Simple questions - Doctrine, unit hierarchy.

[Guest phoenix]

Some items for discussion, and a couple that I that I'd just like answers too.

First off -

What's the hierarchy for German, US British units? By that I mean how many squads are in a platoon, how many platoons make up...whatever they make up?

Could someone outline those for Axis and Allied sides?

Secondly. Doctrine - I have read that the German doctine was that the infantryman supported the machine gun. The US was the opposite. The MG supported the infantry.

Can someome explain in depth how these ideas were different in the "real world". Perhaps explaining by using a scenario? How would German doctine go about attacking the enemy

in town as opposed to US doctrine?

Thanks!

[Guest Big Time Software]

I'll take a stab at the org thing.

Basically, the armies of WWII were based on a "triangular" pattern. Soviets were oddballs depending on the type of unit and time period, but they wound up with pretty much the same thing. Germans actually went backwards towards "binary" formations due to manpower shortages.

What does this mean? The Triangular pattern is based on the concept of THREE of everything. Three squads to a platoon, three platoons to a company, three companies to a battalion, three battalions to a regiment, three regiments to a division, three divisions to a corps, three corps to an army, three armies to an army group.

The higher formations (division and up) were much more flexible, but in theory "three" was the ideal number for everything. Why three? Two up front, one in reserve. This principle translated its way (in theory) all the way from squad to armies. In practice this was more or less true depending on the given minute of the given day for the given formation.

Armies also had oddball stuff tossed in to support the core Triangular based units. Things like Heavy Weapons Companies, which the Germans had one per Battalion. Also, these "special" units were often NOT organized in threes within a formation.

The Binary system is much weaker and is the same as above, but two of everything. The Germans really only did this with battlions, and to some extent regiments. So company lower was still Triangular. To compensate they increased the firepower. This worked to some extent, but sapped the Regiment and Division of staying power in tough or prolonged combat.

Now, as far as specifics go... FAR to complicated to get into in detail. Every army was organized differently, and the Germans had a crudload of different formation types. Oh boy, the fun Charles and I had getting that crap ironed out

Anyhoo, hope that helped out some

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-11-2000).]

[guachi]

A good little book for an overview if the American Army is US Army Handbook 1939-1945 by George Forty.

It's a Barnes & Noble Book so I guess it is only available through them. It's not a book about the big battles but rather how the Army is organized. It does have TO&E for various units up to division level so you can see what Steve is talking about. The book is only $9.98 and definitely worth it. ISBN is 0-7607-0848-7

A good reference on the German military is the huge Handbook on German Military Forces put out by the U.S. War Department. This book has a huge amount of info on the German military including TO&E on all sorts of units. The book was originally put out while the war was still going on so the information isn't 100% accurate. Fabulous book. I picked it up when SP1 came out after some people said it was a good reference. Very much worth the $30.00 cost.

ISBN is 0-8071-2011-1

Jason

[This message has been edited by guachi (edited 01-11-2000).]

[Major Tom]

I am not sure if the trinity concept is by rule for every formation... Many British/Canadian forces used the trinity idea up to the point of Company's. Company's are usually labled after letters. A Company of the Black Watch Battalion for example... However, through much of my reading, there exists a D Company as well as an A, B, and C. Otherwize, most formations were based on the rule of 3. I did have a link showing the layout of a typical British Infantry Battalion down to the individual man level, but, I seem to have lost it...

[Bullethead]

Major Tom said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am not sure if the trinity concept is by rule for every formation... Many British/Canadian forces used the trinity idea up to the point of Company's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, a US rifle company was usually 4 platoons: 3 rifle and 1 weapons. But the weapons platoon was generally broken up as teams attached to the rifle companies (that's where those MMG, HMG, and 60mm mortar teams in CM come from). So the tripod nature remained. Same a battalion level, where there was often 3 rifle companies and a weapons company with more MGs, the 81mm mortars, and the bazookas. Plus some towed ATGs attached to BN HQ.

As for company names, in US forces the companies were lettered within a regiment. So the 1st Battalion would have companies A-D, 2nd BN would have E-H, and 3rd BN would have I-L. This is why you sometimes see a unit referred to as "I Company, 25th Infantry Regiment"--the BN number is redundant because you know it's 3rd BN from the company letter.

As for Germans, HOOOWEEEEE. You need a book to really explain them .

-Bullethead

[This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 01-11-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 01-11-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Yeah, as I said above, the HW units (amongst others) were addons to the triangular system. Bullethead is correct that there was a 4th platoon and some German companies had them as well (VG?). Once you get above Company level, however, things become less certain. I just laid out the theory as the reality differed from army to army, formation type to formation type. In short, NO easy answers

Steve

[Guest Paul Roberts]

How do these concepts translate into CM terms?

Does a single infantry unit represent a squad or a half-squad? Are commanders integrated into the squads, or are they separate units?

Close Combat, for example, always divided squads into two separate units so that the team with the squad MG (or Bren or BAR) could provide overwatch while the rest of the squad (the rifles) moved, and vice-versa. Is this possible in CM?

Thanks.

[Magnus]

( in answer to Guachi )

For european customers, I've seen at Amazon.co.uk the following :

* "US Army Handbook 1939-1945", Sutton Publishing. ISBN is 0750920505, £10.39

* "Handbook on German Military Forces",

Louisiana State University Press. ISBN is 0807120111, £16.63

* As we are to speak about reference books, I might add : "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two", Sterling Publishing. ISBN is 1854095188, £11.08. Simply amazing to see such a book at that price !

So, let's say that, if you include P&P, you get, for £40, a HUGE amount of authoritative books. I think everyone really interested in WWII ought to possess those.

Regards,

Magnus

[Major Tom]

Squads contain anywhere from 8-12 men (possibly larger or smaller, but, rarely so). Usually 10 men. They have a Sergeant as the Squad commander, usually 6 or so Privates armed with Rifles, 1 man armed with a SMG, and another with a LMG. However, there are many different types of squads. Some SMG squads just have ALL troops armed with SMG's. Heavy SMG squads have 6 SMG's and 2 LMG's. We haven't seen all types of squads so far, but, there are many!

Between 4-2 Squads makes up a Platoon. Platoons are commanded by a Platoon HQ, of a Lieutenant along with his attendants (possibly 3-5 other troops). Other units such as a HMG, or an infantry AT unit can be attached.

You cannot detacth just the LMG, and or the SMG to provide cover. It will always be dividing in half, or having the best equality possible per section.

You can divide up a squad by 1/2. A ten man squad can be divided into 2 5 man sections. They are less powerful seeing as their firepower is halved, but, they can cover more ground. You cannot determine which squad has what weapon (which has the LMG and SMG), but, the computer tries to create 2 equal halves (having about the same firepower). So, you could divide up a squad having the half with the LMG to provide long range cover and have the othe half do the attack, however, you will end up having a half squad attack a full enemy squad. If you can get the LMG section to pin down the enemy your chances are better for success. Abstractly, in CM this tactic could work.

[This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-12-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Paul,

Each unit in CM is either a Squad (infantry), Team (weapon system outside of Squad org), or an individual vehicle. You can break squads up into half squads, but it is not a good idea most of the time as each half is more vulnerable and less effective.

Keep in mind that Close Combat is a level of command lower than Combat Mission. The max unit numbers and map sizes for CC are roughly CM's minimum. Therefore, sub-squad combat is not really desirable for a game of CM's scope and scale.

Optimal CM game is, IMHO, a reinforced company on a map of roughly 480 sq/km. This is several times larger than the average CC game.

Steve

[Major Tom]

480 sq/km! WOW! Things must surely have changed since the Beta Demo!

[Guest JonS]

480 sq/km!?!

All I can say is FANTASTIC! Mmmm, maps 21km on a side... ooooh, the room for manuver and deployment. Just a thought though ... won't a company get lost on a map of that size?

hehehe (just kidding Steve)

Jon

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

Ubique

[Guest JonS]

Major Tom,

This is ground control

Have you found that link for the BritBat OrBat? I'd be really interested in it if you do dig it up.

Thanks

Jon

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

Ubique

[This message has been edited by JonS (edited 01-12-2000).]

[Major Tom]

Just hit me where I saw it. Sorry, but, it isn't quite as detailed as the first one I found. It only contains the structure down to the number of squads and heavy weapons. I cannot, for the life of me, remember where I saw the site that had the squads pinned down to the individual man.

Here's the British one

http://toaw.thegamers.net/design_br_inf_btn_1939.shtm

Here's where I got it from...

http://toaw.thegamers.net/toaw_design_frameset.html

This is all known for the guys at BTS, let alone any other person who stumbled upon TGN's Scenario OOB's. I will try to find the more detailed one, I seem to remember it had German and French Companies also...

[Rob Deans]

http://www.brunel.ac.uk/~csstjds/WW2stuff.html

This is a link to a sight that has a thoroughly excellent document on the subject of Orbats. (US and UK). The thing I like about it is that he quotes from many sources and gives notes to explain most of the orgs. This man is well read and his text shows understanding of military org.

Rob Deans

[Guest Zigster]

Canadian Army TO&E for a Rifle Battalion (Regiment) in 1944:

Support Company

Mortar Platoon - 6 x 3 inch mortars

Carrier Platoon - 13 Bren Carriers

Anti-Tank Pltn - 6 x 6 pounders

Assault Engineer Pltn - (content not specified)

Rifle Companies x 4 (A to D)

--each of three platoons of three sections. The section contained 10 men with one Bren; the platoon one officer and 36 men with one 2 inch mortar, and the company five officers and 122 men with three PIATs at company HQ.

Total strength: 36 officers and 809 other ranks.

After June 6, 1944, Canadian rifle companies should never be depicted at full strength due to critical manpower shortages, which approached crisis levels in August. The infantry battalions reported a shortage of over 4,300 men by that time, equivalent to over five full battalions.

Canadian Regiments were modelled on the old British style and saw action in almost all cases as only single battalions (the other battalion(s) being in Canada), and so are referred to as battalions or regiments interchangeably.

[Major Tom]

Yeah, the Regiments were some sort of peacetime organization... Originally, each regiment contained 2 Battalions. One fighting battalion, and one replacement battalion (feeds in replacements for the fighting battalion and sees no combat).

However, gradually things changed and regiments started puting in more battalions. For example, the Royal Tank Regiment put in dozen's of battalions.

[Guest Zigster]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

However, gradually things changed and regiments started puting in more battalions. For example, the Royal Tank Regiment put in dozen's of battalions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite true, though that is an armoured (and British) Regiment. I don't believe any of the Canadian Regiments raised from the volunteer militia system fielded more than one battalion overseas, but I'm not a hundred percent certain on that one. There may have been one or two exceptions. I believe also one or two of the Regular Army units fielded multiple battalions.

It was that same militia system, which produced such fine fighting soldiers, that was responsible for the fundamental failing among the officers -- a woefully inadequate staff training. Very few higher officers who rose up through the militia system, and practically none of the lower ones, had ever been to staff school. The lack of this type of training is partially responsible for the terrible manpower crisis in the infantry of 1944 (and the Zombie Riots at home when they were asked to go overseas), as improper long-term plans had been made to provide replacements.

By contrast, the only real replacement problem in the US Army, where staff education was on a much higher level, was getting them to the front and to their units in a timely fashion, which could be problematic at the best of times. The Canadian Army had no replacement training programme as the US had. Canadian infantrymen joined up with their local regiment, not the army as a whole. It was a system not unlike that in place in the US during the War for Southern Independence (that's the Civil War to some of you )

[Major Tom]

Yeah, makes sense...

You hear of the "Black Watch", "Winnipeg Grenadiers", "Royal Rifles of Canada", etc.. but no Canadian 1st Black Watch, whereas you would have 1st Durham Light Infantry, 2nd Durham Light Infantry, and so on. As you said, we cannot say for sure, but, it does appear that most Canadian regiments used the 2 Battaion system. However, one example comes to mind are the Tank Regiments. I cannot remember which Calgary battalion took part at Dieppe, but, it was a numbered battalion. However, the Armoured Corps didn't have much of a tradition in Canada, so, it could step over this Militia stuff.

[Guest Zigster]

The numbering system for Canadian Battalions is..umm...unique to say the least. It dates back to the Canadian Expeditionary Force in WW1 and was probably dreamed up by those higher ups who had never been to staff school. In essence, all battalions at that time struck their name from their title and took a sequential numbering system. After the war, popular sentiment demanded the return of the original Regimental names (and numbers); however, the battalion numbering system was kept in place. That's why we see units like the 75th Battalion, Toronto Scottish Regiment (Machine Gun).

It gets more confusing after the advent of armour units as they began their own new numbering system without any regard to the existing one. So we have the Royal 22nd Regiment (the Vandoos) and the 22nd Armoured Regiment (Canadian Grenadier Guards) etc.

As if THAT weren't enough, many units have TWO numbers. The 1st Hussars (an old militia cavalry outfit) becomes the 4th Armoured Reg't. And so it goes...

Good thing they have names, if you ask me.

[This message has been edited by Zigster (edited 01-13-2000).]