US Infantry Company 1:1

[Wartgamer]

CHAPTER 2 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF THE COMPANY COMMAND POST

In the previous chapter, we learned about the importance of a proficient Combat Operations Center (COC). For a Combat Operations Center to be effective, it must receive accurate information immediately from the companies assigned to the unit. The line companies (Alfa, Bravo, Charlie) man the defensive lines that are the battalion's portion of the defensive perimeter in the rear area or the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA); therefore, they are the "eyes and ears" of the COC. Company command posts are established to help the companies maintain command and control of their perspective companies. This chapter provides detailed information about the company command post and how the data it provides to the COC is vital to an effective command and control system.

COMPANY COMMAND POST The company command post (CP) is the central point from which company operations are directed. The CP is established to provide the company commander centralized command and control facilities for the platoons assigned to the company. The platoon commanders report all activities to the company CP, regardless of their magnitudes, concerning their perspective platoons. The company CP reports to the COC all information concerning the company.

The specific composition and functions of the company command post vary with the mission assigned to the company. The normal functions of the company CP are similar to the COC and include the following:

1. Receiving and recording operational reports from the COC.

2. Maintaining current maps and overlays of friendly and enemy situations within the company's area of responsibility. This information is displayed within the company command post.

3. Maintaining current maps and overlays of the company's patrol routes and other routes that may come in contact with the company's area of responsibility.

4. Preparing and submitting operational reports to the COC concering the company.

5. Providing dedicated communication channels for tactical and nontactical operations to the COC and to the platoon commanders.

6. Transmitting orders and tactical decisions of the battalion's COC to the platoons as required.

7. Monitoring the progress of the battalion's tactical operations and reporting immediately to the COC any significant event or incident concerning the company's area of responsibility.

LOCATION The location considerations of the company CP are similar to the location considerations of the COC. The company CP must be hard to detect from enemy forces and must be easy to defend and easily accessible to battalion personnel. Other factors to consider am centralization, traffic, communications, and defense security.

Centralization The company command post is located rear of the forward platoons manning the defensive perimeter or the FEBA and is centered among those platoons to enhance the execution of command and control operations.

Traffic All of the traffic entering the company CP is by foot. Personnel approaching and returning to their fighting positions from the company CP should do so by alternate routes. When this rule is not followed, a beaten path leading to the company CP for the enemy to follow will result.

Communication Communication is vital to the company CP for the effective exercise of command and control. The company CP must have constant communication with the platoon commanders, the listening posts (LP), and the observation posts (OP). The platoon commanders must have constant communication with the troops on the front lines. A break in communication can cause massive confusion and could result in heavy casualties and the loss of lives. Communications is covered in depth farther on in this chapter.

Defense and Security Defensive and security measures for the company CP are similar to that of the COC. The major exception is that the company CP is not as fortified as the COC. For example, barbed and tactical wire entanglements are not used around the company CP because of the constant flow of traffic entering the CP. The company commander is concerned principally with the defense of the company's area of responsibility.

ORGANIZATION OF THE COMPANY COMMAND POST

The internal organization of the company CP varies with each company or contingency operation. Written Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) are established to avoid any confusion. Personnel duties, maps, and various boards are usually standard within any company CP.

The company commander is responsible for coordinating, organizing, operating, and training watch standing personnel for the company CP. The number of personnel assigned to the watch stations, which are manned on a 24-hour basis, is normally maintained at the minimum needed to meet operational requirements. The watch personnel and their duties are as follows:

Watch Chief 1. Before assuming watch, the watch chief should read the message board, be briefed on the current situation from the current watch chief, and then make liaison with the COC.

2. During watch, keep current on the tactical situation of the battalion, make routine decisions concerning the company, and notify the company commander of incidents of an unusual nature.

3. Read all incoming and outgoing messages. Take the appropriate action on messages received from the COC. Ensure the COC immediately receives

accurate information pertaining to the company's area of responsibility.

4. Ensure incoming and outgoing messages follow established routing procedures.

5. Retain releasing authority on all outgoing messages.

6. Provide complete supervision of operations in the company CP.

Watch Petty Officer 1. Handle and process information relating to intelligence.

2. Gather and distribute information gained from intelligence sources.

3. Maintain overlays of the enemy situation map pertaining to the company's area of responsibility.

4. Promptly inform the watch chief of significant or unusual incidents.

5. Maintain overlays of the company's patrols and convoys.

6. Supervise the action of the communication personnel.

7. Verify correct communication security measures are being used by all assigned communicators.

Communicator 1. Monitor radio nets as assigned. 2. Use all necessary measures to minimize interception or jamming of transmission.

Messengers/ Security 1. Perform all duties as assigned. 2. Ensure only authorized personnel enter the company CP.

[Battlefront.com]

WWII US Divisions were on the whole quite support heavy in terms of personnel. So if people think that there are too many support guys in US TO&E, they're right It was something US military planners neer quite got under control during the war.

IIRC late war TO&E had the US units 3:1 (three support men for one fighting man), Commonwealth at about 2:1, and Germans pretty close to 1:1 (in theory, in reality they probably were less than 1:1). The late war German TO&E was actually pretty damned close to 1:1, but few units were fully reorganized or raised using the '45 formations. It was also a reflection of the German's defensive posture and limited means (mechanization was quite low, for example).

Steve

[Wartgamer]

In certain units, like a US Armored Infantry Company, there would be no CP unless the unit was dug in and in a defensive posture. These units relied almost entirely on radio communications and in the attack, the Command Vehicle is the CP.

These units are also a good example of TO&E not fitting the realities of war. Companies had 57mm and these were often viewed as a pain under most circumstances. The gunners were needed to make up losses in troops and drivers/mechanics. In most situations, Combined arms use of Tanks and TDs made the 57mm weapon just more traffic.

The arm inf also had a different structure for its company heav y weapons. Each platoon had a 60mm and a MG section. In a defensive situation, I wonder if this did not revert to a more 'leg' unit grouping of the 60mm.

[ March 17, 2005, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Wartgamer]

http://www.34infdiv.org/history/133inf/4503.txt

This interesting history shows that AT companys in an infantry unit manned 50 cals in a platoon. They also used 4.5 in rockets, some with VT fuses.

During the night of 9-10 March the .50-caliber machine gun

platoon, in charge of First Lieutenant John J. Carroll of Anti-Tank

Company, loosed 6,624 rounds into the German lines.

Strength report..

On 1 March the Regiment had an effective strength of 161 officers,

three warrant officers and 3,080 enlisted men. On 31 March our

effective strength was 167 officers, three warrant officers, and 3,145

enlisted men. During the month we received 62 replacements. Thus, our

effective strength experienced an increase of 71 members.

[ March 17, 2005, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[RMC]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

CHAPTER 2 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF THE COMPANY COMMAND POST ....

The line companies (Alfa, Bravo, Charlie) man the defensive lines....

This indicates that whatever source you are pulling from is not WWII US. We used Able, Baker, Charlie back then.

...

Watch Petty Officer ...

To my knowledge the rank of Petty Officer has never existed in the US Army.

[dalem]

Originally posted by RMC:

We're actually throwing terms around loosely here. The CP is a a facility of some sort; a foxhole, tent, bunker, what have you. We should be talking about the Command Group not CPs. The command group is small and not the horde of people listed in that MTO&E.

I think you have pointed out the heart of my particular question. I am concerned with the Command Group, which I believe is a small group of officers and NCOs with a couple of radios and some maps, that it is fairly mobile, at least on foot, and that this Command Group is what is intended to be represented by CMx1 Company HQ units. The Command Post is not included in the game by default becuase it is not supposed to be near any fighting, but it can be represented easily using the editor.

Does that make sense? Am I wrong in whole or in part?

-dale

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by dalem:

Does that make sense? Am I wrong in whole or in part?

-dale

I think you are on the money with this.

[junk2drive]

Bastogne, CP or CG?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by RMC:

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

CHAPTER 2 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF THE COMPANY COMMAND POST ....

The line companies (Alfa, Bravo, Charlie) man the defensive lines....

This indicates that whatever source you are pulling from is not WWII US. We used Able, Baker, Charlie back then.

...

Watch Petty Officer ...

To my knowledge the rank of Petty Officer has never existed in the US Army. </font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

WWII US Divisions were on the whole quite support heavy in terms of personnel. So if people think that there are too many support guys in US TO&E, they're right It was something US military planners neer quite got under control during the war.

IIRC late war TO&E had the US units 3:1 (three support men for one fighting man), Commonwealth at about 2:1, and Germans pretty close to 1:1 (in theory, in reality they probably were less than 1:1). The late war German TO&E was actually pretty damned close to 1:1, but few units were fully reorganized or raised using the '45 formations. It was also a reflection of the German's defensive posture and limited means (mechanization was quite low, for example).

Steve

Steve - interesting, but what exactly is a 'fighting man'? The Germans had various strength categories (Gefechtsstaerke and Grabenstaerke are probably the two most relevant here), and I am not sure you can compare those easily to US or Soviet, or whatever other countries' figures and concepts. I would be surprised about a 1:1 ratio (unless you talk 1945 doomsday formations). In 1944 you regularly see infantry divisions with very low numbers of 'fighting men', yet still strong in total numbers (the normal ratio seems to have been 1:3 before Bagration, going from memory, depending on how you count). That was a real problem for the Germans.

[Andreas]

BTW - low mechanisation does not automatically translate into lower manpower requirements. Veterinary surgeons, horse handlers, etc.pp. are also non-combat personnel (there were almost 5,000 horses in the 1. Welle divisons). If you then have an even small motor pool on top of that, you can add the mechanics for that as well.

[Wartgamer]

Yes but the Command Post is not a new term. And back when communications, digital maps, etc were not as good as now, it was even more important.

So Command Posts are still important. Did I miss something? Its obviously a newer document.

I have already supplied one quote from a WWII vet officer about Company Command posts.

Does anyone really think they are not part of running a company?

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

We're actually throwing terms around loosely here. The CP is a a facility of some sort; a foxhole, tent, bunker, what have you. We should be talking about the Command Group not CPs. The command group is small and not the horde of people listed in that MTO&E.

I think you have pointed out the heart of my particular question. I am concerned with the Command Group, which I believe is a small group of officers and NCOs with a couple of radios and some maps, that it is fairly mobile, at least on foot, and that this Command Group is what is intended to be represented by CMx1 Company HQ units. The Command Post is not included in the game by default becuase it is not supposed to be near any fighting, but it can be represented easily using the editor.

Does that make sense? Am I wrong in whole or in part?

-dale </font>

[RMC]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

But for limited attacks, its certainly possible that a company commander would delegate any need to be at the action to a subordinate officer or NCO.

If the company is attacking, then the commander leads that. I cannot imagine a situation in which a company commander has more pressing matters to attend to than leading his company in combat. That is, after all, the point of his existance. If a platoon or smaller is conducting a patrol or a probe, then the commander can monitor the situation from the CP.

In the modern US Army Company Commanders fight squads. Battalion Commanders fight platoons.

I'm not sure what you interest in the CP issue really is. Are you looking for some sort of structure, like a pillbox or something that has a role in defensive scenarios? Something that reduces command delay until the commmand group moves out of it?

[Wartgamer]

It really is what it has been described as; A Command & Control issue. That really is my interest that you can be sure of.

I suppose the designer also realizes it.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Does that make sense? Am I wrong in whole or in part?

-dale

I think you are on the money with this. </font>

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by RMC:

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

But for limited attacks, its certainly possible that a company commander would delegate any need to be at the action to a subordinate officer or NCO.

If the company is attacking, then the commander leads that. I cannot imagine a situation in which a company commander has more pressing matters to attend to than leading his company in combat. That is, after all, the point of his existance. If a platoon or smaller is conducting a patrol or a probe, then the commander can monitor the situation from the CP.

In the modern US Army Company Commanders fight squads. Battalion Commanders fight platoons.

I'm not sure what you interest in the CP issue really is. Are you looking for some sort of structure, like a pillbox or something that has a role in defensive scenarios? Something that reduces command delay until the commmand group moves out of it? </font>

[Wartgamer]

http://www.hardscrabblefarm.com/ww2/

An interesting look at how a US Army infantry platoon HQ 'element' can actually be all over the place and seperated when out of the CP during an non-defensive situation.

This is a 1943 document and clearly deals with situations that Combat Mission might model. I would say this is 'pre-SCR536' thinking by the way. The extra runner reflects that.

Notice how the LT, SGTs and runners are placed in certain situations. Not at all a unit really. They would almost be best modeled as part of a fireteam or a squad within the platoon.

So could 1:1 modeling really capture this?

[ March 17, 2005, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[DrD]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

We're actually throwing terms around loosely here. The CP is a a facility of some sort; a foxhole, tent, bunker, what have you. We should be talking about the Command Group not CPs. The command group is small and not the horde of people listed in that MTO&E.

I think you have pointed out the heart of my particular question. I am concerned with the Command Group, which I believe is a small group of officers and NCOs with a couple of radios and some maps, that it is fairly mobile, at least on foot, and that this Command Group is what is intended to be represented by CMx1 Company HQ units. The Command Post is not included in the game by default becuase it is not supposed to be near any fighting, but it can be represented easily using the editor.

Does that make sense? Am I wrong in whole or in part?

-dale </font>

[Wartgamer]

If buildings will have states, perhaps one of the propertys will be a CP link to a unit. Field fortifications (and I hope they are better modeled than the foxhole/trench/bunker system in use now) might also have a state.

How much of the C&C modeling will be 'virtual' and how much 'abstracted' remains to be seen.

If communications equipment is to be 1:1, then the game will be a much different beast than the present CMX1 C&C abstraction.

[RMC]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

As for “In the modern US Army Company Commanders fight squads. Battalion Commanders fight platoon” I think that is due to:

1. Improved comms.

...

2. Risk aversion or a CYA attitude.

...

3. Small engagements.

...

When I say "fight squads" and "fight platoons" I mean that those are the pieces with which the commander plays at that level. I do not mean that those commanders get reports directly from those elements, that he micromanages them or that he bypasses the chain of command going down. In the company commander game the chits are squads and in the battalion commander game the chits are platoons.

I do understand your points about micromanagement, which is not doctrinal but happens all too frequently anyway. When the subject of Landwarrior (our individual soldier C2 system in development) comes up I like to joke that it needs to have a red light in the HUD to let you know when the Army Chief of Staff is looking through your camera.

[RMC]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

It really is what it has been described as; A Command & Control issue. That really is my interest that you can be sure of.

I suppose the designer also realizes it.

Great. You're throwing out facts and assumptions, but there seems to be no overarching concept. Do you have an idea of what you'd like the new C2 model to do?

Do you want CPs that enhance C2 in some way?

Would you then want some way for the attacker to neutralize the C2 enhancement with artillery destroying the wire net?

[Wartgamer]

http://www.ncweb.com/~davecurry/brothers/lestromberg.html

An interesting insight given the current discussion.

Some notes:

The company was slightly above full strength with approximately 190 enlisted men and 6 officers. Three of the officers had been with A Company since the division was activated and the remaining three were replacements who had as yet seen no combat. Of the enlisted men 30% had trained with A Company in the states while 40% were combat seasoned replacements who had seen action with other units. The remaining 30% were completely green troops who had been rushed from the states as replacements and had received the bulk of their training since joining the company.

So we see a unit in the Fall of 1944 with an overfull TO&E. Half the officers and 30% of the men are green.

[gibsonm]

Too true.

[Wartgamer]

Great. You're throwing out facts and assumptions, but there seems to be no overarching concept. Do you have an idea of what you'd like the new C2 model to do?

yes, model command and control

Do you want CPs that enhance C2 in some way?

yes

Would you then want some way for the attacker to neutralize the C2 enhancement with artillery destroying the wire net?

perhaps. is the wire strung over buried?

[ March 17, 2005, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]