US Infantry Company 1:1

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Soddball:

.50 cals rocked. They made a really cool noise and put holes in stuff. Why would they not be included as a standard issue?

I suspect you've never had to carry a .50 cal tripod. Google the weight of the .50 - and its ammo. Should be self-evident, even for you. </font>

[RMC]

I have seen a WWII era manual for the .50 cal that shows how a team of six would port the beast around the battlefield. Don't know how often it was actually done in the field, but there was doctrine for it.

[kgsan]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Jon, as was stated a long time ago in one of the 1:1 threads weapons are assigned to individuals since there are no[w] individuals to assign them to. This means a PIAT, Bazooka, or the like can be handled as a subset of the squad's firepower instead of having to be unrealistically tasked to fictional manpower. How exactly this will be done is not something I care to comment on, but keep in mind that the inherent divorce from the generic unit system of CMx1 gives us all sorts of possibilities to play around with. As I said from the beginning... 1:1 is not about eye candy

Steve

Could this mean that the player will be able to assign orders to the designated sub units within a squad? I thought elsewhere, Steve said that the squad level was going to remain the basic unit of control, so I may be off base on this. I guess another alternative would be to allow the player to split of the new unit in the orders phase, and assign the now seperated unit (i.e. bazooka team) but that seems back to the way things are handled in CMx1, except that the team could rejoin the squad later.

[c3k]

Hey, Dorosh:

Is it possible for you to limit your postings of nasty words? You know, the four letter variety starting with an "F", ending with a "K" and having a "U" and "C" arranged in the midst?

I realize you may be unable to limit yourself thusly, due to an overabundance of sensitivity to criticism and an underabundance of verbal acumen, but it a weak form of debate to resort mere curses. Forum etiquette and all.

Ken

[RMC]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I can't remember battlefield leadership replacement in WWII, but in the current US military I'm pretty sure it works like this:

Company CO is taken out, Company XO steps in until the HW Platoon CO can assume command of the Company. The XO, normally, does not retain control of the formation in the interests of shuffling around as few poeple as possible. This would be the short term solution. As soon as practical an exprienced staff officer would be found at Battalion or higher level and would step in to replace the fallen CO, with the HW Platoon CO returning to his unit. Again, an attempt to disrupt the unit cohesion as little as possible.

Normally, in the modern Army the XO is the senior lieutenant in a company. He is one to whom command would fall by default. It is possible that the commander could specify an alternate in an operations order if he felt one of the platoon leaders was a stronger leader or because the XO does not normally get involved in fighting the company. He supports and sustains the company in conjunction with the first sergeant.

Replacement of the commander after the battle is not done solely for unit cohesion reasons. The new guy lacks the situational awareness of the company mission, status and organization.

[YankeeDog]

If you want verification of .50 cals being humped, you can read accounts of the US Army Rangers around Anzio. I don't remember the name of the book I read, but I do specifically remember first person accounts of humping the M2, and how it was done (IIRC, 2 men sharing the receiver+barrel, one on the tripod, and others carrying ammo er sumfink like that).

I do agree that they probably weren't very often humped long distances by gunt power alone. The Rangers aren't necessarily a great case example since they are elite troops in very good shape, but they at least show it was *possible* to hump the beast into combat.

At the very least, the .50 could be carried that last click or two into forward positions, where transport by soft-skinned vehicle is risky.

In any event, regardless of what the TOEs say, there are plenty of documented accounts of .50s being used in forward positions. Franko Merli's MOH citiation is a good place to start.

As to where all those forward-placed .50s came from on the TOEs, I have no idea. But as Steve notes, Grunts were very good at "requisitioning" what they thought was useful. My own suspicion is that, once it became clear that the Luftwaffe was mostly a non-threat (by 1944 anyway), many rear units were probably happy to give up their .50s for a couple of Lugers or a Nazi flag or whatever -- from the rear echelon units' perspective, as an added bonus, then they wouldn't have to deal with carting the darn things around. . .

Cheers,

YD

[Michael Dorosh]

I wouldn't doubt that the .50 was employed in ground fighting - our own machinegunners today, until recently, trained in its use. That included hauling it in the field and firing it at ground targets.

I should think the question has been asked and answered already - the .50 may have been added unofficially from time to time in a company organization. 1:1 will allow unofficial modifications to be included. We already saw the use of captured Russian SMGs in CMBB.

So what exactly is at issue here?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

BTW, are you aware that in the case of the CW the FOO is generally the next batsman at the coy, while the BC is next at Bn? Situation dependant, of course, but the thinking is that the FOO/BC is the best informed of the infantry commanders intentions and plans because the FOO/BC is responsible for tee-ing up the firesupport for that plan. The infantry 2iC would take over at the next convienient time (overnight, after the objective is secure, sumfink like that).

In one famous case in my own regiment, in November 1944, the Brigade Major came out to handle a company, accompanied by the battalion arty rep, who handled another.

[Wartgamer]

http://www.stormpages.com/garyjkennedy/UnitedStates/united_states_infantry_battalion.htm

The Rifle Company - the ultimate staying power of the Battalion was provided by its three Rifle Companies, the foundation of which was the Rifle Squad of twelve men.

The Squad was commanded by a Staff Sergeant, with a Sergeant as his assistant. They commanded an assault group of seven men, two of whom were designated as scouts, and an Automatic Rifle group of rifleman, assistant and ammunition bearer. On paper, the auto-rifleman carried the Squad's single Browning Automatic Rifle, and every other man an M1 Rifle. The BAR was a well liked but limited weapon. It could not be truly described as a light machine gun in the same way as a Bren or German MG34/42. Instead, it was what is was called; a rifle capable of firing short bursts of automatic fire from its 20 round magazine. The barrel could not be changed, and so prolonged use was not advisable. It had been designed for use back in the First World War, hence its designation M1918, and no replacement had been sought. That was because the US Army placed its emphasis not on a small number of light machine guns, but on a large number of semi-automatic rifles. The M1 Rifle, the Garand, was the weapon chosen to employ this doctrine. Each man could fire his eight round magazine in seconds, without pausing to operate the manual bolt action required by other rifles. This gave the US soldier an undoubted advantage that was the envy of every ally and adversary. The British No.6 Commando was issued Garands during Operation Torch. Following its conclusion, they declined to return them in favour of their Lee Enfields. High praise indeed.

The real scale at which Thompson and later M3 'Grease' gun SMG's supplanted rifles in the squad can only be guessed at. Such weapons tend to gravitate towards NCO's who are not necessarily needed to engage in long range firefights, but who do need to lead the close assault when the SMG becomes vital. One or two weapons seems reasonable, with perhaps a lightweight Carbine finding its way into the gun group. Certainly any greater issue would diminish the rifle power upon which the squad was predicated. In action, the assistant leader would control the fire of the BAR, while the assault group would manoeuvre towards the enemy. The leader could be found anywhere he was needed. The function of the scouts was to probe the enemy line, but they were also needed to add their fire to the assault group.

Platoon HQ was a simple affair; a 1st or 2nd Lieutenant, two Sergeants (one Platoon Leader, the other Platoon Guide), and two runners. The Platoon Commander was actually issued not a pistol but a Carbine, the lightweight M1 (no relation to the Garand). This self loading weapon was probably more use than a pistol, but I wonder how many officers swapped it for a proper rifle or an SMG? The other men carried the Garand. One man in each Platoon, at the direction of his officer, was armed with the M1903 Springfield bolt action rifle, fitted with a sniper scope. A radio, usually the famous 'walkie-talkie' was also carried.

The Weapons Platoon helped to alleviate the deficiencies in the firepower of the squads. Its light mortar section served three 60 mm weapons, each with a range of up to 1800m. The light machine gun section served two belt fed M1919 Brownings. Platoon HQ added two Jeeps and trailers, plus a.50 cal HMG for local anti aircraft defence.

Company HQ was a vast unit, split between the usual command and admin functions. The commander was a Captain, a 1st Lieutenant serving as his Exec. What swelled the size of the HQ was the allocation of no less than seventeen man described as 'Basics'. Every other man in the Company had a task to perform, but the Basics were different. I am reliably informed they were intended to act as a replacement pool, to make good losses sustained in the Squads. Also, they could be detailed for the defence of the HQ if needed. In the previous Company organisation, they were split five per Rifle Platoon with the balance in the Weapons Platoon. Perhaps in up to strength units they were used to provide crews for the Bazookas?

Similarly to the British, the US Company had first three, and by 1944 five Bazookas for immediate anti tank defence. The Bazooka was I think the first rocket launcher placed in the hands of the lowly rifleman. It was ineffective against heavy German tanks, but could still engage the myriad of other armoured vehicles in service. It was perhaps best used as a bunker buster, able to lob a round into an occupied house or machine gun nest. There was no standing crew, and the weapons were issued by the Company commander as necessary.

[Wartgamer]

Heavy Weapons Company Headquarters - this unit provided similar command and admin facilities as that of the Rifle Company, and added a .50 cal HMG mounted on its 3/4 ton Weapons Carrier.

Machine Gun Platoon - each of the Machine Gun Platoons served four .30 cal Browning M1917 heavy machine guns. Each of the four squads was provided a Jeep and trailer, with a further Jeep at Platoon HQ. Two Bazookas were carried.

Mortar Platoon - the Mortar Platoon provided the Battalion with its real firepower. It served six 81 mm weapons, paired up into three Section, uniquely each commanded by its own 2nd Lieutenant with a 1st Lieutenant at Platoon HQ. Each Mortar Squad had its own Jeep and trailer, with a further Jeep at Platoon and two Bazookas. The mortar could fire up to 3000m, providing a long reach for the Battalion.

The 50 cal seemed to be a jeep-mount addition that probably could be dismounted when disired. But it does not seem to be displacing the old water cooled weapons.

In terrain that would not allow jeeps, like fighting in Italy, Korea or forests, etc. The troops probably retained the 30 cals.

Defense of Battalion CPs alos calls for jeep mounted 50's to be dismounted. They seem to be a AA defense (rat patrol style) under most other circumstances.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

... So what exactly is at issue here?

I dunno. Reading through the thread, there seemed to be some question as to exactly how common it was for the M2 to be forward deployed in straight-leg units, which would presumably have to man-packed the weapon and ammo at least a good part of the time. While I agree it's very difficult to nail down an exact frequency, I think it's pretty clear that, by 1944 anyway, it definitely wasn't a rarity to see ground-mount .50cals in the front lines in the US Army.

Heck, if you read PTO stuff, you'll find accounts of both sides resorting to manpacking 75mm pack howitzers through mountainous jungle terrain at times. I'm sure a humping a .50 cal around Europe is a breeze compared humping a 75mm howizter (plus ammo!) over muddy mountain trails.

Personally, I think the current US TOEs in CMAK are spot-on in this area -- .50s are not part of the Company TOE, but can be puchased as an add-on for little or no rarity penalty.

There are quite a few .50s on the US Battalion TOEs from CMAK, and I'm not sure what these are supposed to represent, since I've never seen a US Bn TOE with so many "official" .50s, except perhaps in the trains elements which CM doesn't usually represent. I'm not particularly concerned about this, though, since US Bn TOEs are very large and usually out of purchasing reach in most QBs.

As noted, with 1:1 representation, you have many more possibilities as to how you can represent "unofficial" weapons that units might procure at times, since you can add weapons without necessarily adding men -- they could be assigned to personnel already in the Company. In-game, I can see it working as a weapons "upgrade", which sounds gamey at first, but isn't necessarily if implemented properly.

For example, as has been discussed exhaustively, both US and CW infantry often were assigned, or "procured" additional SMGs when going into urban combat situations. But buying an additional "SMG Platoon" or whatever is a bit wierd. Being able to instead "buy" a half dozen "extra" SMGs, and assign them to a platoon, is a much better solution, I think, so long as the additional weapons are assigned in a way that is consistent with national doctrine and practice.

Cheers,

YD

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

http://www.etc

Company HQ was a vast unit, split between the usual command and admin functions. The commander was a Captain, a 1st Lieutenant serving as his Exec. What swelled the size of the HQ was the allocation of no less than seventeen man described as 'Basics'. Every other man in the Company had a task to perform, but the Basics were different. I am reliably informed they were intended to act as a replacement pool, to make good losses sustained in the Squads. Also, they could be detailed for the defence of the HQ if needed. In the previous Company organisation, they were split five per Rifle Platoon with the balance in the Weapons Platoon. Perhaps in up to strength units they were used to provide crews for the Bazookas?

Similarly to the British, the US Company had first three, and by 1944 five Bazookas for immediate anti tank defence. The Bazooka was I think the first rocket launcher placed in the hands of the lowly rifleman. It was ineffective against heavy German tanks, but could still engage the myriad of other armoured vehicles in service. It was perhaps best used as a bunker buster, able to lob a round into an occupied house or machine gun nest. There was no standing crew, and the weapons were issued by the Company commander as necessary.

His understanding of a company headquarters is obviously no better than your own.

I actually emailed Gary a couple of years ago, I was under the impression his bread and butter was CW stuff, but only dimly remember him. I also wonder what his own military experience has been. I think he is at least honest when he says "I don't know but someone told me once that...." Seems to me his communications with me were a search for better info than he already had.

Nonetheless, since little to none of his research is attributed directly, hard to see what you are proving. He counted up the apparent supernumeries in the company HQ and came to the same faulty conclusions that you did. Big deal.

[DrD]

Wartgamer, is that your site? It's a good resource.

[Wartgamer]

I actually emailed Gary a couple of years ago, I was under the impression his bread and butter was CW stuff, but only dimly remember him. I also wonder what his own military experience has been. I think he is at least honest when he says "I don't know but someone told me once that...." Seems to me his communications with me were a search for better info than he already had.

Many wish they can dimly remember you I suspect. And, of course, you are putting words in his mouth. He said "I am reliably informed" which you seem content to twist into doubt. I guess we have to take your dim recollections as fact.

And, no thnks, I do not want to buy some cookies.

[Dook]

Wartgamer and Dorosh,

Could you two please take it outside? This juvenile taunting and bickering is growing very tiresome.

Thank you.

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by DrD:

Wartgamer, is that your site? It's a good resource.

I just enhjoy WWII websites and sharing them.

Heres a new find for today. Very fun read. Very US Company Commander perspective.

http://www.tankbooks.com/interviews/arnold3.htm

In an attack position such as this, I always attacked with two platoons forward and one in support, and my position is always in between and slightly to the rear of the two attacking platoons, so I can keep abreast of what’s going on and if I need to commit my support platoon, I’ll know where to do it.

In approaching Niederwampach, the two platoons split up a little bit, so the village in my immediate front had not been cleared. I entered this building with my command group. When I say command group, that was just myself, my communications sergeant, the radio operator and my messenger.

Note how small the forward Company 'HQ' element is. Wheres the XO? The First Sgt? All the other non-cooks/buglers?

[Battlefront.com]

Let's keep things civil guys... would be a real shame if I just started locking these things up because of ill behavior.

Jon,

Sorry - I don't understand what you mean here.

Not surprised... I made a critical typo What I meant to say is that since CMx2 treats weapons as weapons, separate from soldiers, we can do all sorts of things we could not do in CMx1.

I think I like this though - if it means 'it' (where 'it' = PIAT, Bazooka, etc) can be used by anyone and everyone within the section. Presumably with some chance of damage/loss in the way that, for example, section LMGs are in CMx1.

Yes. We can allow, in theory, anybody to use anything at any time. The best example is the US Bazooka since it was never officially assigned to anybody specifically as far as I know. It sat around stashed away somewhere until SOMEONE came along, from SOMEWHERE, and grabbed it. In CM terms this means that if you have a 2 man Bazooka team you have some unit, somewhere, depleted by 2 men. Field 10 Bazookas... lose the equivalent of 2 Squads of Riflemen, though not necessarily losing 2 Squads (ie. men can come from many units and not just one). CMx1 could not simulate this at all because the weapons were inherently cemented to men.

[qupte]I'm fairly sure I never expressed that opinion - I was the one banging on about stars, remember ? Besides, the same effect could be acheived without graphical 1:1 ?

In theory it could be done with an abstracted unit representation, but it would be pretty messed up because you'd have to mimic individual soldiers graphically at times, yet have things abstracted at others. This is why we didn't try doing something like this in CMx1. It really is an all or nothing proposition if it is to be done cleanly.

Presumably in the CM context in doesn't matter how long the next in the food chain could be expected to hold the position because at a minimum it would be longer than a CM battle. Ops, or whatever they're called now, might be another matter.

Correct.

BTW, are you aware that in the case of the CW the FOO is generally the next batsman at the coy, while the BC is next at Bn?

I am sure it is different for each nation, epoch, etc. to some degree or another. It is something that needs to be flexible.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Let's keep things civil guys... would be a real shame if I just started locking these things up because of ill behavior.

Does blathering about stuff well beyond your level of experience or knowledge count as "ill behaviour"? Cause if so, you should probably have locked this up two pages ago.

I guess the question is - what would the point of modelling cooks and clerks be? Some references (Kennedy's website) seem to indicate that 'extras' at company headquarters were involved in combat, but I'd suggest this is probably an exaggeration.

Again, hard to really say what would or would not be useful without much of an idea of what CMX2 will attempt to do, or how.

[Battlefront.com]

kgsan,

Could this mean that the player will be able to assign orders to the designated sub units within a squad? I thought elsewhere, Steve said that the squad level was going to remain the basic unit of control, so I may be off base on this. I guess another alternative would be to allow the player to split of the new unit in the orders phase, and assign the now seperated unit (i.e. bazooka team) but that seems back to the way things are handled in CMx1, except that the team could rejoin the squad later.

Well, a more accurate statement is that the TEAM is the level in which CMx1 and CMx2 are simulated. However, Squads are a special case in that they are really 2x Teams in one discrete unit while all other Teams are 1x Team per unit. CMx2's focus is basically the same as CMx1's, but additional flexibility when it is called for. In real life the Platoon Leader, or Squad Leader, would decide how an AT asset (PIAT, Bazooka, PS, etc.) would be used. The two basic choices are "stick with us" and "go over yonder away from us". The correct choice is situationally dependent and therefore it should also be in CMx2.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I guess the question is - what would the point of modelling cooks and clerks be? Some references (Kennedy's website) seem to indicate that 'extras' at company headquarters were involved in combat, but I'd suggest this is probably an exaggeration.

The company bugler and messengers probably were used in combat fairly regularly since they double as HQ security. Just because someone has a specific function noted doesn't mean that was the ONLY thing he was expected to do. As someone else said... everybody was considered a Rifleman when the situation called for it.

Having said that, some specialists were more likely to be behind the battle than in it. For example, a Company Clerk would probably be with the supply trains which by definition shouldn't be in the thick of battle. A cook shouldn't be either.

What we are going to have to do is figure out which is which. Those specialists that really did babysit things in the rear should be considered sitting in the rear babysitting stuff The others should be up front as Riflemen.

Steve

[Wartgamer]

In a defensive posture, the creation of the company command post is vital to fighting the unit.

The unit is spread out, linked in with wire comm, mapped so that positions are known and defensive fires can be brought down/adjusted.

In many offensive actions, the Company commander (or his XO), leaves the location (so the command post does not go with them), and brings mobile communications, runner (s) and usually a non-com. But in CMX1, it does not matter as either side is modeled by the non-CP 'HQ' unit. Think of it as a 'fireteam' concept in the command realm.

The US probably excelled in offensive actions due to its excellent mobile communications. The SCR 300 allowed Company command, Platoon Command and even Battalion Command and supporting arms to communicate clearly. These FM sets were the envy of the civilized world. These were actually the 'Walkie-Talkie'.

The 'Handie-Talkie' is the self contained hand unit and is an AM unit. Its major contribution was squad leader to platoon command control.

Most nations had similar wire communications and would rely on them for most secure communications as much as possible. Messengers would be the last form of commo used. They would be more soldiers in teh line.

[Michael Dorosh]

Steve - I agree.

What about Company signallers? I have a good personal account of a CW infantry company signaller that suggests he never fired his weapon nor even saw an enemy soldier despite being involved in most of the battalion's major battles. And yet, he was an integral part of the company headquarters group (not "command post" as one misinformed poster is suggesting).

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

The US probably excelled in offensive actions due to its excellent mobile communications. The SCR 300 allowed Company command, Platoon Command and even Battalion Command and supporting arms to communicate clearly. These FM sets were the envy of the civilized world. These were actually the 'Walkie-Talkie'.

And the Germans excelled in jamming radio communications. But I am sure you knew that.

[Wartgamer]

Ha! And then you have just stated the importance of wire communications, and the need for command posts.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Ha! And then you have just stated the importance of wire communications, and the need for command posts.

Yes, I guess runners are exactly the same as spools of wire. You got me again.

Have you ever actually seen a battalion operations order? Or been to a company orders group? In a set piece infantry assault, how long do you think it took to do things, and how much direction do you think the company headquarters really had to do?