Military Modeling, Armor, Ships, Aircraft, and Figures

[colt45]

During the 1970's the vast majority of M60A2's were in Germany. My unit, 1/67th, 2AD, was the only battalion of M60A2's in the states. All the rest were overseas.

[quincannon]

Your interest in the DAK spurs a question in me Ian. I have of course read "Foxes of the Desert" and the "Rommel Papers" and Panzer Battles: hold biblical status with me, but is there anything out there that tells the Afrika Korps story alone, something like the Pitt Books do for 8th Army?

I believe we got rid of all of our M60's. I know some of them were sunk off the coast for diver's reefs. Not sure where the bulk of them went. Some of my National Guard friends tell me that the M48A5 was just as good and some say better than the M60A1. Don'r know their opinion of the M60A3.

[yanmacca]

Chuck, the books I have are all written by English speaking authors, I alway think the best way to get down in the weeds with a subject is to get it from the home source like this book 'Das Afrika Korps: Erwin Rommel and the Germans in Africa, 1941-43' which has been translated from German.

Here is a German web site which translates into English and focuses on the DAK, I have used this site for a number of years. link

Ian

[quincannon]

Good resource Ian. Thanks.

[yanmacca]

One of the biggest tips I can give you Chuck, is let the internet work for you, for example your search engine. I swear by google as it translates sites for you in nearly every language. To find the results I need I went straight to the country involved, like now for example, Geir [Noggy] has given more help on the Norwegian army, that I could never get on my own, because he speaks and reads Norwegian, so he can access literature in his native tongue. Another lad named Prosper Vandenbroucke helped me with the Belgian army.

One thing I used to do, when using google, is to write a sentence in language I want the data from, so if I wanted to find something on google regarding a certain German division, I type in translate English to German, then typed in the box provided the name of the division in question in English and it converted it to German, so you then copy and paste this translation into google and all these German sites will appear, so I then check out the ones which google can translate into English for me and ‘Bobs your Uncle’, I found more real info that way then any other source. Even the Wiki sites are different to the ones you find in English and are more informative.

[quincannon]

You will be pleased to know Ian that I have finally made my decision on what scale to concentrate on with my armor collection. Both of them, 1/72 and 1/100. How is that for decisiveness.

New book "Operation Crusader" Ordered it today. I will give it a mini-review when it arrives and I finish reading it.

[yanmacca]

Tell you what Chuck if you are modelling just for the love of it and not for wargaming which you are, then you will have much more choice doing it in those two scales.

The only concern for me is if you are grouping a small number of vehicles and figures together in a diaorama, under a perspex cover, you will have to keep them all in the same scale

But good luck!

BTW; I do like the way that these modern model companies use plastic tracks for their tanks and not those floppy rubber/plastic things we had in the past.
At lot of the new ones have the running gear moulded which is great.

Ian

[yanmacca]

I don’t know how much use this is to you Chuck, but if you are ever feeling in the mood to build a 1/32 scale M5 Half-Track with full Infantry Squad with Driver, then here is how they were seated.

The driving compartment had three seats, with the driver on the left, a Pvt/rifleman in the centre and the Squad leader (Sergeant) on the right. The squad leader also operated the ring mounted .30-cal M1917 when needed. If the M5 didn’t have a ring mount then the .30-cal would be mounted on a pedestal in the passenger compartment, and then would be fired by one of the privates. The passenger compartment had seats for ten men (The Asst Squad leader (Corporal) and nine Pvt/riflemen).

I don’t have the seating plan for the platoon HQ M5, so I would imagine that it would be along these lines, with the driving compartment containing the driver on the left, Platoon Sergeant in the centre and Platoon commander on the right. The passenger compartment would contain a Sergeant, Corporal and Eight Riflemen. The vehicle would carry a .50-cal HMG instead of the .30-cal, but who fired this weapon is not available to me, but like the squad M5s, this weapon could ring mounted over the passenger compartment or pedestal mounted in the passenger compartment.

If you or anyone else knows the seating plan for the M5 and it differs from mine, then please let me know.

Ian

[quincannon]

That's why I decided to go with both, more choices.

First off a Platoon Leader and a Platoon Sergeant would NEVER ride in the same vehicle. Often times we see these diagrams in both official and unofficial publications, and the people that draw them mean well, but the practicality of combat, the use of common sense just as often do not reach the people that draw this stuff. They never seem to realize that one well placed round would rake out the entire top leadership of the platoon, but it looks pretty.

The only guns we put on ring mounts are M2 50 cal MG's. The 1919A6 and the M60 are mounted on pedestal mounts, and it is usually the same gun they would also use for dismounted operation (in most cases). The 50 Cal has a pedestal mount available for it as well. Don't see it used much. It is rare not to see every truck two and a half ton and larger with a ring mounted 50 cal mounted above the passenger seat in the cab. These trucks are issued to the end user with a ring mount kit as part of their accessory pack.

The person that mans the ring mount 50 cal is whomever the passenger may be. He serves as air guard while in operation. Does not matter if it is an officer, NCO, or enlisted man/woman. The pedestal mounted 30 cal is used to the same purpose, the air guard, and that position usually rotates in a longer operation, say a convoy moving a good distance. If I ever saw a truck I was using to transport my platoon or company that did not have two or more air guards standing while moving, observing the three hundred sixty degree perimeter of the truck, then some poor son of a bitch and I are going to have a rather pointed Come to Jesus meeting, just prior to their crucifixion.

I am really excited about this Crusader book. Appear that it has been translated from the German I suspect, so it may be just the thing I ask you about earlier.

My first Plastic Toy Soldier model in 1/72 is arriving Saturday. I will keep you informed. I like the plastic treads too. Much easier to deal with.

[yanmacca]

Chuck, to be fair to Gary Kennedy, he did say that he wasn’t sure how the platoon HQ were positioned, here is his full post which he sent to me;

The British Motor Section was eight strong, and there was no augmentation to allow for a dedicated gunner. There is also an entire subtopic on whether British halftracks in Motor Bns even had machine gun armament. I've seen lots of threads on forums over the years on the subject, and in short it was at unit discretion. I started a thread on WW2talk re halftracks and White scout cars in British Motor Bns specifically, and was reminded to have a look back through the history of G Company, 8th Bn, the Rifle Brigade (From the Beaches to the Baltic). The author, Noel Bell, is often quoted as the justification in wargamers putting .50-cals on their British halftracks, but when you read the full paragraph it adds a bit of context;

"It was now June the 23rd, and we had been ten days in France. That day we acquired many .50 Browning’s, from the 3rd R.T.R., who found them superfluous on their Sherman’s. We mounted them on our trucks and carriers and even on our scout car. They certainly improved the visual aggressiveness of our vehicles, though from a tactical point of view their field of fire was small in many cases, being limited owing to the inadequacy, and, in some cases, the bad placing of the gun mountings. They gave us, nevertheless, much confidence in our "ack-ack" defense."

That was written at a time when 8RB was still attached out on a Company basis to the Armd Regts of 29th Armd Bde in 11th Armd Div. I've seemed to recall seeing it interpreted as meaning the .50s were distributed across 8RB as a whole, though when you read the original context it doesn't fully suggest it was the case. From what I can recall the author only mentions the Browning’s, plus Brens, being used in the AA role, rather than in in the direct fire role. Motor Bns had been equipped with unarmoured trucks right until 1943, when they started to get White Scout cars and latterly halftracks, in Home Forces, ahead of Normandy. Using their main transport in a forward area to provide fairly limited fire support does not seem to have been a regular occurrence.

The small size of the Motor Section did make for a limited dismount strength in a full Motor Bn compared to an Inf Bn proper, even though they were very nearly the same size by 1944 (circa 850 men each). In theory they were a specialized unit and not structured to be used in a standard infantry role, but as Para, Air Landing and later Commando units found out, it didn't always work like that in real world operations.

The US Armd Inf Bn was based on a 12-man Squad from late 1943 onwards. This included two NCOs, the driver and nine riflemen. The Squad leader normally sat in the driver's compartment, on the far right hand side, and he was to man the on board .30-cal M1917 if the halftrack had the ring mount over the compartment; if it was on a pedestal mount back in the passenger compartment one of the rifleman would do so instead. The Asst Squad leader sat in the back along with eight of the riflemen, the ninth sitting up front between the driver and Squad leader. The third Squad doubled as Platoon HQ, so had the commander, Pl Sgt, Sgt Guide, driver and 8 riflemen, with a .50-cal instead of a .30-cal. I've not seen a seating layout for them, so possibly it allowed for the Lt and Pl Sgt to be seated with the driver and the Sgt Guide with eight men in the rear of the vehicle.

Gary

I must say though, there are not many times that I can say that the thrifty British come first past the post against the more opulent US Army, as our troops always ways seem to lack everything and the Americans have it all, which is what the British army thought anyway, but if you read his post, the US Army had three M5s per-platoon, with 39 men per-platoon including the PHQ, the British also have three, but because the British Motor sections are only eight men strong compared to the Americans being twelve, they have a half-track with eight men with four free seats, which makes a refreshing change to see that we still kept three halftracks per platoon and not made them squeeze into two.
Ian

[quincannon]

Ian, I am sure whomever this fellow is that you quote has no need for me to be either fair or foul to him. He was, as far as I know, presenting facts, and I do not dispute those facts in any way.

All I am saying to you, and you may pass it along to him, is that at least as far as the American Army is concerned, leaders did/do it THEIR WAY when it comes to matters like these. It's just like when I go buy a submarine sandwich at Jersey Mike's. Each time they ask - Do you want your sub Jersey Mike's way - and my response is always the same - No, I want it my way. Each company may do it differently. Each platoon within a company may even do it just a bit differently. Combat teaches you more than any school or any training ground ever could. In school or in training you are looking for a passing grade, and infantile idiots who grade you on doctrinal diagrams, and the "school solution" really don't know enough to come in out of the rain. So in training you pay heed to their narrow minded/focused bull shit, so you may pass the test. Combat is a bit different. You do what works. You reject was does not work. In combat pass of fail is a matter of living or dying

Nothing in the U S Army falls into a neat little package. Never has. Never will. We Americans are very proud of our individualism. It is inherent in the American character. We reject form ALWAYS in favor of function. There I go again telling you and everyone who will listen, that to understand battle and those things surrounding battle, you must first understand the men who wage war. You must be able to get inside their heads to understand what they do, how they do it, and why.

End of sermon. Working on Lexington (CV 2) today. Best looking carrier ever built for my money.

[yanmacca]

I would be a fool if I didn’t realize that these guide lines which are put down to paper from the higher military sources Chuck, would be torn up and used as toilet paper once any unit left their base. But I think what Gary, Leo [Niehorster] and in a small way myself, try to do, is to try and show how military units are laid out at full strength on paper. I know you are not a fan of this, but it is very popular, especially to modellers and wargamers, that is why I have various TO/Es om my site.

You do get wargamers who want to fight fictious battles and as an example would try and play a game were the defending force has only a third the strength of the attacking force. So if you have a re-enforced German platoon with support from their companies heavy weapons Platoon [8cm Mortars, MMGs and Panzerschrecks] and maybe a single Pak 40, defending an area, which is going to be attacked by a US Infantry Company supported by three M4 tanks and a Battery of 105s [off table], then you can go to my site and compose your force to the last detail.

Going back to your original question about; US Army not falling into a neat little packages, well I don’t think any army does once has been in the field for any length of time. Just look at how the DAK and later the 21st Pz in France, totally had their own organization, which was unique to them.

Look at how a US Cavalry moved in column of fours, what if they had a odd number of troopers which would form into eight ranks of four and one rank of two, they would simply get on with it as would every army would.

One last thing, my post concerning the seating plan was supposed to cover two bases, one if you wanted to build a M5 with full crew and if you knew what the seating plan was for the platoon HQ, because Gary didn’t know and thought I would try and find this out for him.

Good luck with the Lexington, and enjoy the build!

Ian

[quincannon]

I have no problem at all with what you laid out in your first paragraph. In fact I still have several rather thick books from the Armor and Infantry Schools respectively that do just what you say, lay it out in graphic form, the various types of maneuver units from a given time frame.

I write for the people that read us, and I want them to all understand that we are both right. There are the rigid plans that are the basis of how units are organized, manned, and equipped, then there is what happens, how you modify that rigidity once the shooting starts. Units may look like one thing before the shooting starts, and invariably, they look somewhat different, in the reorganization that takes place after the war. The catalyst for change is the experience gained between the two events.

Lexington was converted to Saratoga (CV 3) overnight. It is one of the first in my new series of American, British, and Japanese carriers done in the style of the WWII recognition/instructional models, that each of those navies trained their people with. All will be painted the same colors gray with black highlights. I was told by someone that Sara could not be converted to Lex with this particular kit. I found out to the contrary, made the Lex to Sara modifications, and will pick up another kit to build Lex in the future.

Lexington and Saratoga when completed in 1927 were identical. Over the years between 27 and 41 both ships received upgrades, but the upgrades made them slightly different from one another. What I am trying to portray are how the two ships differed in 1941. Both retained the same hull form, but their physical apparence differed enough to make one distinguishable from the other. The recognition/instructional models were produced from generic "type molds", so to portray either ship in this class only one mold was created. The same goes for every class of ship. To use the old phrase, then, close enough was close enough for government work. That is not good enough for me though.  I want to include in each model those differences that made the differentiation. The Essex Class had 24 ships completed before the end of their production run. One, Oriskany, was an outlier, completed after the war to an entirely different, more modern design, based upon war time experience, and the introduction into the fleet of jet aircraft. The Class was also subdivided into long and short hull versions. Regardless of long or short hulls, which differentiated them, none of them were exactly alike. I wish to show what made them different. Dave's father's ship, Portland, was a sister of the ill fated Indianapolis. By 1945 both ships were so far apart in appearance that you could hardly tell they started life as identical sisters, and it goes on and on. The were 175 Fletcher Class destroyers built, and not one of them was identical with another. That's why I do this and find it so interesting. It's the research that is the fun part. Building can be a chore.  It is the penance I do daily for not learning patience at my mother's knee as a child. I am sure your modeling has the same joy in research, and the same frustrations encountered in the building  

[yanmacca]

Which Lex kit are you working on, is it this one? link

[quincannon]

No, the kit is by Meng, a company more noted for their large scale armor models.

That link is of the Trumpeter Lexington, which is a mostly very good kit. I do all my Essex and Yorktown Class models from Trumpeter kits. They have also recently released your Ark Royal circa 1941. The reason I chose the Meng kit over the Trumpeter is that the Trumpeter kit shows Lexington at Coral Sea, a few weeks after she had her four 8" gun turrets removed. Lex was only in that configuration for about three weeks, and I wanted to portray the old girl as she appeared (with small modifications) during the vast majority of her long career. Lexington was THE carrier in the mind of the American public, much like Hood was in the UK. She was a happy ship, and the U S Navy probably shed more tears at her loss than any other we lost during WWII. Most of the experienced pilots in our naval air arm had served on her to learn the trade.