Author Topic: Conventional Infantry 102: Alternate Formations I  (Read 8044 times)

Fireangel

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3402
  • 7397 posts right down the toilet...
Conventional Infantry 102: Alternate Formations I
« on: 30 July 2011, 18:46:08 »
Conventional Infantry 102: Alternate Formations I: Converting USMC organization to CBT TM Infantry Std.

Conventional infantry 101

Conventional infantry 102 II: US Army Striker Company
Conventional infantry 102 III: U.S. Civil War
Conventional infantry 102 IV: Soviet Motorized Rifle Division
Conventional infantry 102 V: FASA’s Renegade Legion

When “translating” real world military formations to Battletech standards, we often encounter a problem of scaling; to match existing formations and tactics we often have to compromise to the point where the formations are not really identifiable as what they are supposed to be or else they don’t play as desired. To address this issue, I shall be using the USMC as an example, as I have more readily available information on their field formations and owe a debt of gratitude to more than one. Semper Fi.


The first thing we must understand is the Battletech Infantry Platoon construction model, described in detail in the Tech Manual; the unspoken foundation of a battletech conventional infantry platoon is the fireteam. Yes, the fireteam. I am fully aware that TM builds conventional infantry platoons from squads, but look closer; a BT squad is limited to a maximum of two secondary (i.e. “support”) weapons; so that each squad has either zero, one or two of these. The limitation provided, along with the maximum squad size of ten troopers, clearly and implicitly describes the existence of fireteams, also known as “fire-and-maneuver” teams. Let’s look at these breakdowns:

One fireteam per squad: this works best for low tech, low trained, high trooper count squads or squads with high crew requirement secondary weapons; either everybody is armed with the same weapon (no secondary weapons) or one secondary weapon is available for the squad; the squad commander’s personal choice or a SAW-equivalent or simply a high-crew-requirement weapon like a heavy support laser (at 6 or 7 crew, precluding two in a 10-trooper-maximum squad). While in boardgame scale there is no perceptible difference between a one, two or three fireteam squad lacking any secondary weapons, in RPG terms there is a world of difference in small-unit tactics, showing a relative difference in training and doctrine. As a reference point, US Civil War squads were not divided into fireteams; everybody used the same rifle except for the squad leader (usually a Sergeant), who (if not armed with the same weapon) carried either a pistol (read: revolver) or a sabre. Clan conventional infantry squads also tend to be single-fireteam formations, either aping BA point tactics with everybody armed identically or having a squad-level support weapon supported by the other four squad members.

Two fireteams per squad: the most common squad composition in the Inner Sphere; either two “light” fireteams (no secondary weapons); one “light” and one “heavy” fireteams (one SW/squad) or two “heavy” fireteams (two SW/squad). Where specific crew requirements are not needed to man the secondary weapons, the 7-trooper standard platoon breaks down into two fireteams and a “separate” squad leader (Sargeant-equivalent) that sticks close to one of the fireteams. Comstar-formation infantry squads dispense with the separate squad leader.

Three-fireteam-per-squad formations are rare; either six (three 2-trooper fireteams) or nine (three 3-trooper fireteams) with or without a separate squad leader which may or may not be incorporated into one of the three fireteams (usually one without a secondary weapon in the case of “heavy” three-fireteam/two SW squads).


Now, we have seen the basic BT conventional infantry formations. Marines and others familiar with USMC formations will immediately see the problem in converting USMC real-world formations into BT TM-compliant formations.

For those unfamiliar with USMC squads, the problem is this: USMC fireteams are comprised of four marines: the team leader/rifleman (M4/M16), one rifleman (M4/M16), one grenadier (M4/M16 with M203) and one light machine gunner (M249). A USMC squad is composed of three of these fireteams plus a squad leader. That is 13 troopers; three more than the legal size of a BT TM conventional infantry squad. How can this be made legal? It is so simple as to be silly; change the name of the formation.

Let me explain; the BT TM infantry construction rules have three “named” formation levels; squad, platoon and “sub-platoon”. These terms are used for purposes of unit construction and actually have no bearing on the final titles of the formations in play. What do I mean? The Clans field conventional infantry, but they do not field platoons; they field “points” of 25 troopers. The Taurians do not field platoons either; they field “maniples” of ten troopers and “centuries" of ten maniples. By the same token, we will use the proper terms for constructing the USMC platoons but will use different terms when we field them.

Let’s start:

A four-marine fireteam is… three assault rifles and a squad support weapon (it’s a crude, but legal breakdown). TRANSLATION: a four-trooper, one fireteam squad.

A three-fireteam squad is translated as: a 12-trooper platoon of three one-fireteam squads.

A USMC rifle platoon is composed of three squads, and a headquarters element made up of a Platoon Commander, a Platoon Sergeant and a Navy Corpsman. TRANSLATION: three BT 12-trooper platoons plus an independent one-squad (two-fireteam) “platoon” of 6 troopers (the HQ element plus the three “independent” squad leaders)

In other words; a RL-USMC rifle platoon of 42  troopers breaks down in BT as a short company of three 3-squad (12-trooper) platoons and a “company” command 1-squad platoon of 6 troopers, with paramedic capabilities.


The tactical/strategic flexibility of this arrangement should be obvious; without using “squad deployment” rules from TacOps, the “platoon” can deploy in squads for tactical advantage over “single-unit” BT platoons. Additionally, individual “squads” can be replaced for alternate sections, creating variant platoons, such as one with a mortar section (replacing the squad support weapons in the individual “fireteams” of one “squad” for mortars) or a heavy machine gun section (ditto, but with heavy MGs for the mortars); a single “platoon” consisting of two “rifle squads” and a “Heavy MG section” will have a huge tactical advantage over an equivalent-sized “generic” infantry units.

A full-on weapons “platoon” can be created replacing all three “rifle squads” for a mortar section, an MG section and a “heavy” support section (two support weapons per fireteam).


A rifle company consists of three rifle platoons, a weapons platoon and a HQ element, let by a captain. A weapons company will substitute for the rifle platoons an 81 mm (BT: “heavy mortar”) mortar platoon, an anti-armor platoon, and a heavy machine gun platoon. A Headquarters and Service Company consists of a HQ platoon, a communications platoon, a service platoon, and the Battalion Aid Station.

By now it should be obvious that a USMC company is a pretty good match for a “standard” Inner Sphere conventional infantry battalion of the same basic motive type (foot, for example); looked at individually construction-wise, a 28-trooper BT platoon will usually outgun a 12-trooper “USMC Squad” platoon, but will be outmatched by the 42 (or even 36 if you decide to not use the HQ element squad/platoon) trooper “USMC Platoon”. A “USMC Company” is composed of three “USMC Rifle Platoons” (9 12-trooper platoons = 108 troopers) plus a “USMC Weapons Platoon” (three additional 12-trooper platoons) plus a platoon-strength HQ element. Compare to the 9 28-trooper standard IS platoons (252 troopers total).

A battalion consists of three rifle companies, one weapons company, and one Headquarters and Service Company, commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel. Battalions and larger units have a Sergeant Major as Senior NCO and an Executive Officer (Major, in the case of Battalions) as second in command, plus officers and others for a military staff: Administration (S-1), Intelligence (S-2), Operations (S-3), Logistics (S-4), Civil Affairs (wartime only) (S-5), and Communications (S-6). Units of battalion size or larger may be reinforced by the addition of supporting tank or artillery units, such as in the Battalion Landing Teams comprising the GCEs of Marine Expeditionary Units.

A regiment consists of three battalions, led by a Colonel.

A brigade, commanded by a Brigadier General, is uncommon in the USMC, but is typically made up of one or more regiments plus support units.

A division, commanded by a Major General, comprises three infantry regiments, an artillery regiment and additional specialized units, such as armor.


Any questions?
« Last Edit: 29 July 2012, 16:01:47 by Fireangel »

Demon55

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2597
  • Planning wisely.
Re: Conventional Infantry 102: Alternate Formations I
« Reply #1 on: 01 August 2011, 02:35:48 »
Good article Fireangel.  Personally I think that the infantry rules in BT should be based on RL infantry organization.

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Conventional Infantry 102: Alternate Formations I
« Reply #2 on: 01 August 2011, 03:48:25 »
Good article Fireangel.  Personally I think that the infantry rules in BT should be based on RL infantry organization.

I am not so sure.  Given that BT infantry are secondary to armored units, it makes sense to use larger groupings to be better able to take down bigger opponents.  You do loose flexibility which is problematic against other infantry, but that is generally a secondary concern as invading forces in BT tend to be light on unarmored infantry.


View my design musings or request your own custom ride here.

Fireangel

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3402
  • 7397 posts right down the toilet...
Re: Conventional Infantry 102: Alternate Formations I
« Reply #3 on: 01 August 2011, 13:06:45 »
The problem with larger groupings is that A) they lack flexibility and B) damage is concentrated in one unit.

In BT, a platoon in homogenous; x number of identical squads, clumped together in one 30m hex. By using an alternate "naming configuration", you can have a more versatile platoon (with different squads) with greater tactical flexibility (spread out over up to three hexes... six if you are using TacOps squad deployment rules. While individually each "squad" is more vulnerable, the "platoon" as a whole is more resilient, especially when facing burst-fire anti-PBI weapons.

Note that I'm not advocating a replacement system; I'm offering alternatives to the standard deployment used in BT; I can easily see TRO: 3085 platoons, "generic" TW platoons, "retro" BMR-era platoons, custom-built standard platoons and "USMC" platoons fighting (alongside and/or against) each other in the same battlefield.

iamfanboy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1980
Re: Conventional Infantry 102: Alternate Formations I
« Reply #4 on: 01 August 2011, 14:18:30 »
The original article absolutely NEEDS to be reposted on this forum before it's lost on the old one.

Man, there's too much stuff from the old forum that needs reposting on here... *sigh*

I did, however, enjoy reading this article. Wish I'd've had it back when I played with Marines, they were always bitching that infantry platoons were 'too unrealistic'.

Fireangel

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3402
  • 7397 posts right down the toilet...
Re: Conventional Infantry 102: Alternate Formations I
« Reply #5 on: 01 August 2011, 16:26:01 »
The original article absolutely NEEDS to be reposted on this forum before it's lost on the old one.

Man, there's too much stuff from the old forum that needs reposting on here... *sigh*

I'll see about doing that soon, integrating some of the comments from the posts and updating a bit since now I do have TacOps and 3085...  [notworthy] [rockon]

Quote
I did, however, enjoy reading this article. Wish I'd've had it back when I played with Marines, they were always bitching that infantry platoons were 'too unrealistic'.

That's exactly why I did it. I play with Marines (no such thing as an "ex-marine", IMHO), who are lawyers (rules and otherwise), so they would take a company of a one or two rifle platoons, an MG platoon and/or an SRM platoon, break them into squads and "reassemble" them organizationally in the field. Legal, but convoluted.  ::)


Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Conventional Infantry 102: Alternate Formations I
« Reply #6 on: 02 August 2011, 00:22:12 »
The problem with larger groupings is that A) they lack flexibility and B) damage is concentrated in one unit.

In BT, a platoon in homogenous; x number of identical squads, clumped together in one 30m hex. By using an alternate "naming configuration", you can have a more versatile platoon (with different squads) with greater tactical flexibility (spread out over up to three hexes... six if you are using TacOps squad deployment rules. While individually each "squad" is more vulnerable, the "platoon" as a whole is more resilient, especially when facing burst-fire anti-PBI weapons.

Note that I'm not advocating a replacement system; I'm offering alternatives to the standard deployment used in BT; I can easily see TRO: 3085 platoons, "generic" TW platoons, "retro" BMR-era platoons, custom-built standard platoons and "USMC" platoons fighting (alongside and/or against) each other in the same battlefield.

I understand what you are saying, I am just thinking that B could be seen as an advantage when you are throwing PBIs at assault 'Mechs.  For example, if you are taking infantry against a Hellstar to exploit its lack of anti-infantry weapons, you will need to pack a lot of guys in close in order to bring it down in a reasonable amount of time, so having your troops in larger platoons allows you to cram more guys into close proximity to the target so you can bring it down faster.


View my design musings or request your own custom ride here.

Fireangel

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3402
  • 7397 posts right down the toilet...
Re: Conventional Infantry 102: Alternate Formations I
« Reply #7 on: 02 August 2011, 10:50:31 »
I understand what you are saying, I am just thinking that B could be seen as an advantage when you are throwing PBIs at assault 'Mechs.  For example, if you are taking infantry against a Hellstar to exploit its lack of anti-infantry weapons, you will need to pack a lot of guys in close in order to bring it down in a reasonable amount of time, so having your troops in larger platoons allows you to cram more guys into close proximity to the target so you can bring it down faster.

That is a good out-of-game way of looking at it. in-universe, the sheer casualty rate might not make it viable.

When discussing sheer numbers, a 42-trooper "platoon" of 6-7 "squads" will deliver more damage than a 28-trooper single-unit platoon (assuming similar armament, of course). Each "squad" delivers less damage (on average) than the single-unit platoon, but there are three of them, plus the HQ element and each "squad" can be differently configured, so that you might find a mix of long range, high-damage and high mobility "squads" in the same "platoon" that the single-unit platoon simply cannot match.

Then we have support units. One would never expect to take a single WSP-1A against an Atlas. By the same token, one does not expect to take a single unsupported "platoon" against an assault 'mech. Unless it is absolutely imperative that the assault 'mechs be stopped NOW or else they will deliver the bio-nu-cue-lahr genocide bomb to the national day-care center, you don't throw unsupported infantry at formations of 'mechs; Where is the artillery? tanks? air support? In my experience, infantry is deadliest to 'mechs when not engaging them directly. A single squad of BMR-era rifles can take down a company of assault 'mechs in the right terrain (buildings, woods, mountains) with the right support (artillery, LRM indirect fire, arson/minelayer units).

Nebfer

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1398
Re: Conventional Infantry 102: Alternate Formations I
« Reply #8 on: 02 August 2011, 15:09:32 »
Not a bad write up.

Personally with the TW rules I think infantry should off been made to use squad rules as default, and the squad comprised of 7 to 15 men. With the default being 10 men (the old kurita book mentions this so their is some president). With 4 squads per platoon. With platoon level being an option to reduce the number of infantry units in field, with the caveat that only 30 "troopers" can be in a single unit per hex.

The main reasons for the platoons is no longer a real issue, survival from mech weapons, as BMR rules would have a 10 man squad getting wiped out by a single PPC strike...

Though I would of also made the anti-infantry damage a 1/5 modifier instead of 1/10...

Fireangel

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3402
  • 7397 posts right down the toilet...
Re: Conventional Infantry 102: Alternate Formations I
« Reply #9 on: 02 August 2011, 17:30:47 »
The problem with a 7-15 trooper squad is that there are smaller squads in canon; the 5-trooper squads of the clan PBI points, 4-trooper squads of PBI-armed PA(L), 6-trooper C* squads...

I think the system should have used the fireteam as an explicit foundation and allowed disparate size fireteams in single squads.

But with a simple naming convention for the finished unit, the entire problem is solved.

Diablo48

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Conventional Infantry 102: Alternate Formations I
« Reply #10 on: 02 August 2011, 23:11:42 »
That is a good out-of-game way of looking at it. in-universe, the sheer casualty rate might not make it viable.

When discussing sheer numbers, a 42-trooper "platoon" of 6-7 "squads" will deliver more damage than a 28-trooper single-unit platoon (assuming similar armament, of course). Each "squad" delivers less damage (on average) than the single-unit platoon, but there are three of them, plus the HQ element and each "squad" can be differently configured, so that you might find a mix of long range, high-damage and high mobility "squads" in the same "platoon" that the single-unit platoon simply cannot match.

Then we have support units. One would never expect to take a single WSP-1A against an Atlas. By the same token, one does not expect to take a single unsupported "platoon" against an assault 'mech. Unless it is absolutely imperative that the assault 'mechs be stopped NOW or else they will deliver the bio-nu-cue-lahr genocide bomb to the national day-care center, you don't throw unsupported infantry at formations of 'mechs; Where is the artillery? tanks? air support? In my experience, infantry is deadliest to 'mechs when not engaging them directly. A single squad of BMR-era rifles can take down a company of assault 'mechs in the right terrain (buildings, woods, mountains) with the right support (artillery, LRM indirect fire, arson/minelayer units).

This is all true, however I do not recall the in-universe powers caring much about infantry deaths across the board.  This is doubly true for the Clans where PBIs are old/freeborn warriors you do not feel like giving real weapons and are really only out there to annoy the other guy before they get killed.


View my design musings or request your own custom ride here.

DoctorMonkey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2583
  • user briefly known as Khan of Clan Sex Panther
Re: Conventional Infantry 102: Alternate Formations I
« Reply #11 on: 03 August 2011, 00:14:43 »
I think that what this article shows (well - well done!) is that if you are troubled by the representation of PBI in the core rules, you can create more realistic (at least to modern standards) structures and organisations within the rules (especially if you don't use the form names from the rules to describe the units) but if you are more focused on the 'Mechs and tanks then you can keep the squishies abstracted and size them to work within your iniative rules
Avatar stollen from spacebattles.com motivational posters thread

ChanMan: "Capellan Ingenuity: The ability to lose battles to Davion forces in new and implausible ways"

Fireangel

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3402
  • 7397 posts right down the toilet...
Re: Conventional Infantry 102: Alternate Formations I
« Reply #12 on: 03 August 2011, 13:52:30 »
This is all true, however I do not recall the in-universe powers caring much about infantry deaths across the board.  This is doubly true for the Clans where PBIs are old/freeborn warriors you do not feel like giving real weapons and are really only out there to annoy the other guy before they get killed.

It is implicit in the setting; why are big stompy robots used in planetary assaults? A battalion of 'mechs puts 36 lives on the line; a battalion of PBIs is 252 soldiers.

I think that what this article shows (well - well done!) is that if you are troubled by the representation of PBI in the core rules, you can create more realistic (at least to modern standards) structures and organisations within the rules (especially if you don't use the form names from the rules to describe the units) but if you are more focused on the 'Mechs and tanks then you can keep the squishies abstracted and size them to work within your iniative rules

Exactly. There are benefits and disadvantages to both approaches; by working within the rules, one can tailor forces to match one's personal choice of criteria.

 

Register