Question (was: Re: Command Reactivation)

>--- Andy Cowell <andy@cowell.org> wrote:
>
>> I think this is usually how it's done in most modern
>> forces, as well.
>> I *think* tank platoons are attached to infantry
>> company commanders,
>> but usually not much lower.	I *think* a battalion
>> attachment is most
>> common.  Maybe someone can confirm/deny?
>
>In US practice, yes.
>
>For attachments, they are usually attached where they
>should logically go.  Companies are attached to
>batallions.  Platoons are attached to companies.  The
>only armor under the command of an infantry platoon
>leader are his own Bradleys.

A quick question to all out there; not terribly relevant to anthing in
particular, but maybe an interesting topic for discussion...
When you are playing a ground combat game (any game, not just SG or DS),
what "role" do you see YOU, as the player, actually playing - it it the
highest level commander ON-TABLE (eg: the Company Commander if you've
got a
company deployed on the table), or the next higher command level
overseeing
the battle from off-table (the Battalion Commander in the foregoing
example)?
Personally, I've always felt that in SG or FMA it's probably the former,
and in DS the latter - but YMMV, so what do you think?

Jon (GZG)
>
>John
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
>http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text