Good post Perry. I would agree with approximations of more "realistic" values for the German sections. An alternative "solution" (yes - it is just a game but...) would be to leave squad values as the are, increase the ratios of LMGs (for everyone) to historical levels (i.e. close to one per squad) but greatly simply the rules for LMGs so that games don't get bogged down. Maybe give the LMG a maximum of one shot, no ROF and breakdown numbers become "X" numbers (i.e. break = remove from play) - these "limits" on their effectiveness being balanced by being present in much greater quantities.
Could Paulus have disengaged on 11-10-42?
- Thread starter witchbottles
- Start date
A question that has come up before in some form or another, but still quite important to get a grip on.
Squad size:
WW2 squads varied from the very large twenty-ish man Polish and similar early war Italian squad down to 6-8 mid war British squad. The Polish squad was big and would nearly have to be dealt with by 2 ASL squads or what I would prefer, a squad and a HS. It's not just the rifle count but the number of bodies for stacking, usage number and transport PP purposes.
The Italian early war squad is different in that the platoon had 2 squads, a rifle and LMG squad, the rifle squad had 2 rifle sections with no LMG and the MG squad had 2 LMG sections each with 2 LMG (for a total of 4 LMG/platoon). So the equivalent of an ASL squad would be an Italian section. They later moved to the more usual 3 squads each with 1 LMG per platoon. The mid-late war squad is fine and while the early war squad might seem not, the ASL version might be considered as a smeared average of the 2 rifle and 2 LMG sections (IE 4 squads with 1 LMG each), anyway it appears that at least some early war units quickly moved to 4 uniform sections each with 1 LMG well before the Italians officially moved to the more common organisation.
The British varied from 10-12 early on, as low as 6-7 (light truck capacity?) during the Desert, back up a bit to 8-10 in the ETO. They also had a "Left Behind" system that kept a couple of men behind so if the actual combatants were KIA the squad had a core to rebuild on.
The Germans and Soviets both started with 4 squad platoons each with 12-14 men and ended up with 3 squad platoons each with from 8-11 men. The Soviets did try hardest to keep the squad up to at least 10 men but were officially prepared to reduce a company to as low as 2 platoons each of 2 squads.
The US army squads tried and managed for the most part to keep their squads in the 11-13 range whilst the USMC actually increased their squad size from 8/9 (BAR/rifle) to 14 (or 15 if you include their Navy Corps man/medic).
Most other combatants, at least while they lasted in the war, maintained 10-14 man squads, maybe dropping a man or two.
LMGs: All inherent LMG are treated the same, regardless of nationality with the exception of German squads who always get spraying fire due to their belt fed MG 34/42. While on the surface that seems wrong, a BAR should not equal a MG 42, a little contemplation might explain. Take a German squad of 10 men, have each man carry 2 tins of MG ammo, each 250 rounds for a total of 5000 rounds, that's roughly 5 minutes of firing maximum. Now while a dedicated HMG squad with it's more lavish allocation of ammo might not baulk at firing at that rate, the normal squad knows that ammo load will have to last them the whole day at least. It's ammo restrictions that tone down the differences between nations. So while the ASL approach is not perfect, it's not unreasonable.
As an aside, the German shift from 1 inherent LMG/squad to 2 really should be reflected by a new squad type. The Heer 468->548 and SS 468->548->658 is a reflection of that. An approach alternative would be to add 1 LMG per X squads (above the Chapter H allocation) where X is the LMG FP, to add an average of 1 FP per squad.
While many armies might de-facto split their squad into a fire base (LMG) and a manoeuvre (rifles/smg), ASL does not distinguish between the base and manoeuvre when deploying, it's a practical game simplification. Otherwise you would have to track which HS has the LMG or double the HS types per nation.
So to the original question. For me the breakpoint is whether there are enough men to provide 2 elements that can act semi-independently. If a DTO British squad with a total of 7 men, squad leader, 4 man manoeuvre rifle section and a 2 man Bren section can function, then I will live with that, though I would prefer to see 4 men per section/HS. It's a question of functionality rather than simple numbers.
Note that all above figures are rough and from memory, it's too early in the morning to trawl through stuff
.
Squad size:
WW2 squads varied from the very large twenty-ish man Polish and similar early war Italian squad down to 6-8 mid war British squad. The Polish squad was big and would nearly have to be dealt with by 2 ASL squads or what I would prefer, a squad and a HS. It's not just the rifle count but the number of bodies for stacking, usage number and transport PP purposes.
The Italian early war squad is different in that the platoon had 2 squads, a rifle and LMG squad, the rifle squad had 2 rifle sections with no LMG and the MG squad had 2 LMG sections each with 2 LMG (for a total of 4 LMG/platoon). So the equivalent of an ASL squad would be an Italian section. They later moved to the more usual 3 squads each with 1 LMG per platoon. The mid-late war squad is fine and while the early war squad might seem not, the ASL version might be considered as a smeared average of the 2 rifle and 2 LMG sections (IE 4 squads with 1 LMG each), anyway it appears that at least some early war units quickly moved to 4 uniform sections each with 1 LMG well before the Italians officially moved to the more common organisation.
The British varied from 10-12 early on, as low as 6-7 (light truck capacity?) during the Desert, back up a bit to 8-10 in the ETO. They also had a "Left Behind" system that kept a couple of men behind so if the actual combatants were KIA the squad had a core to rebuild on.
The Germans and Soviets both started with 4 squad platoons each with 12-14 men and ended up with 3 squad platoons each with from 8-11 men. The Soviets did try hardest to keep the squad up to at least 10 men but were officially prepared to reduce a company to as low as 2 platoons each of 2 squads.
The US army squads tried and managed for the most part to keep their squads in the 11-13 range whilst the USMC actually increased their squad size from 8/9 (BAR/rifle) to 14 (or 15 if you include their Navy Corps man/medic).
Most other combatants, at least while they lasted in the war, maintained 10-14 man squads, maybe dropping a man or two.
LMGs: All inherent LMG are treated the same, regardless of nationality with the exception of German squads who always get spraying fire due to their belt fed MG 34/42. While on the surface that seems wrong, a BAR should not equal a MG 42, a little contemplation might explain. Take a German squad of 10 men, have each man carry 2 tins of MG ammo, each 250 rounds for a total of 5000 rounds, that's roughly 5 minutes of firing maximum. Now while a dedicated HMG squad with it's more lavish allocation of ammo might not baulk at firing at that rate, the normal squad knows that ammo load will have to last them the whole day at least. It's ammo restrictions that tone down the differences between nations. So while the ASL approach is not perfect, it's not unreasonable.
As an aside, the German shift from 1 inherent LMG/squad to 2 really should be reflected by a new squad type. The Heer 468->548 and SS 468->548->658 is a reflection of that. An approach alternative would be to add 1 LMG per X squads (above the Chapter H allocation) where X is the LMG FP, to add an average of 1 FP per squad.
While many armies might de-facto split their squad into a fire base (LMG) and a manoeuvre (rifles/smg), ASL does not distinguish between the base and manoeuvre when deploying, it's a practical game simplification. Otherwise you would have to track which HS has the LMG or double the HS types per nation.
So to the original question. For me the breakpoint is whether there are enough men to provide 2 elements that can act semi-independently. If a DTO British squad with a total of 7 men, squad leader, 4 man manoeuvre rifle section and a 2 man Bren section can function, then I will live with that, though I would prefer to see 4 men per section/HS. It's a question of functionality rather than simple numbers.
Note that all above figures are rough and from memory, it's too early in the morning to trawl through stuff
.
Last edited:
Paul
I think the whole concept of an inherent LMG although stated to be the case officially (I forget the source - maybe the design notes or General) is a massive fudge. Although I would usually defer to your analysis, I think Perry's figures are a lot more accurate. The minor concession for spraying fire just doesn't stack up. No squad armed with a magazine fed LMG is going to carry anywhere near 5,000 rounds of ammo. In a short firefight (esp defending) there is no comparison between a belt fed and a magazine fed LMG. History post ww2 saw the development of the M60 - I would say acknowledging the marked superiority of a belt fed squad LMG. I think Squad Leader (as opposed to ASL) gave a much better "feel" to German squads by equipping them with many more MGs than in ASL (which in a way perhaps implicitly acknowledges that the officially stated inherent LMG is fudge). I am looking at SL now and of the original scenarios there are 81 German MGs for 129.5 German squad equivalents - 0.65 MG per
squad. To compare to ASL I randomly picked AP2 and out of five scenarios there were only 29 MGs for 56.5 squad equivalents - 0.34 MG per squad. I really, really think that in some ways SL (and its scenarios) better captured the differences between the Germans (lots of leaders, fewer squads, lots of MGs), the Americans (massive squad firepower, brittle morale) and the Russians (tons of squads - not much else) than has been the case with ASL!
I think the whole concept of an inherent LMG although stated to be the case officially (I forget the source - maybe the design notes or General) is a massive fudge. Although I would usually defer to your analysis, I think Perry's figures are a lot more accurate. The minor concession for spraying fire just doesn't stack up. No squad armed with a magazine fed LMG is going to carry anywhere near 5,000 rounds of ammo. In a short firefight (esp defending) there is no comparison between a belt fed and a magazine fed LMG. History post ww2 saw the development of the M60 - I would say acknowledging the marked superiority of a belt fed squad LMG. I think Squad Leader (as opposed to ASL) gave a much better "feel" to German squads by equipping them with many more MGs than in ASL (which in a way perhaps implicitly acknowledges that the officially stated inherent LMG is fudge). I am looking at SL now and of the original scenarios there are 81 German MGs for 129.5 German squad equivalents - 0.65 MG per
squad. To compare to ASL I randomly picked AP2 and out of five scenarios there were only 29 MGs for 56.5 squad equivalents - 0.34 MG per squad. I really, really think that in some ways SL (and its scenarios) better captured the differences between the Germans (lots of leaders, fewer squads, lots of MGs), the Americans (massive squad firepower, brittle morale) and the Russians (tons of squads - not much else) than has been the case with ASL!
I won't really argue too much against the superiority of the belt fed light-ish MG, GPMG in current parlance.
My 5k squad load would be the absolute practical maximum possible, to illustrate the firing time limits, more likely you would see a lot less, something like the assistant gunner and possibly an other carrying a pair of cans or belts with the rest, apart from the squad leader carrying a single can, say 10-12 cans/belts for 2500-3000 rounds. A British soldier had webbing that had 2 front chest pouches that could take 2 Bren 30 round magazines, so for an 8 man squad that would be 32 magazines, 960 rounds. Note that the British load is for their 'furniture' whilst every can that the Germans carry takes up a hand, though loose belts draped Mexican bandit style are less of an inconvenience. The British can still carry extra boxes or ad-hoc satchels of Bren magazines (my grandmother had a few Bren boxes used to store various gardening junk). Again even the reduced 2500 German load is still pretty much on the high end, fine when approaching a combat. Look at photo and film clips of Germans and see what percentage are carrying belts or cans to get a better idea.
Comparing SL with ASL has a touch of apples and oranges about it. SL German LMG counters had 2 FP, NO ROF, NO firelanes and if I remember correctly NO Spraying Fire. So just to maintain FP, the number of LMG would have to be reduced by a third. Even a [1] ROF LMG gets an average of an extra shot 20% of the time (1/6+1/36+1/216...). MG in ASL are simply more deadly. Then there is the question of what the LMG counters represent. I am of the opinion they represent one or a mix of a platoon spare, an extra allocation of ammo and the platoon's most effective gunner.
In a defensive position the GPMG type clearly has a significant advantage. With the extra ammo and spare barrels stacked up, a German squad has a clear advantage compared to a British squad with a Bren. On the advance, I feel the advantage is less marked as they still can only carry so much and that may well have to last many hours if not a few days. So in ASL the solution for designers would be to swap LMG for MMG/HMG where the Germans are defending a substantial position, even though they might not have the tripods, etc. That would not apply to the British. The Germans had real heavy versions at battalion (sometimes company) level whilst the British only at division (often attached at brigade) level.
What I am trying to put across is that the German advantage will not be so marked in many situations as apparent from simple raw stats and in many cases the advantage may be below ASL's ken. While all armies eventually adopted the GPMG idea as superior or at least no worse in any situation, it does not always translate to a really solid advantage. Decent armies will attempt to give their troops an edge and at some time the old kit will wear out, so why not improve.
The whole SL/ASL FP thing is utterly arbitrary and abstract, originally based upon John Hills impressions, as they say, design for effect. I have no doubt that improvements could be made, but unlike the original SL/CoI gun/armour system, I don't think it too far off. Besides, you run up against the problem that designers hope to achieve a reasonably balanced game, something a real life commander would avoid like the plague. That means an improvement in a German squad would a require reduction in their numbers in a scenario, a meta design for effect, you might say.
My 5k squad load would be the absolute practical maximum possible, to illustrate the firing time limits, more likely you would see a lot less, something like the assistant gunner and possibly an other carrying a pair of cans or belts with the rest, apart from the squad leader carrying a single can, say 10-12 cans/belts for 2500-3000 rounds. A British soldier had webbing that had 2 front chest pouches that could take 2 Bren 30 round magazines, so for an 8 man squad that would be 32 magazines, 960 rounds. Note that the British load is for their 'furniture' whilst every can that the Germans carry takes up a hand, though loose belts draped Mexican bandit style are less of an inconvenience. The British can still carry extra boxes or ad-hoc satchels of Bren magazines (my grandmother had a few Bren boxes used to store various gardening junk). Again even the reduced 2500 German load is still pretty much on the high end, fine when approaching a combat. Look at photo and film clips of Germans and see what percentage are carrying belts or cans to get a better idea.
Comparing SL with ASL has a touch of apples and oranges about it. SL German LMG counters had 2 FP, NO ROF, NO firelanes and if I remember correctly NO Spraying Fire. So just to maintain FP, the number of LMG would have to be reduced by a third. Even a [1] ROF LMG gets an average of an extra shot 20% of the time (1/6+1/36+1/216...). MG in ASL are simply more deadly. Then there is the question of what the LMG counters represent. I am of the opinion they represent one or a mix of a platoon spare, an extra allocation of ammo and the platoon's most effective gunner.
In a defensive position the GPMG type clearly has a significant advantage. With the extra ammo and spare barrels stacked up, a German squad has a clear advantage compared to a British squad with a Bren. On the advance, I feel the advantage is less marked as they still can only carry so much and that may well have to last many hours if not a few days. So in ASL the solution for designers would be to swap LMG for MMG/HMG where the Germans are defending a substantial position, even though they might not have the tripods, etc. That would not apply to the British. The Germans had real heavy versions at battalion (sometimes company) level whilst the British only at division (often attached at brigade) level.
What I am trying to put across is that the German advantage will not be so marked in many situations as apparent from simple raw stats and in many cases the advantage may be below ASL's ken. While all armies eventually adopted the GPMG idea as superior or at least no worse in any situation, it does not always translate to a really solid advantage. Decent armies will attempt to give their troops an edge and at some time the old kit will wear out, so why not improve.
The whole SL/ASL FP thing is utterly arbitrary and abstract, originally based upon John Hills impressions, as they say, design for effect. I have no doubt that improvements could be made, but unlike the original SL/CoI gun/armour system, I don't think it too far off. Besides, you run up against the problem that designers hope to achieve a reasonably balanced game, something a real life commander would avoid like the plague. That means an improvement in a German squad would a require reduction in their numbers in a scenario, a meta design for effect, you might say.
Proff3RTR
Elder Member
Paul is correct, ASL is abstract to say the least, 5K is about right for a German MG 42 armed section, now here is the rub though, 5K rounds of 7.92mm is a lot of weight to carry, add to that all the rest of it and see how that feels, (carrying an extra 400 rounds of 7.62 is bad enough with your own web and personal kit trust me).
mooreshawnm
Member
Which is just one more reason to be a tanker rather than a filthy grunt.
Proff3RTR
Elder Member
well, I mixed and matched, only spent 4 years out of my so far now 28 on Tanks, the rest was foot borne or Armoured Recon, but yep, those rounds soon add to the carry load in the old bergan.
mooreshawnm
Member
Then the 60 and 81mm mortar rounds. Oh and the AT4 or Javalin. Bazooka rounds back in the day I imagine. Yeah too much work for me.
I still think the 6th Army could have made it behind the river!
I still think the 6th Army could have made it behind the river!
jrv
Forum Guru
You all need a LS3 robot mule.
JR
JR
Proff3RTR
Elder Member
120 rounds of 5.56mm in mags, 200 rounds 5.56mm in a bandolier carried around the neck and shoulder, spare 200 rounds of 7.62mm 1 in 1 link for the section GPMG, 4 grenades, 2 smoke grenades, Possibly 2 spare 81mm mortar rounds to be dropped off at the mortar line before a big attack, spare batteries for my radio, a million and one other items I need all stuffed into my bergan and webbing.
Oh add onto that my food and water for a few days as well before a replen.
Yep, loaded down ain't the word for it.
Oh add onto that my food and water for a few days as well before a replen.
Yep, loaded down ain't the word for it.
mooreshawnm
Member
Oh the damn radio I forgot about that fricken heavy beast.
You guys only carry 4 mags as basic load?!?
You guys only carry 4 mags as basic load?!?
Proff3RTR
Elder Member
Nah, as many as we can get hold of, but most blokes have 6, more is better clearly.
witchbottles
Forum Guru
it pays to ride the battle taxis as they beat the air into submission.
mooreshawnm
Member
The standard load for a pouge is 210. I kept over 20 at my station and fired over 15 twice....luxury of Mech. Ammo conservation? Fire disciple? I don't even know the meaning!
witchbottles
Forum Guru
nah a camo bandana came in handy, though. Mostly, if you go into the drink, just about everything you do not tie onto your gear via a lanyard will find its way to the bottom of the sea rapidly. Amazing how much can disappear from a life raft so quickly, ne'er to be seen again. So damm near everything on/ in the vest was lashed to it as well.
witchbottles
Forum Guru
fire discipline for me as not hitting the rotor arc with the XM-213 / GAU 15/A.The standard load for a pouge is 210. I kept over 20 at my station and fired over 15 twice....luxury of Mech. Ammo conservation? Fire disciple? I don't even know the meaning!
. Not conducive to a long life to cross firing arc with rotor arcs, ya know
mooreshawnm
Member
^ LOL
mooreshawnm
Member
I had to look up the fancy sounding gun. You had a fricken 50 cal on the door?!?fire discipline for me as not hitting the rotor arc with the XM-213 / GAU 15/A.