Rarity factor for allied forces?

[Smiler]

With CMBB we'll get rarity factors for all the units in the eastern front, but I'm curious as to what they would have been for the allied forces in CMBO. It's mostly just an education thing, as I currently don't have any kind of feel for what units were widely available.

So for all you grogs out there, care to take a stab at some estimates? Actually, I'd be interested in estimates for any of the units in CMBO, including axis.

I'll go way out on a limb with the following:

x1.0 - US rifle platoon

x1.0 - M4 Sherman

[cg84]

Is this what you want?

http://stryker1.home.att.net/Misc/UnitRarity/unitrarity.htm

[Smiler]

Originally posted by cg84:

Is this what you want?

That's exactly what I want -- thanks!!

[Michael Dorosh]

Hmmm; Stuart Kangaroo is classified as a 7 despite the fact it never existed....

I don't think those numbers are of much use; a more useful method would be to simply say "I want a company" or "I want a tank platoon" etc. From there, you know that 1 of 4 Shermans will be a Firefly, with a chance of a 2nd in late 1944-45.

Supporting units would be better laid out on a table of battalion assets - ie pioneer squads are not uncommon in an infantry battalion - depending on where they were assigned when the bn went into action. If your company is one of the leading companies, the pioneer asset would not be too terribly rare; if your company was ordered to follow through, the pioneer platoon would likely not be attached to you.

Similarly - the Cromwell was never, ever, ever used by Canadians, yet the rarity table doesn't reflect that - I suppose because they can't be purchased in the game as Canadian.

Etc.

I haven't seen the tables before, though, have they been discussed? It's a good starting point for discussion - who did them?

I like the Bridge at Remagen captures; nice and clear.

[ March 28, 2002, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Priest]

Also a note to the author of the list for the American units, the M4a3 would be the most common Sherman, not the M4a1 which was mainly sent to the British.

[cg84]

They're were done by Stryker over at Band of Brothers w/ help from Andrew "atiff" Tiffany

Jarmo "Jarmo" Laasko

Robert "jrcar" Carpenter

Marc "MarcS" Sullivan

Wyatt "wwb 99" Barnett

Well there may be irregularities, it was made just to add a twist to battles that people play and to even out rare unit purchases.

The tables assign a rarity value to each unit in Combat Mission with 1 being a very common unit and 8 being a very rare unit. The idea is that players may choose which rarity level they want to fight their battle under and then only purchase units with that rarity number or less.

There may situations where a purchased formation contains a unit with an invalid rarity number. In these cases the unit would be allowed so long as it wasn't purchased individually.

Example: Two players agree to play a rarity 3 game. The German player purchases a Heer Rifle Battalion which contains a 120mm Mortar Spotter which is a rarity number 5 unit. Even so, this 120mm Mortar Spotter is allowed since it comes with the battalion. However, a second individual 120mm Mortar Spotter could not be purchased since it would be restricted by its number 5 rarity.

[cg84]

Similarly - the Cromwell was never, ever, ever used by Canadians, yet the rarity table doesn't reflect that - I suppose because they can't be purchased in the game as Canadian

oh yea the reason the cromwell(and many other units) were list under the Canadian heading is that all British OOB type stuff was all lumped together as was the french and american

[ March 28, 2002, 02:22 AM: Message edited by: cg84 ]

[Brian]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

[QB]Hmmm; Stuart Kangaroo is classified as a 7 despite the fact it never existed....

The Stuart Recce did, though, and that I find a much greater loss to the game. British Recce forces in the game are extremely limited in the choices of vehicles available to them, compared to what was available in 1944-45.

I don't think those numbers are of much use; a more useful method would be to simply say "I want a company" or "I want a tank platoon" etc. From there, you know that 1 of 4 Shermans will be a Firefly, with a chance of a 2nd in late 1944-45.

I agree, whole heartedly. If "rarity values" were to be assigned, it should be IMO on a unit basis not on an individual vehice basis. Want a King Tiger? Minimum you can have is a platoon (of whatever strength), and there were only "x" total platoons, at any one time. Want a Sherman? Purchase a troop, the choices as to subtype would still be governed by the period/place (ie some units operated predominately one type over another).

Supporting units would be better laid out on a table of battalion assets - ie pioneer squads are not uncommon in an infantry battalion - depending on where they were assigned when the bn went into action. If your company is one of the leading companies, the pioneer asset would not be too terribly rare; if your company was ordered to follow through, the pioneer platoon would likely not be attached to you.

Mmmm, depends I think more upon mission. Often pioneers would themselves form part of the follow through forces, relying upon the leading company to identify obstacles for them to destroy but essentially you're correct.

[rune]

Grog Dorosh,

For shame. Chamberlain's British and American Tanks of World War Two, page 91, oh look, the Stuart Kangaroo.

http://www.siemers.com/html/usa/m3_m5_lighttanks.html under British, oh look, the Stuart Kangaroo.

A google search finds all sorts of places that sell model kits of the Stuart Kangaroo.

Osprey's M3 & M5 book also mentions the Stuart Kangaroo.

Rune

[Redwolf]

The only real oddity I spotted was that the 50mm PaK is supposed to be more common than the 75mm. I need to get home to dig up some actual numbers, but this definitivly isn't correct. More 50mm may have been built, but much earlier and hence lost.

In fact, the heavy use of the 50mm PaK in Quickbattles seems very unrealistic to me and if the above assumption is correct, I would like a rarity system to make the historically appropriate workhorse, the 75mm, most common.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by rune:

Grog Dorosh,

For shame. Chamberlain's British and American Tanks of World War Two, page 91, oh look, the Stuart Kangaroo.

http://www.siemers.com/html/usa/m3_m5_lighttanks.html under British, oh look, the Stuart Kangaroo.

A google search finds all sorts of places that sell model kits of the Stuart Kangaroo.

Osprey's M3 & M5 book also mentions the Stuart Kangaroo.

Rune

I don't see a picture...the Stuart conversions I've all seen (see Squadron Signal's Stuart in Action, for example) are Stuart Recce, as Brian says - a Stuart with out turret, but instead of troop seats (I saw two real Stuarts up close last summer at the AFV park at Borden - you couldn't fit 5 infantrymen inside with full gear, just not enough room) they had a .50 calibre MG on a ring mount.

We've had this discussion before but I lost track of what the result was - did anyone show some conclusive proof that a troop-carrying turretless Stuart existed?

Is there any documented proof that these vehicles were used tactically as troop carriers? That is their only possible role in CM (no weapons, and FOs can't call down fire from them). But it is not their only possible role in real life - armoured ambulance (which has no bearing in CM), ammo carrier (which has no bearing in CM), etc. A turretless Stuart may have existed, but I have yet to see a primary source document call it a Kangaroo, or a unit history talk about using them tactically for troop carrying/APC purposes.....

Here are some primary sources - from a photocopy I have of actual wartime reports.

On an inventory of Canadian Army vehicles dated July 1945, it doesn't mention a "Stuart Kangaroo", though it does mention an establishment for 96 Light (Stuart) tanks for First Canadian Army on 31 May 1944. This might include turretless vehicles, but with seven armoured regiments in the Army, all having 11 turreted Stuarts on strength (according to Graves in South Albertas), that leaves 19 possible Stuart "Kangaroos". However, the actual numbers held were 69 vehicles. If all the armoured regiments were at full strength, that makes 77 Stuart tanks - though the report says that the 27 deficincies were in "formations" that did not see action until July, with their deficiencies being made up in June. This still does not include 4th Armoured Division, and its 4 armoured regiments, since they did not see action until August.

Which formations, then, does the report refer to? Curious.

December 1944 shows an establishment for 77 Stuart tanks in First Canadian Army, with 79 actually being held - a surplus of 2. If we hold fast to the assumption that the 11 Stuarts held by South Alberta Regiment was standard for all armoured regiments in Europe (and this may not be true, as SAR was classified as Armoured Recce), this leaves 2 surplus vehicles which "might" have been turretless.

Again, this assumes all the vehicles held by recce squadrons were turreted, and that all armoured regiments were equipped as was the SAR - but the history does say SAR was kitted out as a standard armoured regiment.

[ March 28, 2002, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Brian]

Originally posted by rune:

Grog Dorosh,

For shame. Chamberlain's British and American Tanks of World War Two, page 91, oh look, the Stuart Kangaroo.

http://www.siemers.com/html/usa/m3_m5_lighttanks.html under British, oh look, the Stuart Kangaroo.

A google search finds all sorts of places that sell model kits of the Stuart Kangaroo.

Osprey's M3 & M5 book also mentions the Stuart Kangaroo.

Rune

I'd be careful about taking Chamberlain and Ellis's book as gospel, Rune. It has several errors in it, such as claiming, on p.36, under the entry for the Covenantor Bridgelayer that, "A few of these vehicles were used by the Australians in Burma." - Which must have been a pretty good trick, as no Australian units of any kind, served in Burma. We did recieve, apparently 3 of these vehicles and while its claimed they were used in Bouganville (although knowing their cooling problems, using them in the tropics must have been bloody nigh on impossible), there are some doubts whether or not they ever left Oz.

Another error in the book, is on p.204, apparently though, that one appears to have crept into later editions than mine, where some other contributors have reported that it claims that the 77mm QF Mk.II gun fired the same round as the 17 Pdr. This would be impossible, as the two weapons had completely different chamber dimensions.

I'm not suggesting that Chamberlain and Ellis should be completely discarded, rather that they should be treated with a grain of salt and anything they claim should be checked against other publications. In the case of the M3 Stuart, I'd suggest a copy of Hunnicutt's book might have the answer but I don't possese one, so can't check. I suspect that Chamberlain and Ellis could well have misinterpreted something about the Stuart Kangaroo - either very few were actually converted or that someone misidentified a Recce, as a Kangaroo.

[Michael Dorosh]

Brian makes good comments; also, rune, beware Squadron Signal, Men at Arms, etc as they rely on secondary sources (ie Chamberlain and Ellis) rather than primary sources for their research (depending on author, of course). So if Chamberlain got it wrong in his book, and Osprey uses him as their only reference...

[Slapdragon]

Here is an oddity. I have a photography collection done by the British Army in 1953 called "The Second World War". Publisher is "Royal Printing - Oxford", no author listed and pictures do not have photog listings.

In the book is a pictured captioned,

"The Field Marshall riding in a Stuart Recce or Kangaroo" showing a turretless Stuart with Montgomery riding on it.

The British Army, at least in 1953, was confusing the two vehicles. I wonder if they were similar enough that they were just treated as the same, or if they were indeed the same vehicles distinguished just by armament.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Here is an oddity. I have a photography collection done by the British Army in 1953 called "The Second World War". Publisher is "Royal Printing - Oxford", no author listed and pictures do not have photog listings.

In the book is a pictured captioned,

"The Field Marshall riding in a Stuart Recce or Kangaroo" showing a turretless Stuart with Montgomery riding on it.

The British Army, at least in 1953, was confusing the two vehicles. I wonder if they were similar enough that they were just treated as the same, or if they were indeed the same vehicles distinguished just by armament.

My guess is that a Stuart Recce is a turretless Stuart with a .50 calibre MG - this is how I have seen this referenced. A Stuart Kangaroo I have honestly never seen in any of my Commonwealth literature. Is this an American term, or an actual British Army term? I would guess that a weaponless Stuart tank sans turret was called a Stuart Kangaroo, but again, if it was only used to cart dignitaries around 8 years after the war...

I've given pretty good suggestive evidence that the Canadian Army simply didn't have any - at least not on official establishments. Would love to be proven wrong. But of course either way, it doesn't prove what the British did or did not do. rune suggests, via his sources, that they were sometimes used in recce units - but his sources don't specify armed or unarmed. If unarmed, how were they employed? Troop carriers? Ever stand next to a real Stuart? I also have the 1/6 scale Stuart by Ultimate Soldier; I just may have to take the turret off and try and jam my Dragon guys in to see how many will fit....

If not troop carriers, then why are they in CM? Ambulances, ammo carriers and other logistic vehicles are not represented, so what purpose do they serve? FOs can't use them, either. Infantry company commanders didn't use them - I've seen no reference to it, anyway - do you can't keep your Company HQ unit safe from shellfire.

Interesting discussion.

Oh, and it IS possible a .50 was removed from this vehicle for the parade - don't want Monty, who was in his 60s or 70s by that time, to fall over and gash himself on the machinegun during the roll past...

[ March 28, 2002, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Here is an oddity. I have a photography collection done by the British Army in 1953 called "The Second World War". Publisher is "Royal Printing - Oxford", no author listed and pictures do not have photog listings.

In the book is a pictured captioned,

"The Field Marshall riding in a Stuart Recce or Kangaroo" showing a turretless Stuart with Montgomery riding on it.

The British Army, at least in 1953, was confusing the two vehicles. I wonder if they were similar enough that they were just treated as the same, or if they were indeed the same vehicles distinguished just by armament.

My guess is that a Stuart Recce is a turretless Stuart with a .50 calibre MG - this is how I have seen this referenced. A Stuart Kangaroo I have honestly never seen in any of my Commonwealth literature. Is this an American term, or an actual British Army term? I would guess that a weaponless Stuart tank sans turret was called a Stuart Kangaroo, but again, if it was only used to cart dignitaries around 8 years after the war...

I've given pretty good suggestive evidence that the Canadian Army simply didn't have any - at least not on official establishments. Would love to be proven wrong. But of course either way, it doesn't prove what the British did or did not do. rune suggests, via his sources, that they were sometimes used in recce units - but his sources don't specify armed or unarmed. If unarmed, how were they employed? Troop carriers? Ever stand next to a real Stuart? I also have the 1/6 scale Stuart by Ultimate Soldier; I just may have to take the turret off and try and jam my Dragon guys in to see how many will fit....

If not troop carriers, then why are they in CM? Ambulances, ammo carriers and other logistic vehicles are not represented, so what purpose do they serve? FOs can't use them, either. Infantry company commanders didn't use them - I've seen no reference to it, anyway - do you can't keep your Company HQ unit safe from shellfire.

Interesting discussion.

Oh, and it IS possible a .50 was removed from this vehicle for the parade - don't want Monty, who was in his 60s or 70s by that time, to fall over and gash himself on the machinegun during the roll past...</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

I think we can agree, then, that "because BTS did the skins already" is probably not the best reason for assigning a rarity factor to a vehicle that may not even have seen service in a tactical role.

[rune]

Brian,

I take everything with a grain of salt...Grog Dorosh and I have been emailing back and forth and he and I found some sites we emailed to, to see if they can clarify any better. These are the people who drove kangeroos, so am trying to find out if they ever converted Stuarts.

We will forward any answer me may eventually get...

Rune

[Brian]

Originally posted by rune:

Brian,

I take everything with a grain of salt...Grog Dorosh and I have been emailing back and forth and he and I found some sites we emailed to, to see if they can clarify any better. These are the people who drove kangeroos, so am trying to find out if they ever converted Stuarts.

We will forward any answer me may eventually get...

Rune

Fair enough. I look forward to reading it. My final point is best illustrated by plate No.205 in Chamberlain and Ellis, which I'm sorry I didn't notice before, Rune. It rather sums up my view of the whole matter, very well. Check it out and you'll understand why there could well be some confusion of what vehicle was what.