British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

I have just been reading "British Tanks of WWII - Vol 1 -France/Belgium '44" by David Fletcher (whom some may know).

It includes a few formations of which I was unaware, and which are not modelled in the game.

a) Motor Battalion Scout (or Carrier) Platoon: including 11 Carriers, this provided the reconnaissance element of the Battalion. Each Carrier was fitted with a Bren LMG and Boys ATR; one held a PIAT and two others had the 2in. mortar whist the remainder were equipped with a 4in smoke discharger.

b) Reconnaissance Corps - created to provide a reconnaissance facility for infantry Divisions. Each reconnaissance Troop was organised on the basis of a HQ Section (one Armoured car, one Carrier and two motorcycles) and a reconnaissance Section of two armoured cars, two Scout cars and two sections each with three Carriers.

There do not appear to be any motorcycles in the British OOB.

I hope these comments may be of some interest.

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

Hi John,

The British are the only major power that does not have motorcycles in their SP OOB. This is ironic because I think the WW2 British Army was the most 'motorcyclized' army in the world.

The German motorbikes get all the attention, but the British built about 400,000 MCs during WW2.

In 1940 there were six British MC battalions. They used sidecars with Lewis guns attached. I would love to see these in the OOB. Two of these battalions were part of the BEF and were lost in France/Dunkirk.

There were also some MCs fitted with mortars, Thompsons and Boys rifles, but these were quite rare I'd imagine.

After Dunkirk the MC battalions became Home Guard units. Though some of these MC/sidecar platoons were used to raid across the Channel (about 50 sidecars) on at least nine occasions.

Outside of the UK, the average British infantry battalion had about 30 motorcycles, and a light artillery battery (8 guns) had about 12 motorcycles

The British seemed to be slowly replacing some motorcycles with jeeps. For example, a 25 Pounder light artillery battery had about 12 MCs in the early war, but by 1944 had about 7 MCs and 5 jeeps.

I think the most common use for MCs was as dispatch riders. All the photos I've seen show them carring a Sten, and occasionally a MP40.

I have seen a reference to British sidecars being used in the later war as part of an assault platoon or something; but this has been hard to verify.

Personally, I would love to be able to use British sidecars for an FOO, scouting, and as a very light utility vehicle to carry say a sniper, AT team or pick up the remains of a crew.

I doubt there'll be any work done on the WW2 OOB for some months, but it would be cool if it got on the list to look at. :)

cheers,
Cross

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

Some photos:

http://dc128.4shared.com/img/1098897...ars_column.jpg

In France


http://dc128.4shared.com/img/1098898...decar_1941.jpg

In England


http://dc102.4shared.com/img/1100230...g_Airborne.jpg

Airborne troops training with 'Big 4" motorcycle sidecar. Airlanding troops had switched to jeeps by 1944.


Here's an OOB for a 1940 MC Recon battalion:
http://www.niehorster.orbat.com/017_...ps_mcl-bn.html


Cross

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

The question here is what were they used for.
Obviosly available to BEF & from what you say use like this could be extended in date to represent raid use, they should however be under the misc tab as more a type of special forces acting independently I would assume.
Later war are they all dispatch riders? If so not combat units so should not be included as will get abused as scouts.
On that a neighbour of mine started having serious neck trouble several years back & one of the first questions the doctor asked him was "Were you a dispatch rider during the war" which he was. Turns out asking the question speeds diagnosise as a worn out neck due to the constant looking around its a job related injury.

Edit just remembered John said used as scouts:doh:

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

The German MC "get all the attention" because they were used in a combat role which British bikes were not used for after Dunkirk ( and only rarely ) but WERE used extensively to relay messages. These were the Don R's or dispatch riders.

It's quite possible you may have perhaps seen a reference to them being used as part of an assault platoon at some point but it's quite possible donkeys were part of an assault platoon at some point in the war as well but we don't model them.

Find me a solid reference to them being used in actual combat after Dunkirk as part of a formations TO&E and I will put them in but had they been used in combat rest assured Andy would have had them put in long ago.

I will make a note to look into adding them pre Dunkirk.

Don

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

Hi Imp,

Up to late 1940 British MC troops with sidecar MGs and dismountable infantry could be made available. This would allow them to be used as Home Guard in Sealion scenarios up to that date.

After 1940 I don't think British MC troops (platoons) should be available in SP.

However, I would like to see occasional MC units appear in other formations, like recon platoons, MC scouts.

I would also like to see the MC/sidecar available as a light utility vehicle. The MC was really the multi-purpose vehicle prior to the jeep.

With a crew of one and a carry capacity of two. A MC sidecar would be a size 1 (compared to jeep size 2) and would be slightly faster than a jeep, and available from the start of the war (jeeps become available Sept 1941).

My experience is that MC units are quite vulnerable in SP; and you'd probably get better point/usefulness value with jeeps. This should keep them from overuse.


Cross

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

[quote=Cross;726437}

With a crew of one and a carry capacity of two. A MC sidecar would be a size 1 (compared to jeep size 2) and would be slightly faster than a jeep, and available from the start of the war (jeeps become available Sept 1941).

My experience is that MC units are quite vulnerable in SP; and you'd probably get better point/usefulness value with jeeps. This should keep them from overuse.


Cross[/QUOTE]

Both are almost just as vulnerable,

Trouble is a jeep can get stuck,as a MC is easily pushed out and goes over rough handily.

Jeep over MC? i'll take an MC.

:vroom:

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

One thing I noticed when transcribing the information on the Motor Battalion Scout Platoon was the presence of the Boys ATR - in game terms, this disappears in 1942.

As a side issue - has anyone ever killed anything using a Boys anti-tank rifle? Was it really as useless as modelled in the Game?

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

Well,yes if you happen to stumble on them with something with less 2 amour.

Not much good, UK took some hard lessons on inft. AT teams early until the bazooka;)

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

[quote=gila;726505]One last thing John,

The U.S. never realized the Opportunity's (is that correct phrase) of the MC in warfare either during WW2.

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

Gila I think you are right, the MC and jeep must be close in vulnerability; which is probably how it should be. I wasn't aware that the MC was better over rough terrain, but that makes sense.

John, I recall reading about an inquiry during the war, to discover if the Boys had KO'd any TANKS, and this limited (perhaps division sized) investigation couldn't find a single example. Which may have been part of the motivation to find a replacement in the PIAT.

However, I have read that Britain supplied the Boys to Finland and it was used effectively in the Winter War against light Russian tanks. I've also read about light Japanese tanks being KO'd by the Boys.

But I guess calling it an "anti-tank" rifle was a bit optimistic by 1942.



Cross

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

In the game, I have yet to kill an SdKfz251 with a Boys, let alone a light tank! Nor do I think I've ever immoblised one (which would be more realistic, I feel)

Conversely, when playing against the Italians I have suffered losses to the Solothurn AT Rifle.... :-(( So - was the Boys an inferior ATR as modelled in real life?

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

Hi Don,

MC Battalion

Here's an excellent discussion and explanation of the British Motorcycle Battalions 1939/1940:

http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/...ion%201940.htm

MC Scouts

If there's any interest in providing British motorcycle scouts here's OOB for a Recon battalion 1941/1942:

http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/...0to%201942.htm

Regarding the elements of a Recon company it says this:

Each Scout Platoon had a small headquarters consisting of a single Universal Carrier with Bren gun and anti-tank rifle. This carried the Subaltern, driver and an operator from the Signal Platoon, with the Platoon Sergeant and an orderly accompanying on motorcycles.

The single Infantry Platoon provided the Company with a not insubstantial dismounted element. Platoon HQ consisted of a Subaltern, Sergeant and orderly, each on a motorcycle. There were then two 15-cwt trucks, the first carrying a Corporal, rifleman and driver, plus an anti-tank rifle, the latter just a rifleman and driver. Each of the four Sections consisted of a driver and seven men, plus the officer's batman in one Section. Two were commanded by Corporals, two by lance-corporals. The three motorcyclists were each armed with a pistol, the remainder of the Platoon carrying rifles. Each Section was also issued a Bren gun and, in theory, a Thompson submachine gun, though it would be sometime before stocks of the latter became available.

Looking at the OOB for 1943 - 1945, it shows Recon Regiments and Motor Battalions continued to use MCs (with stens) in their Scout Platoons/troops.

MC Utility

I guess this is more of a game design decision. There's plenty of MCs available in almost every British frontline battalion throughout the war. But these would have been mostly single MC without sidecar which have little utility value. A 'Big 4' sidecar may be a fun addition as a utility vehicle, even if it's only available until 1941.



Cross

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

The answers are on the web. Take two minutes and find out

The Solothurn cartidge was 20 x 138mm

The Boyes was 13.9 x 99mm


Don

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

Thanks!

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

Roughly 25 % - 30 % smaller

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

AFAIK only one of the BEF's MC battalions went into action with its bikes: the 4th Northumberland Fusiliers. Amongst other things it provided recon for the British counter-attack at the Battle of Arras. I’ve found a couple of photos of them in the Imperial War Museum photographs collection. One of them shows that their sidecars were armed with Brens rather than Lewis guns.

These are Home Guard MCs photographed during an exercise near Exeter in August 1941. I’m not sure about the LMG. I don’t think it is a Lewis. It may be a Bren with one of its relatively rare drum magazines.

There are a couple more photos of British MCs with Bren guns in this forum thread.

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

not really useless, they work better i groups of 3, 1 at front, 2 at sides, fire unil the panzer exposes its thin sides and rear, esp. IIIb/d wich has weaker armor and is the most common for france '40, watch out for those czech(or whererever they came from) tanks.

@cross Do you know wjhat was the criteria of the inquiry mentioned at #11? because a 14mm round *could* blow some pistons off an engine, damage tracks, kill the driver/gunner and such damage wich would make the vehicle useless, after all, a KO can be described in several diferent ways, e.g an immobile tiger is a pillbox, as it takes a tiger to tow a tiger, making 2 vehicles unavaiable?

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

I bet the Finns were impressed with it, definetly atributed to the Boys? there home grown ATR lahiti or something like is good still need several though.
Boys not sure if I have killed anything but damage immobolise yes. Either assaulting with or within a couple of hexes otherwise its just a suppresor IMHO.
Finns Lahiti is a diffrent mater kills very rare with one hit but have killed 3 armour with it possibly 4 with consecutive damage. T-26s T-60s AC etc

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

Boyes - I have not killed much with these apart from class 1 armour little scout cars and Japanese tinfoil tankettes in the far east. The germans have little class 1 armour to kill bar the baby scout cars and sdkfz251s. Only the really early panzer 2 has any class 1 - the rest are reasonably OK with class 2 side.

However, they are annoying to fight against as German or Italian in the desert, since they respond in opfire to your tank fire and button your tanks up when dealing with UK infantry. This can be annoying if you get enough suppression to lose the target lock and have to use up rally. They will occasionally do a track hit as well.

My dad used one post war in his national service on minesweepers clearing the northern barrage. it was used to sink free floating mines, and did that job well. They laid out a bed of sandbags on the deck for the firer as that helped with the recoil.

Andy

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

Boys ATR

Sorry iCamp, I don’t recall the details of that inquiry, or where I read it. But I agree that the inquiry was quite possibly looking for tanks actually KO’d, not just immobilized.

Here’s a good site about the Boys ATR:

http://www.rifleman.org.uk/Enfield_B...Tank_Rifle.htm

The site does say it was effective against tracks and wheels. But you can understand that the MoD was probably not impressed by this.

I wasn’t aware that the Boys was such a monster. It was 5 feet 3.5 inches long and weighed 36 pounds. Compare this to the PIAT which was 3 feet 3 inches long and weighed only 32 pounds.

British Motorcycles

British sidecars were fitted with both Lewis and Bren guns; and Thompson SMGs. The ‘Motley mount’ was used for Bren AA.

http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/3...nww2poster.jpg

Here's some Canadian Norton 'Big 4' with sidecar and motley mount:

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/4...andianserv.jpg

Here's some British troops with sidecar and motley mount:

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/796...tleymount0.jpg

I'm sure the Thompson mount was quite rare:

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/7...onthompson.jpg

Here's a better look at the Home guard LMG with drum:

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/9...4homeguard.gif

Here's a Norton with 3inch mortar:

http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/8...0320inch20.jpg

I assume these are British dispatch riders, from 44/45 with stens:

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/769...h4445oud05.jpg

This is a Norton Big 4 from France 1940:

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/321...rance20194.jpg

And this is what the boy in me, expects British MC units to be like in SP:

http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/2...0brits20ca.jpg


Cross

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

The mg is probably a lewis without the sleeve?

http://www.royalenfields.com/2009/04...reat-with.html

That shot allegedly in "France 40" looks suspect since they have stens (1941)

Andy

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

I must admit that as I was posting that photo, I did tilt my head to one side and briefly question the Stens in 1940, but was in a hurry...

The helmet style may also date the photo. I'm no expert, but that helmet style may not have been available in 1940.

Cross

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

Looks like the regulars got the Brens and the Home Guard got the old Lewis gun. Many of them would have been familiar with it from the First World War. :D

Edit: Yes, Mobhack, the Lewis could be used without its barrel jacket.

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

Here's a better photo of the motley mount:

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/989...nbigfourwd.jpg


Here's a Lewis without the shield:

[IMG]http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/8214/lewisgun.th.jpg[/IMG]

It may have been used on WWI aircraft like this?

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

In SP the Boys ATR has a range of 500yds.

Average penetration:
2 at 50yds
1 at 100yds
0 at 150yds

Maximum penetration:
3 at 50yds
2 at 350yds
1 at 500yds
0 at 550yds

In the Boys Operating Manual it gives these penetration results:


PENETRATIONS
When to fire? This can be decided only by the firer, having a clear knowledge of the penetrative powers of the .55 bullet.

Bullet striking at a

Range... ... ... .. ..direct hit...........angle of 20 degrees................ angle of 40 degrees

Yards.........Inches.......M/M...........Inches..............M/M.............Inches..........M/M.
100 ... ... ... .91 ... ... . 23.2 ... ... ... .67 ... ... ... .... 17.0 ... ... ... .43 ... ... ... 11.0
300 ... ... ... .82 ... ... .. 20.9 ... ... ... .63 ... ... ... .... 16.0 ... ... ... .38 ... ... ... 9.6
500 ... ... ... .74 ... ... .. 18.8 ... ... ... .60 ... ... ... .... 15.3 ... ... ... .35 ... ... ... 8.8

This weapon is also useful for penetrating houses and sandbag emplacements. The maximum penetration to be expected in this form of firing is :
1. Brick walls . . . . 14 inches.
2. Sandbags . . . . 10 inches.


Operating manual found here:
http://www.rifleman.org.uk/Enfield_B...fle_Manual.htm


I also found the following in the Boys Small Arms Training Pamphlet:

3. Penetration of the anti-tank rifle
Although the bullet will penetrate the armour of light A.F.Vs. up to 500 yards, and inflict casualties on the crew, fire should be withheld until the range is well within 300 yards. The angle of impact of the anti-tank rifle bullet on the armour has a greater influence than the range at which it is fired. For example, while the penetrative power is only 10 per cent. less at 300 yards than at 100 yards, it is 25 per cent. less when the angle of impact is over 20 degrees, and 50 per cent. less at over 40 degrees at the Lett r range. (For further details see the Appendix.) The exact moment of fire must therefore be decided by the firer's determination to hit the selected part of the tank fair and square, rather than by range only. As a general rule the •55-in. anti-tank rifle bullet will penetrate all parts of the Pz. Kw. Mk. I light tank, and the sides and rear of the hull and turret of the Pz. Kw. Mk. II light tank, at 250 yards range at an angle of impact of 20 degrees or less. It does not penetrate the armour of heavier tanks except in certain points such as the rear of the turret and cupola of the Pz. Kw. Mk. IV at very short range. When shooting at German tanks of the Pz. Kw. Mk. III and larger tanks fire should be aimed, if it is possible, at vulnerable points, especially on the junction point of turret and hull and gun mantle, to cause burring over of working surfaces and thus produce jamming.http://<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /...le_SAT_No5.htm

Ellis says................................. 21mm at 300yds
Chamberlain and Gander say...... 21mm at 300m
Hogg 1977 says................... ... 20mm at 500m at 0 deg
Hogg 1997 says........................ 21mm at 330yds
Labbett and Brown say Mk1...... 16mm at 100yds at 20 deg
Labbett and Brown say Mk2...... 19mm at 100yds at 20 deg
Weeks say.............................. 14mm at 300yds

Based on those numbers perhaps the Boys penetration could be tweaked a little.

I also wonder if the Boys maximum range could be increased? It clearly wasn’t much good against armour over 500yds, but there’s several references to its ability against soft targets at greater ranges, because it was an accurate weapon.

Regarding the spelling Boys/Boyes, apparently there was confusion about this even during the war. So there are many docs that refer to it as the Boyes, and the Germans – who captured quite a few at Dunkirk – often called it the Boyes. But it was named after Captain H C Boys.


Cross

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

I'll put this on the list to investigate at some point. I already see one unrelated issue with ATR's in general. A case could be made for increasing the range a little bit to bring the critical 200 - 300 yard pen perhaps a tiny bit closer to reality but we are splitting hairs here. We deal in CM of armour and CM of penetration and when the armour and pen are down around 1 and 2 there's not much that can be done

FYI some good info here LINK

as well as the comment......."the Soviets were so unimpressed for their poor armour penetration capabilities that they never bothered to issue them" :re:

In this case I think it should be good luck to knock out or at least damage ( ** ) something like a SdKfz 222 at 200 yards but not completely impossible and increasing the range to 12 or 13 along with all the other ATR with 10 range now, might be what's needed but I'm busy with other matters ATM



Don

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

This may be something to do with its very low Pen value but most guns up close with accuracy of 80+ or so give extra pen reasonably often, not sure if I have ever had an over penetration with the Boys even banging away with 95% hit chance, think yes but very rare indeed.
If it did this would near enough fall in with Pen values & report posted by Cross.
This type of shot represents both the square hit it stresses is important & shooting at particular parts of the tank so damage only occurs with a well aimed shot.
It would still slightly under perform but those are ideal conditions when achieving penetration is marginal anyway even a couple of degrees can make the diffrence plus its a light projectile velocity is nothing special so probably more prone to richochet.

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

I just damaged a German captured T34 tank with a Boys Rifle, so thought I'd better report it.

Lt Appleton's (British Light Infantry) section was facing a German T34 at 50yds. His section was trading fire with the tank, but Appleton kept rallying his men, and then they hit the T34 at a weak spot (+5) and damaged it (*).

A Cruiser tank moved forward and put another shell into it for ** damage, and then the pioneers moved forward and brewed it up. Some crew got out, but Lt Appleton finished them off.

So it's at least possible to damage a 'real' tank with a Boys.

I think to hit a weak point, you have to have over 80% hit chance.



Cross