Understrength question

[DTrill]

As a force took casualties, at what point did some form of reorganisation take place? It seems obvious that at 10%-20% casualties a battalion would remain largely the same with it's core force being three rifle companies plus support as each platoon and company would make do without a full roster. My question is about at what casualty percentage would platoons be dropped or even a whole company be dropped in order to fill out the remaining platoons/companies manpower? And where would the priorities be with reguards to support sections, do they go more or less understaffed then the rest of the group?

[Kingfish]

In a scenario there is no reorganization of depleted units. This was historically done after the battle.

In operations there is some reorgnization, but is limited. Depleted squads within a platoon will amalgamate under certain conditions, but you won't see an entire formation being removed and the remaining men distributed to other commands.

[JasonC]

It does not make sense to try to force the CM game engine to deal with this question in some historical manner. CM makes various idealizations about command, which work with some unit structures and are completely inaccurate, hopeless, with others. So reorganization should be dictated by what works in the CM game system, not any imagined historical accuracy.

I find in practice that levels only make sense with a command span of 2 major elements, and the possibility of attachments. Less, even in "ragged" fashion, is pointless and should instead be consolidated further.

Meaning, you can have a company that consists of only a company HQ and two rifle platoons, each with a platoon HQ and 2 rifle squads. Anything less than that is one platoon, and forcing it into a company structure is pointless.

When I ran CM campaigns, I regularly had to consolidate units to reflect ongoing losses. The sequence for a platoon is very simple - it has HQ and 3 squads or it has HQ and 2 squads or it does not exist. For a company it is, instead -

full - company HQ, 3 platoons each 3 squads, plus weapons HQ and weapons.

then the same but 3rd platoon -1 squad.

then the same but 2nd and 3rd platoons each -1 squad

then company HQ, 2 full strength platoons, plus weapons

then company HQ, 1 full strength, 1 2 squad platoon, plus weapons.

then company HQ, 2 2 squad platoons, any remaining weapons.

then distribute remaining weapons to make up squad losses

then reduce to a single platoon, 3 squads.

then reduce to a single platoon, 2 squads.

then add remaining personal to some other formation, because this one is dead as a doornail.

[DTrill]

I was wondering on a more historical note, at what point is reorganisation required. There must be a point at which a platoon or company becomes ineffective due to losses. Was there a rule of thumb?

[JasonC]

It is complete chaos, in the real deal. No uniformity. It largely depends on particular officers and NCOs, and who is left. Where there is an effective subcommander, he usually keeps a formation and men are fed to it. Where they've been hit, units consolidate with others that have leaders left. But CM will not simulate that well (because of hard coded subordinations etc), so it is a bad idea to try to duplicate it for scenarios.