CMFB scale formation--6th AD Armored Point

[John Kettler]

In reading John C. McManus's generally splendid The Deadly Brotherhood: the American Combat Soldier in World War II, I came across a great piece of tactical info. On page 126, 6th AD (Super Sixth) tanker Charles Hogg lists the composition of the armored point: 5 x Light tank, 5 x Medium tank, 1 x Armored Infantry Platoon, 1 x Engineer Squad, 1 x FO in Light tank  and 2 x M7 Priest.

The basic concept is the spearhead keeps going, smashing through opposition until it can't, whereupon it hunkers down and calls for reinforcements. Though it's not stated, presumably the Engineer Squad is in a halftrack. Given the presence of the FO, it seems reasonable to posit the Priests are likely one terrain feature behind, if not more, ready to provide hasty support fires called in by the FO. George Blackburn, in Guns of Normandy, describes a clever technique in which the gunners in march column would keep running track of where they were and, on order, would swiftly pull of the road, set up shop, fire the mission, pack up and return to the column. This was for 25-pdr. Obviously, this drill is much easier to do with a Priest, where there are no tow vehicles, limbers and caissons to deal with.

Seems to me this is a perfect CMFB (or maybe CMBN) level tactical all arms formation.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Edited January 26, 2016 by John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

Since we can't at present put an FO in a tank or armored car—here's hoping that gets remedied soon—would it be considered fair to put him in a halftrack? That is already done in purchases of an armored FO section.

Michael

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

I don't see why not, since we don't have any armored Jeeps (which were present at BoB)i n the game, either. But what about that turretless Stuart? Certainly has enough personnel capacity. Why not that?

Regards,

John Kettler

P.S.

Very glad you're back!

Edited January 26, 2016 by John Kettler

[RockinHarry]

Inclusion of SP Arty was part of standard composition of any armored kampfgruppe and advance detachments since early in the war (for germans). How well forward the SP guns were positioned along the column likely depended upon how spread out the columns were, terrain and likely opposition, but I think within the scale of a CM game, I´d assume them rather to be positioned off map in the majority of cases. Unless in very special cases a CM game shouldn´t actually see Priests or Wespes and Hummels placed and moved on a map.

[BletchleyGeek]

The FO can ride on the back of a Stuart, CMFB brings the joys of tank riding to the Western Front. 

Interesting force, sounds like a fun outfit... even if I am not sure what would be role of the light tanks other than being chaff. On a bigger map - 2kms deep or so - I think the SPArty can work, especially if there's high ground enabling direct fire on enemy positions.

[Michael Emrys]

But what about that turretless Stuart? Certainly has enough personnel capacity. Why not that?

Is that back in the game? I haven't seen one since CMBO.

Michael

[Wicky]

Is that back in the game? I haven't seen one since CMBO.

Michael

Already has a 5 man crew so not much room inside for anyone else

[CHEqTRO]

Well, that one is the Stuart Recce , I think that he is referring to the Stuart Kangaroo, that doesnt have a .50 cal gun mounted, that it is also in the game, but only with the Vehicle Pack Module downloaded.

[Wicky]

Well, that one is the Stuart Recce , I think that he is referring to the Stuart Kangaroo, that doesnt have a .50 cal gun mounted, that it is also in the game, but only with the Vehicle Pack Module downloaded.

 

Yup that'll work 

[Michael Emrys]

The one I was thinking of was the T8E1 in American service.

Michael

[MikeyD]

By happy coincidence, it was just recently that the topic came up internally about looking into FO tanks for the game. I don't know what plans are afoot or what title they might pop up in first, but the idea is rattling around like a marble in a tin can making noise. Lets recall an 'FO tank' isn't just a FO sitting in a tank. We're talking more radios, different internal layouts, difference crew duties, oftentimes emasculating the tank to make room for the additional radios, optics and map boards.

One thing BFC doesn't really represent is the limited nature of WWII radios. Some tanks just had receivers and no transmitters, most tanks' radios couldn't receive messages from infantry, and artillery & air support radios were tuned to yet another frequency. Re-reading a book on tank destroyer operations in WWII there was constant reference to the frustrations of coordinating with infantry using incompatible radio equipment.

[IICptMillerII]

This is really cool information John! I'll have to check the book out as well. 

It sounds like this could be the basis for a very cool scenario taking place sometime before the Battle of the Bulge. I'm sure most would understand if the FO had to be either a tank rider or mounted in a half track instead of the historically accurate FO tank. 

Thanks for the great info and book recommendation!

[John Kettler]

Guys,

I'm delighted at the informed response I've gotten as a result of my OP. Seems there's some CM kindling taking effect. The issue raised regarding the nature of FO tanks is most apposite, and I concur regarding the specialized radios involved. I also note as an item of interest that British artillery cooperation with the tanks collapsed at practically the start of GOODWOOD when the sole FO tank got killed. I've heard of meager scales of issue, but that's simply insane! As for the book, it's a terrific read, but be wary of some of the author's "facts." Also, the veterans' accounts have quite a few fascinating "facts" as well. These things said, it is an exceedingly valuable work, though I wish he'd made it a practice to consistently say which division was where. I don't instantly know where the 91st ID served, for example, which makes it difficult to keep track of things.

One thing I can say for sure is that while there has been an effort made by some to get historical behavior in the game via using Green troops, what is blazingly evident is that we need to routinely raise Fatigue levels for any force not fresh. General exhaustion seems to have been the norm, not the exception, and I guarantee you that starting men out in higher Fatigue levels (not to mention the distinct possibility of Fitness degraded by thirst or hunger and thirst, plus various maladies not requiring prompt aid) will definitely rein in the kinds of battlefield performance we've come to think of as normal in CM. 

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[Michael Emrys]

General exhaustion seems to have been the norm, not the exception...

And it didn't go away just because you were riding on a ship either. Some years ago I read a memoir written by someone who as a young man had served on a Cleveland class light cruiser, and he said that his most vivid memory of that time was always being hungry and always being tired. War was generally not fun for the people caught up in it.

Michael