NA Infantry Formations

[kalos72]

So in the URBAN GUERILLA module they talk about infantry formations taking upwards of 200% casualties.

How do you think those formations are set up? Do they just wade into the opposing force with inferior weapons and just over run them?

I am trying to envision the type of unit some might put together just to increase their numbers. Ballistic shields to close and then hand to hand with machetes or something?

Whats the lowest type of organized infantry you can envision in T2K?

[Webstral]

I suspect that New American infantry formations are organized along lines that would be very familiar to American soldiers. Local adaptations will be necessary due to equipment, manpower, and circumstances. However, given the strong influence the US Army and USMC are likely to have on the organization, the light formations probably are organized more-or-less along US Army lines. The armored car formations probably are based on the three-vehicle or four-vehicle platoon model with three platoons and a headquarters section of two vehicles making a company.

Manpower shortages being what they are, even New America probably tries something more sophisticated than human waves. The so-called Big Bad One of Urban Guerilla is supposed to be a superior formation.

Two hundred percent casualties certainly is a high number, but it doesn't necessarily indicate that the unit is used without any regard for its troops. This unit has been in action for some time. One percent casualties per day of engagement means that in two hundred days of engagement the unit has suffered two hundred percent casualties. If the formation has been fighting for eighteen months, this is enough time for the Big Bad One to have been involved in a large number of engagements resulting in one percent casualties, plus enough time to be rotated to the rear to absorb replacements. A few big fights might cost the formation three or ten percent casualties, after which time it would absorb replacements. A hardened core of NCOs and company grade officers would emerge from this kind of treatment.

Bear in mind that it's the FNG who is at greatest risk. A seasoned platoon sergeant will have a lot of new privates shot out from under his supervision when a unit is constantly moving between combat and refit over the course of several months. Urban combat results in a high turnover of personnel. Just ask Sixth German Army.

Webstral

[Abbott Shaull]

One has to remember the NA Infantry were general made up of basic non-citizens or citizens with fewer right trying to make their way up. Think of the so called Color Regiments of the Civil War era. The few of troops rose above the rank of Platoon Sergeant, First Sergeant, and Sergeant Major. These Regiments were usually commanded by a white officer and his staff. Units below if there were enough able body junior officer willing to commit suicide they sent to these units to command Companies and the Company Staff (back then Platoons weren't used like they were today, they usually had 1 1st Lt and if lucky 2 2nd Lt to command the two platoons that they operated with back then). Otherwise the First Sergeant and his junior Sergeants were left in charge of Company, with maybe a lucky NCO who got promoted to be Lt or even Captain if they were able to run tight Company without any white officer supervision.

Movie Buffalo Soldier is the one example that comes to mind.

The NA put a new twist on this as they used their Infantry, Artillery, and Cavalry units of Thirds and Seconds more or less an cannon fodder as they took their urban respawn outward from their power base. Much like the Roman did back in their Empire heyday they entice people to join them with offers of moving up the ladder in Citizenship. On the down side, if you survive and did raise in standing, you were very lucky and now are Senior Sergeant or unlucky you were mangled up pretty bad and now you are left on your own get by.

Some of the battalions would take care of their own who couldn't take to the field as best as possible by finding jobs people could do within the Battalion back at Base Camp such as cook, armorer, and other misc jobs...

The Senior NCOs and the few Junior Officer from the ranks may have rose into the next bracket above too begrudgingly.

Webster does bring up a good point. There will be a time when getting new recruits will start to drop off. They have stated in the book it is tough to find enough First to send in take Battalion and Company command level positions with these units. Up to then many of these First volunteered to led these troop knowing that it was basically suicide due to how these troops were used. With that said it would be hard press to find limited Battalion Command component and maybe Captain who were First by birth in command at company levels. Many of the Companies though were left to senior NCO who were Seconds and Thirds or maybe a newly minted Lt with their upgrade in citizenship as a First or Second leading them a Company.

As for organization since the leadership of the Defense Force is an ex-paratrooper. I would suspect they would follow the Light/Air Assault/Airborne Battalion organization as close as possible. A unit of Thirds would be luck to have shotguns mostly with some hunting rifle and maybe a military piece of equipment here and there. A unit of Seconds would have more Police and Military hardware, but it will still be dated. A unit of First would have the best of best equipment in hand and would be more recognizable as military force. As threat factors all the units are dangers and don't sell Thirds or Second short, and don't take a unit of First too lightly either (even if they usually the last units committed).

[Webstral]

According to Urban Guerilla, the First Regiment of Thirds (Big Bad One) enjoys the luxury of a waiting list for enlisted Thirds and white officers. This formation apparently is the real deal. Other regiments of Thirds are of lesser quality. There's also an artillery outfits of Thirds that is quite good.

It would be interesting to know what kind of equipment the FRT uses. If the New Americans equip the FRT in accordance with their philosophy, then the Thirds are using shotguns and hunting rifles. It would be interesting to know whether they have some submachine guns, machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars, etc. It also would be interesting to have a look at their tactics. The FRT operates in developed territory. Given their weapons and the nature of the terrain, I wonder if the FRT fights like the armies of the night: maneuver under cover followed by close-in assault that ends in hand-to-hand combat. Daylight operations might be a variation on this theme, with riflemen providing sniper and covering fire while the assault force moves into position. Do the FRT have grenades?

On a personal note, I find it a shame such a high-quality formation works for the bad guys. This means they might have to be defeated in combat and perhaps even destroyed--unless someone can manage some sort of political action that defeats the will of the New Americans in western central Florida to fight. Ah, what a shame!

Webstral

[Abbott Shaull]

I am sure the FRT gets to keep most of the loot they captured to help equip the Regiment. One of the thing was when it was organized it could pick and choose who they wanted, and being one better trained units of them. Yet, still they have only so many new recruits.

[kalos72]

The module does tend to imply that they really get the sh*t end of the stick for most things. Equipment would be my biggest question really...

As for the most basic infantry for an organized settlement, would they be organized along military lines just equipped with inferior weapons and support most likely?

[Webstral]

I'm sure it depends from place to place. However, the Army, Marines, and most police have certain organizational concepts in common. So many men equals a fire team, which is the smallest unit in an organization. The fire team can be 2-5, depending on a variety of factors. Two to three teams equals a squad. Two to four squads comprise a platoon. Two to four platoons equals a company, and so on. Various types of platoons (to the degree that there are various types in a given militia) combine to make a company, etc.

The modern military model has a lot of advantages in that the wheel has already been invented. Ditto the American police model(s), which bears some similarities. The rule of thumb is that each level of command controls two to four subordinate units. This is considered about what a given commander can handle under combat stress.

Webstral

[kalos72]

Considering how firearms are going to be some what rare after awhile, at least the most common ones we use today, I can see people going back to bows/crossbows and shield and sword.

I like the idea of a line of ballistic shields coming at you, the loud thunderous "stomp" as they inch closer and the hoot and hollering coming from the line as they get close enough to break ranks and close for hand to hand combat.

Against a poorly armed, poorly trained average group it could come down to that no?

[Abbott Shaull]

Wouldn't say the NA units went that far, but yeah like I stated with the Local NA Commander being a former Paratrooper there would be lot influence from the Light Infantry/Airborne type units.

With that said of the Regiments of the Third only the FRT has anything close to having heavy weapons that are found in the various Regiments of the First and even quite comparable to the Regiments of Seconds. Like many locales I am sure they absorb lot of Police and what every weapons they could get out of local armories.

One of those things about Urban area. Carrying large caliber arms and heavy weapons can be drawback at times. Especially places with lot of rubble. Think WWII when depending on what type of unit and where they were, at times Sub-Machine guns work better than other long arms. Same with shotguns. The one disadvantage is when unit armed with limited long arms has to assault a dug in positions, well you get lot of people not making it home from the assault units. On a plus side, choke points means very limited force can hold a very large area with a few well place snipers and Machine guns.

I believe most of the Artillery that was used was home-made rockets on home made launchers and home made mortars. I do remember the Artillery Regiments of the Thirds were largely lucky to have shotguns and whatever mortars and rocket launchers they had.

One of the thing is the Thirds would be holding and position on the outside fringes. The Seconds would be used as second line defense and patrolling areas where Seconds and Thirds live. While the Firsts were main patrol force, rapid reaction force, and last line of defense before anyone got to the center of power.

As for the question if they would be armed with Grenades. If you have access to the Free City of Krakow and Warsaw module. The Units of the Firsts would be like the Krakow ORMO as reference for the how First would be organized and weapons were distributed. Warsaw Module the Baron forces and 10th Sov GTD would give you some idea how weapons could be distributed. While the Thirds would resemble mix bag of the remaining militias of Warsaw. Of course, without saying they would weapons found in the US military and police forces, and weapons that could of been found in civilian hands. On a side note with the original time line there were still plenty collector who had legally and otherwise collect weapons that could be easy enough turned fully auto. The Thirds would be armed with weapon that would now be classified as Personal Defense weapons too. Armed with various pistols for some it would be their only weapon, while others it would be a backup.

Just some thoughts.

[Abbott Shaull]

Considering how firearms are going to be some what rare after awhile, at least the most common ones we use today, I can see people going back to bows/crossbows and shield and sword.

I like the idea of a line of ballistic shields coming at you, the loud thunderous "stomp" as they inch closer and the hoot and hollering coming from the line as they get close enough to break ranks and close for hand to hand combat.

Against a poorly armed, poorly trained average group it could come down to that no?

Would be interesting and in many cases this would be probably the way to move a unit forward. On the other hand a well place Grenade, rocket/mortar barrage will tear them apart. Even a well trained archery unit could tear a unit that not trained in the old Roman formation here troops behind the first line would hold and interlock shield above their head protect the force below.

I am sure some of the Firsts units and even some Seconds and Thirds that had served as Police Officers would know something about this.

again just some thoughts.

[kalos72]

Thats true, a well placed grenade or IED would wreck that close formation pretty easily.

I wish they went into more detail about that cell's organization and equipment, I would love to see those outlines! :)

[Abbott Shaull]

Even a well place Machine gun would cut them to ribbon. It part of the reason why swords aren't used on the modern battlefield like they used to be.

[HorseSoldier]

The module does tend to imply that they really get the sh*t end of the stick for most things. Equipment would be my biggest question really...

As for the most basic infantry for an organized settlement, would they be organized along military lines just equipped with inferior weapons and support most likely?

For a successful unit like the 1st Regiment, those 200% casualties may also have translated into a lot of captured weapons and kit getting added to the regiment's arms and supply rooms. The higher ups in the NA cell hierarchy may think that captured war materiel (and any other loot) should be turned into them to redistribute, but it also sounds like the 1st Regiment is a unit where the immediate chain of command would be on board with subverting higher's wishes to better attend to what their unit needs.

[kalos72]

Thats true, with 200% casualities in the 1st, that would equate to alot of enemy dead as well. Captured weapons/ammo would be highly prized at this stage of the game.

I am pretty sure there was a post about weapon designs that could be made after the nukes dropped...I need to look that up again.

[Webstral]

At a time in which firearms and explosives of any sort are available, hand-to-hand combat is likely to resemble trench fighting and the fighting at Stalingrad. Night assaults or attacks covered by smoke or weather are desirable because they limit the utility of the enemy's firearms. Close-quarters combat typically will be directed against enemy strong points that cannot be destroyed by heavy weapons for whatever reason (the weapons aren't available, the weapons can't be moved to the right place, there's no more ammo, etc.). In this case, the object will be to get assault troops close enough to introduce an explosive or incendiary device into the defensive position, then follow up with an assault using available weapons suited for close quarters battle (CQB). Shotguns with short barrels, submachine guns, and sidearms are good options. Compact melee weapons also have their value in such circumstances.

Webstral

[kalos72]

In an urban environment I can see subs and shotguns the favorite weapons for sure.

It seems to me that in a purely urban environment, defenders would be at a disadvantage. At least if they get themselves tied down inside a building.

[HorseSoldier]

Thats true, with 200% casualities in the 1st, that would equate to alot of enemy dead as well. Captured weapons/ammo would be highly prized at this stage of the game.

I am pretty sure there was a post about weapon designs that could be made after the nukes dropped...I need to look that up again.

The students in a high school shop class are capable of building SMGs along the lines of the Sten, Sterling, Grease Gun, or PPS-43 -- open bolt, pistol caliber, blow back operation are exceedingly easy to build.

[Abbott Shaull]

A static Defense Force can be trouble. You have to able to secure your area and make sure no one comes in through the back door...

[Webstral]

It seems to me that in a purely urban environment, defenders would be at a disadvantage. At least if they get themselves tied down inside a building.

Historically, the defender in an urban environment has enjoyed a significant advantage. This is because the attacker must expose himself to move forward. The urban environment is very complex with limited lines of sight, lots of cover and concealment, and often multiple levels for the defenders to base their fire. The attackers' goal is to bypass strong points wherever possible. This is not always possible.

Webstral

[kalos72]

Ok I guess I was looking at it as if a defending force gets tied down in a building, the attacking force just needs to hit that building. They are locked into position and cant move, possibly retreat. The attackers have 360 field of fire depending on the building.

I guess, like many things, it depends on the details behind the defense. If its a planned secure building or just some random one they ran into and such.


EDIT: One of my players saw this thread and now wants to start making Sten like subs that fire a 5.56 round. Good god Dan! :P

[Legbreaker]

A static Defense Force can be trouble. You have to able to secure your area and make sure no one comes in through the back door...

However, a properly prepared defensive position with it's flanks secured is near impossible to defeat without adequate weapons and equipment - just take a look at WWI for a exaggerated example (trench systems crossing Europe, miles of depth, barbed wire, mines, artillery support, etc, etc).

Even a small building complex which has been prepared will resist most attacks against it. Board up/block windows and doors, sandbags to increase wall thickness in firing positions, etc. Without heavy weapons and explosives (or sitting back and starving them out), it's going to be very costly!

Of course if the defenders have a covered line of withdrawal/resupply the whole game changes.

[kalos72]

But if its a hasty fortification its like fish in a barrel...

Overall I can see how units that are more commonly fighting in a true urban environment would want something shorter for close range combat and how say an M16 would be better suited for the open field.

Perhaps even having units that are completely focused, equipped and trained on urban combat. For me, being in NYC, that could come in handy for sure. :)

[Legbreaker]

I tend to disagree. Just ask anyone who's been through FIBUA training (Fighting In Built Up Areas aka CQB). Even a plywood wall is of some benefit to a defender - an attacker has to know where to shoot to be effective and who's to say that plywood isn't just a veneer over a reinforced concrete slab?

There are so many ways that the urban environment is deadly to an attacking force. The defender usually has better knowledge of the layout and can be hiding almost anywhere. It's also a three dimensional battlefield - ground level, upper stories and underground (basements, sewers, service tunnels, dry water mains, etc).

An attacking force may take the ground floor only to find itself catching grenades from the floor above, or defenders springing up behind them, taking a few shots into their rear before ducking back into cover again.

This is not to say it's all to the defenders advantage though. With the cornucopia of cover, an attacking force may be able to get almost within touching range before being spotted/shot at.

[HorseSoldier]

Yeah -- even in urban fights where one or both sides are able to just unload HE without restraint on enemy strong points it doesn't solve the problem completely. If the other side has the stomach to keep fighting, they then have tons of rubble to build their next set of strong points with.

[Rockwolf66]

EDIT: One of my players saw this thread and now wants to start making Sten like subs that fire a 5.56 round. Good god Dan! :P

Oh, so they want to start making AR-18 assault Rifles. While they do work well...God the one I handled felt cheap. Not to mention they were a favorite of the IRA*. Still such a weapon would kick the heck out of a 9mm SMG.

* Having had family serving durring the "troubles" I have a low opinion of the IRA and their methods.

[waiting4something]

I have to ask how is it possible to have 200% casualties? Isn't 100% the max you can have? I mean with 200% that like you killed everyone then brought them back to life and killed them again?:confused: It's like when people tell you there gonna give something 110%. I think no your not, because that's not possible.:D

I also agree that defenders in MOUT tend to have the advantage for reasons already listed. Plus, urban warfare is very confusing and people get split up and isolated very easily. Communition has to be constant and things have to move rapidly and fluidly or things go to hell fast. Without the element of surprise its all in favor for the defenders.

[Targan]

I have to ask how is it possible to have 200% casualties? Isn't 100% the max you can have? I mean with 200% that like you killed everyone then brought them back to life and killed them again?:confused: It's like when people tell you there gonna give something 110%. I think no your not, because that's not possible.:D

I know, on the face of it it does seem counter-intuitive. Allow me to offer an explanation. Say a given unit starts with 100 men. It fights 4 big battles over the period of a year, losing 50 men in each battle (a casualty rate of 50% per battle). After each battle it takes on reinforcements, trains and equips them, and heads out to the next battle. Therefore over the course of the year the unit has taken 200% casualties (50% x 4 = 200%). Does that clarify things for you?

[pmulcahy11b]

It's like when people tell you there gonna give something 110%. I think no your not, because that's not possible.:D

That's when they do a job "above and beyond" -- better or greater than you expected from them or thought was possible.

[pmulcahy11b]

Targan is right. 200% casualties is like in Saving Private Ryan, the Captain told his Top that he had lost something like 92 men under his command. That's close to 100% casualties for a company -- yet I'll bet he hit Omaha with a 100%-strength company. He got replacements over time for those troops he lost.

[HorseSoldier]

Yeah, particularly when talking about both killed and wounded, it's not that uncommon to see units that take over 100% casualties during sustained campaigns. I think there were a good number of units that reached that benchmark in both Europe and the Pacific during WW2 (on the US and Allied sides; a lot more Axis and Soviet units got there).

[Legbreaker]

My understanding is that with the Germans, when a larger formation was wittled down reinforcements were not give to them but used to create yet another unit.
Just another one of Hitlers brilliant ideas to keep his armies numbers up and looking powerful - looks great on paper to have three hundred or so divisions, but in reality each of those divisions were sometimes barely battalion strength...
Is it any wonder he ordered some of those seriously stupid offensives when all he could see were units from horizon to paper horizon?

[waiting4something]

That's when they do a job "above and beyond" -- better or greater than you expected from them or thought was possible.

I know what your saying and what is meant by it, but still you can't give more then you are.;) 100 percent is all you can give because that is all of you, unless you grow another body part just for that situation.:p

[waiting4something]

I know, on the face of it it does seem counter-intuitive. Allow me to offer an explanation. Say a given unit starts with 100 men. It fights 4 big battles over the period of a year, losing 50 men in each battle (a casualty rate of 50% per battle). After each battle it takes on reinforcements, trains and equips them, and heads out to the next battle. Therefore over the course of the year the unit has taken 200% casualties (50% x 4 = 200%). Does that clarify things for you?

I understand the math your using. But, why ever make something over 100 percent. I mean can you have 10,000% casualty rate? I mean can you use division instead of multiplication and get a casualty rate that stays under or in the 100% realm. It just seems that as people we like to pump up numbers to impress others sometimes. I not being a smart ass or anything, I'm being serious. Why not just take all the guys you lost as the whole 100%, instead of making seperate groups of 100%?:confused:

[Legbreaker]

Because the unit has actually lost that number of men over a period of time expressed as a percentage of their normal strength.
They will never be able to loose more than 100% strength in any one instance, but given several engagements, with opportunity for reinforcements to be absorbed between them, it is very possible for a 700 man unit to loose 1400 men, thereby giving us the 200% casualties.

1400/700 = 2/1 = 200%

[Webstral]

The logic behind having a casualty rate greater than 100% is to have a means of discussing unit losses over the course of a campaign when the unit moves through combat and reinforcement cycles. The bean counters of the world need to have some means of talking about the idea that losses among the personnel of the unit over a given period of time exceed the unit's nominal strength. For instance, one could say that the FRT has lost 2000 men. If you don't know the FRT's authorized strength, this number has no real context. You could say that the FRT has a nominal strength of 1000 and has lost 2000, which runs into the same logic problem as enduring a 200% casualty rate but with more words. One way or another, the bean counters have to be able to relate casualties to time to headcount.

Webstral

[StainlessSteelCynic]

In a sense, we are saying that while the unit itself endures, the personnel who comprise the unit don't.
By giving losses in a percentage rate over 100%, it indicates that the unit has lost personnel, been reinforced then lost personnel again etc. etc. over a certain period of time. That is, it's been reduced then reinforced then reduced then reinforced again and again up to its authorised manpower on several occasions.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yes that general idea

[waiting4something]

Ok, I see what your talking about. Thanks for replies.