Different Squad Types by Nationaility

[Jeff Heidman]

I would have no problem with making American Rangers at D-Day veteran, or even crack. They might not have seen much combat (not even necessarily the case anyway, many of the officers and NCOs probably saw action in North Africa and.or Italy), but they were hand-picked special forces. They are just not comparable to regular troops at all. They are not even comparable to Airborne troops for that matter. The force sizes are small enough that they truly are exceptional personnel.

When it comes to well trained but untested troops, I would say:

Line Infantry/Armor - Regular

Airborne/SS - Veteran

Special Forces - Crack

Note that I am specifically talking about troops who are not conscripts (meaning not impressed without trining), are well equipped, and have had plenty of training with good leadership, like the Canadians at D-Day, etc.

I cannot accept the idea that the guys who scaled the cliffs at Point-du-Hoc are "regular", no matter how much combat they had seen.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

So, for all those who think that it is just fine that the Germans have nearly an order of magnitude greater number of choices when it comes to units, I have a question.

I want to design a scenarion set in late 1944. Specifically, a meeting engagement between a German Panzergrenadier battalion, and an American Armored Infantry Battalion. So I go to the unit selection screen, and voila! There it is! A complete German Panzergrenadier Battalion! Great!

Switch to the Americans. Hmmm. No Armored Infantry battalion. No Armored Infantry Company. No Armored Infantry Platoon. And, of course, no Armored Infantry squad.

In fact, there is no way to have ANY Allied units mounted. Not on halftracks, not on Brit Carriers, nothing! As far as CM is concerned, when it comes to US Battalions, you can have any kind you like, as long as it is leg infantry.

As far as the Ranger go, they had a very different TO&E from that of the line US Infantry units. They did not carry the BAR, they used 81mm mortars instead of the 60mm, etc., etc. They CANNOT be represented as an elite rifle unit.

I mean, come on. Are people really trying to tell us that ALL US infantry can be represented by the Rifle44/45 squad, but that the German Wehrmacht NEEDS a Fusiler, Fusiler SMG, Pioneer, Volksgrenadier Pioneer, Motorized Pioneer, and a Panzergrenadier Pioneer? And all the other myriad of squad types found within the Wehrmacht alone?

I LIKE the fact that the Germans have so much variety. Hell, I LIKE playing the Germans. But it seems like the BTS guys spent about 6 weeks on the German OOB, and then 20 minutes on the Allies!

Jeff Heidman

[Fred]

Sure Jeff,

Steve and Charles are german secret agents and try to undermine the US war effort...

Maybe aliens plotted all this, maybe the answer is...

But continue to whine...

Fred

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fred:

Sure Jeff,

Steve and Charles are german secret agents and try to undermine the US war effort...

Maybe aliens plotted all this, maybe the answer is...

But continue to whine...

Fred<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why bother? If you ahve nothing positive to add, just remember what Mark Twain said:

"It is better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt".

I am not "whining" I am stating a fact. But I imgaine it is easier to just attack the person than the arguemnt, now isn't it?

Jeff Heidman

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon:

Great so using modern forces as an illustration Rangers, Seals, Force Recon, and Green Berets are "regular" while regular army are also regulars, along with airborn, Marines etc. etc. All just regulars with no qualative difference.

They are all volunteer after all

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many of the Allied Regular troops that landed at Normandy would be classified as green in CM’s and its handling of experience. The elite statues and mystique of specialist forces such as the Seal’s, Rangers and the SAS is predicated on these units being extensively trained for specialised roles and their operation within ‘niche’ warfare. CM does not model specialist op’s, probably on the account that Spec-Ops were not carried out to a large degree during WWII and the focus of CM on the pitched meeting engagement type battle. Allow me to tell of an anecdote when I was involved in an exercise in Australia; now it perhaps goes against your view of specialist forces but during that exercise the newest addition to Her Majesties Australian army, the Territorial (National guard to you USA’er) Aboriginal forces managed to slip past SAS pickets and patrols and then called a fire mission wiping out the Aussie SAS operating at Battalion strength. Many of those SAS chaps had been in real firelight’s, the Aboriginal TF Battalion had only been in existence for 3 months and this was their 1st big exercise, pretty smashing one for them too. Those SAS boys camouflaged poorly and preformed substandard security measures which any halfway competent line infantry formation would have preformed in the face of the enemy. A beige beret will not make you superhuman; I don’t think it would be any different to any of the fancy badge hat combinations of the US military.

[Guest Germanboy]

I agree with Jeff that for scenario design purposes it would be nice to have units like 'Armored Inf. BN/Coy', Engineer Coy etc. complete with their HTs and support platoons. I know where to find the info, but it is extra work, and having a whole batallion with correct TO&E to just put in would be good and make my life easier.

On the point of quality of the special forces. Our Luftwaffe Security Squadron once did OPFOR (before my time in it) in an exercise for a unit of German Fernspaeher (LRRP). I think the LRRP guys were found and wiped out. The GSG9, famed for the Mogadishu plane counter-terrorist action regularly got trounced by ordinary German anti-terrorist police in exercises in the 1980s. I don't think that all special forces should automatically be crack, that would give in to romanticism about them, IMO.

------------------

Andreas

[Jeff Heidman]

Andreas, you are correct. ALL special forces should certainly NOT be crack, or even veteran.

But many of them deserve the status. My point was just that because a unit may not have seen combat (actually not even remotely true for Rangers at DDay anyway), does not necessarily mean that they cannot be at a high experience level rating.

The Rangers in particular were quite often used as uber-infantry, simply because most of the commanders who they were attached to did not know what else to do with them. This happened in Africa, Italy, and a lot in Western Europe. As elite heavy infantry, they might have been unmatched in the theatre, although their numbers where always relatively small compared to regular infantry units.

Jeff Heidman

[Durruti]

Brit Army Commandoes also had a different TO&E to regular troops. Each 'section' each had 2 eleven man sub-sections plus two 2-inch mortar squads and two snipers as standard. They were also the only Brits to hang onto Thompson SMGs instead of Stens.

Its true the regular Commonwealth section/squad was pretty standardised so I have no major gripe over their portrayal. It would be nice to have an optional squad with more than the standard single Sten as this became increasingly common especially for street-fighting. Plus the Sten-gun was as common as sand...

As Germanboy said, it would also be nice to have Allied motorised/armoured infantry already mounted and with TO&E support weapons, even if the actual squad is bog-standard.

[Guest Simon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:

Those SAS boys camouflaged poorly and preformed substandard security measures which any halfway competent line infantry formation would have preformed in the face of the enemy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure what this anecdote is intended to prove... Amazing thing about anecdotes, if one views them as evidence then one could use them to "prove" anything from the sky being red, to Shermans being superior to Panthers "I know this story about a single Sherman taking on and defeating 5 panther tanks, before being knocked out" as related by General Patton.

Indeed there are a number of problems with that anecdote: Were SAS commonly used as front line security? Were the aboriginal (one assumes native aussies) in their own element and ideally suited to the task they undertook? given this specialization weren't they in fact also somewhat of an "elite" type of unit? One that was given a mission against Special Air Service that weren't employed in their area of expertise?

Given this; Isn't your anecdote somewhat like saying "we had a company of Navy Seals and a company of German Alpine troops, and the Alpine troops were much better snow skiers?

Anyway back to the point, as stated in a different thread: Green and Veteran are phychological descriptors, Conscript, Regular and Elite are qualative (conditioning training and somewhat phychological (the "gung ho" factor)). A Ranger squad in Normandy might very well have been "Veteran Elites" a 29th ID squad might have been "Green Regulars", and a Big Red One squad could be classified as "Veteran Regulars" or even "Crack Regulars" (depending on your bias).

It's an elegant solution (admitedly to a very minor problem). Separate training, specialization and volunteer/attitude; from Combat experience. Giving you 9 descriptors instead of 6, and a way to make inexperienced Rangers (Green Elites) and KICK ASS regular non-elite formations (Veteran or Crack Regulars).

PS: I'm not suggesting the idea for a patch I'm sure such a basic paradigm change would be hard to work, maybe they should consider such an experience and troop quality model for CM2?

Edit: opps didn't realize what a tangent I was going off on... The argument is if we have GE security battalions we should at least have Ranger squads, if there's 5 different flavors of GE mech infantry, then at least ONE flavor of US mech INF. would be nice.

------------------

Simon http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/ammodump/

[This message has been edited by Simon (edited 07-26-2000).]

[PatAWilson]

How to model Rangers?

IMHO I go along with the bump up the experience level by a notch or two suggestion. The justification? Rangers were a highly motivated volunteer force that generally received better training than regular infantry. The more intensive training combined with the elite status would result in Rangers being more effective and less likely to break despite never having seen combat. Personally I would rate the average Ranger as "Veteran".

Now, it would be nice to have Rangers and Commandos modeled directly but the fact of the matter is that they are not there. Given the options IMHO bumping up the experience level is the best way to go.

BTW: is there any good info available on Ranger operations in France/Germany after Normandy? Almost everything that I hear about the Rangers in WWII is centered around June 6.

[Guest Mirage2k]

I actually have some questions. Are Rangers considered to be "Special Forces" or just better-than-average grunts? I think the distinction is there and should be considered when pushing for Rangers in the game. For example, Marine Corps riflemen are considered "elite," but in reality (if you ignore their amphibious specialty) they aren't that much different than any other rifle infantry in any other service. I would say that Marine Corps riflemen are better-than-average grunts. Navy SEALs and Army Delta Force are "special forces." How do Army Rangers fit into this spectrum?

If they're just better-than-average grunts, I think the best way to model them would be as a "veteran" infantry squad.

-Andrew

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

[Jeff Heidman]

Andrew, Rangers were Special Forces that were often used as elite heavy infantry.

Jeff

[RMC]

Follow the link to "US Army Special Operations in WWII" from the Cnter for Military History. It talks about the misfortunes and misuse of Rangers after D-Day in Chapter 3.

Main Page:

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/70-42/70-42c.htm

Chapter 3:

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/70-42/70-423.htm

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon:

Indeed there are a number of problems with that anecdote: Were SAS commonly used as front line security? Were the aboriginal (one assumes native aussies) in their own element and ideally suited to the task they undertook? given this specialization weren't they in fact also somewhat of an "elite" type of unit? One that was given a mission against Special Air Service that weren't employed in their area of expertise?

Given this; Isn't your anecdote somewhat like saying "we had a company of Navy Seals and a company of German Alpine troops, and the Alpine troops were much better snow skiers?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The SAS was created out of the Long range Desert patrol group headed by the indomitable post war Fuzzy wuzzy killer, Major Stirling. The long range Desert patrol group was created to counter the effectiveness of the DAK Aufklaerung/reconnaissance Abteilung (battalion with less than 5 companies) i.e. provide front line security and challenge ‘their’ front line security.

The SAS’s training and constant experience in’ front line security’ insured an integral role in the Malay emergency and the subsequent confrontation with Indonesia. The SAS operated recon and combat patrols out of fixed bases vs. irregular Malay/Chinese communists and various Indonesian communist militias and when Sukarano was able to push the Indonesian army, regular Indonesian paratroopers. Front line security is a SAS role.

The idea that the Aborigines being ‘natives’ and therefore held some sort of home ground advantage on the basis of their ingrained knowledge of the 'land' and native special powers is quite ludicrous and demeaning to what they achieved during that exercise. The Aborigines are about as ‘Mystic Bushmen’ as any formerly successful small-scale culture is after being forced into modernity, alcoholism, low life expectancy, high incidence in crime statistics and the margins of white society, bugger all.

The difference in success of the SAS is the number of combat veterans that had been fighting for years (some with combat experience spanning decades) in several location that served as NCOs and officers in the units that took part in the operations in SE Asia VS the poor showing in Australia were many had seen ‘some’ combat experience but no were near the level’s that the ‘old guard’ had experienced.

Forgive me in not providing more data for your inferences, and I’m sorry that you had to provide a straw man argument in the Alpine troops vs. Seals to help illustrate your argument.

------------------

One of these days MattBot, people like me will rise up and overthrow you, and the end of tyranny by the homeostatic machine will have arrived.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 07-27-2000).]

[Spook]

To add to Jeff's point in this case, I have to cite again the use of the 2nd US Rangers in the Hurtgen Forest. It wasn't a "special ops" even by loose defintion; it was simply sending in guys that were expected to take a certain hill that had defied all previous attempts by line infantry. This story is detailed in "Citizen Soldiers" (which I presently don't have on me now).

I would also appreciate for people not to label Jeff a "whiner", because his points on limited Allied squad type availability are fully valid. When building up from the platoon to the company-level and higher, the US armored infantry unit, by example, DID pack quite a bit more firepower than the US line infantry unit under STANDARD TO&E. And as I've cited in earlier topic threads, I think UK commandos are also a compelling squad/group type to consider for addition to the CM mix.

While CM doesn't really consider much to commando mission objectives (which often had to be more than to "take a flag" or destroy the onsite enemy), the CM time, ground, and unit scales are amenable to special ops. Commando scenarios were allowed and accounted for in the earlier SL/ASL game system of similar scale.

Well, at this point, I would welcome some feedback comments from BTS.

[Holdit]

"I'm not sure what this anecdote is intended to prove..."

I think it was mean to prove that Eilte status does not necessarily guarantee elite performance, in one instance at least.

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:

The SAS was created out of the Long range Desert patrol group headed by the indomitable post war Fuzzy wuzzy killer, Major Stirling. (snip...)

The SAS’s training and constant experience in’ front line security’ insured an integral role in the Malay emergency and the subsequent confrontation with Indonesia.

(snip...)

Front line security is a SAS role. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you go back and check the original anecdote, you'll see that it concerned Australian SAS. A small but important distinction.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The idea that the Aborigines being ‘natives’ and therefore held some sort of home ground advantage on the basis of their ingrained knowledge of the 'land' and native special powers is quite ludicrous and demeaning to what they achieved during that exercise. The Aborigines are about as ‘Mystic Bushmen’ as any formerly successful small-scale culture is after being forced into modernity, alcoholism, low life expectancy, high incidence in crime statistics and the margins of white society, bugger all.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, if Crocodile Dundee could do it...

[Guest Simon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:

The SAS was created out of the Long range Desert patrol group headed by the

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the information, I erroniously assumed that something called Special Air Service would have a more intuitive specialty.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The idea that the Aborigines being ‘natives’ and therefore held some sort of home ground advantage on the basis of their ingrained knowledge of the 'land' and native special powers is quite ludicrous and demeaning to what they achieved during that exercise. The Aborigines are about as ‘Mystic Bushmen’ as

Well I think I'll leave the sarcasm and condesension to you, and just say I've obviously gotten some false information over the years.

Aparently none of them hunt any more, and articles I've read detailing their attempts to keep their own culture and life style alive to this day were false or at least not representative.

[Guest Simon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Holdit:

"I'm not sure what this anecdote is intended to prove..."

I think it was mean to prove that Eilte status does not necessarily guarantee elite performance, in one instance at least. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what I gather as well, I don't think I could disagree with that, in fact I can't imagine anyone would.

------------------

Simon

http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/ammodump/

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon:

Again, no sarcasm or condesension involved, but could you please note the question marks that end nearly every sentence in those two paragraphs? My arument was erronious based off fualty information (and open assumption) however is was not the deliberate attempt mislead or build a strawman that you seem to think. I mistakenly assumed SAS weren't some sort of counter recon, I don't know (and still don't) much at all about the SAS.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So we actully agree but started talking past each other at some point.

And yes I do agree with Jeffs idea that we need more allied section types.(just to keep me on topic for this thread)

Forgive the riled tone of my earlier post. I myself presumed the condesension in your post.

Regards Keay

[DrBrydon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zebulon:

IIRC, the D-Day Rangers had never seen combat, thus would be "green" as far as experience<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, Rangers first saw action at Anzio.

------------------

Will

---

"The truly great thing is not to lose your nerve." --Unknown.

[DrBrydon]

When I first read in the manual that cliffs were impassible, my thought was, What about Rangers? And, of course, there are no Rangers.

For that matter I don't know how many German Gebirgsjaeger Divisions served on the Western Front, but I think it was in the neighborhood of none. But there are no US Mountain troops. They, like Airborne and Ranger, were all-volunteer. Whether or not the TOE was different for these units, it seems odd that there's almost a full palate for German units, but you have to spend time specializing Allied troops.

I would hope that a patch, as opposed to an expansion, would include higher level formations and something of the diversity of German units.

------------------

Will

---

"The truly great thing is not to lose your nerve." --Unknown.

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DrBrydon:

Actually, Rangers first saw action at Anzio.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know about the prior combat experience of the "D-Day Rangers" (2nd & 5th battalions) other than a small group of 50 rangers joined in the Dieppe Raid in '42.

As to "Darby's Rangers" (eventually comprising 1st, 3rd & 4th battalions), these saw combat well before Anzio. I don't know of their actions in North Africa (if any), but certainly they were used in the Sicily landings and in in the Salerno landings (holding Chuinzi Pass to the north end of that beachhead).