HQ / Mech Inf "Theory"

[barbarossa2]

I would like to say that I am not an expert on actual military doctrine, and was never in ANY army. As such, what I spew out in this forum is based on limited knowledge from "reading about it in tons of books." Nothing better.

That said, I do know someone who does have experience. My dad. I have mentioned elsewhere that he was an armored company commander and general's aide in 1960s Germany.

I had an interesting half hour conversation with him on two topics which I have posted on. This is a VERY brief summary.

RE: HQs leading charges:
"Bn HQs would be 500 to 1000 meters behind the front line. In theory, in no circumstances, would a Bn HQ move up to directly engage the enemy, or lead an attack." However, war is a mix of theory and human behavior. And my dad said that it could be done, and was done on rare occasion (what he meant by "rare" I do not know...10%, 20%...dunno). As an "individual courageous act". To get company commanders to move. To inspire. He sited an event which occured under Patton around Bastogne. Apparenly, one armored battalion commander operating on the flank had lost most of two companies already and moved his tank up to directly engage the enemy. He indicated that in most HQs of armored companies, the Bn commander was the only one with a tank. The rest operated in half tracks and jeeps." He went on to state, "there comes a time when you have to take an objective and everyone can see the commander's tank because it is sufficiently marked (visible from sides and rear). Sometimes you have to just say, "follow me." But if it has come this far, things are seriously out of control.

Interesting. If PG uncovered a bug with the other posts of mine dealing with Bn HQs leading charges, and fixed it, then great. Of course, now that I have heard this from my dad, I would like to see the occassional Bn HQ leading a desperate, stalled attack! Of course, with aggressive leaders more likely to do this. But as a matter of doctrine? No.

RE: Mechanized Infantry:
In the discussion on WWII american doctrine, it was always doctrine to have infantry being transported in trucks to be driven up to within "1 mile" of the line of departure and have them walk the rest of the way. Closer was too dangerous. Infantry in armoured vehicles could be brought up and operate near armor. Again...that is the DOCTRINE. But may not always be done like this.

[Arjuna]

Chris,
 
Re HQs. Well from my reading of history I'd say there are many, many occasions where Bn commanders ended up leading from the front in WW2. Sure they may start out behind the lead elements and maintain that relative position if things according to plan. But it's when the poverbial hits the fan that forces the issue. The Bn commander is then forced to call a halt to the attack, plead or cojole over the radio or go forward in person and use his physical presence to get things rolling again. The latter was invartiably the most effective.
 
Anyway, we've addressed the bug with the HQs overruning the front line. But this is not to say that the unit in front of the HQ won't be routed leaving the HQs effectively in the front line ( such is war ).

[Arjuna]

Re Mech Inf. Sure the intent is to dismount well before contact. But as so often happens, where we anticipate contact and where we get it are more often than not different. I think our current approach here ( of dismounting when the enemy firepower influence, as we discern it, is deemed too strong ) models this well.

[barbarossa2]

I am very happy with the outcome of the bug patch and what I think HQs will be doing from now on. Usually I am impressed as hell with what I see your programming accomplishing!

I just wanted to share what my dad said with the forum. I think he would agree with your HQ statement above exactly from what I understand.

Looking forward to the patch. [;)]

P.S. Think there is a difference between soft mech infantry being trucked around and mech inf operating in armored half tracks. Seems that inf in armored half tracks deploy much closer to the LD and on top of enemy (with more supporting firepower) than inf operating in trucks. Does AA model this?

[Arjuna]

Yes, because the mech inf will require a significantly higher amount and type of enemy firepower before they deem it best to dismount. Eg a mot inf unit may decide that the firepower from an enemy inf company is sufficient to force it to dismount, while a mech inf unit may not. However if there were an AT Tp nearby it would.

[barbarossa2]

Ahhh!!! Great on the modelling difference you describe above!

I would also like to say that it IS important to realize that my dad had NO wartime experience. And even he reminded me of that. So that, as you said, when the shit hit the fan, things would be different than in peace time. As such, there were probably more situations which required a Bn commander to lead (attacks or defences) and which actually got him excited enough to do this than on my dad's manovers in Cold War Germany. As such, I can see bahavior differing.

Thanks! For your effort. For the game. It IS sheer genius. NOW, I am going to enjoy another scenario, knowing that a patch is on the way, AND knowing that when the s&%t hits the fan, on occasion, battalion commanders DO kick their subordinates asses and shame them into action.