Force mixes

[Europa]

Ok, here is a question for all the so called grogs. What is, in your oppinion, a, give an example, historically correct force mix? Any theater, any year, any date. Please give a few examples, like north africa may 1942 italian side. How many tanks should there be per battalion infantry? What tanks and other AFVs and with what infantry? Airsupport? How common etc. Just drop a few words. I try to get the picture here you see. What is historically correct.

Thanks!

ps. Must also try the Graemlins :mad: :confused:

[guachi]

Reading small unit action reports will give you an idea of what types of equipment was fought with.

There are a bunch of resources that show TO&E for various formations. These can show you what type of formation a particular piece of equipment is most likely to be in. e.g. It is unlikely you will find a 75mm pack howitzer in anything but an airborne unit.

Lastly, go to the scenario editor and look around. There are piles of infantry formations that give historically accurate TO&E for all forces. Plus, in CMBB and CMAK, units have rarity listings so you can plainly see what the common/uncommon/rare equipment is.

For example, for the US Shermans are ultra-common with negative rarity percentages. Therefore, without knowing anything else, you can assume you would find Shermans with any type of unit.

My understanding is that the US had bunches of independent tank battalions so they could be seen just about anywhere.

Jason

[YankeeDog]

If you're talking about broad force mix stuff, like how much armor vs. how much artillery vs. how much infantry, it varies widely depending on not only the region and time period, but also the situation.

There were many engagement in all theaters where armor played little or no role, and there was little, if any, artillery support. These infantry vs. infantry skirmishes don't tend to get written about as much because they're generally not as exciting, but there were plenty of them throughought the war, ranging in size from small patrol actions to broad front infantry attacks. In general, infantry-only forces would tend to be more common in rougher terrain, and in certain historical periods where one side didn't have much armor and/or artillery to draw from (ex: Crete, East Africa, Late War Germans), but it doesn't take much looking to find examples of infantry only fights almost anytime.

Conversely, breakthroughs and attempted breakthroughs sometimes saw massive concentrations of armor with comparatively little infantry support. Especially in the desert, armor only actions certainly did happen. For CMAK, though, I would say that North Africa is the only place you'd see Armor-only forces. The Italian peninsula defintely does not qualify as "tank country", so massive concentration of armor isn't really possible there. To be sure, the Allies did mount any of a number of local tank-heavy attacks, but I've never read of a tank company in action completely without infantry and/or artillery support in Italy.

This doesn't mean that Armor wasn't sometimes 'penny packeted' out in individual platoons, or sometimes even individual tanks, to support infantry actions. Especially for the late war Allies, who and plenty of Armor and the likelihood of a concentrated German Armor attack was small, it wansn't uncommon to detach a few tanks to help clear out a village or whatever.

Artillery, too, is sometimes nonexistent, sometimes present in *massive* quantities, especially for the allies. Except for specific local situations (ex: Germans on Crete), it's difficult to generalize about what is an "appropriate" level of support. In general, though, typical CM forces are probably too 'middle of the road' with Arty. Especially with bigger assets (Divisional and above), either you'd have support in big quantites, or you wouldn't have it at all because it would be busy elsewhere.

So take your pick, and you can probably justify it. It important to remember that CM isn't really intended to model the 'average' WWII tactical fight, it's intended to model the interesting ones. A large number of tactical engagements were inconclusive patrol/probe exchanges of long-range MG and Arty fire where neither side really committed and not much was gained or lost on either side. Even the most "realistic" CM scenarios generally depict climactic engagments where two forces fought tooth and nail over important objectives.

What probably isn't very realistic in CM is the tendancy to see mixed unit armor and infantry forces. While there were exceptions, usually you'd see a company or platoon of Shermans, supporting an attack, not something like three Shermans, two Stuarts, and an M10. Similarly, infantry usually fights with other infantry from its parent battalion, not as a mix of a company of Panzergrenadiers, one platoon of Fallschirmjaeger, etc.

Cheers,

YD

[Redwolf]

Obviously reading OOBs and AARs is the only way to really get ahold of this question.

What I like as a rule of thumb is that the more expensive and in a positive, powerful way exotic a system is the less likely it is to be found with random formations, in particular with random infantry formations. And the more likely it is to be found with its buddies of the same breed.

The effect is increased when the system is very specialized and while it is super-effective it is super-effective only against certain targets.

Examples:

Tigers like to hang out with the other Tigers. An exception is early use in North Africa where there were company-wise paired with Panzer IIIs as bodyguards and very late way on the Eastern front where the few Eastern Tiger battalions ended up being completely scattered.

Jagdpanthers are a prime example, read the famous Guderian order on their use. Only use in bunches.

Real SP artillery (Priest, Sexton, Wespe/Hummel) would always operate in batteries.

On the other end of the scale, when better SP AT guns than Marders were available, few and single Marders can be found with any random formation. Later the same applies to the Hetzer which is really a Marder replacement.

Light tanks and armored cars can be found anywhere in any number except for the high-end German 8-wheelers which would be in the better Panzer division recon battalions.

The best towed guns with AT capability would usually operate close. The less worth a gun is in the timeframe the more likely it is to end up with random people in random numbers down to 1.

Anti-Aircraft guns are also a valuable asset not parceled out. Towed ones would protect HQs, artillery batteries or fixed objectives like crossing and bridges. Mobile AAA would be owned by the Panzer divisions and would do a little wider coverage for them.

Exceptions to the rule exist:

Fireflies were spread out one per platoon.

StuGs with long guns are very powerful weapons for a long period of time but are found everywhere.

The Americans would sometimes have enough of everything to oversaturate concentration areas to a point where they couldn't use all the tanks or TDs and could parcel some out.

I am sure people can come up with many other exceptions.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Real SP artillery (Priest, Sexton, Wespe/Hummel) would always operate in batteries.

And, might I suggest, always away from the front line?

Fireflies were spread out one per platoon.

Did you learn nothing from the Patch thread, young man!?!

[YankeeDog]

This is probably obvious to most, but in re recon vehicles, and especially very specifically recon vehicles like armored cars, while it is true that it could be found just about anywhere (excepting periods/locations where one side or the other had almost no vehicles of any kind, of course), but generally speaking recon vehicles don't deploy in large formations. Usually a pair. Of course, you can always find exceptions.

And with SP Arty, it's true that they very rarely fought in outside of the indirect role as batteries. As such, they'd be very rare as an on-map asset in CM. However, on the limited occasions when SP arty did fight on the front lines (Aachen comes to mind off the top of my head), I see no reason why one or two vehicles isn't appropriate on the CM scale, especially if it's a small map since in this type of situation the SP arty is usually filling in as an ad hoc DF HE support vehicle.

Cheers,

YD

[Europa]

Thx guys great answers this far

Sum up:

Frontline motorized artillery is not common and neither are strange mixes of many different vehicles like tigers+panthers+pz III+...

I might add to my first question that I am rather familiar with the TOEs in the editor for infantry at least, but since I am a WWII newbie (I am without shame trying to use your hard fought for knowledge ) I have no idea what infantry types that were the most common. Is for instance the pzgd the standard german formation? And how often did the different armies use turretless tanks in an offencive role, for instance the hetzer or marder or jagd types? Is there a lesser probability to see tanks in urban fighting? What I have read and seen suggest not, but I find it strange to use a lot of armor in city fighting given the many oportunities for ambushes by infantry. In a battalion sized fight, would it be strange to see 2 or more different tank types and what is the upper/lower number of these vehicles?

I guess I am starting to get on your nerves, but I find it more informative to get a picture of the common oppinion among you guys than reading alot of books, which I have a hard time finding anyway . I have for instance read Beavors books but those kind of books don't really cover the forces involved in any great detail.

Thx a lot and Cheers!

[junk2drive]

not getting on my nerves, i'm getting an education. hard to make your own battles if you dont have a clue as to what is appropriate.