Marine Platoon organization 1941-45

[plloyd1010]

Irregardless, the fundamental point being they are not worth 10-3 when compared to similar units armed with LMGs and assault rifles.

[warstudent]

Irregardless, the fundamental point being they are not worth 10-3 when compared to similar units armed with LMGs and assault rifles.

It wasn't just simply being similarly armed. Each marine squad had much greater flexibility and effectiveness as each fireteam was its own self-contained entity.

[plloyd1010]

I'm not to clear on your response. Are you saying that they should be a 10 for some reason? So far you've presented a couple facts/interpretations. Where do they go? Are you agreeing, disagreeing, or suggesting something different?

[warstudent]

I don't know if they should be a 10, but I haven't seen why this is so out of the realm of possible. It isn't simply a question of adding a few extra BARs to the platoon. The fire team reorganization by the marines was a major evolution that is still used today.

[plloyd1010]

The fire team operation is below our operating scale and would need to be dealt with in a completely abstract manner. My original point however, is that the 10 is out of context in the game system. AP sort of set bar with the AK47 platoon in Iron Curtain. That unit is an early Cold War unit. I would expect it to appear in Korea in 1950, or on the Sinai in 1956. You may recall that the marines, with post the post G-series organization, had quite a lot of trouble with an AK47 armed infantry in the battles around the Chosin Reservoir.

The contextual limit may simply have been set too low in the first place. GDW did that in their First Team series with Team Yankee, which created problems in later games. Avalon Hill had similar issues when the armor combat guide was built around 1-1/3-1 attacks, and infantry around 1-3/1-2 attacks.

I see the advantage of giving USMC F platoons 10 in the game. This though has made a stand alone game a bit of a "stand apart" game. I think I would have given them an 8 or 9. My thoughts are leaning more toward 9 at the moment. Mostly that is because of the minor game difference it would give over an 8, which I would apply to the E-series, should it appear. Still it is only a philosophical discussion, now the F-series has been set down.

[otto]

I guess an alternative counterset with 9-3 platoon is being prepared by Peter. Isn'it?

Ottavio

[plloyd1010]

Not yet. I wasn't really planning on making one. I could do it quite easily if there is an interest.

[Hugmenot]

Peter, I will certainly download the countersheet if you make one.

My interest lies in playing assault-type scenarios with the 10-3 marines and then again with 9-3 marines, and see how the difference affects play. I am still stuck in the "threatening to understand what I am doing" stage and playing with slightly different values helps me formulate more definite opinions about tactics and strategies.

[plloyd1010]

Perhaps I could do something this weekend. Infantry counters are really only 3 images mixed with 2 sets of values, repeated.

Whether I do or not, here is a matrix of how real & imagined USMC platoons breakdown:

  USMC firepower.pdf (Size: 55.7 KB / Downloads: 19)

You can see where the graininess off the fire tables crops into the Saipan marines, and a little into the Guadalcanal marines. The assault value of the Japanese platoons includes their inherent modifier. The assault with leader's CM values only consider the added combat factor, not the undisrupted leader modifier.

[campsawyer]

Nice table. This gives a good perspective on values and how a 10 factors is very high particularly in the assault. Would agree on a 9 factor instead of 10 as the shifts for terrain will still come into effect with these numbers. I just cannot fathom that the Marine fire power came over come 200 meters of Jungle terrain.