Hamstersss Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 Ok, so what squad types are missing from CM? What are their OOBs? To start it out, I'd love to know the makeups of: Commando Squads Ranger Squads German Special Forces Squads Other Special Forces American Armored Infantry Squads I know next to nothing about these so the more information the better. I realize this has been discussed before, so let's try to keep this in CM terms and scale. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silesian-jaeger Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: Ok, so what squad types are missing from CM? What are their OOBs? To start it out, I'd love to know the makeups of: Commando Squads Ranger Squads German Special Forces Squads Other Special Forces American Armored Infantry Squads I know next to nothing about these so the more information the better. I realize this has been discussed before, so let's try to keep this in CM terms and scale. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Can't help you w/ the above, except that I read somewhere that US Ranger squads carried more automatic weapons than other squads. I would like to see two-man sniper (1 shooter, 1 spotter) teams. And O/T, GO MARINERS! ------------------ "In one (German) town, Private Honey stood next to an elderly German man and a ten-year-old boy. As the Shermans and brand-new Pershings rumbled by the boy said,'Deutsches Panzer lind besser.' Honey looked down at him and asked,'If German tanks are better, why aren't they here?' " quote from Stephen E. Ambrose, "Citizen Soldiers" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silesian-jaeger: And O/T, GO MARINERS! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Pfft, whatever, Yanks are gonna clean up. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 Well, to add one to the list. Brandenburg Commandos. I remember playing Three Sixty's series "V for Victory" and several of those modules had Brandenburgs in them. ------------------ Coming soon to a web near you... The Maximus CM Mod HQ This site will be host to a plethera of mods from myself and others. Please send questions and comments to: davem@shawneelink.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted October 11, 2000 Author Share Posted October 11, 2000 I can't believe I'm the one saying this but can we please stay on topic, just for once? I've read where people say that certain American and Allied squad types were left out, such as the aforemention Armored Infantry, and I've also read BTS's conclusion to keep special forces out of the game due to their lack of use. I don't want to argue whether or not these squad types should be in the game (Yet...) I just want to know what their makeup was. Also, what was the OOB and TOE for the underwater demolition teams? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: Well, to add one to the list. Brandenburg Commandos. I remember playing Three Sixty's series "V for Victory" and several of those modules had Brandenburgs in them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What was their squad makeup, armaments, platoon organization? ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein [This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 10-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdmorse Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: Pfft, whatever, Yanks are gonna clean up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Top of 4th Mariners 1, Yankees zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankDawg Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 Go Mariners!! ------------------ Jeff Newell TankDawg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: I can't believe I'm the one saying this but can we please stay on topic, just for once?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Obviously the Hamsters have come home to roost or somefink. I think the basic contention by BTS is that these squads were not materially different from ordinary infantry in their TO&E, but I may be mistaken. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorak Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 I think it has mostly to do with the standardization of the US army. Most all US infantry had the basic setup, then had equipment attached to fill out the unit. (other than airborne). So for a mech/armored infantry force. You just by regular squads and add in the trucks/halftracks. Same with the rangers I believe, A basic squad as far as men and equipment, you just would add an experience bonus for training, ect... Like Meeks I'd like to see some of the odd balls OOB and equipment list to verify the facts. So if any of you grogs got them, By all means throw them out. Lorak ------------------ "Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."--William Butler Yeats Cesspool [This message has been edited by Lorak (edited 10-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 What is a Ranger squad? I thought they were modern Airborne troops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 Pillar, The characters in Saving Private Ryan were members of the 2nd Ranger Battalion ------------------ Coming soon to a web near you... The Maximus CM Mod HQ This site will be host to a plethera of mods from myself and others. Please send questions and comments to: davem@shawneelink.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silesian-jaeger: Can't help you w/ the above, except that I read somewhere that US Ranger squads carried more automatic weapons than other squads. I would like to see two-man sniper (1 shooter, 1 spotter) teams. And O/T, GO MARINERS! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actualy US Ranger Sqds carried all German wpns . Seriously though, I remeber reading about a freindly fire incedent between US tanks & Ranger at Point Du Hoc during the link up it seems US tank crews observed troops heading towards them with 'German weapons' so they opened up on them, only to find out after they were US Rangers. Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the feild". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-12-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Clark Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 I agree with Lorak on the "normal squads with proper vehicles and better experience" creation method. Like Meeks and Lorak, I'd also be interested to get composition info on these troops from Grogs out there, so Grogs-in-training like myself could add them to scenarios... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 How about civilians, to clog up the roads? And MPs, trying to sort things up? Like commandos and rangers these are troops for actions behind enemy lines. The scale of CM is such that small raids are very playable, even more so than actual frontline fighting, but the scope of CM seems not to include this... Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pham911 Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 I'd like to see the ability to change platoon/company/battalion/team names, squad size, and arms in the editor. Then you could have all the Rangers, Marines, etc, that you wanted, even if they didn't ship with the game. Tanks shouldn't be changeable beyond names, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamsters Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pham911: I'd like to see the ability to change platoon/company/battalion/team names, squad size, and arms in the editor. Then you could have all the Rangers, Marines, etc, that you wanted, even if they didn't ship with the game. Tanks shouldn't be changeable beyond names, though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Pham, since both of these won't happen any time in the forseeable future the argument is a moot point. I must ask, though, why wouldn't you want to have tanks changeable? I don't think it's unreasonable to request special forces and such as we've shown here in CM2, as it will include a rarity-based purchasing system for QBs. So, if you want a normal game where unit costs are based only on their quality, you can have that, otherwise you can set it so those bloody Spetznaz cost an arm, a leg and another arm. ------------------ Barad-Dur, the Dark Tower, which suffered no rival, and laughed at flattery, biding its time, secure in its pride and its immeasurable strength. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 The questions to answer are: "What were these units supposed to do, where were they supposed to do it, and how were they supposed to do it?" The answers are, for the most part: "Achieve some extraordianry, but highly limited in tactical terms, generally behind the lines, or otherwise not in a frontline situation, against minimal resistance using the elements of surprise and (sometimes) deception to achieve those ends." None of this is what CM is designed to handle, so the units themselves are not the issue. We have no plans to introduce special forces units in CM2. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted October 12, 2000 Author Share Posted October 12, 2000 Fair enough, but what were their OOBs and TOEs? Or did they vary too much? And also, what about the arguments regarding the Rangers being a combat unit large enough to be modeled as well as the missing Allied Armored Infantry? Are they really so similar? (That was not a rhetorical question, by the way) ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein [This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 10-12-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Clark Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 ROFL... Way to be persistant Meeks! I also want to know if the Rangers would/should/could be modeled in the game. Granted, I'm only running on that fine Hollywood factbase now, but the Rangers in Saving Private Ryan appeared to take on front line missions. (The beach assault, and then later his talk of an attack on 88's) Would they simply be experienced regular rifle squads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 It was over a year and half ago since I last looked into the Rangers, but from memory the TO&E was the same as a standard rifle unit. The difference was in training and employment. From what I know the Rangers were used for the landings and that was it. Plus, they numbered only a few battalions for all theaters. See... Elite specialist troops were not to be used as cannon fodder infantry. Airborne formations often broke this rule, but they were complete divisions so that makes sense. Specialist battalions would be wasted if they were tossed into the frontline as standard infantry. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted October 12, 2000 Author Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: It was over a year and half ago since I last looked into the Rangers, but from memory the TO&E was the same as a standard rifle unit. The difference was in training and employment. From what I know the Rangers were used for the landings and that was it. Plus, they numbered only a few battalions for all theaters. See... Elite specialist troops were not to be used as cannon fodder infantry. Airborne formations often broke this rule, but they were complete divisions so that makes sense. Specialist battalions would be wasted if they were tossed into the frontline as standard infantry. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So how were they and other SF deployed? Also, what of the Allied armored infantry that was mentioned? ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daveman Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 In Citizen Soldiers there's an account of a battle for a hill (Hurtgen forest somewhere I believe) that was fought to a standstill until a Ranger unit was called in. As Steve noted above it wasn't their cup of tea, so to speak, but they were used. Perhaps Elite Airborne units could be used to model Rangers? ------------------ “Thus, the M4A3E8(76)W designation meant a tank with an official Mortality of 4 minutes, Actually 3 minutes, cost Extra, and had a 76% chance of going WHOOSH." - Bullethead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted October 12, 2000 Author Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daveman: Perhaps Elite Airborne units could be used to model Rangers? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Rangers should be used to model Rangers. The argument is that they did not engage in those kinds of actions enough to warrant their inclusion in CM, as I understand it. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aacooper Posted October 18, 2000 Share Posted October 18, 2000 2nd and 5th Ranger Battalions landed on Omaha, then fought as line infantry in Brittany. 2nd Ranger Battalion was used in the aforementioned Hurtgen forest battle, and the 5th Ranger Battalion served in the line in the Saar-Moselle triangle. The 5th Rangers took heavy casualties attacking Oberleuken, then pulled off the only US battalion-sized deep infiltration mission to cut the Irsch-Zerf road. I know all that, but I don't know what TO&E differences those Ranger battalions had. The 5th Rangers had six companies, I don't know about the 2nd. I don't know what went into those companies. The other thing to consider is that British commando brigades fought throughout the war in the front lines. One brigade was the linchpin around which the whole Allied army rotated in Normandy (basically they sat in one place). 1st Commando Brigade participated in Operation Veritable (Reichswald). I don't know the squad composition or TO&E of the English Commandos. A German Jewish refugee joined the Commandos and wrote a book about it (forget the title). He also fought in Operation Varsity (Rhine crossing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted October 18, 2000 Share Posted October 18, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: It was over a year and half ago since I last looked into the Rangers, but from memory the TO&E was the same as a standard rifle unit. The difference was in training and employment. From what I know the Rangers were used for the landings and that was it. Plus, they numbered only a few battalions for all theaters. See... Elite specialist troops were not to be used as cannon fodder infantry. Airborne formations often broke this rule, but they were complete divisions so that makes sense. Specialist battalions would be wasted if they were tossed into the frontline as standard infantry. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> These is almost exactly opposite of what research has shown me, other than that they were not around in great numbers. Rangers had vastly different TOEs from regular line infantry. For examplem they did not use the 60mm mortar, and they were typically much more inclined to use SMGs and (oddly enough) the m1919 instead of the BAR. In fact, a common complaint of some Ranger commanders was that they were too "heavy". During much of the Western Front war, they were used as heavy assault infantry, simply because many of the commanders under which they were placed did not know what else to do with them. While they were extremely effective heavy infantry, most Ranger commanders considered this a waste of resources, but they were generally not listened to. Here is a link that goes into some Ranger unit histories during WW2. Hopefully BTS will come to the conclusion that the Rangers fought in significant, if not huge numbers throughour the campaign. http://www.ranger.org/history/history.htm Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts