Help support TMP


"Battlefront's 4th Edition Next Wave: US" Topic


16 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Flames of War Message Board

Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board



1,061 hits since 3 Aug 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tgunner Supporting Member of TMP03 Aug 2017 8:01 a.m. PST

Some cool new toys coming out for us GIs.

link

Looks like its Torch and Tunisia time. The focus appears to be on the 1st AD, but they are using the nickname of the 1st ID (Fighting First!).

I like this set a lot!

link

link

I think it will do very well as a support for my existing infantry force. The description for the company set sounds a lot like the current infantry set.

link

link

I'm thinking I'll build a Big Red One rifle company with some generous armored support. Should be fun!

Who else is signing up?

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP03 Aug 2017 8:13 a.m. PST

One might almost think from your title that new models are required to play V4. Thankfully, that has never been the case.
In fact, it has never been mandatory to only use BF models in a Flames of War game.

Onomarchos Supporting Member of TMP03 Aug 2017 9:17 a.m. PST

This is great news. It is a logical choice to do the US in Tunisia next. I wonder if they will do Italians after that. I doubt it.

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP03 Aug 2017 9:21 a.m. PST

Hmpf. Still only the M-10s. I keep hoping someone will make the M-6 TD based on a 3/4 ton truck. I figure it's just about right for taking on R-35s in Morocco. But as usual, people want to grab the heaviest gun around and go tiger hunting.
I have not found my pleasure in a wargame to be so closely related to the thickness of the armor as is often the case.

Tgunner Supporting Member of TMP03 Aug 2017 9:30 a.m. PST

Did the M6 make it to the battlefield? I know that the M10 and the 75mm SPM made it to Africa and saw action. Not so sure about the 37mm portee.

I personally shoot for historic units, so I'm doing a force based off the 16th Infantry because I was in the BRO too

Garand03 Aug 2017 10:42 a.m. PST

IIRC the M6 made it to the battelfield, but not much after. It was very unsuccessful with many being converted back into weapons carriers.

Damon.

Mark 1 Supporting Member of TMP03 Aug 2017 10:49 a.m. PST

I personally shoot for historic accuracy in my wargaming, including historically appropriate TOEs. But I do not build specific historic units.

Still, I appreciate the interest in getting it historically right. Or as right as might be reasonable.

Did the M6 make it to the battlefield? I know that the M10 and the 75mm SPM made it to Africa and saw action. Not so sure about the 37mm portee.

The 37mm GMC (gun, motor carriage – the official title of a tank destroyer) M6, often called the "Fargo" (after the commercial version of the truck it was built on) did indeed see service in French North Africa.

The Tank Destroyer Battalions sent to French North Africa (Morocco, Algeria, and eventually Tunisia) were mixed formations of "heavy" TDs (75mm GMC M3) and "light" TDs (37mm GMC M6). The ratio was typically 2 heavy to one light. The information I have seen leaves me uncertain whether this mixing was done only at the company level, with 2 batteries (platoons) heavy and one battery light, or was also sometimes done at the battalion level with 2 companies heavy and one company light.

The M6s were pretty quickly seen as insufficient for the tank destroyer role (the 37mm gun left the crews under gunned versus the latest Pz III and IV models at any reasonable range). I have read information indicating that they were abandoned / replaced as additional M3s became available during the Tunisian campaign, although it appears they only officially came out of the unit TOEs in the re-organizations after the Tunisian campaign (when the M3s also were replaced by M10s).

So for Tunisia, yes, it is appropriate to have them in the units, certainly for the earlier Tunisian actions (up through Kasserine), although less so for the later actions (El Guettar through Tunis).

They were also picked up by other formations, largely un-officially, as they began appearing at the depots after being abandoned by the TD formations. So if you have a few, you might also reasonably use them for other MTO actions (late Tunisia, Sicily, Italy, even Southern France) as extra fire support at random level HQ units (frequently infantry HQs, sometimes Amored Cav or even TD HQs) and some combat engineering formations not only picked up M6s, but also made their own ad hoc fire support vehicles by taking the guns from depot M6s and mounting them on M3 halftracks.

The 3-inch GMC M10 only made its combat debut, in small numbers, at El Guettar. So the 75mm GMC M3 was the real TD formation work-horse for the Tunisian campaign, supplimented by M6s in the early portion, and more frequently by M10s later.

And an additional bit of detail:

The 37mm GMC M6 was not a "portee". Portee describes a towed gun which is carried ("ported") on a truck. This was a reasonably common British practice with the 2pdr. With an M6 the gun had no ground mount -- no wheels, no trail. It was built on to the truck chassis. So it was a motorized gun, not a towed gun ported on a truck.

The official doctrine for British Portees was to carry the gun to the engagement site, demount it (using ramps carried by the truck) and dig it in properly, as would be done with a towed gun. But crews often just saved themselves the effort and engaged the enemy from the truck. This often proved to be a very poor tactic, as there is a substantial difference in defensive staying power of a soft target in the open (a truck) and a dug-in AT gun.

Doctrine for US Tank Destroyers (regardless of model) was to use their recon assets to scout out advantageous firing positions, use their speed to get to those positions in advance of the enemy, use terrain and camo to mask their light vehicles with only the guns showing, ambush and engage enemy armor with concentrated AT firepower, and withdraw to the next firing position before return fire became effective. Didn't always work out that way, and given that the TDs operated in battalion strength among regimental and division commanders who had no appreciation for their doctrine, it turned out that TDs only rarely got to practice the tactics that had been so painstakingly worked up.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP03 Aug 2017 11:27 a.m. PST

Thank you, Mk I. Matches my understanding. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them showed up with the French in the last of the Tunisia fighting. I know the French armored units were receiving Grants and (IIRC) Valentines the Anglophone allies could spare.

But I really want the M-6 GMCs for my American TD units. The idea is to scale the British, Americans and Germans back a little, and give the French and Italians the best they fielded to maintain a balance. (No, I am NOT going to build three or four times the armor I need for any one game so I can re-equip everyone every six months. Unlike the governments involved, I can't issue bonds and tell everyone someone else will pay them back later.)

Bismarck03 Aug 2017 11:43 a.m. PST

I just wish the Marine Rifle Platoon wasnt back ordered since April. Hope they haven't turned their back on the Pacific War to concentrate on Team Yankee.

Tgunner Supporting Member of TMP03 Aug 2017 12:29 p.m. PST

This isn't Team Yankee. It's the mid-war focus they have taken with 4th edition. So if anything supplanted the Pacific it was the move to mid-war.

McWong7303 Aug 2017 10:29 p.m. PST

This is like an exact copy of all the discussion around Old Ironsides…ten years ago was it?

Tgunner Supporting Member of TMP04 Aug 2017 6:27 a.m. PST

The old is new again? I wasn't around for the early editions of Flames of War. I didn't even really get into the game until a couple of years ago when 3rd Edition came out. Market Garden finally pulled me in.

Old Wolfman04 Aug 2017 7:16 a.m. PST

Just read about it on FoW's website.

Rabbitohs04 Aug 2017 12:05 p.m. PST

I wonder if they will do Italians after that. I doubt it.

Battlefront has said that an Italian book is next.

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP05 Aug 2017 6:44 a.m. PST

The cynic in me is saying that everything shown here is available in Battlefront figures, indeed from many other manufacturers. And some here are acting as if nobody produced any 15mm WWII American figures before.

Part time gamer19 Aug 2017 12:04 p.m. PST

Mark 1
The 3-inch GMC M10 only made its combat debut, in small numbers,.. the 75mm GMC M3 was the real TD formation work-horse.. supplimented by M6s.., and.. by M10s later.
I've always loved the M3 GMC. Granted a 'quick-fix' stop gap until the allies could get a better MBT with more "punch" (and range). IMHO, other than the Hvy armored German tanks & armor design of the Panthers. The 75mm howitzer could pretty much handle what ever came along.
Her two weak points: 1st, mounted only on a 'thin skinned' half-track. 2nd, Limited firing arc.
doctrine for British.. carry the gun to the engagement site, demount.. and dig it in… But crews often just.. engaged the enemy from the truck. This often proved to be a very poor tactic,
Very true. Sitting "UP" on a truck makes you a far easier and much more visible target.
I would say these crews were thinking more along the lines of, "Shoot and Scoot".

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.