Cross-attachments

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Cross-attachments

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> FlashPoint Germany >> Cross-attachments

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Cross-attachments - 9/15/2002 5:46:26 AM

Joel

Posts: 14
Joined: 5/18/2000
From: France
Status: offline

It is my understanding that the rule in NATO forces was to cross-attach subunits, leading to tank-heavy or infantry-heavy company-sized teams, while pure tank or pure infantry companies were the exception.
Will Flashpoint Germany take this into account, or will it stick with regular TOE units ?

Cheers,
Joel

Post #: 1

- 9/15/2002 7:41:28 PM

Sabre21

Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

Bonjour Joel

I can only give you my perspective and that is based on US operations.

During the eighties and early nineties, cross attaching Mech and armored forces did occur quite often, but only to about a 30% level. Most heavy brigades would consist of either 1 armor battalion and 2 mech battalions or vice versus. Plus most armor commanders would want to keep at least half his force as pure armor as a heavy hitting or counter attack force. This would only leave a couple tank companies in a mech heavy brigade to be traded out with mech forces. There were some brigades that had four battalions, but again not necessarily 2 armor and 2 mech.

In the last 10 years, brigade deployments have been far more "mixed" than in the past, but depending on the situation, pure armor or mech companies are still used.

I would really hope the game portrays Brigade and Battalion task forces and even company teams. The term task force and team are used to indicate non-pure elements.

Sabre21

(in reply to Joel)

Post #: 2

- 9/17/2002 5:21:07 AM

Joel

Posts: 14
Joined: 5/18/2000
From: France
Status: offline

Thanks for the clarification, Saber, I have played mostly WW2 wargames these years (CM and SPWAW are guilty for that) and my memories about modern SOP are a bit rusty... ;)

So it seems that restricting strictly to "paper" TOEs would lead to misrepresent about 30% of US forces (a bit less actually), if game units are at company level. I guess that would tend to separate units (in game terms) in Defensive (Mech) and Offensive (Armor) categories, whereas in reality things were a bit more subtle.
I really hope that cross-attachment will be considered. :)

By the way, that's a great idea to rework those SimCan titles, I have had a great time with their Middle East game, even if I don't miss the graphics ! ;) :rolleyes:

(in reply to Joel)

Post #: 3

- 9/17/2002 5:39:20 AM

Sabre21

Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

Joel

To even go a step further, a Brigade Task Force also consisted of an artillery battalion, an engineer company or battalion, an mp platoon, an air defense battery, a support battalion (maint, transports, fuel), and an anti tank company in some cases.

The armored cavalry units of 1988-89 were even more versatile. The regiment had 3 armored squadrons, an aviation squadron, and a tank company. Each ground squadron had 3 Troops (companies) with a tank platoon, 3 bradley platoons and a mortar platoon each. In addition the squadron had an sp artillery battery. The air squadron had 3 air cav troops of 4 AH-1's and 5 OH58's and 2 attack trrops of 6 AH-1's and 4 OH58's. A pretty nice organization.

Sabre21

(in reply to Joel)

Post #: 4

- 9/17/2002 6:53:38 AM

IronManBeta

Posts: 4132
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Burlington, Ontario
Status: offline

The way the game is organized, the scenario designers can cross attach to their heart's content - but it requires a certain amount of work on their part. I too am interested to see how that affects the game.

For the 'roll your own' battles there could be some cross attachment if we set up the standard groupings right, but we are not really at that point yet.

I'm hard at work on this project but there sure are a lot of things to keep in mind! I want to execute on the fundamentals first before trying to get too fancy with the really cool stuff!

Back to the grind...

Cheers, Rob.

(in reply to Joel)

Post #: 5

- 9/17/2002 8:07:51 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

I think Sabre is pretty close with the 30% figure. In theory, there is no reason why you couldn't cross attach so that every company was a mixed company team. But it did not happen as much as one might expect.

The reasons I can think of are not doctrinal but are more "practical." First of all, cross-attaching would mean losing a company and its commander that the battalion commander knew and getting in return a new company commander that (i) the battalion commander knew nothing about and (ii) that probably had a different outlook (armor v. infantry) that clashed with the battalion as a whole. While it was possible to send just platoons to another battalion (as happened to me once), this would be unusual because you would be sent without the company maintenance slice that had all the spare parts. That having been said, I think the norm would have been to probably attach one company of infantry or armor to another battalion. In my brigade, this did not happen because we had three armored battalions and one infantry battalion; if they'd given each tank battalion one company of infantry, the infantry battalion would have had three armor companies!

While I can't back this up, I think tanks attached to an infantry battalion were more likely to be split up and parceled out to the infantry companies. My limited experience was that the infantry usually considered the tanks to be additional anti-tank assets - a kind of mobile pill box - as opposed to a concentrated counterattack force. So you'd be more likely to have the tanks parceled out to augment the TOWs. Likewise, the tankers didn't really know what to do with the infantry and would usually just have them tag along until there was a forest or a town to clear out. I'm thinking the armor guys were more likely to keep the infantry together as a company to keep them out of the way. Plus the tanks could handle most threats and had a hard time dealing with the time it took for an infantry unit to deploy and to its thing.

Finally, to maximize cross attachment so that there was an even mix, you'd probably be sending half of your company commanders away and receiving new company commanders that you knew nothing about. Also, any company that was sent to another battalion, say a tank company to an infantry battalion, was likely to stay tank heavy (or infantry heavy for an infantry company cross attached to a tank battalion). This would be because, if your tank company was reduced to one tank platoon and two infantry platoons (i) the company maintenance slice would be ineffective and (ii) you've got a tank company commander commanding a company the use of two-thirds of which he is basically unfamiliar. Finally, a company team may be ideal for defending point A, but two klicks away at your next battle position, the infantry platoon may be completely worthless.

Based on all of this, I would say the norm was to attach a company to another battalion. That company would lose one platoon and pick up a platoon. You'd end up with two pure companies and two mixed companies with only one being heavy in the "foreign" type.

The real problem is that, for the most part, the infantry was way out of its element in Europe. The capabilities of tanks had advanced much further than those of the infantry. The war was going to be extremely fast and violent, and most of the targets were going to be vehicular. The infantry really did not have a role in that environment. Most wooded areas were small enough that tanks on either side could prevent the enemy from gaining access. If it was so large that you couldn't do this, then you needed a company or more of infantry to cover that ground. When you really needed infantry, it was to clear out an area that required a full dismounted company to do well. If you were on the defense and your dismounted infantry was engaged, the enemy had gotten waaaaaay too close, and the infantry would have a very hard time disengaging. The advent of the Bradley merely meant that the infantry had their own light tanks. Keep in mind that tanks feel the enemy is too close when they are 1,000 meters away. How do you use infantry in that kind of environment? You either keep the infantry 1,000 meters to your front where they can't escape, or you keep them back performing local security for the tanks.

I think the war would have unfolded with the tanks doing most of the fighting and the infantry being held in a kind of reserve for special tasks like night security, clearing areas of patrols, cleaning out a small community that the tanks had advanced to and, on a larger scale, clearing out or holding forests and larger towns on a company or larger scale.

(in reply to Joel)

Post #: 6

Let the Games Begin! - 9/17/2002 9:12:12 AM

IChristie

Posts: 673
Joined: 3/26/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

Man if we ever needed a grunt on this forum, now's the time :D

I might have been a lowly reservist arty battery commander but if I ever heard a declaration of war between the supported arms, this....

[QUOTE]I think the war would have unfolded with the tanks doing most of the fighting and the infantry being held in a kind of reserve for special tasks like night security, clearing areas of patrols, cleaning out a small community that the tanks had advanced to and, on a larger scale, clearing out or holding forests and larger towns on a company or larger scale[/QUOTE]

is it.

Byron, buddy - you are brave man ;)

Target 500m, engage!

_____________________________

Iain Christie
-----------------
"If patience is a virtue then persistence is it's part.
It's better to light a candle than stand and curse the dark"

- James Keelaghan

(in reply to Joel)

Post #: 7

- 9/17/2002 4:24:11 PM

Marc von Martial

Posts: 10875
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Bonn, Germany
Status: offline

ROFL !!!

Man, having been an arty guy too and that way had to deal with both grunts and tankers I now this means war :D.

My personal oppinion is that the so often proclaimed major tank battles in the german plains would have lastet probably 2 days or so, after that it would have been infantry time. The tank battalions would have suffered severe losses on both sides within the first 48 hours, not much left after that to play a major role in the war, despite infantry support.

_____________________________

Marc von Martial
instagram stream

(in reply to Joel)

Post #: 8

- 9/18/2002 2:32:45 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

Gee, guys, I didn't mean to start no stinkin' war. I also didn't mean to ramble so much.

I guess a couple of qualifications are in order. First, this applies to Europe only. The powers that be have apparently decided that heavy maneuver warfare is dead (I guess we'll be taking Baghdad with the 82nd Airborne) and that light infantry forces are the future. I think Desert Storm showed the continuing value of tanks, and one never knows when you may have to fight an armored war against the Russians, Chinese, or somebody in the Middle East.

I certainly acknowledge that there is a huge role for the infantry in lower intensity environments and, with today's technology, they are extremely capable in that role. I guess what I did not say in my previous argument is that the reason infantry wouldn't have much influence in Europe is because there simply aren't enough grunts.

Marc may be right that the tank losses may have emasculated the armored forces, but I don't believe the infantry could have picked up the slack. With the tanks (the weapon of the gods) gone, or mostly gone, I don't think there was enough infantry in Europe to hold the front and certainly not to counterattack. Nor did they have the ranged weapons systems necessary to influence the battlefield. If anything, their weapons are even shorter-ranged than they were in WWII (except for the TOW and, now, the Bradley), and look how many guys you needed to hold a line then. They would have to rely upon the King of the Battlefield (you guys) and air support to get much done, and there was never enough of that.

Maybe my thoughts are extreme, but the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that it is true. The original APCs were designed to get large formations of foot soldiers to the action in a protected vehicle. This works. But as the APCs became more capable, specialized, and expensive, and as everyone in a squad is given automatic weapons, TO&Es have reduced the actual number of line doggies to a shadow of their former selves. I guess the thought is that current weapons provide more punch on a man for man basis and therefore you don't need as many grunts. Well, this isn't Heinlein's mobile infantry, and I still see that an infantry force is a question of numbers. And those numbers aren't there anymore.

A modern infantry battalion is more capable than a battalion of fifty years ago. But the only thing that allows them to hold more area, if they can, is the Bradley, which provides heavy fire support and tank-killing capability over longer distances than the infantry weapons can provide. But notice who's actually providing the capability - the Bradley mini-tank. When you get into a real infantry-on-infantry fight or try to clear an urban area or dense forest, today's infantry platoon or company is not that much more capable than they were fifty years ago, and the Bradley will be of only marginal assistance. They also become decisively engaged with the enemy only fifty meters away, and they're not going to be able to withdraw with any speed - unlike tanks which should be able to maintain a 1 klick buffer.

But the real issue is just the number of mech battalions in Europe. There just aren't enough guys to perform the true role of taking or holding terrain that tanks are not suited to. And there aren't enough because every six grunts now requires a multi-million dollar Bradley and all the logistics support that requires.

So if the tanks are all gone, you've got five infantry battalions trying to hold - what? - a twenty mile front? It just doesn't work.

I'm just curious. Can someone provide the number of actual rifle-toting grunts in today's mech battalion compared to a WWII infantry battalion?

(in reply to Joel)

Post #: 9

- 9/18/2002 7:13:07 AM

Sabre21

Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

Hey all

Before I was a cobra pilot...guess what I was for 8 years...thats right...a GRUNT! hehe. I spent many years in the 82nd Airborne mostly doing recon work. But it wasn't untill becoming a pilot and being assigned to the Air cav in Germany that I really understood the use of mech and armored warfare.

I spent 5 years in the 3ID. Every time we deployed (Divisional Cav), we would receive the very same Tank company from 1st Brigade. That's at least how the 3ID did it. Every cross attachment was pre-determined with the same company being attached to the same battalion. This way bonds and training methods were developed together. They even attended all our Cav parties. When the new TO&E was established in the early nineties, the Divisional Cav tank platoons were finally re-established after losing them when the "J" series was adopted in the mid eighties.

In those days 3ID 1st Brigade had 2 armor and 2 mech battalions of 4 tank or infantry companies each. In the Cav it was pretty typical to divide the tank company up and assign 1 platoon to each Cav troop. We did the same thing in the Divisional Cav of the 5ID. Sometimes though the company was kept together as a heavy force...it was all situationally dependent. The Tank and Infantry battalions would mix match or maintain pure companies again depending on both the situation and the leadership style of the receiving battalion commander.

Sabre21

PS: Talking about all this brings back a lot of fond memories, them were the glory days when we faced the "Evil Empire"..sniff..sniff...how I miss it all:)

(in reply to Joel)

Post #: 10

- 9/18/2002 7:34:06 AM

Sabre21

Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

Ooops forgot to mention. The M113 infantry platoons of the eighties consisted of three 11 man squads and a 7 man weapons squad plus the Platoon leader and Platoon sergeant. The same TO&E was true for the rifle squads of the light infantry.

Each battalion had 3 rifle companies, an hq company and a combat support company (4.2 mortars, tow AT, and Recon). This was all part of the "H" series TO&E. The tank companies had 3 platoons of 5 each and 2 in hq section for a total of 17 tanks. the infantry had 14 M113's per company.

When the Bradley was introduced, the rifle squads for those units went to 9 men since that was all that could fit onboard. Eventually this structure went Army wide when the "J" series was adopted. But the armor and mech companies in a battalion went from three to four. So now you had A, B, C, and D companies each of 14 tanks or 14 bradleys each. The mech battalions had an anti tank company and the mortars and recon were moved to hq company.

One thing to note though, that when transitioning from one TO&E series to another, this didn't happen over night. It took a few years to take place. So even though 3ID adopted the J series in the summer of 84, there were still some units using the H series as late as 87-88. That OOB I did a couple years ago didn't quite explain this transition and to make it easy I used the J series for Bradley equipped units and H series for M113 units...but this really wasn't always the case. Even the light infantry eventually adopted the 9 man squads.

The TO&E now is even more thinned down, the battions now only consist of 3 armor or mech comanies of 14 tanks/bradleys each.
The light infantry units always maintained 3 line companies and never did get a 4th company back when J series started.

The WWII infantry battalions had 3 rifle platoons and a weapons platoon. Each platoon had 3 rifle squads of 11 men each and a weapons squad. Similiar to the H series. I think their weapons platoon and weapons squads were a little heavier then, but not sure.

Sabre21

(in reply to Joel)

Post #: 11

- 9/20/2002 8:59:45 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

Are you serious? They took away the Delta companies of infantry and armor forces? Man, it's starting to look like a paper army. With a stroke of the pen, one-quarter of your combat force is lost. Kind of reminds me the Volksgrenadier divisions. I hope that the decision to cut Delta companies wasn't based on the same kind need to create an illusion.

(in reply to Joel)

Post #: 12

- 9/20/2002 9:38:06 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sabre21
[B]I spent 5 years in the 3ID. Every time we deployed (Divisional Cav), we would receive the very same Tank company from 1st Brigade. That's at least how the 3ID did it. Every cross attachment was pre-determined with the same company being attached to the same battalion. This way bonds and training methods were developed together. They even attended all our Cav parties. When the new TO&E was established in the early nineties, the Divisional Cav tank platoons were finally re-established after losing them when the "J" series was adopted in the mid eighties.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I'm guessing that this tank company was assigned to you in your GDP plan, so this makes sense. And I guess that whatever the cross-attachments were for GDP purposes would hold for at least the first several days of the war. As I'd mentioned, our brigade was unusual in its weight of 3 armor to 1 infantry, so I may have a stilted view. In the two companies I was in, both were armor pure at the GDP. Later, a division commander rewrote the entire battle plan, and our battalion remained entirely pure armor as a reserve/counterattack force. Another thing that I'm sure stilts my view is that our battalions generally did ARTEPs on a battalion cycle so that a pure battalion would go through as a pure unit; hence, you didn't see any infantry. I did do one ARTEP attached to the infantry, and it was the worst experience of my life. A hot dinner arrived at, like, 3 in the morning, my tanks were running on fumes because they couldn't supply us, and they put my tanks right in the infantry positions like pillboxes where I was dead meat. I suggested that I could cover his guys from the obvious axis of advance by standing off a ways and getting flank shots, but nooooo . . . .

(in reply to Joel)

Post #: 13

- 9/20/2002 9:40:51 PM

Sabre21

Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

Hi Byron

Yep..unfortunately starting around 97-98 Delta companies were being removed. I am sure by now that's the case Army wide. Part of the problem was manpower, the economy was boomimg then, now though the services have no problem filling the ranks.

It's pretty amazing how cooperation varies from one unit to the next. I guess the best cooperation I have ever seen was within the 3ID. Even in the Cav, when we signed in, we had 2 air troops and 2 ground troops so we were teamed up..A with C and B with D. Each officer spent a week with their cav counterpart so as to experience the life as a grunt or an aviator. We worked with each other so much that I knew all the vehicle commanders by name and could recognize most of the crews. it was a pretty tight knit unit.

In Korea we had the same type of cooperation. Although I wasn't too impressed with our ROK counterparts.

Sabre21

(in reply to Joel)

Post #: 14