Will Brits or Marines fight differently?

[Peter Cairns]

I know that the British and (US) Marines (as the first two proposed modules) will have their own TOE and unit organisation, but will they actually fight differently?

If we had two US units both Infantry with the same weapons mix would the tactical doctrine of the Marines lead them to react, fire or deploy in a different way?

Would the traditional UK emphasis on fire discipline and accuracy mean that a British squad with the same weapons as a US one use them in a different way?

I think this is both a question for BF to see what their current thinking is but also to forum members to express opinions and perhaps influence the final shape of the modules.

To be honest I am not sure what my view is.

Given that there seems to be more to the way that Syrian forces react in CM:SF than just quality, it looks to take in doctrine and training, then it would seem that there should be more to a Marines or allies module than just kit and eye candy.

On the other hand there is always the risk that BF have rightly always taken extremely seriously of introducing something gamey.

If pushed I'd say that I think there should be differences but nothing to stark, but it's all about getting the balance right so that they are not a characature but they "feel"right.

It will be hard to pull off and given that I would be reluctant to be critical if it wasn't quite right.

Peter.

[M1A1TC]

Dont the British stop the fighting and drink Earl Grey with milk at 5pm?

[Cpl Steiner]

Personally, I think there should be no difference in the way various units fight. The game should just portray the TOE and that's it. Any differences in fighting spirit and elan are for the scenario designer to introduce, by manipulating the Experience, Motivation, Leadership and Fitness of the unit.

Having said that, maybe there should be a new fitness level for elite troops such as the US Marines and many British units currently deployed, such as the Royal Marine Commandos. Above "Fit" maybe we should have "Super-fit" or "Extremely Fit". I know that the Royal Marines are trained to a fitness level the equal of many professional athletes for instance. I just wish I could think of a better word for it.

[M1A1TC]

How about "Fitness at Royal Marine level"

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

How about "Fitness at Royal Marine level"

lol.

[dpabrams]

Marine: What makes the grass grow? Blood, Blood, Blood!

Royal Marine:What makes the grass grow? Well, I should think a little water and sunshine, old Boy.

[Meach]

Earl Grey with milk? No no, dear boy. Aromatic teas are best without milk. Perhaps a drop or two of honey, yes.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Personally, I think there should be no difference in the way various units fight. The game should just portray the TOE and that's it. Any differences in fighting spirit and elan are for the scenario designer to introduce, by manipulating the Experience, Motivation, Leadership and Fitness of the unit.

I disagree completely, but to be fair I am looking at the question in a broader manner. The TOE determines how the units fight! If we're going to have 1:1 modelling, then let's really have it, and that includes section battle drills. It will be important when we get to the Second World War, and does have a direct bearing on how combat is conducted at the tactical level.

U.S. rifle platoons would sometimes conduct "Marching Fire" - forming a thick skirmish line and advancing firing their M-1 Garands on semi-automatic. The BAR was actually designed for this in the First World War - early BAR belts had a metal cup to hold the butt of the weapon steady when firing from the hip. Consider this a form of 'human wave'. Was it done often? Can't say. Often enough that Patton mentions it in "War As I Knew It". He cites the M-1 as the greatest battle implement ever devised and mentions the tactic specifically. Against a second-rate German defence, it was probably effective. I think it should be included as it is just as historically apt as a Soviet Human Wave.

The Germans used the LMG as the basis of the squad's firepower, and the riflemen acted in support of the gunner, who was generally the top marksman in the squad. The British did it in reverse, and the squad was broken down into two groups, a rifle group and a Bren group, with the Bren gunner providing cover fire for the riflemen as they closed with the enemy. In action, the British squad generally numbered 5 or 6 men at maximum (book strength was 10 from the midwar point on, up from the 1939-40 total of 8). For the Germans, the LMG was what killed the enemy, for the British, it was the riflemen, with bayonet, grenade, and an SMG or two, with the LMG helping them get there to do it. That was all after the 25-pdr barrage, naturally. This is where the reliance on musketry comes in, but bear in mind that British marksmanship was moreso in the First World War than in the Second - there were too few rifle ranges in the UK in the Second World War, and too few riflemen actually fired their weapons effectively to make a qualitative difference in action.

The infantry weapons mixes were much more diverse than we see in CM:SF - a Russian SMG squad can't fight like a traditional LMG/rifle group squad - the tactics need to be different. None of this can be simulated by fudging morale or fitness levels. A German cavalry squad with assault rifles will have unique tactical abilities that a bolt-action rifle armed Russian squad with poor leadership will not. The player should have the ability to use them in different ways, otherwise all you've got is Zombat Mission with soldier drones in different clothes with different data for the guns.

I sometimes think the biggest proponents of CM:SF are simply taken in by the appearance of the game and not by the substance. Let's get rid of this notion that a squad just splits into two "half squads"; they don't. Find out what they did historically and let the player do that. By the end of the war, the Marines were splitting their squads into three fireteams, for example. Most nations did use two teams, but they were rarely balanced 50/50 and included a maneuver group and a support group. CMX1 at least distributed the weapons in support of that idea even if they got the manpower mix wrong. I'd even make it a pop up menu from the split command - simulating the Squad Leader yelling out to his 2 i/c "take 2 men up that gully and flank the bastard!" Or have the Tac AI compute these things randomly - preferably based on the situation (i.e. if the 2 i/c has two men with him in hard cover, split those guys off into a "half squad" when the command from the player comes to split) - rather than the same 50/50.

It is a waste to split a British squad into two, for example, and have a rifle group try and flank an enemy position, leaving behind two riflemen with the Bren Gun who is laying down suppressive fire. The 2-man Bren crew should have enough firepower on its own to do the job, and those two riflemen would be very handy to have with the flanking group. When it comes time for the Bren team to make a tactical bound, the extra riflemen will be needed to provide them cover. The section was designed to work that way; we should see it done that way in CM.

[ February 10, 2008, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[flamingknives]

The Bren gun group was three, wasn't it? LCpl, gunner and assistant gunner?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

The Bren gun group was three, wasn't it? LCpl, gunner and assistant gunner?

On paper, sure. In action with a 6 man squad, you tell me how you would do it.

[vincere]

From what I've read and seen the Britsh kit has taken on a lot of US stuff.

Dumped LSW for SAW clone.

30 or 40mm grenade launcher fitted to SA80 in most squads.

Most sections in the fight 'get'a GPMG.

Platoons also try to get Browning .50s

I'm with Dorish on this one, if doctrine isn't modelled in 1:1 then it's sub-optimal.

[purpheart23]

The marines should get +1 brain washed bonus

[vincere]

Ah, the old marines are like horse joke.

Strength of a draft horse,

speed of a race horse,

brains of a rocking horse.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by vincere:

From what I've read and seen the Britsh kit has taken on a lot of US stuff.

Read and seen where?

Dumped LSW for SAW clone.[/qb]

[M1A1TC]

Originally posted by Meach:

Earl Grey with milk? No no, dear boy. Aromatic teas are best without milk. Perhaps a drop or two of honey, yes.

Do you like Pu-erh Tea?

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Personally, I think there should be no difference in the way various units fight. The game should just portray the TOE and that's it. Any differences in fighting spirit and elan are for the scenario designer to introduce, by manipulating the Experience, Motivation, Leadership and Fitness of the unit.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I disagree completely, but to be fair I am looking at the question in a broader manner. The TOE determines how the units fight!

Sorry Michael, I wasn't very clear. What I was trying to say was that we shouldn't give each type of unit false special abilities, like British units having "coolness under fire" and Marines having "gung ho spirit" etc. These can all be simulated through the existing mechanisms of Experience, Motivation, Leadership and Fitness.

I completely agree with your own points regarding how the TOE and doctrines on how a squad splits affects unit behaviour, which is kind of what I was hinting at in my original post. From a doctrinal point of view though, post WWII, I am guessing but I would imagine British squads and American squads employ support weapons pretty much identically.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Personally, I think there should be no difference in the way various units fight. The game should just portray the TOE and that's it. Any differences in fighting spirit and elan are for the scenario designer to introduce, by manipulating the Experience, Motivation, Leadership and Fitness of the unit.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I disagree completely, but to be fair I am looking at the question in a broader manner. The TOE determines how the units fight!

Sorry Michael, I wasn't very clear. What I was trying to say was that we shouldn't give each type of unit false special abilities, like British units having "coolness under fire" and Marines having "gung ho spirit" etc. These can all be simulated through the existing mechanisms of Experience, Motivation, Leadership and Fitness.

I completely agree with your own points regarding how the TOE and doctrines on how a squad splits affects unit behaviour, which is kind of what I was hinting at in my original post. </font>

[vincere]

flamingknives, I feel busted. Admittedly I've not based my assertions on detailed research.

My assertion is based on the numerous media coming from Afghanistan and Iraq, and a book I read about the Para battle group in Afghanistn 2006. There .50s and 'on map' mortars were the battle turners in many firefights.

My assertion was also foolishly biased with my own service memories. That is my unit armoury would have GPMGs that we could draw on.

By the way I knew about the minimi but chose SAW because of my auful spelling.

Anybody know of any sources for on paper ToE for the current Brits?

[LongLeftFlank]

As usual, Michael is thinking well ahead of the curve.

I've ranted previously about the "union road crew" effect in combat in which a few guys seem to be doing most of the dirty work up on the line at any given moment while the rest of the squad looks on from relative safety. This is partly a function of (in no particular order):

(a) threat perception (how hot is it out there)

( individual motivation (guts)

© leadership and C4I

(d) training and experience

(e) (lack of) LOS and situational awareness

To take this already excellent game to the next level, BFC will need to think down into the basic building blocks of soldier and unit behavior and leadership (which doesn't just come from the "leaders"), and how they can be mixed and matched to create realistic and interesting UNIT tactical behaviors.

[flamingknives]

If you want it on paper:

web page

Or www.armedforces.co.uk, if you want it online.

[vincere]

Thanks, much appreciated mucker. Oh yeah, I'd forgot to mention Brits equipped with Javelin.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by LongLeftFlank:

As usual, Michael is thinking well ahead of the curve.

I've ranted previously about the "union road crew" effect in combat in which a few guys seem to be doing most of the dirty work up on the line at any given moment while the rest of the squad looks on from relative safety. This is partly a function of (in no particular order):

(a) threat perception (how hot is it out there)

( individual motivation (guts)

© leadership and C4I

(d) training and experience

(e) (lack of) LOS and situational awareness

To take this already excellent game to the next level, BFC will need to think down into the basic building blocks of soldier and unit behavior and leadership (which doesn't just come from the "leaders"), and how they can be mixed and matched to create realistic and interesting UNIT tactical behaviors.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss lack of participation as lack of guts, necessarily. I think it is simply human nature to mill about - I mean, that's what the training is for, to minimize that tendency. If we believe Marshall's assertion that 10-25% of men are "natural fighters", and believe what you will about Marshall's flawed works, I think he may have had something as far as that goes, then it is probably normal for fellows to really not participate in any meaningful way in any fight unless specifically told what to do, particularly in an environment where targets are invisible and there is a lot of noise, smoke and confusion.

I think that may even be why we have the emphasis on smaller fire teams today, and the notion of the 'strategic corporal' and greater reliance on both low-unit leadership and firepower in the hands of the average rifleman.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by vincere:

Thanks, much appreciated mucker. Oh yeah, I'd forgot to mention Brits equipped with Javelin.

Very true, although, true to MoD form, there's a few tweaks, including improved optics and a lightweight tripod to improve the CLU in the ISTAR role.

[Secondbrooks]

I agree quite complitely with Michael Dorosh's post.

But. I do believe that man is herd-animal, which has to have alpha-male, in (western) military maybe in platoon/squad scale. If previous Alpha-male was removed from strenght then there are quite good changes that someone else will fill his boots as a alpha-male (in military unit in war this would be to be best fighter of his company/platoon/squad). Few our veterans from Winterwar 39-40 and Continual War 41-44 have wrote something about this. So basically: one good fighter WIA/KIA -> one "reqular" fighter takes his place.

This, however, is just what i've read from viewpoints of veterans, there (to my knowledge) hasn't been study about this subject.

[ February 10, 2008, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

[vincere]

Along the lines of Dorish's theme:

My knowledge might be out of date; British infantry section doctrine was very flexible. The section could break down to a fire and assault teams. Or 'peper pot' with pairs of battle buddies fire and manouvering 'indpendently' so that took the section forward in a less predictable way.