Command and Control (C2) in CMx2-WW2

[Dietrich]

How will the simulating of command and control (C2) be handled in the upcoming WW2 CMx2-engine title?

In CM:SF, the technological disparity in communication capabilities between the US force and the Syrians has a definite impact on tactics. In the the US force, virtually every unit has a radio, if not also an RPDA or a FBCB2 module; whereas the Syrians have few radios and no back-up system.

In Normandy in June 1944, there also was a disparity in communication capabilities between the opposing forces. US Army infantry formations had radios from platoon level on up, whereas German Army (Heer) infantry formations had radios only down to platoon level, C2 between platoons and their parent companies being maintained by field telephone, runner, and other means.

My playing of CM:SF has been mostly Blue Force, so I don't have a clear sense of how radio-less inter-unit communication is simulated in CMx2. (Perhaps someone else can furnish insight about this.)

In CMx2-WW2, even playing as the Americans, with their more plentiful radios, will at times involve a squad being out of contact with platoon HQ yet needing the communicate with it. In the German Army, for one, squad leaders were issued flare pistols so they could send signals to nearby friendly units even if they were out of contact. Would it be reasonable to simulate signaling by flares or even smoke? What about detaching one or two men from a squad to act as runners to platoon or company HQ? (Or sending men from company or platoon HQ to squads (since squads were not issued radios)? For a force in defensive positions (which the Germans typically would be in CM:Normandy), what about simulation of inter-unit communication via field telephone? There are other questions which could be asked, but this should suffice to get the discussion rolling.

[Taki]

I hope that C2 thing get overworked tough. As it is in CMSF right now its way to fast for the US Site. Some Units now way to fast where the Enemy is. The New C2 Simulation since CMSF feels more like Borg Spotting then C2 Command&Control System.

Seriously, it needs a lot of overwork. Hope they find the right balance in Normandy.

[Michael Emrys]

Dietrich,

I think you may exaggerate the differences between US and German practices at the company level. Yes, the US forces had more radios, but at the platoon level they often didn't work or were simply ineffective, even when present. This could be true of companies trying to communicate with battalion HQ as well. The upshot being that the US relied on field telephones between companies and battalion and runners from company on down almost as much as the the Germans. Within platoons, since the platoon HQ at most consisted of one officer and a couple of NCOs, and the platoon likely did not occupy a position more than one or two hundred meters or so in breadth, the platoon leader or a man he would designate would go around to squad positions to check up on them and give them orders.

It is my impression that the British/Commonwealth forces were even more dependent on runner and field telephone than the Americans, but the difference was rather small, and neither of them differed from German practice by a huge amount. Radio technology was simply not that great in those days. The sets were either big and heavy or very short range, and in both cases tended to be fragile and unreliable by today's standards.

Michael

[Dietrich]

Mr. Emrys,

With hindsight I concede that I was exaggerating, though unintentionally.

The points you made give clearer insight into the reality of WW2-era communications at company-level (company HQ, platoon HQs, and squads).

In CMx2-WW2 (CM:Normandy), if two squads are within visual or voice range, one can pass on info about enemy forces which the other may not be able to see at the moment (though the second unit may still not be able to spot the indicated enemy unit). If a squad is out of visual and voice range of friendly units, conceivably it could fire off a flare* (which would probably be left to the TacAI), which would accordingly alert friendly units within visual range of that flare (perhaps the entire map).

It's reasonable to figure that BFC may well not go for allowing the player to detach a single man or a pair of men from a unit to act as runner(s) to convey info to a nearby unit. Would this sending of runners be handled automatically, or would it likely just be simulated? Considering the one-to-one depiction of on-map troops, I think it would be reasonable to actually show runners being sent from a squad to the parent HQ or from an HQ to another unit. Perhaps there could be a "send runner" command with any friendly unit as its 'target', whereupon a man or two would detach from the parent squad or HQ, hustle to the indicated friendly unit, and convey the needed info. If it were simply simulated, how would the player know if a given squad was operating sans one of its men, which would mean that much less firepower? (Obviously a squad leader wouldn't send his BAR man or MG-Schütze back to platoon HQ.)

And then there's the matter of field telephones. Field telephones needed intact wires to be of any use. Sometimes these wires were severed, either by artillery strikes or by intentional cutting. How could communication via field telephone be handled in CMx2-WW2? What problems could arise with trying to simulate this means of C2?

* In German practice, the color of a flare conveyed a message, such as white for "friendly troops here", purple for "enemy tanks", green for "adjust fire mission", etc. I know less about American or British practice, so I can't rightly comment thereupon.

[Michael Emrys]

I know less about American or British practice, so I can't rightly comment thereupon.

As you have noted, the Germans used flares a lot. That frequently gets mentioned in the memoirs of Allied soldiers. My impression is that the British used them rather less and the Americans hardly at all. The Americans (and possibly the British [where is Dorosh when he might be useful?]) did use colored smoke to mark own or enemy positions for CAS, but that is another matter.

Michael

[Flanker15]

Well I guess you just have: Visual, Voice, Radio, Flags, Lights, Flares. You can have different delays for each type.

[Canada Guy]

Does anyone now how the Soviets communicated? From what I have read, the Soviets had an even less capable communication system than either the Western Allies or the Germans. I had asked in another post about the AI being able to handle the discrepancies between tactical doctrine of the Germans/W Allies/Soviets but it would be very evident (especially in the early war years) that the Germans would have a better comm net set up than the Soviets.

I would also like the effects to be a little more transparent. Bring back the time clock for movement (maybe for any level less than elite) or make it a radio button.

These books are interesting but hard to get a hold of.

Soviet Tactical Doctrine in WWII

By Shawn Caza

Soviet tactical doctrine in WWII (TM-30-340)

by George F Nafziger

[Dietrich]

the Germans used flares a lot

I don't recall ever having read of specific instances where American or Commonwealth troops used flares for signalling -- which, of course, isn't to say it never happened. A fairly familiar device to British soldiers was the eponymous Very pistol (it seems a trifle odd to me that even in US Army documents you will find a flare pistol called a "Very pistol"), though the most common use of it I have come across was in air-to-ground signalling by RAF personnel (such as for indicating "squadron scramble" or "landing ground not clear").

Does anyone now how the Soviets communicated? From what I have read, the Soviets had an even less capable communication system than either the Western Allies or the Germans.

A fair question, Canada Guy. I would have asked that myself, but I figured the discussion would be sufficiently complex even if focused just on the American and German forces in Normandy in June-July 1944, which is (according to the rumor mill) what the WW2 CMx2 game will encompass.

[Michael Emrys]

Does anyone now how the Soviets communicated?

They also used lots of flares, especially in the early years of the war when they had almost no usable radios. What I have heard of is mostly the infantry signaling to the artillery when to go to the next phase of the preplanned fire plan, or to signal to a superior HQ that an objective had been taken. But I would not be surprised to learn that a variety of basic messages could be communicated that way.

Michael

[Dietrich]

My purpose in starting this thread was not simply to recount what sorts of communications were used in WW2 and by which nations, but rather to discuss how these comms might be simulated in CM:WW2. In other words, would it be reasonable to have out-of-direct-contact units send signals via flares, even if firing of said flares is left up to the TacAI? How might on-map communication from, say, platoon HQ to company HQ via field telephone or radio be handled? In short, how will the CMx2 simulation of communication (which I think adds a definite, if hard-to-define, realness to the tactical simulation as a whole) be employed in CM:WW2?

I would not be surprised to learn that a variety of basic messages could be communicated that way.

In North Africa, for one, the Germans used colored flares (white, orange, violet, green, perhaps one or two others) in pair combinations to convey a number of messages more particular than those which would be conveyed by single flares.

Another mode of signalling used in WW2 was the signal whistle, typically at platoon and squad level; short and long blasts in various combinations somewhat like Morse code conveyed orders like "form up on leader", "alarm", "advance", etc. (According to my research, the British, Americans, and Germans used signal whistles, though I know most about German signal-whistle use.)

[Michael Emrys]

Another mode of signalling used in WW2 was the signal whistle, typically at platoon and squad level; short and long blasts in various combinations somewhat like Morse code conveyed orders like "form up on leader", "alarm", "advance", etc. (According to my research, the British, Americans, and Germans used signal whistles, though I know most about German signal-whistle use.)

From my various readings, I have gathered that the Germans used whistles almost constantly whenever silence was not the prerequisite. I don't have any real idea though about the British. SFAIK, the Americans seem to have not used them much if at all.

Be cautioned though, all of the above is just surmise and any or all of it may be incorrect.

Michael