1939 Poles errata

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

gebhk
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:21 am

Re: 1939 Poles errata

Post by gebhk » Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:07 am

List 4
Bofors 37mm guns had a crew of 6

81mm mortars did not have FOO’s. Fire would be observed and corrected by platoon and company officers – however they would need to be connected by telephone unless within sight of the mortar. They (the mortars) came in platoons of 2 rather than batteries.

CKM wz 30 had a crew of 6

40mm Bofors AA had a crew of 8. Given that there was a 'whole' 4 of these weapons in a division (and only a fully established division which hadn't had its AA battery taken away for some other purpose by higher command at that), the only intercourse a rifle platoon could have with one of these weapons would be if it was detailed to guard its position at rest in some unusual circumstances. The gun did not come on its own, the one-gun platoon would have 24 men, 2 machine guns on AA mounts, 6-7 vehicles with 3 trailers and its CO would more likely than not outrank the CO of the rifle platoon.
Last edited by gebhk on Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:28 am, edited 5 times in total.

gebhk
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:21 am

Re: 1939 Poles errata

Post by gebhk » Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:30 am

List 5
No such beast as a 9TP in 1939. The name is a post war invention for the modernisation of the 7TP project. At the time it was called the 7TP (reinforced) or just 7TP. All we know for sure is that there were 3 prototypes, the first of which failed to achieve set speed targets, and none of which was used in combat ASAWK. No one knows for sure what they looked like. The last 11 tanks produced and delivered may have been the upgraded version. Or not. If they were, no one knows how. And they all ended up in the improvised Defence of Warsaw Armoured Company No 2. Likelihood of a rifle platoon having one - Martians, landing, Loch Ness Monster.

Not sure what a 75mm wz 97/17 was, however there were none in Poland in 1939 as far as I am aware. Bog standard wz 1897 (with a crew of 6 + junior leader). Although all divisional artillery weapons, in desperation, were used from time to time by the Poles in the direct fire role (so a 100mm wz 14/19P or wz 14/19A should also be available alternatives - crew etc same as for a wz 97), the 75mm wz 02/26 from the regimental gun platoon or battery would be a far more likely candidate (and more useful - its aiming system was much better for tracking moving targets).
Last edited by gebhk on Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Arlequín
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:29 pm
Location: King's Vale Royal

Re: 1939 Poles errata

Post by Arlequín » Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:10 am

Just to let you know you're not talking to yourself. :)

This all interesting stuff and appreciated by me at least. Some of your comments re: use or deployment of certain weapons are also quite true for a number of lists.

'Snipers' is a bit of 'thing' too, ordinary riflemen trained at longer ranges than are represented by the typical 6'x4' table; I qualified for my marksman badge at 300 yards with open sights (there were no 'optics' other than Mk. I Eyeballs), which only made me an 'above average' shooter in the grand scheme but nothing special. Everybody else was also shooting at the same distance as I was, my shots were just 'grouped' better; more luck than skill. I do know of a number of folk who got theirs by managing to group a crate of beer into the range sergeant's car boot.

Real 'Snipers' wouldn't shoot at our ranges, they'd be too exposed to return fire. Coming under 'sniper fire' might just be one ordinary guy with an ordinary rifle.

andysyk
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: 1939 Poles errata

Post by andysyk » Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:28 am

gebhk wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:45 am
:)

To return briefly to the Poles......

The following comments about the supports' lists are not an argument for change, just comments. Do with them as you will ;)

List 1
The medical orderly was part of a team of three with two stretcher bearers. Rare for him to operate individually.

Short of kidnapping a passing civilian with his car (the platoon having someone who can drive in its ranks was about as likely as the Martians landing on the head of the Loch Ness Monster), I can’t see where a rifle platoon would acquire a car. And even if it did, where would they obtain fuel etc for it?

Wire cutting was entirely within the capability of the rifle squad so I don’t see the point of a wire cutting team.

Engineer teams usually came in sixes (section leader + 5 pioneers)
Reference wire cutting. You could say the same about any army, most Infantry sections have wire cutting gear. And I cant see what a three man team with wire cutters could achieve that an Infantry Section couldn't, unless later of course and they have Bangalores or some such.

However Engineers and their roles are very abstracted in COC. They are split into small teams with dedicated tasks.

Given the short time scale of a COC game, minefield clearing etc wouldn't really take place unless you were doing it with charges..

I think they are in game more of a flavour thing, at least thats my take.

Yes its all interesting to me too. If others don't want to discuss or read it, that's up to them. I do find it a tad strange that for an "historical" game a lot of its adherents choose to ignore a lot of history. I don't think any body here is advocating minute detail or complicating the game for the sake of it. Or is out to criticise COC or pinpricking.

But for me the fact that a unit didn't operate the way represented currently in the game, when that is the games premise would seem relevant. (And Im talking by the Manuals, not field practice)

gebhk
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:21 am

Re: 1939 Poles errata

Post by gebhk » Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:40 am

My take on wire cutting is much the same as yours.

Regarding pioneers/engineer/sappers I think at this scale, the 'specific task' is probably the right way to go. The platoon would not have a section or squad of pioneers attached to it for no apparent reason, rather the opposite. The pioneers would have a job and the platoon would be attached to them for protection. Regardless of rank, the commander of the pioneer detachment would dictate the proceedings rather than the commander of the platoon other, unless a critical tactical situation developed.

A classic example might be a detachment sent to blow a bridge. The infantry would be there to ensure work was not interrupted by enemy troops or fifth columnists and to hold off any enemy advances to allow as many other friendlies to pass to the friendly side of the bridge as possible. Makes for a cracking game with the objective to save as many friendly troops without letting the enemy capture the bridge intact. This is the sort of game where even an AA gun might be deployed in the battle area! I still remember one game where the AA cover of the bridge managed to shoot down an enemy aircraft. My initial delight at this extremely unlikely event rapidly turned to despair as the b.....y thing, of all the random squares in the world, managed to pancake on the bridge and destroy it, comprehensively ending the game in a draw two or three moves in. But I digress.

To follow on from your comment, actually I think mine clearing in the face of the enemy might well be precisely the sort of front-line situation where pioneers would be supported by infantry :shock:

I guess the point of including sharpshooters is that they could, quite historically, be given useful and interesting jobs such as slowing down tanks (no they won't penetrate a tank's armour, but no one likes high-powered projectiles whacking into their 'window on the world' a few inched from their nose, not to mention encouraging tank commanders to 'button down'), thickening up LMG fire at longer distances, priority targets, covering fire, blah, blah....
Last edited by gebhk on Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:23 am, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Arlequín
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:29 pm
Location: King's Vale Royal

Re: 1939 Poles errata

Post by Arlequín » Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:47 am

andysyk wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:28 am
I do find it a tad strange that for an "historical" game a lot of its adherents choose to ignore a lot of history...

... But for me the fact that a unit didn't operate the way represented currently in the game, when that is the games premise would seem relevant. (And Im talking by the Manuals, not field practice)
I find that too. For most, if it gets them more dice to roll, or their opponents less, interest increases. The same with the ones that start "But in the field..." which usually then supports something in their favour, while at the same time they rigidly adhere to 'paper unit strengths'.

:roll:

I prefer to be objective and historical. I lose a lot. :?

*edit* - Count me in on the 'infantry able to cut-wire by themselves' faction. I'm also against strolling vagabond solitary support assets.
Last edited by Arlequín on Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

andysyk
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: 1939 Poles errata

Post by andysyk » Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:55 am

Arlequín wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:47 am


I prefer to be objective and historical. I lose a lot. :?
Yes that's why I like the Italians, it gives me an excuse to lose! (That is a very poor and stereotyping statement about the Italians of course!)

I suspect people don't like the idea of losing Teams within sections because of the in game ramifications.

Of course if we talk about "actual" practice...….that would be another gameball. :D

Edit; Snipers there was a several page discussion about this sometime ago. People like "Snipers" so they are there...….Of course ones mans "Sniper" is another mans......

gebhk
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:21 am

Re: 1939 Poles errata

Post by gebhk » Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:16 am

(That is a very poor and stereotyping statement about the Italians of course!)
All my armies are 'nationally flavoured' fictional armies of fictional countries: cartoons if you will. That avoids the need for a pretence of 'historical accuracy' and avoids making a pillock of myself by getting things wrong :D.
Last edited by gebhk on Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

gebhk
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:21 am

Re: 1939 Poles errata

Post by gebhk » Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:21 am

I'm also against strolling vagabond solitary support assets.
You will notice that with commendable self-control, I avoided using my favourite 'ALAMLHLNM' in relation to a single tank/armoured car being attached to an infantry platoon :lol:

andysyk
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: 1939 Poles errata

Post by andysyk » Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:25 am

gebhk wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:21 am
I'm also against strolling vagabond solitary support assets.
You will notice that with commendable self-control, I avoided using my favourite 'ALAMLHLNM' in relation to a single tank/armoured car being attached to an infantry platoon :lol:
I find my self buying model tanks in Platoon strength. I cant "help" it.

Post Reply