# The best WW2 infantry squad or Platoon, choose, construct compare.



## Soren (Apr 26, 2009)

If you were to put together the a WW2 infantry squad/platoon, then what men equipment would you choose for each nation and how will the squads/platoons finally compare to each other in your mind ?

Rules are simple, pick between British(All Commonwealth), German, US, Italian, Japanese Soviet men equipment, construct a squad/platoon and compare their survivability in various inviroments.

The choosable inviroments:
Eastern Open Plains, grassy, few trees, mildly sloping landscape.
French Normandy Bocage, heavy vegitation, vast amounts of hedgerows, small narrow roads, medium sloped landscape.
Swiss Alps, rocky, heavily sloped mountainess terrain, pine trees, snow. 
Tunisian Desert, dusty, hot, flat to hilly terrain, palm trees, little water, a few oasises.
Burmese Jungle, humid, hot, heavily densly vegetated, vast mamal, bird, insect reptilian population, little to no roads. 

And finally, keep it friendly guys


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 26, 2009)

The Burmese jungle was bad. But the jungles in New Guinie were even worse.

Without getting into the eqmt. portion, The Aussie small infantry units were the finest jungle fighters in the world.


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2009)

Well what is most needed in the jungle is an acquaintance with the plant animal life, that is essential. The Australian troops were well trained in this, so a good choice.


----------



## davebender (Apr 26, 2009)

Late war German infantry are the way to go.

1 x Squad leader with STG44 assault rifle.
1 x Machinegunner with MG42 plus pistol.
1 x Asst machinegunner with STG44 assault rifle plus extra MG42 barrel.
(I assume the MG tripod is in the supply truck. Otherwise one of the riflemen will carry it.)

1 x Fire team leader with STG44 assault rifle. Plus a panzerfaust.
3 x Riflemen with STG44 assault rifle. Plus a belt of MG ammo.

1 x Fire team leader with STG44 assault rifle. Plus a panzerfaust.
3 x Riflemen with STG44 assault rifle. Plus a belt of MG ammo.

11 men total. Every solder carries 2 grenades in addition to his other weapons.


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2009)

Thats some serious firepower davebender,

However I'd add 1x Sniper with a scoped Karabiner 98k for taking out any machine gun nests, commanders, snipers etc etc. So thats a 12 man team packing an enormous amount of firepower. Also I'd think about giving each fire team leader an FG-42 rifle, for added long range firepower. Also one of my riflemen will be a radioman, carrying a radio. So my German platoon would look almost the same:

1 x Platoon leader with STG44 assault rifle. Plus pistol.
1 x Machinegunner with MG42 plus pistol.
1 x Asst. machinegunner with STG44 assault rifle plus extra MG42 barrels.

1 x Fire team leader with FG-42 rifle (4x ZF41 Scope in bag). Plus a panzerfaust.
3 x Riflemen with STG44 assault rifle. Two men with one belt of MG ammo each, and one with a Tornister Empfanger b reciever/transmitter radio.

1 x Fire team leader with FG-42 rifle (4x ZF41 Scope in bag). Plus a panzerfaust.
3 x Riflemen with STG44 assault rifle. Plus a belt of MG ammo.

1 x Sniper with scoped Karabiner 98k rifle. Plus pistol.

So that's 12 men, each man carrying 2 grenades plus 1 smoke grenade. 

With that I think we've got about the ideal German platoon ready in terms of smallarms equipment. Next we need survival tools, clothing, transport means etc etc.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 26, 2009)

Perhaps this could be broken into different time frames?


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2009)

Good idea mkloby. We can do that as-well. Sp remember to note the time frame of the units.


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2009)

Oki here's my proposal for Britain in terms of smallarms:

1 x Platoon leader with Thompson SMG. Plus pistol.
2 x Machinegunner with Bren Gun plus pistol.

1 x Fire team leader with Thompson SMG. Plus a PIAT.
3 x Riflemen with Lee Enfield Mk.4 rifle. Two with 3 extra Bren magazines. One with a radio.

1 x Fire team leader with Thompson SMG. Plus a PIAT.
3 x Riflemen with Lee Enfield Mk.4 rifle. 3 extra Bren Magazines.

1 x Sniper with scoped Lee Enfield Mk.4 rifle. Plus pistol.

In all 12 men, each carrying 2 frag grenades 1 smoke grenade.

This should be good for the years 41 to 45.


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2009)

The US:

1 x Platoon leader with Thompson SMG. Plus pistol.
2 x Machinegunner with M1919. Plus pistol.

1 x Fire team leader with Thompson SMG. 
3 x Riflemen with M1 Garand rifle. Two with extra ammo belts, one with a Bazooka.

1 x Fire team leader with Thompson SMG. Plus radio.
3 x Riflemen with M1 Garand rifle. Two with extra ammo belts, one with a Bazooka.

1 x Sniper with scoped M1903 Springfield rifle. Plus pistol.

All in all 12 men, each carrying 2 frag grenades and 1 smoke grenade.

This should be good for the years 1941 to 45.


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2009)

The USSR:

1 x Platoon leader with PPSH-41 SMG. Plus Pistol.
2 x Machinegunner with DP-28 LMG. Plus Pistol.

1 x Fire team leader with PPSH-41 SMG. Plus 
3 x Riflemen with SVT-40 rifle. Two with 2 extra ammo drums, one with Radio.

1 x Fire team leader with PPSH-41 SMG. 
2 x Riflemen with SVT-40 rifle. Two extra ammo drums each.
1 x Anti tank soldier with PTRS-41 AT rifle. Plus pistol.

1 x Sniper with scoped M91/30 Nagant rifle. Plus pistol

All in all 12 men, each carrying 2 frag grenades and 1 smoke grenade. 

This should be good for 1941 and onwards.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 26, 2009)

Here is a good Marine Raider unit.

1x Squad leader with a Thompson

1x Raider with Thompson
1x Raider with BAR
1x Raider with Garand

1x Raider with Thompson
1x Raider with BAR
1x Raider with Garand

1x Raider with Thompson
1x Raider with BAR
1x Raider with Garand

Basically an inflitration force used for recon and the ability to complete objectives using clandestine and unorthadox tactics. A USMC guerilla force.

The Raiders typically were able to choose some of the best and strongest men and had carte blanche on weapons they wanted.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 26, 2009)

Soren said:


> Thats some serious firepower davebender,
> 
> However I'd add 1x Sniper with a scoped Karabiner 98k for taking out any machine gun nests, commanders, snipers etc etc. So thats a 12 man team packing an enormous amount of firepower. Also I'd think about giving each fire team leader an FG-42 rifle, for added long range firepower. Also one of my riflemen will be a radioman, carrying a radio. So my German platoon would look almost the same:
> 
> ...



A very dangerous squad, I like this loadout.


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2009)

Ok well then there's 5 12 man platoons competing so far, and here's what they bring along in terms of firepower:

*Britain (Commonwealth)*

1 x Platoon leader with Thompson SMG. Plus pistol.
2 x Machinegunner with Bren Gun plus pistol.

1 x Fire team leader with Thompson SMG. Plus a PIAT.
3 x Riflemen with Lee Enfield Mk.4 rifle. Two with 3 extra Bren magazines. One with a radio.

1 x Fire team leader with Thompson SMG. Plus a PIAT.
3 x Riflemen with Lee Enfield Mk.4 rifle. 3 extra Bren Magazines.

1 x Sniper with scoped Lee Enfield Mk.4 rifle. Plus pistol.

Each man carrying 2 frag grenades 1 smoke grenade.


*Germany*

1 x Platoon leader with STG44 assault rifle. Plus a pistol.
1 x Machinegunner with MG42. Plus a pistol.
1 x Asst. machinegunner with STG44 assault rifle plus extra MG42 barrels.

1 x Fire team leader with FG-42 rifle (4x ZF41 Scope in bag). Plus a Panzerfaust.
3 x Riflemen with STG44 assault rifle. Two men with one belt of MG ammo each, and one with a Tornister Empfanger b reciever/transmitter radio.

1 x Fire team leader with FG-42 rifle (4x ZF41 Scope in bag). Plus a Panzerfaust.
3 x Riflemen with STG44 assault rifle. Plus a belt of MG ammo each.

1 x Sniper with scoped Karabiner 98k rifle. Plus a pistol.

Each man carrying 2 concussion grenades plus 1 smoke grenade. 


*USA*

1 x Platoon leader with Thompson SMG. Plus pistol.
2 x Machinegunner with M1919. Plus pistol.

1 x Fire team leader with Thompson SMG. 
3 x Riflemen with M1 Garand rifle. Two with extra ammo belts, one with a Bazooka.

1 x Fire team leader with Thompson SMG. Plus radio.
3 x Riflemen with M1 Garand rifle. Two with extra ammo belts, one with a Bazooka.

1 x Sniper with scoped M1903 Springfield rifle. Plus pistol.

Each man carrying 2 frag grenades and 1 smoke grenade.

And a small raiding platoon:

1x Squad leader with a Thompson

1x Raider with Thompson
1x Raider with BAR
1x Raider with Garand

1x Raider with Thompson
1x Raider with BAR
1x Raider with Garand

1x Raider with Thompson
1x Raider with BAR
1x Raider with Garand


*USSR*

1 x Platoon leader with PPSH-41 SMG. Plus Pistol.
2 x Machinegunner with DP-28 LMG. Plus Pistol.

1 x Fire team leader with PPSH-41 SMG. Plus 
3 x Riflemen with SVT-40 rifle. Two with 2 extra ammo drums, one with Radio.

1 x Fire team leader with PPSH-41 SMG. 
2 x Riflemen with SVT-40 rifle. Two extra ammo drums each.
1 x Anti tank soldier with PTRS-41 AT rifle. Plus pistol.

1 x Sniper with scoped M91/30 Nagant rifle. Plus pistol

Each man carrying 2 frag grenades and 1 smoke grenade. 

__________________________________________________________

Now unless there are more team suggestions then we need to figure out the transportation vehicles we want to give each team as-well as other use equipment clothing.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 26, 2009)

Guess I'll try my hand. 

United States 12 man squad. 

2x soldiers W/.30 caliber machine gun/ plus pistol and belt of ammo. 
1x squad leader w/ Thompson SMG

1x sniper W/ springfield 1903 w/scope
3x soldiers w/ M1 Garand

2x soldiers w/ Browing Automatic Rifles
1x soldier w/ bazooka plus pistol and three rockets

2x soldier w/ M3 grease gun. 

Each soldier has sidearm, plus two grenades. 

I think that covers it, feel free to correct my on anything.


----------



## Soren (Apr 27, 2009)

We could ofcourse say that it needs to be a 20 man 2 squad 1 scout platoon instead of the current 12 man 2 squad platoon ?

In that case I'd equip the German platoon like so:

*Germany*

Firepower:

1 x Platoon leader with FG42 rifle (4x ZF41 Scope in bag). Plus a pistol.
2 x Machinegunner with MG42 LMG/HMG. Plus a pistol.
2 x Asst. machinegunner with StG44 assault rifle, plus two extra MG barrels one 250 round ammunition belt box each.

1 x Squad leader with FG42 rifle (4x ZF41 Scope in bag). Plus a Panzerfaust.
4 x Riflemen with StG44 assault rifle. Three men with one MG ammo belt each, and one with a Tornister Empfanger b reciever/transmitter radio.

1 x Squad leader with FG42 rifle (4x ZF41 Scope in bag). Plus a Panzerfaust.
4 x Riflemen with StG44 assault rifle. Two men with one MG belt each, and two men with one MG tripod each.

1 x Squad leader with FG42 rifle (4x ZF41 Scope in bag). Plus a Panzerfaust.
1 x Rifleman with S18/1100 AT rifle.
1 x Asst. Rifleman with StG44 assault rifle, carrying S18/1100 barrel, plus extra 20mm AP ammunition.
2 x Rifleman with StG44 assault rifle, plus a Panzerfaust.

1 x Sniper with scoped Karabiner 98k rifle. Plus a pistol.

Transport:

*Land:*
4 x VW Type 166 Schwimmwagen 4x4's.
4 x SdKfz. 2 Kettenrad's.

*Air:*
4 x Fa223 Helicopters (For quick infiltration extraction missions) 

Or

4x Ar232 Transport a/c (Which means the capability to bring along all the Land transport vehicles above)

Extra equipment: 

2 x 10.5cm LG40 Recoilless cannon (To be towed by the 4x4's)
6 x Ammunition trailers (To be towed by the 4x4's Kettenrads)


----------



## Soren (Apr 27, 2009)

Now the Japanese haven't been mentioned yet, and perhaps because the Japanese infantry wasn't the best equipped force within the Japanese military. They were fanatic for sure, and some also well trained in jungle warfare. But their equipment was pretty outdated by beginning of WW2. So I think we can rule them out as truly competitive in this comparison.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 27, 2009)

The Japanese Marines were very tough. The SNLF( Special Naval Landing Forces) of the IJN saw extensive service in the Sino-Japanese War and wreaked havoc wherever they showed up in the Pacific during WWII. They were supposedly at Tarawa inflicting about 3,000 casualties on the USMC during the landings. They of course like the IJA units were known for their brutality and fanaticism. Experienced and well trained. The reason for the brutality among the IJA and IJN troops could probably be due to how they themselves were treated in the Japanese military. The discipline was very brutal.


----------



## davebender (Apr 27, 2009)

Army Radio Sales Co.


> The set is rather small, 36.5 cm wide, 24.5 cm high and 22 cm deep. This is for the receiver alone. Together with the battery and accessories 'Tornister" height is 46 cm. But the weight of the complete unit is surprising, 24 kg (52.9 lbs.).









WWII era military radios are too heavy for general issue at the infantry squad level. It's more likely this would be a company level asset. The sniper is probably also a company level asset. They would be attached at the squad level only for special missions like a recon patrol.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 27, 2009)

I'm still struggling with this. I'm stuck on the transport to select, the clothing to use, the boots , and other personal equipment, the support weapons needed, even the weight of pack to select.

I wil get back to you once or if I can figure it out. Issues to consider are not just the firepower they can generate, but also reliability, cost, and long life (particulalry for clothing) and protection from the elements.

The Japanese were unquestionably outclassed with many of their weapons, but there were one or two items that might be worth considering. Their 70mm battalion guns were much feared in the jungle, able to fulfil all roles except AA. Their MGs were not pretty to look at, but their Type 92 could be adjusted so as to fire under 250 rpm and to deliver plunging fire into trenches. They were much feared by allied soldiers despite their obsolesence. They and the 70mm Bn guns mentioned previously gave the Japanese squads and platoons a measure of firepower out of all proportion with what one might expect. Two items of their personal kit are also worth mentioning. The Japanese trenching tool was fitted with an anti fouling device (I dont know the details exactly), that allowed them to dig in much more effectively and quickly than their allied counterparts in mud or swamp. The Japanese also were issued with special ultralight canvas and rubber boots, with a split in between the big toes and the other toes. This gave the japanese the ability to scale greasy slopes and trees in the jungle far more effectively than either the hobnailed boots of the allies or the rubber soled boots of the US Army.

Japanese soldiers went into battle in the jungle very light, seldom carrying more than their weapons and ammunition. Typically they were seldom burdened with more than 30 lbs of pack, whereas their allied counterparts might attampt to carry as much as 60 or 70 lbs. Carrying that much weight made the allies virtually immobile in the jungle, and greatly facilitated Japanese "hook" manouvres, that cost the allies so many losses in the early battles. It was not until the Allies learnt not to worry about their flanks too much, and were able to rely on air supply and relief from the rear that the Japanese tactics of light packs and rapid outflanking manouvres were beaten. This took the British until 1944 to learn. Some Australian and US units were withstanding the Japanese hook manoeuvres by October 1942, some American units never learnt how to deal with this problem, and were still worrying about outflanking in the jungle right up to the end of the war

It is worth noting that the Viet Min, the vicots at Dien Bien Phu, against the french, used mostly Japanese Tactics and methods in that battle, except for the ring of AA that was used, a Soviet concept used very successfully at Stalingrad.


----------



## Soren (Apr 28, 2009)

davebender said:


> Army Radio Sales Co.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well we are creating a platoon sized unit here, since we got vehicles and such at disposal, which is abit larger than the average squad. But Snipers could were sometimes attached to units as small as squads in the German army, however it mostly wouldn't be trained snipers, rather the best shot in the company given a scoped rifle, the squad sharpshooter so to speak. The trained snipers were usually in special sniper groups attached to Battalions, while some were assigned to companies.

And as for the Tornister Empfanger B radio, it was much used by FallschirmJäger companies and was described as highly portable, weighing about the same as a full backpack. But either way this is about constructing the best infantry unit possible pr. nation 

But perhaps the small 1944 Kleinfunksprecher d two way radio reciever is a better choice:
15W.S.E.a transmitter and receiver, German WWII, WW2

Here's a picture of some FallschirmJäger radio men (The guy on the right is carrying the TFuG.k two-way radio transceiver, and the guy on the left is carrying the Torn. E. b Regenerative TRF Reciever):


----------



## Juha (Apr 28, 2009)

Soren,
in the picture we see 2 men carrying one radio, an AM radio divided to two packs. And as Davebender wrote, these were normally company level equipment. That was a great weakness when combared to US army, which had radios down to platoon level, SCR-536s. Companies had SCR-300 man-portable FM radio, ie one man was needed to carry it. So US Army had more and better radios, so at least in theory better situational awarness and much easier to get arty support and arty was the big killer.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Apr 28, 2009)

Better radios ? I beg to differ Juha.

I think you need take a look at this site:
WWII German Radio Page

The Germans were the only ones who had High fidelity radios during WW2.


----------



## Soren (Apr 28, 2009)

Actually the FJ's on the picture are carrying the pieces I listed, and one of them is part of the Torn. Fu. b1.


----------



## Juha (Apr 28, 2009)

Soren
you must have added the extra info while I was typing my message.

And
Quote:"The Germans were the only ones who had High fidelity radios during WW2"

Are you sure? Their "Tornister" radio was a HFradio but that means High Frequency. SCR-300 was VHF, V= Very, it operated between 40-48mHz.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Apr 28, 2009)

The Tornister E. b wasn't a high fidelity piece, it was a regular high frequency radio. The Germans however, as the only ones in the world, had high fidelity radios. The Allies captured them after the war and were astounded at the sound quality. Hitler also had his own home version.

You should look up the Köln E52b, it was the best short wave reciever of WW2, so good that the US used a direct copy throughout the 50's 60's.


----------



## Juha (Apr 28, 2009)

Thanks for the Köln E52b lead, but what I found in net is that it was Air to Ground receiver, all pages which mentioned where a set was captured, says that it was vehicle mounted and it seems that only some 2500 were made. So it seems that in itself not much fun for infantry in combat, maybe for a air nut who only wants to hear what the airboys were talking about but IMHO all normal soldiers would have prefered portable trasceiver. I have thought that Tornister was Heer's standard infantry radio.

British infantry radios were smaller than Tornister, weighting 15kg (Type 18 ) or 10Kg (Type 38 ) and while using a bit higher frequencies than Tornister were still HF radios. British efforts to produce portable Infantry VHF radios failed.

Juha


----------



## davebender (Apr 28, 2009)

A nice site!

It's my understanding that the German Army emphasized the use of dedicated artillery forward observers who were attached to combat units they were supporting. That's an inherently superior way to adjust artillery fire. The typical platoon leader is too busy to do a proper job directing artillery even if he has the skills to do so. The artillery forward observer will obviously have the best available communications equipment.


----------



## Juha (Apr 28, 2009)

Hello Dave
I don’t know army which didn’t prefer arty FO teams to adjust arty fire, but because in every army there were only limited number of these it was still much better to have someone with radio at platoon level than not. 

Juha


----------



## Soren (Apr 28, 2009)

Well Juha you just made the claim that the Germans didn't carry around as many radios as the Western Allies. Now I'm not sure wether this was actually the case, but I'd like some info on it if you have it.

As for the Köln E52b, I didn't mention it because that's what I was proposing for my infantry unit, I mentioned it to show to you that the Germans infact made better radios than anyone else. 

For my platoon I'd probably use something like the Kleinfunksprecher d two way radio reciever or the Torn. Fu. d 2 Portable *VHF* tranceiver (17 kg only!). There's also the 15W.S.E.a HF transceiver.

Btw, on the issue of high fidelity sound:
Magnetophon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And here another picture from the archive:


----------



## parsifal (Apr 28, 2009)

It is true that the germans attempted to introduce VHF frequencies for their battlefield comms. It is not true that this development pre-dated or superseded the allied efforts, particularly the british. 

British engineers had developed workable designs for VHF comms in the early part of the war. These were developed postwar into the Larkspur series of comms devices. They were not introduced into the british Army until after the war, because such a conversion would take time, and money, both of which were in short supply during the war years. It should also be noted that HF frequencies maintain a better level of communication over VHF frequencies over longer distances, but VHF provides clearer, more secure communications in a battlefield environment (ie over shorter ranges).

The Germans were more advanced in achieving engineering solutions for their VHF technologies at the end of the war, but the development of the technologies themselves lagged behind the British by about two years.

The reason why the US adopted German technologies after the war had nothing to do with its superior performance. Compared to the British Larkspur series (and derivatives) it is a decidedly inferior system, in fact. The US adopted simply because it was already developed, and could be obtained for free, as war booty essentially

Plus, I am not at all convinced that the US did not have VHF technologies available to it during the war iteself. This site, indicates that in fact they posesed quite a range of VHF sets, issued at a scale far in excess that enjoyed by the Germans 

Here is the link for those that are interested

U.S. Military Portable Radios


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2009)

I don't see any WW2 sets on that site which come close to the German VHF sets.


----------



## Juha (Apr 29, 2009)

Hello Soren
on the level of where radios were distibuted, last time saw that in Zaloga's Lorraine, have seen same also earlier, US down to platoon level, SCR-536 HF/AM hand held radios, at company level SCR-300 VHF/FM one man back radios. Tech. specs, see Parsifal's link. Heer only to company level. British, no time to check but their HF radios were lighter than Germany's See my #26 vs your messages, but were they better,maybe better (or not) than Germany's HF but IMHO not as good as Germany's VHF radios.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2009)

Take the Torn. Fu. d 2 portable VHF tranceiver, 17 kg all together, and see if you can find anything Allied that came close, I can't. (And btw, the design is from 1936, so Parsifal's claim that the Germans were behind to begin with seems incorrect)

Lo1UK35 tranceiver, German WWII, WW2

As for the level of distribution, again I'm not sure how low it went in the Heer compared to the US Army or Commonwealth forces, but I'm pretty sure the FallschirmJaeger GebirgsJaeger's were issued with radios down to squad level, and later on with the extremely light Dorette types.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 29, 2009)

We should not get too side tracked, but this is an interesting discussion.

I wuld concede that the german set mentioned by Soren is a good one, but I do draw issue that it was the best by far. 

I never said, incidentally that the british were ahead in all fields of radio, simply that their research during the war was ahead of the germans, regarding VHF technologies, because of their developments various conductors, and some other areas that I have since forgotten. Evidence of that can be found in their "larkspur" series of transceivers, which I consider to be years ahead of anything else in that genre. However these high quality transceivers wqere not introduced until after the war, for reasons of economy and time, which I have previously alluded to. 

But returning to the issue of the German equipment versus the Allied equipment. I think firstly I should provide some information that I do have.

Here are the links to firstly, the British military radios of the period. Britain did not convert to VHF frequencies until postwar, so their short range radio equipment was not as good as the germans during the war. However, HF is superior to VHF over longer distances, and in this area I believe the British held an advantage.

Anyway here is the best link I know of that summarises the British transceivers of the period....

Wireless Sets. List of technical data on vintage British Army Wireless Sets.

The other piece of information that I have is the TM-11-242, which is the instruction manual for the chief US man-portable set of the war (and most comparable to the german equipment. This is the link for you to have a look at

http://www.scr300.org/jpgs/SCR-300-A-003.jpg


I dont see any great advantage for the german equipment in this comparison. The German set was a 1 watt transmitter (very powerful) operating in AM frequency with an output of 33.8 mhz thru to 38.0 mhz frequency. The frequency is important because the shorter the wavelength, the clearer the signal. However the fact that it operated in the AM mode must have affected its clarity to a degree. How much I dont know. It weighed 17.2 Kg, or about 38 lbs.

By comparison, the SCR 300 were only a 0.3 watt output, but has a sensitve receiver capability at only 0.2 milliwatts.....meaning it could receive quite weak signals. The US equipment operated in the FM band, with an out put of 40-48 Mhz. To be honest I dont know which set would be clearer, each one has advantages and disadvanatages. The US set was lighter than the German equipment at 33.2 lbs (although this could go up to 38 lbs if a heavier battery was used....generally the lighter weight battery was used in Infantry formations. 

Make of this what you will, but I dont see any clearcut advantage for the German equipment. I know also that the British became worls leaders in the postwar era, up until the '70s and were not using German derived technology


----------



## parsifal (Apr 29, 2009)

A couple of further observations that I forgot to mention. The SCR 300 had a nominal range of about 20 miles, according to one source I could find.

SCR 300 was a device issued at Company to Platoon level, with more than 50000 produced for the US Army. The SCR was dubbed the "Walkie Talkie" by the forces using it. It entered general usage in 1943, after Torch, but before Sicily.

The Platoon to Squad level device was the SCR 536, known as the "Handie Talkie" (but often mistakenly referred to as the "Walkie Talkie") was the famous hand held sets we see in movies and such. Most front line American Infantry Squads would have had access to them , as more than 150000 were delivered to the US Army, to equip about 70 Infantry Divisions or so. To give a handie talkie to each Infantry Squad in a Division, which is roughly 300 sets per division. To equip all 70 divs with the SCR 536 (as it was officially callied) would require 210000. There were other radio sets in use in the US army, so very roughly it appears in my opinion to be possible for the "handie Talkie" to be considered a squad level comms device.

I dont think there was anything comparable in any other army, but I will stand corrected if alternative evidence can be presented. Certainly the Torn.FU.d2 series, and every other German man portable radio I have seen are more Platoon or Company level devices.

The SCR-536 was much more limited in its capability compared to the SCR-300. It weighed 2.3 kg and had a range of about one mile, and similar to the German sets, used AM technology.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 29, 2009)

And a few pictures of allied squad/platoon/company level comms devices in the Allied Armies...

First up is the SCR 300


----------



## parsifal (Apr 29, 2009)

Here I have a couple of shots of the SCR 536


----------



## parsifal (Apr 29, 2009)

Finally I have a couple of Shots of British equipment. The first is the general issue W-18, issued from 1940, the next is the W-38 II issued from 1941, and the last is a W 48, issued from 1942. The specs for these sets are in the link that I gave you guys


----------



## Juha (Apr 29, 2009)

Hello Soren
On German armed forces
Even Motorized Infantry Coys didn’t have radios in Summer 42, see KStN 138c and KStN 1114(Afr). At Battalion (Mot. Inf) level there were 4 Pack Radio Sect d. In 90.leichte Afrika D 2 Pack Radio Sect d and 2 Lt Armd Radio Sect d.

And same to SS Inf Coy (mot) in Summer 44, they still follow KStN 138c. Battalion level as above, Sources Leo Niehorster’s series of German WWII organizations

Parsifal
Nice photos, Thanks!

Juha


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2009)

Parsifal,

Did you read about the "Dorette" ? This was a squad level radio. Here it is again:
15W.S.E.a transmitter and receiver, German WWII, WW2

Now how does that compare to the "Handie Talkie" ? 

I believe the FallschirmJaeger GebirgsJaeger were equipped with this piece at squad level. I'm not sure enough were made to equip the Wehrmacht Waffen SS though, so they were relying on the Torn.Fu.d 2 and the like at Companie level mostl likely. But so far I've seen no data to suggest that the Western Allies were equipped with more radios, or that they were equipped at squad level.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 29, 2009)

Soren said:


> Parsifal,
> 
> Did you read about the "Dorette" ? This was a squad level radio. Here it is again:
> 15W.S.E.a transmitter and receiver, German WWII, WW2
> ...



I agree that this "Dorette" was small enough to be a squad level radio, but it was not built until October 1944, and we have no information on production numbers or distribution. Also the information provided in the link is extremely sketchy so I cannot make any real comparison. 

What would establish the German scale of distribution would be some figures on production of the various types. The Allies produced enough radios to distribute them down to squad level......just two types selected (as a sample) from perhaps a dozen used yields a production run of 50000 for the SCR-300 and 150000 for the SCR-536. These numbers suggest a very wide distribution of radios , down to squad level (fairly easily) for most of the war. 

What we need is the production figures for the German sets.....


----------



## parsifal (Apr 29, 2009)

A good example of equipment similar to the Dorette was the w-38. The Mk III was introduced from early 1944, and was hermetically sealed, making it completely waterproof. 

Its details (that I know of) are:

Wireless Set No. 38 Mk.3 was based on the No. 38 Mk. II* model but with a much improved netting and tuning facility. In addition, it was tropicalised (hermetically sealed in a die-cast aluminium case) and carried on the operator's back, the control being a mechanically operated remote control. The basic circuit compared to the Mk.II* is not changed very much. 
Crystal calibrator No. 9 fitted to the case for calibrating and netting. 
Case hermetically sealed and tropicalised. 
Standard 150V/3V No. 38 Set battery. 
Issued in 1944. 
Manufactured at Murphy Radio Ltd. 
Use: short range Infantry communication. Frequency range 7.4-9.2MHz. MO control. RF output 0.2W. R/T only. Range: up to 1 mile using long 12ft rod. This set has unique design features using only 5 valves. 

For comparison, the data for the German equipment (such as we know) is as follows:

_This transceiver came in to service in October 1944 and was produced under a short time.
This is a lightweight two-way radio transceiver.


Frequency range 32 – 38 MHz
Power output: 0.2 Watt
Power input: 1.4 Volt and 150 Volt
Operating time with one battery: 25 hour (20% transmit – 80% receive)
Antenna Band antenna – 1.6 meter
Tubes Two RL1P2 and one DDD25
Size, transceiver: 13 x 7 x 20 cm
Size, battery box 13 x 7 x 20 cm
Weight transceiver: 1.6 kg
Weight battery box 1.5 kg_ 


A quick Picture or two of the W-38 mk III


----------



## Juha (Apr 29, 2009)

Some British radio production numbers from Artillery Communications

Type 18 76,000
Type 38 187,000

Juha


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 30, 2009)

Have to ask. Is a plutoon the same number of dudes in the US Army, British Army etc.?


----------



## Juha (Apr 30, 2009)

Number of men in platoon, it depends from army and branch and timeframe, but say 30-40men.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2009)

A platoon normally consists of between 20 to 40 men, but it can be lower. A squad is normally 3 to 5 men.


----------



## Juha (Apr 30, 2009)

Finnish squad in 70s was one Corpral (>>) plus 7 men, Pioneer/Combat Engineer/Sapper what ever it is called in English squad was 1+7+a driver, the driver wasn't integral but usually attached.

British Army 1944 Inf Platoon had 1 officer + 36 men, it consist of 3 sections (squads) of 10 men, a 2" mortar team + probably signal men.

German armoured Inf squads should have had 1 SdKfz 251/1 each, so it was about the size of British section

US Inf squads had 12 men, Armoured Inf squads had one M3 half-track each.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Apr 30, 2009)

There was a lot of variation in squad and platoon sizes, depending on lossesand the stage of the war. Gemran authorized strengths on the eastern front were seldom up to strength, and according to Costello averaged out at about 40% authorized complement. There was this constant stream of men leaving units, usually for recovery from some form of illness or wound, and then returning some months later. 5/6 of combat casualties were non-lethal or non-permanent, and about 30-40% of total casualties were not even combat related.

The Russians had a unique and strange replacement system. To them, a division was an expendable item, and they deliberately built their divisions up as pure combat elements. There was very little "tail in a Russian division. The Russians did not expect a division fully engaged on a front to last more than a few days. They would fight the thiing down to cadre strength, pull out those cadres, and retire the Division for rebuilding. It was a vicious system, but it worked.. Typically a russian Infantry Div was either full strength or resting/rebuilding.

The western allies suffered hevay casualties, but nowhere near the catastrophic levels suffered by the Russians and Germans. On average, in 1944-5 the US divisions suffered about 3-3500 casulaties each in the 9 months of fighting. That is a deceptive number, however. The allies had relatively few fighting elements in their divisions as compared to the Germans or Russians. The british Divisional slice is very illuminating in this regard. Nominally there were 18500 men in a British Infantry Division, however, if you include the support echelons, the supply guys, drivers, LOC troops and the like, the number is over 55000 men. However, of that 18/55000 men, only 3500 were Infantry combat elements. The Infantry in the US and the British armies suffered well over 90% of the total casualties for each army, so the 3500 casualties means that if you were in the Infantry and went ashore at the Normandy landings you statistically only had about a 50% chance of surviving, provided all casualties before your number came up had been immediately replaced . 

I have a couple of books that give details on squad/platoon sizes and equipments scales which I can post up if people would like


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2009)

A squad is 10 men strong normally, thats' true, the fire teams are 3 to 5 men strong, a missprint on my part.

The Germans did have 5 man squads late in the war though.


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2009)

What form of transport would you guys propose for the US Commonwealth platoons ? 

The Soviet platoon is going to be tricky though..


----------



## Soren (May 12, 2009)

For the Soviet platoon I think the STZ-5 is great choice for land transport. As for transport by air, the Soviets are pretty much at a loss here.

The US platoon would be well of with the M29 Weasel as a small tower. As for carrying the men, well not sure what they would use at this point. Now I've found a number of heavy tracked movers, such as the M4,5 6 tractors, but the problem is their all very large and as heavy as a tank, making transport by air almost impossible, and the engine takes up so much space that they can hardly carry any men. 

Remember this is about creating a unit is capable of operating in the invirontments listed:
Jungles
Winter landscapes
Deserts 
Mountains


----------



## parsifal (May 12, 2009)

Probably the best Soviet platoon/squad level halftracks would be the ZIS-42 series, of which over 8000 were manufactured.

I would also consider the STZ-5 fully tracked vehicle. Although used mainly as an ammunition tractor, they were also pressed into service at times, particularly when the mud or snow prevented other forms of transports, as Infantry transport. The German RSO was a very similar design, and one its main attractions was its low cost. More than 12000 STZ-5s were manufactured. 

Some pictures of the same


----------



## parsifal (May 12, 2009)

Soren said:


> For the Soviet platoon I think the STZ-5 is great choice for land transport. As for transport by air, the Soviets are pretty much at a loss here.



What about the Li-2 the licence built C-47????


----------



## Soren (May 12, 2009)

parsifal said:


> What about the Li-2 the licence built C-47????



Couldn't carry as much as a single STZ-5 mate. That's the issue atm. We gotta find a Soviet transport a/c which can carry this.

As for the ZIS-42, isn't it abit on the large side ?


----------



## parsifal (May 12, 2009)

well, the Li-2 was the Soviet version of the best transport aircraft of the time, the DC-3, so if this aircraft cant cut the grade, no other aircraft is going to do better....


The ZIS was the light truck of the Soviet army....rated at 1.5 tons capacity. It is a bit large, but then it is also one of the the smallest truck used in the Soviet army


----------



## Soren (May 12, 2009)

parsifal said:


> well, the Li-2 was the Soviet version of the best transport aircraft of the time, the DC-3, so if this aircraft cant cut the grade, no other aircraft is going to do better....



Really ? I can think of a few:

Me-323 (Could carry atleast 3 RSO's plus all the personnel)
Arado-232 (Could carry 2 RSO's plus abit of personnel)
Ju-252 (Could carry 2 cars plus abit of personnel) 
Ju-290 (Could carry 2 cars plus abit of personnel)
Ju-390 (Could carry 3 cars plus abit of personnel)
BV-222 (Could carry 3 cars plus much of the personnel)

And I know the US had some a/c capable of transporting vehicles as-well.

Problem with the DC-3 is that it's a small a/c, and will only be able to carry some of the men. You'd never be able to fit a car yet alone a STZ-5 in it, and if you could then it wouldn't be able to lift off.



> The ZIS was the light truck of the Soviet army....rated at 1.5 tons capacity. It is a bit large, but then it is also one of the the smallest truck used in the Soviet army



Well it's too large IMO, I think the STZ-5 is a better choice. Problem with both though is also their weight..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2009)

Soren said:


> Problem with the DC-3 is that it's a small a/c, and will only be able to carry some of the men. You'd never be able to fit a car yet alone a STZ-5 in it, and if you could then it wouldn't be able to lift off.



Actually that is wrong. The C-47 could carry Jeeps.

This is taken from the official Boeing Website:

_As a supply plane, the C-47 could carry up to 6,000 pounds of cargo. It could also hold a *fully assembled jeep or a 37 mm cannon.* As a troop transport, it carried 28 soldiers in full combat gear. As a medical airlift plane, it could accommodate 14 stretcher patients and three nurses.
_


We have even posted pictures here before of a Jeep being loaded onto a Jeep through the rear doors.


----------



## Soren (May 12, 2009)

Ok, a jeep, a very small car. But that's it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2009)

Soren said:


> Ok, a jeep, a very small car. But that's it.



Still a car...


----------



## Soren (May 12, 2009)

Sure, but what can we use that for Adler ? One small car and no personnel. 

In short: we need another a/c.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2009)

Soren said:


> Sure, but what can we use that for Adler ? One small car and no personnel.
> 
> In short: we need another a/c.



No there are different kinds of transports used for different kinds of missions. If you only rely on one kind of aircraft because it can carry 2 cars, that is kind of pointless...


----------



## Soren (May 12, 2009)

The only mission the DC-3 can help our platoon with is one where only the men can go. That's the problem. You need another type of a/c, one that is more versatile.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2009)

Soren said:


> The only mission the DC-3 can help our platoon with is one where only the men can go. That's the problem. You need another type of a/c, one that is more versatile.



How is that? A platoon of infantry does not need anything else.


----------



## Soren (May 12, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How is that? A platoon of infantry does not need anything else.



They don't ? Hmm.... I wouldn't look forward to walking 200 miles and take weeks to accomplish what could've been done in a couple of days.

What you want is the ability to bring the max amount of firepower in there as fast as possible in as small a package as possible. That's the goal.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2009)

Soren said:


> They don't ? Hmm.... I wouldn't look forward to walking 200 miles and take weeks to accomplish what could've been done in a couple of days.
> 
> What you want is the ability to bring the max amount of firepower in there as fast as possible in as small a package as possible. That's the goal.



See there you go, It depends on the mission. A Squad or platoon is probably not going to have anything other than their personal equipment and weapons.

Most Squads of infantry are not going to have there own private vehicles.


----------



## parsifal (May 12, 2009)

The C-47s could carry tanks using gliders. There is no reason to suggest that the Russian Li-2s could not do the same. 

The C-47s also were superioor to the types you mentioned in their rough strip landing characteristics. The standard German transport, the Ju-52, suggered massive attrition rates on the eastern front, partly because of the difficulties it experienced with rough strips. The other aircraft pressed into the Stalingrad releif operation suffered very similar attritiopn rates.

The C-47s were used in comparably rougth situations in Burma and New Guinea and suffered extremely low attrition rates. They were superior to the larger C-46 commandos in Burma because they had better handling characteristics at altitude.

I dont know the attrition rates for the Li-2s in the Russian winters, but I am willing to bet that they are lower than any German transport fielded during the war.

Also the chief use for transports is to get to places where the road system cannot get your people there efficiently. The Russians used their transport fleets extremely efficiently during the conquest of Manchuria in 1945. The tanks were kept re-supplied as they moved through Manchuria (outflanking the japanese defence lines) because the transports were able to keep fuel and ammunition up to them. Doesnt prove their ability as Infantry transports, but it does demonstrate the ability of the Li-2 as a reliable trransport, able to operate under rough conditions.

I would take an Li-2 over any of the essentially experimental types you mentioned any day. I am not saying those heavier types are not useful, but overall, they cannot perform with as much utility and reliability as the C-47/Li-2


----------



## Colin1 (May 12, 2009)

I might have missed something
Is the thread concerned with stand-alone squads, or how the squads would be constructed within a larger formation of similarly constructed squads? If it's stand-alone, then for air insertion

If we're talking 10-15 man-sized squads
then vehicles are irrelevant, they won't be going. A squad that size DOES NOT want to be penetrating aircraft-hop deep into enemy territory and then making that much noise ie a marked, motorised vehicle. It will attract attention, attention that a 15-man squad, whatever you want to arm it with, is not going to be able to deal with; its ability to defend itself will be its undoing, it will only attract more attention.
A squad that size, that deep, is probably on a LRRP OP/recon/demolition mission and will be avoiding enemy contact rather than courting it. It will fight if it has to but it will be on the very sensible basis of trying to break contact rather than maintain it - running away, if you want it in simple terms.
Insertion by air will almost certainly be by parachute, no vehicles. If they hit the DZ and then have to walk 200 miles to achieve what they could have done much more easily with vehicles then tough, that's why they're called Special Forces (the sort of people who would be conducting that kind of mission).

You would see vehicles at something like brigade level, eg a large airdrop of forces behind the main battlefront where commanders need the rapid communication with each other that vehicles would provide and, due to the size of the drop, the additional noise is largely academic.
Even a drop this size would be reliant upon hooking up with a surface-based thrust from their own side of the lines or they too, eventually, would be unable to deal with what came next.


----------



## Amsel (May 12, 2009)

That makes sense, Colin. That is why I wanted to add a USMC Raider squad in there. The Marines were assault troops who specialized in moving fast and hitting hard. The Raiders were especially good at guerrilla and counter-guerrilla operations.


----------



## Juha (May 13, 2009)

Soren
Quote: “The US platoon would be well of with the M29 Weasel as a small tower. As for carrying the men, well not sure what they would use at this point. Now I've found a number of heavy tracked movers, such as the M4,5 6 tractors, but the problem is their all very large and as heavy as a tank, making transport by air almost impossible, and the engine takes up so much space that they can hardly carry any men.”

I really wonder what you are meaning. M29 could carry men, its main function was carry men and material over thick snow or over very muddy or otherwise soft terrain.

If you mean for ex. your M4 tractor the Tractor, High Speed, 18-ton, M4, it main function was to tow heavy guns, for ex 240mm. And as other gun tractors, it towed the gun and carried gun crew and ammo. And the gun crew of 240mm gun wasn’t small. So it could carry a squad but really was not designed to do that and much less to be airtransported. But as wrote earlier, normally squad or platoon wasn't intended to be air-transported to combat zone, that's a job paras or glider troops.
Now to airtransport heavier vehicles to combat zones Allied usually used big gliders, Hamilcar was capable to carry small tanks, so it could easily carry Jeeps or Beeps.

Juha


----------



## Soren (May 13, 2009)

parsifal said:


> The C-47s could carry tanks using gliders. There is no reason to suggest that the Russian Li-2s could not do the same.
> 
> The C-47s also were superioor to the types you mentioned in their rough strip landing characteristics. The standard German transport, the Ju-52, suggered massive attrition rates on the eastern front, partly because of the difficulties it experienced with rough strips. The other aircraft pressed into the Stalingrad releif operation suffered very similar attritiopn rates.



I'm not sure how you can conclude that when the C-47 didn't see action on the eastern front. The copycat Li-2 did, but did it do better than the Ju-52 ? Also where is your source for your claim ? And if you have one, is a/c other than the Ju-52 mentioned ? 

At any rate the Arado 232 beats the C-47 by miles when it comes to landing taking off from rough landing strips Parsifal, and it is also the a/c which needs by far the shortest landing and take off strip of all the a/c mentioned: 200 m with 4 tons of cargo, and even less when equipped with RATO rockets.



> I dont know the attrition rates for the Li-2s in the Russian winters, but I am willing to bet that they are lower than any German transport fielded during the war.



Bet ? And that is useful to us how ?



> I would take an Li-2 over any of the essentially experimental types you mentioned any day. I am not saying those heavier types are not useful, but overall, they cannot perform with as much utility and reliability as the C-47/Li-2



Besides the Ju-390 what other a/c were "experimental" Parsifal ? Answer: None.

The Ju-252 saw limited production, but it served very successfully with the LW being prized by its' pilots. 

The Me-323 was a full production a/c, and it did very well. 

The Ju-290 was a full production a/c, and again it did very well. (Was used as an airliner after the war and go top marks)

The Ar-232B was a full production a/c, and it did excellently in all conditions. It was tested by Eric Brown after the war who gave it top marks and expressed its clear superiority over Allied transport a/c.

The BV-222 was a full producion a/c, and it did great.


----------



## Soren (May 13, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> I might have missed something
> Is the thread concerned with stand-alone squads, or how the squads would be constructed within a larger formation of similarly constructed squads? If it's stand-alone, then for air insertion
> 
> If we're talking 10-15 man-sized squads
> ...



We're talking a 30 to 40 man platoon Colin, and it needs to be self reliant much of the time, hence the need for vehicles. Nowhere was it mentioned that they be dropped behind enemy lines. 

Also Special forces often rely on vehicles for transport on land, esp. if the target area is far away from the nearest possible DZ, and often that equipment is dropped by air or sailed in at shore (Or Commandeered). It depends on the mission. The SAS Long Range Desert Group is a good example of this, speeding around in their armed cars hitting axis airfields and causing a lot of havoc. Fact of the matter is that vehicles are essential to any military Special Forces unit, if you don't have them then a lot of missions change from extremely hazardous to impossible.

But this is btw not a discussion about a Special Forces unit, it's a regular combat squad.


----------



## Colin1 (May 13, 2009)

Soren said:


> A squad is 10 men strong normally, thats' true, the fire teams are 3 to 5 men strong, a missprint on my part.
> 
> The Germans did have 5 man squads late in the war though.


That's what I thought you were talking about, not a platoon



Soren said:


> Really ? I can think of a few:
> 
> Me-323 (Could carry atleast 3 RSO's plus all the personnel)
> Arado-232 (Could carry 2 RSO's plus abit of personnel)
> ...


So if we're NOT going behind enemy lines, why is all of this important? The concept of _airborne_ was devised and implemented during WWII, I don't recall any combatant boasting of an _airportable_ capability, which is what this must be if we're only getting troops to the start line rather than across it.



Soren said:


> Sure, but what can we use that for Adler ? One small car and no personnel.
> 
> In short: we need another a/c.


Again, why? If we're staying this side of the line, there'll be surface transport at the airfield we're landing at



Soren said:


> Also Special forces often rely on vehicles for transport on land, esp. if the target area is far away from the nearest possible DZ, and often that equipment is dropped by air or sailed in at shore (Or Commandeered). It depends on the mission. The SAS Long Range Desert Group is a good example of this, speeding around in their armed cars hitting axis airfields and causing a lot of havoc. Fact of the matter is that vehicles are essential to any military Special Forces unit, if you don't have them then a lot of missions change from extremely hazardous to impossible.
> 
> But this is btw not a discussion about a Special Forces unit, it's a regular combat squad.


The WWII LRDG and the modern Mobility Troop from each Sabre Squadron do indeed rely on vehicles for transport, that is their speciality insertion technique. Their Air Troops on the other hand will either HALO in or possibly use a conventional static line parachute insertion. Vehicle exfil obviously can't be ruled out because it might be the most viable method but they will likely have another route out once the job is done; this could range from helo to submarine exfil.

I wasn't trying to drive this debate in the direction of an SF squad, it seemed to be driving itself that way.
Again, maybe I missed something


----------



## Soren (May 13, 2009)

It's ok Colin I understand your confusion, I think I've been stumbling abit about in regards to what size the unit should be. But a 30 to 40 man platoon is the idea, so lets take it from there on.

Also I meant to say combat platoon in my last message btw, sorry about that.

As for why a/c are needed, it is not necessarily to drop the men behind enemy lines (Esp. since a border line in war is a relative term), but it might be a necessity in many cases in the inviroments we're talking about. Like for example in the Burmese jungles, where airstrips are nearly none existant and certain natural obtacles make sure that you can't start off with transport by land, it would just be way too slow. Or in mountainous terrain where you sometimes absolutely need a/c to get the heavy equipment up there.

Lets say for example that the Germans suddenly decided that they wanted Iceland before the Allies got a hold of it (Hypothesis), then they could land a platoon by sea or by air. A couple of Ar-232 could simply land on some crop fields, or what'ever reasonably flat space they can find (A road perhaps), load off the men and the equipment, and voila, they got the island under control (Iceland has no military).


----------



## Colin1 (May 13, 2009)

Soren said:


> It's ok Colin I understand your confusion, I think I've been stumbling abit about in regards to what size the unit should be


No worries
interesting thread


----------



## Juha (May 13, 2009)

Soren
Quote: “Lets say for example that the Germans suddenly decided that they wanted Iceland before the Allies got a hold of it (Hypothesis), then they could land a platoon by sea or by air. A couple of Ar-232 could simply land on some crop fields, or what'ever reasonably flat space they can find (A road perhaps), load off the men and the equipment, and voila, they got the island under control (Iceland has no military).”

Now firstly if country has no military doesn’t mean that one can occupy it with a few platoons. In Finland our farmers had fought against regulars in numerous wars and still most of them had rifles and they hunt. I don’t know much on Icelander farmers but I know that they keep Iceland free of polar bears, so at least some of them had powerful rifles and know how to stalk and shoot dangerous animals. Of course if Icelanders took one as a protector, it doesn’t matter how small the force is but of course it should have been so large that it would have had reasonable chances against enemy’s counterlanding(s). And of course one should have had ability to supply and support it.

If one had wanted to occupy Reykjavik, the capital of Iceland during WWII, why to try to land on some crop field, there might have been some hidden boulders, why not land on Reykjavik’s airport? British might have sent by Hamilcar gliders a couple light tanks, a couple Daimler armoured cars, some carriers, a couple of them with mortar teams, a couple scout cars. As armoured vehicles they would have been hard nuts to riflemen before these could develop some means to fight against them (Molotov cocktails, improvised explosive devices), maybe a couple Morris C.8 SP Bofors guns. Mostly of infantry, arriving say in Stirlings or Halifaxes, would use taken local vehicles which probably were well suited to local terrain. More troops and heavy equipment would have been sent by ships.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (May 14, 2009)

There was never the slightest chance of the germans invading Iceland. The British invaded it with over 25000 men in May 1940. I dont believe there were any airfields, though I concede i am not sure. British Battleships would have made short work of it if there was even a hint of a german invasion. 

Two plane loads of germans Infantry or airbonrne Infantry would have resulted in two plane loads of german prisoners.

In the vernacular of the time, the most effective airborne troops were the so-called airlanding troops, the troops who were brought in by glider. These troops were able to transport substantial quantities of heavy equipment and vehicles. Both sides found the use of gliders preferable to the construction of heavy transports, primarily because the medium transports were vastly more effieicient, dollar for dollar, than the larger types, and because gliders were essentially expendable items able to deliver a very large punch in a very short space of time.

The other principal employment of airmobile formations were the British Chindits. Here the C-47 was supreme, due to its unsurpassed rough handling characteristics. The majority of the force moved over 200 miles by land, but an advance force landed on the strip using the Dakotas. Thereafter the Dakotas kept the forces supplied and this demanded that the aircraft used retain a high serviceability rate and be able to fly under the most appalling conditions . In the first campaign, the Chindits were eventually defeated, or rather elected to withdraw, whilst in the second ooperation they were a crucial element for the final victory in Burma.

Airborne transport was useful in areas where wheeled transport was difficult to get access to the target. Burma was an obvious answer, as was New Guinea, where the entire campaign was supported logistically using the "biscuit bombers". Here the high serviceability rates stood the Dak in good stead. In Manchuria, an entire Soviet Front, moving at very high speed through the trackless wastes of Mongolia where wheeled support vehicles could not traverse were kept mobile by the ceaseless support of the Li-2 and Lend lease C-47 fleets. The Russian employment of their transport fleet in this operation was nothing short of masterly, enabling them to conquer a well defended piece of Real Estate bigger than western Europe, in less than a month. It remains the single most successful blitzkrieg operation in history, with more than a million enemy casualties in less than two weeks.

The key to airborne transport is, like all this discussion about hardware in wwii, an argument about getting as much force projected as you can. If you are going to develop an air transportable capability, you need to do it in sufficient numbers as to make a difference. The German types mentioned by Soren cannot produce that kind of mass and numbers. The types were too few in number to matter, too vulnerable in the case of the Me 323, and simply too expensive to build and maintain and moreover, in my opinion, were not as good as the Dakota in rough handling and serviceability issues, which are crucial in the types of campaign your air transportable assets are likley to be engaged in. For this reason I am in no doubt that the C-47, and all its foreign permutations is a far superior aircraft to use as an Infantry squad/platoon/company mount for air tranport operations. It is of modest size, reasonable performance, high serviceability, docile onground characteristics. It is cheap to build, and availble in large numbers. this should be a no-brainer


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2009)

Some people just don't understand the word "Hypothesis"! 

No the Germans did not invade Iceland and weren't going to either, it was a hypothetical example, nothing more. But if they were the first to get there then a 40 man platoon could very effectively take control of the island until reinforcements arrived. The populace weren't going to prove the slightest threat to that, anyone who thinks the opposite needs to get educated about Iceland and the actual number of people who lived there in the 30's 40's.

Also this is about creating the best WW2 platoon possible! Not about how much was available of the equipment you want to use for your unit, I thought that was a no-brainer!

There are many reasons for why certain types of equipment only were produced in limited numbers, such as cost, change of priorities etc etc.. The Ar-232B was already in full production when the production line was shut down in order to instead create fighter aircraft at the introduction of the emergency fighter program. But this doesn't change the fact that it was the best transport a/c out there, with unrivalled rough handling characteristics and the ability to take off land on the shortest fields roads whilst carrying huge loads. 

And as for the Me-323 being too vulnerable, it was no more vulnerable than any other WW2 transport a/c. To conclude otherwise would be ignoring obvious facts.


----------



## parsifal (May 14, 2009)

Soren, you are not understanding the alternative way of approaching this issue. The problem with your theory is that whilst you may very well produce the best squad in a technical sense, with the best and most expensive equipment you can think of, in actual point of fact you are producing the worst Infantry squad, why, quite simply because of the cost. 

Take your aircraft mount for example. you have chosen the AR 232B because you rightly assert it has impressive performance characteristics. But the AR 232B utilized 4 engines, and adopted technology that required much effort and development to put into effect. the result is, and was, that only a handful could be built, and had no impact on the course of the war. i acknowledge that the Luftwaffe had other priorities in 1942-4 when this aircraft was being produced, but that is precisely the point. to be effective, it had to be available in numbers, or potentially available in numbers, and this just wasnt going to happen with this aircraft, or any of the others you selected for that matter.

By comparison, the Dakota used existing technology, easily produced and replicated. the result was that it could be fielded in such numbers as to make a real difference to the outcome of the war. But to boot, it happened to excel at the sort of operation it needed to do, namely, to transport things to all manner of rough strips and out of the way places, and do it very cheaply I might say.

So it needs to be a given that your squad needs to be easily replicated, otherwise it would remain a pointless, expensive experiment, as was so often the case with German endeavours during the war


----------



## Juha (May 14, 2009)

Soren
do you seriously think that 40 men "could very effectively take control of the island " which has the area of 103.000 sqkm and had a population of say 150.000? Knowing you, you probably reallythink so if the 40 men are Germans. 

Juha


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2009)

Parsifal,

The reason behind the low number of Ar-232B's built was the emergency fight program shutting down production almost emmidiately after it had begun, not because the a/c was unusually expensive or difficult to produce. 

As for the rest of the equipment proposed, most of it was in ample supply to the Germans during the war, and the rest could've easily been supplied in huge numbers if just a few of the needless projects such as the Maus, long range pulse cannon, railway guns etc etc had been shut down in favor of them.

So I will repeat, this is about creating the best WW2 platoon possible, not about the availability of the equipment you want your unit equipped with.


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2009)

To anyone who doesn't know much about Iceland, VERY few parts of it are populated, less than roughly 5% of the entire island infact, with most cities/villages lying close to the shore. So taking control of atleast the captital could be done with 40 men. Controlling Iceland for a few days is also made easier by the fact that there are very few areas where an enemy can land his troops.

Also worth noting here is that the Icelandic population was sympathic towards the Germans for a good period of time during the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 14, 2009)

And 40 troops are going to cover the whole island? Yeah okay...

How are those 40 troops going to stop an airborne landing?


----------



## Juha (May 14, 2009)

Parsifal
you are right, the city airport was made during the war, but there was a airstrip more or less at same place before the war. so gliders and paras. I chose Stirlings and Halifaxes just because they probably could have made from from Stornaway to Reykjavik and back while carrying paras, with Hamilcars they probably would have had to divert to Greenland and refuel there.

Soren 
I have been in Iceland, interior is almost empty of population but there are population all around the island in settlements, in villages, in small towns and on farms around the whole island, of course there are also long unpopulated stretches also on the coastal area. And in 40s road connections were very limited, boats and ships were main instruments of contacts between many places. And if the places could visited by ships, then one can land troops there. Also southern coastal plain in in many areas suitable to aerial landings, paras and gliders.

Juha


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And 40 troops are going to cover the whole island? Yeah okay...
> 
> How are those 40 troops going to stop an airborne landing?



Please read my above post. 

First of all there isn't much area to cover, secondly the men need only occupy the capital for a few days until reinforcements arrive.

As for stopping an airborne landing, depending on where it is ofcourse, they can inflict pretty serious casualties, while although not stop it if its a large one of the kind. The goal would also only be to set up a command post to monitor the island and guide the reinforcements. A similar thing was done on Greenland, the Germans setting up a small station with troops there. 

Now lets quit this discussion aout Iceland, we're heading offtopic here.


----------



## Juha (May 14, 2009)

Soren
are you claiming that those few Germans in a weather station controlled Greenland?

How you monitor a 103.000sqkm island from one place? There were many places where Allies could land soldiers, a platoon could not put even one man to every possible landing place, not even one super-German could be a serious opponent for ex Royal Marine raiding party with a heavy cruiser and a couple destroyers in call for fire support if needed.

Juha


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 14, 2009)

Soren said:


> First of all there isn't much area to cover, secondly the men need only occupy the capital for a few days until reinforcements arrive.



Soren, occupying the Capitol does not control the island. How are they going to keep bands of people from forming resistance groups over the island. 40 people can not stop that.

By the way I have been to Iceland, and the terrain is perfect for waging a gorilla type war against your 40 troops. In a few days time, the US could land massive amounts of troops in an airborne operation so in the end I still don't buy your scenerio.


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Soren, occupying the Capitol does not control the island. How are they going to keep bands of people from forming resistance groups over the island. 40 people can not stop that.
> 
> By the way I have been to Iceland, and the terrain is perfect for waging a gorilla type war against your 40 troops. In a few days time, the US could land massive amounts of troops in an airborne operation so in the end I still don't buy your scenerio.



Been there myself as-well, many many times. One of my best friends lives there. 

As for guerilla warfare, how are they gonna succeed in that with no weapons Adler ? Even today there are not many people with let alone a hunting rifle or shotgun on Iceland. 

Furthermore they would not rebel as they actually sympathized with the Germans, I already made that clear.

And finally the Germans could land massive amounts of troops as-well, infact that would be the plan, the 40 man airdrop just serving to monitor the island for a few days. And such a plan was even made by Germany during the war, even when British troops occupied the place.

Now shall we get back on topic or divert ever more away from it?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 14, 2009)

Soren said:


> Been there myself as-well, many many times. One of my best friends lives there.
> 
> As for guerilla warfare, how are they gonna succeed in that with no weapons Adler ? Even today there are not many people with let alone a hunting rifle or shotgun on Iceland.
> 
> ...



How do you know that the people did not have weapons at that time. You are only speculating again.

I think you have been reading Red Storm rising lately...


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How do you know that the people did not have weapons at that time. You are only speculating again.



I'm not speculating as much as you think. The Icelandic population have always lived off of their fishing, not hunting as there is very little to hunt on Iceland. My good buddy over there has told me that nearly no Icelander owns a hunting rifle or shotgun, something he told me after I asked him wether he had ever went hunting before. He joked that the only guns on Iceland were those left by some of the 18th century settlers there over 200 years ago 



> I think you have been reading Red Storm rising lately...



I have honestly never even heard of the book


----------



## Juha (May 14, 2009)

Soren
your buddy might have exaggerated a bit, according to Wildlife Management | english.ust.is

"The total population in Iceland is 290.570 as of 31st of December 2003. The total number of active hunters is 18.400. "

Juha


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2009)

Facts about Iceland:

In 1940 the population of Iceland was in total ~120,000 people, and less than 40,000 were grown up males. 

Hunting was almost none-existant in Iceland during the 1940's, with less than 1% of the population owning as much as a shotgun. Only the native police force of the capital, consisting of 70 men, had access to small-arms, i.e. their pistols and rifles. But only 60 of these men were trained in the use of firearms when England invaded in may 1940.

The morning of 10 May 1940 Iceland was invaded by a British invasion force numbering no more than 746 men. The only place occupied was the capital. The soldiers met no resistance, however the angry Icelandic government public protested against the invasion. Later on 25,000 men were sent cover the entire island, making sure no Axis forces could invade the island undetected and unpunished.


----------



## Juha (May 14, 2009)

Soren
Quote:” The morning of 10 May 1940 Iceland was invaded by a British invasion force numbering no more than 746 men. The only place occupied was the capital.”

No, British were more professional than that, see: Invasion of Iceland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote: “The invasion began in the early morning of 10 May 1940 with British troops disembarking in Reykjavík, capital of neutral Iceland. Meeting no resistance, the troops moved quickly to disable communication networks, secure strategic locations and arrest German citizens. Requisitioning local means of transportation, the troops moved to Hvalfjörður, Kaldaðarnes, Sandskeiði and Akranes to secure landing areas against the possibility of a German counterattack. In the following days air defence equipment was deployed in Reykjavík and a detachment of troops was sent to Akureyri.”

With a battalion one can do much more than with a platoon.

Juha


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2009)

Some more facts about the Invasion of Iceland:

The British invasion force consisted of 746 marines, ill-equipped and only partially trained.

The invasion was started by a recon plane flying over the capital, removing all elements of surprise in the case there was enemy troops there. Not until 2 hours later did 400 marines begin to sail towards Reykjavík to dock. In the case that there would have been enemy troops on the island the situation could've very quikly gotten ugly for the invading British troops.


----------



## Juha (May 14, 2009)

Yes
but British were at least so clever that they used a battalion as an initial force, with fire support of 2 cruisers and 2 destroyers in hand just in case. And saw need to occupy nearby landing areas immediately. A way more practical than put a platoon somewhere with a few vehicles to drive to Reykjavik, as someone has suggested.

Juha


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2009)

In the case of a German invasion of Iceland an initial force of 40 men landing first to interrupt radio telecommunications could prove very useful as a preparation for the main force to arrive and to assess possible dangers. The scout team could be landed somewhere close to the city at 1 AM, or sailed in by small boats, take over the radio and telecommunication stations under the cover of darkness. Meanwhile a second part of the team would move down through the town, making sure there are no enemies present, and find a suitable place for the troops to land. In the following hours the main force could move in to dock. All the while the Icelandic government officials could be alerted of what was going to happen and be told to remain calm and not resist.

After that a main force of probably 2,000 troops would move in to temporarily take over the rest of the island, or atleast the other nearby towns.


----------



## parsifal (May 14, 2009)

I have a list somewhere that gives the comparative costs of a large amount of different pieces of equipment. When I find it I will come back to this issue of cost. Suffice it to say that much of this luxurious German equipment is far more expensive than any of its competitors. This suggests that it is good quality, but that the cost of equippiung the squad will be prohibitve, and threfore the total number of squads that can be fielded will be limited. This, in my opinion makes the path of providing the most expensive and lavish scale of issue exactly the wrong way to go

Before embarking on the equipment issue, one has to understand the theory of small unit tactics, so that the right balance of force structure to unit costs can be arrived at. In WWII there were subtle, but important differences between the main combatants.

The most revolutionary concept in squad makeip came from the germans, involving principally the addition of a second LMG to the squad, and later, the introduction of assault rifles. An interim measure was the use of SMGs whyich gave enhanced firepower, but at short range. 

The British tended to view the rifle section as a separate element to the support guns. With the Lee Enfields they were equipped with, they could just get away with that thinking, but I think overall it was a mistake to view the rifle group as a separate source of firepower for the squad. I think the germans were closer to the mark, when they began to introduce a second LMG to the squad, which gave them an effective enfilade capbility. SMGs greatly increased the short range firepower of the squad, but this ability was achieved without loss of range with the late war assault rifles.

Strangely, the US squads had greeatly enhanced rates of fire with their garand equipped Infantry, but were then promprtly let down by LMG they were using, the BAR, which in no sense could be considered as adequately fulfilling the role of support gun for the squad

Anti-tank defence was also and issue. Early on this tended to be provided by AT rifles, but later these were supplanted by PIATs, Bazookas and the german equivalents. The Russians and Japanese failed to produce an effective squad level tank defence system in the late war period. For the japanese this was somewhat understandable, and in any case every third squad could rely on their 70mm BN guns, which remain one of the most versatile little pieces of ordinance ever devised. The Japanese were fighting mostly in restricted terrain, so their lack of a dedicated ATG is understandable (they also had access to a very effective 20mm ATR, so this explains why they did not make much effort in this regard). But until the end, the Russians relied on the ATRs they had had since before 1941, and these were pretty useless even at the best of times. 

Understanding Squad doctrines is the key to answering this issue. I thought people might want to look at that issue, so here is a link to a favourite page of mine....

Small Unit Formations


----------



## Juha (May 15, 2009)

Soren
your 2nd plan is much more realistic but 
Quote:" Meanwhile a second part of the team would move down through the town, making sure there are no enemies present, and find a suitable place for the troops to land."

is a bit unneccessary, the German consul with a couple helpers could do that and landing places were known beforehand but one could use a part of team to secure the landing place.

Juha


----------



## Soren (May 15, 2009)

Good post Parsifal, but lets forget about cost. This is about creating the best platoon possible, not about equipping an entire army the same way. 

So lets take it from thereon please.


----------



## yoda55 (Dec 5, 2013)

Bushido code imposed two reasons for fierocity with which the IJA/IJN troops treated an enemy:
(a) The energy with which the attacker imposed his actions both compensated for the inherent defender-to-attacker advantage in prepared positions AND as shock value to cause the opponent to hesitate.
(b) Prisoners were despised because the inmate failed to achieve success (shame) AND he failed to satisfy honor by committing Sepuku (ritual suicide).

These are the pre-eminent reasons for the energy and savagery with which the IJA/IJN conducted operations.


----------



## yulzari (Dec 7, 2013)

yoda55 said:


> Bushido code imposed two reasons for fierocity with which the IJA/IJN troops treated an enemy:
> (a) The energy with which the attacker imposed his actions both compensated for the inherent defender-to-attacker advantage in prepared positions AND as shock value to cause the opponent to hesitate.
> (b) Prisoners were despised because the inmate failed to achieve success (shame) AND he failed to satisfy honor by committing Sepuku (ritual suicide).
> 
> These are the pre-eminent reasons for the energy and savagery with which the IJA/IJN conducted operations.



Yet they treated their german prisoners quite well in WW1. What changed in 25 years I wonder?


----------

