Company Organization

[kalos72]

Two questions bout both pre-IBCT and IBCT formations...

1) Most descriptions have an infantry company with 60mm and 120mm mortars, where are the 60mm's?

2) Do you ever change the number of platoons depending on the type of company? Meaning a mech company is much stronger then a normal infantry company, do you ever bump the number of infantry platoons to compensate?

[Webstral]

Mortars are controlled by the company headquarters, though like any artillery asset they can be on-call for lower echelons. One does not typically find 120mm mortars at the company level. The 120mm mortar is a heavy mortar usually assigned to heavy battalions. However, it's certainly possible that in Twilight: 2000 one could find any number of arrangements, including slicing one or more medium (81mm) or heavy (120mm) mortars to an infantry company for specific purposes.

Webstral

[copeab]

Originally Posted by kalos72

1) Most descriptions have an infantry company with 60mm and 120mm mortars, where are the 60mm's?

Like Web said, the 120mm isn't a company level weapon, but as mortars are tougher than people, a company in 2000 will tend to have heavier heavy weapons than in 1996, unless it has to move fast.

The 60mm mortars are, I believe, part of the company's weapon platoon, or in their own mortar section.

2) Do you ever change the number of platoons depending on the type of company? Meaning a mech company is much stronger then a normal infantry company, do you ever bump the number of infantry platoons to compensate?

Normally, no. The number of squads iin a platoon and platoons in a company stays pretty constant. The number of men in a squad can vary, however, and the composition of a heavy weapon section and company can also vary.

[Legbreaker]

Of course other nationalities involved in the War have completely different makeups with their mortars (often 81mm) a battalion asset with an FO or trained soldier (somebody with a primary role as an infantryman, driver, clerk, even the cook) able to put in requests for fire support.

In a strictly T2K environment, just about any organisation, or disorganisation for that matter, is possible for any nationality.

[kalos72]

I am referring more so to the newer BCT structure I guess, but I am alos not sure how the previous organization would work.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-21-11/c01.htm

That shows the 2 120's with the company...it says there are 60's in there some where but I dont see them.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by kalos72

I am referring more so to the newer BCT structure I guess, but I am alos not sure how the previous organization would work.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-21-11/c01.htm

That shows the 2 120's with the company...it says there are 60's in there some where but I dont see them.

Ah. It looks like the 120mm mortar carriers *also* carry a 60mm mortar for dismount use, but only one crew for both. This is how 1-10a reads to me.

[HorseSoldier]

Makes sense. The SBCTs are influenced by US armored cavalry organization, which always placed a higher premium on self-contained, combined arms company level units (the SBCTs just do it in an infantry-centric way). Armored cav troops have had a pair of heavy mortars per troop for quite some time (and had 81mm mortars organic to the individual cavalry platoons under earlier MTOEs).

[kalos72]

Ack I missed that, thanks. However that does sound like a crappy system....

[Eddie]

To expand on what has already been said:

1) 120mm Mortars are only a company asset in SBCTs, something not really relevant in T2K.

2) This is where I'll disagree with copeab a little and say that Company organizations actually do shift quite a bit. Swapping a Mech Infantry Platoon for an Armor Platoon in a Heavy Brigade is pretty common, which leaves the Armor Company now possessing a Mech Infantry Platoon. My 54-man, Anti-Armor Company traded off two platoons and received two Rifle Platoons turning us into a Rifle Company during our entire deployment to Iraq. In 1996, my platoon was attached to another Company and that whole Company was then attached to another Battalion. When this happens it's called being given OPerational CONtrol (OPCONd) to another unit. It's actually pretty common and is the technical term for what Paul was discussing in some other thread about the BCT makeups during OIF and Desert Storm.

[Eddie]

I should note that after we got those other two platoons our strength shifted from 54 strong to 120+ strong.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Eddie

I should note that after we got those other two platoons our strength shifted from 54 strong to 120+ strong.

I'll admit I'm more familiar with WWII formations.

[Webstral]

Somewhat tangential but along the lines of shifting company organizations, my light infantry company in Iraq was sliced to an armor battalion (4-64 AR). The armor battalion had two companies of tanks, two companies of mechanized infantry in M2, a cavalry troop, a company of Marines (no kidding), its organic guns, and a grab bag of other units. I have no idea how the Marines ended up in 4-64 AR, and I don't remember who they were. The cav was from 278th ACR. And then there was us, sliced off from 1-184 IN (CA ARNG), which had in turn been sliced off from 29th Brigade and given to 3rd Infantry Division. We swapped a rifle platoon to D/4-64 in return for a tank platoon. The company was then reorganized into four sections of 20-22 men, plus a somwhat reorganized headquarters section. (The mortar crews went to the line, since mortars weren't authorized for use in Baghdad, while the FOs went to the headquarters to run IO.) Each section had enough gun trucks to make it mobile for patrols or QRF, plus a tank. One tank was sent to our checkpoint, where it remained until being rotated out for PMCS. For several months, we gave up an additional section to D/4-64, resulting in an infantry company with about 75 guys in three rifle sections and a headquarters section. To say that the TO&E was elastic would be an understatement.

4-64 AR was quite large, by the way. Total strength was more than 800 in mid-2005. The battalion was, in some ways, a small brigade.

Webstral

[Eddie]

That's a CAB, a Combined Arms Battalion. Minus the Marines and the Cav guys. With them it is a BN Task Force. My new Brigade in 3rd ID consists of an IN BN, an AR BN, and a RSTA SQN.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by kalos72

Ack I missed that, thanks. However that does sound like a crappy system....

Admittedly, it does seem strange to have two crew served weapons but only one crew. However, it may be a matter of the right tool for the job and cost-effectiveness.

Consider that for the weight of four 120mm shells you can carry a 60mm mortar *and* nearly 40 shells for it. Now, the 120mm mortar is superior to the 60mm mortar in almost every way*, but for certain fire missions (smoke and illumination), 60mm is more cost- and weight-effective than 120mm. My guess is that the 120mm and 60mm mortars don't have a lot of overlap in the types of fire missions they are typically provided munitions for in this organization.

* The only significant advantage for the 60mm mortar is the much lower weight, which in some situations might be the only consideration

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Webstral

4-64 AR was quite large, by the way. Total strength was more than 800 in mid-2005. The battalion was, in some ways, a small brigade.

Very true some of the Battalions/Task Forces were so bloated they could almost be reorganized as Brigade...

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Eddie

That's a CAB, a Combined Arms Battalion. Minus the Marines and the Cav guys. With them it is a BN Task Force.

Yes, I know.

[Abbott Shaull]

As was pointed out that to answer you question it yes and no.

In general the Company/Troop/Battery has HQ with small support section including the supply, armorer, and commo people assigned there. 2-4 Platoons depending on the type of Company.

In the field all bets are off and a companies can gain attachments or send out detachments. Like stated in many places the organization you find TO&E is one thing that usually gets thrown out the window after units get to the field. Under the older TO&Es it as quite normal for when Armor and Mechanized Brigades would deployed it was quite common for one Armor and Mechanized Battalion to exchange at min. one company each. Then these cross attach companies would exchange platoons with another company to form the Team. Yet, none of this was written in stone.

There was an article that I read about the 2nd ID. It was when the only the 1st Brigade was left in country as the rest of the division was sent to Iraq. The article went on to talk about the new Heavy Brigade organization in which the 1 Armor and 1 Mechanized Battalion each had HQ, Engineering Company, Support Company, 2 Mechanized, and 2 Armor Companies in each Battalion. The Armor Company had HQ, 2 Armor Platoons, and 1 Mechanized Platoon while the Mechanized Company was reverse. As well the Artillery Battalion had been pared down.

At the time the 3rd Brigade of the Division had been moved and transformed into Stryker Brigade or was slated to do so after their tour, which was the Mechanized Brigade of the Division. The 2nd Brigade was being deployed with 2 Air Assault and 1 Mechanized Battalion that was suppose to redeployed to Fort Carson to become part of the 4th Division there after their deployment.

One of the striking things about the article was it made a very big deal that this reorganization had happen well in advance of the date when it was suppose to happen. It was schedule to be completed for some months later, but with them already stripping troops from this place and that to get the 2nd and 3rd Brigade moved and deployed....

Just some thoughts..

[jester]

Originally Posted by copeab

Admittedly, it does seem strange to have two crew served weapons but only one crew. However, it may be a matter of the right tool for the job and cost-effectiveness.

Consider that for the weight of four 120mm shells you can carry a 60mm mortar *and* nearly 40 shells for it. Now, the 120mm mortar is superior to the 60mm mortar in almost every way*, but for certain fire missions (smoke and illumination), 60mm is more cost- and weight-effective than 120mm. My guess is that the 120mm and 60mm mortars don't have a lot of overlap in the types of fire missions they are typically provided munitions for in this organization.

* The only significant advantage for the 60mm mortar is the much lower weight, which in some situations might be the only consideration

Here is something to consider, and I have incorporated this into a campaign once.

A 60mm mortar is used as a dismount weapon, it is lighter so it is easily carried, when we would displace one man could actualy carry the entire system. It is also more portable, it can go places the track and the 120mm can't go.

And over kill. Sometimes a 120mm may be just a bit to much.

Its been a very long time and the heaviest I ever fired was the 81mm. But the rate of fire I beleive is faster on the smaller gun as well.

And lets not forget about utilization of assets.

You drop gunteam off, they set up. The track with other dismounts move into position to strike or just moves to a different area.

I would also add that it doesn't take alot of people to run a mortar. Our 60mms were often crewed by all of 2 men. And a 120 in a vehicle, one man to aim and level the gun then fire, while the A-gunner hands rounds and preps the rounds. <I also did that in one of my campaigns, split the teams with 1 real gunner working the gun and a unskilled NPC assisting, handing ammo etc.>

[HorseSoldier]

I believe the SBCTs pioneered the mobile arms room concept in non-SOF US Army units, with the idea being that you oversupplied the unit with weapon systems to give commanders more flexibility to tailor their units to mission requirements.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by jester

A 60mm mortar is used as a dismount weapon, it is lighter so it is easily carried, when we would displace one man could actualy carry the entire system. It is also more portable, it can go places the track and the 120mm can't go.

The ammo is also much lighter. Sometimes twelve 60mm shells are more useful than one 120mm shell.

And over kill. Sometimes a 120mm may be just a bit to much.

Pshaw. You can never kill anything too much

I would also add that it doesn't take alot of people to run a mortar. Our 60mms were often crewed by all of 2 men.

At the risk of offending some people, most members of a mortar crew are "spear carriers". For the most part they either carry ammo from point A to B, they pass ammo up to the mortar from the stockpile located back of the position or, if things get really interesting, provide protection from fellows in the wrong uniforms who are wandering too close. But yeah, 2 or 3 men can easily operate a mortar.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by copeab

Pshaw. You can never kill anything too much

Amen, brother. Amen

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Targan

Amen, brother. Amen

Nuke it from orbit I always say!

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

I believe the SBCTs pioneered the mobile arms room concept in non-SOF US Army units, with the idea being that you oversupplied the unit with weapon systems to give commanders more flexibility to tailor their units to mission requirements.

No Mechanized units had more access to AT and MG weapons than a regular infantry unit. Even MP units that were motorized in HMMWV had access to larger amount of weapon than other they would normally have in the past in when they were Jeep based units. The one thing SBCT did do was bring Heavy Mortar carriers to Company level much like Armor Cavalry had at troop level.

SBCT is just a hybrid organization of Mechanized Brigade and Armor Cavalry Regiment without the reliance of AFVs that both unit had utilized. So instead of Armor and 2 Mechanized Battalions you had 3 Stryker Infantry Battalions. If you have access to the vehicle guide look up the Heavy Motorized Battalion and look up the Mechanized Battalion. They are almost exactly the same when it comes to the line companies with M2 being replace LAV-25, the Anti-Tank Company was outfitted with LAV-AA and HMMWV towed, and the M2/M113 Mortar carriers were outfitted with LAV mortar carrier.

Just some thoughts...

[Abbott Shaull]

Yes in the 82nd the Mortar section of our company was 1 Staff Sergeant, 1 Sgt, and 1 senior specialist with 4-6 others of various ranks. The Staff Sergeant was the fire controller, while the Sgt and the senior Specialist were the gunners for the two 60-mm mortars and they were the 11C, mortar specialist in Infantry. The other 4-6 guys in the section were 11B who got on the job training in employing the mortars and setup from the other three people.

They were assigned as assistant gunner if they had been in the section for a while or just plain ammo bearer if they didn't catch on or were too new to the section to set up a tube. The one of the jobs of the ammo bearer was to shoot at the bad guys if they got too close. The last thing any mortar man want to do was elevate the Mortar so it was straight in the air and launch a round before they evacuated the area, and hoping that the rounds they had launch are enough to destroy the mortar and ammo nearby so it can be used on them. Or if they were thinking clear and enough of them were alive they could attempt to move the mortar, but at times that easier said than done...

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Yes, I know.

I figured you did, but I threw that out there so that kalos72 and others would know what they were looking for if they attempted to research it further. Not trying to insult your intelligence.

[Webstral]

Ah. I appreciate your taking the time to make the distinction. Print is wonderful, but it's a poor medium for stage direction (which is why Shakespeare often looks so different from one director to the next). It's hard to tell who is looking at whom sometimes.

Webstral

[Webstral]

All joking about overkill taken in stride, it is possible to bring too much firepower to bear. We'd all love to have Paladins providing fire support, but there are circumstances in which the 155mm is just too robust. While our politicians don't appear to have learned much of anything from Vietnam, the US Army has been a diligent student of its own experience. I won't debate here whether all of the lessons learned were the right ones, but the pattern of operations in Baghdad certainly suggests that the Army was determined not to repeat some of the mistakes from Vietnam. One of them was the use of firepower as a solution to many of life's problems: high explosives can cause as many problems as they solve in a counterinsurgency operation.

Even in Twilight: 2000, it's possible that bigger explosions aren't necessarily better explosions. Beating the crap out of a German town while liberating it leaves the victor with a ruined base of support, lots of bodies, lots of wounded, and lots of animosity. There are occasions on which several 60mm rounds can do the job better than a single 120mm round. Of course, there are also occasions on which nothing less than a 120mm round will do.

Webstral

[Abbott Shaull]

Yes that is one of the great things about this 'new' mechanized/armored/motorized warfare placed in situation where there are active insurgency. Sometimes bringing the biggest beast and largest weapons to bear only create more problem that even the best diplomats won't be able to fix for years. Especially when you can only expect to do so much when you don't secure all of the borders of a nation that you have occupied. Now only if the same lessons would of been applied to both places we would be much further ahead in both locations. Then again if we had finished nation building in one location before doing else where......