US Weapons Platoon C2

[Pak40]

The section HQs almost certainly played a role in processing a request for fire, particularly for more complex missions like those under the control of a remote spotter, so I do think there is a valid reason to require the section HQ to stay with the mortars.

I agree that the section HQ played a role but it should not be THE required role. It's certainly not a valid reason because the jeep with radio can substitute for both the Platoon HQ and the Section HQ. How does a non-human vehicle substitute for a supposedly important Section HQ? It doesn't make any sense at all.

Also, I assume if the Section HQ is killed then the Platoon HQ can suddenly act as the liaison to the spotting Company HQ. So, the Section HQ can't be all that important.

But if the chain is broken, any spotter (including the higher up CO) can request fire from the mortar team directly from within voice range.

This is exactly the point where the C2 logic fails. The Platoon HQ can spot for the mortars when they are within shouting distance (when the Section HQ is out of range), but when the Company HQ acts as spotter and the Platoon HQ acts as the receiving radio unit for the mortars, suddenly the Platoon HQ cannot perform it's duty because a subordinate unit is out of range. IT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL. In both cases the Platoon HQ is within shouting distance of the mortars.

[LukeFF]

I'm still not getting the logic of this:

-Any radio-equipped vehicle can provide a radio link for the mortars for the American weapons platoon in question.

-Radio-equipped HQ and FO units can can call in mortar fire via this radio-equipped vehicle.

-Radio-equipped HQ and FO units cannot call in mortar fire via the radio-equipped HQ support section.

Yes, I understand the HQ support unit will form a new HQ if the platoon HQ is destroyed, but other than that, what is the point of the HQ support unit carrying around a radio, then? Seems that in reality that would a waste of equipment. I cannot fathom why a radio-equipped HQ support section, led by a senior NCO, would not be able to process mortar fire instructions for the platoon of which it's a part. It just doesn't make any sense. You may as well just take the batteries out of his radio, because right now it's practically useless.

[Vinnart]

The BEST use for HQ support as it is now is as a Forward Observer. He can call in fire with his radio. My prefered set up is HQ support up front as FO, 4th HQ with the MG's, and a radio vehicle with the mortars.

[Faelwolf]

I am an old USAF telecommunications specialist (80-84), so let me see if I can explain without writing a book, or screwing it up too badly with my lousy writing skills

The problem was mainly a technical one. In WW2 and even up through the mid 60's, field radios were single crystal sets to reduce size and weight. Considering WW2 was before transistors, size and weight were relative terms. Vehicle radios could be larger and had more power available, so could be multiple crystal sets and have a wider frequency range. There were communication jeeps that had a radio setup that looked like something out a 30's science fiction serial

Larger HQ units also had the multi crystal sets, and multiple radios, but a Coy commander was not as likely to be as well equipped. The Coy HQ support unit would have been equipped with radios for command and control, not relaying mortar requests. Even if they had radios with the right frequency, they would not likely be tuned to those channels. Communication protocols were in place that kept radio communication into separate nets so they would not be monitoring that net, and would be too busy monitoring/relaying C&C traffic to switch over anyway. HQ was also not likely to be in position or have the inclination to sit and relay mortar requests either.

The radios were issued in frequency sets, with different units receiving different sets to keep communication separated to prevent confusion and reduce enemy infiltration of the comm net (in theory anyway). We discovered the hard way that it also prevented inter-unit communication as well. Remember that back then radios were a fairly new item for the military, and the protocols were developed in peacetime when it was easy to overlook potential issues.

So, if the crystal in your radio did not match the crystal of the radio back at the mortar section, or there was not a multi crystal/radio setup near them, they would never hear you. Due to protocols, someone with the right radio wouldn't be tuned to you and wouldn't hear you. I will skip the other problems like terrain issues, enemy jamming, equipment breakdowns etc. that could interrupt comms, especially since they aren't modeled in the game. If anything, the game makes radio communication to the mortars too easy, though given the lack of runners, field telephones and carrier pigeons I think it's a decent compromise If the game was thoroughly realistic on radio communications, it would be a major pain to do any comms. I just accepted the limitation with HQ support as a nod to realism, and was glad they didn't take it further.

This is just from the U.S. point of view, radios were much more limited in the other services, so it would be worse if you were playing on those sides.

These days it's all digital, you can switch comms with the twist of a dial, and we rely on digital encryption to protect the net. I also wouldn't be surprised to find troops texting info to each other on their cell phones! But it makes it easy for us to forget what it was like to have a single crystal tube radio with a HAF battery strapped to your back, calling for support and hoping the slob back in the rear could hear you.

[PzKfW]

^^^ exactly

[Michael Emrys]

Excellent post, Faelwolf. This should also be kept in mind when demanding better cooperation between infantry and armor. They too were on completely different nets and could not readily communicate via radio. As an improvisation, some tank company and/or platoon commanders were sometimes able to scrounge handi-talkies to keep inside their command tanks so as to have some link to the crunchies.

Michael

[TheDudeAbides421]

Is there a way to attach weapons company mg teams into line platoons, so they fall under the line platoons C2?

[Faelwolf]

The only way I can think of is to delete the weapon platoon, then buy them attached to the HQ you want it under. Assuming Quick Battle purchases.

I haven't tried it though as C2 for those units hasn't seemed to be much of a problem so far. I mix them in with my squads and let them do their thing, and try to avoid putting them in positions where they will take incoming fire without support.

Now that you've mentioned it, I think I will do that next game, and see if it makes a noticeable difference. I am sure it does, but I am by no means expert enough on the game to be able to tell you how it works or how much the effect is.

[Vinnart]

For those who are having a hard time setting weapons platoon up here is a formation I often start with that has some flexibility, and good C2. I call it the “martini glass formation”. Here the HQ support has the primary function as a forward observer. If I need to move him up further to observe I will move 4th HQ in it's place if I have vehicle radio with mortars. The ammo bearers I use differently in campaigns than in QB. In campaign I try to protect them more by keeping them back, and use them as a reserve or for medic aid for the MG if they need it.

[LukeFF]

Faelwolf, thank you for that explanation. Now it makes sense to me why the HQ support section doesn't / can't relay mortar fire information.

[Sgt Schultz]

The only way I can think of is to delete the weapon platoon, then buy them attached to the HQ you want it under. Assuming Quick Battle purchases.

I haven't tried it though as C2 for those units hasn't seemed to be much of a problem so far. I mix them in with my squads and let them do their thing, and try to avoid putting them in positions where they will take incoming fire without support.

Now that you've mentioned it, I think I will do that next game, and see if it makes a noticeable difference. I am sure it does, but I am by no means expert enough on the game to be able to tell you how it works or how much the effect is.

It is expensive point-wise to do this. The organic MG teams have a much smaller point value. Not to mention that you have just wedded an expensive support weapon to a Lt who will most likely get blown away at the front lines.

If you want to put MG teams under direct C2, then you may wish to buy them under the Company HQ. The Company HQ has every reason to stay farther back. The MG can shoot from outside effective small arms range. I'd call that a match.

-

[Pak40]

Is there a way to attach weapons company mg teams into line platoons, so they fall under the line platoons C2?

Yes, the scenario designer has to do this. For an example, The Road to Montebourg Campaign is designed this way. I think the HMGs that would normally be in the Weapons Company are added as individual units under the C2 of the Rifle Coy commander.

[Pak40]

Excellent post, Faelwolf. This should also be kept in mind when demanding better cooperation between infantry and armor. They too were on completely different nets and could not readily communicate via radio. As an improvisation, some tank company and/or platoon commanders were sometimes able to scrounge handi-talkies to keep inside their command tanks so as to have some link to the crunchies.

Yes, this was a very informative post by Faelwolf. However, it doesn't really apply to the issue we're seeing with the U.S. weapons platoon. The HQ Support team and Platoon HQ radios should be on the same net.

The issue with the German mortars is also not a radio issue, it's a weird C2 issue that, quite honestly, defies logic.

[c3k]

Assumption:

If A --> B, then B--> A

"-->" means "transmits to".

The underlying assumption is that A --> B MEANS A <--> B.

I would THINK that should be true, but it seems not to be.

The next assumption is that if A can spot and call targets to B who relays it to the mortar, then B can spot and call targets to A who can relay it to the mortar.

That may not be true. Maybe only B has the plot board?

Okay, I do think that comms should be fully two way and it doesn't seem to act that way.

Ken