Will CM Normandy have this?

[MeatEtr]

Speaking of flames, how about flame tanks? You know we want it, so give it to us. The mighty Croc would look glorious in the Brits mod, yes I know a very rare tank but still(Hobart's Funnies).

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Hardly "very rare". Several hundred of the beasties, though almost exclusively in the 79th Armoured Division.

And I do believe that the Americans so frequently had Croc support attached that a good case can be made for the Croc to be in the original title instead of the British module.

[pad152]

I remember some night time city battles with CMBB using only flame tanks and engineers, before the battles were over 70% of the map was on fire!

[Col Deadmarsh]

I thought smoke grenades were not often used in WW2?

They weren't. I asked a guy who was at Normandy if his squad was issued smoke grenades and he said, "No, they weren't standard-issue."

However...it might improve gameplay, so maybe they could be included as some kind of rarity?

[Flanker15]

That surrendering thing will be most welcome, I presume the "buddy aid" bit is in there because they can un-surrender if left alone right?

What about routing has that had some work done to it?

The problem with having the routed guys just vanish is you can't rally or recover them in any way. Back in CM:BB you could have routed units stop running and then recover their morale for future use. Something like: the unit has to move X distance from enemies, not be under fire and be in heavy cover to vanish might work? Instead of firing at an empty trench and not knowing because the enemies there have teleported to safety.

[Sergei]

When units rout, the game turns into first person mode where you, as the commander, run after the deserters and threaten to execute them then and there unless they resume their duties. Be careful! If you are too trigger-happy, you will run out of men. But if you hesitate too much, they might shoot back!

[Michael Emrys]

Hardly "very rare". Several hundred of the beasties, though almost exclusively in the 79th Armoured Division.

And I do believe that the Americans so frequently had Croc support attached that a good case can be made for the Croc to be in the original title instead of the British module.

There was also a flame thrower tank based on the Sherman, but I don't know if any of them made it into the ETO. Development time was prolonged, but there were some on Okinawa and possibly elsewhere late in the Pacific campaign.

Michael

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Wiki says the Brits put together 4 Sherman Crocs for the US 2nd Armored Div. Probably safe to say we won't be seeing those in CM:N.

It suggests the Americans had no dedicated FT tanks of their own. AFAIK they were only issuing there own Sherman "Croc" to a Pacific bound unit late in '44.

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Pity on the steeples, at least, for Normandy, but probably reasonable for later. Seems we'd rumbled to such tricks and started a steeple abatement program with precision M10 fire! Have read it became standard practice to take them out, with very few exceptions.

Some smoke grenade resources.

Tank hunter team use

http://books.google.com/books?id=vCwV1bC47-cC&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=smoke+grenades+in+wwii+combat&source=bl&ots=sEAuNhCVLB&sig=Lw8-SBDg1kp8HH5FszfRnuxaliU&hl=en&ei=WZxNS9eWBYu4swO82vDHBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAzha#v=onepage&q=&f=false

German smoke signals and their meaning

http://books.google.com/books?id=JW-A8eznF0QC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=smoke+grenades+in+wwii+combat&source=bl&ots=Ao8wLx759E&sig=u-NcxGdsGPI8lh2Ml0T2bGSaReE&hl=en&ei=WZxNS9eWBYu4swO82vDHBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CBcQ6AEwBjha#v=onepage&q=&f=false

American Airborne grenade load in line one

http://books.google.com/books?id=J0R-YBfWeT8C&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=smoke+grenades+in+wwii+combat&source=bl&ots=UqTQqH3TaS&sig=-Q-C0eiYchtyDbq-5_UWIZvhEA8&hl=en&ei=WZxNS9eWBYu4swO82vDHBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CB8Q6AEwCTha#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Pillbox reduction article

http://www.jstor.org/pss/25171603

Copy of German WW II Close Combat Manual (in German)

http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/wwii-german-close-combat-anti-tank-manual-2

Excerpt from a hard core 2nd AD reenactors' site. M8, M20, M3, M3A1 small arms, grenades and bazooka loadouts.

http://www.gamestercrafter.com/wwii_reference_for_wargamer/gi_weapons_vers_1.html

Excerpts from WW II squad training manual (again from reenactors). Specifically addresses both smoke and incendiary grenades. Has very useful tactical formations and hand signals.

http://www.327gir.com/training/327trainingmanual.html

Rifle platoon in combat

http://www.hardscrabblefarm.com/ww2/offensive_combat.htm

Some of the goodies at above main site. See especially Basic Training.

http://www.hardscrabblefarm.com/ww2/index.htm#vehicles

Colored smoke and ID panels as protection against own aircraft. 4th para from bottom describes what can happen when you don't.

http://www.tankbooks.com/stories/threeweeks.htm

Infantry and tank cooperation. Site's amazing, especially the combat lessons.

http://www.efour4ever.com/infantry_tanks.htm

Street fighting. Note use of both smoke and WP.

http://www.efour4ever.com/street_fighting.htm

Combat History 102nd Cav Recon Squadron (Mech)

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Mj2Ypobha1UJ:117th-cav.org/History%2520of%2520the%2520102nd.pdf+smoke+grenades+in+wwii+combat&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbRkHusjk2_i1S3ZeEC9M0gr23rXcQ

German smoke grenade manual and uber groggy thread.

http://warrelics.eu/forum/ordinance-ammo/german-smoke-grenade-manual-2181/

German tactical use of smoke 1940

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt08/smoke-combat-troops.html

The German Squad in Combat 1943

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12980918/1943-US-Army-WWII-German-Squad-in-Combat-129p

How Halftrack Mounted U.S. Infantry Fought

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24574826/Fm-17-71-Armored-Command-Crew-Drill-for-Half-track-Vehicles-1943

Antitank grenades and Blendkorper thread. Wunderbar un mit pics!

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4276

Panzerfaust tutorial, with integrated use of smoke grenades. Gives issue scale for Panzerfaust for several division types!

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt_faustpatrone/index.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Good God, John, that's going to take forever to go through it all!

Oh, and thanks!

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Steve,

Pity on the steeples, at least, for Normandy, but probably reasonable for later. Seems we'd rumbled to such tricks and started a steeple abatement program with precision M10 fire! Have read it became standard practice to take them out, with very few exceptions.

It was in Normandy where churches got de-steepled the most. With the slow pace of advance you certainly wouldn't want to be in eyeshot of a church tower for very long.

It was such a custom that once the Allies broke out they had to be reminded not to shoot up every bell tower along the way.

I don't really buy that it was rare to have activity around a church tower, or would be in game, but I guess resources have to be rationed. I can live with that.

I do hope that there is some allowance for some creativity in the editor though. CMSF didn't exactly provide for minarets and Air Traffic Control towers, but I've seen a fair few of those by now.

While we have anything to simulate churches? It'd be hard to simulate churches with generic buildings. Not only have they got a distinct look, the stereotypical Norman church would have walls to rival a castle, and would be an interesting obstacle.

And practically every hamlet had one. Not having stuff going on in a steeple is one thing, not having churches depicted at all is quite another!

[Lanzfeld]

John Kettler where do you get the time????

[MeatEtr]

John Kettler where do you get the time????

He doesn't sleep much and sh*ts out WWII books.

[souldierz]

John Kettler,I have no idea where to start lol.Looks like I'll need to dedicate more then a day to absorb all that good info.I find a lot of good facts from the things you post and I'm happy to see and check on anything you find and post about strategies and tactics as well as real life stories.By time your done with feeding me all these links and info I'll be a military genius .OK OK, maybe not a genius, but a little smarter:).

CMSF class has been dismissed, and here's your reading homework for the week.When the the CMSF Normandy test comes, you won't have any excuses on not being prepared:).Good Stuff John Kettler, bookmarking for future reading:cool:.

[John Kettler]

Elmar Bijlsma,

Guess I got it backwards!

Field Marshal Blucher,

You're welcome! Most of it's only a few paragraphs. A few amount to a page. Certain things, like the squad manuals and the Cav Recon Squadron history, are more in depth resources and are presented as such. The grog threads aren't really all that long. Did develop quite a head of research steam, though!

Lanzfeld,

If insomnia has an upside, this is it!

MeatEtr,

Good one!

souldierz,

Depends on what interests you! I think the squad manuals (especially the wholly unexpected one for U.S. Armored Infantry), some of the procedural stuff and the Cav combat history constitute the real finds, with the rest gravy. A lot of it amounts to easily digested tidbits, such as the loadouts for M8s,M20s and M3 series halftracks. The point of the whole research exercise was simply to see what I could find on WW II smoke grenade use, and I found, as you can see, quite a bit.

As I see it, for the U.S., Airborne, Rangers and Glider Infantry have the best grenade mix (frag, marking/screening, WP and thermite (as in Len Lomell and buddy destroying the guns of Pt. du Hoc). Standard GIs typically carry frag, maybe a smoke, with WP apparently issued mainly for street fighting and such. Recon AFV and Armored Infantry crews carry all sorts of goodies, as seen in the list, including thermite to destroy their vehicle weapons and bazookas for roadblocks and local security.

On the other side, the Germans clearly had smoke well integrated into their overall battle scheme, but the single greatest use of smoke grenades seems, in the CM:N timeframe, to have been in antitank defense/tank hunting. This is clear from the close combat manuals, the training films now on YouTube, the integration of blinding aids with Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck teams. After that, I'd say communication, target marking, small screens to cover dashes, block specific weapon LOS, etc.

Regards,

John Kettler

[costard]

Nice work John. You forgot the recognition smoke used by the Poles north of Carentan: no-one told them yellow was also the colour used for target marking by the Pathfinding aircraft. They were bombed by their own side - twice.

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

Wiki shows three varieties of Sherman flamethrower tanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_tank

# M4A3R3: Sherman tank used during Operation Overlord (1944) and in the Battle of Iwo Jima (1945)

# M4 Crocodile: four M4 tanks converted by British for US 2nd Armored Division in NW Europe with the same armored fuel trailer as used on Churchill but the fuel line went over the hull.

# Sherman Badger: Canada's replacement of its Ram Badger, the Sherman Badger was a turretless M4A2 HVSS Sherman with Wasp IIC flamethrower in place of hull machine gun, developed sometime from 1945 to 1949. The 150 gallons at 250 psi was effective to 125 yards, with elevation of +30 to -10 degrees and traverse of 30 degrees left and 23 degrees right. This inspired the US T68.[2

I believe this is a separate version. POA stands for Pacific Ocean Area.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/us_army_rolling_along/4196377000/in/set-72157605998024773/

There was a later version sporting a 105 mm howitzer and a separate flamethrower.

http://flamedragons.info/ShermanFlameTank.html

Thread with some good pics of one's hulk

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=23286

If you can find it, this volume of the U.S. Army in WW II series has a terrific flamethrower section, with full detail on Army flamethrower tank work.

The Chemical Warfare Service: From Laboratory to Field

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

costard,

Oops! But then, I went through only the first 16 pages of Google entries. As for the Poles, that's much worse than the Jabo attack I cited. Good grief!

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

The Cullin hedgerow cutter invention issue revisited! Even Zaloga didn't manage to find this level of detail.

(Note that every one of the four principal participants was identically decorated with the Legion of Merit, for officers and the now famous noncom alike. Note also how the four worked: "in the closest collaboration").

From page 4 here (Fair Use)

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Mj2Ypobha1UJ:117th-cav.org/History%2520of%2520the%2520102nd.pdf+smoke+grenades+in+wwii+combat&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbRkHusjk2_i1S3ZeEC9M0gr23rXcQ

"During the early weeks of July, while the 102nd Cavalry was fighting in the FORET de CERISY, four members of this Squadron began a long and energetic search for the

solution to the grave problem presented to the forces of the First United States Army by the

hedgerows in the terrain over which they were operating. By working in the closest

collaboration, Major Arthur C. Person, Major, then Captain, James G. Depew, Captain

Stephen M. Litton and Sergeant Curtis G. Cullin developed a device to be mounted on light and medium tanks which would enable the track laying vehicles to pass through hedgerows,

dirt fences or other embankments which would otherwise be impossible. Constructed from German scrap angle iron, the hedgerow cutter, officially named "Rhinoceros", afforded the only successful solution to the problems of hedgerow warfare then being encountered in France; and its subsequent adoption by this Squadron's Company F and other armored units

materially contributed to the Army's advances. The four men directly responsible were later awarded the "Legion of Merit" for their outstanding contribution to the military service. Tank drivers, Tec 4 Harmon S. McNorton, and Private John Hughey who drove the first tank with the Rhino in hazardous test run, and the welders, Tec 4 Wesley A, Hewitt, Tec 5 John Jessen and Tec 5 Ernest Hardcastle who installed the device, all made inestimable contribution to its eventual success and were awarded the Bronze Star for meritorious service."

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

Nice work John. You forgot the recognition smoke used by the Poles north of Carentan: no-one told them yellow was also the colour used for target marking by the Pathfinding aircraft. They were bombed by their own side - twice.

This has been on my mind as the reason why smoke was not used more to mark one's own position. Not only could the colors be confused as in the cited example, but the pilots of the attacking aircraft might think the smoke was intended to mark the target. It could be confusing enough to be flying a fighter-bomber, dodging flak and identifying landmarks all at the same time. It was not uncommon for pilots to become disoriented and hit the wrong piece of ground. Occasionally their own guys were on it.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

# M4 Crocodile: four M4 tanks converted by British for US 2nd Armored Division in NW Europe with the same armored fuel trailer as used on Churchill but the fuel line went over the hull.

This duplicates some information given by Richard C. Anderson in his new book Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall: The 1st Assault Brigade Royal Engineers on D-Day. Which book, BTW, is worth reading if one is seriously into the study of D-Day.

Michael

[cabal23]

Very interesting read...

From the miscellaneous section from the March 1943 issue of the Intelligence Bulletin

USE OF SMOKE AGAINST TANKS

The Germans have been conducting experiments to test the effect of smoke weapons used at close quarters against tanks. No information is available as to the type of tank and the type of grenade employed in these tests. However, it is known that the results convinced the Germans that smoke can be an important factor in combating tanks. Four experiments under varying conditions yielded the following data:

a. Experiment 1

A smoke hand grenade was set off beside a stationary tank; the tank's hatches were closed, and its engine was running. Not only the suction of the engine fans, but leaks in the forward entrance hatch, the mantlet of the hull machine gun, the turret ring, and the turret ventilators, filled the tank with a thick accumulation of smoke. Opening the hatches did not ventilate the tank sufficiently.

The Germans decided that a tank crew, fighting under these conditions, would be forced out of the tank after a short period, and that the driver and hull machine-gunner would suffer most from the effects of the smoke.

b. Experiment 2

In a second experiment the conditions were duplicated, except that the engine was turned off. It was discovered that although smoke entered the tank, evacuation would have become necessary only after several minutes—and, even then, probably for no one but the driver.

c. Experiment 3

A third test was held, this time with the tank moving and its hatches closed. Smoke grenades were thrown at the tank, and failed to lodge on it. The crew lost almost none of their capacity to fight, and were affected more by limitation of their vision than by the actual penetration of smoke into the tank.

d. Experiment 4

In the fourth experiment, a moving tank with closed hatches was used; but this time a cable 6 1/2 feet long, with a smoke grenade tied to each end, was thrown across the barrel of the gun. (After a little practice, the thrower became quite adept at this.) It was found that evacuation of the tank was necessary after 30 seconds. Observation from the tank was, of course, out of the question. The Germans felt that if members of a crew were to show enough presence of mind to put on their respirators instantly, and rotate the turret through 180 degrees, it would be possible for them to avoid the effect sufficiently to bring the tank to safety. However, it was clear that in any case the fighting capacity of the crew would be seriously affected.

[Sergei]

Finnish pre-war tactical studies concluded that an effective way for infantry to fight against tanks was to use what later became affectionately called as Molotov coctails to blind them with smoke by throwing them on the front of the vehicle. But soon after the war had started was it noticed that most Soviet tanks have rather exposed engine air intakes and it was far more effective (and safer) to smash the bottle on the back of the vehicle, not the front.

[HighlandLaddie]

Before reading john Kettler's detailed post, I also was puzzled by the idea that there was scant evidence for the use of smoke grenades for concealment. Forty minutes with Google, looking at soldiers' memoirs, medals citations, unit histories and a U.S. intelligence manual on German engineer assault tactics turns up mentions of its use by British infantry and German recce in Normandy, by Canadian infantry in Italy, by American infantry in Normandy and the Ardennes, and by U.S. Marines in the Pacific.

Here are some of the sources:

Report on German engineer assault tactics from prisoner of war interviews in Tunisia, from the Intelligence Bulletin, August 1943.

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/engassault/index.html

Robin Neillands' "D-Day 1944; Voices From Normandy," quoting a British para witnessing the arrival of Lord Lovat's troops at Pegasus bridge:

"The bridge and it's approaches were under sniper and mortar fire......

Heavy sniping and shelling sommenced as the Commandos dashed across the bridge in batches, covered by smoke from smoke grenades."

From a History of the 134th Infantry Regiment (35th Division), in Normandy (http://www.coulthart.com/134/chapter_4.htm ):

“When Corporal Robert W. Godfirnon and Pfc. Mitchell R. Helton, both of Nebraska, saw two of their comrades lying wounded in a field where danger of continuing machine gun fire remained, they crawled out to the wounded men, and, blinding the enemy machine gunners with smoke grenades, were able to return them to safety.”

From a memoir of an infantryman with eth 84th Infantry Division, on the fight for Rochefort during the Battle of the Bulge (http://www2.xlibris.com/book_excerpt.asp?bookid=1001):

“While the units were being organized for withdrawal, a sergeant from Tank Destroyers arrived with news that Jamelle had been occupied by the Germans the night before. I decided that in any event I must get the company out of Rochefort. To screen our movements the men threw smoke grenades into the street and moved out on the double.”

From the memoirs of a British soldier with the 1/Middlesex Regiment, in Normandy:

“In 1944 we entered Cheux by a sunken road which we eventually discovered . . . [and] we encountered a German armoured car heading straight for us, the German crew were as equally surprised as we were, although obviously not so green, as they grabbed the initiative by lobbing smoke grenades, and disappearing literally in a puff of smoke in reverse at a fair rate of knots back in the direction they had come from. “

From the citation for a Canadian infantryman:

Sergeant George Campion was awarded the Military Medal for heaving smoke grenades from an exposed position to cover the movements of engineers who were clearing an enemy minefield. The action took place on the main street of Ortona, Italy, in December, 1943. Sergeant Campion gathered a pocket full of smoke grenades from his platoon, ran 30 yards beyond the minefield into the open street, and threw them. A perfect smoke screen resulted. The engineers, who had not been able to complete their task before the smoke cleared, were driven back. Returning, Sergeant Campion laid another smokescreen which enabled them to clear the mines and this allowed the advance to go on.

A Marine citation:

The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the Navy Cross to Harry P. Pearce (0-42016), Second Lieutenant, U.S. Marine Corps (Reserve), for extraordinary heroism as a Rifle Platoon Leader of Company B, First Battalion, Fifth Marines, FIRST Marine Division, in action against enemy Japanese forces on Okinawa, Ryukyu Islands, 11 May 1945. . . . After supervising the orderly withdrawal of his platoon, he again searched the area to insure that no wounded remained, killing several of the Japanese who attempted to charge the helpless men, and throwing smoke grenades to provide a screen for the stretcher-bearers who were handling litter cases...."

HAROLD JAY COLLIS, First Lieutenant, U. S. Marine Corps. . . " First Lieutenant Collis unhesitatingly exposed himself to the intense hostile fire to throw smoke grenades and provide an effective screen for the evacuation of the wounded. Completely disregarding his own personal safety, he rushed into a fire-swept ravine and, while working to remove casualties, was himself mortally wounded." Died October 4, 1944, in action on Peleliu, Palau Islands, Western Pacific.

[Sergei]

These anecdotes and vignettes still don't give nearly sufficient information for making a game. Was there a standard amount issued to US rifle platoons and did this differ from the amount the engineer platoons had access to? What about Germans, Brits and Canadians? How frequently did they use them, and did they have an unlimited supply of them or did they have to use them more sparingly than today? It's quite obvious that smoke grenades of different types existed and were used, but it's the blurry details that tend to cause the most trouble for the game developer desperately trying to draw accurate tables of organization and equipment. Just like the debate about MP 43/44 in Normandy.