US Infantry Company 1:1

[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.

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

CW infantry company is as follows

Headquarters -

Company Commander (Major)

Company 2 i/c (Captain)

Adjutant (Lieutenant or Captain)

two x signaller

two x driver

two x batman

Company Quartermaster Sergeant

Company Sergant Major

10 x combat storesmen

2 x stretcher bearer

2 x medical orderly

5 x cook's assistants

1 cook

1 Transport sergeant

1 Forward Observation Officer

1 batman/driver I/C (Internal Combustion)

Weapons Platoon

Commander - WO III

Vickers crew (12 men) x 2

4.2 inch mortar crew (5 men, 1 driver) x 2

Assault pioneer section

Pioneer Corporal

4 x pioneers

1 Bren Carrier

Infantry platoon (x 3)

Platoon commander

Platoon sergeant

Driver

Signallers (x2)

runner

PIAT crew (2 men)

Mortar crew (2 men)

Batman

Three infantry sections per platoon

section commander

section 2 i/c

Bren team (3 men)

Riflemen (x 8)

section scout (armed with SMG)

158 men, 17 NCOs, 4 warrant officers, 3 officers

sources: Bouchery, THE CANADIAN SOLDIER 1939-1945 p. 118

Dorosh, CANUCK: VOLUME I p. 101

[JonS]

Dorosh, you forgot the 3.7-in. How section. Not seen so much in NWE, but very common in Italy and Burma. Two guns, 6 men/gun (plus transport and driver. Usually carriers, sometimes jeeps or mules). Cmd section of Lt, Sgt Range-taker, Cpl Sig, and Pte Batman/Runner.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

Dorosh, you forgot the 3.7-in. How section. Not seen so much in NWE, but very common in Italy and Burma. Two guns, 6 men/gun (plus transport and driver. Usually carriers, sometimes jeeps or mules). Cmd section of Lt, Sgt Range-taker, Cpl Sig, and Pte Batman/Runner.

Well, given that Steve hasn't expressly said which theatre(s) will be in/out of CMX2 I hope I can be forgiven.

Wartgamer really didn't frame the discussion very well - I guess I just assumed that we meant NWE. My bad, as they say.

Do you know of some half-ass website I could use as a reference for the howitzer platoon? I should make mention of it on my own website, now that you bring it up.

[JonS]

I wouldn't really call the NZPFOCA half-assed, but here you go:

http://riv.co.nz/rnza/hist/local/qf37in.htm

[Wartgamer]

So the 4.2 in was kept at the company level. Interesting. And the 3 in mortar at the battalion level. Crafty.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

So the 4.2 in was kept at the company level. Interesting. And the 3 in mortar at the battalion level. Crafty.

3 Inch mortars? Not sure what you're referring to?

The 4.2s were in a weapons platoon at the battalion level, with 3 inch mortars relegated to a brigade heavy weapons detatchment, along with divisional anti-aircraft assets.

[Wartgamer]

And the 2 in was at the corp level mortar brigades? Smashing good stuff.

Yes, the CW pollution level turbidity guage has gone off the scale yet again.

[JonS]

no, the 2-in. was at platoon. Have you not been paying attention again?

[dalem]

You know, WartyFred76, you're being poopy. I would think that we should count ourselves fortunate that we have people with deep knowledge of WWII CW doctrine and TO&E and the willingness to discuss it.

I would hate for them to feel that their contributions to the discussion are unimportant.

----------

Michael-

Are there any AK scenarios that have a good treatment of CW carrier platoons I could try?

-dale

[Wartgamer]

I actually wanted to discuss the US Infantry aspect of this, but the CW pollution, like it is in many threads, feels free to dump, drool, titter and be prissy about anything and everything it can.

The main point of the thread was will 1:1 be for company sized units. I thought the designer said as much. But its apparent that many people do not know how a real WWII company was fought, or how it defended, in WWII.

I really do not care about CW weapons that much. Just as they feel free to come in here and mock and dump, well maybe they should get it back.

Its not my fault they fought WWII on the cheap.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by dalem:

Michael-

Are there any AK scenarios that have a good treatment of CW carrier platoons I could try?

-dale

I honestly haven't played enough CMAK to be able to say. If you find one, feel free to send me a setup - as wither side

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

I really do not care about CW weapons that much.

And yet you asked 300 questions about them, and apparently didn't learn a thing from any of the answers.

[Wartgamer]

CW people are more like graffitti 'artists' than any Mafia.

I am currently researching communications. Did the CW really produce its own commo eqpt?

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Michael-

Are there any AK scenarios that have a good treatment of CW carrier platoons I could try?

-dale

I honestly haven't played enough CMAK to be able to say. If you find one, feel free to send me a setup - as wither side </font>

[JonS]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

I am currently researching communications. Did the CW really produce its own commo eqpt?

Yes. Fortunately tin cans and string were plentiful in 1940s Britain.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

I actually wanted to discuss the US Infantry aspect of this, but the CW pollution, like it is in many threads, feels free to dump, drool, titter and be prissy about anything and everything it can.

Actually, most of the CW people do what you should do - draw on actual experiences to discuss things they know. I've been a company signaller/driver and on rare occasions a rifleman, Mr. Gibson was an Australian tanker, JonS is a non-commissioned officer in the NZ artillery, Andreas did service with the German Army but is a scholar of the British Army, John Salt served in the British infantry - so we draw on CW examples that will illustrate points across the spectrum of nationalities that fought in WW II.

You, apparently, have only some so-so websites to draw information from and make faulty inferences.

[ March 15, 2005, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[dalem]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Michael-

Are there any AK scenarios that have a good treatment of CW carrier platoons I could try?

-dale

I honestly haven't played enough CMAK to be able to say. If you find one, feel free to send me a setup - as wither side </font>

[dalem]

As far as the U.S. company 1:1 aspects WartyFred76, what other questions do you have? What have we left out do far?

-dale

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Mr. Gibson was an Australian tanker.

Delete “was” insert “is”.

Although it has been 2 years since I’ve had to change track link, I’m still currently serving, doing an Instructional posting and getting fully qualified for LTCOL.

Hopefully my next posting will be back in a Regt as the CO.

[Battlefront.com]

Jon and Dorosh reminded me of another of the big annoyances in CMx1 that 1:1 fixes for us... Mortar Carriers! Bloody things gave me FITS in CMAK

Basically, the mortar was stowed on the back of a universal carrier. The crew for the mortar rode around in the carrier itself, along with ammo and at least one Bren. The carrier would drive to a deployment spot, the crew would hop out and establish the mortar's position, then the carrier would bugger off some amount of distance. At least I am sure that is the way doctrin would call it, though I haven't a clue if this is how it worked in real life.

Anyway... the point of this is... the carrier and the mortar were basically one in the same from a "unit" standpoint since one crew manned both, but from a game standpoint two separate units (mortar and carrier) because the mortar was set up independently of the carrier (unlike the Germans' and Americans' system of mortar mounted in the vehicle). Obviously this is not possible to simulate entirely correctly in CMx1 because crews are glued to their weapons or vehicles.

In CMx2 we can simulate the crew switching back and forth between manning the carrier and manning the mortar. Probably could even swing having them dismount the Bren if that was SOP, which I hope it wasn't since this would be a bit of a mess for the user to deal with

Steve

[JonS]

w00t!

I have some fairly detailed descriptions of how MMG pns operated at this level, and presumably mtrs weren't handled too diferently. Drop me a line if you're interested.

Jon

[Michael Dorosh]

MAJ Gibson...Sir....good luck! How many armoured regiments do you have Down Under?

Steve - good news re: mortar representation. You do have the "doctrine" correct; our regimental museum did a display with a surviving 3 inch mortar, and one of the vets gave some advice on the proper way to show it. A carrier was painted on the backdrop of the 1:1 scale diorama, with the mortar deployed on the ground behind a wall.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Jon and Dorosh reminded me of another of the big annoyances in CMx1 that 1:1 fixes for us... Mortar Carriers! Bloody things gave me FITS in CMAK

Basically, the mortar was stowed on the back of a universal carrier. The crew for the mortar rode around in the carrier itself, along with ammo and at least one Bren. The carrier would drive to a deployment spot, the crew would hop out and establish the mortar's position, then the carrier would bugger off some amount of distance. At least I am sure that is the way doctrin would call it, though I haven't a clue if this is how it worked in real life.

Anyway... the point of this is... the carrier and the mortar were basically one in the same from a "unit" standpoint since one crew manned both, but from a game standpoint two separate units (mortar and carrier) because the mortar was set up independently of the carrier (unlike the Germans' and Americans' system of mortar mounted in the vehicle). Obviously this is not possible to simulate entirely correctly in CMx1 because crews are glued to their weapons or vehicles.

In CMx2 we can simulate the crew switching back and forth between manning the carrier and manning the mortar. Probably could even swing having them dismount the Bren if that was SOP, which I hope it wasn't since this would be a bit of a mess for the user to deal with

Steve

Steve-

Did you check the MBT for the versification I did in your honor? Page 3 or 4 I think.

No, don't thank me.

-dale

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

In CMx2 we can simulate the crew switching back and forth between manning the carrier and manning the mortar. Probably could even swing having them dismount the Bren

The bren most likely wasn't 'mounted' in the carrier, rather it would have been carried. IIRC most support weapons carriers were of the Windsor type - i.e., unarmed.

Incidentally, if you do manage to e.g. have them manning a bren and PIAT, will it also be practical or worthwhile to model them with inferior skills on the secondary weapon? E.g. (using CMx1 terminology), Crack 3-in moratr, but Reg when using the Bren, and Green with the PIAT?

[melb_will]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dorosh,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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 [/QB]</font>