Er... correction... one small thing

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I have, though, read that even platoons would leave either the Platoon Commander or the Platoon Sergeant LOB.

I've gained the impression the LOB 'policy' was to pair certain positions (e.g. Pn Cmdr & Pn Sgt), and always leave one of them behind, LOB'd.

Sometimes LOBing didn't work. The South Africans diligently did it during CRUSADER, but for some odd reason had the LOB pers within about a mile of the fighting bde. When the SA Bde (5th?) got raped on Totensonntag the LOBs went with it too. It was more usual for LOBs to be left well out of it, many miles behind the pointy bit.

[Battlefront.com]

Jon,

My understanding of this principle, which is still very much alive today, is based on various tactical considerations. One is how fast do you want to reestablish effective C&C vs. the risks of losing it. I'm not familiar how CW untis did this stuff during WWII, but in today's US Army the PLT SGT is generally kept in the fight, but not with the PLT Leader for reasons of redundancy (i.e. you don't want one hit to take out both). Depending on circumstances he might be actively controlling elements of the Platoon in addition to the Platoon Leader (i.e. they split up the command). This is the sort of thing that we can't simulate just yet.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Jon,

My understanding of this principle, which is still very much alive today, is based on various tactical considerations. One is how fast do you want to reestablish effective C&C vs. the risks of losing it. I'm not familiar how CW untis did this stuff during WWII, but in today's US Army the PLT SGT is generally kept in the fight, but not with the PLT Leader for reasons of redundancy (i.e. you don't want one hit to take out both). Depending on circumstances he might be actively controlling elements of the Platoon in addition to the Platoon Leader (i.e. they split up the command). This is the sort of thing that we can't simulate just yet.

Steve

As I indicated, in the CW example - and Jon confirms this - it isn't a big deal since it seems either the Pl Comd or Pl Sgt were often kept out of the action.

Some hard choices would have to be made in a WW II CW setting as to what "100 percent strength" really means in any given action.

[JonS]

Mike,

I think 100% should be 100% - everyone standing in their positions on the parade ground. It did happen that way sometimes, for major events (D-Day?), but it also gives players and designers a standard base to work from.

The same could be said for any army, outside the LOB thing. AFAICT, it was vanishingly rare for any section or platoon in any army to ever be at full strength, due to cas, sickness, courses, LOBs, lost, etc etc. But the editor should be based - I think - on the stadard tables for such things, and provide the flexibilty (as it pretty much does now) to adjust up and down according to the players or designers needs of the moment.

[Simon Fox]

Originally posted by jrcar:

When attacking Post 11 at Bardia D Coy 2/6th Bn detached the Bren teams from the sections (squads)and attached them to an MG Platoon of the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers to provide the fire support for the company attack.

This was the first action the 2/6th Bn fought, and it was noted that detaching the Bren teams was not a good idea. They were found to be more useful integral to the section.

The attack on post 11 was a debacle which is an illustration of how not to do things on numerous levels, including perhaps completely detaching your support weapons.

That's an entirely different to internally reorganising a platoon for a tactical purpose. Especially if it was a common and effective practice

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

That's an entirely different to internally reorganising a platoon for a tactical purpose. Especially if it was a common and effective practice

mmmmmm...you know what we're going to ask you next, right?

[Simon Fox]

Since I've previously posted the answer (Andreas too and possibly others) then I'll cite the search function. Good luck.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Since I've previously posted the answer (Andreas too and possibly others) then I'll cite the search function. Good luck.

You obviously didn't understand the question, then. *shrugs* Not the first time. Thanks anyway.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

Mike,

I think 100% should be 100% - everyone standing in their positions on the parade ground. It did happen that way sometimes, for major events (D-Day?), but it also gives players and designers a standard base to work from.

The same could be said for any army, outside the LOB thing. AFAICT, it was vanishingly rare for any section or platoon in any army to ever be at full strength, due to cas, sickness, courses, LOBs, lost, etc etc. But the editor should be based - I think - on the stadard tables for such things, and provide the flexibilty (as it pretty much does now) to adjust up and down according to the players or designers needs of the moment.

I agree; see my other posts. Canadian sections, from what evidence I've seen, usually went into action with 5 or 6 men rather than the full W.E. strength of 10. But yes, 10 should be the CM TOE strength from which designers can then scale down.

[aka_tom_w]

two year old thread might be interesting to re-read

[athkatla]

I thought I was in the Shock Force Forum! :confused:

[wunwinglow]

I thought I'd just slept through 18 months and the Juno/Gold/Sword module had been released!

But no, it was all a dream (wibbly, wibbly, fade.....)

Tim

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dear JonS,

I hate you. And I really, really mean that from the bottom of my heart

Sincerely yours,

Steve

P.S. I hope you're friends find you funnier than I do

JonS with friends? Surely that's a fundamental bug or somefink.

-dale

[Dirtweasle]

You're right.