US Infantry Company 1:1

[Halberdiers]

The two basic choices are "stick with us" and "go over yonder away from us".

Steve,

What other weapons (teams)can be included in this "order"?

Machineguns/Sturmgewehr?

Flamethrowers?

Sniper?

Tank Rifles?

Rifle grenades?

demolition charges/bangalore torpedoes?

Panzer-handmine?

[ March 15, 2005, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[kgsan]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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

Thanks for the response Steve. What I was wondering but didn't express very clearly was whether the player is able to give orders to the various team components of a squad when they are "together" rather then being broken off into separate units/teams. For example, could one task the bazooka compnent of a squad to target the nearby half track, while the squad's riflemen target infantry which are next to it?

I am presuming that there is some sort of downside in terms of morale and possibly some additional C&C strain when squads are broken down into separate units/teams.

[Battlefront.com]

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).

I can't comment on that, other than to say that the company probably put its HQ communications in good spots since, in theory, they never should come under fire. One also has to look at the specific operations that the guy you mentioned wsa involved in. If these battles were mostly on friendly terms, then this right away changes the dynamics of possible combat involvement. A BIG difference between a Company HQ sitting in Norther Germany in 1945 and a Company HQ being overrun in the Ardennes or in Stalingrad. In other words, if the force is generally choosing where and when combat is to occur, then by definition it will have a pretty darned good chance of keeping non-combat units out of combat.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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).

I can't comment on that, other than to say that the company probably put its HQ communications in good spots since, in theory, they never should come under fire. One also has to look at the specific operations that the guy you mentioned wsa involved in. If these battles were mostly on friendly terms, then this right away changes the dynamics of possible combat involvement. A BIG difference between a Company HQ sitting in Norther Germany in 1945 and a Company HQ being overrun in the Ardennes or in Stalingrad. In other words, if the force is generally choosing where and when combat is to occur, then by definition it will have a pretty darned good chance of keeping non-combat units out of combat.

Steve </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Halberdiers,

What other weapons (teams)can be included in this "order"?

Secondary weapons. We aren't going to get into things like "I want 2 guys with rifles to go over here, 1 guy with the SMG to go and do that, etc." Secondary weapons, like an AT device, that were routinely used apart from the rest of the squad should have the ability to be split off.

kgsan,

Thanks for the response Steve. What I was wondering but didn't express very clearly was whether the player is able to give orders to the various team components of a squad when they are "together" rather then being broken off into separate units/teams. For example, could one task the bazooka compnent of a squad to target the nearby half track, while the squad's riflemen target infantry which are next to it?

The beauty of 1:1 is that we can far more easily simulate multiple sources of fire and multiple targets even within a unit. So if a PIAT is kept within a Squad we can have it attack a tank in one spot while the riflemen are engaging infantry in another.

I am presuming that there is some sort of downside in terms of morale and possibly some additional C&C strain when squads are broken down into separate units/teams.

There will be a variety of things done to reduce micromanagement and reduce gamey possibilities all at the same time. They are situationally dependent though and I can't detail them at this point in time.

Dorosh,

This is reasonable as well. so will company orders of battle in CMX1 be dependent on type of mission (ie meeting engagement, hasty attack, defence in depth, etc.)? Will we see more mission types of this nature as opposed to simple attack/assault/ME ? More postures for units, and attendant effects on OOB?

Scenario designers will have a LOT more control over the character of the battles in all kinds of ways. While not all of these things will be practical for Quick Battles most of these things will also be found in randomly generated scenarios.

Steve

[MikeyD]

It was interesting reading that the guns and the soldiers are to be seperate so mixing & matching (and picking up?) can take place. I'm reminded of a certain unnamed shooter game where every dead soldier leaves behind a weapons pile to swap with (shades of "Health Crystals!").

Does this mean a dead Team (I'm assuming Team is the lowest divisible unit, despite 1:1 visuals) might have a light mg and sachel charges on them to be scavanged? I have visions of 'Johnny Rambo' being taken prisoner in some scenario, escaping his guards behind the lines, picking up a spare M60 mg lying around, and killing everyone in sight! Let's hope they give this 'Rambo' function to the AI. Yee Haw!

[JonS]

ne'er mind.

[ March 15, 2005, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[dalem]

Originally posted by JonS:

And the 2-in mortar in CW pns ...

One of these games I'm finally going to figure out how to use those things correctly.

I remember one big CM:BO QB where I ended up with about 17 of the things. That made for an impressive medium-range ATG silencer, I can tell you that, but it didn't seem very "historical".

-dale

[JonS]

smoke. From what I can tell, they mostly got used as portable, 'one-shot' smoke projectors.

[Wartgamer]

How many men were in a CW platoon? Is it 37? 3 ten man squads and a PIAT (2 man), a 2 in (2 man) and an officer, NCO, runner?

What about a CW company? 3 platoons? HQ 'section'? anything else?

[JonS]

go find out yourself.

[Wartgamer]

Keep it civil.

Were they 'sparse' in warm bodies?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Keep it civil.

Were they 'sparse' in warm bodies?

I've posted this information twice already, try reading what others are saying.

[gibsonm]

Well I know what the structure is now for an Aust Leg Inf Coy (which is no doubt based on a more generic British / CW Second World War model) which you can glean from re-reading my posts earlier.

But I think the people you need to really ask are the same ones that you offended with the “CW mafia infestation”, “Canadian dog tags” and other quips in this thread (and anti Royal Artillery / CW barbs in other threads).

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

And the 2-in mortar in CW pns ...

One of these games I'm finally going to figure out how to use those things correctly.

I remember one big CM:BO QB where I ended up with about 17 of the things. That made for an impressive medium-range ATG silencer, I can tell you that, but it didn't seem very "historical".

-dale </font>

[DrD]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

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

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

I just enhjoy WWII websites and sharing them.

</font>

[Dook]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

How many men were in a CW platoon? Is it 37? 3 ten man squads and a PIAT (2 man), a 2 in (2 man) and an officer, NCO, runner?

What about a CW company? 3 platoons? HQ 'section'? anything else?

Since you like sharing websites so much, I'm surprised you haven't consulted a very comprehensive one run by a forum member that could provide exactly that information.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

As Jon mentioned, smoke.

Oh yeah, I always forget about that part of the 2"er until I use them.

-snip good stuff-

Note also the use of the 2" mortar for "marking targets", something a CM player doesn't have to do because he is omniscient.

Oh, good point. That could be fun if using colored smoke on targets acted as a sort of temporary TRP.

1st Squad spots MG nest but 100m away, 2nd Squad doesn't. 1st Squad can fire directly at the MG, but 2nd Squad is limited to Area Fire. Perhaps 1st Squad has a 2" and lobs "target marker smoke" onto/near the MG position. Maybe 2nd Squad's Area Fire would/could be more effective at that point.

Of course the above assumes there is going to be a difference between "Direct fire" and "Area Fire". I can think of a clever way in which such a difference would not be necessary.

But anyway, I think my point is clear, albeit speculative.

Think of the fun threads Michael - "EVERYONE KNOWS THAT IN OCTOBER 1944 THERE WAS A SHORTAGE OF GREEN MARKER SMOKE - WHY IS MY MARKER SMOKE ALL GREEN IN OCTOBER 1944?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? BFC FIX OR DO SUMFINK!!!!!!!"

Ahhh, good times, good times...

-dale

[flamingknives]

Regarding the use of HMGs, current Royal Marines use .50cal HMGs, with SUSATs mounted on them, no less. They've been seen to cart them about by foot (not much choice - they're largely an infantry formation and what vehicles they have are soft or marginally armoured)

In short moves they're carried by three men - one on the barrel and two on the rear tripod legs.

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by Dook:

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

How many men were in a CW platoon? Is it 37? 3 ten man squads and a PIAT (2 man), a 2 in (2 man) and an officer, NCO, runner?

What about a CW company? 3 platoons? HQ 'section'? anything else?

Since you like sharing websites so much, I'm surprised you haven't consulted a very comprehensive one run by a forum member that could provide exactly that information. </font>

[flamingknives]

Depends were you look on the site. Looking under 'Rifle platoons' obviously isn't going to cover 'Company HQ section'

[Wartgamer]

I have heard that the CW Infantry companies weapons platoons were invisible, but find it hard to believe that the company HQ could be invisible.

One good thing about invisible weapon's platoons is that you do not have to carry ammo for them.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

I have heard that the CW Infantry companies weapons platoons were invisible, but find it hard to believe that the company HQ could be invisible.

One good thing about invisible weapon's platoons is that you do not have to carry ammo for them.

Commonwealth Infantry Company Weapons Platoon is very obviously marked on my site.

Two x Vickers HMG were standard for each company, along with a mortar det of 4.2 in mortars, either 2 for standard infantry or 3 for motorized infantry (the latter equipped with Lloyd Carriers, the former with pack mules (Italy) or Jeeps (1/4 ton car, 15 cwt).

The Infantry Company Weapons Platoon was "commanded" by a WO III (Platoon Sergeant Major).

[Wartgamer]

Commonwealth Infantry Company's weapon platoon. Similar to the US Infantry Company's 1st LT led unit with 60mm mortars and 30 cal belt fed air cooled MGs.

The CW infinktry company is just 120 some guys isn't it?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Commonwealth Infantry Company's weapon platoon. Similar to the US Infantry Company's 1st LT led unit with 60mm mortars and 30 cal belt fed air cooled MGs.

Yes, but the Vickers in infantry (rifle) battalions were not belt fed; they were adopted from the early war battalion anti-aircraft platoon's drum-fed Vickers. They were originally on a twin mount, but redesigned for the standard infantry ground mount in 1943. Unfortunately there was a shortage of cloth ammunition link, so they had to pull the 200 round panniers out of war storage. They did prove to be effective, given the large size of the gun crews. (Source: Nafziger BRITISH INFANTRY ORGANIZATION 1944-1945, p. 212)

The divisional Machine Gun Battalions did have belt-fed weapons, however. (Source: Bouchery THE BRITISH SOLDIER IN NW EUROPE 1939-1945 Volume 2 p. 73)