Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Jeez, did I step into a rabbit hole. Ok, for some stupid reason I started looking at ranks in BN and noticed they seem to be off.

Here's what CM shows (for BN, FI, and FB). I was confused by why we'd have two blank Pvt, two Pvt 1st Class and two 1st Sgt icons.

 

L589SM7.jpg

 

Here's how @JuJu interpreted them.

 

edV1ntU.jpg

 

Here's what some jerk on the internet is claiming are US WWII insignia.

 

bH41Eek.jpg

 

Here's what some jerk put together in Elements showing how CM and the internet insignia compare (providing the other jerk was correct).

 

54TEgS2.jpg

 

Ok, so which one is right?

 

This is what I came up with using JuJu's icons.

 

m2E3uh8.jpg

 

yu1bU0A.jpg

 

And while we are at it why are there two 2nd Lt. ranks?

 

Mord.

 

P.S. That's three hours of my life gone.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IanL said:

Interesting - make one bright pink and one bright blue and see where they show up?

Welp, as far as I can tell there are no 2nd Lts in an Infantry, Armored Infantry or Armor Battalion in BN. 1st lieutenants are all that are showing up.

 

Mord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using my modified JuJu icons searching through the Infantry Battalion I found:

Private                         usa rank 00

Private 1st Class        usa rank 01

Tech 5th Class            usa rank 02

Tech 4th Class            usa rank 04

Sergeant                      usa rank 05

Tech 3rd Class           usa rank 06

Staff Sergeant            usa rank 07

 

 

1st Lieutenant                 usa rank 13

Captain                             usa rank 14

Major                                 usa rank 15

Lieutenant Colonel          usa rank 16

 

Which regardless of whether the rank pics are correct I am not seeing 6 that are listed. So if we go by the stock icon numbers we are still missing:

usa rank 03

usa rank 08

usa rank 09

usa rank 10

2nd Lieutenant x2  usa rank 11 & 12

 

 

Now I may or may not have over looked one but I even broke squads into different teams using all variations and I still only came up with what is listed. Beta boys fire up your engines!

 

 

Mord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mord said:

Welp, as far as I can tell there are no 2nd Lts in an Infantry, Armored Infantry or Armor Battalion in BN. 1st lieutenants are all that are showing up.

Oh interesting. I am sure I have seen the gold bar before. My memory playing tricks? A subtle change that I didn't notice? Could be either. Or they were never used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IanL said:

Oh interesting. I am sure I have seen the gold bar before. My memory playing tricks? A subtle change that I didn't notice? Could be either. Or they were never used.

I listed SIX icons I am not seeing! Either I am completely missing them or something is up. I hope I am wrong and just missed them but the only way to find out is if other people check. I provided a set of bmps, so....

This thread was supposed to be about what ranks should be used LOL. Rabbit hole is an understatement. More like cluster f*** if it's as bad as it looks.

 

Mord.

Edited by Mord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are definitely observant, even if it takes you 10+ years to spot something ;)  Some of what you've discovered is the way things have been since CMSF1, some other issues are more specific to CMBN (and therefore 8 years as is).

First issue is that the slots are gamewide and not nation specific.  Which means which slots are used for a specific nation/epoch may be different than another nation/epoch.  If you line up German or British against the US you'll see what I mean.  It was easier to code it this way and the tiny amount of extra (unused) artwork is the only side effect.

Second issue is about ranks that were used by a force in real life, but don't seem to show up in the game.  This is because Combat Mission only shows the ranks of the leaders and those leaders have hardcoded ranks by unit type.  Meaning, all US Rifle Platoon Leaders for a given type of formation (say, Infantry Battalion 44) are identical from the game's standpoint.  Names, modifiers, etc. are all individually assigned on a per Leader basis, but not the rank. 

Putting this all together, in real life most leadership positions have a primary and at least one secondary acceptable rank.  US Rifle Platoon Leaders, for example, are optimally 1st LTs, but 2nd LT is acceptable.  Because the ranks are hardcoded to the leadership positions, I have to code it to be EITHER 1st LT OR 2nd LT.  It can't be both, even though in real life it was often a mix of the two LT ranks as well as NCO ranks (emergency fill ins).  The end result is some secondary leadership ranks are rarely or never seen because I had to make a choice.

Hope that helps with understanding what is what.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, now about some of the other missing ranks.  In real militaries there are specialist ranks which run in parallel to what we consider "field ranks".  Most nations have Warrant Officers, which are a sort of cross between an NCO and an Officer (generally sharing properties of both).  WOs are usually tasked with technical, non-combat positions of authority that aren't expected to be in combat.  However, some nations like to use WOs closer to front and/or more embedded with combat forces than others.  Which means WOs are largely outside of CM's scope, but not always.  As with the 1st and 2nd LT issue outlined above, there are cases where I had to choose a regular NCO or Officer rank over a WO rank.  Other times I could opt for the WO rank, but with the same variation restrictions as I've mentioned.  This means there are WOs in the game, but not always as frequently as they should be nor with the degree of variety as would be found in real life.

Aside from this are a class of Enlisted ranks that the US Army employed for pretty much all of WW2 until shortly after (1948).    These are known as the "Technical" ranks, denoted by a "T".  These are not separate ranks but rather parallel ranks that were explicitly created to reward soldiers with higher skill levels with higher pay.  By design these Technical ranks did not have authority to command anybody, even those of a lower rank, because their stripes were awarded based on technical skills only.

For example, if I were a truck mechanic I might have a rank of Technician 5th Grade (T5).  If I became more skilled I might be put in charge of all mechanical tasks for a motor pool with a rank increase to Technician 4th Grade (T4).  That bump in rank would come with a bump in pay, but not much else.  Probably I could boss a T5 in my unit around only insofar as my commanding NCO allowed.  In theory if a Private from a Rifle Platoon came in, I couldn't tell him to so much as pick up his cigarette butt.  Now, in reality I would probably box his ears and my NCO would cover for me, and the Private's NCO would have to take it up with him.  So it's thought that in reality if a T4 inside his direct area of responsibility barked at someone of lower rank then he would be fine.  But if a T4 went into the field... forget it.

Sooooo... the Technical ranks are not relevant to CM and therefore are not included.

For you movie fans, I'll remind you of the character Cpl Upham from Saving Private Ryan.  He wore the rank of a T5 and had that rank because he was an interpreter.  Remember when he was first introduced he voiced objections because he wasn't trained to fight as would a Corporal, who also wears the same stripes:

Steve

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's cool. I can live with it. Now that I know for sure which ones aren't gonna show I'll rename the files to what best suits my idea of realism. LOL. Which unfortunately for me is probably gonna be damn close to what they were. Man...I wasted a ton of time today! 

 

Mord.

P.S. Thanks for the in depth explanation. Appreciated.

Edited by Mord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

US Rifle Platoon Leaders, for example, are optimally 1st LTs, but 2nd LT is acceptable.

Probably some of this was due to the extremely high attrition rate among company grade officers. There just weren't enough 1st. Lts. to go around, so most platoons were commanded by 2nd. Lts., and sometimes as you note even sergeants. So if a company had a 1st. Ltn., he was likely the company exec and there partly to take over if the Captain got aced.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

Probably some of this was due to the extremely high attrition rate among company grade officers. There just weren't enough 1st. Lts. to go around, so most platoons were commanded by 2nd. Lts., and sometimes as you note even sergeants. So if a company had a 1st. Ltn., he was likely the company exec and there partly to take over if the Captain got aced.

Michael

Correct.  Attrition in wartime creates all kinds of exceptions.  The turn over for US platoon leadership positions was roughly 300% for NW Europe from 1944 into 1945.  That meant roughly every 2-3 months a platoon would lose its leader to death or wounding.  The succession for a Rifle Platoon was flexible and allowed to work as best suited the conditions of that formation.  ROUGHLY speaking, and off the top of my head, it went as follows when the Platoon CO was not present for command (including if he was away, say at a Company HQ):

1.  Senior most Squad Leader (usually a Staff SGT)

2.  Company 2iC (either 1st or 2nd LT)

3.  2iC from another company, preferably in the same BN

4.  Pool replacement or pretty much anywhere else a 1st or 2nd LT could be spared

The idea was to keep cohesion and morale as high as possible.  Better to have an NCO, who probably has plenty of experience commanding while the CO was away, taking command of the Platoon rather than someone from outside of the platoon.  Next best thing would be the 2iC from within the same company as the NCOs of the platoon likely had relationships with the guy already.  A 2iC from another company within the same Battalion might be known to the platoon (perhaps he was a former Platoon Leader who got an assignment transfer), but at the very least he'd likely be known to their company commander.

Flexibility allowed for taking into  account confidence and availability.  For example, if the 2iC for a company was not really cut out to be a PL Leader, then the Company CO might leave the senior NCO in charge until a pool replacement could be found.  Or perhaps there was no 2iC at the moment or the Company CO was brand new and shouldn't be without the company's seasoned 2iC.  Etc, etc. etc. etc.

During peacetime recruitment and retention can create similar problems.  In fact, the practice of Specialists (predated Technicals) was started back in the 1920s to help retain experienced soldiers.  Remember that drafting people into service is seen as a last resort even for countries that rely upon it to fill their ranks.  Countries want to retain skilled soldiers instead of losing them after their terms are up.  Pay incentives are a useful tool to achieve that aim.  As stated in my earlier post, the Technical ranks were explicitly created for pay reasons.

6 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:

As a Limey I've never really known what a Technical Sergeant is, apart from being Garp's dad, but that is a different movie.

When I was contemplating linking the Technical ranks to a movie this is the first one I thought of.  Buuuuut... I figured it wasn't quite as well known as Saving Private Ryan :)

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

When I was contemplating linking the Technical ranks to a movie this is the first one I thought of.  Buuuuut... I figured it wasn't quite as well known as Saving Private Ryan :)

Steve

Hahahahaha. Nice one Steve. I still like to baffle people by telling them that I have been "pre-disastered" when discussing the chance of things going wrong again.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...