Heavy weapons platoons and C2

[Plaza_Olmedo]

In company size battles, I usually advance my 3 infantry platoons from different directions (left, center and right). That leaves me with the problem of how to deal with my Heavy Weapons Platoons. I usually leave my mortars behind with the HQ for indirect fire, and split the MGs among the 3 platoons. However, I’m concerned with how this affect their performance since they lose contact with their platoon HQ. Am I doing it right or should I keep the platoon together? I know that a platoon organized in sections help maintaining C2, but that’s not always the case, and even in that case, they inevitabily lose contact with the platoon HQ.

On a related issue, I leave my Company HQ far behind, presuming they will keep C2 by radio contact. Is that correct? Should they follow the Platoon HQ’s with no radio or is that just an unnecessary risk?

Thanks!

[stikkypixie]

In company size battles, I usually advance my 3 infantry platoons from different directions (left, center and right). That leaves me with the problem of how to deal with my Heavy Weapons Platoons. I usually leave my mortars behind with the HQ for indirect fire, and split the MGs among the 3 platoons. However, I’m concerned with how this affect they performance since they lose contact with their platoon HQ. Am I doing it right or should I keep the platoon together? I know that a platoon organized in sections help maintaining C2, but that’s not always the case, and even in that case, they inevitabily lose contact with the platoon HQ.

On a related issue, I leave my Company HQ far behind, presuming they will keep C2 by radio contact. Is that correct? Should they follow the Platoon HQ’s with no radio or is that just an unnecessary risk?

Thanks!

What I usually do is keep my mortars with the Company HQ within visual range and send the weapons HQ with the machine guns. This way indirect fire is available and the MGs stay in command.

[pagskier]

In company size battles, I usually advance my 3 infantry platoons from different directions (left, center and right). That leaves me with the problem of how to deal with my Heavy Weapons Platoons. I usually leave my mortars behind with the HQ for indirect fire, and split the MGs among the 3 platoons. However, I’m concerned with how this affect their performance since they lose contact with their platoon HQ. Am I doing it right or should I keep the platoon together? I know that a platoon organized in sections help maintaining C2, but that’s not always the case, and even in that case, they inevitabily lose contact with the platoon HQ.

On a related issue, I leave my Company HQ far behind, presuming they will keep C2 by radio contact. Is that correct? Should they follow the Platoon HQ’s with no radio or is that just an unnecessary risk?

Thanks!

I always wondered about those 2 issues!

It's a hard one! Usually, I tend to split my mgs in group of 2 and 1 so 1 is out of C2 and the other keep up with the HQ officer.

nd about the Comp. HQ, I got no idea too!

[LongLeftFlank]

Not directly addressing your question, I know, but having to face and resolve just this kind of tactical command dilemma is the reason why this game is so unique and powerful in the wargaming space.

There's certainly a doctrinal training ground solution (husband SW in reserve to establish base of fire once enemy MLR is located, etc.), but this breaks down rapidly on the battlefield, especially in the bocage where tactical communication and even basic orientation is extremely slow and unreliable.

FWIW, here's an anecdote I've quoted before, from Buckley, "The Normandy campaign 1944: sixty years on":

The 2/137 was more successful in changing tactical organisation and procedures for the infantry and their own and attached fire support weapons. Colonel O'Connell decentralised his forces, attaching a platoon of heavy machineguns and a section of 81mm mortars to each company. The rifle companies were ordered to abandon conventional formation and create attack groups of four or five men. O'Connell remarked, "The best tactic was to first place very heavy concentrations of mortar fire on all suspected enemy lines and then to follow this up with a liberal use of grenade launchers and hand grenades."

Again, more historical context than practical advice here. In game, I've personally found that command delays don't seem to matter too much for Regular or Veteran troops out of command.

[MG TOW]

What I usually do is keep my mortars with the Company HQ within visual range and send the weapons HQ with the machine guns. This way indirect fire is available and the MGs stay in command.

Will the Coy Hq adopt the mortars then for morale? If so that is a good solution.

[akd]

If the Coy HQ is in their chain of command, then they should have "in command" status as long as they stay within voice/close visual range of the HQ. The only negative is that your platoon HQs (or other spotters) won't have remote access to the mortars unless you park a vehicle with a radio nearby them as well (they don't get to steal the Company radio for themselves).

[Plaza_Olmedo]

There's certainly a doctrinal training ground solution (husband SW in reserve to establish base of fire once enemy MLR is located, etc.), but this breaks down rapidly on the battlefield, especially in the bocage where tactical communication and even basic orientation is extremely slow and unreliable.

Actually, that was my first intuition, but I found myself not pleased at all. In almost all my QB, I find the enemy MLR (or at least they first line of defense, maybe I’m getting the concept wrong) on one of my flanks, which means that it will probably be my opposite flank platoon which will arrive next to the target zone and conduct the final assault, where I really miss the extra firepower.

In game, I've personally found that command delays don't seem to matter too much for Regular or Veteran troops out of command.

I have the same feeling, so I guess that one of the main positive things of keeping C2 is maintaing green units as a fit fighting force under duress

So, combining your advices, I guess that an acceptable way to go could be (of course, depending the situation):

a) keep the mortars with the Company HQ.

Splitting the MG among the different platoons.

c) Send the HQ with the green units.

Just another question, do you know if Sections HQ provides C2 as a platoon HQ or they are not enough?

[Sgt Schultz]

If this is a QB, then there are purchasing options that may not cost you any more points, or less mortar ammo, depending on unit.

We will assume you have map preview on. This means you have a general idea of what forces are doing what, and where.

Dump the HW toons, or at least strip 50%.

Directly purchase support weapons for the platoon(s) that will require their services, and can use them in an orderly proficient and military manner.

Let's say you put HMG teams with the platoons that will back up your initial recon.

Combat Co HQ get the mortars, since he will be in the general area of that column.

-------

Re: Higher HQs commanding lower units. The little green and red dots don't help if you are out of command to that unit's immediate HQ. You have to look for the eye, shout or soldier to see if a "higher" HQ is commanding that unit.

Example. A platoon HQ get vaporised by 60mm. Send in the Company HQ. Still no green dot but you see the lower screens of the units fill with the shout, eye, etc. They will still not perform well, but won't run screaming like little girls either.

[hoolaman]

Yes if you are purchasing forces you can directly attach a HMG to each platoon and that is the best way to do it if this is how you like to set things up.

Personally I usually leave two HMGs where they can still see their own HQ and advance another. They shouldn't usually be right at the bleeding edge of a firefight anyway so their morale levels aren't usually too big of an issue.

A bit of a shame that you can't do this dynamically, I'm pretty sure in CMx1 a command link would become available from a HW to a platoon HQ dynamically.

[LukeFF]

All of this makes me wish the Weapons HQ Support unit would be able to maintain radio contact for on-map mortars. As it is right now, if you place an HQ Support unit next a group of mortars from the same platoon, the mortars are listed as being "out of contact."

[Paper Tiger]

I had to think about this issue when designing the 'Montebourg' campaign. I didn't want managing C2 to be too much of a nightmare and so the solution I came up with, and continue to employ, is to delete the weapons platoon from the OB and purchase the same units as teams and attach them to the company's individual platoons. This means that the Platoon commander can exercise control over the attached HMG/MMG/Mortar. I did this for both the human player and the German side too. It made my playing experience more enjoyable for one

For your second question, I prefer to keep my Company commanders back from the action but in locations from where they can oversee their platoons if not the enemy. They usually stay in C2 by radio.

[DavidFields]

In my opinion, the HW Section Hqs, XO units, and essentially necessary splitting squads for 2 man scout teams, make moving (American companies, at least) a chore.

It is sort of the infantry equivalent of the already tedius CM issue of moving a column of vehicles down a road. (Wouldn't a "Follow" command, where the tac-AI would adjust the speed of the vehicles and keep them on path, be great?)

I am not sure what the solution is for the infantry unit clutter, but I find myself staring at my own units, flipping through and trying to organize them, takes a lot of time. Thanks, Paper Tiger, for trying to help--maybe I should have played your campaign before playing the other major Allied campaign.