Re: Stargrunt II

On 26 Aug 1996, John Phelps wrote:

  
> I believe the real intent of the detachment rule was to have a small
team
> do something while the rest of the squad covers them.  Only having 1
action
> for the main unit would be sufficient for this covering fire.
> 
> - example deleted - 
> 
> A better way to handle what you desired would be to detach an assault
team
> instead of a cover team.  The SL stays with the firebase, directing
their
> fire.  He spends one action to order the assault team to take two, and
the
> other action is used by the firebase group to fire suppression.
> 
> The US Army doctrine for infantry tactics in the early 80's called for
the
> squad leader to keep close control over his support weapons (M60 and
M203).
>  He would not "lead the charge", but would command from a cover
position. 
> Of course, in SG2 terms, I would set up that unit as two "squads" of
5,
> each with a team leader, and a "section leader" who was actually the
squad
> leader.  So you wouldn't have any detachments - you have a cover squad
and
> an assault squad.
> 

Could you just detach the Squad Leader from the Squad, then break the
Squad up into two elements or seperate detachments (Fire Teams)?  That
way
the Squad Leader could sit tight in one location, spend an action to
activate one Fire Team (giving them two actions) and spend another
action
to activate the other Fire Team (giving them two actions).

I have no idea if the above is legal, I just started playing (I don't
even
have a copy of the rules).  :)

By the way, by doctrine (in the US army) the Leader stays with the
larger
element of his command, or with the maneuver element if both are of
equal
size.  In practice I think most units have the Squad Leader moving with
the assaulting Fire Team rather than with the Fire Support Fire Team
(there is a lot of variation out there on this however.)

						Chad Taylor