British Commando Units

[redcoat2]

A Commando OOB showing their standard late war establishment (introduced in August/September 1943).



Note: the Heavy Weapons Troop includes drivers because the 3in. mortars and Vickers HMGs were transported with jeeps and trailers.

[Cross]

Redcoat,

Your OOB also shows three officers (one Capt, and two Lts) and also shows sections of 13 men and no small 'support' sections.

But it does does differ where it shows the troop HQ as 4 instead of 10, and the Section HQ as 3 instead of 2.

Thanks,
Cross

[redcoat2]

I was curious to see whether early war Commandos were organized differently and so I looked them up. Here is the standard Commando OOB that was used until the reorganization/re-equipping of August/September 1943.



There was no dedicated Heavy Weapons Troop originally – but 3in. mortars and Vickers MGs were used on an ad hoc mission-by-mission basis when they were considered appropriate. The permanent Heavy Weapons Troop was introduced as the Commandos began to be used more as assault troops rather than as hit-and-run raiders.

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by redcoat2

I was curious to see whether early war Commandos were organized differently and so I looked them up. Here is the standard Commando OOB that was used until the reorganization/re-equipping of August/September 1943.



There was no dedicated Heavy Weapons Troop originally – but 3in. mortars and Vickers MGs were used on an ad hoc mission-by-mission basis when they were considered appropriate. The permanent Heavy Weapons Troop was introduced as the Commandos began to be used more as assault troops rather than as hit-and-run raiders.

This organisation seems to be a wee bit of a return to the old gunpowder musket days(1700s-1900 or so), used for line battalions to order volley fires.

Each company would be split into two platoons or 'firings'. and sometimes each platoon was then further split into two halves known as section 'firings'.

Volley fire from the muskets was a combination of each platoon firing together, or in section firings. (AKA rolling volleys). The volleys could start on the wing companies and work to the centre companies, or vice versa.

The idea was that some fraction of the battalion would always have muskets ready to fire, so the line could not be totally surprised by unexpected events (e.g. some cavalry turning up and getting a free charge home).


Some other points re the conversation in general:
1) in SP it is a bad idea to have dedicated identifiable infantry elements (or silly command tanks) as HQs since those are immediately branded with a 'kill me first' badge to OPFOR non-AI players.

2) British APC seem to have a 12 person lift maximum. A CDO split into say 13 man lumps could not use half-tracks, light trucks or kangaroos, but would fit on tanks (13 man lift) and medium trucks. Terrapins do 25 men, so could not quite handle 2x13 man elements in an amphib assault.

You should probably work on 12 man lumps, and post any excess to the platoon and coy HQs to make normal sized sections and some attachments down to same (Bn level snipers, REME drivers, signallers etc)

And remember that in any case, most formations were under strength as a rule even before enemy action (men off sick, on leave, on courses and so forth).

Being on full strength, and especially over-strength was rare as hen's teeth in reality - but it is the full paper strength temple that the TO&E fanatics tend to bow down and worship at .

Andy

[Cross]

Originally Posted by Marek_Tucan

What about using "half-squads" of 7 instead of "squads" of 13-14? I guess that with such a number the squads anyway acted more like two elements, the only question remains whether equal or rather "fire support" and "maneuver".
To show what I think, both Czechoslovakian army and German one used pre-WWII rather large sections of 13-14 men, that were divided between a ca. 4-5 men "machinegun team" servicing a LMG to suppress the enemy and the rest was "maneuver team" to move in close.

Hi Marek,

The Germans and Russians have plenty of 13 and 12 men sections in SP. Most of the Japanese infantry are 12 men sections.

SP doesn't usually split squads/sections into their two fire teams of say 3 men (LCorp, LMG and loader) and 7 men (Corp/Sgt with 7 rifles).

I don't think going down to that mirco-level works that well in this game. It probably would work ok if ALL sections in SP were organized like that. And there's the additional team for an officer to rally.

But keep in mind that a section usually sits in a 50M hex (approx. 250 Sq M). The LMG probably isn't going to be far from the rifles, and IRL if the LMG was KO'd a rifle would take over the LMG, which is how SP roughly works. If the LMG is seperate and the LMG is KO'd it's gone.

Originally Posted by Mobhack

Some other points re the conversation in general:

1) in SP it is a bad idea to have dedicated identifiable infantry elements (or silly command tanks) as HQs since those are immediately branded with a 'kill me first' badge to OPFOR non-AI players.

Agree. A good reason to go with 5 same size sections, similar to how most SP infantry platoons/HQs are represented. Which is one of my points/concerns, that the Army Commando Troop would be better represented if it was brought in line with other infantry units in SP.

Originally Posted by Mobhack

2) British APC seem to have a 12 person lift maximum. A CDO split into say 13 man lumps could not use half-tracks, light trucks or kangaroos, but would fit on tanks (13 man lift) and medium trucks. Terrapins do 25 men, so could not quite handle 2x13 man elements in an amphib assault.

Good point, I hadn't even thought of this.

Originally Posted by Mobhack

You should probably work on 12 man lumps, and post any excess to the platoon and coy HQs to make normal sized sections and some attachments down to same (Bn level snipers, REME drivers, signallers etc)

Andy

If the Army Commando Troops had five 12 men sections that would be 60 men which is about right for a historical formation of 60 to 66 men, a couple of whom were runners or medics and not represented in SP.


cheers,
Cross

[Mobhack]

The CDO platoons (AKA half sections) would probably be best with 4 rifle sections, and a 5th as an engineer class (for their obstacle clearing ability) with SMG, satchel bombs and other CQB stuff.


Andy

[Marek_Tucan]

Originally Posted by Cross

Hi Marek,

The Germans and Russians have plenty of 13 and 12 men sections in SP. Most of the Japanese infantry are 12 men sections.

But these are regular infantry, we're discussing commandos here, IOW units that had to fight often outnumbered, in small teams etc. - to reverse the argument about LMG being gone, if you have one large squad suppressed, it's gone, if you have "Assault" and "MG" elements separate, one can support the other, the same in assault - it would be likely that in the absence of heavy weapons, you'd want the LMGs to provide fire support while maneuvering elements go close to the enemy. So I would say that for spec. troops, such division would be justified.

(just for record, tried a battle in similar settings using USMC company in "Squad organisation" and "Fireteam organisation" - while fireteams were fragile if taken isolated, they were huge bonus when suppressing the enemy as more weapons fired and they were harder to suppress.)

[Cross]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

The CDO platoons (AKA half sections) would probably be best with 4 rifle sections, and a 5th as an engineer class (for their obstacle clearing ability) with SMG, satchel bombs and other CQB stuff.

Andy

This would work. I assume you mean that one of the four rifle 'sections' would also be the HQ section?

Originally Posted by Marek_Tucan

But these are regular infantry, we're discussing commandos here, IOW units that had to fight often outnumbered, in small teams etc. - to reverse the argument about LMG being gone, if you have one large squad suppressed, it's gone, if you have "Assault" and "MG" elements separate, one can support the other, the same in assault - it would be likely that in the absence of heavy weapons, you'd want the LMGs to provide fire support while maneuvering elements go close to the enemy. So I would say that for spec. troops, such division would be justified.

(just for record, tried a battle in similar settings using USMC company in "Squad organisation" and "Fireteam organisation" - while fireteams were fragile if taken isolated, they were huge bonus when suppressing the enemy as more weapons fired and they were harder to suppress.)

I don't see much difference - in SP - wether the section are Light Infantry, Ghurkas, Calvalry, Engineers, PzGren, Ski Troops, Paras or Commando. The standard section should fight as a section in a 50M hex.

Sensible exceptions are made for scouts, snipers, AT teams, MGs etc. But these exceptions are 'support', and are consistant.

Why should Commando sections be the only ones split into fire teams and the disadvangtages - in SP - that incurs; and also have the disadvantage of only being able to purchase a 'platoon' (Troop) with tons of support baggage already attached?

Surely Commando troops should be more flexible, not less flexible?

We must remember the scale of the game. Fire and movement is done on the platoon level in SP not the squad/section level.
So one whole section supports another as it moves forward.

Support units, especially MGs, can still be purchased and used for supression; just as you may with regular infantry.

I agree with you that smaller fire teams are more vulnerable/fragile in SP. And agree that there are some circumstancial exceptions to this.

The current SP Army Commando Troop is not historically accurate.

I guess my thought is that by transforming the basic Commando Troop to a more typical SP infantry platoon, you are making it more historical and a more effective fighting force. Currently, I wouldn't use a Commando Troop for anything other than a scenario build.

Seperate smaller support units would be available to 'add on' as the situation requires.

We should also remember that Commando Troops fought in the line alongside regular infantry. Their daring raids got all the press attention, but these units often had to fight like regular infantry on the front. But better equipped no doubt.

cheers,
Cross

[redcoat2]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

This organisation seems to be a wee bit of a return to the old gunpowder musket days(1700s-1900 or so), used for line battalions to order volley fires.

Each company would be split into two platoons or 'firings'. and sometimes each platoon was then further split into two halves known as section 'firings'.

Volley fire from the muskets was a combination of each platoon firing together, or in section firings. (AKA rolling volleys). The volleys could start on the wing companies and work to the centre companies, or vice versa.

The idea was that some fraction of the battalion would always have muskets ready to fire, so the line could not be totally surprised by unexpected events (e.g. some cavalry turning up and getting a free charge home).

Andy

I think the ‘file firing’ you describe was often in the manuals of the time, but not often used in reality. Few British officers of the ‘blackpowder’ era bothered to read Dundas or the other manuals available to them. The officers that did use file firing found it to be very impressive on the parade ground and very unimpressive on the battlefield. They found that file firing often quickly degenerated into wild firing under combat conditions. Volley firing by rank – or by the classic two ranks – was probably much more common. Even volley firing by rank often became confused after three or so volleys in combat. Luckily for the British two or three steady volleys was often enough to halt or break an enemy attack.

I suspect that the Commando units used for short hit-and-run operations out of Blighty were reasonably up to strength, but yes, most units would have been under strength to some degree. The strength of a Commando Troop was originally set at 62 men because that was the number of men that could be comfortably fitted into the Assault Landing Craft they were using at the time.