Unit disbanding and absorbtion question

[HansBolter]

In the Rethymnon scenario I wrote about in another thread, I experienced some unit disbanding that I have a few questions regarding.

The direct fire infantry guns seem to take a real beating as, unlike indirect fire artillery, they must expose themselves to enemy fire to be useful. The enemy really seems to focus a concentration of firepower to disable these units.

One of the two infanty gun units included in the scenario lost all of it's guns but still had 40 personnel so it was disbanded and absorbed by the other gun unit. later in the scenario this unit also lost all it's gun and was left with 59 personnel.

The second gun unit was never disbanded. It remained as a gun unit with no guns. I ended up using it as a security force to occupy the airfield objective to free another unit for front line use.

Is disbanding and incorporation into another unit limited to like unit types? Will gun crews never be incorporated into line infantry companies? Will infantry gun crews never be incorporated into mortar platoons to replace lost personnel?

[Helpless]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


One of the two infanty gun units included in the scenario lost all of it's guns but still had 40 personnel so it was disbanded and absorbed by the other gun unit. later in the scenario this unit also lost all it's gun and was left with 59 personnel.

Had even worse. There was 10 gun personal left with plenty valuable staff on hands [:D] They survived until the first contact with the enemy..

[Arjuna]

Disbandment occurs when a force either loses all its principal weapons, such as an arty unit losing all its guns, or its strength falls below a certain percentage ( adjusted for various factors ). It will try and find some nearby unit of the same type to merge with. If it can't then it will usually die a silent death.

[GoodGuy]

Let's say it finds some nearby units....will (heavy) weapons be transferred? There is some pretty valuable equipment, in this case (2 PaKs, screenshot).

[Arjuna]

AFAICR yes.

[HansBolter]

Interesting.

In this case the second gun unit, that had absorbed personnel from the first gun unit, never disbanded or was absorbed by another unit, after it lost it's guns. It stayed intact as a gunless gun unit with 59 personnel. That's what led me to ask if unit absorbtion is limited to like unit types.

For some armies of the period, specialists were of limited value if incorporated into line infantry units, but for the Germans in particular, thier specialists were line infantryman first and specialists second. They functioned extremely well in the infantry role.

The US recently relearned the lesson of the need for specialists to be effective infantryman when Maintenance Company 507 made a wrong turn in Iraq and ended up in the middle of Indian country. Following that event, the US army started a program to retrain specialists to be effective in the infantry role.

The point I am making is that if there are limitations on cross absorbtion then there probably shouldn't be. If there aren't limitations on cross absorbtion, then I am not sure why my gunless gun unit was never abdorbed by another unit.