Using US airborne for any US infantry

[JasonC]

In the past I have suggested letting Allied commanders in QBs mix airborne infantry types with other branches freely, as a balance measure. The vanilla Allied infantry types are so rifle heavy, and rifles so underperform compared to automatics in CM, that it makes for a much more competitive game situation. Especially since many German players use automatic heavy infantry types, not the standard Rifle 44-45 squad types. While some may see the balance point, the history side of this practice may be less clear.

I've presented evidence in the past that the Allies in fact fielded far more SMGs than CM depicts, and in the case of the US, also far more M-1 carbines. They don't show up in CM, because they were so often issued to weapons teams, drivers, and other crews, as well as to HQ section personnel and the like. Here I present another tidbit to support that general idea.

One TOE for a US armored infantry company as they actually went into action gives the following weapons -

20 M3 halftracks, with

10 50 cals plus

10 HMG-1917

3 Jeeps

1 Truck

3 57mm ATGs

3 60mm mortars

6 MMG-1919

18 bazookas (!)

3 sniper rifles

25 Thompson SMGs

78 M-1 Carbines (!)

145 M-1 Rifles

Notice, 41% of the small arms are higher ROF types, M-1 carbines or SMGs. The total manpower is 251 men, and there are over 100 such weapons.

Now, buy a US infantry company in CM, add an additional platoon for the HQ section stuff, and add weapons teams to reach the support weapons listed. You need 330 total personnel (counting vehicles etc), 31% more than actually manned that many weapons. You get 137 M-1 rifles, which is 94% of the actual total. The number of small arms is however only 166 - half the personnel in the CM depiction of the same force are shown without any weapons or with only pistols. The real number of small arms is only 2/3rds of the historical total.

And you get only 26 small arms with higher FP ratings - 2 carbines in the company HQ, 12 SMGs in squads, and 12 BARs (whereas in this historical case, the armored infantry in question used 2 MMGs per platoon and their halftrack MGs in the role of BARs). The rifles are about right. But the rapid fire shorter ranged weapons are only 1/4th the actual total carried into combat.

The historical presence of the more rapid fire but shorter ranged US small arms is being masked by the CM rule that weapons teams do not fight except with their crewed weapon. Also, the drivers and HQ personnel are depicted with pistols and a few M-1 rifles, where in fact they mostly carried SMGs or M-1 carbines. The net result is that the short range infantry firepower of the unit as a whole is dramatically understated. Approaching a US infantry company at 50-125 yards range in fact brought forth more fire in response than one sees in CM. There were 50% more small arms actually being manned, and the ones missing are all the high ROF but shorter ranged ones.

Now, it seems to me the painless way to make up for this in CMBO is to use US airborne infantry types whenever you feel like it. They have a 50-50 to 42%-58% load out in faster firing small arms (the former for para, the latter for glider). Which are much closer to the actual mix of small arms carried. The weapons crews won't fire their side arms. But at least the overall mix of small arms firing when the unit is closely engaged will be about right.

I hope this is interesting. I'd also welcome a similar analysis for British formations, with realistic levels of Stens (including the practice of grabbing more than TOE called for etc). The Brits made literally millions of Stens, and I suppose they went somewhere.

[ July 13, 2002, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Andrew H.]

Hey Jason, your post is useful as always. It's certainly true, if you read accounts of the Bulge, that support personnel (truck drivers, cooks, etc.) were put into the line as riflemen on very many occasions, although it's not really clear what weapons they used. It does make sense that many of them would use the carbines or SMGs that were issued to them, though. Modeling these guys as green paratroopers might not be unrealistic.

Do you have any idea whether the use of non-standard TOEs became more common later in the war, or varied depending on the experience level of troops, or both? It seems reasonable that troops who have only been in training would tend to stick with the official TOE (which is probably what they are trained on), while troops with some experience might recognize that in some instances, they'd rather have an SMG, even if they were supposed to be carrying a Garand.

[JasonC]

Yes, there is evidence that weapons load outs shifted over time. The armored infantry disbanded their 57mm platoons to get additional riflemen, for instance. Many units took additional BARs into combat, depicted somewhat in CM with the Rifle 45 infantry type. Weapons platoons streamlined to reduce weight, with 2 60mm with more ammo each instead of 3 (and larger ammo details to keep them supplied), and more numerous light 30 cal MGs, again with boosted ammo, instead of heavy 50 cals (which were left with vehicles that could move them and their heavy ammo). As for small arms, M-1 carbine usage soared throughout the war, with millions fielded. They were liked for their light weight and easy handling.

CM gets the *ranged* firepower of standard US infantry pretty close to right. At 250-500 yards, only the M-1s and BARs are firing among the small arms, while the crew served weapons are contributing with their heavy weapons. But close in, CM depicts the US infantry as far more wimpy than it actually was. Because in reality those large weapons teams could keep the MGs firing with 1-2 guys, while the mortars and zooks were just forgotten. And all the additional personnel - including HQ teams depicted with only pistols and rifles in CMBO - started firing with tons of carbines and some SMGs. Making the firepower "gradient" as you got closer much steeper than you see in CMBO.

It is not just a matter of the cooks and drivers and clerks. Yes, they had lots of carbines too, and used them in cases of breakthrough fighting. It is the 22 men in the 5 HQs, and the 37 men in the standard weapons teams. In reality, 6 of those 59 men would be pulling MG triggers or feeding ammo in close action. The other 53 would be firing with about a dozen SMGs and 40 carbines. In CM, you only see 3 carbines, 13 rifles, and 6 pistols.

At 40 and 100 yards, that understates company firepower by 1169 and 316 respectively. In other words, closing to 100 yards ought to call another platoon of firepower into action from the weapons teams and HQs. Instead, you get 1 squad's worth from the HQs. And closing to 40 yards ought to bring on 2 platoons worth of firepower from the rapid fire small arms of the teams and HQs. Instead, you again get 1 squad's worth from the HQs.

At 250 and 500 yards, the total FP is right. The heavy weapons were designed to be used at such ranges, beyond the range of the lighter high ROF small arms. But at 100 yards it is about 3/4 what it should be, and at point blank only about 3/5. When the German stuffs himself to the gills on automatics and closes, he gets a wimpy reception committee instead of a realistic one.

Airborne style infantry can change that. E.g. use an airborne company plus one glider platoon, the latter striped of its support weapons. Cut 1 3 man MMG per platoon, or use 2 5 man MMG in place of the 3 3 man MMG in the para platoons. Boost the number of zooks to say 12 (not all 18, to fit in 'tracks). Carry them in 20 HTs, 1/2 M3A1 and 1/2 plain M3. And you will get a fighting performance closer to what the armored infantry company above actually had in combat, than you will using Rifle 44 infantry and tons of large weapons teams that don't fire in close.

I hope this clarifies my meaning.

[PiggDogg]

Jason,

You are just a wealth of info. Thanks for the work.

(Also, I shall work on our set up later tonight. Work has slowed up a little bit.)

Cheers, Richard

[CombinedArms]

Yes, this is great stuff.

I've certainly read many accounts of US infantry accumulating extra BARs and SMGs, and seen many photos of platoon leaders brandishing Thompsons, etc. By the accounts I've seen, if someone carrying an automatic weapon got killed or wounded, the platoon glommed onto their weapon. With 100% and more replacement rates, they must have soon had quite a collection of high ROF types.

I guess the problem is that CM tends to follow the official TOE rather than the actual firepower US troops used based on combat experience. One way that CM may unintentionally skew things toward the Germans is that the Germans gradually evolved multiple different official units, often favoring short range firepower, as the war continued. Since these were official, the TOE's reflect their increasing use of automatic weapons. US changes were often more ad hoc and unofficial (characteristic of this army, with its high degree of official uniformity, but its widespread tolerance of low-level ingenuity and variation.)

Unfortunately, CM's understandable reliance on official TOE's tends to unintentionally skew things in favor of the Germans, with their many official late-war high-SMG formations, and understate the increasing US firepower. Many US infantry seemed ready to handle spare zooks, as well, as the 18 zooks this company carried into battle seems to indicate. I suspect a very similar situation obtained for the Brits.

I think allowing Allied commanders to mix in airborne platoons is a good solution to this problem.

Also interesting is the way CM seems to point toward a preference for the actual practice of experienced fighters on both sides.

[ July 13, 2002, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

One TOE for a US armored infantry company as they actually went into action gives the following weapons -

20 M3 halftracks, with

10 50 cals plus

10 HMG-1917

3 Jeeps

1 Truck

3 57mm ATGs

3 60mm mortars

6 MMG-1919

18 bazookas (!)

3 sniper rifles

25 Thompson SMGs

78 M-1 Carbines (!)

145 M-1 Rifles

Notice, 41% of the small arms are higher ROF types, M-1 carbines or SMGs. The total manpower is 251 men, and there are over 100 such weapons..

This seems particularly useless, as it does not seperate headquarters troops from the infantry squads - in fact, does not outline who carried what at all.

These numbers of weapons - do they actually correlate to weapons carried by one individual, or is it a quartermaster's report of weapons on inventory? That is a very different thing altogether.

Match up those carbines with the number of men used to crew the weapons, Jason, I think you will be inclined to remove the exclamation point.

I suspect that this list - taken out of context - is rather misleading. Where did you get it from and why would we believe that each weapon listed corresponds to an individual serving in a single rifle company?

And why are there no BARs?

[ July 13, 2002, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Jon L]

With sole respect to the question about the lack of BAR's, I believe Jason covered this particular Company's use of automatic rifles in one of his paragraphs.

Originally posted by JasonC:

And you get only 26 small arms with higher FP ratings - 2 carbines in the company HQ, 12 SMGs in squads, and 12 BARs (whereas in this historical case, the armored infantry in question used 2 MMGs per platoon and their halftrack MGs in the role of BARs). The rifles are about right. But the rapid fire shorter ranged weapons are only 1/4th the actual total carried into combat.

[Panzer76]

The day CM includes things that cannot be proven to be common, is the day CM gets less realstic. What I mean is I dont think CM should include truck drivers, cooks, and extra BARs, SMGs on the basis that "it happend". Well, how many of the companies had extra BARs? And how many BARs? I'm sure you could say the same for the axis side. Anyway, I think the ami inf holds up just fine against the axis inf. I never play with SMG squads and expect the same of the opponent, on the background of issues already discussed in lenght. So, I see no need for the ami player to mix para with other arms just to balance the game.