Question about U.S. Armored Infantry battalions

[dalem]

Hey guys. I have a question.

I am a bit of a WWII grog, and my focus has generally been U.S. forces. I am interested in learning more about tactics and SOPs of armored infantry battalions. I know the paper TO&Es and I have some of the FMs, but none of the general or specialty books I have acquired over the years really give me a feel of how they fought; when they dismounted, what they dismounted with, how close they stuck to their HTs, etc.

The only thing in that direction that I "know" (i.e. read it more than one book ) is that, in NWE, the arm inf coys tended to dump their 57mm ATGs by the side of the road and turn the gunners into riflemen.

So anyway, does anyone have any recommendations for books or papers I could get to further my knowledge? Any good anecdotes? Knowledge? Experience? Is Harry Yeide working on this one yet?

Thanks!

-dale

[Michael Dorosh]

The book The Bridge at Remagen by Ken Hechler has a good anecodtal examination of Company A of the 27th Armored Infantry Battalion - it is available from Pictorial Histories Publishing Company out of Missoula, MT. There is a revised version out there. It doesn't cover a lot of what you ask for in detail, and focuses mostly on the couple of days leading up to the bridge action that they based the movie on, but it may be of interest to you, anyway.

It covers the mobile warfare period in March 1945 when the German Army was in full retreat to the Rhine, so won't be useful at explaining mounted tactics in the bocage, etc., but might be a useful start?

[dalem]

Michael-

Excellent! I just picked that book up last week at the bookstore in the hopes it would have something like that. I know there were armored infantry units involved at Remagen. Good to know I guessed right.

-dale

[Michael Dorosh]

Check out the online stuff on Singling, by the way, if you haven't seen it yet already. There is a detailed, minute by minute account of the 4th Armored Division's attack on Singling by a company of tanks and another company of armored infantry.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/smallunit/smallunit-singling.htm

Amazing detail. We just talked about it in one of my threads recently - there is a CMAK scenario based on it at TSD II.

[JasonC]

How did the US armored infantry actually fight?

It varied with the experience of the unit, the terrain, and the mission. But there were a small

number of characteristic ways they fought.

Because a single AIB was the entire infantry force for a combat command, the full force that

worked with an AIB was quite large. But I doubt you are asking about the typical full CCA or

CCB. The practice within a combat command on how the AIB was used, is what was varying.

In defensive missions in heavy terrain, it was sometimes the practive to give three infantry

companies frontage and leave nearly everything else in reserve behind them. When this was

done, they were typically dismounted and dug in, in static foxhole positions. The basis of

the defense scheme would be a very large number of dismounted MG positions, with each company

making its own strongpoint. Most of the vehicles and attached armor would be gathered in or behind this center strongpoint (a typical case would be the infantry in woods or on a ridge with the vehicles in a village behind them with the company HQ etc).

The tactical unit in this case is really the dismounted AI company.

A more typical tasking when attacking, which they were most of the time, was to build explicit

"task forces" around each battalion commander within the combat command. This means the AIB

commander got one TF and the armor battalion commander got another. And sometimes there would

be others incorporating cavalry, TDs, or engineers (cavalry based TFs were particularly common).

In the TF scheme, the AIB would swap one of its AI companies to the armor battalion in return

for a medium tank company. This made one tank heavy and one infantry heavy TF, each with

combined arms. Additional attachments might include a TD platoon, cavalry troop, engineers,

AAA, light tanks, etc. But the basic force would be 15-20 medium tanks and 2-3 times as many

halftracks.

Sometimes the AI rode on tank decks, particularly in the tank heavy TFs. Being habitually low on infantry, ADs sometimes borrowed an infantry regiment from an ID in the same corps, doubling their infantry component. In that case, sometimes the attached infantry rode on the backs of the medium tanks, sometimes they were trucked behind them. The AI proper was usually in their halftracks, in column. A full TF was usually given a single road to fight along, not further split over multiple routes. On the other hand, losses in action could sometimes reduce the tank company part to under 10 tanks, and the AI was frequently as low as 50% of TOE manpower in the rifle department (crews and such were more likely to hold nearer to TOE).

A typical attack deployment along a road was a tank platoon or more leading, then an AI company,

then more tanks or TDs, the next AI company, any remaining tanks, and supporting attachments,

HQ and indirect fire vehicles, and soft vehicles last. There might be a cavalry platoon at the

tip if it were an exploitation march, but otherwise Shermans would lead - a jumbo if possible.

Then artillery fire from the supporting 105s would plaster any defended locality hit, while

the column tried to barge past it or maneuver around. The tanks fired and moved, and one of

the AI companies would disembark to hold edges of the objective or to screen bypassed enemy. The main body would continue on, hoping to induce surrender by cutting off the position from the rest of the German army. Holdouts would be plastered with artillery or the fire of Shermans (the Sherman 105s were especially prized for it), with the AI following up to clear cellars and such after the defenders were thoroughly demoralized.

The AI had tons of bazookas and tons of machineguns. More than they could use, really -the limit was how many men they had who had passed the bazooka course. They dismounted and fought with rifles SMGs and grenades anyway, because there are some things only riflemen can do. The favorite suppressive weapon was a Sherman tank, with a dismounted 30 cal air cooled MG a close second. While those chattered away, the infantry would close in with rifles, grenades, and tommy guns. The expectation was that nobody would be left in "up" positions, firing back. Some generally were and that made for losses etc. As a result of limited numbers, the AI were hypersensitive to additional losses and tended to be cautious tactically.

On defense they usually kept the tracks well away from the firing line, but would fall back on

the vehicle position if pressed too hard. The vehicles then emitted vast quantities of MG fire,

especially from the 50 cals. A single AIB mounted around 50 of these - plus there was often

AAA attached to a combat comand, as well. The volume of automatic weapons fire they could

put out was simply enourmous. It was not made the usual tactic because the vehicles were

vulnerable themselves, and air cooled 30s and their ammo were much easier to move around. But

it gave them an excellent "final protective fire" against infantry overrun. They also called

the armored field artillery, of course.

Infantry manpower was at such a premium in the ADs that elements were cannibilized to get

more AI, and units that were not AI proper were pressed into their role. Besides attaching

full infantry regiments and cannibilizing the 57mm ATG teams, they also dismounted cavalry,

pressed engineers into combat infantry roles, and sometimes stripped HQ and service companies

for extra riflemen. Loss rates in the AI were 3 times those in the armor or engineers, so

typically an AD lost attack capability through AI attrition long before it ran out of tanks.

As for personal loads, I've seen one anecdotal report on a AI-man riding on a tank deck with the following armament - his M-1 rifle, 10 clips in his pouches, 2 extra bandoliers of 30-06 ammo, 2 blocks of C-4, 3 bazooka rounds, a knife and his entrenching tool - plus all his personal supplies and such.

As for sources, read the US army greenbooks and focus on the AD actions and the named task forces. Some of those will be armor battalion based, but when they are introduced in the narrative, the commander is always mentioned and when he is from an AIB you have an infantry heavy TF.

The heavier the terrain, the more common it is for the AI to fight relatively independently, holding or clearing the woods especially. The more open the ground and the more it is a fast moving, attack mission, the more likely they are to be working closely with the tanks and to remain mounted until right up on an objective. Even then, though, they are frequently dismounting well shy of the objective to flank it through some woods or to work across a stream - or most are, with one company going straight up a road with the main tank column. There are characteristic things an AD needs done that only infantry can do, and to do them they have to get out.

I hope this helps.

[ July 18, 2007, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[dalem]

Originally posted by JasonC:

I hope this helps.

Jason, this is wonderful. Thank you.

-dale

[JasonC]

Glad it is useful.

Here is a translation to CM terms of a basic AI force, company sized, as they would typically fight on the attack. This would be the core of the force - there might also be additional attachments as I will explain at the end.

Start with a Rifle Company from the AIB 44 style (meaning M3A1 rather than M3 halftracks). Drop the 57mm section entirely. Other major units are a platoon of 5 Shermans, M4A3 or M4A1 model, and a single 105mm FO.

Now make the following changes to the infantry company. Drop all but 8 of the M3A1s, leaving the HQ 'track and 3, 2, 2 in the platoons. Add 6 M3 halftracks. Drop 1 60mm mortar from the 3rd platoon, but increase the ammo load of the remaining 2 to the maximum. Add 2 additional bazookas, making 6 all told.

Now load them as follows. Company HQ and 105mm FO in the command M3A1. Both 60mm mortars in another M3A1, (the third of 1st platoon, if you care).

Each armored infantry platoon then has 2 M3A1 and 2 M3 'tracks. The HQ section and HQ squad ride in the first M3A1. Both MMGs ride in the second M3A1, rear of the platoon typically. The regular squads each get a bazooka as well and ride in an M3.

The total comes to just under 2000 points with rariety off.

Typical attachments to include would be one or more picked from the following list -

Cavalry - 3 M8 greyhounds, 3 jeep MGs, 3 jeeps with 3 60mm mortars riding in them.

TDs - 2 or 4 M10, plus 2 M20 scout cars (or jeep MG, but less effective) to spot for them.

Engineers - a single engineer platoon with HQ, 3 squads, 2 FTs, 1 bazooka, riding on the decks of the Shermans.

AAA - 1-2 M3A1s each towing a Bofors 40mm AA, plus a foot 50 cal team (HQ in first optional), 1-2 additional M3A1 with 2 foot 50 cal teams each, plus 2 to 4 quad 50 cal halftracks

"Assault Guns" - 2 Sherman 105s

Light tanks - 2-3 Stuarts plus 0-2 M8HMC

Air support - 1 P-47 fighter bomber

They would not have all of the above, but they might readily have 2-3 of them, pushing the force size up to 2500 points.

[SteveP]

Apropos of JC's analysis of how an AI force on the attack might look in CM terms, I'd be really interested in getting opinions about how one effectively uses this sort of force in a typical CM attack (not a ME). In particular, I refer to the significant cost of the force's mobility (call it the carrying charge, if you will ).

Of the 2500 points in JC's example, a significant portion is in HTs and similar vehicles, which unless you use them for "spotting" have nearly zero ability to contribute to an attack (despite the very high ammo loads in the HTs). I think most CM players regard these vehicles as not much stronger from other soft vehicles, like trucks, and keep them in the rear. The result is that, in practice, the AI force must attack the Germans with almost no significant advantage in QB purchase points.

The only solutions to this that I have been able to see are: 1) give the Americans a 50% bonus on QB points; or 2) set up these battles exclusively in the scenario editor, which allows you to delete most of the HTs. I am not real happy with either option, since the first can create other distortions and the second eliminates the randomness factor which makes QBs interesting.

On the other hand, it may be that better players than I have figured out how to use the AI's mobility to advantage in CM, in a reasonably consistent way.

[stoat]

Fun with forum software.

[ July 19, 2007, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: stoat ]

[stoat]

With regards to the assault guns, each AIB had a 3 vehicle platoon as part of the battalion HQ. In September 1944, the offical makeup of this platoon changed from the M8 Scott to the M4/105. So unless a tank battalion would part with its assault gun platoon, the M8 and M4/105 is an either/or proposition.

I'm also not sure how many 40mm AA guns were towed into battle, but the number of 40mm guns and M16 AA tracks were equal in each autoweapons platoon in the attached AAA groups.

[Harry Yeide]

Originally posted by dalem:

So anyway, does anyone have any recommendations for books or papers I could get to further my knowledge? Any good anecdotes? Knowledge? Experience? Is Harry Yeide working on this one yet?

Thanks!

-dale

No, but it's a great idea. First to the Rhine on the 6th Army Group hits bookstores in September, and Steeds of Steel on the mechanized cavalry (including the Pacific, baby) comes out early next year. I'm looking at separate armored battalions in the Pacific, North Africa, and the Med just now. Hmmm. Armored infantry....

[dalem]

Woohoo! Mech cav! Another item on my "must learn more" list. I swear they're mentioned in almost every NWE battle I've read about and I know almost nothing except the paper TO&E.

I built a CM:BO scenario around a mech cav troop, never got past playtesting.

-dale

[JasonC]

Steve P - sure, transport is overpriced in CM. If you are making a realistic scenario involving the AI, you have to allow for that in the odds you give them. There isn't much reason to stick to QB balance ratios to start with.

As for the use of them, the HTs are quite vulnerable to any sort of gun, and even to German HMG teams within about 400 yards. They should therefore be used for transport in dead ground, and keyholed late for their MG firepower, and nothing more.

The force still has good attacking power, from its HE firepower most of all. Meaning the 105 FO and the deep ammo loads of all the Shermans. Then they also have high ammo loads for infantry firepower, from vehicle MGs (including the Shermans, which are reasonably robust), the foot MG teams, and the mostly-rifle squads. All good at hosing people down from medium range.

On AAA, yes the standard battery had 8 40mm and 8 quad 50s. A battery is a sizable force, too big to use the whole thing in a single CM fight, really. As for how to use those, set up the 40mms somewhere with LOS to the enemy side of the field, once, and then move the HTs to back positions. At 500m or more, the M3A1s only have to worry about guns. The foot 50 teams are more robust, though, and give a better approximation of the real firepower, than the too-sensitive quad 50 'tracks. (Incidentally, foot 50s meant to represent AA should be given max ammo). Naturally it is most effective as a supplement against an infantry defense.

Against any sort of armor the M-10s are the most effective supplement. And the air support, probably. Incidentally, taking a P40 type is often both more affordable and more realistic than the P47, since the latter shows its maximum bomb load, and the 500 lbs types carried by the P40 were more common even on the P47s.

Is it an effective force type? Sure. Very US style of attack. Meaning, HE area fire at everything breaks most of his infantry, mop up with squads that draw fire from anything remaining as they close in. Hold outs hosed down endlessly by mass small arms fire, after a minute of HE is still available. Nobody is allowed to rally within LOS because there is always an MG or squad hitting anyone already pinned (which ammo depth allows). (A keyholed 'track doesn't have to worry much about the reply from one pinned infantry position etc).

Hardest thing to attack with them, of course, is any sort of superior armor. For that you want M-10s and teamwork. Second hardest is too many well hidden and heavy PAK. Lighter guns aren't so hard because they can't really hurt the Shermans. With the heavy PAK, you back off with the vehicles and use the 60mms to pin assymmetrically.

On assault gun use, yeah they transitioned to Sherman 105s later in the campaign. But the armor battalions had those all the time, and they were definitely used to support the AI, frequently. There was also additional M8HMCs in the cavalry squadron in every AD, so no they aren't really mutually exclusive. (AIBs also had 81mm mortar HTs, which you can add or represent with an 81mm FO - help against guns, but I find foot 60mms easier to use).

[dalem]

Another reason I'm interested in this topic is not CM related. I'm fooling with my own version of a miniature game for the tabletop, platoon-based (i.e. each "stand" is a platoon) and I'm trying to figure out some move/firepower/protection ratings for AI. I want to stick with n more than "light-medium-heavy" for simplicity and applicability at the regiment level. Getting an idea of how much FP was dismounted from the HTs is a good start. From what I read here so far, it seems that the .30s dismounted with the infantry and the .50s gave long range support.

My "gut" leads me to rate U.S. AI platoons as "heavy" so far, if for no other reason than the extra carrying capacity of the HTs, ammo-wise. 5 air-cooled .30cals humping along with the infantry platoon helps too.

-dale

[Andreas]

Harry - could you email me please?

Thanks a lot.

Andreas

[Noba]

Originally posted by dalem:

Woohoo! Mech cav! Another item on my "must learn more" list. I swear they're mentioned in almost every NWE battle I've read about and I know almost nothing except the paper TO&E.

I built a CM:BO scenario around a mech cav troop, never got past playtesting.

-dale

Well convert it to CM:AK and send it out... I for one won't stop playing the older BB and AK games..

Noba.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Noba:

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

Woohoo! Mech cav! Another item on my "must learn more" list. I swear they're mentioned in almost every NWE battle I've read about and I know almost nothing except the paper TO&E.

I built a CM:BO scenario around a mech cav troop, never got past playtesting.

-dale

Well convert it to CM:AK and send it out... I for one won't stop playing the older BB and AK games..

Noba. </font>

[Harry Yeide]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Harry - could you email me please?

Thanks a lot.

Andreas

Done.

[Harry Yeide]

By the way, you can download the 1944 armored infantry field manual here: MHI Digital Library .

[Andreas]

Originally posted by dalem:

Woohoo! Mech cav! Another item on my "must learn more" list. I swear they're mentioned in almost every NWE battle I've read about and I know almost nothing except the paper TO&E.

I built a CM:BO scenario around a mech cav troop, never got past playtesting.

-dale

http://www.louisdimarco.com/

My scenario Hasselt, now converted to CMAK by Kingfish, is built around Mech Cav.

I could probably email it to you.

All the best

Andreas

[JasonC]

Harry,

you can, maybe. I get nothing but endless search screens that are slow as molasses, and find nothing.

Have a proper link to the item itself and nothing else handy?

[John Kettler]

Here's an account of a tank battalion working with armored infantry as part of a Task Force. What the Nebelwerfer did is a kind of grisly bonus info item.

http://www.11tharmoreddivision.com/history/first_blood.htm

11 AD's 55th AIB in combat

http://www.11tharmoreddivision.com/history/55th_AIB.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[ July 21, 2007, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Harry Yeide]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Harry,

you can, maybe. I get nothing but endless search screens that are slow as molasses, and find nothing.

Have a proper link to the item itself and nothing else handy?

I doubt this will work because it flags a search result, but you can try it. Armored Infantry Battalion FM

[Harry Yeide]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Harry,

you can, maybe. I get nothing but endless search screens that are slow as molasses, and find nothing.

Have a proper link to the item itself and nothing else handy?

Nope, that didn't work. I stashed a copy of the file, 1944ArmInfBnFM 17-42.pdf, in the public folder at my website, World War II History by Harry Yeide. It's pretty big--6.5 megs. You should really try another browser on the MHI website, as it is stocked with tons of great stuff.

Cheers,

Harry

[JasonC]

Harry - got it, thanks. Took less than a minute to download, once I found the proper link on your site.

A few immediate items of interest. One, it thinks the whole battalion will be employed together, where in practice one company was usually swapped to the tank battalion in the same combat command. All the attack descriptions typically involve 2 up and 1 in reserve, and the reserve would be missing, or the attack made by only a single company in column, or everything reduced to 2/3rds the depicted force.

Two, they cover the use of vehicles, and are quite clear that attacks are to be made dismounted. There is one mention of staying mounted when working behind tanks, until fire is encountered, and the reserve company (see above) is depicted as remaining mounted before being committed.

Vehicle weapons supporting from defilade is stressed at numerous points, while in other places this is qualified with an "if practical", and dismounted MGs used instead. Tanks and the fire support stuff (mortars, HMCs etc) still support by fire from defilade. The attack diagrams make quite clear that massive overwatch fire is the way it is actually supposed to work.

There is a curious discussion of the dilemma of reinforcing success or reinforcing failure. The compromize urged is that supporting *fire* shifts to help the elements held up, but the leading elements do not slow their movement to remain "on line". In addition, the reserve is to be committed in a body to reinforce success - they actually say "hurled" - but with one bare qualifier or exception allowed. Clearly the tendency to use reserves to keep the laggards abreast of the advance was feared as a notorious error. But they do allow that fire should shift to support the laggards rather than the leaders.

There is also a definite bias in the defense description for use of the forward slope where it can be done, and placing sufficient automatic weapons on the crest even in a reverse slope deployment. Counterattacks are also to be avoided if there is intact enemy armor still on the field. There is also an impractical point about the ATGs forming the backbone of the defense - impractical because they simply did not retain them.

Most of the rest is common sense and fits the actual practices previously described, just spelled out in some detail. A significant focus on prior recon and on consolidating positions for defense once taken, may also be noteworthy. Both fit the combined arms role of AI for the AD as a whole (the "hold" part of its "take and hold" ratchet, and eyes out for the tanks).