US Armored Infantry Company TO&E 1943-45

[John Kettler]

Had read the relevant earlier manual (1942), but this covers the rest of the war and is extremely detailed. Was highly surprised to learn the Armored Rifle Squads had neither BAR/s nor LMG. The analysis does say Armored Rifle Platoons did informally acquire BARs, because of their not being in the TO&E and the M1919 on the M3 HT being utterly unsuitable as a SAW. Also of note, besides the organic bazooka team in the Squads, was that each squad had two grenade launchers for the M1s. By US infantry stanards, the TO&E was odd, for there were on 2 x Rifle Squads, rather than the usual three. Here, it was 2 x Rifle Squad, 1 X LMG squad and 1 x 60 mm Mortar Squad.

https://www.battleorder.org/usa-armored-inf-rifle-co-1943

Regards,

John Kettler
 

[Erwin]

One generally finds that armored inf doesn't have much in the way of MG's.  Presumably the firepower came from the armored vehicles.

[SimpleSimon]

I'm pretty sure the BAR found its way in, but according to the description the Browning .30cals and M2s on the halftracks could be dismounted from the vehicles and tripods were provided. I would not be surprised if this was almost always done when the whole Platoon dismounted. 

[chuckdyke]

Halftracks are AFV's in their own right. Select terrain and your .50 cal is a hard act to follow. 

[akd]

The Plt Hq was also a maneuver squad.

[Frenchy56]

5 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Halftracks are AFV's in their own right. Select terrain and your .50 cal is a hard act to follow. 

Yeah, until the enemy shoots back with anything bigger than a rifle.

[chuckdyke]

17 minutes ago, Frenchy56 said:

Yeah, until the enemy shoots back

That's what makes an enemy an enemy. He or she shoots back. A 0.50 Cal in support is not something to leave behind. 

[SimpleSimon]

APCs are for splinter protection from all the ubiquitous and unceasing artillery fire that saturated battlefields of the 20th century. Like it legit rained HE frag everywhere. Most of them were "bulletproof" only in the barest sense and in practice it was generally understood that infantry should dismount for a fight at the first opportunity. They are not really fighting vehicles. They could be used in a fight, but their weapons were mainly intended for self defense. 

[chuckdyke]

5 minutes ago, SimpleSimon said:

They could be used in a fight, but their weapons were mainly intended for self defense. 

At Long Tan they were used to reinforce their mates and used as AFV's in the truest sense of the word. Go to 46:01

Long Tan The True Story - YouTube

[akd]

In Vietnam generally, M113s were used as tanks (i.e. mobile protected firepower).

[chuckdyke]

Tradition started at Beersheba WW1. They are not cavalry they are infantry according to a German observer. Yes, they are still called Light Horse lol. M113 was a jack of all trades master of none. The 0.50cal is firepower you can't afford to ignore. There is such a thing as battlefield innovation. 

[SimpleSimon]

Certainly it'd be more reasonable to use them like fighting vehicles if the threat environment consisted almost entirely of infantry in soft positions. I'm not saying it never happened, US Army doctrine even pushed it to a degree. Just that the designs were not generally built for it. Like by comparison the Universal Carrier was a widely produced APC, was hyper successful, and couldn't even carry a full squad of infantry. It was a carrier for the heaps of heavy equipment and specialist troops the British envisioned they'd actually have an enormous number of cases for. Really if we're precise about the terminology the Universal Carrier was correctly described as an Armored Carrier minus the personnel part-because it didn't carry many heads. Course you also had infamously bold stuff like the WASP flamethrower and Boys-Rifle Carrier. Like don't get me wrong there's plenty of places a barely bulletproof battlefield taxi might be able to be handy in a fight. Kubelwagons and the Jeep had a machine gun sometimes, and it wasn't always dismounted. It's just that the situations you can use them in are very "circumstantially limited". 

Edited April 15, 2021 by SimpleSimon

[chuckdyke]

12 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:

the Jeep had a machine gun sometimes

It has to do with a typically area of operations. We get Meeting, Probing, Attack or Assault scenario in our AO in which recon has taken place. The idea of recon is how far can we go to keep the integrity of our formation on the march. I like the first Campaign in FB you start with a Halftrack and 2 Jeeps. Their task is not to fight but move to contact the Jeep is superb for that. Huzzar in BN is another scenario I like. We need more scenarios or mini campaigns in which we require recon. 

[SimpleSimon]

Imagine actually having your Puma shot out from under you by a Jeep.  

Realistically I've heard the .50cal Jeep wasn't terribly viable. The M2 shook the vehicle violently when it fired from its mount and I imagine if the crew would usually dismount it whenever able. We definitely need something like a recon campaign-which in the theory the game engine should support well. Imagine a campaign mostly focused on own-objective sort of stuff like unit survival rather than enemy destruction and yeah it could work great. 

 

[Erwin]

There have been some very good recon scenarios (I forget which now) but possibly most folks like blowing things up rather than sneaking around where the object is to gather intel.  "HIghland Games" campaign features a "sneak around" recon mission (of an airfield) and the intel gathered helps during the next mission when one has to assault it.