Brit/CW Forces Make My Brain Hurt

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The only thing I could add to Germanboy's excellent description is that there was also a Canadian independent armoured brigade - the 2nd - which was equipped with Shermans as well.

There was also a recent discussion where I gave figures for the number of 3 inch and 18 pounder M10 SPs; the Canadians seem to have used a lot for the assault, but moved back to towed 17 pdr AT guns. As Germanboy pointed out, these were artillery units that manned them (Royal Canadian Artillery in the case of the Canucks).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Michael - there was also a Czech Armoured Brigade, equipped with 116 Cromwells and probably 24 Challengers. Again, this Brigade would have almost as many tanks (if not more) on the establishment than a standard German Panzerdivision. And next to no infantry to go with it. The same for the 8th and 4th ABs. So for the UK at least, you can probably claim historical correctness when selecting an armour-heavy force.

And has anyone ever heard of 27th Armoured Brigade? Never heard of them anywhere.

[Michael Dorosh]

Damn - that should read 17 pounder now that I see it quoted. EeeP!

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The tank destroyer units in all divisions (armoured and infantry) were manned by the Royal Artillery. Armoured divisions had M-10 Wolverine and Achilles (once these became available), while the infantry had towed 17pdrs and later Archers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you absolutely certain of this organisation Andreas? Cos I'm not. I am not sure that the RA made a distinction between the AT regiments attached to armoured or infantry divisions. My understanding was that by June 1944 they were all half towed and half SP (please don't call them tank destroyers, that's a dumb US term which confuses one no end since they used it interchangeably for SP and towed guns). Maybe later they phased in fully SP for the armoured divisions but the infantry divisions still had some SP not all towed. I should add that each British Corps had an AT regt attached as well. One such was the 91st AT regt attached to VIII Corps which had 2 towed batteries (12 guns each) and 2 SP batteries (12 M10s each).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And has anyone ever heard of 27th Armoured Brigade? Never heard of them anywhere.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 27th Armoured Brigade consisted of:

13th/18th Royal Hussars

1st East Riding Yeomanry

The Staffordshire Yeomanry

The Brigade supported the D-day assault of the 3rd Brit div. The 13th/18th Royal Hussars was a specialised unit which manned Sherman DDs on D-day and and subsequently supported the 6th airborne and the 51st Highland in the fighting east of the Orne. The SY participated in the repulse of the 21st Pz Div attack late on D-day. The 1st ERY and the SY continued to support the 3rd Inf Div in the bitter Normandy fighting. Thus we see tanks of the 1st ERY in Moon's "First clash at Cambes" scenario. Units of the brigade are also credited with a number of tactical innovations (well innovations for the British at least) in tank-infantry cooperation in the close bocage country. The Brigade was disbanded on the 29th of July 1944 to provide reinforcments. The 13th/18th Royal Hussars went to the 8th Armoured Brigade. The 1st East Riding Yeomanry went to the 33rd armoured regiment. Not sure what happened to the Staffordshire Yeomanry, they were a veteran unit which had fought in the desert with the 8th Armoured Bde. I think they may have been attached to the 79th Armoured but I do know the continued to man DD Shermans in river assaults (eg Rhine and Elbe)

[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: Simon Fox ]

[Andreas]

Simon, thanks for the info on 27th AB.

Now regarding AT Rgts. I am not absolutely certain. My understanding is that the infantry started with towed and slowly converted to Archers. But this is a topic that is not very well covered in the sources I have access to. I have seen pictures of Archers in action dated 05/45. In all the books I own, I have not seen a Wolverine in support of an infantry unit, but I have seen a few in support of armoured division infantry units. I tried to look high and far for this, so if you have any sources, maybe we can discuss this via email. I would be quite interested in shedding some light on it.

[Moriarty]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Moriarty made a slight mistake - the Polish 1st AD Recce Rgt was equipped with Cromwells. Only the Canadians had all Sherman ADs.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post was intended as a general guide for QB selections and not meant to encompass historical OOBs. I should have made that clear. That said, many thanks to Germanboy, Simon Fox and Vanir for the truly historical perspective. I found it interesting.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moriarty:

My post was intended as a general guide for QB selections and not meant to encompass historical OOBs. I should have made that clear. That said, many thanks to Germanboy, Simon Fox and Vanir for the truly historical perspective. I found it interesting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is actually quite an important point - the excellent tables on Tracks&Armour (the website that brought you Cromwells for the Poles, hehe) give after a rough calculation for June 1944:

2,000 Shermans (318 out of these are Firefly)

500 Churchills (54 out of these are 95mm IS model)

500 Cromwells (42 95mm IS model)

550 Stuarts

So you can see that if you want to go for realistic OOBs in a semi-historical scenario you design, you don't go much wrong with Shermans.

The famous command tank of General Maczek, GOC 1st Polish AD was a Cromwell BTW, IIRC.

[Andreas]

D'uh - I almost did a Jason here...

The figures for June are of course total numbers in the Commonwealth Armies, not just the tanks active in the bridgehead. I guess they would be almost correct for late July/early August (allowing for 27th AB and 33rd TB (?) which were broken up and ceased to exist, reducing the number of active Churchills by 150 and that of active Shermans by about 160) when all UK armoured and tank units had landed. The last ones to land were 4th Canadian Armoured and 1st Polish Armoured.

Please note - this is really just guidance for scenario designers, I would not use these figures to judge QB purchases.

[Michael Dorosh]

Date of arrival of divs

Guards Armoured Division 28 June

7th Armoured Division 8 June

11th Armoured Division 13 June

79th Armoured Division(Specialized armour) D-Day

4th Canadian Armoured - August

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Date of arrival of divs

Guards Armoured Division 28 June

7th Armoured Division 8 June

11th Armoured Division 13 June

79th Armoured Division(Specialized armour) D-Day

4th Canadian Armoured - August<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1st Polish AD - August

South Alberta Regiment (4th Canadian Recce) had their first tank kill roundabout the 15th or so when entering St. Lambert AFAIK, so tey can't have been there for long before.

Do you have that for the independent Brigades as well?

[Alex heritage]

My opinion is that it really just depends on which areas of the game you like. if you like artillery go with brittish they get it a bit cheaper and i think its a bit more accurate (no idea how) but the americans have superior infantry. in terms of tanks its pretty even the americans have the very well equiped sherman the brittish the tasty 95mm churchill. However I prefer playing as the germans BY FAR the best infantry and armour (funny that, seeing as I'm english myself and I'm actually required to hate everyone whose not brittish)

[thor]

I too love the 2in mortars, if I have to play the Brits (whom I don't love). In addition to the advantages that Cybeq notes, I think their range is their greatest strength, because they have no MINIMUM range. If you're playing in really rough terrain and/or poor visibility, this is a huge asset. In fog, the German 80mm mortars and the US 60mm are useless, cause you can rarely get far enough "away" to use them, even with spotters.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cybeq:

Somebody mentioned the 2in. mortar's chief weakness being it's short range. Yea, that sucks but I think it's small ammo loadout is another weakness. Despite these weaknesses I find myself loving the little guys. I don't attach them to a company CO. I prefer to leave them with the platoon. They are fast enough to advance with the platoon and will be there to provide supression when you need it. They can also throw smoke to cover your movements (very handy!)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[not another gamer]

I love the CW.

I don't play DYO QB much so, I don't really know/care if they are good vs the KT/SMG duo.

But, historically they have really neat OOB's.

The CW has few, comparativly to the Amis and Germs, squads/vehicles/weapons. So, you quickly become expert with those. At least I hope I am.

Too many players/posters concentrate on firepower or this gun bigger/this armor thicker to the detriment of tactics and what his total combined force is capable of.

PIATs seem to never hit but at least they can try from the 2nd floor without getting 3rd degree burns.

IMHO the Wasp is flamethrowers done right. 75m range, that's what we want. Just deal with the anti-armour threat before you bring them out to play.

BTW Brit 2" mortars can run, and don't slow down plts really. But hookin them up with a 'bolt or dbl 'bolt leader with good LOS and they really can take out the ATG and MG.

Or smoke some crummy ubertank while you maneuver around it.

And, I think it was this thread, maybe not, but someone said smoke rounds in a vehicle were a waste. Man, that guy needs to expand his tactics a bit. There is one way to survive, 'don't be seen' cause something can always beat your armor. Best way 'not to be seen', blind your enemy. I leave the rest up to the reader.