RE: [sg] platoon stuff and combat engineers

G'day,

> ><My sad PA detachment idea>
> not really "sad" per se...
> just a wee bit feeble, maybe ;P

You know you're forcing me to increase my platoon size even further by
having a dedicated squad of PA don't you? ;P ;) ;)
 
>>Now I have to go learn more fancy names? ;P ;)
> Oh dear :)
> How about
> 
> "It often helps when putting together a platoon 
> *organizational chart and listing of all their stuff* to 
> have an idea of how that platoon fits into a
> *bigger group of several platoons* and *bigger bigger group 
> of several of those previously-mentioned bigger groups*."

While I was joking it was scary how close your explanation matched my
thought processes ;)

> It isn't cost effective, even if your military is really 
> small, to organize around a unit that tiny.  Unless of course 
> you're talking about a very specialist unit - special 
> operations troops maybe.

Guess I was being fairly heavily influenced by conversations with South
Pacific Islanders and my own experiences in local bush fire brigades
(which
despite the name are platoon sized really).

> The easiest one is to say something like "well, yes... 
> administratively we have  normal looking TO&E's out to 
> Battalion and Brigade level... BUT... in this part of space, 
> we have special needs and the general staff has decided
> that platoons sent on independent operations will have 
> certain supporting assets..." etc etc and that way 
> your platoon just happens to be one of those with 
> "temporarily attached" supporting assets.  It just 
> has them all the time...

Given the inertia in the naming of the organistaion of science bodies vs
reality this is entirely plausible! ;)

> Another way of "rationalizing" this is to say that your platoons are
> organized and trained so that each squad has a "secondary 
> specialty", such as assault pioneering, using mortars, etc. 
>  You actually have a platoon with four or five normal, 
> standard infantry squads, but each one has a specialty.  

That's what I was thinking.

> Maybe one of the squads has "public relations", another has 
> "cooking" and the final one has "scrounging" as their specialties...
:)
> 
> (or you could pick more "realistic" stuff like "rapelling" or 
> "small boat operations" or "anti-armour" or whatever...)

The later set sounds fancier/more sensible, though the former could be
more
useful ;)

> Otherwise, the extra gear is just left behind and the squad fights as
> regular infantry, and you don't bother deploying the mortar models (or
> whatever) onto the table.

Yep! ;)
 
> ok, but what I really meant by that was that it would be 
> quite difficult for a higher level headquarters....

OK.

> The fire control officer needs to know where 
> they are so he can plot fires, and needs to know how 
> many he has available.  These would both be constantly 
> changing as the infantry move about the battlefield....

OK my stuff aside, is jamming etc going to stop future tech militaries
from
using GPS etc to handle this? I had got the impression (probably
incorrectly) that advances in info to the soldier was getting to the
point
that it was a matter of too much not immediate info too little.

> There is nothing written in stone and handed down from 
> on-high that says "thou shalt organize by squad, platoon, 
> company, battalion and brigade, or thou shalt lose most verily..."

... yet ;)

> The first and best, of course, being "Because I want to do it 
> that way"... :)

You've been discussing my thought processes with Derek haven't you....
or
have I been here so long you guys can read me like a book already? ;)
 
> the dreaded $$ limit.
> hate that.
> "Yes, I want a COMPANY of all my different forces, in 25mm!  
> And I'm going to collect them ALL.  Ha ha!"
> Ha ha is right...

Definitely. This opportunity has only come up because my parents feel
proud
of the first Dr in the family and wish to congratulate me in a suitable
way... I'm working them round to seeing lead/pewter as one of the trully
precious metals ;)

> lots and lots of demolition charges...
> 
> maybe ALL your troops are well trained in how to use 
> breaching explosives, so you can issue demo charges 
> to everyone?

I was thinking most would be knowledgeable with regard to bangalore
torpedos, but that may well be the case any way (in real militaries) I
don't
know.
 
Thanks