Your Idea on a Reinforced Infantry Company??

[Jackal]

I was have been toying with force composition for a Reinforced Infantry Company and would be very interested in hearing anyone elses ideas for this. I figured somewhere up to 2000 points for this setup was needed.

I have tried adding an addition zook, mortar, and MMG per Platoon, along with an attached Tank Platoon and an artillery BN consisting of 3x 75mm and 2x 81mm Arty Spotters. Several variants have stemmed from this and I have both won and loss with this setup. Any thoughts???

Also, deployment of this force makeup.??

Jackal

[Guest jaja]

Only US airborne forces used the 75mm artillary in substantial numbers. Replace them with 105s. Also, one artillary spotter represents four guns, so the absolute maxium a company should have is:

1x 81mm mortar

1x 105mm spotter

1x 155mm spotter

Look at battalion support companies for extra infantry support information.

A platoon or section of tanks is good for an infantry division, but for an armored division a whole company sould be used. Also, armored infantry were fully suppliied with halftracks.

The above suggestions are just for US companies.

[Jackal]

I understand your arty make-up; but when looking at the cost and number of rounds available I would have spent 462 points a have 640 rounds available where you would have spent 512 points and have only 335 rounds. This is why I posted this. I would have 2:1 odds on arty which isn't outstanding by no means but does give me something of an edge. As for the armor, I juggled 3 Tank Destroyers and one Close Support tank; then 2 and 2; then reversed; then a mix of 1 heavy tank and 3 medium tanks and the differences amused my curiousities.

[Aacooper]

Slightly OT on US artillery...

I just finished a book which cites several instances of a company or battalion getting the whole division's artillery firepower on a single location in one massive shoot. Sometimes ALL guns within range would participate, including 8" and 240mm guns! It was a good way to take a stubborn hill.

Anyway, simulating that in CM, and I haven't tried, would require nine 105mm FO's, and three 155mm FO's.

[ScoutPL]

Reinforced Rifle Company, means a standard TO&E company with attachments. Attachments are made with units and are often very temporary in nature. What this means is that rather then get a few MG's here and a few zook's there, what you get is an additional rifle platoon or heavy weapons platoon from another company or a tank platoon. This helps maintain unit cohesion and organization. Could you imagine being that zook team that keeps getting passed around from company to company never finding a home? Talk about bad morale! Realistically attachments should be made at the platoon level, very rarely at the crew level when you take into account battalion level assets such as AT guns. As far as Arty goes, the numbers you provide for ammo expenditure are very high for what a rifle company commander would have at his disposal. That much artillery is usually controlled by the battalion staff and is reserved for battalion level fire missions. A more realistic approach would be to always have a 81mm spotter. These are integral to the battalion and so under the full control of the battalion commander. A 105mm spotter on most missions. And very rarely a 155mm spotter since there was normally only one 155mm battalion in the entire division.

As far as Armor divisions go, Infantry would normally be atttched to support a Tank company, not the other way around.

Hope this helps.

[Olle Petersson]

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

Also, one artillary spotter represents four guns, so the absolute maxium a company should have is:

1x 81mm mortar

1x 105mm spotter

1x 155mm spotter

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The four guns make one battery. The regular Field Artillery Regt (FAR) had one heavy battalion of three 155mm batteries, and two medium battalions of three 105mm batteries.

My suggestion for arty is any combination of:

1x 81mm mortar spotter (the organic battalion artillery).

1x 105mm FO (the organic regimental arty).

1-6x 105mm FO (from attached medium arty battalion/s).

1-3x 155mm FO (from attached heavy arty battalion).

Also:

Attached tank destroyer platoon, instead of tanks;

Either about 6x 57mm ATG with M3 halftracks (suitable for a company of an infantry division)

or

3x 76mm ATG witg M3 halftracks (for infantry or low priority armoured divisions)

or

1x Greyhound + 3-5x TDs of same model (M10, M18 or M36) (for armoured or high priority infantry divisions).

Cheers

Olle

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

Either about 6x 57mm ATG with M3 halftracks (suitable for a company of an infantry division)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This seems to be a lot - there were only 3 57mm towed AT guns per Rifle BN in the US infantry division of 1944. Where would the other three come from? All this for a rifle coy (even reinforced) is quite a lot of firepower.

The arty seems a lot too, essentially this 'reinforcement' (with 1-7 105 and 1-3 155) at the maximum turns the whole[/] divisional arty over to a lowly company. Seems slightly OTT, IMO.

Why not hand over the Corps level heavies and maybe an AGRA too?

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-04-2000).]

[tss]

Aacooper wrote:

Anyway, simulating that in CM, and I haven't tried, would require nine 105mm FO's, and three 155mm FO's.

On 21 June 1944 Soviets wanted to cross the Kivisalmi Straits NW of Viipuri. Had they succeeded in it, they probably could have broken through the Finnish VKT-line. The defenders were in big trouble because they had lost contact with artillery since phone lines were cut and radios malfunctioned because of sand. About a kilometer behind the line one Finnish major started to be worried because of noices of the battle, and called to the artillery commander of the section and said "By my orders and with my responsibility, fire, fire, fire".

The artillery commander understood the situation and allocated the fire of all Finnish guns to the island where Soviet troops were deploying. A total of a little over 100 guns (118, I think, I'm not certain). In CM terms that would have been the fire of ~30 FOs, (about 50% 75 mm, 25% 120 mm, and 25% 150 mm).

The Soviets didn't try to attack over the straits again.

- Tommi

[Olle Petersson]

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

1) - there were only 3 57mm towed AT guns per Rifle BN in the US infantry division of 1944. Where would the other three come from?

2) All this for a rifle coy (even reinforced) is quite a lot of firepower.

3) The arty seems a lot too, essentially this 'reinforcement' (with 1-7 105 and 1-3 155) at the maximum turns the whole divisional arty over to a lowly company. Seems slightly OTT, IMO.

4) Why not hand over the Corps level heavies and maybe an AGRA too?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>1) You're correct, of course. But I think there were more ATGs at higher levels (rgt or division),

wasn't the run something like 57mm at battalion and 76mm at division?

2) A TD battery isn't that much if enemy armour is expected to attack. Depends also on what else is there in the reinforcemants. Having towed 57mm ATGs instead of Sherman(75)s doesn't add much to the firepower...

3) Depends on the mission. I read for example about an incident in Vietnam where a US rifle platoon was assigned the mission of escorting a spotter to a small island in a swamp. Then this spotter called lots of fire upon the NVA battalion that was passing by...

There's also the WW2 incident when a US spotter requested the battalion 81mm mortars to fire on a small village, he didn't get the mortars, but a two FAR TOT mission...

Having all of it would usually be too much, but not impossible.

4) The division may very well have the corps assets, and then the divisional arty can filter down to this particular company, representing the divisional main effort, resulting in the abundance of arty discussed under 3).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Army Group Royal Artillery something specific for the Commonwealth? Still nothing I wouldn't decline if offered to support my company.

Cheers

Olle

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Army Group Royal Artillery something specific for the Commonwealth? Still nothing I wouldn't decline if offered to support my company.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As you shouldn't! They did joint shoots, as did US high-level assets if needed (e.g. to bail out 7th Armoured after the Villers-Bocage debacle).

I think what I am saying is that while it is not impossible to have that amount of firepower attached to a rifle coy, stating it in response to what seemed to me to be an inquiry about an ordinary reinforced setup may give the wrong impression about what was available to the original poster. There are already misconceptions about the ubiquitous and vastly superior Allied arty floating around on the board, no need feeding them IMO.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-04-2000).]

[Olle Petersson]

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

1) ... stating it in response to what seemed to me to be an inquiry about an ordinary reinforced setup may give the wrong impression about what was available to the original poster.

2) There are already misconceptions about the ubiquitous and vastly superior Allied arty floating around on the board, no need feeding them IMO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>1) Very good point!

2) For the Western Allies, yes. Soviet arty (also one of the Allies) was more abundant, but less effective per gun.

(Earlier discussed as part of CM2.)

Cheers

Olle

[Jackal]

I wish that we all had the time to meet and put our thoughts, as well as play, against one another. Thanks for all the replies, I am always looking for Tactics and orgranization discussions.

[tss]

Olle Petersson wrote:

2) For the Western Allies, yes. Soviet arty (also one of the Allies) was more abundant, but less effective per gun.

Last winter I came upon one quote by Stalin that pretty much sums the Soviet artillery doctrine (I don't remember the exact words):

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

Some people think that artillery should hit only the targets. That's an outdated thought. The artillery should hit everything.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was from the minutes of the Red Army crisis meeting that was held in April 1940 where they wanted to find explanations why Winter War went so badly. The minutes have been published in Finland in the book "Puna-armeija Stalinin tentissä". AFAIK, it is not translated to English and it is a pity since it gives a nice window to early-war Soviet military thinking. (And it has some true gems in it, like the mention by one Comissar that foreign military periodicals can't been circulated since they "defame" the RKKA and other point where one division commander tries to explain why he couldn't capture the Mantsi Island that was defended by 2x120 mm guns and a single platoon of infantry.)

One researcher has counted that even though Soviets had about 3 to 1 artillery superiority at Ihantala, Finns achieved 20 times stronger barrages, where strenght is defined as kgs of explosives falling in the target area in a given time.

Some of the Finnish barrages of 5 July (or was it 7 July, my sources are home) lasted only for 15 seconds, but in that time approximately 360 shells (~120 heavy (120-150mm), rest 75 mm) would land in the target area (some areas were 100x100 meters and the biggest were 300x200 meters). Assuming an uniform distribution of hits, the shell hits in the smallest targets would be ~6 meters apart, and in the largest ~15 meters apart.

The moral: make sure that your radio code is not broken before you issue orders for major attacks using it.

- Tommi