Rifle Squad Differences?

[Shazman]

I'm trying to determine what makes a rifle squad light, regular or heavy. Perhaps the number of light machine guns? Perhaps the number of men in the squad?

I realize the differences between the generic squads and those with RL and HRL. It's the vanilla ones I'm wondering about.

Does anyone have any definitive information on this?

[ColinWright]

It's not something where 'information' will really help -- although the heavy rifle squad is supposed to represents squads with an unusually high number of automatic weapons.

The real problem is the whole concept of having the 'squad' as the ultimate particle rather than the individual rifleman. Historical 'squads' ranged all the way from eight men to nineteen men -- and how to translate all that accurately into uniform TOAW squads is a conundrum with no really satisfactory solution.

For what it's worth, I've done the following in my scenarios.

German squads are 'heavy rifle.' The Germans made much more effective use of their machine guns and had a much more aggressive doctrine than other armies. For 'squads' that actually had more automatic weapons such as the panzergrenadiers, I've made up a 'Schutzen' squad where that attack number is punched up even higher.

Forces with inadequately trained or demoralized or poorly equipped infantry get 'light rifles.' They might well be able to defend themselves, but they would be disproportionately lackluster in the attack, and less likely to inflict casualties on the enemy.

For the Japanese -- although I have never actually designed a scenario involving them -- I've contemplated the idea of using 'assault recon teams.' After all, the Japanese were experts at either suffering or inflicting very heavy losses very quickly. It seems to me the low defense value and high attack value of 'assault recon' could produce this effect -- and of course the enhanced ability to slip around defenders wouldn't be inappropriate either.

Other than that, I have a predilection for following the T0&E. A battalion with three rifle companies of three rifle platoons each consisting of three rifle squads gets 27 rifle squads -- regardless of whether these were eight man squads or fourteen man sections. I realize others might use a different formula.

Generally, about all that can be definitively said is that one should apply one's formula consistently. If one represents one sides' three fourteen man sections with three rifle squads, it's hardly reasonable to represent the other side's three thirteen man sections with four rifle squads.

I've never understood why TOAW was designed this way. In fact, I don't see why it couldn't be changed now. Rather than the 'squad' as the base unit, we could just have different flavors of individual riflemen and MG teams. Naturally, all the other numbers in the database would need to get multiplied -- but so what? It just doesn't sound very hard.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Forces with inadequately trained or demoralized or poorly equipped infantry get 'light rifles.' They might well be able to defend themselves, but they would be disproportionately lackluster in the attack, and less likely to inflict casualties on the enemy.

"Defend" and "Attack" and the tactical level, not in terms of whether you're trying to hold a hex or capture one.

Anti-personnel strength influences the lethality of equipment, defence strength influences its survivability.

It seems to me the low defense value and high attack value of 'assault recon'

It has the normal defence value. You'd have to either modify it, or cripple the Japanese in some other way. In fact I think regular rifle recon squads would be good. The reconaissance value would give their infantry a great shock effect, but if the enemy survived the initial storm they would be unlikely to shift them later. Add to this high proficiency, and you have assaults which are either immediately successful or leave the attackers in ruins.

I've never understood why TOAW was designed this way. In fact, I don't see why it couldn't be changed now.

It could- but it would require a new version with various tweaks, not a modified database, as more items of equipment will need more transport, and more transport will lead to very high traffic penalties.

[Shazman]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Other than that, I have a predilection for following the T0&E. A battalion with three rifle companies of three rifle platoons each consisting of three rifle squads gets 27 rifle squads -- regardless of whether these were eight man squads or fourteen man sections. I realize others might use a different formula.

Ah, and there's another situation all together. An army, say the Soviets, begin the war with twelve man rifle squads but end the war with nine man rifle squads. I think their rifle divisions went through more changes than my wife since I married her. [:D]

I do agree that one is forced into a corner and the game does not give enough flexibility to cover a campaign adequately for more than a few months so comprimises abound. The Western Allies might be the more stable of the bunch...might be.

Thanks for your help.

[fogger]

Shazman, the reason why women marry men is to change them into what they want. [:D] Also remember the golden rule. A women always remains the same once they reach 21yo. Just ask my mum, she still puts her age down as 21 and heaven help anybody who questions it. [:-]

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
It could- but it would require a new version with various tweaks, not a modified database, as more items of equipment will need more transport, and more transport will lead to very high traffic penalties.

Yeah. However, none of the programming hurdles sound all that daunting. More a matter of there being a fair number of them.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Forces with inadequately trained or demoralized or poorly equipped infantry get 'light rifles.' They might well be able to defend themselves, but they would be disproportionately lackluster in the attack, and less likely to inflict casualties on the enemy.

"Defend" and "Attack" and the tactical level, not in terms of whether you're trying to hold a hex or capture one.

Anti-personnel strength influences the lethality of equipment, defence strength influences its survivability.

Yeah, that I know.

It seems to me the low defense value and high attack value of 'assault recon'

It has the normal defence value. You'd have to either modify it, or cripple the Japanese in some other way. In fact I think regular rifle recon squads would be good. The reconaissance value would give their infantry a great shock effect, but if the enemy survived the initial storm they would be unlikely to shift them later. Add to this high proficiency, and you have assaults which are either immediately successful or leave the attackers in ruins.

Right you are. I'd tend to play with lowering the defense value, as even early in the war, Japanese attacks that didn't work tended to leave large mounds of dead Japanese.

Your basic unsuccessful German attack would push out a paw, take 10% casualties, say that's not working, and go try poking somewhere else. Your basic Japanese attack would jump in with both feet, and either succeed gloriously (usually, 1941-42) or fail abysmally with 80% losses (usually, 1943-45).

...your basic Anglo-American attack would say, 'there seem to be enemy troops present,' plaster the area with ten tons per square foot of high explosive, push out a paw, say 'there are still enemy troops present', try plastering the area with one hundred tons per square foot of high explosive, and push out the the paw again...

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Yeah, that I know.

Well, we are trying to be educational, so I thought I'd better spell it out.

[vahauser]

I believe that the .eqp file should be tailored to the scenario being played.  1939 is different from 1945.  I basically treat rifle squads as groups of 10 men.  So, for me, the 14-man Polish rifle squads in 1939 get 27 rifle squads + 10 light rifle squads per battalion (they only had 1 LMG per squad). 
 
Further, counting up the number of LMGs per battalion can help determine the number of light/standard/heavy rifle squads per battalion.  For example, if a German battalion has 36 LMGs and 27 squads, then that would be 18 rifle squads and 9 heavy rifle squads.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Shazman

I'm trying to determine what makes a rifle squad light, regular or heavy. Perhaps the number of light machine guns? Perhaps the number of men in the squad?

I realize the differences between the generic squads and those with RL and HRL. It's the vanilla ones I'm wondering about.

Does anyone have any definitive information on this?

In the manual folder you'll find the following document: "Equipment List.rtf". Look under "Additional Equipment Notes", "Infantry, Cavalry, & Support Troops" on page 88. It describes what Norm intended the various squads to represent. I read it as follows:

Light Rifle Squad: The squad is armed with rifles.
Rifle Squad: The squad is armed with rifles + 1 LMG.
Heavy Rifle Squad: The squad is armed with rifles + 1 MMG.
SMG Squad: The squad is armed with SMGs + 1 LMG.
Assault Rifle Squad: The squad is armed with assault rifles + 1 LMG.

Of course, designers are free to interpret them however they please. One variation I use is to slightly alter the HRS definition to have 2 LMGs instead of the 1 MMG.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

I basically treat rifle squads as groups of 10 men.  So, for me, the 14-man Polish rifle squads in 1939 get 27 rifle squads + 10 light rifle squads per battalion (they only had 1 LMG per squad). 

Further, counting up the number of LMGs per battalion can help determine the number of light/standard/heavy rifle squads per battalion.  For example, if a German battalion has 36 LMGs and 27 squads, then that would be 18 rifle squads and 9 heavy rifle squads.

That's the way I do it. Pour the contents of the squads into a pile, stir it with a stick, then reform 10-man squads however the equipment allows.

[rhinobones]

At the operational scale of warfare, why is any one concerned about the composition of a “squad”? After all, we are talking about the operational orders given to battalions, regiments and divisions. Not squads.

Norm gave you some candy, doesn’t mean you have to eat it.

Regards, RhinoBones

[L`zard]

ORIGINAL: Shazman
I'm trying to determine what makes a rifle squad light, regular or heavy. Perhaps the number of light machine guns? Perhaps the number of men in the squad?
I realize the differences between the generic squads and those with RL and HRL. It's the vanilla ones I'm wondering about.
Does anyone have any definitive information on this?

Shaz,

Considering that there are 'Editors' available to scenario designers, where-in they can change almost all the numbers to make a sqd work as they please, all I can say to you is that 'IT DEPENDS'.........

I'd say outright that it's all about the designer's intent....

AND I agree with Rhino, more or less, that Sqds are just another way of pushing numbers into 'formation values'.........

So in every scenario, there will be variables that will be defined only by the designer, and might not have all that high a degree of accuracy vis a vis a 'particular' OOB for one time and nation or another due to the designers understanding of the comparative situation.

This is one reason why most of us have a whole library of 'urls' to various sites yielding OOB information.

Good Luck in your quest, eh?

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: L`zard
Good Luck in your quest, eh?

Eh, eh . . . and another couple of eh's for you and your farm animals.

Eh . . . how you doing with a bunch of "Eh's" from Budapest?

Wish you the best from that great state of North New York. Eh, eh!

Regards, RhinoBones

[L`zard]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL: L`zard
Good Luck in your quest, eh?

Eh, eh . . . and another couple of eh's for you and your farm animals.

Eh . . . how you doing with a bunch of "Eh's" from Budapest?

Wish you the best from that great state of North New York. Eh, eh!

Regards, RhinoBones

[{Pretty dmn Good...from the East, just looking for more 'eh's' from the West}]

Reps to ya Rhino, if it could be done! Your sh** don't stink.......That much, lol

I WILL continue to keep my friends from behind the Iron Curtain, reguarless of the expense to myself...

[Central Blue]

one of the reasons I never finish a scenario is that I get distracted on figuring out things like how to create "accurate" squads or other items of equipment.

Let's say you accept that the water-cooled Vickers should be you gold standard for the AP value of 2. You could base your theory on cyclic rate of fire, but I think a better calculation is something like sustained rate of fire per minute. The M3 grease gun or Sten have interesting cyclic rates of fire, but it is hard to imagine anyone firing as many effective rounds per minute from a Sten as a water cooled weapon like the Vickers or M1917.

So you poke around on the internet and you find out that the Vickers could fire 10,000 rounds per hour, hour after hour. So you find out how much the typical slug weighs, push the numbers around till you have a formula that equals an AP of 2. Then you can begin to evaluate other weapons like the BAR and Bren. You can find FM's for the BAR that say sustained rate of fire is maybe 40-60 rounds per minute depending on training and model. And you can find lots of claims on the net that the Bren is good for 120 sustained rounds per minute, which is probably true if it really is operated by a team and they have spare barrels.

You can push the numbers around according to whatever data you can come up with, but all of a sudden, all of those Brens and 2" mortars in the carrier platoon begin to make some sense, because they actually add a significant weight of fire to the battalion.

And you can examine issues like the change in weight of the slug for M1917 because it was shooting too far for most interwar ranges in the US.

And it leaves all sorts of room for interesting arguments, because sustained rate of fire for the Garand isn't really that much higher than some claims made on behalf of the Springfield or Enfield. Someone writing a squad for a game with week long turns might decide to rate weapons differently than someone covering multiple turns per day.

BUt, in the specific case of figuring out a squad, fractional differences between individual weapons take on more meaning because they are being added together. That guy with the pistol carrying ammo or spare barrels and a pistol isn't adding anything to the weight of fire going down range/

What ever rate of fire numbers you choose, it gives you a way to compare a Series G Marine Corps Squad with 3 BAR's and 10 Garands to a German squad with one light MG43 and 4 to 6 guy running around with bolt action rifles while everyone else is catering to the needs of the MG43. A useful number if you are writing that scenario where the Marines storm Omaha Beach

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Central Blue

one of the reasons I never finish a scenario is that I get distracted on figuring out things like how to create "accurate" squads or other items of equipment.

Let's say you accept that the water-cooled Vickers should be you gold standard for the AP value of 2. You could base your theory on cyclic rate of fire, but I think a better calculation is something like sustained rate of fire per minute. The M3 grease gun or Sten have interesting cyclic rates of fire, but it is hard to imagine anyone firing as many effective rounds per minute from a Sten as a water cooled weapon like the Vickers or M1917.

So you poke around on the internet and you find out that the Vickers could fire 10,000 rounds per hour, hour after hour. So you find out how much the typical slug weighs, push the numbers around till you have a formula that equals an AP of 2. Then you can begin to evaluate other weapons like the BAR and Bren. You can find FM's for the BAR that say sustained rate of fire is maybe 40-60 rounds per minute depending on training and model. And you can find lots of claims on the net that the Bren is good for 120 sustained rounds per minute, which is probably true if it really is operated by a team and they have spare barrels.

You can push the numbers around according to whatever data you can come up with, but all of a sudden, all of those Brens and 2" mortars in the carrier platoon begin to make some sense, because they actually add a significant weight of fire to the battalion.

And you can examine issues like the change in weight of the slug for M1917 because it was shooting too far for most interwar ranges in the US.

And it leaves all sorts of room for interesting arguments, because sustained rate of fire for the Garand isn't really that much higher than some claims made on behalf of the Springfield or Enfield. Someone writing a squad for a game with week long turns might decide to rate weapons differently than someone covering multiple turns per day.

BUt, in the specific case of figuring out a squad, fractional differences between individual weapons take on more meaning because they are being added together. That guy with the pistol carrying ammo or spare barrels and a pistol isn't adding anything to the weight of fire going down range/

What ever rate of fire numbers you choose, it gives you a way to compare a Series G Marine Corps Squad with 3 BAR's and 10 Garands to a German squad with one light MG43 and 4 to 6 guy running around with bolt action rifles while everyone else is catering to the needs of the MG43. A useful number if you are writing that scenario where the Marines storm Omaha Beach

There's reliability. Always a big factor. Aside from what happens if the damn thing actually does jam, it gives everyone that warm fuzzy feeling if they know the machine gun will work when they need it to.

There's also the consideration the Germans found convincing: that people will hide once you open fire on them with a machine gun, so an extremely high rate of fire was desirable. In other words, in a lot of situations, it doesn't matter how many bullets you're spitting out on second three or four: everyone's either hit or under cover.

Just as importantly, though, I think you have to look at how the automatic weapon was employed. The Germans, more so than other armies, tended to see the infantry squad as a support team for the machine gun. This probably made at least as big a difference as whether the piece fired five hundred rounds a minute, or nine hundred, or whether it could fire for three minutes or seven minutes without pause.

Generally, when it comes to weapons I think people overemphasize rate of fire, shell weight, range, etc. One has to look at such 'softer' data as reliability, ease of use, and the doctrine for that use. For example, if one looks at numbers for a vehicle such as the Pz III with the 37 mm gun, it's a rather unimpressive tank compared to the Somua. This overlooks factors like that nice roomy turret, and carefully-thought out crew positions, and reliability, and radios, and how the crew was taught to use their tank. Put all those together, and you realize you might really be better off in the Pz III than in the Somua. At any rate, not as worse off as it might first appear.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

So, for me, the 14-man Polish rifle squads in 1939 get 27 rifle squads + 10 light rifle squads per battalion (they only had 1 LMG per squad).

14 men is just the rifle teams- there are actually 18 riflemen in the squad, plus the machine-gunner. Plus the light mortar section of the platoon has 10 men with 7 rifles, which strikes me as more than you need to handle a few 46mm shells.

Adding these extra light rifles makes a world of difference. When I included them in my Poland, it became a lot more difficult for the German to just bludgeon his way to victory with artillery.

One can get too bogged down in this- and obviously the four stretcher bearers in the company HQ are going to be carrying stretchers, not firing their rifles. But it's certainly worth looking.

[Central Blue]

Go to the trouble of tracking down all that sort of data on rate of fire and you'll run into plenty of discussion on squad tactics and weapons design that is quite fascinating and also diverting from the grunt work of scenario creation. So it's entertaining to know that the MG43 is designed for a certain rate of fire because of their concept of how long men would remain in the open before seeking cover, but the game discussed here operates in periods of hours to weeks rather than second and minutes.

Talking about squad tactics and trying to assign AP numbers to squads based on their theory of operation rather than the actual weapons in their possession and you are talking about some other game, with some other rules, and at a scale considerably lower than 2.5 km per hex. No doubt it would be an interesting game because you could get into the different ways different Allied squads would maneuver against that squad of Germans and their MG43.

Or, for this game and a given scenario, you could just come to the conclusion that German squads like totally kick ass you know man, so they should have twice the AP of other squads. Scenario designers have that option if they want to use the ACOW editor.

Reliability of a weapon is affected by its rate of fire. Fire it too fast for too long and the weapon ceases to become effective. That's why there are numbers on effective or sustained rate vs. cyclic rate.

You don't read a lot of complaints about reliability from fans of the BAR, Bren, or MG43; try to come up with soft data based on the opinions of the fans of those weapons and you are well out of the land of data, soft or otherwise. On the other hand, if the designer feels that the advertised rate of fire numbers he has for x weapon are unrealistic because it was notoriously unreliable, he has a matrix to plug his number into that allows him to compare apples to apples.

Getting into tanks vs. tanks and you are still left with the issue of the game we have versus some other game. Spend enough time looking at the armor and anti-armor numbers as they are for the WWII assets, and its pretty clear that more often than not, they are roughly equivalent to centimeters of armor on the turret front and widely available numbers on penetration of 30 degree RHA armor at 1000 meters. Coming up with some more predictable armor vs anti-armor formula based on rate of fire and something more complex than the turret front is beyond my arithmetic skills.

But this isn't a game about the second to second travails of the hapless crew members of the individual Somua. The scenario creator is free to employ all sorts of soft data to rate the various air and ground units, and that is mostly what we have to model the training and doctrine for units of Somuas vs. units of Pz III's not to mention coordinated air cover for the Germans vs. whatever the French air force was doing.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
...But this isn't a game about the second to second travails of the hapless crew members of the individual Somua. The scenario creator is free to employ all sorts of soft data to rate the various air and ground units, and that is mostly what we have to model the training and doctrine for units of Somuas vs. units of Pz III's not to mention coordinated air cover for the Germans vs. whatever the French air force was doing.

Well, at least in theory, if the liability or redeeming feature is idiosyncratic to the weapon rather than the unit as a whole, one would want to adjust the values for that weapon, not for the unit.

Like, if you are convinced that the H-78 was a piece of crap that burst into flame under rifle fire, then one would units affected to exactly the extent that they were equipped with H-78's. The obvious thing to do is to adjust the values one assigns to the H-78.

I think part of the difference here is my attitude towards design. I always adjust weapon values to whatever I find appropriate to the scenario. It's not like I see this as some kind of radical measure or somehow harder than adjusting final unit values.