Responsibilities of CM-level commander (regulars and grogs invited)

[Nabla]

Hello everyone!

We are arranging the first unbalanced CM tournament based on the new scoring system (click here for a discussion about the scoring system). Anyway, now that I've been designing scenarios for this tournament I've bumped into questions in which I need some professional help

Consider a situation where both parties control a piece of land and both sides control some flags. So it's some kind of a meeting engagement. Now the scenario designer could basically just give some (perhaps inaccurate) recon info and let the guys decide what to do: attack, defend, make a small probe and decide after that.

From the point of view of an interesting game I think this is really great. However, from the point of view of history / realism this may not be very accurate. Now I'm not one of thos whom they call grogs (although I might perhaps want to be), but it seems logical to me that a CM-level commander gives commands to his units while himself receiving commands from a higher level.

I'd like your input on this issue. What kind of situations did these guys really face? What kind of commands did they get? All (well, almost all) input is appreciated.

[Wreck]

A company commander would not be independently deciding to do very much. Certainly nothing like moving his entire company off to attack, say, even something close. He might send a squad patrol. Otherwise he would be sitting where he was ordered to be, perhaps moving 100m or so one way or another for better fields of fire or better cover, etc. Or if ordered to attack, his objective would be clear. In fact he would probably have less leeway than in CM as to how to attack; probably his attacking lane would be already designated.

Up at battalion level, much the same thing is true, though with somewhat more flexibility. But not that much.

All in all I don't think the idea (give the players some forces and let them decide what to do) is very historical.

[JasonC]

I think it is a reasonable idea only for a battalion level task force in a fluid situation. Down at the company level, they don't make such decisions. Battalion commanders usually receive orders from regiment or division about whether to attack or defend, but they might change on their own if the situation is uncertain enough.

E.g. two battalion task forces moving into the same empty zone (e.g. a rear area of one side, with reserves coming up). They collide, and although higher ups expect this or that of them, the new info in the situation itself is important enough, and changing rapidly enough, that higher HQs don't really have a clear picture of the situation. In that sort of case, a battalion commander would make the call. For 24 to 48 hours anyway.

But static positions, full forces for the available space, in continuous lines as part of whole divisional positions? No, battalion commanders receive orders too, in such ordinary "vanilla" cases of line fighting. They have to, because where and whether reserves will be needed, ensuring secure flanks, etc, all depend on coordinating their movements higher up, in that typical static case.

[CMplayer]

That reminds me of the situation in the book The Thin Red Line where the Coy gets a long range mission and is considered to be an independent command for a while. It is portrayed as an unconventional situation. This goes to the acting commander's head, and he gets disciplined later because HQ still had expected him to stay in radio contact if at all possible. He ends up making a wrong decision about which way to go, showing that even when the Coy had maximum freedom, its reigns were still meant to be firmly held by the higher ups.

[Treeburst155]

Could not the commander of a reinforced company (for example)be ordered to probe the enemy to his front; and if sufficient weakness is found, conduct a general attack, with "sufficient weakness" being a judgment call of the company commander?

Treeburst155 out.

[Rifle1860]

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

[What kind of commands did they get? [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds like the concept will bring out some interesting results. To the point above, I pulled out an old book of mine that contains some of the verbiage used in the Mission paragraph of operations orders. 1980 reference but really not much has changed in this area since WWII. Companys generally were ordered :

To Block - place or manoeuvre forces to contain the en;

To Capture - take and maintain a terrain feature, person or object;

To Contain - stop, hold or surround en forces;

To Cover - Protect through offence or defence;

To Defend - employ combat power to prevent or destroy an en attack and hold an assigned area;

To Delay - Inflict a time delay to an advancing en;

To Occupy - move to an area, secure it and prepare for the next task;

To Screen - observe, identify and report on en movements;

To Guard - basically a combination of Screen and Delay;

To Clear - to ensure that a point, route or area is free of the effects of en direct fire weapons;

to Destroy - obvious.

Usually, a company will only be given one of these tasks to complete in any phase of an operation and the choise is rarely up to their discression.

Lots of words, hope it helps

Out

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Hello everyone!

Consider a situation where both parties control a piece of land and both sides control some flags. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would speculate that outside of urban settings (and rarely even then) and outside the scope of a deliberate attack, rarely would two opposing companies be situated within 500 metres of each other - ie on an average CM map.

So the situation could be labelled unrealistic from the getgo.

[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[CMplayer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I would speculate that outside of urban settings (and rarely even then) and outside the scope of a deliberate attack, rarely would two opposing companies be situated within 500 metres of each other - ie on an average CM map.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Though there were some odd situations where they were quite close and even lived in an odd symbiosis, letting each other hang up stuff to dry or go to the can without sniping at each other.

[citizen]

If only the interface didn't tell you what your opponent was doing. GOD I hate that I can see whether my opponent will be dug in or not before I even set up my guys.

Please BTS, get rid of the Attacker/Defender tag at the bottom of the screen.

As for your tournament, here are my suggestions:

1. Make them all Meeting Engagements.

2. Give each Allied and Axis player sketchy info on the opposition.

3. Ask each player if he is going to Attack or Defend.

4. Pair up the players so they are Attack versus Defend when possible; second choice being Defend vs Defend; and as a last resort, the rarest of occurances, Attack vs Attack. Or pair them randomly. Or tell them they are paired randomly, but use the above system anyway.

5. Now set up the scenario with some sort of Attacker bonus, but not too much as the Defenders aren't dug in.

6. Have them go at it. Tell the Defenders that they have just arrived in their positions, so digging in was not an option.

This way, neither side knows what the other is up to. Defend vs Defend may sound boring, so a flag in the middle to get them moving a bit will be required for the sake of fun.

Good Luck, Citizen

PS: Oh yeah, responsiblities of a CM-Level commander... Don't consider the battle as a Coy level decision. To simulate some Coy level decision making:

Tell each Defender that if he takes 25%+ casualties, he loses.

Tell each Attacker that if he takes 33%+ casualties, he loses.

[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: citizen ]

[Nabla]

Ok, let me gather together what's been stated here.

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

A company commander would not be independently deciding to do very much. Certainly nothing like moving his entire company off to attack, say, even something close.

...

Up at battalion level, much the same thing is true, though with somewhat more flexibility.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

I think it is a reasonable idea only for a battalion level task force in a fluid situation. Down at the company level, they don't make such decisions. Battalion commanders usually receive orders from regiment or division about whether to attack or defend, but they might change on their own if the situation is uncertain enough.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I would speculate that outside of urban settings (and rarely even then) and outside the scope of a deliberate attack, rarely would two opposing companies be situated within 500 metres of each other - ie on an average CM map.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rifle1860:

Companys generally were ordered :

To Block - place or manoeuvre forces to contain the en;

To Capture - take and maintain a terrain feature, person or object;

To Contain - stop, hold or surround en forces;

To Cover - Protect through offence or defence;

To Defend - employ combat power to prevent or destroy an en attack and hold an assigned area;

To Delay - Inflict a time delay to an advancing en;

To Occupy - move to an area, secure it and prepare for the next task;

To Screen - observe, identify and report on en movements;

To Guard - basically a combination of Screen and Delay;

To Clear - to ensure that a point, route or area is free of the effects of en direct fire weapons;

to Destroy - obvious.

Usually, a company will only be given one of these tasks to complete in any phase of an operation and the choise is rarely up to their discression.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So taken together I would interpret these statements so that companies have specific orders and are assumed to contact for further orders if they are unable to fulfill the given mission. This of course assumes that company HQs were able to contact their superiors. I assume that if the situation is chaotic company HQs may have to make battalion level decisions.

The list given by Rifle1860 is a very good guideline to follow when designing different types of missions. Most of these mission types are feasible within CM - however, missions of type Occupy, Screen, Guard and Clear may not be feasible. Occupy and Clear seem to assume absense of enemy (contact battalion if enemy found). The success of Screen should be measured with the amount of observed and identified enemies - no such metrics in CM. The same seems to apply to Guard.

On the other hand, the situation seems to be a bit different on the level of a battalion if an element of surprise is included. But I do not yet understand what kind of "elements of surprise" would cause independent decision making on battalion level. A simple example: the battalion has been ordered to attack (assumedly) one enemy company, but faces (unexpectedly) heavy artillery fire during approach. Who decides (and under what kind of conditions) whether the attack should be continued or not?

Rifle1860, is the corresponding mission type list any different for battalions?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Could not the commander of a reinforced company (for example)be ordered to probe the enemy to his front; and if sufficient weakness is found, conduct a general attack, with "sufficient weakness" being a judgment call of the company commander?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an interesting question, especially from the point of view of what is meant by "sufficient weakness". Using a thumbrule of 3-1 attack ratio, could battalion HQ give command "probe, if only one platoon is found, attack, otherwise retreat"?

[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: Nabla ]

[Andreas]

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

Who decides (and under what kind of conditions) whether the attack should be continued or not?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brigade/Regimental command - a BN commander acting independently in such a situation will find himself in a desk job back in Blighty in no time at all. Withdrawal/breaking off a planned attack etc. of a BN could significantly affect divisional operations, and would therefore need to be authorised. A good example of this would be the successive battles for Buron that were based on wrong intel, and went in seriously understrength, or the withdrawal of 5th DCLI from Cornwall Wood, the decision for which was taken independently (by the Major commanding the BN after the death of the original commander) and this is discussed and justified at quite some length by the historian of the DCLI, showing how unusual that was.

[Rifle1860]

As far as I know, the terms I listed above would relate to bn-level operations as well.

Some points I have been thinking about. Up front I will say that I have no direct knowledge of Battle Procedure as it was utilized during WWII so my underlying assumption is that things have not changed that much. I may well be wrong.

I can think of a situation when a Bn commander would have the authority to withdraw one or more companies on his own discression. This would be a situation where the Bn had been given an order (somthing like) Defend within boundaries. As opposed to being given a specific line, battle position or terrain feature to hold, he is given a frontage and depth of terrain through which the enemy is not allowed to pass. It is left to the Bn Comd to decide if he wants to "phase" his defence by laying out alternate and secondary positions for his companies to occupy in succession as the defensive battle develops. This type of operation would be best suited for mechanized infantry, recce formations and anti-tank elements. Dismounted infantry are at an extreme disadvantage when they asked to withdraw in contact.

[Rifle1860]

The one type of operation that may realistically give you the flexibility that you are looking for is a Guard.

Guards are intended to gain info about the enemy and to cover units from direct enemy action while they do other things (prepare an attack, dig in, relieve another unit in the line, prep a demolition, or move). Guards are deployed either to the flanks or front of other formations. They are usually told to guard a line from one terrain feature to another and are often given an amount of time in which to impose a delay on an enemy. The guarding units were usually far smaller than the units they were guarding and very mobile. This was a common task given to units like the divisional Recce Regiment with attachements.

My thinking is that the guard commander would be given the freedom to fulfil the task as he sees fit. He may decide to try and defend along the entire line. He may decide to defend some choke points. He may defend only some choke points and form a mobile reserve to block other penetrations. He may even decide to advance and capture some vital ground or key terrain forward of his line in order to better doninate the routes through his area (the victory flag in no-mans-land). In the end, the other player would have to either decide to destroy the guarding units, take the victory areas (vital ground)and/or move through and off the map.

You would have to develop an sliding victory point scale to reflect those en units that exited the board before the time delay that was ordered and for those that left after the delay timing had expired.

I am really not sure how the scoring would work for this but it may work to provide a realistic framework for your games.

Over

[Nabla]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rifle1860:

The one type of operation that may realistically give you the flexibility that you are looking for is a Guard.

Guards are intended to gain info about the enemy and to cover units from direct enemy action while they do other things (prepare an attack, dig in, relieve another unit in the line, prep a demolition, or move).

...

My thinking is that the guard commander would be given the freedom to fulfil the task as he sees fit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This sounds very interesting. I'll have to think about which units would be parts of such a very mobile formation.

[tss]

Nabla wrote:

Occupy and Clear seem to assume absense of enemy (contact battalion if enemy found).

I'd say that Occupy assumes the absense of significant enemy forces. Unorganized remains of previously shattered enemy units could be expected in some cases.

I'm not certain of precise meanings of American military terms, but I'd think that Clear could also include a situation where enemy has occupied some position along your communication routes and you might have to perform an actual attack to dislodge it.

I agree with Rifle1860 in that a commander of a delaying force would most likely have a quite free choice over actions. Also, a company guarding the flanks of an advance could have more choices than one at point, at least if there were problems with communication.

- Tommi

[Peter Svensson]

If you have abandoned the idea of having the game's computation of victory scores determine who is the winner, you may as well introduce some new victory conditions.

For instance, it's quite common in CM scenarios to have a victory flag on some important road, which then becomes the focus of fighting. But dominating the road surface itself is quite useless if enemy units have LOS on the road and can interdict movement on it. So you can construct victory conditions like: "the German player gains ten points if he has unbroken units that can fire on any stretch of the road." This would simulate striving to comply with the Clear order above.

You could even have recce-type scenarios, where one player gains points depending on the accuracy of his estimate of opposing strength, submitted just before the game ends. Or you could get points for assassinations of key units etc., etc.

Many possibilities. Would be refreshing to fight over something other than VLs and casualty ratios for once.

[Michael Dorosh]

In relation to Peter's post -

In SL and ASL, sometimes a victory condition was to remove any unit with a LOS to a particular feature, such as a road.

Is it possible to check LOS for units from the end of game map?

If not, perhaps it should be a feature. It would be an excellent way of determining victory conditions, and a neat way to simulate some SL scenarios to boot, for those so inclined.

[Thermopylae]

oooh, this could be fun....say holding attacks by inferior or equal forces:

Attacker's Orders:

Advance against enemy positions with the intent of preventing his maneuver. Securing key terrain is a secondary objective. Should you be able to take (list objectives here) Do so. Your forces are still expected to be able to hold a defensive line in their current position or that which you aquire, so try to minimize casualties.

VPs

-1 for every percentile of infantry strength lost.

-10 for each heavy AFV lost

-5 For each Light vehicle lost.

+X for objectives

If the attacker controls all the objectives at the end of the game, and has more than 65% of his force remaining he wins automatically as the enemy will have to redeploy to cover the gap in their line.

Defender:

We are experiencing a heavy attack down the line and wish you to detach as much of your unti as possible to act as reserves or reinforce the line elsewhere. However, we expect your remaining force to be able to hold their positions for at least the next 24 hours.

VPs

Losses same as attacker.

+ 5 for each unbroken squad or light vehicle that is exited of a friendly edge. Squads below half strenght do not count.

+ 20 for each hevay AFV exited.

+ 15 x %remaining ammo for each FO exited. 81mm cannot be exited this way.

Defender wins automatically if at the end of the game he has exited over 30% of his force, and has a force ratio of at least 66% of the attacker. If both sides have an automatic victory, the attacker wins.

[Rifle1860]

This sounds very interesting. Good thoughts.

[Nabla]

Lots of good ideas here. Basically what is going to happen here is that we will have completely different types of games in tournaments than we have in regular games.

As was noted above, I am currently designing the scenarios for the first tournament which will utilize the new rules to the fullest. If someone wants to join me and design a possibly unbalanced scenario with even some manually calculated points please contact me. Well, tss may be excluded since we are planning on making this the Finnish championship tournament. It has not been arranged yet and we thought that it would be nice to have some target group.

[tss]

I have a question for those who know about organization of Western Allied forces:

Were there any independent companies in either US or Commonwealth armies?

By independent I mean here a company that doesn't belong to any batallion but is directly attached to a higher level HQ, either regimental or divisional. An example could be a regimental recon company.

I would guess that a commander of such a company (or batallion) would be generally more independent than one commanding a regular company. However, even his independence would be limited and I've read of a case where a divisional HQ meddled with affairs of an independent batallion to the level of assigning attack directions to individual platoons.

- Tommi

[Andreas]

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

I have a question for those who know about organization of Western Allied forces:

Were there any independent companies in either US or Commonwealth armies?

By independent I mean here a company that doesn't belong to any batallion but is directly attached to a higher level HQ, either regimental or divisional. An example could be a regimental recon company.

I would guess that a commander of such a company (or batallion) would be generally more independent than one commanding a regular company. However, even his independence would be limited and I've read of a case where a divisional HQ meddled with affairs of an independent batallion to the level of assigning attack directions to individual platoons.

- Tommi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know about the US. In the Commonwealth infantry divisions, there was a Recce Rgt (battalion size) of armoured cars, some infantry, 6-pdr AT guns and 3" mortars. This would screen the advance, and perform flank guard duty in static situations. During the advance, it would be up to the initiative of the commander on the ground to decide how to proceed in the face of resistance. The Recce Corps was seen as an elite formation.

Infantry battalions would normally have an independent carrier and recce platoon (Michael will no doubt correct me on this), and these were used more flexibly.

[Tero]

Some options I did not spot:

Reconnoiter and identify: a limited recce mission with the sole purpose of identifying enemy assets in the area. Friendly casualties to be avoided.

Recce by force: a swift and short strike into enemy held territory to reconnoiter enemy positions and assets. Inflicting casualties to the enemy is a bonus but not a must.

Spoiling attack: a swift hit on detected enemy positions to cause casualties and delays in enemy plans. Grabbing some terrain features for a short period and then pulling out can be also done.

Assorted:

- Pursuit: keep in contact with the enemy force.

- Break contact

- Decoy: lure the enemy into a trap

[Rifle1860]

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

Some options I did not spot:

Reconnoiter and identify: a limited recce mission with the sole purpose of identifying enemy assets in the area. Friendly casualties to be avoided.

Recce by force: a swift and short strike into enemy held territory to reconnoiter enemy positions and assets. Inflicting casualties to the enemy is a bonus but not a must.

Spoiling attack: a swift hit on detected enemy positions to cause casualties and delays in enemy plans. Grabbing some terrain features for a short period and then pulling out can be also done.

Assorted:

- Pursuit: keep in contact with the enemy force.

- Break contact

- Decoy: lure the enemy into a trap<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good observation tero.

The types of operations you have identified are those that either a formation would attempt to do or are orders that more specialized forces would undertake. The list contains only the specific mission verbs that are used in infantry or armoured coy/sqn/bn/regts. What that means is that the information (like the fact that it is a pursuit-type operation) would be included in the Situation paragraph of the orders and not as a mission type. The Situation is where the general picture, both enemy and friendly, is painted for the subordinate commanders along with the Commander's intent for the end-state of the operation.

So let me try and deal with each one.

Recce and identify - This can be either a patrol-type operation for the infantry or a task for a Recce unit of some kind. So, the mission statement for the job would be something like "conduct a point recce at Grid XYZ" "Conduct an area recce around the area of Grid xyz" or"conduct a route recce from Grid xyz to grid abc". Although thewse were common missions, they fall into a more specialized area.

Recce by force - another specialized task. An infantry company may be told to do something like this but their mission would probably read something like "capture point x and hold for 1 hour". The rest of the orders would tell them the intent of the operation. Most likely though, this would be a fighting patrol mission so I left it off the list.

Spoiling Attack - this would be reflected in orders as a normal attack to the infantry or armoured unit. They would be told to either capture (ground) or to destroy (people and equipment). The fact that it is a spoiling attack would be stated in the Situation as context or later in the orders but the mission statement remains unchanged.

Pursuit - Again, for a company or squadron, the mission statement would be one on those on the list. A formation pursues, a unit or sub-unit either clears, captures, destroys, blocks, guards or occupys. A recce unit (specialized unit) may be ordered to advance and maintain contact.

Break Contact - The mission statement for this one would be centred around what they are supposed to do next. If they are in contact and they are ordered to "occupy' another position, to "capture" an objective etc, they will know that they have to break contact to do it. So, break contact by itself is not a mission type but more a set of drills and SOPs that the unit has to go through to accomplish the new mission.

Decoy - As above (somewhere). The unit would still be given one of the mission types to accomplish. The context of a decoy would come out elsewhere in the orders.

This is more typing than I have done in many years. Hope it helps.

Over

[Michael Dorosh]

Germanboy is correct about the infantry battalion having a carrier platoon. They did not have a recce platoon in name, but they did have a Scout and Sniper Platoon, which in essence was the battalion's organic recce asset.