Standard Military Gear circa WWII

[fbdaury]

Its for a possible Champions campaign during WWII but I figured I might be more likely to get an answer here- I was wondering what kind of standard gear a military super would be expected to be provided with? All answers appreciated.

[kahuna's bro]

the answers may help a PULP HEROgame as well

[Shadow Hawk]

WW2 era: depends on nationality/service brance, area of operations, specialty. An infantryman could expect a rifle, a hundred rounds of ammo, a couple of grenades, a helmet, gas mask, bayonet, entrenching tool, shelter half, large knife, mess kit, boots, small caliber pistol with a dozen rounds...
Rifle could be replaced by a submachine gun or rocket launcher, depending.

[megaplayboy]

A "super-soldier", OTOH, would probably be given a better grade of weaponry--for an American GI, maybe a BAR(a large automatic rifle) with armor-piercing rounds, or a Bazooka with 3-4 rounds. Basically, they'd get a high-firepower weapon, useful for overpowering regular infantry and for taking on other super-soldiers.

[fbdaury]

Thanks for the ideas folks- for REALLY heavy or otherwise special weapons I would make them pay for those with Character Points, this would be standard wartime issue gear that they can get without paying points for them.

[fbdaury]

So, up to this point I have the following as pretty much standard for all forces (with some variations):
Combat Knife (Various makes and models)- 1d6-1 KA, 0 End Cost Str Min 6 Body 3 Def 5 Weight 0.8kg Can be Thrown (OAF, Real Weapon, Range based on Str)
(+1 DC of damage per 6.25 Str above min)

Trenching Tool- Tunneling 1", increased time: 5 minutes Str Min 6 Body 4 Def 5 Weight 1.5kg (OAF)
can also be used as: 2d6N damage, 0 End cost (+1 DC per 5 Str above min) (OAF, Real Weapon)
And Also: 1/2d6 KA, 0 End Cost; No Str Adds (OAF, Real Weapon)

Fragmentation Grenades- 1d6+1 KA Explosion (-1DC/1"), 1d6-1 stun X; Range Based on Strength, 2 Charges (OAF) Weight 0.4kg
Concussion Grenades- 6d6N Explosion (-1DC/1"); Range Based on Strength, 2 Charges (OAF) Weight 0.4kg
(Gets a total of two grenades from the two types provided, players' choice)

Combat Helmet (various Designs and models but pretty standard protection)- Def 8 Covers Locations 3-5 Weight 0.9kg

Personal Dressing- 1/2d6 healing 6 Charges (mostly to stop further damage from blood loss) (OAF)

Compass- Absolute Direction Sense (OAF)

Gas Mask- Immunity:Airborne Gases/Toxins (1 Hour Fuel Charge) and 6 pts sight group Flash Defense (only vs irritant/airborne particulate effects) (OIF)

Uniform, Boots, Shelter, Mess Kit/Rations, Canteen, Belt with Ammo pouches/sheath for knife/holster for sidearm

There are many variations possible for rifle and sidearm, so many so that choosing anything standard might be tough unless one went through and listed all the various makes and calibres in use by the various countries.

[pinecone]

Don't forget rain gear (a poncho most likely...) and most any nationality gets a Rifle w/Bayonet, or a SMG.....enlisted don't get pistols (though many buy their own...) special equipment that was often issued are "rifle-grenades" (launched with blanks, they have much inproved range, satchel charges for blasting structures, thermite for destroying equipment....etc....

[fbdaury]

Oh, I know about a rifle, there are just so many options that were available that I have not yet gotten down to the task of writing what was avialalble, and to whom- thanks for the raingear- it had slipped my mind. And yes, officers would have sidearms where soldiers would not automatically, but at least for the super soldiers templates that I wrotte they start with military rank of at least 3, so they would be issued sidearms I believe. Satchel Charges, thermite, etc.- these would be provided when the mission requires them but not on a normal basis. Thanks for the comments and suggestions.

[Shadow Hawk]

Don't forget rain gear (a poncho most likely...) and most any nationality gets a Rifle w/Bayonet, or a SMG.....enlisted don't get pistols (though many buy their own...) special equipment that was often issued are "rifle-grenades" (launched with blanks, they have much inproved range, satchel charges for blasting structures, thermite for destroying equipment....etc....

On the same subject, don't forget cold weather gear, usually issued when serving in bad climates.
Except for German troops in Russia in 1941, who famously weren't given cold weather gear because the campaign wasn't scheduled to last that long.

[Lawnmower Boy]

And more importantly, the Germans had been undercapitalising their textiles industry for so long that they couldn't make enough cold weather gear for the entire Wehrmacht. What an excellent long-run preparation for a war against Russian Bolshevism!

In conclusion, more people should have been sarcastic to Hitler when he was alive.

BTW: Here's a Commonwealth super-soldier's rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_anti-tank_rifle), which he fires from the hip. It's handy that he can use his ammunition in his machine gun. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_.50_Cal_Experimental_Machine_Gun)

[megaplayboy]

And more importantly, the Germans had been undercapitalising their textiles industry for so long that they couldn't make enough cold weather gear for the entire Wehrmacht. What an excellent long-run preparation for a war against Russian Bolshevism!

In conclusion, more people should have been sarcastic to Hitler when he was alive.

BTW: Here's a Commonwealth super-soldier's rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_anti-tank_rifle), which he fires from the hip. It's handy that he can use his ammunition in his machine gun. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_.50_Cal_Experimental_Machine_Gun)

I suppose, in theory, one could chop down the barrel of a Lahti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahti_L-39) and set it for full-auto fire, but now we're really getting into deep overkill territory.

[IndianaJoe3]

I suppose, in theory, one could chop down the barrel of a Lahti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahti_L-39) and set it for full-auto fire, but now we're really getting into deep overkill territory.

There is no such thing as overkill. There is only, "Open fire!" and, "Reload!"

Edit: What the heck, let's write this thing up.

Lahti L-39: (Total: 95 Active Cost, 20 Real Cost) Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6, +1 Increased STUN Multiplier (+1/4), Increased Maximum Range (1,200m; +1/4) (90 Active Points); OAF Bulky (-1 1/2), STR Minimum 15 (STR Min. Cannot Add/Subtract Damage; -1 1/4), Required Hands Two-Handed (-1/2), 10 Charges (-1/4), Real Weapon (-1/4), Beam (-1/4) (Real Cost: 18) plus +1 with this rifle (2 Active Points); OAF Bulky (-1 1/2) (Real Cost: 1) plus +3 to offset Range Penalties (3 Active Points); OAF Bulky (-1 1/2) (Real Cost: 1)

[Yansuf]

Going back to the original question, what kind of duty the soldier would be given would be a very big factor in answering this.
Also if you would give the nationality of the soldier it would simplify things.

[Escafarc]

I believe that there was a episode of History Channel's Mail Call that went over this.

[Vondy]

Going back to the original question, what kind of duty the soldier would be given would be a very big factor in answering this.
Also if you would give the nationality of the soldier it would simplify things.


Almost all nations have special units and intelligence services. I suspect super-soldiers would be used along the lines of the CIA's SOG.

From long ago when I ran supers....

In the Freeverse (Freedom Patrol Universe), historically the OSS ran Detachment 606* which was comprised of super-soldiers. The original Freedom Patrol (an Avengers like team) was OSS Detachment 707.

The modern "Freedom Patrol" was a compartmentalized DOD unit that had posse comitatus exceptions.

*In the real world the highest detachment number was 505.

[megaplayboy]

In my dormant campaign universe, World War II, aka "The Second Ten"(the second 10 year war), featured numerous super-soldier units. The US had the Victory Brigades, with the Victory Formula providing 1 in 200 subjects the strength and toughness of ten men, and increased agility. Victory Brigade soldiers went into combat wearing lightweight armored breastplates("Victrium"), carrying either a BAR or a bazooka, and usually operating in half-squad/fire team sizes. A handful developed more significant superpowers. The Fashies (Fascists--there were no Nazis in this Earth's history; Hitler died during WW1, and Manfred von Richtofen lived and became dictator of Germany; The Bolsheviks were put down and a fascist government arose in Russia; France, led by a right wing government, betrayed the BEF early on) developed their own ubersoldaten, and casualties in these units went from minor to massive as the war progressed. They were generally assigned the hardest and most dangerous missions.

[pinecone]

Oh, I know about a rifle, there are just so many options that were available that I have not yet gotten down to the task of writing what was avialalble, and to whom- thanks for the raingear- it had slipped my mind. And yes, officers would have sidearms where soldiers would not automatically, but at least for the super soldiers templates that I wrotte they start with military rank of at least 3, so they would be issued sidearms I believe. Satchel Charges, thermite, etc.- these would be provided when the mission requires them but not on a normal basis. Thanks for the comments and suggestions.

In the name of simplicity, most any 30 cal military rifle is the same as any other...so you could just list a standard Rifle, and name it according to nationality(Mauser 98, Nagant, Lee Enfield etc...), likewise all SMGs use 9mm, except American SMG's who use .45....when you get right down to it grenades tend to be awefully alike as well....

[Sundog]

In the name of simplicity, most any 30 cal military rifle is the same as any other...so you could just list a standard Rifle, and name it according to nationality(Mauser 98, Nagant, Lee Enfield etc...), likewise all SMGs use 9mm, except American SMG's who use .45....when you get right down to it grenades tend to be awefully alike as well....

I think you're forgetting differences in actions. Commonwealth and most German units used bolt-action rifles, where the US used a gas-operated semi-auto capable of much faster fire.

[Shadow Hawk]

I think you're forgetting differences in actions. Commonwealth and most German units used bolt-action rifles, where the US used a gas-operated semi-auto capable of much faster fire.

And Japanese rifles were smaller caliber (less range, less damage), and the late war German troops were issued assault rifles (the Russians copied the design to create the AK-47), and so on. But in general terms, he's right, most rifles/smgs/pistols/grenades were very similar in capabilities.

[Markdoc]

Almost all nations have special units and intelligence services. I suspect super-soldiers would be used along the lines of the CIA's SOG.

That's true today, but it wasn't true in WW2, when (at least initially) no nations had special forces. Indeed the initial suggestion that such forces be formed met with a lot of resistance from the brass. It wasn't until the LRDG and Commandos demonstrated success, that the idea took off with the British, and not until the Brit.s demonstrated broader success, that other countries started to copy the idea. Given that we're talking about a world with supers, I wouldn't hew too closely to real life history, but if the game world is reasonably close to real life history, a "special unit" of supers would be breaking new ground in the military system. It's quite possible they'd be the prototype and that conventional special forces would never evolve at all!

cheers, Mark

[Shadow Hawk]

That's true today, but it wasn't true in WW2, when (at least initially) no nations had special forces. Indeed the initial suggestion that such forces be formed met with a lot of resistance from the brass. It wasn't until the LRDG and Commandos demonstrated success, that the idea took off with the British, and not until the Brit.s demonstrated broader success, that other countries started to copy the idea. Given that we're talking about a world with supers, I wouldn't hew too closely to real life history, but if the game world is reasonably close to real life history, a "special unit" of supers would be breaking new ground in the military system. It's quite possible they'd be the prototype and that conventional special forces would never evolve at all!

cheers, Mark

In 1940, the Belgian fortress Eban Emal fell to German glider troops cross trained as combat engineers who landed gliders on the roof of the fort, then used demo charges to crack it open and force its surrender. The loss of the border forts helped lead to the collapse of Belgium.
Glider troops also siezed bridges.

Going back in time, the original Storm Troopers (Sturm Stroppen)were specially trained infantry, who would infiltrate past the enemy's front lines and set up machine gun nests in his rear area before the main assualt hit. These Storm Troopers were unrelated to the later "Storm Battalion" (Sturmabteilung) that were the thugs backing the Nazis, nor the "Protecting Squadron" (Schutzstaffel) that were Hitler's bodyguards, nor the Waffen-SS.

So, anyway, special units for unusual ops were in use by the Germans at the beginning of the war. They were not full time units, but rather 'volunteers' given special training. Thier successes inspired the British (especially Churchill, who liked that sort of thing) to create a full time special units (Royal Commando, Special Air Service, Special Boat Service, Long Range Desert Group, Chindits).

And we have 'national characteristics' to consider. Any super in Germany who was male, blond haired, blue eyed, and over 6' tall would probably end up in the SS, no matter what his other abilities were. If he could fly, Goering would try to get him in the Luftwaffe, if he were amphibious Admiral Raeder would try to get control of him, mind reading powers would go to the Gestapo, stealth powers to the Abwehr. The 'regular army' probably wouldn't get any supers.

The U.S. Army had some interesting habits, including specialist units that could be used to reinforce regular units at need. A Infantry Battalion expecting enemy tank attack would be reinforced by a specialist anti-tank gun company. I could picture American supers being used the same way, not assigned to regular formations but used to temporarily 'beef up' a unit in trouble.

I have more to say, but need to think it through first.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Contrary to the recent literature, "storm troops" were no novelty in 1914--18. Storming parties were routinely formed for assaulting fortified positions in earlier wars (especially coups de main against key fortifications at the outbreak of war), and veteran troops were routinely assigned to grenadier, carabinier and pioneer units for this kind of work. In 1916, as it prepared for the great "siege" of Verdun, the German army deployed these "Sturmabteilung" on unprecedented scales, and the next year, they became a routine part of operations, on the premise that front fighting had evolved into siege warfare. (Apparently, modern historians of World War I aren't required to read the bleeding German official histories.)

But they weren't special forces in the modern sense, if only because we pretty much define them in terms of the Commandos and LRDG.

[Markdoc]

In 1940, the Belgian fortress Eban Emal fell to German glider troops cross trained as combat engineers who landed gliders on the roof of the fort, then used demo charges to crack it open and force its surrender. The loss of the border forts helped lead to the collapse of Belgium.
Glider troops also siezed bridges.

Right. I thought about the Brandenburgers, but they were combat engineers/ assault pioneers, of the sort used - albeit not always so spectacularly, nor successfully - by multiple armies both today (all modern armies still have combat engineers, as well as special forces, and they are still quite different areas of expertise) and also prior to WW2. But as noted already, they weren't anything like what we consider special forces to be: they were trained for direct combat operations, often supported by artillery and armour, in close support of standard operations, and used at the battalion or regimental scale, and fought as normal infantry much of the time. They weren't expected to operate covertly, in small groups or separated from their supporting troops. They did not receive any special training in close quarters combat, operations behind enemy lines, or operations outside the sphere of normal mass assaults nor were they specially trained for skills other than demolition.


Going back in time, the original Storm Troopers (Sturm Stroppen)were specially trained infantry, who would infiltrate past the enemy's front lines and set up machine gun nests in his rear area before the main assualt hit. These Storm Troopers were unrelated to the later "Storm Battalion" (Sturmabteilung) that were the thugs backing the Nazis, nor the "Protecting Squadron" (Schutzstaffel) that were Hitler's bodyguards, nor the Waffen-SS.

Brave and effective troops, yes, but an even worse example of special forces. Stoßtruppen were drawn directly from regular infantry divisions, given almost no extra training (in many cases, none at all) and no independant role. As you noted they were assault pioneers, deployed at a divisional level and moving into combat accompanied by massive rolling artillery barrages. Their role was to outflank strongpoints and cause havoc in the enemy lines ahead of a mass attack by regular infantry (their role was much broader than setting up machine gun nests in the rear - they were assigned to attack railway depots, headquarters and silence the enemy artillery, etc). Again, they were never trained for nor expected to perform small-unit tactics: they were simply the vanguard of an attack by hundreds of thousands of infantry and were deployed by the tens of thousands. The "stormtrooper" doctrine had little to do with special training, or independant units: it was a combined arms doctrine intended to combine infiltration by conventional infantry with artillery, armour and massed infantry assault. These tactics were also used by the ANZACs, Canadian and French, before being used in a big way by the Germans in their spring offensive (in fact it was the French, who first formalised them). If the definition of special forces are that they infiltrate the enemy line, then all infantry are special forces, as are some light armour units.

The descendants of the Stoßtruppen were not the special forces, with whom they have nothing really in common, but the german panzergrenadiers and commonwealth divisional cavalry, who played much the same role - breakthrough and disruption of the enemy line ahead of assault by conventional infantry, not by attacking the enemy's strongpoints head on, but by bypassing them and isolating them.


So, anyway, special units for unusual ops were in use by the Germans at the beginning of the war. They were not full time units, but rather 'volunteers' given special training. Thier successes inspired the British (especially Churchill, who liked that sort of thing) to create a full time special units (Royal Commando, Special Air Service, Special Boat Service, Long Range Desert Group, Chindits).

As noted, the Commandos, SAS/SBS, LRDG, etc are the first real special forces, receiving special training, intended to operate independantly and to attack soft targets, not go toe to toe with enemy military. The LDRG motto, after all translates as "Not by strength, but by guile".


And we have 'national characteristics' to consider. Any super in Germany who was male, blond haired, blue eyed, and over 6' tall would probably end up in the SS, no matter what his other abilities were. If he could fly, Goering would try to get him in the Luftwaffe, if he were amphibious Admiral Raeder would try to get control of him, mind reading powers would go to the Gestapo, stealth powers to the Abwehr. The 'regular army' probably wouldn't get any supers.

The U.S. Army had some interesting habits, including specialist units that could be used to reinforce regular units at need. A Infantry Battalion expecting enemy tank attack would be reinforced by a specialist anti-tank gun company. I could picture American supers being used the same way, not assigned to regular formations but used to temporarily 'beef up' a unit in trouble.

Sure - all armies had forces with special capabilities - airborne, marines, artillery, armour and subspecialties within those broad arms (artillery for example being broken up into regimental, infantry and divisional, in most cases). But that doesn't make them special forces in the way we use the word now.

Your points about how Supers would be deployed are good ones, and kind of what I was getting at with my comment that if Supers were deployed n any numbers the whole idea of special forces might never have gotten off the ground, with Supers being deployed to augment conventional forces instead: bricks with the armour, fliers with the airborne or airforce, energy projectors with the assault guns. In the British comic series Zenith, this is how the Brit.s used their big superhero Maximan in WW2 - up front with the infantry as a morale-raiser and support element.

Amusingly, in that series, the British did form their supers into a special forces unit post WW2 - which they later had to disband, when it refused to go fight in Vietnam :)

cheers, Mark

[pinecone]

I think you're forgetting differences in actions. Commonwealth and most German units used bolt-action rifles, where the US used a gas-operated semi-auto capable of much faster fire.

Thats the sort of fidly that matters to gun likers and matters not everyone else(In my opinion anyway...)....just how much better was the M-1? 10x? 2x? or just a little faster to aim, but the kick requires you to re-aim anyway, and that horrable "ting" that anouces that you're relaoding now....how much actual game stats does any of that need? It Still shoots a .30 cal bullet that is about as accurate and hard hitting as any other....(IMHO)

[Sundog]

Thats the sort of fidly that matters to gun likers and matters not everyone else(In my opinion anyway...)....just how much better was the M-1? 10x? 2x? or just a little faster to aim, but the kick requires you to re-aim anyway, and that horrable "ting" that anouces that you're relaoding now....how much actual game stats does any of that need? It Still shoots a .30 cal bullet that is about as accurate and hard hitting as any other....(IMHO)

Actually, despite what Hollywood shows, that "ting" only occurred when the ejected stripper clip hit something hard on the way down, like a rock or a concrete floor. It wasn't part of the action itself. It also isn't that loud.
And yes, it was faster. Didn't matter so much with aimed fire at range, but snap-shooting up close it could fire as quickly as you could pull the trigger, a trick no bolt-action could match.
Yeah, you can ignore it. Or you can use differences in equipment to add flavour and versimillitude, making the military forces into less cookie-cutter cannon-fodder and more real people for your characters to interact with.

[pinecone]

Actually, despite what Hollywood shows, that "ting" only occurred when the ejected stripper clip hit something hard on the way down, like a rock or a concrete floor. It wasn't part of the action itself. It also isn't that loud.
And yes, it was faster. Didn't matter so much with aimed fire at range, but snap-shooting up close it could fire as quickly as you could pull the trigger, a trick no bolt-action could match.
Yeah, you can ignore it. Or you can use differences in equipment to add flavour and versimillitude, making the military forces into less cookie-cutter cannon-fodder and more real people for your characters to interact with.

Sure...it all comes down to "flava"....but US Infantry had no GP machine gun or a good light MG, unlike...well everyone else...

So are you going to integrate Equipment, Doctrine, and Training (The "holy trinity" of infantry function) Sure you can, but it's not nessisary at all.....again as I asked was the M-1 better? Sure Did it have drawbacks? again sure, was it so good it should have game modifiers? Thats not so clear, the extra fire power certainly helped to make up for the lack of a true squad automatic (the US used the BAR, an automatic rifle designed for individual use in WW1) But US training and Doctrine limited the BAR to the role of special issue (basicly as a squad automatic)

Doctrine and Training trump Equipmant anyway, after all we got rid the the M-60 (our version of the GP MG) and replaced it with the SAW....( basicly a modernised BAR in both use and funcionality)

So, if you like all that "gun" stuff...go for it! But if it seems a bit much, well, ignore it without guilt.

Lastly how does ignoring the differances in Guns, make People cardboard cut outs? Guns don't have personalitys.....

[Sundog]

Guns don't have personalities, but their capabilities will influence the actions of those wielding them. For instance, in a close-combat situation, US officers were less likely to call for a bayonet to be fixed than Commonwealth forces were - for the reason that the M1 was more capable at close range than the Lee-Enfield was. Consider the effect of a group, previously having worked exclusively with American forces, when the first time they operate with a British unit they see them charge an opponent with cold steel...

[Markdoc]

Guns don't have personalities, but their capabilities will influence the actions of those wielding them. For instance, in a close-combat situation, US officers were less likely to call for a bayonet to be fixed than Commonwealth forces were - for the reason that the M1 was more capable at close range than the Lee-Enfield was. Consider the effect of a group, previously having worked exclusively with American forces, when the first time they operate with a British unit they see them charge an opponent with cold steel...

I honestly doubt that had the slightest effect on the use of bayonets since the same is true of the many US troops who used Springfields. I think it's entirely a cultural artifact and a product of the different infantry doctrines. US infantry very infrequently engaged in bayonet charges on enemy positions in WW2, regardless of what they were armed with. Japanese forces did it as a matter of routine*. (Interestingly, two of the few large US bayonet charges in Europe were made by US nisei troops, who shouted "Banzai!" as they charged!). Commonwealth doctrine was somewhere in between - except for Sikhs, and Gurkhas, who loved getting stuck in almost as much as the Japanese. You can still see that today: there have been several instances of British troops bayonet-charging in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it was frequently-used tactic in the Falklands. That's even though the troops were using bullpup-style assault rifles, which are handier in close combat than the US M16/M14s, so it's pretty clearly nothing to do with the rate of fire or size. It's pretty rare for US troops to fix bayonets and charge these days - indeed, the US army has entirely dropped bayonet training (the marines still do it, though).

The whole bayonet charge thing is cultural/psychological and only secondarily to do with equipment: with a few exceptions, hardly any people actually got killed by bayonets even in battles where intense close combat occurred.

Cheers, Mark

* I kid you not - they had bayonet mounts on some of their machine guns!