Michael Dorosh Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 Here's a question that occurred to me - The Canadian/British infantry battalions were organized with four rifle companies. In action, they usually went into an attack with two companies up and two back - ie two in reserve. American battalions, correct me if I'm wrong, had three rifle companies and a weapons company. I would presume they went into action two up and one back (in reserve). So who had the better system? And why? ------------------ http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Here's a question that occurred to me - The Canadian/British infantry battalions were organized with four rifle companies. In action, they usually went into an attack with two companies up and two back - ie two in reserve. Interesting - so far I assumed it was three. There seems to be some conflicting evidence. Note the first two sources say it was three, the latter say it was four. Goes to show how difficult doing the research for a game like CMBO is. From this site http://www.britwar.co.uk/salts/salt4.htm : Infantry battalion, June 1944 [Reynolds 97] Total strength is 845 all ranks, 821 if lorried. The battalion has a support company and 3 rifle companies. The support coy has a pioneer platoon, a carrier platoon, 6 medium mortars and 6 6-pdr ATk guns. The carrier platoon has 12 carriers. Each rifle company is 127 all ranks. Infantry battalion, 1944 [Forty 98] Total strength is 36 officers and 809 other ranks, including all RAMC, RAOC, REME and ACC attachments. The battalion has a Bn HQ, an HQ company, a support company, and three rifle companies. HQ company has a company HQ and signals and admin platoons. Support company has a company HQ and mortar, carrier, ATk and pioneer platoons. The mortar platoon has 3 trucks, a lorry, 3 M/Cs, a carrier, and 6 detachments each with 1 mortar and 1 carrier. The carrier platoon has a pl HQ with 1 carrier, 2 trucks and 2 M/C, and 4 sections each with 3 carriers. The ATk platoon has 2 trucks, 3 M/C, a carrier, and 2 sections each with 2 ATk guns and 2 carriers. The pioneer platoon has 2 assault sections and 1 pioneer section. Each rifle company has a company HQ and 3 rifle platoons. Each rifle platoon has a platoon HQ and 3 rifle sections. Comments and corrections Battalion totals of weapons are given as 63 LMGs and 23 PIATs, so some are obviously missing here. Forty gives his source as "Inf Trg Pt 1, The Infantry Battalion, 1944". [Lincoln 94] Total strength is 36 officers and around 800 other ranks. The battalion has a Bn HQ, HQ company, support company and 4 rifle companies. Bn HQ, HQ coy and support coy together number 16 officers and over 300 other ranks. HQ company has an admin platoon and a signals platoon. Support company has a carrier platoon, a mortar platoon, an ATk platoon and a pioneer platoon. The carrier platoon has 4 sections each of 3 carriers. The mortar platoon has 6 3-in mortars in carriers. The ATk platoon has 3 sections each of 2 6-pdr ATk guns towed by carriers. The pioneer platoon has 4 sections. Each rifle company has an HQ and 3 platoons. Rifle company strength is 5 officers and about 120 men. Vehicles Company transport is 1 jeep, 1 carrier, and 2 or 3 15-cwt trucks. Infantry battalion, 21 Army Group, 1944-1945 [Jary 94] The battalion has a Bn HQ, HQ company, support company and 4 rifle companies. Support company has a carrier platoon, a mortar platoon, an ATk platoon and a pioneer platoon. Each rifle company has an HQ and 3 platoons. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPA Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 I believe 4 rifle companies is correct for conventional Commonwealth Infantry battalions. AFAIK that organisation dates back to before the First World War, (although infantry brigades were reduced from 4 to 3 battalions after the Somme). For info. Commonwealth Parachute Battalions normally had 1 HQ, 1 HQ Co, 1 Support Co and 3 Rifle Co. Commonwealth Glider Battalions normally had 1 HQ, 1 HQ Co, 1 Support Co and 4 Rifle Co. Each company had 4 Platoons, though they were smaller than Parachute Platoons due the restrictions of the Horsa Glider (ie 1 Glider per rifle platoon of 26 Men). CM has got the smaller glider rifle co OOB spot on. BTW Britwar.co.uk is an excellent OOB resource. IPA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 1, 2001 Author Share Posted February 1, 2001 Thanks guys - I am putting up a page on my site with some graphical representations of the layout of a Commonwealth infantry battalion - both in real life and in Combat Mission. I've got the first half of the task accomplished. Maybe you can tell me what I've gotten wrong? I'm still looking for detailed info on scout and sniper platoons among other things. This isn't active on the site yet but maybe you can give me some feedback - ignore the last couple of paragraphs for now. http://wargames.freehosting.net/battalion.htm EDIT - thanks for the detailed OBs, by the way - I was wondering about the number of vehicles in some of the subunits and I think this is the answer. Bear in mind the British may have reduced the number of companies in their battalions due to manpower shortages - during the Normandy campaign I believe they disbanded some units as well to provide reinforcements for the others, in addition to altering the war establishment of some units. [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 02-01-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPA Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 Michael, Superb write up and graphical presentation. It's the best OB for an Commonwealth Infantry Battalion that I've seen on the net. You'll be getting plenty of hits soon. Please add more! Thanks IPA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 Originally posted by IPA: Michael, Superb write up and graphical presentation. It's the best OB for an Commonwealth Infantry Battalion that I've seen on the net. You'll be getting plenty of hits soon. Please add more! Thanks IPA Agree with IPA here - great site. Love the org tables. Regarding your initial question - I would be surprised if the four company scheme was held up for long. The British had to get rid of a whole division in Normandy, IIRC, to make up for manpower shortages. Unfortunately my divisional histories are still in storage. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Deans Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 Where did you get these great graphics? Rob Deans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 1, 2001 Author Share Posted February 1, 2001 Thanks for the feedback, gents. The graphics are my own design - the icons for rank, weapons and vehicles are scans taken out of books, mostly black and white sketches, that I have changed in Paint and adapted to my own use. I find it easier to visualize the organization when it is in a graph form. Different colours help a lot too; it's so easy to add "eye candy" to web pages, I don't understand why people don't do it more. My attention span is pretty low anyway, so I need pictured to keep my mind from wandering. Germanboy, I think you're absolutely right about British battalion organization. Canadian units suffered greatly in Normandy, but for some reason we never felt the need to change the structure, though 10 man rifle sections (squad) were probably a luxury many battalions did not enjoy for very long, if at all. This is simulated a little bit in Combat Mission if you play an operation and have to keep fighting with understrength sections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Germanboy, I think you're absolutely right about British battalion organization. Canadian units suffered greatly in Normandy, but for some reason we never felt the need to change the structure, though 10 man rifle sections (squad) were probably a luxury many battalions did not enjoy for very long, if at all. This is simulated a little bit in Combat Mission if you play an operation and have to keep fighting with understrength sections. Stacey in 'History of the Canadian Army 1939-1945' has a chapter about the seriousness of manpower shortages in the PBI. I did not know it was that bad until I read that. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 1, 2001 Author Share Posted February 1, 2001 Originally posted by Germanboy: Stacey in 'History of the Canadian Army 1939-1945' has a chapter about the seriousness of manpower shortages in the PBI. I did not know it was that bad until I read that. It's a great book, I was lucky enough to find a copy in a used book store. Another good one is by ELM Burns ("Smilin' Sunray"), one time I Corps commander - I believe it is called Manpower in the Canadian Army. There were 250 Canadian soldiers employed at a tobacco depot in England while the PBI was taking its licks on the Continent. He also talks about the wasted manpower in setting up 2 seperate Corps headquarters, and how the I Corps HQ was not really needed in Italy for any purely tactical or strategic reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted February 5, 2001 Share Posted February 5, 2001 Three or four companies; which is better? Well, it's the three plus support that has survived after WW2... As for the actual WW2 organisation; can't this be a matter of difference between book and real strength? The paper said four companies, but there were only men to fill three... ? Cheers Olle ------------------ Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight... Detta har kånntrollerats av Majkråsofft späll-tjäcker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts