Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Machine Gun Battalion

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Command Ops Series >> Machine Gun Battalion Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Machine Gun Battalion - 8/27/2009 7:14:09 PM   
TMO

 

Posts: 251
Joined: 4/12/2003
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
The 1944 British Army Machine Gun Battalion consisted of: HQ Coy, 1 x Hvy Mortar (4.2") Coy and 3 x MMG Coys (each comprising 3 Pl of 4 MMG's). They were allocated on the scale of one MG Bn per Inf Div - i.e. one Coy per Bde.

According to:

http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/British/Infantry/british_infantry_battalion%201943%20to%201945.htm

no MMG's were allocated to Bn's - they were Division assets.

Looking at the allocation of MMG's in HTTR, the MG Bn/Coy MMG's have (reasonably) been divided up amongst the Inf Coys at a rate of 2 MMG's (possibly ought to be 3) per line Inf Coy (1 for Para Inf Coy; 2-4 for Guards Armd Div Inf Coy).

In several scenarios of HTTR, independent MG Coy units appear as part of Guards Armoured Div assets in addition to those that already seem to be included in the Gds Inf Coy estabs. To me this looks like double counting. Did the Guards Armd Div have double the allocation of MMG's compared to line units?

Regards

Tim

< Message edited by TMO -- 8/28/2009 3:31:53 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 8/28/2009 12:03:43 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17794
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
According to Joslen'a Order of Battle Vol 1, a UK Inf Div is supposed to have 40 MMGs, an Abn Div has 46 and an Armd Div has 22. Having said that there were quite a number of Army troop MG Bns and I suspect that some of these have been assigned. I can't recall for certain and I don't have any more time to research that. Perhaps someone else can.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to TMO)
Post #: 2
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 8/28/2009 8:08:57 AM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1503
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
The term "MMG" refers to a (Vickers) medium machine gun, right?

@TMO: According to what I've read so far a Rifle section had a rifle group and a gun group, the latter (3 men) being equipped with 1 Bren.
"Bayonetstrength" mentions this too, so an Inf Bn would have had 27 Bren MGs, and an entire Division 243 Brens.
It doesn't look like Inf Bns had Vickers MMGs at their disposal, though. Those were purely divisional assets. Parts/Sections of MG battalions could be attached to Bde's or Bns at the discretion of the Div. Commander.

That said, British Inf Bns were somewhat "underpowered", means they had serious disadvantages in house-to-house fighting throughout Europe, because of the lack of automatic/semi-automatic weapons, thus Inf line units assaulting urban areas could often only advance if they called in tank support, in cases where MMG support wasn't available.
The only submachine gun issued to a rifle section was the one issued to its leader, the corporal.

@Dave - OOB, number of MMGs, range:



  • OOB:

    http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/weapons/lightweapons/machineguns/vickersmachinegun.htm

    quote:

    www.canadiansoldiers.com

    "During the Second World War, machinegun support was again provided by specialist units. Upon mobilization, one machine gun battalion was assigned to each brigade of infantry; by the time the units went into action, only one machine gun battalion was assigned to each Division. Three machine gun companies, with three machine gun platoons of four Vickers guns each, as well as a heavy mortar company, made up the MG battalion.

    In Korea, Vickers Guns were assigned directly to the infantry battalions, in a specialist Vickers platoon. "


    "Divisional MG Battalion 1944-45":
    http://www.vickersmachinegun.org.uk/org-infdivww2.htm


    alternative Version:
    "Divisional MG (Support) Battalion"
    http://www.vickersmachinegun.org.uk/org-divsptbn.htm .

    The latter was a formation with 3 "Support Groups", with each group consisting of 1 MG Coy only, 1 AA company (16 x 20mm Oerlikon?) and 1 Mortar company with only 2 mortar platoons. This setup was rather unusual and disliked by Div. Commanders + troops, it seems.

  • Number of MMGs:

    A MG battalion (1943-1946) had 3 MG Coys (with a total of 9 MG platoons) and 1 Mortar Coy (4 platoons). Each Bn had 36 MMGs.

  • Range:

    The Vickers MMG had a range of up to 4500 yards (!).

    Let me quote the British Small Arms Manual, page 9:

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: "SMALL ARMS MANUAL" by Brigadier J. A. Barlow, S.A.C., The West Yorkshire Regt. and Lt.-Col. R.E.W. Johnson - the London Rifle Brigade. Printed and issued in 1944.

    "The Medium Machine-Gun.

    Since this weapon is normally mounted on a heavy tripod its accuracy can be relied upon at ranges considerably greater than those attained by the L.M.G. or the rifle. In the case of the Vickers gun this increase in accurate range is enhanced by the fact that special (Mark VIII) ammunition is used which makes it possible to employ the gun in a miniature artillery role at ranges up to 4,500 yards.
    The medium machine gun should, therefore, not be wasted on short-range tasks which can be undertaken with L.M.Gs. (or, even by riflemen), but should be used in bursts of not less than 20 rounds, the length of burst increasing up to about 30 rounds."


    Note: The owner of this Manual added some interesting notes on the last pages of the manual ("Notes" section), a collection of penetration values for different small arms / calibres.

    You can download the manual here: http://www.badongo.com/file/7513521

    quote:

    www.canadiansoldiers.com

    "In addition to direct fire, Vickers Guns were often used indirectly; this type of fire was first used in the First World War. During Operation VERITABLE in Feb 1945, Vickers Guns added their fire to the "pepperpot" supporting fire that was used during the largest artillery operation of the Second World War. Vickers Guns had also "thickened" the barrages leading up to the assault on Vimy Ridge in April 1917."


http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/weapons/lightweapons/machineguns/vickersmachinegun.htm

Is this (maximum) range of the Vickers rendered in BFTB?

This reminds me of my queries regarding the range of German Inf guns (example: 75mm le IG 18 = 3800 meters, s.IG 33 = 4650 meters - in indirect fire mode), and PoE's query regarding the range of 88mm Flak guns (in direct fire mode - in an AT role).
Are these ranges and fire modes (I almost forgot to include over-calibre AT grenades for the IGs) for the IGs considered in BFTB?

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 8/28/2009 8:49:41 AM >


_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 3
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 8/28/2009 8:26:58 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17794
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Yes MMG refers to Vickers in this case. Yes the MG Bns were Div assets, but like so many of the higher level asets they were invariable farmed out and allocated down the line. That's why we have incorporated them into the line units. As to range IIRC we have capped the Vickers at either 2 or 3,000 m. The emphasis here is on practical and effective fire rather than on theoretical. Just as most MGs had a cyclic rate of fire that was in the thousands and yet only carried 500 to 1000 rounds, thus their eff rate of fire was significantly less.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to GoodGuy)
Post #: 4
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 8/28/2009 8:59:50 AM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1503
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

The emphasis here is on practical and effective fire rather than on theoretical. Just as most MGs had a cyclic rate of fire that was in the thousands and yet only carried 500 to 1000 rounds, thus their eff rate of fire was significantly less.


http://www.vickersmachinegun.org.uk/org-mgplatoonww2.htm

quote:


"The Machine Gun platoon of the Divisional Machine Gun Battalion started off as a 15-cwt Truck-borne unit. By the time the small arms manual was printed in 1944, it solely referred to the use of Universal Carrier. The quantity of gun numbers had also decreased in line with the additional efficiency of ammunition supply and the ability for carriers to get closer to the gun positions."


I don't think that lack of ammo was present back then nor do I believe that the MMGs had been deployed with 1000 rounds or less, as the MG Bns were using the Universal carriers in 1944, not trucks, so the carriers could deliver guns and ammo right to the assigned spot (or frontline), and the carriers could hold quite some rounds. Also, even the official British arms manual (which I quoted in my last post) advised to use the MMG in a long-range/semi-artillery support role and leave close-range support to the rifle units and their Brens.

Oh and a range of 4000 meters sounds more realistic, imho.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 8/28/2009 9:17:15 AM >


_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 5
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 8/28/2009 11:49:56 AM   
WhiteOwl

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

Oh and a range of 4000 meters sounds more realistic, imho.



How could that be anywhere near effective fire range? Even if the rounds could reach that range, what manner of optics did the crews regularly have that allowed them to hit anything at that range? Not to mention other ballistic factors such as wind, humidity, etc. Even a modern day MBT with far superior optics, LRFs and ballistics computers would not have an easy hit out to 4000m.

If you're talking about using it indirectly, as a form of artillery, fair enough, but then there should be severely reduced lethality and a reluctance to use the ammo that way unless the crews were absolutely flush with it. Machine gun rounds, after all, don't explode...

(in reply to GoodGuy)
Post #: 6
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 8/28/2009 3:12:09 PM   
TMO

 

Posts: 251
Joined: 4/12/2003
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
I have original notes from The School of Infantry, Coy Comds Course, Lecture on the Machine Gun Battalion (my late father attended this course in 1946/47). Here are some quotes:

quote:

MMG
Ammunition - Two types - Mk 8z (normal). 44 belts per gun (equals 11,000 rds) are taken into action, making a total of 396,000 rds in the Bn. No reserves are held in the Bn.

B.Z. at 800 yds - 2.7 x 177 yds. B.Z. at 2000 yds - 9.3 x 68 yds.

Has two rates of fire: Normal - 1 belt in 2 mins; Rapid - 1 belt in 1 min.

Max ranges: Mk 8z - 4500 yds; Mk 7 - 2800 yds.

Tactical Employment
(a) Defence
Due to its characteristics, the MMG is primarily a defensive weapon. Normally, the initial grouping for the recce and occupation of a defensive position will be a MG Coy in support of a Bde. Subsequently the MG Bn Comd will co-ordinate the MG layout on the whole front, recommending changes as necessary to the Div Comd.

Main tasks are:

(i) DF tasks - sited to fire in enfilade in front of the FDLs, and in front of reserve locations, special attention being paid to the protection of minefields (range for such task 800-1000 yds approx) and likely lines of approach.

(ii) The destruction of enemy attacks by fire on assembly or forming up areas or advancing troops, especially beyond the range of LMGs. This does not mean that MMGs will necessarily be sited in the OP line; this will depend chiefly on wether they can be spared from the main position.

(iii) Support of counter-attacks.

(iv) Harassing fire.

(v) Mobile reserve.

(b) Attack, re-organisation and consolidation
In mobile operations, the normal grouping will be one Coy in sp of a Bde. For a set-piece Div attack, coys are more likely to be under the MG Bn Comd.

Main tasks are:

(i) Covering fire.

(ii) Flank protection.*

(iii) Assisting to form a fire base.*

*These tasks are defensive tasks in an attack battle.

(c) Speed into action
After PL Comd has received orders - Direct fire (ground action): 20-30 mins. Direct fire (carrier action): 5-10 mins. Indirect fire: 30-40 mins.

4.2" Mortar
Ammunition - Two types - HE (Streamline); Smoke W.P. (Cylindrical). (Both types weigh 20 lbs). 85 bombs per mortar (equals 1360 bombs) are taken into action. A reserve of 540 bombs is held at Coy HQ.

Max range - 4100 yds. Cannot fire at ranges less than 1050 yds.

Platoon (4 Mortars) can produce heavy weight of fire - approx 40 aimed bombs, each weighing 20 lbs, can be fired in one minute.

Tactical Employment
(a) Attack
(i) Neutralisation of targets
Suitable targets are: (a) The objective until the infantry are within the safety limit. (b) Features outside the safety limit to a flank or in depth.

(ii) Opportunity targets, in a pre-selected arc.

(b) Defence
(i) D.F. tasks.

(ii) Support of counter-attacks.

(iii) Harassing fire.

(c) Speed into action
As a general guide 30-40 mins from the time orders are received. Quick action is 5-10 mins.


From this information it looks like ammo provision for MMGs, as currently modelled in the game, is far too low but that for 4.2" mortars is just about spot on. Also looks like the max effective direct fire range for MMGs modelled in the game is about right. What is extremely surprising is the phenominal rate of fire of the 4.2" mortars - one wonders how long it could be maintained though.

Regards

Tim

< Message edited by TMO -- 8/28/2009 3:29:17 PM >

(in reply to WhiteOwl)
Post #: 7
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 8/28/2009 9:19:02 PM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1503
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WhiteOwl

Even a modern day MBT with far superior optics, LRFs and ballistics computers would not have an easy hit out to 4000m.


The L/55 gun of the Leopard 2, which is the MBT of the Bundeswehr (German Army), features a 120mm smooth-bore barrel (manufactured by Rheinmetall). Its predecessor L/44 had been adopted by the US Army for their M1 Abrams tanks (GenDynamics obtained a license from Rheinmetall) and is still in use.
The L/55 gun's muzzle velocity is 1750 meters/second (five times faster as the speed of sound), the muzzle energy equals 8.4 megajoule.
Quite some sources vary, but usually indicate a "maximum aimed range" of 3500 meters to 4000 meters using older rounds (i.e. 120-mm APFSDS-T, DM43), which will penetrate 450mm of armor at 2000 meters.
With the 120-mm APFSDS-T, US Olin GD120, which should be a US round for the M1 Abrams tank - and its L/44, will penetrate 520mm of armor at 2000 meters.

But with the Leopard 2's L/55 - when using the relatively new DM 53 KE round (introduced in 1999) - muzzle velocities exceeding 1750 m/second can be achieved. That's why most sources indicate 5000 meters as maximum range for the Leopard 2 with L/55 barrel. The max range with HE rounds is 5000 meters with both barrels, L/44 and L/55.

The Leo's primary sight (gunner) also uses a laser rangefinder which is linked to the fire control computer. The maximum range of the laser rangefinder is "less than 10,000 meters with accuracy within 20 meters".
That said, 4000 meters should be well within the "aimed range" when using DM53 rounds.

We have one or another tank proving ground over here where tanks are allowed to fire at targets at distances of up to 5 kilometers IIRC, artillery units around 5-8 kilometers.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/leopard2.htm

Optics: I have no info regarding the max range of the Leo's optics, but I have infos covering the Fennek's (a German scout tank used by Germany and the Netherlands) optics:
The thermal image cam of the Fennek has an effective range of 8000 meters, its laser rangefinder has a range of 10000 meters. The cam is part of an observation/recce pod mounted on a retractable pole (max height: 3.37 meters). The last retrofit kit of the Leo 2 may have contained a similar cam, if it didn't have it already.

http://www.olixxl.de/Panzer/Spaehpanzer/amx10.html

That said, a Leopard 2 will have a relatively easy hit at 4000 meters.


quote:

How could that be anywhere near effective fire range? Even if the rounds could reach that range, what manner of optics did the crews regularly have that allowed them to hit anything at that range? Not to mention other ballistic factors such as wind, humidity, etc.

If you're talking about using it indirectly, as a form of artillery, fair enough, but then there should be severely reduced lethality and a reluctance to use the ammo that way unless the crews were absolutely flush with it. Machine gun rounds, after all, don't explode...

Now... regarding the optics, respectively the lack of optics on Vickers guns...
Example: The area around my hometown Cologne is pretty flat. The only mountain range, the "Drachenfels" (=dragon['s] rock) is around 25 or 30 km from here. On clear/sunny days, you can see the entire range from my appartment, which is on the 3rd floor only. The Dragon Rock mountain range is 364 meters high - at its highest spot, but mostly around 200 meters.
So, if you're in an elevated position (little hill, multistory building), depending on visibility conditions, you may be able to observe vehicle movement or objects at a distance of 2-5 kilometers with binoculars, and maybe 1.5 - 2 kilometers if you're in a totally flat area without objects that could obstruct the view (woods, buildings, hedgerows). Vickers crews had to use the MMG in an artillery-like mode for those ranges, and they had to use tracers so they could readjust elevation in order to provide area fire.

Another example: Let's say you're operating a vickers and you spot a truck convoy at a distance of 2-4 kilometers from your prepared position. Depending on terrain and weather you may actually see vehicles or just a cloud of dust. You're ordered to fire, and after a few bursts your tracers may hit the area. You won't be able to aim at engines or tires, sure, since you don't have optics, but you may start to see explosions, or vehicles or "something" you can barely spot (depending on visibility conditions) ending up in smoke and flames.

Re: troops being reluctant to use a Vickers in "ballistic" mode: Check out the British Small Arms manual, the manual actually encouraged (and warned) troops not to waste ammo on close-range targets, as the MMG's purpose was to provide support (or defensive) fire at medium and long ranges.

Download the PDF
http://www.badongo.com/file/7513521

Actually, a massive amount of MMGs had been employed during Operation Varsity (February 1945), which I consider to have featured the biggest Airborne operation in history (Market Garden was smaller), in order to provide area fire (in addition to artillery fire) for the troops crossing the Rhein at Wesel. This kind of ballistic blanket coverage with MMGs was new and pretty effective.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 8/28/2009 11:21:46 PM >


_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to WhiteOwl)
Post #: 8
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 8/28/2009 10:59:23 PM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1503
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMO

What is extremely surprising is the phenominal rate of fire of the 4.2" mortars - one wonders how long it could be maintained though.

Tim


Maybe they had to piss on the barrels, in order to maintain that ROF. (see movie "We were soldiers")


_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to TMO)
Post #: 9
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 8/28/2009 11:55:34 PM   
WhiteOwl

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
Hi Good Guy,

Firstly, thanks for the PDF, it is quite an interesting read.

Now, I don't disagree that a modern MBT CAN hit a target out to 4000m, rather that it is not quite the effective range of engagement. Anyway, the point was more about the Vickers lacking optics and other assistive devices. But as I wrote in my post, that doesn't apply to indirect fire. I think we can agree that a Vickers gunner would not be directly aiming at something out to 4000m, but rather employing it indirectly as you mentioned above. In that case, if they have the ammunition, no problem, but if they don't have 10000 rounds lying by, with the promise of easy resupply, then I can't see a competent leader allowing his men to blow through a whole lot of ammo real quick that way.

Now in terms of the game engine, either the AI and the damage code have to get better, so as to distinguish in game if the MMG is fired directly or indirectly, and to allow the AI to make a decision as to when to use indirect fire, or a compromise is made. If it were up to me, in terms of bang for the buck of limited development time, I'd go for the compromise.

Thanks for an engaging discussion so far :)

(in reply to GoodGuy)
Post #: 10
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 8/30/2009 11:52:15 AM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1503
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WhiteOwl

Now, I don't disagree that a modern MBT CAN hit a target out to 4000m, rather that it is not quite the effective range of engagement.


You ought to say "not quite the usual range of engagement", as the terrain/environment in populous areas or in woods usually prevents engagements at that distance - unless the particular tank is in the desert, or let's say in low-population areas like in the North German Plains or in flat parts of East Germany, or - last but not least - generally in an elevated position, but the DM53 KE actually delivers a higher max range, due to its velocity exceeding 1750 meters/second, most modern tanks deliver velocities of around 1650 - 1750. Again, the old 120-mm APFSDS-T DM43 round already allows for an aimed max range of 3500 meters.

quote:

In that case, if they have the ammunition, no problem, but if they don't have 10000 rounds lying by, with the promise of easy resupply, then I can't see a competent leader allowing his men to blow through a whole lot of ammo real quick that way.

That's why the Small Arms Manual advises to fire bursts of 20 rounds (increasing to 30 rounds for highest distances) and readjust elevation until the rounds hit the target area.

TMO's quote indicates that 11,000 rounds (44 belts with 250 rounds each) per gun were to be taken into action.

The following is an early account (1940) that covers tactical employment, ranges, supply fundamentals, standard configuration of the MMG (ammo), number of 15-cwt trucks per platoon and number of AT rifles per platoon. Due to the reorganization of the MG-Bns later on, Universal carriers had been substituted for the trucks mentioned in the Pamphlet below, and without much doubt PIATs for the Boys AT rifles.

TMO's document rather reflects experiences/demands of combat units towards the end of WWII, but with the following document you get an idea about how the MG Bn was supposed to be employed as early as 1940, without being able to fall back on a whole lot of actual combat experiences (maybe apart from the BEF's adventure, I don't know what month the Pamphlet was printed):
quote:

ORIGINAL: Military Pamphlet No. 31, 1940
Notes On The Organization And The Tactical Handling Of Medium Machine Guns, page 8

http://www.badongo.com/file/7009020

"1. []..... In direct fire the fire unit is the section. At ranges in excess of 1,400 yards it will normally be necessary to engage with more than one section.

2. Range. - With accurate range-taking, and the correct application of the fire control rules, medium M.Gs. can fire with effect up to 4,500 yards [4114 meters]. Medium M.Gs. ranges are defined as follows:
  • i. Close, up to 800 yards. - The range up to which, on level ground, the trajectory is suffiently flat to hit a standing man at all points between gun and target.
  • ii. Intermediate, up to 1,400 yards.
  • iii. Long, over 1,400 yards. - At these ranges two sections will generally be necessary to produce effective fire.


4. Rates of fire. - Medium M.Gs. use two rates of fire - normal and rapid. At these rates they expend a belt of 250 rounds in two minutes and one minute respectively. A "service burst" is 25 rounds under all conditions, except when firing on fixed lines, or at a moving target, when it is 50.

5. Ammunition supply. - M.G. ammunition is factory-packed in expendable belts ready for firing. Sixteen belts are normally brought into action with the gun; in addition, further belts are carried in company and platoon trucks. Ammunition may be dumped to meet expenditure which can be foreseen.

So even with the 1940 early war-setup, MG crews were supposed to carry at least 4000 rounds (16 belts with 250 rounds each) with the gun, as a minimum. Supply wasn't a problem.

quote:


"6. Duration of fire. - The system of ammunition supply, together with the fact that the barrel is water-cooled, enable the Medium M.G. to keep up a normal rate of fire as long as supplies of water and ammunition continue.

9. Indirect fire. - Medium M.Gs. are capable of engaging a target which is not visible from the gun position, but is visible from an O.P. Flexibility is limited, but concealment is more easily obtained, and the chances of guns being neutralized by enemy artillery is minimised.
In cases where the target is not visible from an O.P., or where it has not been possible to range on it in daylight, the necessary data can be obtained from a 1/25,000 map. The accuracy of map shooting depends chiefly on the accurate pin pointing of the gun position and target on the map. Artillery units, who possess methods of surveying, can often be of assistance in this."


The following link leads to a range table (from 1926) for the Vickers 303 MG. The range table lists angles (minutes?) for indirect fire missions up to at least 2800 yards:

http://www.badongo.com/file/8777628

A MG range table from 1916, listing angles of elevation (in degree and minutes) for ranges up to 3000 yards:

http://www.badongo.com/de/file/8756655

If you want to get some more manuals, check this site:

http://www.vickersmachinegun.org.uk/manual.htm

quote:

Now in terms of the game engine, either the AI and the damage code have to get better, so as to distinguish in game if the MMG is fired directly or indirectly, and to allow the AI to make a decision as to when to use indirect fire, or a compromise is made. If it were up to me, in terms of bang for the buck of limited development time, I'd go for the compromise.

Interesting point.
Still, I'd like to point out that the "current" layout of the estabs (in COTA) and/or the compromise currently in place tamper with some weapons' typical applications or ranges of fire, which impacts historical accuracy and the player's decision process regarding tactical deployment and strategy alike.

This whole ordeal ranges from Flak guns with strangely limited direct fire AT capabilities (range), leIG guns not being able to deliver indirect fire at all, a strange "fire" button where the user really doesn't know whether it does anything or not - area fire isn't rendered at least, MMGs with reduced max. range and even to (German) heavy tanks which don't seem to fire any further than 1.5 kilometers, usually. Unfortunately, the game hasn't only difficulties to realistically handle armoured units regarding range, but the game's AI has difficulties to handle motorized movement of formations in general (i.e. Bn or Abteilung), as well: - if one tank company runs out of fuel, the entire Abteilung will be stopped in their tracks. The player then has to detach the respective unit, in order to ensure that the rest of the Abteilung continues to move. If the HQ runs out of fuel, the player has to detach each and every unit under its command, in order to make them move again.

Range: In training ranges, the minimum requirement for Tiger I crews was to hit a given target at distances from 1300 meters to 2000 meters - with their 4th(!) shot). The Tiger I manual ("Tigerfibel") explains how to measure/elevate in order to hit a target (taking an enemy AT gun position as example) at 2400 - 2800 meters, with HE. Btw, I put screenshots of the Tigerfibel online along with a brief translation/explanation, in this thread at Battlefront:
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=87191

Anyway, I have yet to see a tank firing at targets being 2000 - 2800 meters away, in the game. So, details like the ones listed above are quite some inaccuracies, and I wonder if they'll be present in BFTB (probably).

It goes without saying that games have to employ certain levels of abstractions, although it could be fun to actually interdict the enemy AI's movement of supplies and hunt the supply trucks (if they'd be rendered) , for example.

An abstracted supply system doesn't necessarily take away from the overall realism, though. But the current estabs (as presented in COTA) lack some historical details, details which are actually documented in archives and even spread across the net, and I don't know whether this was the result of an oversight, lack of time or a compromise or not.
quote:

Thanks for an engaging discussion so far :)

Thank you too.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 8/30/2009 1:00:04 PM >


_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to WhiteOwl)
Post #: 11
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 9/2/2009 8:06:17 PM   
TMO

 

Posts: 251
Joined: 4/12/2003
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
quote:

I don't think that lack of ammo was present back then nor do I believe that the MMGs had been deployed with 1000 rounds or less, as the MG Bns were using the Universal carriers in 1944, not trucks, so the carriers could deliver guns and ammo right to the assigned spot (or frontline), and the carriers could hold quite some rounds.


Here's a quote from Overlord, Max Hastings, 1984, p.238 that supports this statement - at least for the Normandy campaign:

quote:

To almost every man of the Allied armies, the predominant memory of the campaign, beyond the horror of battle, was the astounding efficiency of the supply services. The Americans had always justly prided themselves upon their organization. But for young British soldiers, who had grown up with the legend of the War Office's chronic bungling, and of the Crimea and the Boer War, Second Army's administration in Normandy seemed a miracle. "We were all very agreeably surprised by the efficiency," said Major John Warner of 3rd Recce Regiment. " We always knew that we would receive ammunition, letters, petrol, food." Curiously enough, whatever the command shortcomings of the British Army in France in the First World War, its administration had been a supreme achievement. So it was now, and this contributed enormously to men's faith in their commanders and in final victory. "There was so much materiel at the back", said Alf Lee of the Middlesex Regiment. "Whenever you went to the rear and saw fields packed with petrol tins as high as a house, rows of guns in their canvas covers waiting to come up, huge dumps of shells, you couldn't doubt that we could do it. We would often fire 25,000 rounds from a Vickers gun in a single shoot. Yet we were never short of ammunition."  


Regards

Tim


(in reply to GoodGuy)
Post #: 12
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 9/2/2009 9:21:52 PM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1503
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TMO

Here's a quote from Overlord, Max Hastings, 1984, p.238 that supports this statement - at least for the Normandy campaign:

quote:

....[] We would often fire 25,000 rounds from a Vickers gun in a single shoot. Yet we were never short of ammunition."  

Interesting quote. Since even the 1940 Small Arms Manual indicated 16 belts (4000 rounds) as standard config, and your source - the Coy Cmd Course - 11,000 rounds (that would be 44 belts), Hasting's account sounds reasonable + believable. They didn't just carry 500 - 1000 rounds, as Dave suggested, at least. The latter amount rather sounds like the standard config of an LMG or a Vickers employed as Anti-Aircraft MMG (mounted on a vehicle).

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 9/2/2009 9:33:06 PM >


_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to TMO)
Post #: 13
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 9/3/2009 1:35:14 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17794
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
You guys have jumped the gun here ( pun intended ). My reference to MGs carrying 500 to 1000 rds was to MGs in general - ie to those carried as small arms by infantry soldiers. I acknowledge that MG Bns carried a lot more ammo and that is reflected in the game. However, in BFTB we are only modelling the truck mounted Vickers and not the carrier version. We've given it an allocation of 2000 rds per gun.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to GoodGuy)
Post #: 14
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 9/3/2009 9:09:59 AM   
TMO

 

Posts: 251
Joined: 4/12/2003
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
Dave

quote:

However, in BFTB we are only modelling the truck mounted Vickers and not the carrier version.  


This seems like an odd decision to me, by late '44 early '45 the machine gun batallion would have been using carriers (probably had been using them since D-Day). Care to elaborate why you choose to model trucks instead?

Regards

Tim

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 15
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 9/3/2009 11:14:47 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17794
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Tim,

No!

Actually, I can't recall now why this was decided. That decision was probably taken by Andries or Richard or Steve some three to fours ago. Perhaps they can shed some light on it. It may be that the few Brit units committed to the battle didn't have the new carrier estabs.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to TMO)
Post #: 16
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 9/3/2009 4:23:35 PM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1503
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
Let me throw in some accounts covering ammo expenditure, range, indirect fire and a field modification (MMG):

quote:

ORIGINAL: New Zealand Electronic Text Centre (NZTEC)

http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2-27Ba-c11.html#reference-to-fn1-245

27 (Machine Gun) Battalion, chapter 11, page 245

"El Mreir" (July 1942)

"For the assault 6 Brigade was given the support of the whole divisional artillery, a medium regiment and 5 Brigade's mortars and machine guns (4 Company); 18 Battalion was to cover the left flank with mortar and machine-gun fire (from 1 and 2 Companies). ‘This must have been the machine-gunners' night out,’ wrote Newland, ‘some 120,000 rounds being fired in about 3 hours.’ Eight guns of 1 Company and the six of 5 and 6 Platoons (which moved from 4 Company to 1 Company) fired on an enemy-held ridge about two miles south of the depression, and then lifted to maximum range for harassing tasks farther north. At the same time the twelve guns of 4 Company brought down fire on the eastern end of the depression.

Frazer says that prisoners taken after this attack ‘referred to one of these combined shoots as “whispering death”."


quote:

Page 249

"The advance, says Pearse, ‘proved quite a nightmare as apart from the heavy shelling, etc., we had great difficulty in maintaining contact with the infantry who were virtually strangers to us and moved much more rapidly in the darkness through the depressions and minefields encountered. At times we were quite lost. Early in the show we came across Lieut Cliff Rollinson [1 Company] with his Vickers guns lined out in a depression doing what appeared to be a perfect indirect shoot…."


An interesting 1942 "MOD", mounting an MMG on a bren carrier - page 245:

quote:



"Each battalion of 6 Brigade had under its command two Vickers guns from 3 Company mounted on Bren carriers. ‘Before the show,’ says Captain Hains, ‘Brig Clifton asked me if it was possible to mount MMGs on Bren carriers. I thought it was a good idea for some tasks and spent two days fitting one on and trying it out. Quite satisfactory.’ Each carrier had a crew of two machine-gunners and the driver (an infantryman).(1)

(1)Lt Gumbley says: ‘The guns were mounted in the front of the carrier, part of the armour plating having been cut away to allow the gun to be mounted. Once mounted the gun had a very limited traverse, it was certainly mobile but against that it presented a very large target and could only be used for direct fire.’ "


The 27th Bn at Florence, Italy:
quote:


"During the attack…,’ wrote 28 Battalion's CO, ‘MMGs [2 Platoon] first fired direct flank support for A Coy on the left because that flank was open.’ Later they were given the task of harassing by indirect fire the likely routes of withdrawal or escape for the Germans. ‘After the A Coy inf passed over these routes and after the attack, many enemy casualties, including dead, were discovered among the olive trees.’"


This is an excellent account covering indirect-fire, which portrays the 27th MG Bn as an experienced and skilled unit:

quote:



http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2-27Ba-c21.html#name-000842-mention

"During the morning of 31 July, says Halkett, ‘22 Bn had its patrols out trying to locate enemy [positions] preparatory to their next attack. These had progressed as far as prudent, but further information was required. [The CO] called up 3 Coy by W/T and with an improvised code requested fire to be brought in 2 areas. We promised it in 15 minutes and 3 Coy opened up with concentrated fire of 12 Guns. This caused Jerry to cut loose with his spandaus and disclose their positions to the infantry patrols…

‘This shows the pitch to which 3 Coy had brought its training … a standard that was seldom reached, requiring co-operation with the infantry and high standard of signals personnel and of course map shooting.’"


Hail of bullets:
quote:

PAGE 432

"That night (1–2 August) the Division attacked the hilltops which were the last obstacle before Florence. Five infantry battalions, advancing on a narrow front between the Greve River and San Michele, were assisted by creeping artillery barrages, timed concentrations and counter-battery programmes, and by machine-gun fire wherever possible. During the night and the following day 1, 2 and 3 Companies expended over 200,000 rounds (3[rd] Company nearly half of this total) to supplement the artillery and harass the known positions of German mortars and machine guns.

‘The previous support of 3[rd] Coy had been so encouraging to everybody that during this attack 3 Coy expended 94000 rounds,’ says Halkett. ‘We again repeated our closely controlled concentrated fire on Infantry selected targets at times which they stipulated and again we had the satisfaction of hearing the infantry of 22 Bn express their appreciation. Later received a letter of thanks from their Col. which was read to the Coy when they withdrew from the line for a rest.’ "


< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 9/3/2009 5:01:47 PM >


_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 17
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 9/3/2009 5:43:06 PM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1503
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
1st Battalion - The Manchester Regiment
(reorg'ed as MMG Battalion in 1937)

Equipment (Bren carriers):

quote:

ORIGINAL: Museum of the Manchester Regiment

http://www.tameside.gov.uk/museumsgalleries/mom/history/1919-1945

"A new 1st Battalion was formed in June 1942 by the renumbering of the 6 th Territorial Army Battalion as the 1st.

After two years intensive training as a machine-gun battalion the new 1st Battalion, commanded by Lieut Colonel Charles Harrington of the Cheshire Regiment, took part in the invasion of Europe. Bren gun carriers, equipment and men moved on 18 June 1944 from Faversham station to West India Docks in London where all was loaded onto the SS Samneva. The battalion landed at Arromanches on 26 th June, D-Day plus 20, as the Machine Gun Support Battalion of 53 rd (Welsh) Infantry Division."


Give us the unit names/designations of the British units in the BFTB sector, and I bet TMO and me will dig out enough evidence that bren carriers were being used by MG Bns in late 1944, in no time :D

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 9/3/2009 6:24:50 PM >


_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to GoodGuy)
Post #: 18
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 9/3/2009 5:44:53 PM   
TMO

 

Posts: 251
Joined: 4/12/2003
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
Take a look at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/26/a3089126.shtml

Relates to early Feb '45 (with a few typos: 7200,000 - probably should be 720,000) - but indicates huge expenditure of ammo and also indicates carriers used as transport.

On carriers for the Machine Gun Battalion, from my father's Coy Comds Course notes:

quote:

Transport- Fighting transport is entirely tracked - MMGs on Universal Carriers, and 4.2" Mortars towed by Lloyd Carriers.


Regards

Tim

< Message edited by TMO -- 9/6/2009 8:42:20 PM >

(in reply to GoodGuy)
Post #: 19
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 9/3/2009 7:58:08 PM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1503
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
Check out the pic below....
The description:
quote:



http://www.mapleleafup.org/vehicles/carriers/uc1.html

"Mk.I* Vickers MG Carrier

A wartime 'publicity' shot of an adapted MkI* in the service of a Canadian Motor Machine Gun Battalion. Note that all lighting and POL racks have been removed and the crew's personal large packs and duffles tied in in their place. Most likely, British or American jerricans have been secured to the back deck.

Note also the tow chain, spare tracking and stowage boxes which have been secured to the front of this carrier. the smoke discharger is visible below and to the left of the gun.

Interesting, too, the choice of helmets by the individual crew members: the corporal in front, and the man behind the Vickers gun both wear the 'carrier' helmet, which is an adaptation of the same helmet used by British and Canadian airborne troops and dispatch riders. The others obviously prefer the more traditional 'pudding bowl' style. Both are equally uncomfortable."






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 9/3/2009 8:03:33 PM >


_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to TMO)
Post #: 20
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 9/3/2009 9:23:53 PM   
TMO

 

Posts: 251
Joined: 4/12/2003
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gNY4whd5B6sC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=universal+carriers&source=bl&ots=QChRwePslV&sig=ErxuXrNWXCqBeuQWks_j3lQZKu0&hl=en&ei=jiGgSuDYMY6enQOvy8TeDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=universal%20carriers&f=false

(in reply to GoodGuy)
Post #: 21
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 9/3/2009 10:15:55 PM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1503
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
Well, hehe, I stumbled over that book some 5 hrs ago already. But the published pages refer to recce units only, while the interesting parts aren't shown. So I ordered the sucker on Amazon, i wanna know now. lol
While I'm sure the Canadians had Bren carriers, I'm not totally sure whether the Brit. MG Bns had 'em too, now. I can't deny the possibility that the regular carrier platoon of an INF unit could have been employed too, as they used to be the "slaves" within INF units, responsible for transport, medevac, towing stuff. Still, I can't imagine that the MMG units, as heavy weapons support units, often right behind the front line or even in the middle of the shyte (Italy), were using trucks.

BTW: oddly enough, the carrier on the picture I posted has a Rhino insignia, and "AD" above it. Would that refer to the 1st British Armoured Division? Their Rhino used to be a charging one , though. Maybe they borrowed equipment :P

Whatever the case, carriers had been used, for sure.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 9/3/2009 10:22:40 PM >


_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to TMO)
Post #: 22
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 9/6/2009 12:13:14 PM   
TMO

 

Posts: 251
Joined: 4/12/2003
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
The following is from Universal Carrier 1936-48: The 'Bren Gun Carrier' Story, by David Fletcher, Tony Bryan (the link I posted earlier) p.34:

quote:

Medium Machine-gun Carriers
In 1943 the organization of the infantry division underwent one of its periodic convulsions with the creation of the Brigade Support Group. Based on recent experience, there was a desire to increase firepower available at the brigade level with medium (Vickers) machine guns for volume, 4.2in mortars for high explosive and 20mm automatic weapons for low-level anti-aircraft defence and the ability to tackle light armoured vehicles. Army Training Instruction No. 7 provided the details, evidently unaware that to some extent it had just reinvented the wheel.

Universal carriers would play a major part in the new organization, with 30 of them in all in each brigade support group, three of which combined to form a support battalion. Events had virtually gone full circle since these carriers would be modified to carry a Vickers machine gun, and this is where we come in. However, this modified carrier was not identical with the original Machine Gun Carrier: the gun would not be carried in the front of the vehicle but on a mofified mounting fitted to the top of the carrier's engine cover. The medium machine-gun company in the support group was divided into three platoons, each of which was equipped with four carriers armed with machine guns. Each carrier had a four-man crew and 19 factory-packed spools of ammunition, each spool of 250 rounds (4,750 rounds in all). A No. 22 radio was provided for each platoon but whether it was carried in a carrier or not is unclear. Some things did not change. The intention, quite clearly, was to operate the weapon dismounted whenever possible, although it coud be fired from the vehicle in a direct-fire role over the heads of friendly infantry. Firing on the move was not encouraged other than in exceptional circumstances.


On the use of the No. 22 set, my father's course notes say:

quote:

Communications - Basic set is the No.22, which is used for all internal communication. For close liason with infantry each MMG and Mortar platoon has a No.18 set.


So now we have an idea the evolution of MMG units in the British and Commonwealth units. Prior to 1943 MMGs were truck-borne and provided with 4,000 rds ammunition. During this early war period, field modifications were also taking place where the gun aperture of the Univeral Carrier was being modified to allow use of the MMG from within the carrier (a quick internet search indicates this was especially widespread in Australian units). Sometime in 1943 Universal Carriers replaced the trucks as transport and the number of rounds carried for each gun increased to 4,750 (see later post - doesn't include those carried by non-MMG carriers; by the end of the war this had risen to 11,000 rds).

I am confident that carriers were being used from the start of the campaign in the NW European theatre. IMHO, the trucks (as modelled in the game) should be replaced by carriers and the amount of ammunition provided for each MMG should be increased from its current level.

Regards

Tim



< Message edited by TMO -- 9/6/2009 8:49:38 PM >

(in reply to GoodGuy)
Post #: 23
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 9/6/2009 5:45:27 PM   
TMO

 

Posts: 251
Joined: 4/12/2003
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
The website Goodguy referenced earlier:

http://www.vickersmachinegun.org.uk/

quote:

The Machine Gun platoon of the Divisional Machine Gun Battalion started off as a 15-cwt Truck-borne unit. By the time the small arms manual was printed in 1944, it solely referred to the use of Universal Carrier. The quantity of gun numbers had also decreased in line with the additional efficiency of ammunition supply and the ability for carriers to get closer to the gun positions.


If you look at the composition of the 1936-42 battalion it comprises four machine gun Coys each of three platoons; the 1943-46 version comprises three machine gun Coys (each three platoons) and a heavy mortar Coy (four platoons).

Looking at the make up of a platoon: the 1939 version comprises six 15 cwt trucks (platoon commander, platoon sergeant and MMG trucks (x4)) and four MMGs; the 1944 version comprises eight carriers (platoon commander, platoon sergeant, section commander (x2) and MMG carriers (x4)) and four MMGs.

The website mentioned above has fantastic diagrams detailing the layout and stowage of each of these carriers:

Platoon commander's carrier - 14 boxes .303ammo (3,500 rds); wireless set No. 22.

Platoon sergeant's carrier - 18 boxes ammo .303 (16 belted, 2 loose - 4,500 rds); 12 A/T bombs; 1 x PIAT.

Section commander's carrier - 18 boxes ammo .303 (16 belted, 2 loose - 4,500 rds).

MMG carrier - 19 boxes ammo .303 (18 stowed, one fitted - 4,750 rds).

This gives a total 36,000 rds for the platoon or 9,000 rds per gun. As currently modelled, 2,000 rds per Vickers MMG now starts to look far too conservative an allocation.

Just shows what a bit of research can uncover: 4,750 rds per gun from the 'Bren Gun Carrier' reference hasn't taken into account the extra ammo taken into action by the other four carriers in the MMG platoon and the No.22 set is quite obviously shown in the platoon commander's carrier (I wonder where the No. 18 set might have been located).

Regards

Tim










< Message edited by TMO -- 9/6/2009 9:24:25 PM >

(in reply to TMO)
Post #: 24
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 9/6/2009 6:12:28 PM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1503
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
I never scrolled down on this page:

http://www.vickersmachinegun.org.uk/transport-universal.htm

These sketches are supposed to display the setup/equipment of a MMG carrier. The MMG had been drawn as a mounted version, with a sketch (on the 2nd picture) showing where the MMG would be stowed on a carrier.

THESE are sketches for the 1951 setup, though




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 9/6/2009 6:19:20 PM >

(in reply to TMO)
Post #: 25
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 9/6/2009 6:14:54 PM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1503
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to GoodGuy)
Post #: 26
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 9/6/2009 6:17:59 PM   
TMO

 

Posts: 251
Joined: 4/12/2003
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
Don't think so - if you look at the date, bottom left, it's 1946. Check out the other diagrams - there are a couple detailing truck-borne MMG stowage as well.

Regards

Tim

< Message edited by TMO -- 9/6/2009 6:22:04 PM >

(in reply to GoodGuy)
Post #: 27
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 9/6/2009 6:23:01 PM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1503
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMO

Just shows what a bit of research can uncover: 4,750 rds per gun from the 'Bren Gun Carrier' reference hasn't taken into account the extra ammo taken by the other four carriers in the MMG platoon and the N0.22 set is quite obviously shown in the platoon commander's carrier (I wonder where the No. 18 set might have been located).



You mean extra ammo taken by the other THREE carriers, as the first of the sub-section had been listed.

_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to TMO)
Post #: 28
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 9/6/2009 6:28:38 PM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1503
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TMO

... if you look at the date, bottom left, it's 1946.


The year 1951 mentioned on the webby refers to the year when the specification came into effect, most likely. "7-3-1946" refers to the date of creation, only.

You have to keep in mind that there had been thousands of UCs in service in 1945/46, so that upgrades (handing over UCs to ordnance) or even changes of the manufacturing process took quite some time, if not years. My guess is that quite some paper pushers inspected the sketches and used them as coffee cup saucers first, before approving them.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 9/6/2009 6:38:36 PM >


_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to TMO)
Post #: 29
RE: Machine Gun Battalion - 9/6/2009 6:35:40 PM   
TMO

 

Posts: 251
Joined: 4/12/2003
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
Regarding 1951 - this relates to Korean War usage (I was confused at first also). If you look at Korean war compared to 1944-46 composition there are several quite notable differences, e.g. Pl comds carrier has an LMG (Bren), 2 x No. 31. set and 1 x No. 88 set; the Pl sergeant's carrier was substituted for a Jeep. The biggest difference was that the platoon was increased in size to THREE sections of two machine guns.

Regarding section commanders: the 1944 platoon was split into two sections each of two MMGs - each section consists of three carriers (1 x section commander carrier, 2 x MMG carrier) - so FOUR carriers in addition to the four MMG carriers.

Regards

Tim

< Message edited by TMO -- 9/6/2009 7:00:22 PM >

(in reply to GoodGuy)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Command Ops Series >> Machine Gun Battalion Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.125