Being my very first post and meant to be more a test of what WordPress could do for me, I realized that not a lot of information exists about the 20 mm Madsen M1938 AT machine gun, so I thought it was about time to revisit the post and make a new one.
The DUKW is a very distinct shape and is very recognisable but it simply does not have the appeal of tanks and guns. It was merely a transport but an amphibious one which made it one of the work horses in the early days of the Normandy invasion and with services all over the world where beach landings or river crossings demanded it. This post takes a look at this often overlooked vehicle.
In the Netherlands exists quite a special WWII museum. The war museum is built on the actual battlefields of around the village of Overloon and displays many items found on the actual battlefield. If you are a WWII history buff I highly recommend a visit. It is quite unique to visit a museum that is so connected with its location.
Even though it has expanded into a more general WWII museum, it is very impressive in its size and scope.
Battle of Overloon
The Battle of Overloon is sometimes called the 2nd Battle of Caen due to its ferocity. it is also very much a forgotten battle as it was completely overshadowed by Operation Market-Garden. After the failure of Market-Garden most of the attention turned to the Battle of the Bulge and the battles fought in the Netherlands during this period is not had the attention they deserve (much like the battles in the Hurtgen Forest). These were battles such as the battles of the Scheldt estuary and the battles to the East such at the Battle of Overloon.
In September 1944 Operation Market-Garden left a narrow sailent running from Northern Belgium and into South East Netherlands. When the allied offensive stalled at Arnhem, it left a long front line for the Germans to counter attack. As the Germans had a foothold on the Western side of the river Maas and a crossing at Venlo attacks into the salient were easily launched so it was decided to clear out this pocket on the Western side of the river in what became known as Operation Aintree.
The US 7th armoured division launched attacks in the area on September 20 but failed to take the village of Overloon. 9 days of fierce fighting wore down the division and the attacks had to be called off but the German defences had held.
The British 3rd infantry and 11th armoured divisions were called upon next to continue the offensive and relieved the Americans on October 8th. A small respite was given to allow the units to take up position and for the heavy rainfall to cease. On October 12 the British launched their attacks preceded by heavy air and artillery attacks, the rain had soaked the ground meaning that the tanks could do very little to assist and it was a heavy infantry-artillery battle. It took 3 days to clear the village and the continous artillery destroyed the village. The battle was very bloody with high casualty rates. The British finally managed to drive the Germans out and force a crossing but ultimately the offensive was called off as more man power were needed for more important battles such as the clearing of the Schledt to open up the port of Antwerp. Thus the battle of Overloon despite its fierce fighting was lost in the greater picture.
A Panther tank recovered from the battlefield and still bearing some of the battle scars
The Overloon War Museum
However the Dutch remember it as one of the bloodiest battles of WWII fought in the Netherlands and certainly the largest tank battle. A museum has been built in Overloon commemorating the battle as well as armoured warfare during WWII in general.
The Overloon War Museum commemorates the battle and consisted at first of tanks and items recovered from the actual battlefield but has later expanded with more especially tanks and more than 150 tanks and artillery pieces are on display.
I must admit I was overwhelmed by the museum and had the weird feeling that there was almost too much for me to take in for the few hours I had on my passing by while driving to Brussels. I highly recommend it but please take more than 2 hours that was all I had available. Other interesting collections are the German occupation of the Netherlands and some D-Day stuff. A bit of Cold War stuff has also made it into the collection.
Other collections have later been added to the Museum and it now hosts an impressive host of vehicles, Other displays worth mentioning are D-day and Netherlands during the German occupation
Well done displays
For more info, please see: https://www.oorlogsmuseum.nl/en/
Dealing with tanks have been a recurring theme since WWI. While to the infantry man a tank represents a dangerous and almost invulnerable steel monster on the battlefield, to the tank crew it is a steel coffin waiting to blow up any minute.
The balance of infantry versus tanks varied greatly over the course of the war with innovations in both armour and weapons. Early in the war the balance was clearly on the side of the tankers. The principle defense of all armies were the use of anti-tank rifles with rifle launched or thrown grenades for really close up defence. These would be backed by anti-tank guns which would be deployed to counter main enemy armour advances of these were limited number of small caliber guns. This meant that early in the war panzers would often make sweeping advances where as towards the end of the war the balance changed towards the infantry men with the introduction of handheld rocket propelled weapons. This means that tankers had to move more cautiously as a well-hidden infantry man at close range could easily disable a tank with a single rocket.
Anti-tank Rifles
Anti-tank rifles were developed during WWI when tanks were still light enough to be penetrated by one massive round fired from an oversized rifle. These were often unwieldy weighing in above 12 kg and needed a crew of 2 to operate effectively. These guns would often not fire a high explosive round big enough to defeat armour but would instead rely on a solid shot also known as kinetic rounds to simply use mass and velocity to push through the enemy armour. The caliber was often around 12-15 mm although for instance the Finnish Lahti used a 20 mm round. The anti-tank rifle was still around in beginning of WWIIbut armour was developing fast and it was only few vulnerable spots. Even if the round did penetrate the armour it seldom had much effect. When using kinetic rounds the round itself or splinters of hot metal being knocked off on the inside by the energy from the impact is supposed to to injure crew or ignite munitions onboard, with a small round this can be difficult. The Germans interestingly enough stayed with a rifle diameter round of 7.92 mm but beefed it up to a massive 9.4 mm in length to get some mass behind it. The penetration was still low some 25 mm at 300 m and hitting a moving tank in a vulnerable spot almost down to luck exclusively. Anti-tank rifles quite quickly became obsolete as the tanks developed rapidly and soon had frontal armour that could withstand it. Often however side armour on tanks were kept thinner to reduce weight and AT rifles stayed with the Soviet army much longer than any other weapon.
PTRD and PTRS Russian WWII anti-tank rifles, from the Russian Museum of Artillery
AT Grenades and Mines
The armour of a tank provides excellent protection especially against most infantry weapons a tank must unfortunately also have weak points which as exhausts or vision slits for it to perform its role. Futhermore the more armour the less vision, while tank commanders would be hanging out the hatch and trying to identify targets once in combat and under fire the crew would often be forced to button up meaning sealing hatches and getting inside the tank due to the threat of incoming fire (even if not powerful enough to penetrate the tank). Once buttoned up a tank is relatively blind and rely on its infantry support to prevent enemy infantry to sneak up and disable it with grenades or explosives. Typically under side and top armour is also kept relatively weak to save weight which means grenades have a good chance of penetrating these areas. Thrown and rifle grenades were developed but these could easily fail to explode at vulnerable spots at the tank because these tended to be hard to aim in case of rifle grenades (estimated practical range below 100 m with a penetration of armour equal to AT rifles) or rolled before detonation of thrown grenades. Methods for attaching grenades were therefore attempted developed. The British tried with a sticky bomb which was a bomb coated with glue but often proved dangerous to the user more so than the target. Other types of attachments were magnetic. The way that these grenades worked is often by hollow charge or shape charge where the grenade is shaped as a hollow cone with the wide part towards the target. Once ignited and impacting a tank the cone sides which are coated with copper or similar will heat up and form a molten metal jet that can burn through the armour.
The infamous British sticky bomb
Tiger II, note the uneven surfaces, this tank is coated in zimmerit an anti-magnetic paint to deter attacks with magnetic mines/grenades
Recoiless/Rocket Propelled Weapons
Around 1943 recoiless and rocket propelled weapons became more readily available. These light and portable weapons posed a very deadly threat to tanks, the one of two man teams could easily be concealed and a single rocket could disable a tank. The rocket propelled weapons worked on the shaped charge principle fired from an open tube which meant there was a significant back blast which limited firing positions and gave away positions but it still weighted in below typical AT rifles from earlier in the war. Because of the shape charge sloped armour is a particular challenge especially with trying to hit particular parts of the tank.
The US bazooka which was introduced in 1942 was a revolutionary concept, it used a 2.36 inches hollow tube with a rocket and was reasonably accurate up to 300 m but could reach out to 650 m. It could even fire high explosives to deal with crew served support weapons.
The Germans reversed engineered the US bazooka to create the panzerschreck. However in many ways it was an improvement, it increased the caliber to 88 mm and simplified to firing mechanism. The Germans also developed a one-shot weapon the panzerfaust, which they were able to turn out about a millions a month. With so much anti-tank firepower the infantry regained power. Although the Panzerfaust first versions only had a range of 30 meters the range increased with the standard Panzerfaust 60 to around 60 meters and further models even more.
The German Rakenwerfer is a mix of anti-tank gun and rocket launcher
Anti-tank Guns
The most basic of ideas would be to engage tanks with big guns however bigger guns are not very mobile and without enough guns to cover the frontlines, instead a reserve for defense in depth is often created once the enemy main attack has been identified. For anti-tank functions closer to the front lighter more mobile guns were used. The typical gun at the start of WWII was around 37 mm with the British using 2 pounder (40 mm) and the Soviets 45 mm guns.
French 25 mm Hotchkiss AT gun, in the background the much larger Pak 40 75 mm AT gun
The rounds often were big enough to include a capped nose of a softer material which would be pressed in and deformed to avoid the round ricocheting. As the war progressed armour thickness increased and so did AT gun calibers and must countries adopted a 57 mm gun (the British 6 pounder is also at this caliber). Even bigger guns were developed for divisional assets such as the US 3″ M5 AT gun or Soviet Zis-3 at around 76 mm. The Germans even went to Pak 43 (Pak = Panzerabwehrkanone) of 88 mm. These larger rounds were often big enough to also include a “behind-armour” effect such as a small explosive charge. These guns were however too large for fast repositioning and thus less suitable for infantry use.
Anti-Tank Weapons in Flames of War
In Flames of War there are two types of anti-tank weapons with very different ratings, Antitank and tank assault.
Antitank rating is the measure of penetration a direct fire weapon has in the game. For the bigger divisional guns which are often immobile in game terms, I tend to view them as area denial weapons, these often have an anti-tank rating which is high enough that they are a serious threat to most tanks, so I tend to conceal them in terrain covering an avenue of approach. Like in real life concealment is important to gain first shot and thus a good chance not to get any return fire if the muzzle flash gives the gun away. In game terms once the guns have fired they lose gone to ground and massed return fire is likely to annihilate them so position is key to survive. The “real” infantry AT guns are smaller and lighter than their divisional counterparts and are meant for close defence of the infantry. They lack range and often punching power to frontally engage enemy tanks reliably. I therefore like to position them 6-8″ behind my infantry in this way they will protect my infantry against tanks if enemy tanks attempts to assault my infantry the guns can provide defensive fire.
Tank assault is the equivalent of grenades, mines or similar weapons which can be used in the assault phase. It is represented by the infantry having a default tank assault rating of 2 while specialist troops such as pioneers have up to 4 representing their access to explosives. Most tanks are somewhat vulnerable to tank assault 2 although heavy tanks are not. I view these mostly as an tank detergent as tanks unless really pressed for time is unlikely to assault infantry unless the infantry platoon is already whittled down.
Handheld AT weapons like rocket propelled weapons the range is too short, so I view these mostly as a way to deter tanks from assaulting my infantry. Most of these weapons have high tank assault ratings and that is where they really shine. With tank assault ratings high enough to threaten heavy tanks the opponent will rarely risk their few heavy tanks in assault, however it cannot remember the last time I fired a bazooka at any serious range in the game and hoped for it to do something. The Soviets never developed a rocket-propelled AT weapon and I am no big fan of AT rifles although I like to attach a few to scare off heavy tanks that would otherwise be invulnerable to my infantry, unfortunately these are gun teams and as such difficult to position in close combat. AT rifles have an AT rating too low to be a real threat to tanks frontally.
A couple of interesting rules to remember:
British and US parachute platoons are equipped with gammon bombs which were an explosive device in a satchel that could easily be thrown. These platoons have tank assault 3 and can be a threat to heavy tanks.
A number of teams have improvised tank assault, this means that the units were equipped with almost suicidal explosive devices for dealing with tanks. The British sticky bomb is a good example where the glue was contained in a glass cylinder around the main grenade and the thrower must ensure that the glass will break to release the glue but it also means it can stick the the thrower. Improvised tank assault is typically only seen in early and midwar before the rocket propelled AT weapons but works in an interesting way. Each time a team attacks with improvised grenades they must test to see if they are destroyed afterwards.
A function that most AT guns were deployed for even though it does not sound much like the job of an “antitank” gun was working as infantry guns in support either firing at bunkers or firing high explosives to support the infantry. However not all guns were issued high explosive ammunition. With most guns firing solid shot these would have very little chance of causing any real damage to infantry unless squarely hitting individuals hence some guns have the No HE rule which means they cannot fire at infantry or gun teams (although gun teams also carry rifles). The Soviets were particularly keen on using antitank guns in a dual role which is also why they settled on a 45 mm gun where most other nations went with 37 mm guns. This was because it gave access to a much more powerful HE shell, to represent this doctrine the Soviets get “Roll up the Guns” and “Volley Fire”special rules which increases mobility and fire.
Happy Valentine!
The post is about the most numerous British built tank chassis of WWII and you may not even have heard about it.
It made up 25% of all tank platforms build in the UK but yet it was not meant to be more than a stop-gap. On February 10, 1938, the War Office desperate for more medium tanks invited the Vickers company for a meeting ro producing a new tank. As the international tension mounted it was found the British land forces were not adequately prepared for war. Vulcan Foundry was working on the latest British tank the Matilda II and had their hands full and thus refused to offer to bid on a new tank design. The idea was to design a derivates of existing tank designs either the Matilda II or Vickers A10 to shorten development time and speed up production, it was to help things also accepted to lower design requirements from the Matilda II specifications. The Vickers company naturally chose to work with their previous design in which they had experience. The second meeting was held a few days later the day before Valentine’s Day. A name had to be chosen for the project which became known as Valentine and the name stuck. There are several stories regarding the name and while Valentine’s Day might have been on the mind of some designer given the date there are other plausible explanations. One is that the name was chosen in honour of Sir John Valentine Carden who had been a technical director at Vickers but had died in a air crash a few years before, other that it was chosen for the abbreviation of the company, Vickers Armstrong Limited (Engineers) Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Regardless of the name building a machine of war is not a joking matter and Vickers promised to start production in March of 1939 (only a year away) and at 2/3 of the cost of the Matilda II, this was only possible due to the fact that little retooling of the production lines were needed.
Infantry or Cruiser Tanks
Even though J. F. C. Fuller and B. H. Liddell Hart had done quite some work in the application of tank forces along the lines of blitzkrieg, these ideas were generally not heeded in Britain. Instead the British system used two types of tanks, infantry and cruiser tanks. The cruiser tank as the name suggested was supposed to steam into battle line abreast like battleships on land. These often sacrificed armour for speed and were supposed to operate on their own utilizing shock much like heavy cavalry of earlier periods. The infantry tank was a different beast. The infantry tanks to which the Valentine belonged were meant to be escorting the infantry forward working as mobile pillboxes and engaging enemy tanks. Armour was therefore more important than speed.
The Valentine is officially titled Infantry Tank Mk III Valentine but as many as 11 main variants were made. It was originally armed with a 2 pounder gun which was similar to the infantry anti-tank gun. Mk II and III were equipped with diesel engines with Mk III having a design adjustment turret to allow a third crew man in the turret for loading, something which had proven very successful in German tanks. The idea of a third crewman (the loader) takes a lot of stress of the tank commander, as he is burdened with surveying the battlefield and spotting targets, coordinating the tank crew and with higher formations and loading the main gun on top of it was extra work detracting from the other tasks. All three variants were shipped to North Africa to take part in the Desert War. While initially meant to be an infantry tank the Valentines often ended up as replacement cruiser tanks due to equipment shortages after Dunkirk. It also starting replacing Matilda IIs as infantry tanks. The Valentines gained re reputation as very reliable tanks even though meant as a stop-gap until Matilda production could keep up. A number of minor improvements continued bringing the Valentine to Mk VII but in September of 1941 the tank was declared obsolete and work on finding a replacement was conducted. With other replacements still under development it was decided to up gun the tank as another stop-gap but the turret was found too small to accept a 6 pounder gun and the turret had to be redesigned, which led to IX to XI versions each with better room to operate the gun but less stowage room. Even though obsolete, production was kept up due to lend-lease. At beginning of the German invasion of Russia the British started supplying arms to the Soviet Union and Valentines were amongst those. With Russian crews trained in their use production was kept up for much longer for export. A total of 7260 turreted tanks were built including 1420 Canadian versions of which 3665 were exported to the Soviet Union. The Soviets used the Valentine but preferred their own tanks and relegated it to secondary roles. 1056 other variants were built of which one, the Valiant, was a huge failure.
The Valiant (A38), the world’s worst tank design?
In May of 1942 the Tank Board wanted to have an assault tank and thus looked at uparmouring the Valentine X and equip it with heavy armour for approaching enemy positions (and surviving the heavier antitank gun fire). This was still held in the spirit of infantry tanks.
Designers were instructed to keep the weight to a minimum while increasing armour thickness. In order to save weight the hull was decreased. The driver compartment is almost moulded around the driver and the steering to difficult the driver had to almost sit crouched when operating the tank and was liable to hurt his back on the escape hatch or break his wrist when the gear lever came violently back when changing down from 5th gear. The driver hatches fouled the gun, the ground clearance too low and suspension too weak. Only one was ever build and it never completed trials, it was found to be dangerous to the driver and broke down running no more than 13 miles.
The only known completed Valiant tank on display in Bovington Tank Museum
The turret is overly large and gives the tank a very high profile, this was done on the insistence that the turret should have three crew members.
Other Variants
Another variant that was tried was the Bishop. Noting the success of German assault guns and doubling as a mobile artillery platform it was decided to use the Valentine chassis to mount a 25 pounder artillery gun in a fixed casemate. Production was commenced on a Valentine Mk III chasis but results were discouraging, with the arrival of the American M7 Priest, another self-propelled howitzer, the need for the Bishop ceased and the last versions were scrapped in 1944 leaving no surviving examples.
The Bishop even though having a massive superstructure actually had less working space than the US priest
Another very successful variant is the Archer. Already in spring of 1941 when the Valentine design started to know its age, it was suggested to mount a 6-pounder antitank gun on the chassis rather than spending resources on designing a new turret. The initial idea was either a gun on a swivel with a large gun shield or casemate like the Bishop. As the war progressed, tanks got more and more armoured and the British 17 pounder antitank gun were often needed for the heaviest German tanks. The idea was therefore revived as a way to use the tank chassis already built. Work to mount the massive gun on the small tank commenced but proved difficult, in the end the design had the gun mounted “backwards”, so the tank destroyger would have to reverse into position but drive forwards. 665 vehicles were completed and the design proved successful, the crew liked the ability to drive fast forward after having fired a few rounds from concealed positions rather than having to reverse out once revealed however complained about the thin armour, open fighting compartment and the exhaust smoke easily giving them away when changing positions.
The “back” of the Archer
Other variants include mine flails, DD swimming, bridgelayers and flamethrower tanks although few of thse actually saw combat, these were used to succesfully test a number of technologies that would equip the more famous tanks that followed such as the Churchill infanty tank and specialist sherman tank versions. All in all the stopgap tank proved an able WWII tank.
As always, please subscribe or comment on my posts if you would like to know more or have suggestions for new posts. Subscription can be done in the right panel on the site or find us on Facebook at “Playing with History Blog” for smaller updates that will not make it into full blog posts.
Thanks for your time and spread the love (of history)!
On April 22 I am going to host a Flames of War tournament. The format will be Red vs. Blue 1515 points late war. I will probably post more on that at a later stage. But as part of the preparation, I have committed myself to play 1 game per week on average and do more tactical posts on the blog.
So next in the journey, infantry support weapons. Infantry support weapons are important weapons because these allow the infantry to perform a number of tasks. Support weapons add to offensive and defensive capabilities.
In this post I will cover regimental and lower echelon attached and organic weapons; machine guns and mortars, as well as the infantry gun. I will discuss the roles of the weapons both from a historical and Flames of War perspective. I will try to cover use of weapons rather than organization.
Antitank weapons such as anti-tank guns and shoulder-fired AT weapons will be covered in a later post.
Origins of the Infantry Support Weapons
Many of the weapons have their origins in WWI, as machine guns drove the infantry to ground and created a No Man’s Land. The infantry had therefore need of specialized weapons who could follow them out into the death zone and help them shot their way forward. For this light machine guns were developed to be carried forward by one or two men. These would provide a lot of mobile firepower could help the infantry suppress enemy positions. often the infantry was held up by enemy heavy machine guns emplaced behind log or concrete positions. Heavy machine guns would be used for creating beaten (or death) zones. There would also be advanced fire plans with covered sectors and often including indirect fire with machine guns being fired up in the air in an angle. Where resistance was too tough the mortars or infantry guns could be brought forward and smash them with high explosives. If counter attacked by enemy tanks, anti-tank rifles or infantry guns could be brought in play.
Machine Guns
There are several classes of machine guns and several ways of classify them. As each country have their own ways of classification, I would like to divide them into 3 types: light, medium and heavy (please note that this my interpretation and not following any official standards). The light machine gun is a man portable machine gun, it is light enough to be brought forward by one man (and while several men may be needed to carry extra ammo, it is effectively operated by one man). These machine guns were often incorporated into infantry platoons. In the beginning of the war a typical infantry squad would consist of two teams, a fire and assault/manoeuver team. The idea was to use the fire team with the machine gun to provide a base of fire while the assault team would move on the enemy. These machine guns would typically be the British Bren gun, German MG34/42 (with a bipod configuration) and Soviet DP-27. In the US army an infantry squad carried either a M1919 light machine gun of this class although the standard rifle platoon more often used the BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) supplemented by the fast firing semi-automatic M1 Garand infantry rifle. The machine guns are used predominately for suppressive fire when closing with the enemy.
The Medium Machine Gun is a crew served weapon, it is often a heavier weapon which can be broken down in parts and served by 2-3 men plus extra to carry spares. It is often mounted on a tripod to sustained fire from a stable position. It is used to create beaten zones. Often these are water-cooled or have advanced barrel change mechanisms to avoid overheating during sustained fired. British types were often Vickers (MMG), the Germans used the MG42 but with a tripod, Soviets the Maxim M1910 and the US M1917.
The heavy machine guns are similar to MMGs but are often of higher caliber and can be used in a more anti-material role. The US .50 cal machine guns and the Soviet DSHK were for instance used in a anti-aircraft role and could be used against lighter armoured vehicles.
Example of AA mount
Mortars
The pocket artillery of the infantry man, the humble yet readily available mortar. The mortar is much cheaper to produce and require fewer men operate than the artillery, it is lighter and thus can more easily keep up with front line units however it also have more limited range. When dislodging an enemy from an entrenched position is difficult, it will often require weapons that can suppress him before soldiers can move on the position. Smoke can be dropped to create concealment as the troops come forward and HE and WP rounds can pin him to his fox holes. Illumination at night and chemical rounds are also something the mortar excel in.
The mortar has often been a bit of a under-rated weapon, because of its ability to be stationed near the front line and being much more easy to operate, it was easier to fire at specific targets of opportunity and towards the end of the war almost 70% of casualties in the British army in NW Europe 1944/45 is estimated to be from mortar and rocket (nebelwerfer) artillery (with mortars making up the larger percentage of weapons, it is likely it also made up the larger part of casualties). One of the advantages of the mortar is is ability to be laid fast on the target, in a time where field radios were bulky or unreliable and forward observers still could be found laying telephone wire when moving forward, the ability to respond fast was truly appreciated with the mortar.
There are three classes of mortars which are associated with the caliber of the mortar.
The light mortar is developed in the interwar period to replace the rifle grenades, the emphasis was a light weapon that could come forward with the infantry and destroy machine guns or other specific targets holding up the infantry. The firing therefore had to be done with “direct” observation from the crew. The typical caliber was around 50 mm in order to pack enough explosives yet being light. It was however found that the 50/60 mm rounds were too light for pill boxes and the light mortar was phased out in many cases.
Light mortar 2″. Light enough to be carried forward with rifle platoons
The typical medium mortar is around 80-82 mm and of the Brandt design which meant that in many cases ammo was actually interchangeable between various national armies. These were often equipped with HE, smoke and white phosphorous rounds and could often also fire HE rounds as air bursts to shower enemy troops in fragments or branches (if hiding in a wood). Very few mortar rounds had impact fuzes to allow penetrations of overhead cover so more often elimination would be achieved by collapsing the sides in on light constructed defences. With more solid defences several hits would be required which was hard to achieve giving to the relative inaccuracy of the weapon. It is easy to view mortars as light artillery but actually do to the relative less force applied compared to artillery shells, mortar shells often has higher explosive blast as thinner walls are needed, this makes them excel a lot more in an anti-infantry role but less so in a role where penetration is required. The same goes for the trajectory where mortar rounds fall in a much steeper angle.
Heavy mortars are mortars above 82 mm and this category contains the 120 mm mortars used by Germans and Soviets and the 4.2″ mortar used to British and US forces. Especially for the 4.2″ mortar the initial thought was that the mortar would be used for chemical warfare similarly to WWI mortars. Gas warfare was however never used in WWII and instead the mortars were used to deliver heavier HE shells.
Even larger mortars such as the Soviet 160 mm were developed but these are outside the scope of this text.
Infantry Guns
Infantry guns have their origins in WWI where the need for accompanying artillery was necessitated by poor communications. The idea was a gun that could be used much like a mortar but also had a direct fire capability and better range. It could also be used in an anti-tank role although past the early days of WWII this was less likely. Reviews of the weapon performance after WWI found the infantry gun too cumbersome to be moved fast still and the British dropped the concept. The Soviets and Germans doctrines stressed the use of direct fire for hard points and pill boxes. They developed 76mm and 75 mm cannons respectively for direct firing while also allowing them to fire shells similar to the power of mortars. When the 75 mm shell was found too light, the Germans developed a 150 mm infantry gun. The US regimental cannon company is a bit of an oddity as it’s purpose was to furnish infantry regiments with their own integral artillery. Originally issued with 75 mm pack howitzers these were later replaced with a short 105 mm howitzer. These operated more like artillery than the German use of infantry guns.
Gun Teams in Flames of War
A couple of general comments on gun teams. As Flames of War definitely is not supposed to be a simulation game and thus does have a couple of mechanisms that are up for interpretation. Gone to ground improves gun team saves to 3+ from 5+, which I have found a bit puzzling but my interpretation of this is that when the gun is in action (hence not gon
e to ground) the crew in order to serve the team effectively have to come close together and work, that means that HE shells have a higher chance on knocking out a sufficient number of men to make the weapon inoperable even if the weapon itself is not destroyed. Also serving a weapon would probably also mean that a trooper could not stay as low to the ground as he would like. Where as when the gun is not in action i.e. gone to ground my interpretation is that the crew likely disperse close to the gun and use the terrain like small depressions for cover which significantly improve chances that no or only a few guys would be injured and killed by fire but probably would have enough men to serve the weapon. I believe the same goes for infantry saves, for me the infantry save does not mean whether the plastic soldiers were hit or not. After rolling to hit, any hits I at least interpret as rounds/shells landing close enough to cause damage, so the 3+ save is whether the team is operable or not after the shell has exploded. It could perhaps be one guy wounded or killed but the rest of the team is still combat effective. Perhaps it could even be interpreted as superficial injuries but to me a hit is actually a hit as in something that would cause damage, otherwise the game would be inconsistent. If a tank is hit in the game it always takes an armour save as if something hit the armour (but may bounce off), I would like to think the same for infantry/guns.
The infantry support weapons: Mortars, LMGs and AT guns prepare to hold off the advancing German armour
Machine guns in Flames of War
The light machine guns are incorporated in the infantry platoon as the MG team or in case of it having been diluted with too many rifle teams as the Rifle/MG team. The rifle/mg team represent the traditional fire and maneuver teams, one team with the MG the other with the rifles or smgs but because Flames of War does not have the scale to represent squad combat, I believe it was simplified to 2 rifle/mg teams rather than a rifle and an MG team. Rifle/MG teams are pretty much the standard infantry team late in the war and has ROF 2 (the average of 1 for rifle team and 3 for MG team). A lot of nations experimented with motorizing infantry and the additional transportation allowed squads to be fitted with more fire-power as it was more easy to carry extra ammo etc. In Flames of war some motorized units especially the Germans can take MG teams. These teams represent every team having access to a machine gun and allow for an astonishing ROF 3 and ROF 2 when pinned down. The US infantry in this regards is special as they are rifle teams being equipped with rifles (semiautomatic) and an automatic rifle in the BAR. This left the individual with more firepower than other nations but the squad with less. In the game this combination rates the US infantry as rifle teams (dropped ROF to 1) but the special rule automatic rifles allow the teams to move more aggressively than other rifle teams in that they do not suffer the moving with ROF 1 penalty making them effectively equal to rifle/mg teams on the move and only slightly worse in defense.
Defensive Fire vs Trained targets
| ROF | To hit | W/ reroll | Hits/team | |
| Rifle | 1 | 66,00% | 0,66 | |
| Rifle/MG | 2 | 66,00% | 1,32 | |
| MG | 3 | 66,00% | 1,98 | |
| Rifle (US) | 1 | 66,00% | 88,44% | 0,88 |
My experiences, I find that MG armed platoons (apart from the much smaller British Motor Rifle) are very capable on defense. I rarely find myself tempted to combat medium machine guns to the mix as their defensive fire even when pinned down is formidable. Rifle/MG teams I have much more trouble with, often they can bring the necessary ROF to create enough volume to pin attacker.
The Medium Machine Guns in Flames of War are typically covered by two types of teams, the LMG (ROF 5) and HMG (ROF 6) but are otherwise very identical. These are man-packed gun teams with a longer range 24″ to the 16″ of the infantry machine gun. To me that represent the more stable tripod which allows the team a more steady platform for long range fire. Apart from the US forces M1919 LMGs are fairly rare in Flames of War.
Many of the sophisticated machine gun indirect fire techniques developed in WWI deteriorated during WWII. The main reason for this was the abundance of support weapons that would be used in the same role such as mortars and artillery. Only British MMG platoons get the option to perform indirect fire. I must admit I rarely use the special rule. If my opponent is dug it the FP rating of -, does not allow me to destroy his teams and I can only hope to suppress him. While this is exactly the role of the machine gun in the indirect fire role, I often find, much like the WWII company commanders, I can allocate mortars and 25 pdrs to shell them instead. Often the 25 pdrs are already ranged in anyway as that would likely be my main point of attack that needs to be suppressed. Against infantry in the open where a template bombardment could be tempting, I find that 4 HMGs firing at ROF6 will do more damage. With trained machine guns vs the typical 7 team veteran grenadier platoon at long range and in cover, even if ranging in on first attempt the average number of hits would be 3.5 from bombardments, with 4×6 shots at 16% chance to hit is still 3.8 hits from direct fire. So it should be used only for infantry moving behind enemy lines out of range or where pinning is desperately needed to prevent them from moving in which case the chance of pinning is 70%.
British machine guns cannot be combat attached to combat platoons but I would like to take some time to consider them. Soviet companies (i.e. platoons) can have an integral HMG, this is actually owing to the Soviet infantry in theory having more organic support weapons with their infantry regiments than other nations but admittingly Soviet forces were seldom up to full established strength. I find that my Soviet platoons should often move forward and get stuck in close combat where their larger number of teams can make the difference and thus I seldom buy HMGs. In defence I rely on mortars and artillery to whittle down my opponent and then counter attacking with my infantry so HMGs simply reveal my infantry and expose them to counter fire which takes away the strength in numbers when I finally counter attack. With my Germans I most often play panzergrenadiers which is MG teams in their combat platoons, hence I do not find the extra ROF provided by HMGs really needed. For the US I have no experience but I do believe owing to regular infantry being rifle teams I would like to get the weapons platoon and attach some LMGs out while keeping the mortars in the platoon together.
An interesting historical side note which is also reflected in the game is the US practice of dismounting machine guns from vehicles and form provisional HMG platoons staffed by spare personnel from HQ or A&P platoons. This too can be done in Flames of War although I rarely see US armoured rifle platoons as these are not as interesting as their German counterparts, and US rifle platoons with transports I have yet to face.
Mortars in Flames of War
Mortars in Flames of War receive a reroll on the first range in attempt to emulate the ease of deploying and direct observation. I tend to view heavy mortars as poor man’s artillery, except for US and British heavy mortars, heavy mortars do not get the smoke special rule and also lack the ability to perform direct fire, they are therefore limited to firing bombardments with shorter range which also makes them very cheap in terms of point costs which somewhat makes up for their lack of staff teams. Firepower is keeping in the notion that these are good any infantry weapons and is typically 3+ or 4+. In the other end of the spectrum is the light mortar, this is often directly integrated into rifle platoons and lack the bombardment ability, these typically have very good fire power in direct fire (4+) and the British even get smoke. I like these for smoking up enemy weapons teams that could otherwise help pin assaulting platoons but otherwise tend to view them as a nice to have rather than a need to have. In Soviet forces I actually like them for their ability to fire over friendly troops as most of my teams would be unable to fire their weapons due to their large platoons. The US use the 60 mm mortar which is a bit in between, it does not have smoke but it does have a bombardment in addition to direct fire. I tend to group these together in lists that permits it and use it as medium mortars firing bombardments for pinning.
The medium mortar is the cheapest smoke generator around, a two mortar platoon can provide a template of smoke where it is needed and can provide pinning but with a bombardment fire power of 6 do not expect them to kill anything anyway. For armies that do get smoke with medium mortars I never leave home without them, however for Soviets I am less likely unless I create a massed group to advance and blast the enemy with direct fire. Direct fire was something that was added with version 3 of Flames of War and I must admit I often forget it. It can be really useful against troublesome infantry.
Infantry guns in Flames of War
The Germans get only 2 guns in each platoon, so I generally do not like them, they are too few guns to make an effective bombardment and for smoke mortars are cheaper (although shorter range). The 15 cm heavy infantry gun however truly shine in its direct fire with bunker buster and can be used to deny the enemy use of buildings. The Soviets have bigger batteries but only 76 mm guns and I find mortars fulfill the same role more cheaply. The US cannon platoon I consider artillery and should be treated as mortars although with 6 guns and good firepower (105 mm version) these are actually worth it.
The early years of the Cold War saw a Danish army in rebuilding and expanding mode to avoid the repeat of the 9th of April where the German army had steam rolled the Danish army in a matter of hours. However in the post war world funding was limited and thus the Danish army had to make do with makeshift solutions and second hand equipment.
This however means that there is some very interesting armoured vehicles on display around Denmark. this post is to show some of those I have encountered and a bit of their story.
Converted Universal Carrier (Tank Trainer)
Tank trainer universal carrier – private collection
It must be noted that some sources claim the Danish carriere were in fact tank destroyers with mounted 106 mm recoilless guns however the army archives suggests this is not the case.
Staghound Mk. III
The Staghound armoured car saw service during WII and into the 1960s. It served from 1942-1964 with various countries including the Polish and Canadian corps in Italy during WWII. the Staghound or T17E1 was a joint British-American project to come up with an armoured car to British specifications. At the time the main British involvement was in North Africa and a heavy rmoured car to go even the field with German armoured recce was needed and one with could go on long-range desert patrols, where wheels offered more fuel efficiency. The advantage of armoured cars became clear during the 1940 fighting in France, a wheeled vehicle is faster on roads and much more quiet than tracked vehicles which makes for a better scouting car. While off-road mobility suffers the use of wheel makes it much more easy to train personel with driving experience to drive it, something which may not seem all that important today but was important in 1940 when much fewer people had cars. After Dunkirk the British needed to rearm fast and thus approached the neutral USA for development and manufacture for an armoured car. That the US would develop an armoured car to British specifications before the US had even joined the war was two-fold, first of all the US also studied the same lessons in France and secondly the US army was developing its mobile tank destroyer doctrine in which scout vehicles would be deployed ahead of the tank destroyers to locate approaching enemies and guiding the tank destroyers into ambush positions.
In the end the US decided to focus on one armoured car only the M8 (Greyhound) and thus the Staghound ended up being an armoured car manufactured in the USA but solely for her allies.
When the armoured car arrived in early 1944 the situation had however changed, and the Staghounds found themselves in the Italian winter and mud and later dense North-West Europe, still they soldiered on and were robust and reliable and liked by their crews. But as the situation had changed so did their role and a number of field and design modifications were made. Mine-rollers and rocket launchers were attempted but proved unsuccessful and the turret was removed to make space for AA machine guns and other turrets or guns were added. The Staghound Mk II had a 75mm howitzer added using the M8 Scott turret for close fire support but more interesting was the change out of the turret for surplus Crusader Mk. III turrets and 75 mm guns creating the Staghound Mk. III. This was done as a response to the late war inadequate performance of the original 37 mm gun. Trials started in December 1942 (before the Staghound was even deployed) however the Crusader’s two man turret meant that the commander had to double as loader which was poor for surveying the fall of rounds and added much more strain which reduced the efficiency. It was not until january 1945 that the Mk. III was deployed and only 32 were ever converted. After the end of WWII a number of military stock was passed down to NATO allies and 8 of the Mk IIIs ended up in Denmark where interestingly enough 1 has been preserved.
It is currently undergoing repair at Jyske Dragonregiment Veteran Panser Forening by a group of enthusiasts in Holstebro on behalf of the Danish Army Museum and hopefully we will see it restored one day. it is to my knowledge the only still existing Mk. III.
Picture of JDVP webpage
I always had a facination with British light infantry in the Napoleonic period. Bernard Cornwell´s Sharpe books and even more so the TV series which I did come across way before the books really sold the idea to me about the novelty of the elite rifle armed infantry man although it has only been later I got a more nuanced view.
Early Experiences
The idea of light infantry was not new to the British army prior to the Napoleonic Wars but it was not as firmly established. Experinces in North America during the Seven Year War demonstrated the need for light infantry especially in the heavily wooded or wild nature that the continent offered. This made recon and skirmishing more important. Light infantry at the time was however often recruited from irregulars or militia, some argued that to become light infantry recruits needed only instructions in simple orders and ability to fire weapons and could be trained much faster than line infantry which much of the training was spent with imbuing the vigourous discipline required for close formation fighting. It was therefore with quite some mistust that light infantry was accepted and after the war most units were disbanded. Similar experiences were gained by the Austro-hungarians using irregulars in Balkan. During the American War of Independence light infantry again proved its worth but this time British commanders resisted claiming that if transferred to European battlefields the light and dispersed formations would simply be overrun by the more numerous cavalry.
Uses of Light Infantry
Infantry formations of the day consisted of heavy infantry and were usually slow and cumbersome formations to move around. To maximise firepower infantry had to be deployed in lines 2-3 deep however to move around the battlefield they needed to deploy into collumns and this could take time. During this time the infantry could be exposed to harassing fire which would wear down morale so to screen them light infantry could be pushed out in front of the line infantry in a loose formation to harass the enemy or protect own troops until they were information.
Other roles of light infantry was to act as scouts when the army was on the move and pickets when encamped to give early warning of enemy movements.
British riflemen in “rifle green” pushed out ahead of the main line of red coats
These roles had previously been held by dragoon regiments in previous centuries where the dragoons fought as dismounted infantry but had horses for scouting and fast redeployment around the battlefield but there had been a drive towards decreasing the number of dragoons as it was a costly unit to maintain in peace time and amalgate dragoon units into heavy shock cavalry while giving infantry regiments and integral scouting/light infantry capability. In 1770 the British army reorganized the battalion to consist of 10 companies of which 1 was named light company and the other grenadier. Often both light and grenadier company were trained in light infantry scouting and skirmishing and this deployed on the wings of the formation hencing giving rise to the name wing companies (and often uniforms had a “wing” on the shoulder either left or right depending on whether light or grenadier). However if part of a larger force light companies were often detached from the main unit to form a detachment of detachments to give the army light infantry capacity if needed but that also means battalions were often without their own light company. Futhermore light company training was often inconsistent and often used as a training unit for new officers hence the officer would move out of the company just has he started to get experience meaning that little of the experience was retained.
Redcoat from a wing company, note the shoulder wing
British Experiences
Following the American War of Independence there had been a steady decline in light unit experiences and tactics because of afore mentioned reasons and a somewhat ambivalent view towards light infantry as being specialist yet due to their militia origins unsteady in battle. This conservatism led to it being mostly forgotten however in 1795 Britain attempted to intervene in the French revolution which led to an expeditionary force being sent to Fladers where they met the new armies of Revolutionary France. Following the revolution in France much of the former nobility had been removed from the army and the army was largely a conscripted mass army hastily trained. It therefore relied on much different tactics compared to the smaller more highly trained British army. The French army would rely on a much higher proportion of skirmishers or light infantry (up to 25% of the total unit) which would be spread out in front of the unit. This higher number of skirmishers would drive away the enemy skirmishers and then proceed to harass the enemy while the remainder of the French infantry came on in a collumn. If the artillery and skirmishers had already shaken the enemy the collumn would move straight into the attack otherwise it would at the last minute deploy into line covered by the skirmishers to deliver volley fire before going in. Following the defeat of the British army in Flanders revisions had to be made.
The Duke of York
Frederick Augustus, Duke of York, served as a commander in the Flanders campaign and later as the commander-in-chief of the British army and he took many of the lessons in from that campaign. One of the things he wanted to change was the addition of a specialist light infantry unit armed with rifles which would act as a counter to the French light infantry however he met with a lot of resistance in Horse Guards (GHQ) so the had to take a different approach. As the Duke of York he was the honourary commander of the 60th regiment of foot the Royal Americans and went the unit was expanded with a 5th battalion in 1797 he got his way and got them rifle armed as an experiment. It was under the impression that the unit would serve in the Americas and thus this exception was acceptable but in the end it did end up in Europe in the end. What is more interesting is that the unit recruited generally from German origin. The British light troops had shown in the Flanders campaign to be inadequate and thus it was decided to adopt forreign light troops into the army and Hompesch light infantry was consituted as 5/60th. The reason Hompesch came into British service was that it took part in the failed Kosciuszko Uprising, following the defeat it had emigrated to Hanover and thus found itself allied to the British and brought with them valuable insight. This proved very succesful and 2 additional battalions were raised, the way for full units of light troops were cleared.
Other Light Infantry Units
Good experience with rifles let to the formation of the Experimental Rifle Corps in 1800 with volunteers drafted from other regiments in the UK to form a detachment of detachments for trials with rifle and light infantry tactics. This experimental unit proved itself at first Battle fo Copenhagen 1801 and was eventually constituted as the 95th Regiment of Foot (Rifles).
Other work was ongoing by general sir John Moore who was a great proponant of light infantry. Moore volunteered his own 52nd regiment to be retrained as light infantry as he believed that the British army was too small to contain both light and line infantry so to be able to act in both roles. Moore had a radical new vision, instead of viewing soldiers as mechnical instruments of war to march, aim and fire in unison Moore wanted his men to be able to act on initiative and think for themselves. This was radical in a time where people were revolting against the established classes and some conservatists would have loved to shut his project down. But the light infantry concept went on to prove itself.
The Light Division
The light division was created in 1803 by forming the first three battalions together 43rd, 52nd and the 95th rifles all trained as light infantry prior. More regiments would be converted but these were the first.
At the time it was not known as the Light Division but as the Corps of Light Infantry and was camped at Shorncliffe for training. Based on Moore’s vision it was tried to get the light units armed with rifles and set apart by special uniforms to create a strong esprit de corps but only the already rifle armed 95th were allowed to wear green uniforms, the rest had to stay with the scarlet in keeping with the light company traditions. The light division acquitted itself well first at the Siege of Copenhagen in 1807 especially the Battle at Køge and went on to serve in the Peninsula War. Unfortunately not always in a light infantry role, as it was trained to perform both light and line infantry roles, the light division was often used as an elite formation and thrown into the breaches in storming of Ciduad Rodrigo and Badajoz.
Equipment
The Baker Rifle
While some light infantry still used the much cheaper musket and as such was forced much closer to enemy in order to have any chance of hitting (engagements were fought down to maybe 50 meters between skirmishers). However even for light infantry armed with muskets there was a general trend to be equipped with shorter versions on the musket to lighten the infantry man to allow him to move more easily.
It is the Baker Rifle that really set the light infantry apart. By applying rifling the bullet would spin about a quarter turn in the rifled groove in the barrel and thus come out with a spin and be much more accurate and could hit individual targets at up to maybe 200 meters. The problem was that for the bullet to grip the groove it needed to be a tight fit and thus slowed loading significantly. The rate of fire of a Baker Rifle compared to the musket was maybe half meaning that volley fire was much less effective but this was outweighted by accurate and the ability to produce well aimed fire.
A number of techniques were developed for more accurate fire. First of all to avoid confusion men were to always fire around the right side of obstacles. Secondly, the strap on the rifle was often used for steadying when firing, it could be wrapped tightly around the arm and the ramrod could be supported against the belt and used as a mono-pod.
As the muskets were shorter and the Baker rifle was particularly short in a period where reach with bayonets were deemed all important for close engagements, bayonets issued were generally longer to compensate for the shorter weapon. The bayonet issued for the Baker rifle was very long and could be used both as a fighting knife and as a bayonet and resembled a sword thus bayonets in the rifle regiment was affectionally refered to as swords.
Re-enactors showing off their light infantry equipment
To further lighten the troops and make them excel in the type of light combat uniforms were generally shorter tailed jackets and equipment was of lighter variants. Drums were replaced by bugles as these were easier to carry and orders were more easily relayed over distance. The Bugle therefore became the symbol of light infantry and is to this day carried as cap badges. Because of their ligher nature the faster marching pace was faster 140 paces per minute compared to line infantry 120 paces per minute.
Another interesting feature was that officers to be stylish were some of the early adopters of curved sabres in the British infantry over the straight spadroons.
Basic Tactics
In theory there were two basic formations when skirmishing: “open order” and “extended order”. Both of them deployed in two lines about two paces apart. the distance in the ranks were 2 paces in open and 6 paces in extended but these would vary depending on terrain and natural cover. The idea behind the two lines was to have the men work in pairs. The front rank would fire and then either the rear rank would move through to take up firing positions or the front rank would fall back through the second rank and reload. In this way there was always one of the two loaded at any given time and the two could then in turns cover each other. This required a lot of individual initative and skill and was something that was very sought after in training and which made the light infantry unique.
As skirmishers are naturally stretched out they are vulnerable to sudden attacks by either cavalry or line infantry in more compact formations. Thus a quarter of the troops would be held back in a more compact double line formation50 meters behind the skrimish line to act as a reserve as well an anchoring point for men to fall back and rally on in case they were forced back. When faced with cavalry it could form a small square which the cavalry would find hard to attack while more conventional line infantry could come up from behind for support. It was feared a general retreat by dispersed units easily could turn into a rout if they had no anchoring points.
Another formation that was developed Chain which was a bit of a mixed formation as it had the reserve as usual about 50 meters back but combined two pairs of rifle men to have 1 man forward and 3 in the second line and then the men rotating one at a time to give fire. Each set of three were known as a link in the chain hence the name.
History is often all around us but often we are blind to it. A couple of days ago I finished my work day with a meeting at our HQ rather than the office building I am normally working from so I decided to take a walk through the park at Kastellet (the Citadel). There I came across an old momument. Kastellet used to house the GHQ of the Danish Army and thus it is not surprising to find military memorials, there are memorials to our fallen on international missions after WWII and one for our fallen in allied service during WWII but this one is rather special as it is not raised to Danish but Norwegian volunteer soldiers during the Schleswig Wars (fought between Denmark and the German Confederation). I think this is one of the untold stories and I would like to raise some awareness to and besides the Norwegians had some of the coolest rifles of the period.
I would like to cover more of the Schleswig Wars and Kastellet in later posts so I will not put a lot of emphasis on that during this post but the Kingdom of Denmark and the two Duchies of Holstein and Schleswig had for centuries been combined in a union. The Danish king governed Denmark but in his role as Duke of Schleswig and Holstein also rules these. Although power was concentrated in the same king different laws actually existed between the three parts of the kingdom. To make matters more complicated, Holstein the Southern most were predominately German, Denmark was Danish but Schleswig was a mix of Danish and German (although generally also split between a more Danish North and a German South). As nationalism swept through Europe in the 19th century these sentiments and the complicated situation tore the union apart. Denmark who received democracy in 1848 (but the Duchies did not) wanted to secure its position by integrating Schleswig and expelling the unruly Holstein which was totally unacceptable to the Germans and let to a rebellion in 1848 to 1850 known as the First Schleswig War. Being a combination of a civil war but also saw intervention by the German Confederation. Many German states tried to use the war to strengthen their position within the Confederation and Prussia openly supported the rebels with troops and weapons. The first war did only end due to international pressure on the Germans to stop supporting the rebels and the peace did not solve the issues over which the war had initially started. This led to the Second Schleswig War 1864 in which a much stronger German Confederation acted in support of Schleswig-Holstein rebels spurred up over Danish attempts to increase control with Schleswig. This was a very one sided affair and Denmark lost all of Schleswig not just the German part and Danish orientated Schleswig would stay German until 1920 when a vote finally settled the new border.
Norway and the Schleswig Wars
Norway and Denmark had for four centuries been joined in a union under the Danish king. With the rise of nationalism in Europe the rise of Scandinavism was a side-effect. It meant that Danes, Norwegians and Swedes did feel linked through common language and history (although having been at each other since the viking age). Despite having many disagreements there is a feeling of having more things in common than not, something that persists to this day.
Norway and Denmark had been forcibly split by the Napoleonic Wars, Denmark-Norway had supported Napoleon while Sweden had supported the allies and thus Norway was given to Sweden as part of the peace terms in 1814. When war broke out in 1848 many of the Danish officers were actually Norwegian by birth and born into what was then Denmark-Norway. In Norway were was great sympathy for Denmark and some 130 Norwegians volunteered to the Danish army and the Norwegian people gathered money for treatment of Danish wounded. The same thing happened in Sweden.
M1849/55 Kammerlader Rifle, a Norwegian Marvel
In 1864 an additional 100 Norwegians volunteered. Many of these brought their own weapons and some would have been issued with the Norwgian service rifle at that time the M1849/55 rifle. The first thing to notice is that it is a breech loading rifle which was in stark contrast to the Danish muzzle loaded rifle which was so outmatched by the Prussian breech loader. The Norwegian rifle was a percussion cap rifle much like most weapons of it time but it was an underhammer percussion cap gun which is what its name Kammerlader (chamber loaded) refers to. The idea was to have the hammer sit on the bottom side of the gun and strike up into the chamber to hit the cap and firing the gun.
Note the underhammer (and guard) in front of the trigger
This means that the firing takes place inside the chamber which leaves as much cbetter aim as the shooter is not distracted by the cap going off close to his face. Furthermore when ambushing the spark from the cap would not give away the ambush until after the flash of the gun was visible. I am not sure that would have any measurable effect as the time from trigger to shot would likely be very short and not give much time to react but it is a good story.
This was quite a technological marvel of its day and something I think would be cool to mention.
I was quite late to using YouTube for other purposes than the odd silly video or for music playlists but there are actually quite a lot of good quality infotainment or documentaries out there. The main problem is where to find it and there is really too much stuff out here which is poorly sorted. It took me quite a while to get it going but with the way that YouTube remembers what I have seen last and come up with suggestion, I have now got a critical mass to really find some of the great stuff. So I thought if you read my blog you probably have similar interests so I will help you by sharing some of the channels I have found interesting.
I would therefore in this post talk a bit about my favourite YouTube channels.
Scholagladiatoria
Topics: HEMA, weapons, armour
There are a few HEMA channels out here, some of them seems quite good but as I got into historical martial arts very late and only have been doing it for short a while, I still do not have a lot of use of instructional video lessons yet. However Matt Easton of Scholagladiatoria is actually the one who got me into HEMA in the first place. I started with his videos on weapons but as Matt is a HEMA sabre instructor and he talks a lot about HEMA and weapons used in a historical context and antiques, so I slowly progressed into HEMA videos. I find him very knowledgable and his specials about armour, LARP and other topics. If you are interested minute details about different weapons and HEMA this is a must.
History Buffs
Topics: General history, Movie Reviews
Nick Hodges has a very interesting if somewhat different channel. he reviews historical movies from a historical perspective commenting on accuracy, authenticity and style. Videos are a bit long, around 20 minutes, but well worth it. The channel is a bit slow and Nick only releases about one review per month and is currently breaking for the summer, this is a very well researched and well worth the wait.
I think the show has lost a bit of its edge over time and Nick is not really getting into the flesh of historical inaccuracies but maybe that is just something temporary or because the latest couple of movie views have been on much more well known topics with more sources and this need to cover way more stuff than what can be squeezed into a 20 minutes review.
Historia Civilis
Topics: Rome, Ancient History, Battle Strategies
It may not be the most flashy or appealing YouTube channel at first glance but Historia Civilis is one of the very best out there for information about ancient Roman society. It has a simply visual style but is very informative and in depth and covers difficult topics such as the political systems of Rome in a way that few have been able to explain with such easy before. It also covers warfare and battles which instantly makes it a favourite of mine although my main interest normally starts with late medieval and to modern day warfare.
The Great War
Topics: World War I
The Great War project really deserves mentioning for being a very different themed channel. Indiana (Indy) Neidell talks about WWI but in way more details than most. It is a project that has run for 2 years now and covers the war week by week in a 10 minute video exactly 100 years later, so not only is the war presented in this weeks event 100 years ago in good details, a number of supporting videos with extra background information has also been done. Take a look at it and try to catch up, it is well worth it.
Forgotten Weapons
Topics: Firearms, technical details, Military History
This channel is very interesting at least for a European as I am not very used to firearms neither being around them nor firing them. Ian from Forgotten Weapons has a very nicely presented channel in collaboration with Rock Island Auction House which allows him to take a look at a number of speical guns that go up for sale at the auction. So if you are interested in all kind of firearms that you probably have never even heard about, head over an take a look. Perhaps even cooler than digging out forgotten weapons is that Ian takes many of the weapons apart so you can see the intriquet workings of each time and explain how they work. I have learned a lot about small differences and details. Great channel for gun enthusiasts and engineers.
I had originally decided only to select top five but I do think there are a couple that deserves “mentioning in dispatches”.
Lindybeige
If you are looking for a good ramble about history, philosophy or sciences take a look at Lloyd’s channel. Llyod likes to take up all kind of stuff that he comes across much like blog and for that I really like it. Some of it may challenge opinnions and possibly annoy people but I like getting challenged to think.
Metatron
Italian orientalist with a keen interest on both Japanese and European martial arts as well as ancient Rome, this channel mixes it all other with fancy costumes and replicate armour. The channel has changed a lot back and forth but I think there is something to cater for most people interested in martial arts or history.
Shadiversity
Oh boy, that guy can talk and go on and on and on for hours, medieval themed in most of its videos, it also talk about a lot of practical aspects of weapons, architecture and mixing it all up with a bit of roleplaying and computer game comparisons. Check it out, good stuff.
Finally since I am very interested in HEMA, I highly recommend Cedric Hauteville’s crowd-funded documentary about the art which can be found for free on YouTube:
Playing with History 