Dead As Hell -- Leading from the Front

[Terence]

Over the last couple of battles (against the AI) I've noticed that when attacking, the Platoon Leader and Company Commander units seem to spearhead the AI attacks.

Snooping around the battlefield after the game is over, Ive seen the following scene replayed three or four times now: My (battered) MLR with, for example, 5 dead german units in front of it. Of these five, three will platoon commanders and company commanders.

Why does the AI lead with these units? and is this the way it was done during the war?

[109 Gustav]

CM's AI is the best I've seen in a wargame yet, but it can't handle HQ units. Even on setup, the AI will mix squads from three different platoons, with the HQ 250m off. Set up a QB against the AI, and turn fog of war off. That way you can see how it badly it sets itself up.

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

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

[Terence]

Originally posted by 109 Gustav:

CM's AI is the best I've seen in a wargame yet, but it can't handle HQ units. Even on setup, the AI will mix squads from three different platoons, with the HQ 250m off. Set up a QB against the AI, and turn fog of war off. That way you can see how it badly it sets itself up.

I think I will try that. Anyone else got an insight into how the AI handles HQ units, and if there's any historical justification for it?

Clearly when playing another human, careful use of the command units can really make a difference in the game....

[Annalist]

As for how it really happens/happened...

Usually the leader in located in the rear center of the formation or, in the case of the column formation placed about 1/3 back so as to control first contact better. The modern US infantry squad uses a modified wedge formation with the squad leader in the pocket of the wedge. Larger formations imitate this depending upon the travel formation they're in.

[JoePrivate]

I think I will try that. Anyone else got an insight into how the AI handles HQ units, and if there's any historical justification for it?

No references handy but I can recall several accounts of such behaviour when the Germans attacked in the Bulge. The German troops needed to be led by example which resulted in a high mortality rate for NCOs and officers.

[Michael Dorosh]

Platoon commanders were expected to live at best a few weeks, especially in Normandy (actually there, lifespan was more like a few days). Platoon commanders suffered, historically speaking, great losses. When I'm at home I'll dig through my references and try and back this up. Platoon commanders DID lead from the front - company commanders probably did not.

[Terence]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Platoon commanders were expected to live at best a few weeks, especially in Normandy (actually there, lifespan was more like a few days.

OK, this is starting to make some sense now. The way I see it happening, the leader units and their minions rush my MLR.

Because they are now clearly observed by my troops, my guys priority target the leaders. And since these are smaller groups, they are wiped out by machine guns and rifle fire etc.

With the leaders dead, the remaining infantry rout or retreat back to their starting point and hide. They are under cover here and much harder to kill, ergo, no body in front of the lines.

Thats why lots of leader bodies in front of my MG nests and fewer rank and file.

And historically, it makes sense for the German platoons to be lead in the charge by the Lieutenants? (I suppose we should set the company commander example aside as wierd AI)

[Jeff Heidman]

I think the term "lead from the front" is being mis-applied here.

It did not (and does not) literally mean that the LT and his men would be the point men of the platoon. That would be stupid for a variety of reasons. Not only is the guy not going to live long, it is pretty hard to issue orders to people behind you, since you then cannot see them.

Leading from the front *does* mean that the leader is far enough forward that his decisions can have an immediate and (hopefully) decisive effect on the actual combat being fought.

Jeff Heidman

[Michael Dorosh]

German platoons were led by sergeants for the most part - only one platoon out of three had an officer in charge.

The Brits, Canadians and Americans were much more insistent that all platoons have an officer. The Brits/Canadians experimented with a new rank - Warrant Officer Class III - and appointment - Platoon Sergeant Major - but this was abandoned in 1940 and most PSMs were commissioned as officers.

Officers were much more of a rarity in German infantry companies than in Allied ones.

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

<A HREF="http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm

http://members.home.net/canuckmain/

http://highlanders.freehosting.net/" TARGET=_blank>http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm

http://members.home.net/canuckmain/

http://highlanders.freehosting.net/</A>

[Michael Dorosh]

And while Jeff is right about not leading from the front (this did sometimes happen, but it was rare), platoon officers were very much exposed, especially to snipers, and their mortality seems to be accurately modelled, even if their actual position within the platoon is not. See the book Code Word Canloan for a detailed description of life as an Allied platoon commander in Normandy.

[Jasper]

On the fourth and fifth pages of the site listed below you'll see a number of 'Combat Lessons' documents posted. These were printed by the Army during WWII and distributed to the troops. The first section of the the 'Combat Lessons' manuals is always 'Leadership' and after reading a few of them you should get a pretty good idea what was expected from officers.

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

Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ for military documents written during WWII

[Terence]

Originally posted by Jasper:

On the fourth and fifth pages of the site listed below you'll see a number of 'Combat Lessons' documents posted. These were printed by the Army during WWII and distributed to the troops. The first section of the the 'Combat Lessons' manuals is always 'Leadership' and after reading a few of them you should get a pretty good idea what was expected from officers.

thanks. your site has a lot of great stuff on it.

[Spook]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Platoon commanders were expected to live at best a few weeks, especially in Normandy (actually there, lifespan was more like a few days). Platoon commanders suffered, historically speaking, great losses. When I'm at home I'll dig through my references and try and back this up. Platoon commanders DID lead from the front - company commanders probably did not.

Some truth in this, Michael. But as to how many platoon leaders became casualties in Normandy & afterwards, it may not have been only due to "leading from the front" in the strictest sense as discussed here. In many cases, it could well have been that the PL was inexperienced enough in his behavior & actions as that he could make himself an obvious target, like for snipers. By example, he might not have bothered to remove his rank insigna from his helmet & uniform.

Further, in the Normandy Campaign, many "junior officers" (platoon/company level) were "cashiered" or relieved from their combat command duties. One reference from ages back suggested that 700(!) such officers fell out in such a way during the first month of the Normandy campaign.

I think that these noted officers were more inclined NOT to "lead from the front." Otherwise, they'd either be a combat casualty or would learn & adapt enough to keep their field command positions.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Well, while it is nice that people are trying to stick up for the AI, it is certainly true that it has problems with unit coordination. While we feel it is better than other games out there, it is just one of those things that reams of AI programming never fully gets right.

When advancing on a broad front, in theory, the platoon HQ should be like the point of a triangle, with the three squads forming the base. But the BASE should be facing towards the enemy, not the point. In column march it is best to have the HQ located after the first, or (if the platoon is generally very experienced) second squad. If it is behind the third squad it is difficult to remain in contact with the first squad. And of course, when things get crazy the HQ should bounce around and lend aid to the squad that is either in the most trouble or is in the best position for exploitation.

Unfortuantely... the AI has a tough time with this. Seeing some humans play reinforces how difficult this is because I think it is probably fair to say many human players don't get it right either

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Spook:

Some truth in this, Michael. But as to how many platoon leaders became casualties in Normandy & afterwards, it may not have been only due to "leading from the front" in the strictest sense as discussed here. In many cases, it could well have been that the PL was inexperienced enough in his behavior & actions as that he could make himself an obvious target, like for snipers. By example, he might not have bothered to remove his rank insigna from his helmet & uniform.

Further, in the Normandy Campaign, many "junior officers" (platoon/company level) were "cashiered" or relieved from their combat command duties. One reference from ages back suggested that 700(!) such officers fell out in such a way during the first month of the Normandy campaign.

I think that these noted officers were more inclined NOT to "lead from the front." Otherwise, they'd either be a combat casualty or would learn & adapt enough to keep their field command positions.

I agree with your first para completely - didn't mean to imply that platoon commanders were in front of their squads - actually I did say that this was rare. The example of not removing insignia is a good one. Blackburn suggests in his trilogy that it didn't take long for Canadian officers to pull off all their rank (not to mention throw away their revolvers and carry rifles, plus losing the binoculars around their necks).

I would like to see your source - both for the suggestion that platoon commanders were cashiered, and in the large numbers you mention. At first glance that doesn't seem correct. Many battalion commanders and brigadiers were indeed sacked, but I am not familiar with any problems in relieving platoon commanders and would like to learn more abou this.

EDIT - I'll also add that - and I think Steve alludes to this - the things that a platoon commander necessarily had to do, singled him out as a target. That includes standing up so he can see where his sections are, yelling to them, pointing, etc. Unless you were the Marine Corps Silent Drill Platoon, a platoon commander was a fairly obvious target even when dressed as a rifleman.

[This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-24-2001).]

[Chief]

I've also noticed that the AI seems to hang HQs out in front, where they frequently get smoked. However, if you read a book like Wilson's "If You Survive", you do get the sense that a platoon leader's life expectancy was about the same as a mayfly's.

IMHO, the CM AI get platoon HQ mortality about right, but for the slightly wrong reason. Accounts I read suggest that many platoon leaders died not so much because they were out in front of their troops, but because they had to move among the troops (exposed to fire) to get anyone to do anything. If anything, I think that CM lets the player off a bit easily by permitting platoon HQs to command from relatively unexposed positions. But as a player and not the AI, I'm not complaining too much.

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

Also los, Augen zu, und hinein!

[danyzn]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Seeing some humans play reinforces how difficult this is because I think it is probably fair to say many human players don't get it right either

Steve

I learnt the importance of HQ command coordination the hard way. In a recent game, in planning an infantry assault with two platoons, I gleefully and carefully plotted paths for all the squads, but in my excitement I totally forgot about the platoon HQs, who stayed behind and dozed in the woods. The results were not pretty.

[Terence]

Originally posted by danyzn:

In a recent game, in planning an infantry assault with two platoons, I gleefully and carefully plotted paths for all the squads, but in my excitement I totally forgot about the platoon HQs. The results were not pretty.

I do that a lot.

On the other hand, if you get them too close to the enemy, they can be identified and priority targeted and more easily finished off. In the last scenario I played against the computer I lost two platoon leaders and the company commander had to race up from the rear to rally the survivors and hold one of the flanks.

[TheDesertFox]

The German troops needed to be led by example which resulted in a high mortality rate for NCOs and officers.

Actually it is german doctrine for all military leaders until today to lead by example and from the front. The place of the formation leader (may it be Platoon, Division or Army leader) is in the thick where the "Schwerpunkt" (center of gravity) of his sector is.

A good historical example is General Eberbach (Army Commander) who coordinated his troops while defending against Operation Totalize from Bretteville sur Laize some 2 km away from the Canadians or the divisional commander of 89th Infantry Division (Generalleutnant Heinrichs) who went out on his right wing at 14.00 hours (start of Phase II) to give personal leadership. There are numerous examples of this form of leadership, not only in WW2 but also back in WW1. While the CO leads his troops from the front it is the job of the 2nd in command to stay back and organize the allocation of the reseve.

That of course does not mean that all german commanders performed this way, there are enough examples of ...well "hesitant" commanders as well, but it, generally speaking, was usual and expected for german commanders to lead from the front and share the danger of their troops. The price you have to pay for this kind of leadership of course is high and it explains the constant lack of experienced COs and NCOs because their life expectance in combat can be measured in days, perhaps weeks.

However, as far as I know it was the same for the canadians and the british. Look at The Black Watch, look what happened at May sur Orne, look what happened at Fontenay le Marmion.

Helge

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

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: TheDesertFox@gmx.net

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by TheDesertFox:

Actually it is german doctrine for all military leaders until today to lead by example and from the front. The place of the formation leader (may it be Platoon, Division or Army leader) is in the thick where the "Schwerpunkt" (center of gravity) of his sector is.

A good historical example is General Eberbach (Army Commander) who coordinated his troops while defending against Operation Totalize from Bretteville sur Laize some 2 km away from the Canadians or the divisional commander of 89th Infantry Division (Generalleutnant Heinrichs) who went out on his right wing at 14.00 hours (start of Phase II) to give personal leadership. There are numerous examples of this form of leadership, not only in WW2 but also back in WW1. While the CO leads his troops from the front it is the job of the 2nd in command to stay back and organize the allocation of the reseve.

That of course does not mean that all german commanders performed this way, there are enough examples of ...well "hesitant" commanders as well, but it, generally speaking, was usual and expected for german commanders to lead from the front and share the danger of their troops. The price you have to pay for this kind of leadership of course is high and it explains the constant lack of experienced COs and NCOs because their life expectance in combat can be measured in days, perhaps weeks.

However, as far as I know it was the same for the canadians and the british. Look at The Black Watch, look what happened at May sur Orne, look what happened at Fontenay le Marmion.

Helge

Are you trying to tell me that Major Griffin was at the head of the leading section in the assault at Verrieres? I really don't think so. His predecessor was killed by shellfire at an "O" Group well behind his leading sections IIRC. As for Griffin, I stand open to correction, but I don't recall him being the first man over the hill.

A notable exception was Cec Merritt at Dieppe, but then again, he was one of only 8 Canadian soldiers to get the Victoria Cross in WW II, so I have a feeling his example was pretty rare.

Many battalion COs were killed in WW II, but as a result of shellfire behind the lines.

You are correct that many were "hesitant" - think of Captain Stansky in Cross of Iron - there were real world officers like him. MacLaughlan of the Calgary Highlanders was one, who huddled in bunkers - his replacment Ross Ellis was known to walk around without a helmet on and visit the troops in the line. The troops loved him.

I don't recall reading about him leading platoon attacks though. At Walcheren Causeway he did venture across - after the initial assaults. He didn't lead any attacks though.

Another VC winning officer - Tilston - was wounded severely in the Rhineland, losing a leg and an eye. But it was his first time in action, and if he led from the front, it was inexperience that made him do so, and it was luck that prevented him from being killed.

Your examples (generals) don't strike me as terribly relevant. We are discussing company and batatlion sized units - I doubt that your generals were at the forefront of an infantry company - I am open to correction, of course. Schwerpunkt is a very broad concept, and invoking that term does not convince me that company commanders were going in AHEAD of the infantry squads, which is what we are talking about with reference to CM.

Perhaps you can quote some relevant passages from unit histories? I am not saying you are wrong, merely that you have not provided much proof for what you are saying.

[Mr. Clark]

If I remember correctly, in the book BAND OF BROTHERS, Richard Winters would be a great example of an HQ "leading from the front."

Once again IIRC, there was a spectacular fight on a road near a dam where he was the ONLY one on the road (ahead of his men) against an entire company of Germans. I also seem to remember a time when he stood in the middle of a road, under heavy enemy fire, screaming for his men to get out of the ditches and advance.

(Not that I suggest doing it in the game, or that this is what the AI is doing... but the entire book IS filled with examples of squad/platoon/and company commanders "in action" so to speak.)

[This message has been edited by Mr. Clark (edited 01-25-2001).]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mr. Clark:

If I remember correctly, in the book BAND OF BROTHERS, Richard Winters would be a great example of an HQ "leading from the front."

Once again IIRC, there was a spectacular fight on a road near a dam where he was the ONLY one on the road (ahead of his men) against an entire company of Germans. I also seem to remember a time when he stood in the middle of a road, under heavy enemy fire, screaming for his men to get out of the ditches and advance.

(Not that I suggest doing it in the game, or that this is what the AI is doing...)

This would be paratroopers shortly after D-Day, yes? I am under the impression that these were all atypically small unit actions with no real formed units. If we are talking about the same thing, I don't see that this is particularly relevant either - many airborne platoons and companies did not fight as such in the days following D-Day since the forces were so badly scattered and re-arranged. If this example comes from further on, or if this is a company that managed to organize itself and fight intact, please correct me, but I think many company commanders became squad leaders, and many platoon commanders may have even become mere riflemen in this period!

Just to be clear, I am sure there were indeed many company commanders of all nationalities who led charges on enemy positions. Many of them won medals. I disagree with the contention that this was in any way expected, and I find it doubtful that a majority of battalion commanders would encourage it of their company commanders. Brave men have a tendency of becoming dead men.

Farley Mowat is another Canadian example - on the day he landed in Sicily, he led his platoon on a bayonet charge into what was (thankfully) an Allied position. The troops there (veterans of the Desert) laughed at him, and he never again led a platoon in a charge.

Further on in his book, he cites his company commander as going berserk during an ambush, and personally running up to a German truck with a Bren Gun and dispatching enemy soldiers personally. I agree that it happened. This was also not part of a battalion engagement, and IIRC the company was acting independently and possibly was lost at the time!

What does Charles MacDonald say?

You do provide an interesting example that proves what I said earlier - you cite him as standing alone in the road, yelling (and gesticulating?). Pretty obvious to any enemy that can see him that he is clearly someone important.

[TheDesertFox]

We are discussing company and batatlion sized units - I doubt that your generals were at the forefront of an infantry company

Michael I guess we have some kind of miscommunication here. Leading from the front does not mean being the first in line in an attack or to cross the field as the very first man. It´s silly to do this even if you are a squadleader. But you have to be as far in front as possible to both give your subordinates an example and still be aware what happens on your right and left wing to coordinate your forces.

As for battalion and company commanders, go and look up some unit histories where and when most commanders fell and you know the answer.

As I said above it´s a generalization and I´m not here on a crusade to change peoples minds. You are free to make your own conclusions of what you might have heard or read, but you can´t change what happened frequently. And this happened not only on the german side of the fence but on the allied side as well. Do you want to say that company and battalion commanders were usually leading their forces out of the secure distance of their rear command post ?

That would be as problematic as saying german platoon/company/etc.. leaders lead their platoons/etc.. more efficiently than allied platoonleaders did.

AHEAD of the infantry squads, which is what we are talking about with reference to CM.

CM uses an abstraction here. In reality the company commander and his HQ men are not seperated from the platoons but are attached to exact THE platoon which is in the tactical situation to give the CO both the best possibility to lead to fulfill his mission, to get a good overview about the situation in his sector to coordiate his forces efficiently. The seperation of the HQ unit from the platoons does only happen in static situations, never when being mobile. I guess you have to understand that the seperation of HQ unit and platoons you see in CM is not a 1 to 1 representation of every situation which takes place during combat. This was taken from paper OOBs and KStNs. Things that happen during combat can´t be represented here without abstraction because most frequently the CO is e.g. near 1.Zug, 10minutes later near 3.Zug, half an hour later in his command post and after being alarmed by messages from 2.Zug he hurries to their position to see what happens.

Helge

[JoshK]

My recollection from previous discussions on this topic is that the computer uses three levels of AI.

To be simplistic: The strategic AI looks at the over all picture and comes up with a master plan. It then "tells" the operational AI what to do; for instance it may "tell" one company to assault that VL on the hill.

Then the Operational AI gets the message and says," OK, got to take that VL, lets rally the troops." So the Operational AI "tells" each rifle squad to get off their asses and charge that hill. If I recall correctly, this is when the problem comes in. Some of the squads, "thinking" for themselves, will decide to sit this one out. That means that only a limited number of units will assault, thus increasing the appearance of HQ leading. Sometimes, at the end of games when many units are decimated and have low morale, none will listen. This is why to may see charges of only HQ units.

In additional to that (and this is now a guess not a recollection) a "flaw" in the AI logic means that often HQ's do lead from the front. It seems to me from watching the AI HQ units, that they do not consider things like command delays, especially from out of C&C units. Therefore, if the HQ unit does not give itself a pause order (which I as a human player do all the time to make sure my HQ unit does not take off first), then by the logic of the game engine, the HQ unit will run ahead of the rest of the units.

Just my take on it.

[Michael Dorosh]

Desert Fox.

No offence intended, but read the whole thread again. We are talking about the computer's willingness to put HQ units out ahead of infantry units. We all agree that "leading from the front" does not mean going in with the first fire team.

In game terms, however, this is exactly what seems to be happening. You'll notice the designers agree on that point. We are therefore discussing why this is wrong.

Consensus seems to be that mortality rates for leaders are historically high, and are therefore well modelled, but for the wrong reasons.

Your post was just vague enough to muddy the waters. I think the example of Griffin "leading from the front" is kind of silly - no matter where he was in the battalion, it was a futile charge that resulted in 325 casualties IIRC - only 15 men made it back to the start line. I don't see what good his leadership did anybody.

He is just as dead whether he was killed by a machinegun or by shellfire, so in the end, maybe we are all arguing over the angels on the head of a pin.