Simon Fox Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 This is a work in progress but I have noticed a few funny organisations in scenarios so I thought I might post it for your information and interest: The organisation and employment of the British Infantry Battalion 1944/45 The battalion has a Bn HQ, an HQ company, a support company, and four rifle companies. HQ company has a company HQ and signals and admin platoons. Support company has a company HQ and a mortar platoon, carrier platoon, anti-tank platoon and pioneer platoon. Each rifle company has a company HQ and 3 rifle platoons. The HQ company has a company HQ and signals and admin platoons. The mortar platoon The mortar platoon has 6 medium mortars (3in). There is a Plt-HQ with carrier, three observation post teams and 6 mortar detachments consisting of a 3in mortar and a carrier. The carriers are modified to mount the mortars and I do not beleive they had Bren guns. The mortars are therefore able to be fired when mounted though typically they were emplaced. The mortar platoon also had 1 PIAT team. All assistant mortar and PIAT gunners were issued with rifles. The carrier platoon The carrier platoon has 13 Bren carriers and is more like a mini cavalry unit than a transport unit. It consists of a Pl HQ with 1 carrier and 4 carrier sections each with 3 carriers. Each carrier section (12 OR) is armed with 3 Bren LMG (1 per carrier) and 1 PIAT. The carrier platoon may fight mounted or dismounted and represents a light recce or rapidly deployable reserve for the battalion commander. The anti-tank platoon platoon The ATk platoon has 6 6pdr anti tank guns all towed by universal carriers (NOT trucks or anything else), 3 Bren guns and 3 2in mortars. The platoon is organised with a Plt HQ with carrier and 3 sections each with 2 6pdr, 2 carrier and 1 2in mortar. Note: By 1944 the ATk platoon was fairly standard though before that the number of ATk guns was known to vary between 4 and 8 depending in some cases on the theatre and army. I am uncertain as to when or if 17pdr ATk guns were issued to these units. Certainly the divisional ATk regiment would have those guns either towed or SP. The pioneer platoon The organisation and strength of the pioneer platoon varies somewhat depending on the source. The early war organisation (which corresponds to CM) has 1 Plt-HQ and 2 sections armed as infantry sections with the addition of satchel charges/flamethrowers and other specialised equipment. However, between 1943 and 1944 the battalion AAPlt seems to have been disbanded (no Luftwaffe ) and possibly these men were relocated partially into the pioneer platoons since some TOEs show 2 assault sections and 1 pioneer section or even 4 pioneer sections. The rifle company The rifle company consists of a Co-HQ and three infantry platoons. The Co-HQ consists of a HQ unit and 3 attached PIAT teams. The Co-HQ also can have an infantry section attached, the 'company security section'. The Co-HQ has a carrier and other vehicles. The rifle platoon consists of a Plt HQ with 2in mortar and 3 rifle sections. Each section was comprised of fire support (Bren gunner and 2 assistants with rifles, includes section 2i/c) and assault elements (SMG and 6rifles, includes section commander). Notes: Unfortunately CM divides the sections evenly so it is impossible to employ them precisely as they were. In addition in practice the section distribution of firearms varied considerably. The plethora of official German squad organisations provides considerable flexibility in CM but British units adopted a 'horses for courses' approach throughout the war. In close quarters fighting, city and night, SMGs were undoubtedly more prevalent, a typical variation I have seen suggested elswhere was 4SMG and 3 rifles in the assault element. In the desert war large numbers of Commonwealth sections would supplement their Bren with a captured Breda LMG (or even a captured 75mm Italian field gun, hehe) and SMGs would be common in night actions as logic dictates. Note the plethora of carriers, scenario designers take note, this vehicle gave a measure of tactical flexibility. Unfortunately the larger capacity Lloyd carrier is not in CM. Also there is no MMG platoon in a standard British infantry Bn. The motor battalions of some armoured divisions did have them but not all. On occasions a MMG platoon would be attached from the MMG Battalion which was a divisional asset. These would have their own carriers for transport, no-one lugs a Vickers around the battlefield, sometimes these units would mount their MMGs in the carrier (hence the MMG carrier). This practice was also followed by the Bn carrier platoon, if a Vickers fell off the back of some truck . Therefore if you are a scenario designer give your Vickers transport unless it's a defensive scenario, though even then there's a case for it since they were basically integral to the unit. The location of the Bren gun within infantry sections was not considered an inviolate structure: "The Bren gun should be made available, away from its section and the men of its section, if the Platoon or Company Commander has a definite use for it in some other way. To tie the Bren gun to its section on all occasions may be to lose its usefulness whilst, on the other hand, it is likely to slow up and disorganize the action of the attacking rifle sections." Lt-Col R.L. Sherbrook "The New Infantry Weapons; Their Organization and Tactical Employment", Journal of the Royal United Service Institution, Vol. LXXXIII, February to November, 1938 [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 10-12-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Deans Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 "The mortars are therefore able to be fired when mounted though typically they were emplaced" Actually they could not be fired from the carrier. It was a special carrier fitted with racks to carry the components of the mortar at the back of the vehicle. Minor point.... Rob Deans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted October 12, 2000 Author Share Posted October 12, 2000 You are most likely correct though I have read of them being fired when mounted it was quite likely a field modification which I assumed applied to all the inf Bn 'mortar carriers'. Kind of like the field modified MMG carriers which had the Vickers and the Bren as opposed to the more conventional Vickers alone... I will edit my post to reflect your suggestion. [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 10-12-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNZer Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 How about posting this to madmatt or something so we don't loose it, interesting post thanks PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 I have argued for a long time (and will continue to do so) that CM ought to (I would be prepared to pay for this as part of an expansion pack) give Allied players the possibility to buy full TO&E Allies bataillions w/carriers and what have you. IIUC the cost for support weapons is reduced if bought as part of a larger unit's TO&E, so this is the only area where I see that the German players actually have an advantage, b/c they get cheaper arty and whatnot when buying e.g. a Fallschirmjaeger batallion. If I am wrong, could somebody please correct me. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wwb_99 Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 One of the major weaknesses in CM is the lack of buying options for the allied commander. I understand that allied TO&Es were very standardized in comparison to the German TO&Es. But then again de jure and de facto TO&Es were very different things. Soldiers are known for picking up military hardware that will help them survive, or kill better. By the end of the war (or likely August '44), most allied squads had 'acquired' an extra BAR or SMG. Technically illegal, but no one argues with men with automatic weapons. In addition, many battalions acquired semi-permenant specialist units, and the ad hoc Combat Commands became essentially permenant formaitons. At the same time, useless units and weapons systems disappeared from front line duty. Essentially, there BTS needs to ad some variation in Allied formations for realisms sake. WWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 Here is a direct quote from an email inquiry I recently made to an actual Kangaroo Squadron veteran on the role of the Kangroo and Universal Carriers in the Canadian/British Armies: "Regarding the evolution of the Ram Kangaroo conversion, I can make a few comments. First, Universal Carriers ('Bren Gun Carriers') are not really personnel carrying vehicles. They were too small for this job, and tended to be employed in specialist roles such as mortar-carriers, flame-throwers, FOO communication vehicles and gun tractors. As well, of course, they moved ammunition and supplies up front, and retrieved wounded. A loaded carrier (we have several) can carry perhaps two or three fully-kitted infantry in addition to its crew - not terribly efficient! They were developed when infantry was expected to walk. BTW, Canada manufactured 33,992 Universal and Windsor Carriers during the war, at Ford of Canada, Windsor, Ontario. Ours were well-respected for their durability and reliability, so no problem there - it's the role that gets confused. Canadians used the U.S. M-14 International Harvester halftrack mostly, with some M-3s and M-9s. Their tractability cross-country was a problem, as was the thin armour (in the attack). Incidently, the Universal Carrier itself only had a ¼-inch or armour too, so was little protection for other than shell splinters or small arms fire as well. In the summer of 1944, it was decided that the infantry needed to be able to advance WITH the tanks, under similar levels of protection from close defenses and in at least section-sized groups. Hence the conversion of the original Priests, and subsequently, Rams for that role. It worked remarkably well." There is an excellent website at http://www.mapleleafup.org discussing the Canadian contribution in WWII with wonderful links and bibliography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted October 13, 2000 Author Share Posted October 13, 2000 Yup, those carriers aren't for lugging infantry around. Great for giving your slower /immobile units (MGs, mortars, PIATs, AT guns etc) some mobility. Also good for beefing up the British infantry with a little extra firepower. I've lost count of the number of Brit. battle reports which have: "X platoon counterattacked with support from the carrier platoon" or "the carrier platoon restored the situation" or "the enemy MG position was taken with the assistance of a carrier section"..... Now if I could only could get the things to fire in CM ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts