Quintessentially WW2

[DavidFields]

I will know CM2 WW2 has arrived when I can:

Pick a german company (with attached mortars and machine guns). Plus some piece of direct fire HE.

And use it to attack a European style town (walls, curved roads, much non-wood housing--not like the cardboard of North American homes).

The nationality of the defenders could be vast: French, Polish, Finns, Russian, Americans, British, Yugoslavian......

The type of defensive unit could be large: infantry, armor, partisans, HQ.....

And the company could have gotten there by....horse cart, truck, or been dropped from the skies--it doesn't matter

But what other unit, from 1939 to 1945, was in such a varied number of circumstances, while being relatively unchanged in composition or tactics? It was the Roman Legion of its time. (Let me be clear, I am glad the germans lost--this is just an issue of history.)

So, when CM2 WW2 can get the feel for maneuver and fire of a german company, it will be time for everyone to switch. Because the rest is details? Measured off of this?

[Redwolf]

The trust is that infantry assaults at the height of their effectiveness are very hard to simulate.

Infantry that stays in contact (radio or whatever) with a coordinating headquarter is very capable, and much of the capabilities are in how the terrain is used. It is very hard to properly model all the details of cover and concealment that benefits infantry and very hard to properly punish them if they are forces to cross open ground in between.

On top of that a CMx2 player has individual men but they tend to wander off in directions that have neither been ordered nor are a good representation of a real (experienced) solder's positioning in battle in real life.

For the foreseeable future I don't expect any really good infantry battles from early WW2 to happen in a CM (1 or 2) scale game. Combined arms might come out OK.

[dieseltaylor]

But what other unit, from 1939 to 1945, was in such a varied number of circumstances, while being relatively unchanged in composition or tactics? It was the Roman Legion of its time

I read your comment with some amazement as with most major organisations change is actually very hard to create and six years is not a long time given the heavy staff turnover and competion for market space.

In the context of the game I am sure the German Battalion forces do change, not hugely but the weaponry becomes heavier and to compare a '39 Battalion with a '45 I actually think is significant in weaponry if not in man organisation. Tactics will be centred around the weaponry - and also the enemies capabilities - but possibly that is a higher level than you were thinking of.

I suspect you could argue that at platoon/squad level there was relatively small change in tactics - which is almost a case of saying man-to-man fighting has changed little over the last 4 thousand years once man had ranged fire weapons and a club : )

[Joachim]

'39: 44-47 men in a standard plt (TOE)

'45: 31-33 men in a standard plt (TOE)

Yet the firepower and AT-capabilities are higher in '45.

The 2nd LMG adds tactical variants for certain plt types. VG Fuesilier and Grenadier, Volkssturm and Sturmkompanie arrive - with different tactics. Certain inf company types vanish.

On the company level, 5cm mortars are dropped, Schrecks added, etc.

OTOH the legions dropped the triarii, added much more missile troops and even used mechanical arty. Plus organizational changes reflecting newer tactics, too. But that took decades or even centuries.

[DavidFields]

This is not something I am trying to "win", only kick around.

Think of the difference between aircraft in 1939, and the Me-262 (or even the P-51).

Think of the difference between a Panzer 1 and a Tiger.

Yes, german platoons had more anti-tank weapons by the end of the war, given what they needed to fight--similarly, fewer soldiers.

But were the basic tactics, for a company recon and then capture of a village, different over those 6 years? Did they have a similar leap in capabilities? And even without that leap, weren't they essentially just as effective?

(Yes, the Romans had one big re-org of their army....history buffs give me the year....around 50 AD?....but the pace of change over the past 50 years is staggering, I think.)

Any other suggestions for a prototypical 1939-1945 fighting unit? In that time-frame, has to be german, and I can't think of an equivalent AFV fomation.

[Der Alte Fritz]

I am afraid what you are saying does not ring true. Eastern Front veterans (German infantry) always though less of units recently posted from the West because they had not acclimatised to the unique conditions in Russia and so had heavier losses and were less effective. Same TOE but different tactics and methodology - non standard tactics worked but by the book did not.

[DavidFields]

Hmmm....we seem to be saying almost the same thing.

Yes, a German company had to adjust to the West, the East, North Africa, Crete.

And, yes, the TOE was slightly different in different organizations, and had more anti-tank ability at the end of the war.

So, perhaps, I am just emphasizing what is absolutely clear: the concept of several platoons of infantry, backed by machine guns (the german HMG being a lead actor in WW2), some mortars, and some direct HE. What country during 1939-1945, and what unit, did this more than the german company?

This may seem obvious, but I am reminded of the beginning of Operation Torch, when the Allies had not really begun to understand the concept of how to fight with Divisions.

One could think or a "company" as a hundred soldiers lined up across a field in a straight line, charging. But, one would put that in a different war; a different century. Light-heartedly, I would nominate the german company as the prototypic WW2 unit. Other, better, nominees?

[dieseltaylor]

: )

Ok your right ....

I suppose the Germans were the leaders in small infantry tacticsthroughout the war - but then they did have more opportunity to evolve and test. And more reason.

[Vark]

Hmm, were not extolling the merits of a militarised populace with a fascistic leadership, exploiting actual and imaginary grievances are we? I'm sure if the armies of the UK and USA had been forced by circumstance to develop doctrines in WWI, just to survive, had a post war army comprising of mainly the officer corps, a doctrine of equating national strength/will/purpose with military strength and been planning the next attempt at dominating Europe we would be talking about the quintessential UK/US WWII infantry unit/doctrine.

When I get to play a German force in CM2 which is dependent on horse drawn equipment and that dependence is realistically modelled, then I will know WWII has arrived!

Sorry about the pseudo rant, I do get tired of the superior German army myth. Sure your infantry companies and their doctrine are excellent tactical building blocks, but your supply and transportation system is antiquated you still use leather for your webbing, which rots, have footwear that is highly unsuitable for poor climates and poor medical support, still your LMG is a world beater, figuratively speaking!

[DavidFields]

Well, Vark, I am an American....exceedinglyl liberal at that....certainly not extolling the virtues of German fascism.

The German Company just reminds me of a Roman Legion, which fought from North Africa to the forests of Europe. And one could make the point that the Roman Empire was very repressive......not the issue. The idea that a german company moved by everything from horse drawn cart, to being dropped from the sky, is sort of the point.

And if someone wants to make the point that a US/UK unit was even more ubiquitous...because they had to deal with the Pacific Campaign, I would be interested to read it.

I am still nominating the german infantry company as the quintesessential WW2 unit.

[Joachim]

They were in longest. They had the longest serving vets (it's the conscripts that die quickly). Their training focussed on the responsibility and decison making of each individual (contrary to fascism) yet emphasized the necessity of teamwork.

Most importantly: They had lost the last war - but had found some good tactics at the end of WW1. Lessons learned. The good ideas were not unique - but the good ideas got heard by those in power. Lazy market leader vs hungry 2nd place.

Add: Marian Reforms around 100 BC when they changed to professional soldiers. Imperial army looked different again. Lots of aux troops - any time, but around 100 BC the former aux became Romans and other people (Tribes) became aux. Late empire Aux became mainstay.

The use of missile troops increased over time. Defense of the limes was done by a light screen and mounted troops in reserve - pretty much like the German armored fire brigades. Those mounted troops bear little resemblance to the classic legion.

The Legion did change.

[Sargon70]

They were in longest. They had the longest serving vets (it's the conscripts that die quickly). Their training focussed on the responsibility and decison making of each individual (contrary to fascism) yet emphasized the necessity of teamwork.

I think when we look at the strengths and weaknesses of armies we should always remember that an army is not created out of thin air, usually it mirrors the society that created it. So, sometimes it helps to look at other parts of society - the business world, for example. The success of the German industry was largely based not on it's managers but on it's workforce, especially foremen, master craftsmen and engineers. The same was true for the army: it was the NCOs that formed the backbone of the force, they trained the draftees and so their quality determined the quality of the army. Even the best CO won't achieve anything without good NCOs and the large number of well trained NCOs was the Wehrmachts biggest advantage over most of it's early war enemies.

Sargon70

[DavidFields]

Joachim: Thanks for the info, I almost put something in about the Marian reforms. Despite, those, I think, it is hard to make the case that horse mounted fighters were the heart of the Roman armies (even with the example of Alexander the Great).

If one thinks of the common unit from 300 AD, 1300 AD, 1650 AD, 1800 AD, 1915 AD,1943 AD, and 2009 AD, I think one realises that the organization of the German Company was not pre-ordainied.

People don't change much, but the weapons of war do.

I think that, 200 years hence, historians will look at 1939-1945 and will see a particular type of typical formation, which will be something like the German company. Not Hussars on a charge, or chariots on the Northern Egyptian plains.

[Joachim]

Horse mounted fire brigades where not the heart of the army. They were the troops guarding thinly manned yet fortified (as in: wall with guard towers) borders.

There was no central army in the later stages of the empire. Bigger threats on one border were handled by thinning out other borders - or by persuading the invaders to become border guards. Which changed the type of the "Legion" to the fighting style of the new border guards. The Legion saw many changes from 1 AD to 450 AD

Sidenote: Even Ceasar mounted a Legion (XI Equestris IIRC) after the Gauls wiped out his Cav.