Task Forces / Combat Commands

[Concord]

Hi All,

I am going to design an historical scenario or operation based on the exploits of a combat command or a task force during the Italian campaign. I think that these combined arms forces will work well for CM scenarios.

As I don't have a library of WWII books, I am doing research online, but there are considerable gaps in the information available.

Can anyone supply an OB of the units present in such a force, such as Task Force Ramey?

Any information about Task Forces or Combat Commands appreciated.

[Concord]

I did a search in the archives and couldn't detect a previous post regarding task force compositions.

Can anyone give me a generic list of units that would be in a typical US / UK task force?

[Kingfish]

This site contains ad-hoc American taskforces.

This site covers the Commonwealth.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Concord:

I did a search in the archives and couldn't detect a previous post regarding task force compositions.

Can anyone give me a generic list of units that would be in a typical US / UK task force?

A "task force" in the UK was simply a non-specific group of units put together for a specific mission. There is thus no such thing as a "typical" task force, as that directly violates the definition of the term. They were usually named after the force commander - ie VOKESFORCE, FRANKFORCE, WORTHINGTON FORCE etc.

See the examples Kingfish posted.

As for the US, wikipedia gives this:

In the United States Army, a task force is a battalion-sized organization formed by detaching a mechanized infantry or armor company from its parent unit and attaching a company of the other type in its stead. A company-sized unit with an armored or mechanized infantry unit cross-posted is a team. See Team Yankee.

IF this is correct, it may be a modern definition. See Task Force Baum at the Hammelburg Raid, which seemed to be more loosely defined.

A Combat Command was more strictly defined, and later pattern US armored divisions were divided into CCs, rather than brigades or regiments, with CC A, CC B and CC Reserve. Someone else can explain the units that composed them, I think they may have shifted around a bit but I'm not an Amerophile.

[ February 27, 2006, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Kingfish]

Generally, the two main combat commands (A & were composed of a battalion each from the tank and armored infantry regiments, to which additional assets such as recon, arty, anti-tank and engineers may have been added. Sometimes these were beefed up by adding an additional tank or armored infantry battalion. Everything else would end up in Combat command reserve, or CCR.

Look here

[Concord]

Thanks! I will examine the links in more detail tonight.

[Concord]

Well, I would like to do a purely historical battle / op for this, but it looks like quite in-depth research is required to find a suitable event and then accurately portray the forces of both sides. I may have to be content with a semi-historical battle.

By the way, do CM fans ever team up to design battles or ops? For instance a graphics person to create the map (like myself) and someone to provide historical facts and framework? If so, I would be keen to participate.

I'm torn between a US or Commonwealth task force. I'm interested in the US machines (especially including some tank destroyers!), while the "quirky" Commonwealth mix would be interesting to simulate. I may start two concurrently!

As for the US, it would appear that you could simulate a "generic" task force with maybe 1-3 armoured rifle companies with transport, towed AT's and support weapons (these companies seem to be carrying alot of support equipment - I had mentally pictured them more as light scouts for the armour). Also, maybe 1 tank company, a platoon of TD's, and a mixed bag of odd-ball vehicles (the "assault guns" listed as part of the Arm Inf would be Priests?). Oh, and artillery of course! Have I interpretted it correctly?

As for the Commonwealth, I think would need to be much more specific about units. From the task force links above, Porter Force looks the most suitable (Canadian Dingos and Staghounds on recon!)

One idea I had was to have a map that was maximum length, but fairly narrow, and simulate an attack deep into enemy territory.

Any comments appreciated.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Concord:

By the way, do CM fans ever team up to design battles or ops? For instance a graphics person to create the map (like myself) and someone to provide historical facts and framework? If so, I would be keen to participate.

I teamed up with Scott Boston a good while back and did a CMBO Bulge scenario. Small, but historical. We shared all aspects of the design - research, maps and playtesting.

(the "assault guns" listed as part of the Arm Inf would be Priests?).

No, Priests, and the commonwealth equivalent Sextons, rarely ever saw front line service. The assault guns were, depending on the date and theater, either Halftrack mounted howitzers/guns, the M8 HMC and from mid '44 on the M4(105) Shermans, although with regards to the latter I may have the date wrong. The Italian theater generally got the new toys a bit later than the ETO, so the 105s may not have shown up until late summer / fall '44.

[Concord]

Well what do you think about teaming up on a project?

I've got a few ideas. Perhaps an operation or maybe a series of 'theme' battles based on the exploits of a combined arms group like a task force.

How did you go about combining efforts in the map making process?

[Kingfish]

Unfortuntely, I can't commit to anything right now. I may be able to lend a hand with historical research, but it would be limited to what is available online.

How did you go about combining efforts in the map making process?

We swapped the file back and forth, each one adding a bit more terrain or elevation, buying and deploying forces, etc.

[JasonC]

A combat command was a brigade sized slice of a division, typically 1 battalion each of armor, armored infantry, and armored field artillery.

In action, a combat command would generally form 2 task forces around its maneuver battalion commanders, taking their names from the commander of that battalion. Then they cross attached one subelement from the other maneuver unit in the CC. Generally the artillery would fire in support of either task force, but if they were separated by more than its range, an individual battery (6 Priests) would be attached.

Task forces thus come in two main varieties, armor heavy and infantry heavy. An armor heavy task force would have 2 companies of medium tanks, and 1 company of armored infantry. An infantry heavy task force would have 1 company of medium tanks and 2 companies of armored infantry.

Other elements of the division might be parcelled out to the TFs in platoon sized bits, or might be kept as the nucleus of additional task forces, off the standard pattern. Examples are TD battalions and armor cavalry squadrons.

The armored infantry had quite a few vehicles. Not all of the support weapons on TOE were with them in practice, however. They were always hungry for more riflemen, since those took the highest losses of any part of the division, and were in the greatest demand. Marginal weapons like 57mm towed ATGs were frequently cannabilized for additional rifle replacements. When you have plenty of Shermans around and are attacking, the usefulness of a towed 57mm is miniscule.

All of these forces are very armor intensive by CM standards, armor rather than combined arms force type. Combined arms is appropriate for a US infantry division with some independent tank battalion or TD battalion support - which they usually had. But armor division forces have "armor" force type levels of armor.

CMAK doesn't get the US armored infantry entirely right. For instance, it shows them without BARs, when they frequently had them, up to 3 per squad by late in the war, in fact. You can either use the CMAK pattern armored infantry, or you can fudge the dates and use 1945 pattern standard squads with 2 BARs each, and add the halftracks manually.

It puts them all in M3A1 halftracks, where usually only 2 per platoon were the A1 type with 50 cal, the rest just having 30 cal MGs.

They also had lots of bazookas - each halftrack carried one. You can limit this to 2 per platoon in CM. A single 2 man unit fits with a full squad in the tracks that don't already have the 2 man HQ unit aboard.

CMAK shows no dismounted MGs. They could and did dismount them from the tracks. Taking 2 5 man M1919 MGs and putting them in one halftrack per platoon is a realistic way to represent their foot MGs, since CM doesn't let you dismount the ones on the tracks.

Thus a platoon only needs 4 HTs, 2 M3A1 and 2 M3. 12 for the platoons.

As for mortars, they used both track mounted 81mm, which might be assigned 2 per company (show those with mortar halftracks) or kept in battery and fired indirect (an 81mm radio FO in CM terms). If you have the company level 81s, the 60s are kind of superfluous. If you use the FO, you might give each company a single 'track carried 2 60mm. Thus there are 1-2 more for the mortars, at company level.

The company HQ should have its own M3A1, carrying the HQ and a radio FO. With 1 infantry company, give it a 105mm radio FO. With 2, for an infantry heavy TF, would might give them 1 105mm radio FO and 1 81mm radio FO, to represent the mortar HTs firing indirect.

That makes 14-15 tracks all told, per company. In reality they had up to 20 at TOE, but rarely had full TOE and used some for supply and as ambulances etc, so it is realistic enough.

The armor would by 3 platoons or 4-5 Shermans - 5 is TOE, they were frequently at 80% strength. Plus a company HQ element of 2 more Shermans. Sometimes there would be 2 Sherman 105s as well, if the 6 of those in the battalion were parcelled out to the companies. You can think of those as filling out the "HQ platoon".

In some battalions the Shermans 105s were kept in one large battery and fired indirect, like extra Priests. For a tank heavy TF that would show up as a 2nd 105mm FO.

The tank battalion also had a single company of light tanks - Stuarts mostly, only a few ETO units got M24s late in the war. They were considered marginal for combat and frequently left out of battle. They performed other duties - runners, ambulances, etc. Occasionally you might see a platoon of them on a screening operation.

TDs, cavalry, engineers, and AA might all be attached. These frequently bulked out a US force to something like 33-50% more than its bare major maneuver elements. An added platoon or this and of that adds up to an extra major element (company worth per battalion e.g.) present, overall.

For the TDs you would typically see a single platoon - 4 M10s, M18s, or M36s - in it would be M10s. They could also have a couple of scouting vehicles - each TD battalion had one cavalry like company with M8s and jeeps or M20s. Their job was to see stuff before the TDs engaged it, to help them stalk things without exposing themselves prematurely.

Cavalry you might see attached in platoon to company strength. A platoon means 3 M8s and 6 jeeps, 3 with MGs and 3 carrying 60mm mortars. They might have 2 HMCs and up to 5 Stuarts. Sometimes these were screening other areas, if e.g. pitched battle were expected. On road marches and in exploitation phases, they'd be with each TF, up front locating the enemy.

Engineers frequently had other sorts of work to do - bridging and repairing roads e.g. You'd see a platoon of those if there might be mines to clear, that sort of thing.

AA was attached with great frequency, certainly more than you'd expect from CM rarity values. There was a lot of it and not much else for it to do, frankly.

A light AA battery was a huge formation in tactical terms, with 8 40mm Bofors and 8 quad 50 halftracks. They were often divided into smaller sections and attached to each column.

So it would be perfectly normal to see 2-4 quad 50 HTs, and perhaps 2 40mm Bofors towed by HTs, in an armored TF, either variety.

Overall, they had tons of light armor with gobs and gobs of MGs aboard. This gave them immense firepower against infantry enemies. There were also lots of plain Shermans, enough to blow through anything but serious armor or elaborately prepared PAK fronts. But there wasn't a lot of infantry staying power if they had to dismount and fight their way through a forest or across the tops of steep or rocky hills e.g.

Frankly, CM handles forces like this better at a team scale than a full task force. A full task force on one map is realistic enough for many concentrated push situations, but is a monster size in CM point terms.

So what would an armored team look like? Composition more varied, but they are slices of task forces. Task forces were the smallest unit given its own operational role. But teams might be found fighting side by side or in column behind one another, tactically.

A typical armor heavy team would be 8-10 Shermans with a single platoon of armored infantry in 4 halftracks, as outlined above, with a 105mm radio FO added. Maybe 2 TDs or a single cavalry platoon in addition. They actually fought like that, that armor and HE heavy.

A typical infantry heavy team would be 4-5 Shermans, 2 platoons of armored infantry in 8 HTs, plus a company HQ with 105mm FO, and mortar 'tracks. Maybe a couple of AA halftracks added.

Those get you down to 15-20 vehicles, which is a more managable force in CM terms.

I hope this helps.

[Stoffel]

Concorde:

check this link... www.onionwars.net we can use new blood to spill

[Concord]

To Kingfish:

OK, historical advice will be great. Do you think I should 'post an ad' to announce my availability as a mercenary map maker? "Grog wanted. Must hate making maps."

To Stoffel:

Well, ask for linked scenarios, and you get them! It's like being invited to a mysterious secret society. Looks good, I think I'll join, but I will need to more closely examine the rules and make sure I can commit to the time needed (it's a turn per day?).

To JasonC:

Thanks for the breakdown. This info is ideal for the construction of my task force battle. I like the idea of the teams representing the point elements of a larger task force. It allows an historically accurate simulation without overloading CM. That said, I do like the idea of TWO teams in column rolling towards a distant objective.

I'm amazed at how light the proportion of infantry to armour could be (in the "armour heavy" team). I would be decidedly nervous moving into enemy territory with only a platoon of armoured infantry to screen and spot for all those valuable AFVs. It wouldn't take many ambushes to potentially wipe out your recon abilities, and how would they deal with 'guerrilla' infantry that fade back into cover? All that vehicle firepower would make short work of say, a fanatical suicide squad next to the road (once spotted), but does that mean losing an AFV at every choke-point?

Maybe that's why their infantry was always low...using the squads as scouts to flush out targets for the big guns? If they were your armoured team's best eyes and ears, presumably you would want to conserve them and avoid combat and casualties as much as possible?

Would having two teams, one infantry-heavy and one armour-heavy solve the problem I wonder?

All up, maybe:

12 Shermans,

1 platoon of TD's,

1 platoon of cavalry,

3 platoons of armoured infantry,

2 company HQ's,

2 105 FOs,

1 platoon of mortar HT's (or 81 FO),

1 platoon of AA HT's.

I wonder if I could jam in some Sherman 105's too?

[JasonC]

They didn't send dismounted scouts first. The lead element was a platoon of Shermans. The idea was to substitute capital for blood, anyway, not to save Shermans, which were not scarce. Tankers yes, tanks no. (105mm HE shells were even less scarce).

They needed infantry to dig defeated men out of their holes and cellars with grenades, to check bridges, clear a wood, help spot, provide minimal close protection against fausts etc. Not to go first doing recon by death. Far fewer things can kill a Sherman than a man on foot, and they did not want to lose either. If they did lose the lead tank to an ambush, the rest of the lead platoon just blew up the ambushers in retaliation.

Losses weren't actually all that high, though. What you see is periods of heavy combat when the Germans had armor to throw at the US - Normandy, Lorraine, Bulge - the tanks turned over (unit stays in the line and gets step reduced in a month or less). For the rest of the campaign, they lose like one Sherman a week from each battalion.

They did not mix evenly, no. They were not trying to have one total dose force, but to send the right weapon to do the right job. Lots of tanks when the terrain was open and there were mostly infantry defenders, they believed was the right way to fight.

It only really got them into trouble after a couple of weeks to a month of heavy fighting. Then the AIBs could be so burnt out from losses that they couldn't really hold the line. In those cases, they typically cross attached a regimental combat team from the nearest infantry division. Or they pulled the AD back to take replacements.