Platoon Formations

[30ot6]

Looking for opinions here. What formations do you use for your platoons and why?

I tend to use a vee when moving in open ground/brush/scattered trees. Line when in woods or house to house fighting; in my experience it works better to have all your firepower forward in close quarters combat.

[Entrecote]

i would have thought that the downside of a vee, is the possibility of two units being jumped without warning.

assuming the co was at the base of the vee, support elements at the next stage, and riflemen forming the forward points.

i prefer to use a wedge. one unit of riflemen (unsplit) as point, two as backup and a trailing mortar and/or mg unit at 40m or so (if avail), as indirect fire support.

the co trails the wedge, around 20m between the riflemen and the support crew,ready to move forward as spotter for mortars or catch routing/panicked units.

this allows me to bring two units to bear in the support of one, rather than one in the support of two in the case of a vee.

[Michael Dorosh]

Using a vee (or any formation, really) with the platoon HQ in a predictable spot only ensures the platoon HQ will be singled out and shot up first.

ie

if you make a habit of using this formation

.............squad...........

squad...................squad

..............HQ.............

Your PBEM opponent - if he's wily - will single out the unit where the HQ is without even waiting for it to be identified as such; his demise will hasten the morale breakdown of your squads. So it pays to mix up your formations a bit.

[Entrecote]

I agree with that, after engagement. The sl should be as fluid in his position as poss, to assist the max amount of units in his command radius, whilst obscuring his position from enemy troops.

but whilst moving to engage, approaching in formation can (i think) contribute a lot to your cause. by retaining your sense of purpose in the approach, you end up with forces evenly and well distributed to solve the task at hand.

[ January 31, 2004, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: Entrecote ]

[Omi]

...

[Holman]

I seldom use formations as such. I generally send a few scouts (half-squads) out ahead of the main force, but I let terrain dictate where I position my squads. This applies both when in place and when on the move: I plot paths that give maximum cover while still keeping some distance between units. Sometimes you have to make tough choices.

I always try to keep my squads within supporting distance of each other. For this reason I'd prefer a two-up, two-back formation if I had to pick one.

[30ot6]

For a vee, I use the three squads to form the triangle, two to the front, one in the rear. Platoon HQ is in the center of the triangle with heavy weapons.

[V]

Originally posted by Martyr:

I seldom use formations as such. I generally send a few scouts (half-squads) out ahead of the main force, but I let terrain dictate where I position my squads. This applies both when in place and when on the move: I plot paths that give maximum cover while still keeping some distance between units. Sometimes you have to make tough choices.

Thats about what I do as well. Never found a specific formation to be very helpful...

[30ot6]

Originally posted by V:

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

I seldom use formations as such. I generally send a few scouts (half-squads) out ahead of the main force, but I let terrain dictate where I position my squads. This applies both when in place and when on the move: I plot paths that give maximum cover while still keeping some distance between units. Sometimes you have to make tough choices.

Thats about what I do as well. Never found a specific formation to be very helpful... </font>

[MrSpkr]

I just group all of my infantry and charge them straight forward into the enemy.

Steve

[JasonC]

I use columns, 2 by 2, sometimes a wedge. Column depth rules, it is way stronger than line formations. Lines are usually lousy, especially on the attack. Command spans make them brittle.

When one unit panics or gets pinned it either roots the HQ to that spot or weakens the platoon for an extended period of time. You don't want that happening far away from the HQ and in opposite directions. No, front to back and side to side are not the same in this. Front to back separation periodically appears then goes away naturally as you advance.

You also need the largest areas of cover for a platoon in line. When you need 4 spots with cover the same distance from the enemy and all within one command radius, you don't end up with a lot of choices of route. You don't choose, you use - all of it. And that means every trap the defender has planned gets hit.

In contrast, if you advance in column you need only half as much cover, because you move more men through each bit of it. Just in sequence. You can more readily pick your route. You can widen out slightly to a wedge if you think you need to, at a tree line or whatever. 2 by 2 also takes contact better. Somebody can still maneuver in response to the new info about threats.

I'll use 2 by 2 platoon formations with up to three platoons in column one behind the other, on a width of 2 of these side by side. That means up to 6 units move through each covered location. In other words, up to a full company can follow 2 squads, the whole attack of a two company force can be lead by 4 squads. Sometimes I'll just have 2 platoons of depth, each 2 by 2, thus 4 "ranks".

I don't need to deploy wider until I've reached the cover I intend to conduct the whole firefight from - and then it is just a matter of using whatever is available with LOS close enough to the defenders to hurt them with small arms. (Which typically means 100-150m for LMG and rifle infantry, and 50-80m for SMGs).

Just don't pile up a full company in one body of woods, under the footprint of one arty barrage. If the "head" gets halted, swing out right or left with the guys immediately behind, rather than plowing into the halted men and making a pile-up. The first platoon to make contact "fixes" aka gets to cover and halts, draws fire, and shoots back. The rest deliver the actual attack.

On defense I make more use of lines. The platoons themselves are often deployed in a wedge or V, but the squads are typically linear. Sometimes one squad in second rank to deploy this way or that. I also use "platoons" as small as HQ plus 2 squads e.g. by using a company HQ to create an additional platoon. Often with a support weapon or two attached.

(Still on defense) I like Vs and Ws of these mini-platoons, with a company HQ platoon in one of the back positions. That way the company HQ can draw squads from either side and feed others forward to the other side. It is a waste to use a company HQ just to spot for mortars and the like. That's a job for section HQs or the worst platoon commander you've got. (Just give his squads to the company HQ).

Your front line of men is your shield or fixing force. They may pin but the guys behind them generally won't. They are your sword or striking force. If a front line platoon has had enough withdraw it and let it rest a spell off the front line. Which platoon is up front naturally rotates, as you probe here or there, or fall back here or there, reacting to firefight events etc. So the pain spreads around. Everyone gets rally time at some point.

You may think you are limiting your firepower this way. You aren't, really. First, because in CM you can fire through units ahead without any penalty, if the LOS is clear. Second, because you can't afford to have everyone firing continually anyway. Most squad infantry has ammo for 5-8 minutes of actual shooting. More like 2 minutes for SMGs up close.

If a platoon gets a period up front it will get off its shots. It matters whether it avoids breaking or has time to rally, so it can actually deliver them. And it matters what range they are delivered at, into and from cover of what quality. It does not matter whether it has 4 times the time it can actually fire, on line waiting to do so.

Anything up front gets "winded" before long, either from ammo depletion or from pins and panics. If you've got depth, that doesn't lose the firefight, it just calls for a minor tactical maneuver.

[ February 01, 2004, 06:18 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Soddball]

Interesting you mention columns, JasonC. I can see the value of them the way you describe but the biggest issue with them that I have found is the artillery strike.

If the platoon, company, whatever, is on the advance in line formation and is hit by an arty strike, a platoon is less likely to be smashed by the artillery but a column-formation one is more vulnerable.

[JasonC]

I find an arty strike is going to hit about one platoon any way you slice it. Front to back interval and dodging covers all the rest. One platoon isn't following 20m behind the one in front of it, more like 1-2 minutes behind (1 minute if you can move easily, 2 if you are down to using short advances).

When you see the spotting round - or the first full flight in the case of TRPs - you veer right or left around the barrage. The guys under it try to get out from under it if possible, naturally. Barrages are generally called on bodies of cover. The open ground around them is typically observed. The amount that gets caught is whatever ends up in that cover, because of a first explosion pin or because MGs stop them from leaving or the like.

[Ron]

Personally I don't try to keep strict formations at all but try to keep a few basic principles in mind - dispersal/concentration/mutual support/firepower. It all depends on the situation and terrain and phase of the battle. If I was conducting an Attack or ME however I would arrange a coy along these lines:

-----Team----------Team-------------------------------------Team----------Team-----

Squad-------------------Squad-------------------------- Squad-------------------Squad

---------------HQ-----------------------------FO-------------------------HQ---------------

------------Support------------Squad-----Squad-----Squad-------Support-------------

-------------SecHQ---------------------------HQ---------------------CoHQ--------------

With another coy beside and one following up if I had a battalion. On Defense a loose line arrangement with a Reserve. A Line arrangement seems a prerequisite for Woods fighting, something I always try to avoid if at all possible!

I wouldn't worry about being predictable in having your HQs in the rear, keep them far enough back to stay in command and they are pretty safe. If your opponent wants to focus on them, if he can, then let him, he will lose the firefight at the front. Your CoHQ can always assume command.

Jason C's comments may have some merit, but at first glance it seems much too narrow a frontage and susceptible to an ambush and arty zonk. Hard to say without seeing it in practice.

Experiment, mix it up and see what works.

Ron