US Army Crew vs Half Squad (Squad)

[21Z5M]

When creating a scenario using US infantry crew served weapons do you think the soldiers manning the weapon are more accurately represented using crews or half squads?

 

[Vinnie]

By crew served weapons I am assuming you mean Bazookas and machine guns rather than artillery and mortars?

In this case I feel the half squad is better. Generally the weapon, while served by a specialist, was served by a person who was an infantryman first and a specialist second. Additionally, the weapon would generally be placed as part of the main force and thus within reach of the leaders rally ability rather than in an over watch role to the rear.
There could be a good arguement for an HMG to have a crew but otherwise I feel it a weak one.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

When creating a scenario using US infantry crew served weapons do you think the soldiers manning the weapon are more accurately represented using crews or half squads?

Half-squads - possibly Elite.

 

[BobK13]

Crew with no self rally.

 

[Kevin Kenneally]

By crew served weapons I am assuming you mean Bazookas and machine guns rather than artillery and mortars?

In this case I feel the half squad is better. Generally the weapon, while served by a specialist, was served by a person who was an infantryman first and a specialist second. Additionally, the weapon would generally be placed as part of the main force and thus within reach of the leaders rally ability rather than in an over watch role to the rear.
There could be a good arguement for an HMG to have a crew but otherwise I feel it a weak one.

Vinnie,

I believe he might be talking about MGs.

The Bazooka 'crew" would be members of the squad, with just enough info to load, aim and fired the Bazooka.

The 60mm MTR would also be a crew served weapon.

The half-squad would definitely not portray a trained crew for any Crew served weapon.

 

[Kevin Kenneally]

When creating a scenario using US infantry crew served weapons do you think the soldiers manning the weapon are more accurately represented using crews or half squads?

Crews would be the best way.

 

[ASLSARGE]

Depends....and not the personal care item.
Regarding the US MG's specifically, the .50cal HMG was practically a standard TO&E item at the platoon level and would be operated by a half squad trained in its use. Most if not all the members of the platoon would be able to operate the weapon in a pinch. The old reliable water-cooled .30cal HMG required specially trained crews to man and operate it. That is according to the sources I have.
Bazookas would be a standard issue support weapon at the squad level, not requiring a special crew to operate it. As in..."You there, you carry the tube and fire the darn thing... and you carry the ammo for him".
Same thing would apply to DC's and FT's. Other weapons, such as 60mm mortars, would be crew-served.
Now, the nuclear plasma de-energizer gun....that thing definitly needs a special crew. Oh wait, we're not talking about invasion of the planet Doodu and blasting all the Doodus to heck and back are we? Sorry.

 

[BobK13]

Depends....and not the personal care item.
Regarding the US MG's specifically, the .50cal HMG was practically a standard TO&E item at the platoon level and would be operated by a half squad trained in its use. Most if not all the members of the platoon would be able to operate the weapon in a pinch. The old reliable water-cooled .30cal HMG required specially trained crews to man and operate it. That is according to the sources I have.
Bazookas would be a standard issue support weapon at the squad level, not requiring a special crew to operate it. As in..."You there, you carry the tube and fire the darn thing... and you carry the ammo for him".
Same thing would apply to DC's and FT's. Other weapons, such as 60mm mortars, would be crew-served.
Now, the nuclear plasma de-energizer gun....that thing definitly needs a special crew. Oh wait, we're not talking about invasion of the planet Doodu and blasting all the Doodus to heck and back are we? Sorry.

Not really. Medium and heavy weapons were organized in their own units.

Take the Organization of a Marine Battalion D series T&O. Each Battalion had three rifle companies and a weapons company. Each rifle company had three rifle platoons and a weapons platoon. Each rifle platoon had three rifle squads and a BAR squad. The weapons platoon would have a mortar section and machine gun section. A machine gun section had two squads, each squad had a gunner (TO weapon .30 light machine guns), an a gunner, and several ammo carriers. Personal weapons were .45 pistols, springfield rifles and M1 carbines. Though trained in infantry tactics, their primary function would have been to operate the Machine gun and certainly not proficient at locating closing with and destroying the enemy. So their fighting effectiveness would closely mimic a crew than a half squad.

A .50 cal definitely would be operated by trained personnel. Cleaning and maintaining the head space and time is critical for the operation of that weapon. These weapon would have be found in the Battalion Weapons Co. and parceled out based on the mission.

 

[Wayne]

When creating a scenario using US infantry crew served weapons do you think the soldiers manning the weapon are more accurately represented using crews or half squads?

I have a suggestion.

Use a US HS w/some special rules.

What follows applies only to US HS and only WRT those 1/2-inch US SW which can be dismantled (i.e., the US 60mm MTR, both of them, the MMG, HMG, and .50 Cal).

Provided the SW is in Possession of an Infantry HS and =not= dismantled, Allow the following:

If the MG is in Good Order, failure of a MC by 1, by a GO HS possessing that MG, results in Pin (instead of Break). A Leader enjoys the same benefit if directing an FPF MG shot by that HS (that Leader may concurrently direct other units, too, on that FPF shot).

Possessing unit must be an Infantry HS (not squad) to claim the benefit.

Design intent: To encourage player use of a HS "crew" to operate a "crew served" SW in a defensive or over-watch posture; the proviso that the SW =not= be dismantled is there to prevent use of the SW as a "carry me" gimmick to stiffen morale of a US HS portaging the SW while closing in the MPh/APh; similarly, the proviso that the HS be Infantry prevents use of the SW as a "carry me" gimmick to stiffen morale while a Passengers/Rider.

One might allow the benefit to HS Passengers of an armored HT, if desired.

Optionally, record HS IDs to link SW models to HS "trained in their use" (if you feel the need justifies the record-keeping).

In playtest, see whether or not the above is abused by inventive players, and adjust or abandon the notion, as necessary.

=-=-=

All shot from the hip. Hope that helps. Best wishes.

 

[Kevin Kenneally]

I have a suggestion.

Use a US HS w/some special rules.

What follows applies only to US HS and only WRT those 1/2-inch US SW which can be dismantled (i.e., the US 60mm MTR, both of them, the MMG, HMG, and .50 Cal).

Provided the SW is in Possession of an Infantry HS and =not= dismantled, Allow the following:

If the MG is in Good Order, failure of a MC by 1, by a GO HS possessing that MG, results in Pin (instead of Break). A Leader enjoys the same benefit if directing an FPF MG shot by that HS (that Leader may concurrently direct other units, too, on that FPF shot).

Possessing unit must be an Infantry HS (not squad) to claim the benefit.

Design intent: To encourage player use of a HS "crew" to operate a "crew served" SW in a defensive or over-watch posture; the proviso that the SW =not= be dismantled is there to prevent use of the SW as a "carry me" gimmick to stiffen morale of a US HS portaging the SW while closing in the MPh/APh; similarly, the proviso that the HS be Infantry prevents use of the SW as a "carry me" gimmick to stiffen morale while a Passengers/Rider.

One might allow the benefit to HS Passengers of an armored HT, if desired.

Optionally, record HS IDs to link SW models to HS "trained in their use" (if you feel the need justifies the record-keeping).

In playtest, see whether or not the above is abused by inventive players, and adjust or abandon the notion, as necessary.

=-=-=

All shot from the hip. Hope that helps. Best wishes.

I like some of your ideas, but I disagree with the HS for Americans.

The Weapons Plt of an Infantry Company was based upon "crews" manning the MGs and Mortars.

The possibility of a HS manning a MG gives that element the ability to shoot their inherent infantry firepower at a target after engaging a target with an MG. That soldiers that manned this weapon only used their personal weapons as a last resort, or when the MG/Mtr were out of ammunition.

 

[Wayne]

I like some of your ideas, but I disagree with the HS for Americans.

Better wording occurred to me after that post:

For a US HS rolling a MC in response to an enemy non-OBA attack in the PFPh, DFPh or AFPh, failure of that MC by 1 results in a Pin instead of a break if that HS possesses a non-DM MMG/HMG/.50-cal/60mmMTR SW. This benefit also applies to that HS (and directing leader, if any) FPF attack MC.

The Weapons Plt of an Infantry Company was based upon "crews" manning the MGs and Mortars.

The possibility of a HS manning a MG gives that element the ability to shoot their inherent infantry firepower at a target after engaging a target with an MG. That soldiers that manned this weapon only used their personal weapons as a last resort, or when the MG/Mtr were out of ammunition.

Maybe I miss your point, but wouldn't SW usage limits take care of that?

 

[Kevin Kenneally]

Better wording occurred to me after that post:

For a US HS rolling a MC in response to an enemy non-OBA attack in the PFPh, DFPh or AFPh, failure of that MC by 1 results in a Pin instead of a break if that HS possesses a non-DM MMG/HMG/.50-cal/60mmMTR SW. This benefit also applies to that HS (and directing leader, if any) FPF attack MC.



Maybe I miss your point, but wouldn't SW usage limits take care of that?

I was referring to the Final Defensive Fire by the HS that manned the crew during the game (a gameism).

I've seen players (during their defensive fire phase) use HSs with MGs and than used the inherent FP from the HS on a target that was a nearer to the HS.

I had a discussion about this at length with a few folks and we agreed that crews should man SW that required crews (i.e., MMGs & HMGs, Mtrs). ATRs, BAZ, PIATS could all be manned by a MMC (Full/Half Squads).