|
|
Post by madmorgan on Mar 3, 2016 12:40:27 GMT
Whilst researching various factions for the Far East (Japan, China, Russian Revolution, SE Asia), I came across a fascinating fact about organization of the units. The divisional organization used in AQ for the USA is based on the 'Triangular Division. Based on the number of infantry divisions a three regiment, everything was in 'threes' for the infantry - style the battalions, companies, and even platoons and squads. The Triangular division had a HQ company, 3 regiments (each with a HQ company) consisting of 3 regiments of infantry, each consisting of three battalions of three companies of three platoons of three squads (all with HQs down to platoon level), and a 'cannon' company, an AT company, a Service company, and a platoon sized Medical detachment. The division also had an artillery brigade, consisting of a company size HQ, platoon sized medical detachment, three 105mm (4") battalions and a (6") 155mm battalion. Additionally the division had an Engineer battalion, a Medical battalion, a Cavalry recon company, a Signals company, an Ordnance company, a Quartermaster company, and a MP platoon. This Triangular Division was finalized in 1942. So whats the "Square Division"?
During World War One, the USA, as well as Japan (prior to 1938) used the Square Division - once again, based on the infantry units in the division. This organization had its usual company HQ for Division and 2 Brigades consisting of 2 Regiments each, giving it 4 Regiments of infantry, thus a 'sqaure'. Fortunately for us AQ players, each Regiment was of 3 infantry Battalion, a HQ Company, an AT Company (?) and a Service Company. The Artillery Brigade had its HQ Company, 3 Regiments of Artillery; each Regiment had a HQ Company and 2 Battalions of 105mm (4") and 1 Battalion of 155mm (6") artillery.
The division also had an Engineer Regiment with 2 Engineer Battalions and a HQ Company; a Medical Regiment with its HQ Company, Collection Battalion, Ambulance Battalion, and Medical Clearing Battalion. The division had a Quartermaster Regiment with its own HQ Company, Truck Battalion, Light Maintance & Car Battalion, Service Company, Signal Company, Ordnance Company, and MP Platoon.
Of interest with all this are three things. First is the inclusion of an AT Company at regimental level. I've not been able to find out what this "AT" company had for weapons, etc, and figure it was added during the coarse of the war. Second, there are no 75mm guns listed at all, in either division makeup. I'm sure its okay that we've got 75mm vs 105mm for the game - but, think what a difference a 4" gun vs a 3" gun might make in the stat lines of an artillery battery. At the very least an increase in range and 1 more power to the fire. With the current 3" being Rng 60" +3 Pow Bar 1, the 4" should probably be more like a Rng 80" +4 Pow Bar 2 weapon, perhaps with a Bombardment feature. I suspect for AQ we could allow these weapons to replace the 75mm as the war hit 1916+ - but, this might be too radical a change for most & there's always the matter of finding the proper inscale figures for the thing. Closest I've found is the 15WW1-112 10cc K04/14 German(!) weapon in Old Glory (right scale, certainly wrong army). This battery (3 guns) should probably rate at least 120pts (being half way between the 80pt 75s and the 160pt 155s) or say 35pts per individual piece (not in a battery). Third, there is no mention of brigade level units - the triangular division was made up of regiments as its biggest component outside the artillery brigade. The only implications of this is that some of our TO&Es concerning units are 'wrong'. I certainly don't purpose any changes to the various long term campaigns and battles over the last few years! The regal of the heroic 29th Division, the goings on of the various other well thought out units that various players have put forth will have to stand.
I just wanted to point out some of the IRL differences to our WW1 formations as we go forward. This is meant as more an information piece and for my use in creating units and battles for the Far East in China and that area. The Japanese and probably their Chinese allies would certainly show some of this - but, its more of a 'fluff' item, giving some background to any thing I do. I hope it might inspire some new players to use as their background going forward. Enjoy!
|
|
|
|
Post by scottwashburn on Mar 3, 2016 14:35:09 GMT
Yes, the Square Division was how the US fought WWI. All the Europeans were already using triangular divisions which meant that a US division was nearly twice the size of everyone else's. It gave them a lot of fighting power.
I think the organization you cite was the one in use just prior to WWII. In WWI there would have been no AT company. Also, each battalion had three rifle companies and a weapons company. In WWI that is where the machine guns would have been found. The Cannon Company is probably where you'd find the 75mm guns, although I'm not certain about that.
By switching to a triangular structure the army eliminated the brigade level of organization, which was a good thing. It gave the division commander better control. It also meant that there were a lot of spare regiments floating around with no home! Most were incorporated into newly formed divisions. If you find divisions where the regiments are not consecutively numbered (or almost) that would indicate they were formed of those spare regiments from the old square divisions. Sometimes the regiments didn't find a new home. The 28th Division (PA National Guard) had the 109th, 110th, 111th and 112th Infantry Regiments under the square organization. When they switched to triangular, the division retained the 109th, 110th and 112th regiments, and went to Europe. The 111th infantry became a regimental combat team without a division and fought in the Pacific.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Mar 3, 2016 15:33:08 GMT
I believe the AT company to be added later on in the war, as you note. This was probably the MG company later upgraded to heavy weapons including the MGs (which did work somewhat against some tanks of the late wars period). I agree that the 'cannon' company could be the 'missing' 75s, my source didn't indicate what kind of weapon it used and not being called 'artillery' makes me think that this would be a 75mm infantry type gun. Of coarse in the scope of AQ, its all background: fielding even a full battalion would be some heavy lifting on the part of a club or store and doubtful to happen often if at all. There's an active player on the AD forum, and here now I think, that did the Vicksburg campaign build on his 'square' division with the brigades representing PA, WV, and MD units. I thinking it was primulia perhaps or someone similar. Anyway, the Japanese also used the 'square' until 1938. I found all this whilst researching stuff for my entry into the Far East/Manchurian/China background.
PS: Since this posting, I've gotten into the Ratio Rules and will at some point do a 'square' division TO&E using these rules. I found the listings in GDWs Over the Top rules to be a good quick reference for organizations of major and some minor powers.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottwashburn on Mar 3, 2016 18:51:54 GMT
Well, I have hopes of fielding an early (AQ) war infantry battalion. A human force of just infantry, cavalry and field artillery (and a few machine guns) against assault tripods and see how it goes! I have two infantry companies (one painted) already. I might have to do the third one with another manufacturer.
|
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Mar 4, 2016 2:57:25 GMT
My memory may be off, but as I remember:
The US uses Brigade and Regiment as equivalent units. A division will have brigades or regiments but not both, unless the unit is an attachment.
Infantry and cavalry divisions have regiments, while Armored divisions have Brigades.
A headquarters unit is typically the same echelon as the units it commands, thus a regiment will have an HQ battalion and 3 or 4 battalions. The headquarters will have the organic support units, often including artillery.
Any "orphans" that are collected are usually assigned to the Headquarters as well.
In order to add further confusion, Artillery is organized into batteries that may be platoon or company equivalents, depending on the type of gun, and cavalry uses troops instead of platoons and squadrons instead of companies.
The US "Square" organization showed itself to be much more flexible in addition to being more powerful. It was well suited to Europe and Asia. During WWII, Japanese triangular divisions were mostly used for occupation. Japan struggled greatly from long supply lines. The smaller triangular units were used by default, and this only added to the decline and fall of Japan.
Scott is quite right suggesting using Infantry as the big stick against the Martians. Infantry rules, Martin Drools.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottwashburn on Mar 4, 2016 12:37:04 GMT
For WWI the square division organization that Morgan describes was used: 1 division of 2 brigades, each brigade of two infantry regiments, each regiment of three battalions. The artillery was a separate regiment within the division. There were also support units of engineers, recon, medical, supply, etc.
When they converted to the triangular organization in the early days of WWII, a division became 3 infantry regiments, each of three battalions, with a separate artillery regiment, also of three battalions (2 with 105s, and one with 155s).
Armored divisions were a bit weird. Two of the early divisions (1st and 2nd, I believe) were 'heavy' divisions with two tank regiments each of 3 battalions, and armored infantry regiment, and an artillery regiment. All the rest were 'light' divisions with 3 tank battalions, three armored infantry battalions and three armored artillery battalions. These would be organized into three 'combat commands' with a battalion of tanks, armored infantry and artillery.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Mar 4, 2016 13:47:29 GMT
Typically Combat Command A, Combat Command B, and Combat Command R (reserve). Still some of my favorite notations in my Battle of the Bugle Avalon Hill game of old.
|
|
|
|
Post by lcpl210 on Mar 6, 2016 11:13:50 GMT
When I was in the Marines, we were told one man can effectively control 3 people at once in combat. Any more then three and you start to lose positive control and awareness of action. This was their explanation for why a fireteam was 4 people, the team leader, grenadier, automatic rifleman and assistant. With three fireteams per squad and three squads per platoon. When I moved over to the Army and switched to tanks, we had three platoons of four tanks, so the platoon leader only had to control 3 tanks and the company commander only had to control three platoon leaders.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Mar 6, 2016 11:26:38 GMT
Excellent example of the 'whys' of tactical organization. Thank you and welcome to the Forum as well. I would think that the AQ 15 man squad would actually have a sarge and some corporals to maintain control per your above 'rule'. This explains why they lacked a bit in control, as they used one nco per four instead of 3 as you point out. Good insight.
|
|
|
|
Post by phgamer on Mar 8, 2016 19:24:24 GMT
The US Army had attrited down to about 100,000 men between the wars, so there wasn't to many orphaned regiments to be had when the army reorganized to the triangular formation. Most were National Guard divisions. One of the main reasons for the triangular formation was that the army was taught to fight with only one tactic. The holding attack. One unit attacked, one unit maneuvered for a flank, while one unit acted as reserve to support which ever unit was successful. (we do not reinforce failure) This was done up and down the structure. Squads were doing it, companies, battalions, regiments. It was not always the best tactic, but it was well understood. And as you get promoted, it was easy to adapt to new unit sizes. The real secret to the success of this formation was on every level, there was HE support. 81mm on the company level, a pair of 105's on the battalion level, then off course, 36 105's and 12 155's on the regiment level.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Mar 8, 2016 19:29:29 GMT
Indeed well put!! To this day, the military continues to change orginizations to meet their concept of battlefield tactics. The result of this is that sometimes a commander is working the wrong tactics because of the formation he's manadated to use through these organizations. The really brillent ones are those that can adapt and meet the challenge. Those that don't are often doomed to failure without some luck.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottwashburn on Mar 8, 2016 19:51:15 GMT
One thing to keep in mind is that All Quiet is taking place BEFORE WWI, so all the stuff we were doing in WWII hasn't even been thought of yet. In the real world the US Army did not even make the infantry squad a permanent formation until 1911. Prior to that the soldiers just fell in by height and counted off and wherever they happened to be in the line determined which squad they were in. It could change from day to day. In graduate school I did a VERY detailed analysis of US Infantry Tactics between the Civil War and WWI and it was a fascinating and transformative period in history. I'll write more on it later.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Mar 9, 2016 11:29:28 GMT
Yes by all means. I wasn't aware of that fact!! Interesting the 1911 date being the same as the organizational charts in the AD rulebook. I'd like to think that was on purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottwashburn on Mar 9, 2016 12:29:32 GMT
The major issue of the period among tactical thinkers was the fact that the increased firepower of breech-loading rifles forced the troops to spread out. Prior to the Franco-Prussian War the fundamental tactical unit was the battalion. Tactical decision-making, for the most part, stopped at the battalion level. Smaller units (companies, platoons) were just cogs in the larger machine of the battalion. With the exception of detached skirmisher companies captains and lieutenants were not making any real decisions. They just played their prescribed part in battalion maneuvers.
But when the troops were forced to spread out it became impossible for a battalion commander to control all his men personally. Tactical decision-making had to start going down to lower levels of organization. First the company and then the platoon, junior officers started making decisions. But it stuck there for a long time because NO ONE was willing to admit that NCOs were capable of actually leading the men in combat. After all, enlisted men are stupid--it actually said so right in the Army Regulations! ("Enlisted men are stupid, but they are cunning and must be closely supervised at all times.")
So it hung at the company/platoon level right up to World War I. Sergeants and corporals were given more responsibility, but it was still doctrine that every body of men must be commanded directly by an officer. It wasn't until later in WWI when people realized that this just didn't work any more. At that point the squad became the basic tactical unit.
More later.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Mar 9, 2016 13:35:18 GMT
Excellent insight into the 'minds' of the period as well as the whys. Even within the Vietnam era Army, the structure and 'power' of an NCO was limited, although to a much less degree than WW2 or Korea. Look forward to 'more'.  |
|
