"Targeting the enemy HQ (WWI)?" Topic

In my WWI rules each regular infantry Battalion has 5 "companies;" 3 regular infantry, 1 MG, and 1 Mortar & HQ. At the end of each turn every battalion that lost a company during that turn must roll morale. Morale is based on the number of companies remaining, with a hefty penalty if the Mortar & HQ 'company' has been eliminated (all very standard an unimaginative.)

In a game I ran at Southern Front this past weekend a couple of players were targeting the enemy Mortar & HQ companies with their mortar fire and with their strafing biplanes (it was a 1918 scenario). In many cases they were firing over or past the enemy's regular infantry companies to do this. A couple of players cried foul, saying that HQ units would not be targeted in this manner. The reply was that enemy mortars would be targeted this way, but clearly they were after the HQ, as the enemy mortars are much less dangerous than the enemy infantry.

So, should I ban mortars from firing at enemy "Mortar & HQ" units if there is an enemy infantry unit that is closer? How about the fire from the planes?

I doubt that planes would be able to discern the HQ companies from the air, so I would prohibit their targeting the HQs.

However, Artillery of all sorts were routinely used for counter-battery and against enemy HQs (at least from what I've read), albeit, those were usually higher echelon HQs.
I'd allow it.

My question would be: who is spotting for these mortars? As jdpintex suggests, they are unlikely to be spotted from the air. Perhaps battalion HQ's in established trench positions would be identified and targeted, but I suspect less so in a war of movement.

An enemy HQ or support weapon is a primary mission for indirect fire, if you can find them. And there is the rub. In an entrenched position an HQ would be underground on a reverse slope somewhere, impossible to spot until you were on top of it. A mortar position would be almost as hard to find. You can limit the kind of rules gaming you described by requiring some form of spotting before you can shoot at something.

Which duggout contains the HQ? How would they know?

Tom Dye
GFI

If they are battalion or brigade mortar companies firing at targtes of opportunity they are going to engage the most threatening nearest enemy units, not go HQ hunting. If they are firing as part of a pre-planned artillery plan, that is another matter, but in this case, just impose some simple target priority rules.

In WW1 the main use of light trench mortars was in taking out MG positions without overhead cover, not plinking entrenched HQs. The medium and heavy mortars (9.45" etc) usually fired as part of the artillery plan.

I know you said this was set in 18 but… between observation balloons/aircraft, RDF, flash/sound direction azmuths, raids, and good old observation of daily traffic; yes both sides have a pretty good idea of the other sides positions in a trench setting. Pre-plotted fire and all.

If it as you say a more fluid 18 scenario where both forces are not fighting from two heavily entrenched positions then direct observation might be called for.

Its your game/rules. Do what seems to fit to you.

I agree with Cerberus. But, my question would be… why didn't the other guys target the other HQ's? All's fair, right? If a target is out there, you can hit it, but like Martin says, if they were light trench mortars, they would most likely be targeting inf/mg positions. Many different ways you could go on this one. I would go with what seems "right" for you & the scenario.
Peter

Make the HQ stands the LAST ones in a unit to be eliminated.

Well, I am far from an expert on the ground warfare (but getting there). I have read all kinds of stuff on the air war.

I can flat tell you that I cannot think on one account where the aircraft went after HQ units for the purpose of destroying an HQ unit. In my "Yank's" book I discuss in some detail the St. Mihiel missions assigned by Mitchell and his staff (2000 aircraft deployed). IIRC, HQ units were not on the menu. Enemy transport, roads, bridges, and troop concentrations were prime targets. Targets of opportunity were allowed to a lesser extent.

Now if that officer was riding in a sedan on a targeted road, yeah, the aircraft would go after him. Somehow I'm thinking this is not what you mean by an HQ stand.

Where the mortar stand is concerned, things are different. Mortars and artillery were prime targets and silencing them was a priority. That said, you still had to spot them before they could be destroyed.

mjc

Thanks for all of the input!

I can cite accounts where the battalion HQ didn't even know where their own companies were. It was not unheard of to send out patrols to find one's own troops. I would not allow easy targeting of mortars and HQ. Perhaps you could make a spotting roll, or just make the shot harder, to account for 'searching fire'.