[sg] platoon stuff and combat engineers

Hi Beth,

>Sorry this is all mushed together but for some reason my server is
giving me
>two copies of some emails and no copies over others, mostly JohnA's
(maybe
>my server doesn't like yahoo?). 

I wonder if the server treats stuff sent as a "REPLY" to the digest
version
differently than it treats stuff sent as a "REPLY" to an individual
message...?

>
><My sad PA detachment idea>

not really "sad" per se...

just a wee bit feeble, maybe ;P

>
>Now on to Adrian...
>> Beth - as John said, you have a huge platoon. It often helps 
>> when putting together a platoon TO&E (for Stargrunt) to 
>> have an idea of how that platoon fits into a Company and 
>> Battalion.  
>
>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*."

;P  

>
>Seriously, I hadn't thought much beyond platoon as we won't be playing
>larger games. Overall though I guess I saw this as a more decentralised
>force (OK I know that is going to go against the grain based on many
>existing militaries I guess).

It isn't so much that it goes against the grain, but that from the
perspective of "conservation of expenses", it would cost a TON to
organize
and equip a large force that way.

There are *no* current militaries that have the platoon as their primary
unit size (from a strategic point of view).  The American army sees
itself
as Divisions and Brigades.  The Australian army (according to their
website, the last time I looked) is reorganizing itself around
independent
brigade formations.  The Canadian army is just pretty generally
hopeless,
but nominally tries to organize around Brigades, etc.  This is why you
almost never see any country sending forces smaller than a battalion on
UN
peacekeeping ops, except for specialized units like chem warfare or
mine-removal detachments (or hospitals, or etc.)  It just isn't worth
the
effort to deploy just a platoon into a bigger operation.  Well, there
are
POLITICAL reasons why a country might try to do this, but it doesn't
make
un-political sense :)

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.

Having said all that, there are lots of different ways you could
rationalize/justify having that sort of organization.

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...

>> So, having a squad of them in EVERY infantry platoon is a huge
>> investment of your total force in Pioneers. 
>
>True enough, but I was coming from the thought that it was a reflection
of
>the skills the population so if they were there use them, they can
always
>use a gun if they're not needed as pioneers. 

Very true.

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.  For scenarios that require assault pioneers, the officer has
figured out that the mission will need that skill set, so has told the
squad leader to go get the pioneer gear out of the transports.	For
missions that require indirect fire support, the officer says "go get
the
light mortars", and so on.

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...)

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.

>> and it would be difficult (from a command-and-control) 
>> point of view in a lower tech (and not highly
>> computerized, all zoomie with high tech communications, etc) 
>> force, to mass your mortar fire if they are all assigned 
>> to different rifle platoons.  
>
>That's part of the reason each squad got a comms guy.

ok, but what I really meant by that was that it would be quite difficult
for a higher level headquarters (say, at the battalion level) to
coordinate
effective mass mortar fire if each pair of mortars is running about with
a
rifle platoon.	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.
Even if each squad has a comm tech with radio gear that has range to the
Battalion HQ, it would take one heck of an efficient Battalion HQ staff,
even with good computer support, to coordinate all those separate
mortars...  Remember, you had something like 32+ mortars in your
organization, if you extend it out as big as a battalion.

On the other hand, if your platoons ONLY EVER fight independently
(though
this seems rather unlikely), the whole point is moot :)

>As I said above only if you organise under existing military structure,
I
>see my structure as being much flatter (and smaller) then you guys (and
>today's miltaries) use. OK 2000+ yrs of fighting means the military
knows
>what its doing (probably), but it kinda fits that a nation set-up by
>scientists and historians are going to experiment - and get their butt
>kicked probably ;)

Heh :)

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..."

But a ton of different studies have shown that human battlefield
commanders
can effectively command a certain max. limit of units.	Beyond that,
efficiency drops off.  There's a reason that just about all militaries
in
the world today are organized along these lines... I'm sure the limits
will
increase with the advent of smart computing and expert systems and other
gee-whiz fancy tech.  But the human limitations won't have changed
*that*
much in a couple of hundred years, I would imagine.

Well, maybe I'm completely wrong, but we *know* that the major forces in
the GZG-verse organize themselves in ways that are very similar and
recognizable to the current day, so maybe those human limits are still
around.

Again though, having said that, I'm sure there are plenty of good,
sound,
clever justifications for tossing all that out the window.

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

:)

>
>Fair point. I had originally thought about more rifle squads, but
that's
>when real life budget concerns kicked in ;)

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...

>> Having a company-equivalent force of pioneers is interesting for a
>> battalion, but but hardly necessary unless you're the 
>> Egyptians breaching the Israeli Suez canal defenses, or something.  
>
>The planets my scenarios are set on are high on walled cities,
aquaducts
>etc.

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'm not suggesting that you give up your orgainization at 
>> all!  But...
>
>There's always a but ;)

hate that, eh?!

>> ...and at the same time have a force that reasonably
>> translates into larger size units for Dirtside crossovers 
>> (and makes more sense from a Stargrunt point of view, also).
>
>Do you mean mechanics wise or in traditional view of the military wise?

well, part of it is "traditional view" wise...

but in Dirtside, if you create a company or battalion size force around
your platoons, you'll have the whole "32 mortars" business I mentioned
before...

that isn't a BAD thing for one-off games, for sure.  

I guess it really depends on how much one-off gaming you intend, and how
much campaign style play.

If you play a campaign and track resources, having a very support-heavy
force will require more logistic investment.  If you're playing one-off
games, that what the heck - all those other considerations can quite
comfortably get tossed out the window...

But it's all in good fun in the end, so it really doesn't matter as long
as
you and your oppenents enjoy themselves, right?!  Some of us get more
caught up in the "is it realistic" business than is entirely necessary
:)

-Adrian

********************************************

Adrian Johnson