I've got a question concerning platoon leaders in SG2. Does a
platoon's command squad have a platoon leader _and_ a platoon
sergeant? Whenever my group plays a game, the platoon command squad never
moves because all of it's actions are used to give additional moves to the
other squads. If the command
squad has it's own leader, then it could move/fire while the
platoon leader was directing his squads.
In the SGII rules book, the Organisations covered generally have four full
squads (FSE has five, one of which contains a Platoon Commander. In most
modern armies of today a platoon usually consists of THREE fighting squads and
a smaller command element. Brits, Aust, Soviet are all like this. What you are
descibing is more like an individual character. Remember that a COMMAND squad
is meant to do that; command. The NAC, NSL and ESU command squads command but
are large enough to fight in defence or add firepower in an attack if
necessary.
Both the Oceanic Union and Islamic Federation platoon organisations on Evan
Powles web page have a small Platoon Headquarters of only three or four men
and then has rifle (fighting) squads.
Owen G
[quoted original message omitted]
> You wrote:
Hi! New to list, so let me briefly introduce. John M. Atkinson, age 20,
resident of Woodbridge, VA. Play Full Thrust (unfortunately, the group at the
shop I play at has some screwy house rules, but I play closer to book FT when
I play at home), Dirtside II, and am looking for a copy of Stargrunt II so
I'll have an excuse to buy those minis, as I don't know anyone who plays it,
but I kinda like the minis.
In >most modern armies of today a platoon usually consists of THREE fighting
>squads and a smaller command element. Brits, Aust, Soviet are
Note--modern US light infantry platoons have three rifle squads, plus a
heavy weapons squad (Usually 2xM-60s [replaced by M-240Gs in Real Army
Real Soon Now], another SAW (Squad Leader), and an M-203 GL), plus a
platoon HQ with PL, PSG, RTO. Or at least that's how the 1/170th
(MdARNG) was organized last summer.
> I've got a question concerning platoon leaders in SG2. Does a
I guess that depends on the TOE of your troops, for example the British army
has both a Leiutenant and a Sergeant in the 'comand section'. In
sci-fi, the US Colonial Marines also has a Lt. and a master sgt.
> Whenever my group plays a game, the platoon command
So try using EW troops, if your command section is sitting put then they have
to get thier intel from the forward troops who have to use communication
actions to inform them, thus slowing them up. Additionally, the comamnd
section then has to communicate back to the squad to transferactions. Try the
EW guys out with decent EW kit, once a player realises that they have to get
thier command section nearer the front because word of mouth is more reliable
than communicators they will then
really start to have to balance re-activation of troops with moving and
fighting the command section.
> If the command
The pltn leader is also in comand of his/her own section, the actions
for that squad are what are used to transfer actions. The only way you could
do what you want is to use your pltn commander as an individual figure and
the comand section as a separate squad. To me this is not the 'done
thing' a this is purely a device to get more actions. Personally if I saw a
guy doing this I would field more than my fair share of snipers and cap the
Lt as soon as he/she showed and sign of movement :-)
Glover, spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> In the SGII rules book, the Organisations covered generally have four
In
> most modern armies of today a platoon usually consists of THREE
I believe (when I was in CF Infantry Reserve) we used (at least locally) an
organization of three sections (didn't call them squads) to a platoon.
Typically each section was about ten guys (varied depending on available
strength). And then there was a platoon weapons det that consisted of about
another 8 guys. We had each section led by a MCpl or Sgt, and the platoon was
lead by a Sgt. or a Warrant Officer (a bigger better Sgt. to those used to
American ranks). The Platoon was commanded by a 1Lt. or a 2Lt. depending on
what officers were available.
Although the point of the command squad is to command, I'd point out a couple
of things: 1. It tends to immobilize the squad. That means the commanders tend
to not lead from the front, or even close to it. In real life, I found our
platoon officers didn't lurk way at the back. Now, you can acheive this by not
giving any orders and moving, but then what's the point? Maybe if the Platoon
Commander was allowed to move with the squad, and the squad was lead by the
Platoon Sgt (something that I saw a lot of anyway....), then maybe you
wouldn't get the 'lead from the rear' syndrome that the rules tend to
encourage. In real life, this is bad for morale. (I know I wouldn't be in a
hurry to follow
orders from a stay-behind....).
2. We rate our leader with a leadership level. We should (or could)
also rate the 'next in command' (usually the Warrant/Sergeant for the
platoon) too. Then if the officer was killed, there'd be a quick
chain-of-command replacement and no confusion.
Plus generally, I noticed our LT and our Warrant used to move around between
the sections (or position themselves at opposite ends of the platoon) to give
better Command Control. Having them grouped in a squad might not make sense.
In a way, they behave more like indiviudals than a squad.
Opinions? That's just my 0.02 and it isn't particularly suggestive of any
particular course....
Tom.
/************************************************
Hi everyone!!!
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> I believe (when I was in CF Infantry Reserve) we used (at least
Just to give a german (i.e.: Bundeswehr) perspective on platoon organisation
(I served in the Jaeger Kompanie of a Panzergrenadier Btl. from 1986 to 1988):
At least up to the end of the Cold War a German Jaeger-Zug (light- resp.
foot-infantry) was organized of two ´´fighting´´ Gruppen
(squads/sections...
whatever) and one Zug-Trupp. All consisted of around 10 men, incl. one
Milan-ATGM, two snipers (trained for independant action as a team, but
normally operating with the squad) and one Panzerfaust each. The main
difference was, that the Command Squad had a longer ranged radio (in addition
to the ´´Walkie Talkie´´) and no MG. The Platoon Leader was a
Hauptfeldwebel (senior NCO) with a Felwebel as second in command, the squads
were led by junior NCOs (Unteroffiziere). Only the first platoon would be led
by an Officer (Leutnant or Oberleutnant), who would have taken command of the
company if the Company Commander (Kompanie Chef) was disabled (i.e. there are
only two officers per company). The main reasons behind these small platoons
were:
1.) a better control/flexibility of the platoon in the ´´heat of
battle´´ 2.) the german ´´Stosstrupp´´ doctrine
3.) unfavourable experiences with five-vehicle PzGren platoons
> Although the point of the command squad is to command, I'd point out
The Jaeger Zug operated according to the two up, one behind principle, i.e.
the platoon command squad (and the deputy platoon commander) would hang a
little bit behind the other two. The platoon commander (Zugfuehrer) was
normally where the ´´action´´was, which meant that the possibility of both
platoon commanders being put out of action simultaneously was minimized. So
the ´´hanging back´´ of the command element to transfer actions
in SG2 would be similar to ´´real-life´´ Bundeswehr Doctrine.
> 2. We rate our leader with a leadership level. We should (or could)
Same thing in the Bundeswehr...plus: all level of command are trained (and are
expected) to act on their own initiative if deemed necessary.
In my opinion the Jaeger-Zug would give a very effective organisation
for SG2:
-All fighting squads could be ´´double activated´´ by two
Transferring Actions.
-The lack of the MG in the command squad results in less ´´wasted
firepower´´ in the case of two Transferring Actions.
-Higher flexibility through smaller platoons.
-Not to mention the high percentage (maybe too high for SG2) of
snipers (Scharfschuetzen).
That's all I can think of at the Moment (it's one o'clock in the morning).
Tschüss!!! Hauke
P.S. the same holds (in most aspects) true for Panzergrenadiere and (I think)
for all german infantry units... and I'm not aware of any significant changes
in this nowadays.
On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 15:47:40 -0500, Thomas Barclay
<Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca> wrote:
> 1. It tends to immobilize the squad. That means the commanders tend
Part of this has to do with the necessity of gathering realtime data. The
other part is the morale boost it gives troops below them, but I think the
data requirement is the big one.
If you want to encourage leading from the front, change the rules for giving
actions to a subordinate unit. Allow the leader to give one action to a leader
or squad from 12" to 24" away, and allow the leader to give up to two actions
to a leader or squad up to 12" away. In the case of giving the action to the
squad 24" away, this eats up both actions. In all cases, a communication roll
must be made for leaders more than 6" away from the leader/unit
receiving the action, as per SG2 rules.
This rule would only be used for troops that are communicating by voice only.
Units with satellite surveillance (i.e. the movie Patriot Games) and/or
helmet video feeds (i.e. the movie Aliens), or better technology, are exempt
from this rule. This makes lower tech leaders lead from closer to the front,
while high tech troops can lead from the rear.
Comments?
On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 07:16:18 -0500 (CDT), jatkins6@ix.netcom.com (John
> Atkinson) wrote:
> Hi! New to list, so let me briefly introduce. John M. Atkinson, age
Welcome aboard, John!
> You wrote:
> Just to give a german (i.e.: Bundeswehr) perspective on platoon
> In my opinion the Jaeger-Zug would give a very effective organisation
Note: This only works if your NCOs are gooooood. A lot depends on quality of
sergeants. Historically only US, UK, and Germany have had sergeants they could
rely on to lead platoons[1] and fight without
close supervision by officers. Contrast to Soviet/Chinese platoons[2]
(ESU, I presume, maintains a lot of those 'traditions') where they basically
would have to fight as a single unit, which looses all effectiveness when the
one officer gets shot. Depends on how much background you're putting into your
Stargrunt games. I wouldn't expect Islamic Fed, ESU, PAU, or FSE (assuming
they are maintaining the fine French fighting tradition) line troops to be
this flexible.
[1]Only Germans do so in peacetime in theory, but in reality US does
this due to shortage of infantry officers or casualties in war.
[2]Line infantry, special forces would be slightly different.
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:04:57 +1000, "Glover, Owen"
<oglover@mov.vic.gov.au> wrote:
> The 6" distance for commands is in scale to 60 meters, which is a
It's just a game thing. 24" is pretty easy to remember, it's a multiple of 6,
and it represents about 250 metres. It's an attempt to push the commanders
closer to the front. It's within radio range, but the entire battlefield is
within radio range. After 100 metres, seeing what's happening to your troops
is difficult.
I suppose another option would be to say that low tech troops must be within
12" in order to transfer actions on a 1:1 ratio, but do away with the 24"
limit. It's just a thought...
> You wrote:
> It's just a game thing. 24" is pretty easy to remember, it's a
Tactical leadership is a very personal issue. Past 100 meters, the platoon
leader will have no clue what's going on. But I'd break it down further. Those
are the ranges in open terrain. A significant terrain feature (anything that
blocks LOS to squad leader, say) should
upp it to the 24+ category. He hasn't got a clue, and is just
confusing the situation giving orders. I've never heard of a platoon leader
trying to fight his platoon outside of visual range. If he needs to split his
platoon up, he gives the PSG command of the detached element and lets him do
his thing. When I've worked with the infantry[1], the platoon leader generally
follows the lead squad. And
tends to get waxed regularly--every study of warfare in the past
century has indicated the most hazardous job in the military is Infantry
platoon leader.
> From: Kueck H <KueckH@aol.com>
Wow!! Thanks for the input. Having the actual organizations and NAMES for the
command levels is great. I believe that Nic at Eureka
is doing some figures for NSL light infantry - perhaps we could use
this organization for those troops??
KR, Geo-Hex
> Hi everyone !!!
Glover, spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Actually by keeping the Pl Comd back you then rely on the
True, but with good units this is only somewhat of a risk.
> Your Pl Comd is best pushed forward close behind the forward sections
I totally agree. However, I can only observe in most of the games I've seen
(and that isn't as large a number as I'd like), the command unit tended to lag
from the rest of the units.
/************************************************
Allan spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:04:57 +1000, "Glover, Owen"
<oglover@mov.vic.gov.au>
> wrote:
Also, curiously enough, if you look at "Aliens" and the like, it may well be
that units are linked by.1 to.3 Watt digital radios, which means anything up
to a couple of kms could be within normal comms range. We don't currently
harness this level of comms, but it is
becoming more feasible (technically - perhaps not operationally, but
I suspect that will change) by the day.
Note that 'Warzone' (or was that 'Killzone'?) took this into effect by giving
initiative modifiers to the units in 'headset' contact. Now they weren't so
much concerned with intersquad comms, but that isn't a far stretch of the
imagination (nor is the digital exchange of tacdata from helmet gear).
I suspect that a 'comms roll' should almost not be necessary in most normal EM
environments. I realize there is radio proceedure to be executed between
squads, and that it isn't just a random blather, but I think this is pretty
straightforward with modern comms and even half trained squad leaders.
(Although it does add neat elements to
the game....)
Tom.
/************************************************
Hallo ihr alle!!!
> KR wrote:
> Wow!! Thanks for the input. Having the actual organizations and
If you're interested I can work out the organisation of the whole company for
you (with some additional information on ranks and names).
Tschuess!!! Hauke
> ----------
Well,, in Northern Australia, the Australian Army infantry units will
routinely deploy a platoon dispersed in two half platoon patrols or down to
section (squad) patrols separated by large distances ie in terms of
kilometers! Mounted in vehicles using a combination of HF and VHF comms, the
platoon can be deployed quite widely dispersed for the conduct of certain
operations.The use of radio comms down to section level results in the platoon
commander having a much greater flexibility to command. That is definitely the
future for modern warfare and it is exactly what SGII and DSII reflect.
Conduct of operations in close country (read jungle) or urban terrain benefits
hugely from secure radio comms where the LOS from Platoon Commander to Section
Commanders is often limited to 20 m or less (2 inches in SG!).
Howdy!
> On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> I suspect that a 'comms roll' should almost not be necessary in most
Actually, I think that the 'comms roll' simulates the 'fog of war'
wonderfully. You wouldn't believe the f*^$-ups that are made in a clean
radio environment today. True, in the (near?) future, radio procedure will
probably be simplified, radios smaller and better, etc., but there will always
be confusion, equipment failure, atmospherics, poor radio discipline, etc.
Laterish!
Ken
PS I am in a Vietnam kick right now, and the comm activity mentioned in
McDonough's 'Platoon Leader', Cash's 'The Only War We Had', and Lombard's 'In
Country' are *wonderfully* simulated by SGII. Quite scary,
actually... :)
> From: Kueck H <KueckH@aol.com>
I'd love it!!
KR
> Hallo ihr alle !!!
> You wrote:
> PS I am in a Vietnam kick right now, and the comm activity
Us Nasty Guard still use PRC-77s, and you wouldn't believe the trouble
we occasionally have communicating. All it takes is a slightly
run-down battery. . .
Howdy!
> On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, John Atkinson wrote:
> Us Nasty Guard still use PRC-77s, and you wouldn't believe the trouble
> we occasionally have communicating. All it takes is a slightly
Ahhh, the PRiCk '77... :) My dad used to work on the PRC-25's
after Korea. Now THAT is low tech!
BTW, what is the range on the PRC-77?
Thanks!
Ken
> You wrote:
> BTW, what is the range on the PRC-77?
Err...I think 3 km, dependant on battery charge, type of antenna, atmospheric
conditions, and terrain.
Actually from memory, you should expect 9km to 11km.
[quoted original message omitted]
> You wrote:
> Actually from memory, you should expect 9km to 11km.
Disclaimer--I'm not a commo weenie, nor do I use these things under
even remotely ideal conditions. I've gone out 2 km and tried to raise someone
and gotten an earful of static. I've also seen them work at the ranges above.
In Florida, flatter than flat, 10 km no problem. At Ft. AP Hill, where you
cannot find a square foot of level ground, HA! And if someone leaves the radio
on all night and runs down the battery, so sorry, but you're better off
shouting.
John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> >And of course this is 1960s or 70s tech (PRC-77 sets are not what I'd
> >call "state of the art" comms). Not 2300s tech. Imagine how much
Hmm. Most of the EW guys I've worked with (a spooky bunch) have suggested that
broad spectrum jamming is not the approach taken because it is WAY too power
consumptive. You tend to target specific bands at specific times. That's why
the military also uses frequency hopping comms nowdays. And If I ever develop
a Meson Communicator (a la Traveller), I won't be jammable in any practical
sense.
Jamming is a hazard, but I think it is represented by the EW rules. I think if
they are not being used, it is not present, and therefore shouldn't be a
factor. Right now, platoons tend to have a radio. Maybe in 2300, each guy has
a radio capable of punching through to orbit (compact power sources for gauss
rifles, plasma guns, and grave tech exists, so assuming they harness the same
for comms...) and operating across the frequency band from about 10 KHz up to
10 GHz. They might not, but they might. This might be yet another place where
the mainline powers (NAC, NSL, FSE) have advantages because of their high
budget equipment.
I'm just saying we shouldn't be creating something set in 2300 that plays
necessarily exactly like Vietnam or even modern. I realize we want to maintain
certain 'human factors' and an understandable tactical situation, but we
should account for technological progress and doctrinal progress (which
follows technological progress).
Having said that, I realize it is hard to predict the future. But we should be
cognizant of our assumptions. If we assume jamming tech has superceded commo
tech (hence rendering comms risky or problematic), doctrine must reflect this.
If comms is as good as I think it will get, doctrine should reflect this
instead. Each 'version' of a setting might have different baseline
assumptions. But we should just be aware of them, and be aware of their impact
on how one would fight.
Tom.
/************************************************
Glover, spake thusly upon matters weighty:
I'd think that's closer to the mark. The small handsets used to give 2 or 3
klicks range..... I'd expect a manpack to provide a much more
substantial range (of course, depends on environment - thermal stuff,
ionization layers, weather, terrain, etc.).
> Actually from memory, you should expect 9km to 11km.
/************************************************