Chain of Command

[rim66]

Okay, gone back and checked the figures again as I seem to have set a hare running!!

At full strength the 2 divisions were each about 21 500 strong. This was split 3 ways:

The combat arms - those in direct contact with the enemy - about 12 000. These were the PzGren (7 000), the Pz Regt and the Pioneers, Recce and PzJag.

Combat Support - arty and flak. No figures but a typical bn strength of 1000 would give 4000.

Combat Service Support - the supply, medical, repair etc the balance, say 5 500.

Rough figures but hopefully good enough.

Now to losses.

HJ reported having 12 500 men after Falaise, with 2 500 in the support units. This leaves 10 000 for the combat and combat support and losses of about 9 000. Even if we assume the combat support was at full strength, then that still leaves 6 000 or 50% in the combat arms.

LAH reported total losses of about 5 000. Even if we assume they were all Pz Gren, then there would still be 2 000 left - about 2 bns.

Now I know we could play with figures ad infinitum and prove just about anything, but I did find it quite illuminating to see just how many men were still present compared to my expectations given the length of time in combat.

As for vehicles - pretty much none. But this does, perhaps, explain the speed with which some of these formations were rebuilt - the real need was for new equipment.

Hope this helps explain where I was coming from. But, again, it was more a point that I have seen many games which seem to be fights to the death and this seems not to have been the case. There were clearly occasions, but gradual attrition seems to have been more the order of the day.

Richard (who is enjoying the exchange of ideas)

[Lardy Rich]

Good afternoon gents, I just noticed you were talking about Chain of Command and thought I'd chuck in my shillings worth. 

The data you're presenting about losses is very interesting and illuminating.  However, those losses refer to an extended period in action.  What Chain of Command is doing is taking a very short action fought over a relatively small piece of ground.  Typically our platoon sized action on a 6' by 4' table is actually representing 240 yards by 160 yards.  The time represented by the game varies, but no more than fifteen minutes.  What we are looking at in such an action is how a platoon reacts to losses in a relatively short space of time.  Or, more to the point, how one side seeks to defeat his opponent by destroying his opponent's will to fight, rather than killing every last man jack of them.

Personally I think this adds a level of interest and playability to the game.  If you are faced with an opponent who has selected King Tiger, then your chances of blowing that up are fairly remote.  However, if you can kill sufficient of his infantrymen, and thereby leave the tank feeling exposed, then you can win the game without actually killing the Tiger. 

There's nothing new in this militarily, it's all standard text book stuff.  What is certain is that there are any number of quotes from first hand accounts where two forces encountered each other, fought until one side decided that it was prudent to clear off.  This contrasts with the number of accounts which talk about fight to the death last ditch actions where units suffered 70% plus losses in the type of platoon level actions we are looking to replicate.  I don't think you can apply the template of losses over a period from D-Day to Falaise to a game where you have, essentially, a couple of platoons encountering each other in a fast and furious dust up. 

Cheers

Rich       

[Steve J]

With reference to the Falaise battles, that 'Platoon' of men could equally represent a reduced Company, either Axis or Allied. I've read of 'Companies' being commanded by Corporals,'Battalions' by Lieutenants, where due to the sheer scale of attrition, they were said Companies/Battalions in name only, mainly on the Axis side, but on occasion on the Allied.

[Lardy Rich]

Not WWII I know, but in 1918 the British Army SS143 training manual insisted that an infantry section should be retained as an independent unit of command as long as it had three Other Ranks present and that a platoon should be retained as an independent unit so long as they could field two separate sections of three men each.  So a nine man platoon assuming a platoon commander and two section commanders.   Which is about 20% of book strength.  They clearly reckoned that the section with 3 ORs and an NCO was a plausible tactical unit. 

In extremis three men with an LMG and an NCO would be a very plausible little unit when all you are attempting to do is form a defensive front with interlocking fields of fire. 

It won't allow you to do much in the way of fire and movement though.     

Rich

[Steve J]

That's interesting Rich, thanks for sharing.

[nikharwood]

You bunch of bad b@$tards...I've been successfully ignoring this for a while...and then watched the first vid earlier tonight while cooking...now I'm onto the last vid and planning forces 

Next decision is whether to do it in 28mm as well as 10mm...cos I love 28mm as well, especially for skirmishing... (anyone got any 28mm surplus they want to unload - my Bolt Action wish list is ~£90 - and that's with no vehicles  )

[Ferb]

You could go 20mm1/72 plastic, nearly as big as 28mm these days and much cheaper!

[nikharwood]

You could go 20mm1/72 plastic, nearly as big as 28mm these days and much cheaper!

Hmm...not convinced - I like metal (plus I've got a load of 28mm terrain  )

[Steve J]

I know you hate 15mm Nik but according to Rich that works out at pretty much the correct scale (size for pedants ) for the rules. Peter Pig do some great Platoon deals where you can get one for around £12. Add in some plastic tanks etc and Bob's your uncle .

[nikharwood]

I know you hate 15mm Nik but according to Rich that works out at pretty much the correct scale (size for pedants ) for the rules. Peter Pig do some great Platoon deals where you can get one for around £12. Add in some plastic tanks etc and Bob's your uncle .

Never happen. 15mm is the spawn of Satan 

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Never happen. 15mm is the spawn of Satan 

It is of course rube to interrupt a man making a mistake. 28mm is the mistake, after all it's the main scale for the evil empire.

IanS

[Zippee]

I went with 15mm

You can see them here
British: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zippee/sets/72157634910312373/
German: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zippee/sets/72157630575028170/

This way it's a 1:1 ground to figure scale - same reason I use 6mm for IABSM

Though I do think 10mm are perfect for PBI he adds quickly

Actually I'm thinking of doing Korea in 10mm - just need a couple of centurions. . . 

[fsn]

Actually I'm thinking of doing Korea in 10mm - just need a couple of centurions. . . 

That's a good idea. Perhaps someone could suggest it to Pendraken?   

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Very nice kit Zipee!

[Steve J]

Really very nicely done Zippee .

[Last Hussar]

That's a good idea. Perhaps someone could suggest it to Pendraken?   

Nah- only Zippee wants them.  Not worth doing for just one customer.

[Hertsblue]

Nicely painted figures, Zippee. And the movement trays are excellent. 

[Leon]

That's a good idea. Perhaps someone could suggest it to Pendraken?   

Just for info the Centurions have gone away for moulding now, we dropped them off at the Claymore show yesterday.

[Zippee]

Nicely painted figures, Zippee. And the movement trays are excellent. 

Thanks but actually the movement trays whilst looking good don't work very well in practice - too big for the sort of heavy terrain found in Normandy, especially at 1:1 scale which is what you get in 15mm with Chain. They are very useful for storage and transport though 

[Zippee]

Just for info the Centurions have gone away for moulding now, we dropped them off at the Claymore show yesterday.

Excellent, good to see such a quick response - I only asked for them yesterday