Bde and Div assets

[alaric99x]

How do you handle the units (generally AA, AT, MG and Engineer) attached to Bde and Div HQ? Do you keep them attached and use the Bde or Div HQ as an additional maneuver element or do you attach them to the individual Bn HQ to strengthen those elements. I know it's common to maneuver some of these units independently, but I wonder where the majority of these units should be used, at Bde or Div, or to augment Bn strengths.

[Trigger Happy]

Those are mostly useful as defensive assets, when they are dug in. When in the attack, they are quite vulnerable. I keep them attach, but as the scenario advances, I despatch them as needed, to cover a weak flank or reinforce the defence of a rifle unit lacking, for exemple, AT means while it is being attacked by armor heavy enemy force. I hardly ever directly attach them to battalions except in really exceptional cases.

[alaric99x]

That's basically what I've been doing.  I give the Bde or Div HQ, along with their organic units, a defend order in the middle and slighly to the rear of the center of mass its battalions.

[HansBolter]

I detach them and assign individual tasks to them such as screening flanks, garrisoning objectives and covering gaps that develop between advancing batallions.

The only ones I consistently attach to batallions to supplement the batallion's assault strength is the pioneer companies, especially when attacking towns and cities. Sometimes I combine several independent pioneer companies into a mini-batallion to create another independent maneuver unit with some oomph to it.

[MarkShot]

Just some quick thoughts ...

I don't have time to go into my usual level of detail. However, I wanted to address Trigger's point about these units mainly being useful in a defensive situation ...

They can be used on the attack quite effectively ... here I refer to units with good stand off fire ... not necessarily engineers ...

As individual units, they can be moved rapidly to support an attack in progress which will thus take some of the heat off of them as they get into position and deploy. Of course, the idea is to give them enough stand off distance that they are only really threatened by long range weapons and arty.

Another good approach, is to bring them into position under the cover of darkness such that they can support the effort and have the attack kick off right when the sun comes up. Thus, they are dug-in with good LOS when the party begins. Prior to that, the enemy never sees them setting up. (Helps to have done some decent recon work before such attacks.)

Engineers first and forement must be carefully managed as a critical resource in any scenario/map which has bridges. In which case, they are too valuable to use as a standard line unit. Otherwise engineers do very good at setting up road blocks in closed terrain (and they may often have wheels), thus they can often best assist when there is no need for bridge work by isolating the engagement area and preventing the enemy from reinforcing.

Note: My answers are simply based on game play experience as I have no real knowledge of military tactics and doctrine.

[HansBolter]

A quick clarification.

My use of pioneers as assault troops is limited to German pioneers who were indeed elite close assault troops and NOT primarily construction/combat engineers as in the armies of most other WWII antagonists.
Compare the antipersonal attack values of a typical German pioneer company to a typical German line infantry company and you'll see why I like to give some of the toughest assault assignments to them.

Anyone remember the Streets of Stalingrad scenario in the first release of Squad Leader?

[alaric99x]

Hans,
 
There's a world of difference between "engineers" and "combat engineers", similar to the difference between a hammer and a flamethrower.  I know what you mean, I've worked with both types of engineers,