Do Split Squads Cause More Suppression?

[Robeek]

Hey folks,

I did a search on this topic, and came up empty, so I'll present it here.

Recently, I've adopted the tactic in my AI QB battles to have one platoon of recon for every company of main infantry force in Attack battles. This recon element is split up into half squads, and forced very far ahead of the main group to uncover traps and troop positions. Obviously, these guys see a lot of action. What happens with the computer a lot, is that a couple of my split squads will encounter a full strength defending squad, and they engage normally.

Now it *SEEMS* (I.E. I have no official evidence to support this) that the opposing squad is suppressed much faster when both of my half squads are firing at it as opposed to a single full strength squad firing at it. Same amount of people, same amount of shots being fired, but when they are split up, they seem to cause more suppresion. Now I can see the logic behind this, somewhat. The split squads are generally spaced out adequately, so the fire on the enemy squad is coming from two different directions, which would cause more panic in that enemy group than fire coming from only one direction.

However, I'm just curious if anyone else has had similar findings/observations, or complete knowledge that this is a good/bad assumption? Anyone?

[109 Gustav]

Enemy units will be more easily suppressed if they are under fire from two directions. However, split squads have lower total firepower, so you're usually better off keeping the squad together.

An exception to this is assaulting guns, when you want to be coming in from two different directions. That way the gun can only get half of your men, and by the time it's rotated around to the other half squad, it's been knocked out.

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

Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat.

But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown.

And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing.

-Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by 109 Gustav:

Enemy units will be more easily suppressed if they are under fire from two directions. However, split squads have lower total firepower, so you're usually better off keeping the squad together.

An exception to this is assaulting guns, when you want to be coming in from two different directions. That way the gun can only get half of your men, and by the time it's rotated around to the other half squad, it's been knocked out.

Thanks for the info. I remember seeing in

the manual that split squads are slightly

penalized in terms of performance(i.e.

the rout more easily or aren't as effective

at getting various combat chores done).

Do you or anyone else know exactly how

much they are penalized, and exactly

what the penalties affect?

thanks,

--Rett

[109 Gustav]

I don't know exactly how much they're penalized. Splitting squads decreases their firepower and morale (so they take cover and panic more easily), and also decreases your overall morale. I don't know exacltly how much splitting effects squads. I think it might depend on experience.

BTW, one use for split squads is to send half squads a little ways back behind your front lines when you're defending on setup. Then move them up to rejoin the other half squads. That way you get a fallback line of foxholes in case your front line is overrun.

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

Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat.

But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown.

And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing.

-Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by 109 Gustav:

BTW, one use for split squads is to send half squads a little ways back behind your front lines when you're defending on setup. Then move them up to rejoin the other half squads. That way you get a fallback line of foxholes in case your front line is overrun.

I like tricks. Keep 'em coming.

Here's one. If you're moving infantry across

open ground at long range, split all the

squads. With FOW it can make the opp

think you have a lot more infantry there

than you really do. Then rejoin them

again as you get to cover. If the opp

is busy counting points to try to figure

out the size of your hidden reserve, this

can throw him off.

regards,

--Rett

[Steve McClaire]

This is just something I've noticed more on 'feel' than on actual verified testing, but a split squad does seem to 'fight' better if facing one unsplit squad, due to the way CMBO handles infantry fire. Infantry units all fire as one group, at one target -- in a squad of ten men you can't have three of your men firing at one target and seven at another; all ten fire on one target.

So if a split squad is facing one unsplit squad of enemy infantry, you have two units targeting one unit, and the full squad can only target one of your half squads. This leaves the other half squad unsuppressed, and its fire will tend to make the enemy squad duck, relieving some of the incoming fire on the half squad it is firing on. Net result is that your two units seem to be able pin down the full squad and shoot it up, because it's outgoing fire can't effect both half squads at once.

Before anyone gets started, I am not lobbying for individual-soldier-targeting. Just pointing out a situation where it is advantageous to have two half squads, rather than one full squad.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Steve McClaire:

Just pointing out a situation where it is advantageous to have two half squads, rather than one full squad.

Interesting idea. This is worth some heavy

testing. Not to complain about it, but rather

to learn which tactics to use in which

situations. Some gaminess is inherent

in all games, after all.

regards,

--Rett

[Michael Dorosh]

I wonder if perhaps the fact that squads can only fire at one target at a time isn't actually historically correct.

It's been awhile since I've looked at my 1937 Infantry Training manual, which was out of date by 1944 anyway, but it seems to me a lot of it was the same as the 1982 manual I've seen.

A couple of years ago I participated in a live-fire defensive exercise as an infantryman, and the section leader directed the fire of all the fire teams - meaning he would yell out what to shoot at and what not to shoot at.

We did split our fire a bit, come to think of it, but I wonder how often during "the big one" that a squad leader would "let" his men simply blaze away at anything they wanted. Or how well they could track multiple targets and assign individuals to shoot at them. Well disciplined units (which pretty much all the units represented by CMBO strive to be) followed fairly strict fire control procedures, to conserve ammunition and maximize its effectiveness. Fire orders from the squad leader would indicate the target (type and location), range to target, and type of fire (rapid, slow rate, etc.) That's a lot to yell at single riflemen during a gunfight. It doesn't seem unreasonable that they would direct their firepower at one or two targets. This is simulated in the game - though the AI never splits the squad for the player in order to fire at two targets. Perhaps that's something that needs to be discussed - whether the AI should ever take the liberty of splitting the squad.

Anyone else have any insights into this? Again, all my comments come from a Commonwealth perspective.

It was not uncommon for a Brit/Canadian infantry squad to split - in fact, it was trained to do so, though in real life the Bren team had 4 men and the rifle group had 6 men. The assistant squad leader led the Bren team.

From my perspective, I think the penalties imposed on a split squad are valid and representative of real life.

I also think the advantages - of looking like you have more men than you do, or of firing at an enemy squad from two directions - are also real and not gamey at all.

[This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 02-14-2001).]

[Steve McClaire]

Anyone else have any insights into this? Again, all my comments come from a Commonwealth perspective.

It was not uncommon for a Brit/Canadian infantry squad to split - in fact, it was trained to do so, though in real life the Bren team had 4 men and the rifle group had 6 men. The assistant squad leader led the Bren team.

It's my understanding that US rifle squads were (by doctrine) supposed to fight in 3 teams -- a scout team w/ 3 men (including the squad leader), a 'fire' team with 4 men (including the BAR), and a 'maneuver' team with 5 riflemen. The scout team would locate the enemy, the fire team would suppress them, and the maneuver team would close and finish them off. I get the impression that this tactic wasn't used that much in practice, as I've read comments from WW2 commanders who said that the squad leader often ended up being pinned down with the scouts, and unable to command the squad.

As for splitting fire, I suspect it was usually more a matter of what individual target each soldier picked to shoot at, at least for the US Army. I've read that the US squad (and even platoon) leaders tended to spend more of their time shooting then directing the fire of their unit, and that they thought the Germans were 'undisciplined' or 'green' because they could hear the German NCOs constantly yelling commands / encouragement to their men -- something that the US army seems to have decided is a good idea, I believe.

But from a purely historical point of view, I actually think most simulations infantry units a lot more effective fire then usually dished out in actual combat. From what I've heard / read, a few of the soldiers tended to do most of the real fighting, while the rest tended to just keep their heads down and would only take direct action if they had to (i.e. a direct order, or an enemy right in their face).

A lot of this comes from an interview with a US WW2 commander (Dupuy, I think?). I'll try and find the URL again and post it here.

[This message has been edited by Steve McClaire (edited 02-14-2001).]

[Michael Dorosh]

SLA Marshall was the big guy when it came to hypothesizing that 25% of riflemen actually fired their weapons effectively.

I've posted on this before - you raise some other good points, too.

A Canadian infantry commander I've quoted before said that his riflemen could have had pitchforks for all teh difference it would have made. The Bren LMG, tommy gun and grenades were the decisive weapons, and the rifle was almost a security blanket - while the troops needed to be there and advancing, it didn't seem (to him or to other historians) that rifle fire accounted for all that many casualties.

This seems to be reflected in the game.

[Mikhael]

So if a split squad is facing one unsplit squad of enemy infantry, you have two units targeting one unit, and the full squad can only target one of your half squads. This leaves the other half squad unsuppressed, and its fire will tend to make the enemy squad duck, relieving some of the incoming fire on the half squad it is firing on.

Doesn't that make sense? I know next to nothing about infantry tactics, but wouldn't it make sense that the squad sets up covering fire within itself? I'm sure squads didn't have to depend on other squads for covering fire all the time, like CM seems to model it.

[Wilhammer]

Lets not forget that a squad split in half will fire guns twice as often as it would as a full squad.

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by Wilhammer:

Lets not forget that a squad split in half will fire guns twice as often as it would as a full squad.

Both half-squads combined will fire twice as often as an un-split squad. But each half-squad only has half the guns. This makes no difference at all.

Dschugaschwili

[Wilhammer]

I knew someone would make that argument, but think in game terms.....

Though each shot is less than half firepower, the chances of doing something (suppression for example) are doubled because the number of combat resolutions has doubled.

Firepower has been married with manuever.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Wilhammer:

I knew someone would make that argument, but think in game terms.....

Though each shot is less than half firepower, the chances of doing something (suppression for example) are doubled because the number of combat resolutions has doubled.

Firepower has been married with manuever.

I'm not sure about that. I recently decided

to try to surpress an HMG team in woods

with fire from lots of 30 cals and BARs.

At the rather long range, I added up all

the 'firepower 20', 'firepower 30' etc and

thought WOW! 160 firepower. This ought to

get them to duck. (It was coming from

many angles as well). But I watched that

HMG for the whole movie and they never

ducked. All those separate 20-30 FP bursts

coming in didn't as much as touch them,

and there didn't seem to be any kind of

cumulative effect.

I'd be really interested in knowing how

this sort of thing actually works in the

game engine.

regards,

--Rett

[Steve McClaire]

If anyone is still interested, here's the URL for the interview I paraphrased in my earlier post:

http://www.geocities.com/jeffduquette/Depuy.html

It was not by the Dupuy I was thinking of, which is why I couldn't find it again. I'm not sure if he was influenced by SLA Marshall, or vice versa, but he seems to agree with the general conclusion.

As a side note, Jeff Duquette's site has a lot of other interesting info on WW2.