Allied Inf Q

[mavraamides]

First off, just bought a week ago and am absolutely loving this game. Favorite CC game so far. And I used to be a CC3 fanatic. I just like the campaign structure here much better.

One question about infantry as the Allied player. Before a battle, when you have the choice to change your force mix, there always seems to be an almost unlimited number of rifle squads and BAR squads. My question is this:

Why would you ever choose a rifle squad over a BAR squad? Doesn't a BAR squad have more firepower AND range and the same mobility? Am I missing some hidden advantage of the rifle squad?

Anyway, its a minor point but I'm just wondering if there is any reason for the rifle squads at all other than historical accuracy.

[Perturabo]

These aren't squads. Rifle team and Bar team (and two man recon team?) form one squad.

[TheReal_Pak40]

If I remember correctly, the weapon weight of each soldier is being taken into account. However, it will only affect that particular soldier I think and this is of minor consideration when choosing infantry units.

The main reason you would not replace all your rifle units with BARs is that in campaign mode you only have a finite amount of them in your force pool. As the campaign goes on you may find yourself low or completely out of BAR units. For us CC vets playing against the AI this isn't much of a problem, but if you adjust the difficulty levels against your favor then you will see much smaller force pools.

[TheReal_Pak40]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

These aren't squads. Rifle team and Bar team (and two man recon team?) form one squad.

No, just the rifle team and BAR team form one U.S. squad (12 men total)
This was the typical U.S. infantry squad but there were variations during the war, including the 12 man squad with two BARs.

The 3 man recon teams represented in the game are a largely made-up unit but in reality could represent any ad-hoc group of soldiers sent out to do recon, although they would not likely all have submachineguns.

[Perturabo]

From what I've read, infantry squad consisted of a two man scout team, a three man fire team with BAR and a five man maneuver team + squad leader and assistant squad leader.

[squadleader_id]

Take a look in this thread for some Inf Squad composition examples:
tm.asp?m=1948797

[TheReal_Pak40]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

From what I've read, infantry squad consisted of a two man scout team, a three man fire team with BAR and a five man maneuver team + squad leader and assistant squad leader.

Yes and the squad leader could probably break it down any way he wanted to, but they pretty much fought as two teams of six when the squad was full: Support(BAR) and Assault

They didn't have an extra two man scout team as you seemed to suggest in your previous post.

[mavraamides]

So getting back to my original question, I guess, the answer is BAR teams are always superior to infantry teams and the only reason to choose infantry is to save BAR teams?

[Cpt Rio]

Rifle squads are better for assaulting enemy positions, because they're lighter/faster. BAR squads are better for suppression/defensive positions cause they have superior firepower.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: GordianKnot

So getting back to my original question, I guess, the answer is BAR teams are always superior to infantry teams and the only reason to choose infantry is to save BAR teams?

No. The only reason needed is that rifle squad is composed of BAR team and rifle team.

[TheReal_Pak40]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: GordianKnot

So getting back to my original question, I guess, the answer is BAR teams are always superior to infantry teams and the only reason to choose infantry is to save BAR teams?

No. The only reason needed is that rifle squad is composed of BAR team and rifle team.

OK, don't listen to Perturabo.

As I said before, historically (later in the war) there were squads that had 2 BARs. Whether this was standard issue or just the squad preference for more firepower, I don't know. But it DID happen.

Now, if we break down both teams that comprise the U.S. infantry squad in WaR, we see two differences:

RIFLE TEAM
Thompson x1
Garand x4
Garand x1 (grenade launcher)

BAR TEAM
BAR x1
Garand x5

Looking in the WaR Data Workbook you can see the differences in the data between the BAR and the Thompson:

The BAR has a base accuracy of 398 vs 350 for the Thompson
The BAR is a lot heavier at 22 vs 10 for the Thompson
The effective ranges is where the two are night and day-
Point Blank: 10 for TSM vs 20 for BAR
Close Range: 20 for TSM vs 100 for BAR
Medium Range: 40 for TSM vs 300 for BAR
Long Range: 100 for TSM vs 1000 for BAR

The penetration power of the BAR is also slightly higher.

They both can be fired while moving but I'm not sure if the game gives the BAR a penalty for firing while not setup. I know the weight is factored in. A soldier with the Thompson will move faster than a BAR.

But, there is no doubt the BAR does have a superior range. But, the thompson will have to be reloaded less.

The Rifle Team's advantage is mobility and some minor ranged firepower with the grenade launcher. I've had grenade launchers take out lightly armored vehicles many times.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40

OK, don't listen to Perturabo.

That was rude. Especially that your argument is wrong.

ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40

As I said before, historically (later in the war) there were squads that had 2 BARs. Whether this was standard issue or just the squad preference for more firepower, I don't know. But it DID happen.

Which is irrelevant as it clearly wasn't the case in battlegroups that GordianKnot describes. If they had two-BAR squads, there would be two kinds of BAR teams in forcepool instead of BAR teams and rifle teams.

Really, if you have to be disrespectful, you should check your facts first.

Returning to the topic:
Actually, why use semi-realistic force mixes when you can take all the most powerful units from the battlegroup on the battlefield?
It's not like other companies in the battlegroup will miss them...

[TheReal_Pak40]

Sorry if I came off as rude but your argument that the only reason to choose a rifle team is because a "rifle squad is composed of BAR team and rifle team" is not only historically inaccurate but just plain silly. It's silly because there are many documented cases where soldiers adopted weapons as needed. If they acquired a weapon that gave them extra firepower then they took it.

Example: In Donald Burgett's "Seven Roads to Hell" he describes a fellow airborne soldier that found a .50 MG. He ditched his rifle and lugged the .50 as his main weapon, even firing without a tripod because he was big and strong enough to handle it.

There have many documented cases where squads had extra weapons, including an additional BAR. The easiest proof that I can find right now comes from the Avalon Hill game: Up Front. This is a card game based on the Squad Leader series. There is a section on page 30 of the Manual titled "Historical Notes and Tables of Organization". The end of the 1st paragraph reads:

Although the official organization of the company varied little, the Americans had the tendency to acquire extra equipment. This could occur at any level from additional submachine guns or machine guns to tanks an artillery. However, one official change did occur in 1945 which gave the squad a marked increase in firepower by adding an additional BAR to the twelve man squad.

Perturabo, sorry if I was rude, but your argument that the 12 man squad should always comprise of 1 rifle team and 1 BAR team is not historically accurate and it does not do justice to the U.S. infantry squads that adapted and adopted weapons and tactics as they gained more experience.

And, by the way, I did check my facts and I listed them. Where are yours?

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40

There have many documented cases where squads had extra weapons, including an additional BAR.

In such case there would be more BAR teams than rifle teams in forcepool. Or was it done by cannibalising other rifle squads?

ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40

And, by the way, I did check my facts and I listed them. Where are yours?

My facts are that while in RL some squads could deviate from To&E, in WaR you command whole battalions and you can't change equipment of individual teams (which would be possible in CCMTII).
So, unless the battalion in game has two BARs per squad in its To&E, then the only correct squad structure in game is BAR team + rifle team.
Otherwise you'll end up with a "squad" with two assistant squad leaders or a similar error[:D].
So, the situation that you are talking about doesn't apply to WaR unless someone will create a correct second BAR team and add it to forcepool, replacing some of the rifle teams.
The Bayonet Strength mentioned that rifle companies would get 6 additional BARs a few months after D-Day, so replacing even 2/3 of rifle teams with BAR teams would be OK.

[TheReal_Pak40]

It seems we're talking about two different things. You're strictly talking about the game but I'm referring to history. And I guess my larger point is that the game allows the player to choose go with BAR teams only, if he wants the extra firepower, and that this choice is also historically accurate because it REALLY happened. And if the player runs out of BAR teams and is left with nothing left but rifle teams then who's to say that that did not happen?

In such case there would be more BAR teams than rifle teams in forcepool. Or was it done by cannibalising other rifle squads?

Mostly, it seems that soldiers or certain squads just preferred more firepower and if they found an abandoned or "liberated" weapon that fit their need then they used it. The Matrixgames designed WaR to be customizable and it wouldn't be historically inaccurate if a modder chose to add more BAR teams or even change the To&E to allow for units that were not normally issued. Americans might use a captured Pak40 or panzerfaust or mp40. Germans could use captured .50s and Sherman tanks. The game can even be altered to allow for a certain weapon change within the typical rifle squad.

The official To&E that Matrixgames has used is really bogus and not representational of what really happened in December of 44. Ad-hoc units where strung together to form all sorts of weird combinations of defenses and attacks. The Normal To&E should be thrown out the window, especially for retreating units that had to desperately find whatever they could.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40

It seems we're talking about two different things. You're strictly talking about the game but I'm referring to history. And I guess my larger point is that the game allows the player to choose go with BAR teams only, if he wants the extra firepower, and that this choice is also historically accurate because it REALLY happened. And if the player runs out of BAR teams and is left with nothing left but rifle teams then who's to say that that did not happen?

IIRC, the main point of changeable force mix was preventing situations when players have to attack cities with forces composed mainly of AFVs, not allowing players to take only half-squads.
I'm talking about force mixes like this one.

As for the BAR teams themselves - IINM BAR team and rifle team function like team "A" and team "B" in CCMT that form whole squad - one probably has a squad leader and another has an assistant squad leader, so if you take 6 BAR teams instead of 3 BAR teams and 3 rifle teams, you take 6 half-squads instead of 3 squads.

So, it would require making a new "B" team with BAR.

ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40

Mostly, it seems that soldiers or certain squads just preferred more firepower and if they found an abandoned or "liberated" weapon that fit their need then they used it. The Matrixgames designed WaR to be customizable and it wouldn't be historically inaccurate if a modder chose to add more BAR teams or even change the To&E to allow for units that were not normally issued. Americans might use a captured Pak40 or panzerfaust or mp40. Germans could use captured .50s and Sherman tanks. The game can even be altered to allow for a certain weapon change within the typical rifle squad.

Hmm...
I wonder if Americans ever used captured MG-42s...

ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40

The official To&E that Matrixgames has used is really bogus and not representational of what really happened in December of 44. Ad-hoc units where strung together to form all sorts of weird combinations of defenses and attacks. The Normal To&E should be thrown out the window, especially for retreating units that had to desperately find whatever they could.

Well, remember that it's a highly abstractive game - you command whole operation and resolve battles in small 1 on 1 duel-battles and you can change history[;)]. It's hard to expect it to be representational of what really happened.

[Andrew Williams]

Nothing represents what really happened.

Only the returned vet. has experience of that.


This is a Game set in the time of the Battle of the Bulge... make of that what you will.

[TheReal_Pak40]

Hmm...
I wonder if Americans ever used captured MG-42s...

I'm sure they did, but from what I've ready about captured guns is that they tended to go back to U.S. issue guns because of the confusion that can be caused when you hear that familiar sound of an enemy's gun.

Frost's battalion holding the bridge in Arnhem scrounged all sorts of ammo and guns from the enemy. That was a dire situation though.