov SG-43 in the latter half of the war.

Sir Hiram Maxim was an American, working in England, who used the manufacturing facilities of the Vickers company at Crayford, in Kent, to make his gun. By 1890 he had supplied his gun to, among others, the British, German and Russian governments. The idea that the British and Russian guns were based on a German design is entirely wrong; and, although the US used some Colt-built Vickers guns in .30 calibre during WW1, I believe that the M1917 Browning does not even use the Maxim toggle action.

All the best,

John.

[Guest Mike]

The Simonov and Tokarev automatic rifles were supposed to be standard issue to the Russian infantry in 1941, and many units actually had them.

I beleive Finland captured a number - apparently the russian infantry as not too well versed in cleaning techniques, and the heavy preservative grease applied in the factory tended to freeze up!!

The weer somewhat flimsy and difficult to maintain, however teh main reason they were not adopted was the loss of industrial capacity after Barbarossa - like many other Russian weapon systems of the time the choice was betwen having something NOW, or having something better in 6 months but nothign until then.

The Russians went for something NOW. Cf the UK and 2 pdr vs 6 pdr AT guns in 1940!!

The 45mm AT gun wasn't kept in service because it fired a "large" HE round!! lol - it was kept in service because it was that or nothing for most units!!

[Foreigner]

Just to add my 2 pennies' worth...

The Russian/Soviet military terminology tradition generally stresses the distinction between "purely" automatic weapons (that can provide continuous fire as long as the trigger is depressed and ammunition is fed - full-auto in Western terminology) and self-loading weapons - "Samozaryadnoe oruzhie" - that feed ammunition automatically, but require the shooter to release the trigger before each subsequent shot - semi-automatics in Western terms).

All Soviet rifles, carbines, LMGs and MMGs of the WWII years (with two exceptions) were designed for the 7.62mm x 54 R 'Mossin - Nagant' full-power rifle round (circa 1900s). In fact, this round is still in service with the PK "Kalashnikov" GPMG line.

In 1936, the Red Army officially adopted AVS-36 Avtomaticheskaya Vintovka Simonova obr. 1936 g. - Simonov's Automatic Rifle M1936, with a 20-round clip, selective semi- and full-auto fire. The permanently attached bayonet could swing down and serve as a "monopod" support. As a compromise between a rifle and a LMG it was similar to the US BAR; unlike the BAR, it didn't make it long into the war. Though some tens of thousands were produced, it was not liked much by the Soviet military - complex and expensive to produce, difficult to service in field conditions. The military also complained that the average foot soldier would use ammunition "ineffectively" with a full-auto weapon. Even before Barbarossa it was being phased out; for a short time after, those remaining in service were used up mainly as substitutes for LMGs.

AVS-36's intended replacement was Tokarev's semi-auto ("Self-loading") rifle SVT - Samozaryadnaya Vintovka Tokareva M1938 and M1940. Long, heavy and generally unwieldy - even the "lighter" M1940 version - it was also fairly complex to produce and a pain in the ... neck to keep in operable condition - especially the "lighter" M1940 version. Still, the Soviets were determined to equip the army with SVTs, until the start of hostilities forced them to fall back on the bolt-action Mossin-Nagant rifle as more sturdy and easier to mass-produce. For the rest of the war this last design (originally dating back to the 1890s) became the single most numerous individual infantry weapon (more than 10 million were produced, plus sniper and shorter "carbine" versions). Still, some SVTs remained in service throughout the war - they were liked by snipers, who, of course, knew how to maintain them and didn't mind the extra effort.

Finally, after the 'intermediate' 7,62mm x 39 M1943 round (of "Kalashnikov" fame) was adopted by the Red Army, the first design to use it was Simonov's semi-auto carbine SKS-43 Samozaryadniy Karabin Simonova M1943. It is reported to have undergone field trials before the end of WWII, but never saw widespread service in that war.

The principal Soviet MGs were covered in some details in several posts; I would only like to add some tidbits.

The tank version of Degtyaryov's LMG did not have a stock; and was used by the infantry for lack of anything better. More often than not it was used by surving crewmembers of KO'd tanks who took it off their disabled vehicles and fought on foot alongside the infantry.

As to the Maxim's wheels, it can probably be argued which one is faster and/or easier to relocate - a lighter tripod mount that has to be disassembled, hauled on one's back and then reassembled or a heavier wheeled carriage that you can drag behind you. Having done none of those, I defer to the more experienced members at this forum for comments.

During the war there were several unsucessful attempts to design a lighter air-cooled MMG for the full-power 7,62mm rifle round. Goryunov's SG-43 ("Stankoviy Goryunova") M1943 was the only one accepted, and details of its service are sketchy. Around the same year, Degtyaryov designed a LMG for the 'intermediate" 7,62mm x 39 round. Like the SKS-43, the RPD-43 (Ruchnoy Pulemet Degtyaryova) M1943 saw limited use in WWII - little if any beyond the stage of field trials.

The 12,7mm DShK HMG Degtyaryova-Shpagina Krupnokaliberniy - a Degtyaryov-Shpagin collaboration, had a wheeled carriage as well as a couple of tripod mounts, but was mainly fitted to AFVs. Towards the end of the war, the Soviets designed a 14,5mm HMG Valdimirov's KPV - Krupnokaliberniy Pulemet Vladimirova - a dual- role anti-aircraft - anti-light armor MG much like Ma Deuce, based on the 14,5mm ATR round. Again, it didn't see much service in WWII.

The Soviet WWII SMGs were designed for the 7,62mm x 25 pistol round. Although less popular and numerous than the ubiquitos PPSh, the first SMG to enter Red Army Service and was Degtyaryov's 'machine-gun pistol' M1940 Pistolet-Pulemet Degtyaryova PPD-40. Shpagin's PPSh-41 SMG Pistolet-Pulemet Shpagina M1941 was the product of a search for a simpler and cheaper SMG design. IIRC, about 2 million were produced. There was also a PPSh-43, which utilized a regular 30-round clip instead of the 71-round drum, but by that time the even simpler design of Sudaev's PPS-43 Pistolet-Pulemet Sudaeva M1943 SMG with a telescopic metal stock had become the favorite of the "target audience" - vehicle crews, scouts and paratroopers. The PPSh did have two distinct advantages - it allowed selective semi- or full-auto fire and its solid wooden stock could come very handy in hand-to-hand combat.

With lend-lease Shermans, Soviet crews sometimes received Thompson SMGs, but considered them too bulky for the confines of the tank. Some of them might have found their way to the infantry, there are no reports to that extent.

The principal sidearm of officers and vehicle crews throughout the war was Tokarev's TT "Tulskiy Tokarev" semi-automatic pistol M1933, designed for the same 7,62mm x 25 round, although at the very beginning some were armed with "Nagant" six-shot revolvers and small numbers of a fairly unsucessful design by Korovin.

Finally, there were the ATRs, but there are probably more than a few threads already devoted to those.

Hope this made for an interesting (if long) reading.

[JasonC]

I see considerable variation in the reports on Russian small arms.

The basic weapon was the bolt action Mosin-Nagant rifle, with 12.5 million supplied. Shorter carbine versions - the 38 carbine and 44 carbine - firing the same ammo, however - 7.62x54, not the later carbine-caliber 7.62x39 round used in the MP44, SKS series, and later AK47 - became more common over the course of the war, with over 9 million of them supplied. The bulk of those in 1944 and 1945, however, so it was mostly the longer rifles earlier, and a mix later.

There were not 2 million SMGs but 6 million - over 6 times as many pure SMGs as the Germans produced, or 4.5 times as many automatics (900K, plus 400K MP44s). The PPsH 41 early, and the PPsH 43 later on (simpler and cheaper to make, basically equivalent in combat characteristics). Semi auto rifles were rare, with only a few hundred thousand fielded (SVT-38 and SVT-40 mostly) - though they were available as sniper weapons e.g.

As for MGs, they had the DP (pan fed bipod LMG), DPM (improved version of the DP), DT (belt fed air cooled GPMG, less common than the previous two), and the Maxim (common, and highly capable on defense, but not really mobile enough for attacking). The DP and DPM were both capable LMGs (very simple and reliable etc), with better ammo capacity than the Bren for instance, but not as good as the belt fed MG34 and MG42. They were at least as mobile as LMG versions of the latter, however.

In addition, they had 12.7 and 14.5 mm HMGs for AA and light vehicle work. They were not at all "uncommon". The 14.5mm AA MG was standard on late war heavy AFVs. The weight of the guns and of the ammo confined them largely to vehicle use, but the same is largely true of the US 50 cal. The main difference on that score is simply that the US army being more fully motorized, it was somewhat easier to move around such heavy MGs and their heavy ammo.

Compared to the German small arms mix, the Russians fielded a much higher portion of SMGs - 20-25% of the mix, compared to no more than 10% for the Germans. Their SMGs were also better, with larger ammo capacity from lighter rounds (7.62x25 vs. 9mm), achieving somewhat higher muzzle energy via higher velocity.

Their bolt action rifles were comparable to the main German weapon, the K98, which equipped 85-90% of the German force. The Germans had a slight edge in MGs, from all belt fed weapons. This might give them a slight edge for the same numbers at long range; at close range they would certainly be outshot on an average, man per man basis.

[Michael Dorosh]

Hold on, Jason. The K98 equipped 85-90% of the German force?

If you count all supply troops, cooks, farriers and truck drivers yeah, but look at an infantry platoon.

Three sections of 10 men, with 1 MP 40, 1 MG34 and 8 rifles.

That is only 80 percent. Buchner gives a platoon's weapons as 5 machine pistols, 4 LMGs, 34 rifles, 11 pistols and 1 5 cm mortar. For a strength of 1 officer, 6 NCOs and 43 men, this is 50 men and 34 rifles. Or 68 percent of the complement of the rifle platoon armed with the K98, and 18 percent with automatic weapons.

The company had 2 officers, 21 NCOs and 178 men, or 201 total, with 14 machine pistols, 12 lmgs and 130 rifles (plus support weapons, etc and pistol sidearms). this is 64 percent of the company armed with K98s and 12 percent with automatic weapons.

These are the units at the sharp end. The K98 was indeed still very important (these are all early war figures, incidentally - as the squad gets reduced to 9 men from 10, and the scale of issue of automatics go up, the percentage of K98s goes down) but not at all in the 90 percent range.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by JasonC:

[QB]I see considerable variation in the reports on Russian small arms.

not the later carbine-caliber 7.62x39 round used in the MP44, SKS series, and later AK47 - QB]

I’m sure the MP/StGw 42/43/44 family fired a 7,92x39 cartridge and not a Russian developed 7,62x39 cartridge.

[Prinz Eugen]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The company had 2 officers, 21 NCOs and 178 men, or 201 total

:confused:

In CM the strength of a German plain inf company is 99. The company HQ 6 + platoon HQ 4 * 3 = 12 + 44 sqd 9 * 9 = 81 makes for 99.

How do you get a total of 201 ? Dang, CM has it wrong...

[Prinz Eugen]

Originally posted by Foreigner:

Just to add my 2 pennies' worth...

Hope this made for an interesting (if long) reading.

2 pennies' well spent !!! :cool:

[Durbish]

Originally posted by Foreigner:

Hope this made for an interesting (if long) reading.

Most definitely, thanks for posting.

Back to Russian TO&E's, I am confused...

Trying to put all the data(myths?) I've gotten over the years together, it seems as though the Russians had a multitude of formations yet reading the above posts gives the impression of there being standardization with the TO&E's changing over time. blah (long ass sentence ). Did the Russians not employ even more variety in their infantry TO&E's than the Germans???

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Foreigner:

[snips]

The Russian/Soviet military terminology tradition generally stresses the distinction between "purely" automatic weapons (that can provide continuous fire as long as the trigger is depressed and ammunition is fed - full-auto in Western terminology) and self-loading weapons - "Samozaryadnoe oruzhie" - that feed ammunition automatically, but require the shooter to release the trigger before each subsequent shot - semi-automatics in Western terms).

I don't know how far west you have to go to qualify for "Western", but here on the Greenwich meridian the term "self-loading" is the traditional term. I believe that German uses a similar term.

All the best,

John.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Prinz Eugen:

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

The company had 2 officers, 21 NCOs and 178 men, or 201 total

:confused:

In CM the strength of a German plain inf company is 99. The company HQ 6 + platoon HQ 4 * 3 = 12 + 44 sqd 9 * 9 = 81 makes for 99.

How do you get a total of 201 ? Dang, CM has it wrong...</font>

[Prinz Eugen]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

CM also does not model medical personnel, the Hauptfeldwebel and his driver, etc., etc., only the combat personnel of the company.

So the 201 figure you mentioned includes personnel that don't take part in actual fighting ? Now it makes sense !

[Michael Dorosh]

Exactly the point. Even at the company level there were many men who did not engage in direct combat with the enemy; the fact that men like the company clerk were armed with rifles is a bit irrelevant when discussing firepower breakdowns of combat units.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

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

[snips]

The Russian/Soviet military terminology tradition generally stresses the distinction between "purely" automatic weapons (that can provide continuous fire as long as the trigger is depressed and ammunition is fed - full-auto in Western terminology) and self-loading weapons - "Samozaryadnoe oruzhie" - that feed ammunition automatically, but require the shooter to release the trigger before each subsequent shot - semi-automatics in Western terms).

I don't know how far west you have to go to qualify for "Western", but here on the Greenwich meridian the term "self-loading" is the traditional term. I believe that German uses a similar term.

All the best,

John.</font>

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Exactly the point. Even at the company level there were many men who did not engage in direct combat with the enemy; the fact that men like the company clerk were armed with rifles is a bit irrelevant when discussing firepower breakdowns of combat units.

Dunno that I agree with this - anyone and everyone in an infantry company "on the line" is pretty damned close to the enemy, regardles of role.

The "supernumeries" may not have been part of the RIFLE PLATOONS, but I don't think they weer rmed with rifles solely for martial appearance.

Private Schmidt - go shoot that Russian soldier over here wil you?"

"I'm sorry Herr Kapitan - I'm a cook so all I can do it feed him bad food will that make him go away soon enough?"

"Jahwol Schmidt - that's right - I forgot your cooking it to be our new Vengance weapon!!"

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mike:

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

Exactly the point. Even at the company level there were many men who did not engage in direct combat with the enemy; the fact that men like the company clerk were armed with rifles is a bit irrelevant when discussing firepower breakdowns of combat units.

Dunno that I agree with this - anyone and everyone in an infantry company "on the line" is pretty damned close to the enemy, regardles of role.

The "supernumeries" may not have been part of the RIFLE PLATOONS, but I don't think they weer rmed with rifles solely for martial appearance.

Private Schmidt - go shoot that Russian soldier over here wil you?"

"I'm sorry Herr Kapitan - I'm a cook so all I can do it feed him bad food will that make him go away soon enough?"

"Jahwol Schmidt - that's right - I forgot your cooking it to be our new Vengance weapon!!"</font>

[Pacestick]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

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

Exactly the point. Even at the company level there were many men who did not engage in direct combat with the enemy; the fact that men like the company clerk were armed with rifles is a bit irrelevant when discussing firepower breakdowns of combat units.

Dunno that I agree with this - anyone and everyone in an infantry company "on the line" is pretty damned close to the enemy, regardles of role.

The "supernumeries" may not have been part of the RIFLE PLATOONS, but I don't think they weer rmed with rifles solely for martial appearance.

Private Schmidt - go shoot that Russian soldier over here wil you?"

"I'm sorry Herr Kapitan - I'm a cook so all I can do it feed him bad food will that make him go away soon enough?"

"Jahwol Schmidt - that's right - I forgot your cooking it to be our new Vengance weapon!!"</font>

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

as you say - on exercise.

And as you say, certainly for personal defence only.

And as Pace Stick says - in the rear areas and only if they get over run.

Now how many battalions got over-run on the Russian Front?

And how many of those clerks do you really need when the company's platoons are down to 1 squad each total??

Are you really going to keep a full 100 or so non-combatants busy looking after a reduced company strength of anything like say 30-60?

do you think, occasionally, a company commander migth be tempted to add a few of his "non-combatants" to the rifle platoons?

none of what you guys have said is really relevant - a rifle-armed soldier will use that rifle when needed. And they often will be in real combat. Not always to be sure - but they aren't padres or corpsmen!!

Oh - and I almost forgot - when I was a part time soldier we practicd a LOT at avoiding the front line rifle platoons and attacking the rear echelons.

I'd have been happy if our cooks and clerks didn't shoot back!! lol

I was in a Rifle Bn recce platoon - we usually acted as enemy.

we also acted as enemy for our EME, Artillery, transport and other reatr echelons. They were expected to practice and know their anti-ambush drills, etc.

Sure they weren't expected to fight as riflemen, unless they were in the British army at the end of WW2 when there weren't enough riflemen and whole artillery regiments were converted to infantry!!

Or any other army at any time when they were in a similar position.

How may Whermacht clerks were not fighting in Berlin because they were stationed in rear areas?? lol

[ August 20, 2002, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Mike ]

[Michael Dorosh]

This is all a little arcane - we were discussing the front line firepower of a rifle company. The original comment was that upwards of 90 percent of German infantry were armed with the K98.

My point is that it is much lower, given that rear area troops aren't expected to participate in front line combat. Overrun units are not a normal occurence, though it happened frequently. Wonder what kind of fight those rear-echelon stallions put up in such a situation.

As for severely beat up rifle companies, yes, I am sure the cooks and clerks were used as front line riflemen - but being moved to that status removes them from the "rear" echelon. You're in either one or the other.

Look at photos of rear echelon personnel sometimes; I remember looking through a photo album of a German in a bakery company. The majority of troops had Iron Cross ribbons from the First World War - ie, they were older guys not fit for working up front with the young bunnies. Given the size of the German Army, I don't doubt that a young man in a rear area job - even at the rifle company level - was a rarity.

It's all a matter of perspective - to the rifleman in the line, the company clerk is in the rear echelon. To the company clerk, 500 metres from the fighting, battalion headquarters is the rear echelon. To battalion headquarters, under direct observation and mortar fire, their regimental headquarters 3 km back is the rear echelon...