Carrier platoon

Prepare yourself for a wargaming tour-de-force! Conquest of the Aegean is the next generation of the award-winning and revolutionary Airborne Assault series and it takes brigade to corps-level warfare to a whole new level. Realism and accuracy are the watchwords as this pausable continuous time design allows you to command at any echelon, with smart AI subordinates and an incredibly challenging AI.

Moderator: Arjuna

Post Reply
TMO
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 11:34 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

Carrier platoon

Post by TMO »

As currently modelled in COTA the carrier platoon appears to be shared out amongst the infantry companies. I wonder if the number of Brens and Boys anti-tank rifles isn't quite right. The following is from Gary Kennedy's excellent site:

(http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Bri ... talion.htm)
Carrier Platoon - the Carrier Platoon offered a unique blend of mobility and firepower to the Battalion. It was based upon the early Bren Carrier, more correctly referred to as the Universal Carrier. The vehicle was an attempt to provide a fully tracked, lightly armoured vehicle which could transport a Bren gun across exposed ground and return fire.

The Platoon contained four Sections, each of three carriers, plus one at Platoon HQ for a total of thirteen. Each Carrier was crewed initially by three men, increased to four men by 1943, an NCO commanding a driver and one then two riflemen. Each Section was accompanied by a motorcycle orderly from 1943. Previously, there was a motorcycle 'section' of twenty men on eight solo and four combination machines, but it seems this was only intended for use in home based units.

Each Carrier mounted a Bren gun, which could be removed and fired from cover. Also each Section had initially a Boys Anti-tank Rifle, and later a Projector, Infantry, Anti-tank, plus a 2 inch mortar which could be fired in or out of the carrier. This collection gave the platoon a higher number of light support weapons than a Rifle Company, but its manpower was insufficient for it to hold ground indefinitely, and the profusion of German anti-tank weapons made for a hostile environment. Platoon HQ added one, later two trucks and further motorcycles to the Commander's Carrier.

Each company has 9 Brens and 4 Boys, according to the above it should have 3 more Brens and maybe one more Boys.

Thoughts/comments?

Regards

Tim

User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Carrier platoon

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

Carrier Platoons have indeed been split accross companies. As for Bren/Boys strength, isn't it reasonable to assume that carriers with Boys rifles didn't carry Brens? In that case it would indeed add up to 9 (or 10) Brens and 3 (or 4) Boys (or later PIATs).
 
O.
TMO
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 11:34 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

RE: Carrier platoon

Post by TMO »

If they didn't then the number would be right. The final paragraph of the quote and the fact that the crew for a Bren carrier was three to four men suggests (to me at least) that they did. Not the first time I've been wrong however.

Regards

Tim
TMO
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 11:34 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

RE: Carrier platoon

Post by TMO »

This is from http://www.btinternet.com/~ian.a.paters ... fantry.htm. A bit ambiguous - starts out saying Brens weren't carried but ends up saying they were!
Universal Carrier:

At the start of the war there many different types of this vehicle in service, including some made by Loyd and what was to become better known as the Bren Gun carrier.

After the fall of France the British Army rationalised the equipment used by mobile infantry sections and settled up the Bren Gun carrier for use as an section transport or light gun tractor. Although it was called a Bren Gun carrier it was seldom actually armed with one, but rather it could carry a Vickers Medium Machine Gun (favoured by the Australians), a Boys Anti-tank rifle, a 2" or a 3" mortar. It served with the Carrier Platoons of the Motor Battalions with aim of providing and Infantry Battalion with the ability to move a small portion of its establishment under armoured protection. The men of the Rifle Platoons could not pile into the vehicles as they could do with halftracks. Each Carrier had its own Bren gun team and was intended to operate in a fire support role for the walking infantrymen, rather than act as their transportation. In reality, the Carrier served in a host of other less offensive but equally vital roles. Where a Carrier Section of three machines was placed under the command of a Rifle Company, the Company Commander could utilise it in a number of ways. Firstly, he could take advantage of the addition of three more Bren guns, a PIAT and a 2 inch mortar to ‘thicken the fire of his Fire Platoon’. This unit provided a base of fire under cover of which the remaining two Rifle Platoons would advance. The support weapons of the Carrier Section could literally double the firepower of this Platoon

Or could the line
...it could carry a Vickers Medium Machine Gun (favoured by the Australians)...

be the answer? Certainly could for the Aussie units but what about the Kiwis and the Brits?

Regards

Tim

Regards

Tim
User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Carrier platoon

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

No....

I think we are both mistaken, in a way, or I simply misunderstood you.

Carriers, called "Bren Carriers" in the game, have "organic" Bren attached, at all times. Ie. every Bran Carrier (Aus or UK) comes with Bren MG which is not listed separately in TOE. Aus Carriers don't have Vickers MG, despite your quote saying Australians favored Vickers.

There is a version of Bren Carrier with 3in mortar (which also has Bren MG). But there is NO Bren Carrier with Boys, so Boys ATRs had to be modelled separately.

9 Brens (MGs) in INF Coy have nothing to do with Bren MGs on carriers themselves - they are organic to INF squads. I guess Boys ATRs DO come from carrier platoons being spread accros coys, but Bren MGs do not.

I hope I explained it all clearly enough and that this mystery is now solved [:)]
TMO
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 11:34 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

RE: Carrier platoon

Post by TMO »

OK, that makes sense - if the organic Bren on a 'Bren' carrier isn't shown but still modelled as part of the company's weapons then the mystery is indeed solved. What proportion of the headquarters/support company is included in an infantry company's TOE? I presume admin and signals are not.

Regards

Tim
User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Carrier platoon

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

ORIGINAL: TMO

OK, that makes sense - if the organic Bren on a 'Bren' carrier isn't shown but still modelled as part of the company's weapons then the mystery is indeed solved.

It is shown, kind of [;)] - if you look at the scenario editor.

And - to preempt your next question/suggestion, the ability to see detailed data about vehicles in game (currently available in scenario editor) is on the wishlist already [8D] (I believe, Dave is the right man to comment on this of course)
What proportion of the headquarters/support company is included in an infantry company's TOE? I presume admin and signals are not.

Signals are in HQ unit, or HQ Coy unit, Admins are in the Bde base unit.

I will take opporunity to quote directly from the mouth of The Master, Steve "Golf33" Long himself (he did most of TOE/OOB for COTA, and IMO it is *excellent* work).

"In 1941 HQ Coy was indeed what we would now call Spt Coy - it included Sig Pl, AA Pl, Mor Pl, Pnr Pl, Admin Pl and Carrier Pl.

In the estabs, I would have allocated Sig Pl and Pnr Pl to the Bn HQ and probably Admin Pl to the Bde base. Carrier Pl was split up across all companies and the HQ (historically it would have been normally used as a formed unit for things like reserve, counterpenetration, recce and screening but you and I decided that COTA's AI would not deal well with this). Mor Pl is of course depicted as a separate unit."

That's it. Personally I think mortar platoon is "too much detail" in some scenarios, but hey, this game is not designed so that players would micromanage each Mor Pl independently [;)]

Oleg
TMO
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 11:34 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

RE: Carrier platoon

Post by TMO »

Thanks for the info Oleg - makes much more sense now.
 
Regards
 
Tim
Golf33
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:54 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

RE: Carrier platoon

Post by Golf33 »

Lol, talk about a blast from the past. [:D]

edit: from memory, one reason the Mor Pl is separated out is that the AI will treat any unit with an indirect fire/bombard capability as a dedicated indirect fire support resource. This means that an infantry company with a bombard-capable weapon will get put into on-call firebase reserve, instead of being allocated to the front line!

Regards
Steve
Steve Golf33 Long
Image
User avatar
Arjuna
Posts: 17768
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

RE: Carrier platoon

Post by Arjuna »

ORIGINAL: Golf33
edit: from memory, one reason the Mor Pl is separated out is that the AI will treat any unit with an indirect fire/bombard capability as a dedicated indirect fire support resource. This means that an infantry company with a bombard-capable weapon will get put into on-call firebase reserve, instead of being allocated to the front line!

Hey Steve they say memory is the first thing to go ( but I'm not sure I can remember the exact saying [;)] ).

Actually the real determinant is whether the unit is assigned a bombard capability. A line unit without such a capability but with indirect weapons will direct fire them instead. So in order to have the mortars using their indirect fiore capability we separate them out from the rest of the notional Support Coy. In practice Support Companies rarely operated as a single entity. Their mortars were at their firebase, MGs and AT assets were normally parcelled out to the line companies.
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com
Golf33
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:54 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

RE: Carrier platoon

Post by Golf33 »

That's what I wasn't sure of - whether the key bombard capability was with the unit estab or the weapon estab.

Cheers
Steve
Steve Golf33 Long
Image
Post Reply

Return to “Conquest of the Aegean”