"arcs of fire/spotting for mmgs and infantry squads?" Topic

a lot of rulesets (I am thinking of rulesets where the squad or fireteam is the basic unit, like most company level rulesets) say that infantry squads can fire and spot 360š.

I have always felt that this donīt enforce historic tactics, formations and deployments..

Even if the turn is long enough (letīs say a minute or more) to turn the mmg, or for the entire squad grunts to change facing, why historical units cared about the mmgs deployment, facing, etc…? why care about it in a tabletop wargame if you can turn them in just a turn?

what if they are in trench or foxhole, or a squad in some foxholes… would be able to deploy his firepower to the flank or the rear (well, maybe to the rear they can) without getting out of the trenchs?

Even if you state that the turn is long enough for the squad members to look all around, would they really do that, (other than modern special forces) or would they be spotting the expected enemy position/way of avance?

I am currently donīt allow for flank fire without redeployment for squads in our IABSM games… and I just allow a 180š spotting arc, with penalties if they look or fire just outside 45%to each side of their front line (as iabsm has a kriegspiell aproach, I can do it as the umpire without worring about stupid things like measuring exactly the 45%… is just a umpire guide to allow spotting and firing arcs)

About the MMGS turning matter, I think that changing the location of the gun or just turning it to the side involves more than just a little change of orientation; even if the miniatures just turn, Maybe in the real world they would need to choose a nearby fire position, as his carefully chosen cover doesnīt allow for this new arc of fire….

I must say that my only real experience was a 60 person paintball game, so it can be a lame experience, but it showed that people donīt use to watch (well, normal trained or untrained people) outside of the expected enemy aproach route, until they are fire from another direction, of course.

As always, please excuse my english

Look at small unit tactical manuals. In a defensive position, crew-served weapons and even riflemen in foxholes establish primary and alternate (and usually supplementary) sectors of fire.

As a wargame "company commander", you shouldn't have to be worried about ensuring that your squads are actually doing this; your NCOs know what is necessary and get it done.

Allen

… though from what you are saying, Allen, it would take a finite amount of time (for the sake of argument, a move) to re-orient a group.

The better trained, the better prepared, the less time required to shift. In a foxhole or MG position, just seconds.

Allen

I'm not totally sure what they did in WWII but . . .

If you have time to set a defense, generally each member of a squad has a field of fire and will prepare a defensive position to afford cover and concealment. Ideally you create a series of interlocking fields of fire where each infantryman is protected from incoming fire and detection.

Put differently, an infantryman does not fire straight ahead and does not expose himself. If fire across the front of your fox hole, you fire across the front of my fox hole and we both had dirt piled in front of our fox holes that prevents the enemy from seeing us and perhaps from shooting at us.

In a position like this, it will be very difficult for other infantry to over come our positions without expending a great deal of resources.

But, if you are going to make us direct our field of fire to the left where we have not created concealment and cover and where our fields of fire do not interlock, our defensive capabilities are much diminished. Further, our ability to put full fire power on the target may be diminished because of the presence of other friendly troops and/or terrain.

But spotting? 360 works for me. Just keep in mind, spotting has nothing to do with fire power or defensive capabiliities.

mjc

Just seconds to re-orient and face say to your left as the enemy is assaulting you from that position. Same for the lads to your right and thier right and so on. Consequently I am now in the line of fire of my buds who will be forced to leave thier hard dug fighting positions,I know I have dug them according to the good old USMC handbook.
So just seconds to re-orient your fire but as quidveritas states
"But, if you are going to make us direct our field of fire to the left where we have not created concealment and cover and where our fields of fire do not interlock, our defensive capabilities are much diminished. Further, our ability to put full fire power on the target may be diminished because of the presence of other friendly troops and/or terrain."

Mongo

Not much to add to the above really, 360 deg spotting isn't a huge issue, but fields of fire in prepared positions certainly are.

If units are manouvering, it partly depends what formations they are in – hence wedges being favoured in some/many armies. Strangely in WW2 the Germans only recognised lines and columns as tactical formations for infantry sections, but the platoons would deploy in lines, wedges, columns or whatever, same as the panzers did.

Even if you state that the turn is long enough for the squad members to look all around, would they really do that, (other than modern special forces) or would they be spotting the expected enemy position/way of avance?

Well, as far as I have seen you don't face all your men in one direction unless you know you have troops protecting the rear. If you are in a situation where you can be attacked from more than one side you place some looking in one direction and some watching the other.

Also, do you take into consideration guys who dropped their weapon and are picking it up, others that are loading and some that just ducked down cause they heard a bullet whiz by? Cause you have to do that too!

In Disposable Heroes, they take all those situations into consideration by allowing only half the squad to fire. So if they are attacked in the rear only the guys facing that direction, not literally but figuratively, would be firing.

OK lets do some reality checks (often rare in wargames rules). A platoon to fight optimaly to the fron occupes about 300 yds and covers a friontage of about 500 yds (the support weapons cover the gaps between platoons). A company occupies about 1000 to 2000m frontage in defence. So first do your rules cover this? If not your rules have far worse faults than the one you are covering. If they do get that about right then obviously to gain an optimum in another direction will mean that some at least of the troops in the company will have to move at least 1000m to have the same optimum defence from the side. This will mean thet with a possible few exceptions 2 sets of fighting positions will have to be dug and supplied. This is perfectly acceptable if there is time. Fighting to the rear may not be practical as you may have decided to deploy with withdral in mind and the defence is typically not optimised for both front and rear attack.

Therfor it depends on what your rules assume. If you are stationary and have had time to prepare two (or even more) positions and had time to redeploy before contact then fireing in an alternative direction at optimum is reasonable. If you try to do it in contact with no time then it should not be possible except at a large penalty.

I hope I'm not the guy on the left end of the line when everyone decides to redirect their fire to the left without changing position!

Most of the time the infantry will form a firing line regardless of the formation it started out in. It goes along way towards preventing friendly fire. If the firing line advances each man has a lane he ie expected to stay in. If he strays from his lane he risks getting shot by the man to either side of him.

"OK lets do some reality checks (often rare in wargames rules). A platoon to fight optimaly to the fron occupes about 300 yds and covers a friontage of about 500 yds (the support weapons cover the gaps between platoons). A company occupies about 1000 to 2000m frontage in defence. So first do your rules cover this? If not your rules have far worse faults than the one you are covering."

These days that might well be the case…Not in WWII…you can at least halve those distances for 60 years ago.

I hope I'm not the guy on the left end of the line when everyone decides to redirect their fire to the left without changing position!

Don,

A defensive fire line does not literally put everyone on the same geometric straight line. Ideally positions along the line are staggered so you can direct fire to your left or right without hitting your own guys. Even so, the problem remains in that you have a very limited field of fire to your flanks and this fire does not interlock. Your protection and concealment may also be compromised.

mjc

I think Allen's point is worth reinforcing.
Company commanders think platoons primarily, then sections maybe. Not individuals.
A company level ruleset where you worry about whether the mmg is pointing in this direction or that is trying to be a platoon level game at the same time.

Another platoon should be in a position to deal with flankers, the company commander shouldn't be thinking in terms of Billy the BAR gunner.

"A platoon to fight optimaly to the fron occupes about 300 yds and covers a friontage of about 500 yds"

Not in WW2. A typical platoon defended locality would be approx 100 yards square, company localities maybe 400 yards or so. The idea is to keep the gaps between the sub-units fairly small to avoid infiltration. Obviously it depends on circumstances, terrain etc.

There are somew good diagrams of WW2 platoon/company/battalions defensive layouts in Nafzigers reprint of the German squad tactics manuals, Lt Colonel Wigrams 'Battle School' and in Glantzs 'The Battle of Kursk' for Germans, British and Soviets respectively.

I recently came across the layout of a British brigade box as well, but I can't recall where. Interestingly it went down to the level of individual AT guns, platoons and Vickers guns sections, including firing arcs. Hmm, maybe it was the Wargames Developments Journal.

The better trained, the better prepared, the less time required to shift. In a foxhole or MG position, just seconds.

I always felt, based on the squad level infantry training I did for "pre-armour" training in the combat arms schools, that a dug in infantry squad, typically 3 up, 2 back (2 man slit trenches) would be at a disadvantage if taken on the left or right flank and also might be poorly dispersed if taken from the rear.

Here's how Crossfire handles this sort of thing. Infantry squads not dug in do have 360 degrees field of fire and observation. However, a key feature of the game is combining fire of squads from the same platoon. If a target is outside the frontal 180 degree arc of a squad, that squad cannot participate in combined fire with other squads. In CF, that's quite a disadvantage. When the squad is dug in, (my rules are downstairs and I'm a bit ed up this morning, so I'm not going down to get them), I believe there is either a restriction on arc of fire or protection which is fine in my opinion.

MMGs (the stand is called an "HMG" stand in CF) have only an arc of 45 degrees left or right. Outside of that arc, the stand must be reoriented which leaves it open to reactive fire.

I always thought CF handled what Ghostdog is discussing very well in the context of a game where the stand represents a squad. I've no idea how to apply this to IABSM where you use individual figures.
--
Tim

I found one point interesting in this discussion of overlaping fields of fire(FoF). The simple consept is that in a defended area (prepared) Section FoF overlap, Platoon FoF overlap and up the chain to the highest level in the theater. At higher levels, tank and Artillery fire overlap and so on with large caliber weapons.
Unprepared defensive positions, such an attacking unit moving forward then getting stopped, would have issues with all around defence, that being a reduced amount of fire power in any one arc.
So in the end, the typical Left (right) flanking attack on a prepared position was usually very costly for the attacker, therefor the need for a greater than 3-1 firepower ratio to ensure a victory.
As for the arc of a MG, I would suggest that most rules have a turn that would easily allow for an MG to reposition itself to be effective in firing, but that if fired upon I would say that they lose their defencive bonus for prepared positions.
An intersting thought is to apply the comments made to armoured units. How do we justify a tank firing on a target outside its field of view (especially in buttoned up). At the end of the day, we need to add artificiality to allow for a smooth game.

Outside of a primary and alternate fighting position, from individual holes up through corps, there should be friendlies on your flank, hence no need for the ability to shoot in a 360 degree arc. Now we all know that units get over run, bug out or misconstrue orders so the unit you thought was on your flank may not be there. Hence the desire of the attacker to flank a position and roll it up from the rear once a breakthrough is acheived.

Any commander should know who or what is on his flanks and should make preparations accordingly, especially in a prepared defensive position. So the rules should simulate a continuous line unless the scenario or chance dictates otherwise.

thanks very much for your answers… a lot of useful info.

I readed "company commander", a book about the memoirs of a well, an american company commander… he used to talk his platoon commanders where to deploy his platoons, and discused with them where to put their squads… then he did nothing other than calling indirect fire.

Of course, in most company level rulesets, you are the platoon commander, too.

But I am still curious about if a squad leader will deploy some of his men watching his six, even if he knows that one fellow squad is deployed in his back.

Or if the platoon commander, after deploying his platoon two squads up, one down, will ask the reserve squad leader to deploy some of his men watching itīs back.

I think that heīll do it, only if they expect a rear attack, or if they arenīt sure about the enemy position or incoming way.

But maybe I should take in account the 360 spotting arc issue, if only for dugin troops.

but I still think that advancing units wouldnīt care about being attacking in their rear. And theyīll count their parent units to take care of the flank… that was what made so dangerous the spaces between units, or the lost of communication between units… you didnīt know if your parent company was maintaining your own pace, or if they were left behind and now you have an open flank.

ditto bird, iabsm has the squad as the lowest unit. the loss of individual soldiers just mean a loss of firepower to the squad, so individual men are just like hit points. YOu donīt care about individual positions.

And I must say that I are very interesting about CF.. my problem is that I find too dificult to make scenarios for CF, as you need a lot of terrain features

Bit more digging on WWII:-

Unit Frontage in yards FM 7-5 1940

Platoon _____ 200 to 400yds

PDF link

Genrally

link

Purports to cover WWII and Modern with platoon at 500m frontage.

So I may be a bit out on WWII frontage but not that much that it detracts from my original comments.

You can fight with alll round defence but any one direction will have much reduced firepower. And don.t even get me started on terrain modelling in large scale models.

And don.t even get me started on terrain modelling in large scale models.

Aw, come on. You know you want to!

NO I CAN RESIST!
To the topic in hand a "company" game where the base element is a company needs to be able to configure the base area to accommodate posture. That is arcs covered and width/depth, depending on it being in attack or defence. This will solve the problem which is much deeper than just direction facing.

PS the time taken for a company to get in position may be large compared to its time to actually move on a basically strait road. You could almost considere the time to move on a staright road insignificant compared to the time needed to deploy it effectively off road (or even get past a veryt tight turn in a road). This may shed some light on timescale to re-depoly.

Current manuals give time to dig a new fighting position as about 4 hrs. So re-deployment to another face could take longer than this due to needing to set out the defence before you can dig in.

Or if the platoon commander, after deploying his platoon two squads up, one down, will ask the reserve squad leader to deploy some of his men watching itīs back.

My understanding it's what you are trained to do within the context of a larger unit. If the squad has been left all by his lonesome, then yes. If not, it's the platoon commander or higher commander's job to worry about whether the rear needs to be covered.

So your thoughts on the subject are correct, in my opinion.

iabsm has the squad as the lowest unit. the loss of individual soldiers just mean a loss of firepower to the squad, so individual men are just like hit points.

That's my understanding of IABSM. When I first heard about here on TMP, I thought it funny that it claimed to be a company level game and yet dealt with individual figures. I was soon set straight….
--
Tim

"Current manuals give time to dig a new fighting position as about 4 hrs."

Some of the task timings (for battalion sized elements) in the 1956 British Army Tactical Wargame are:

Deploy for defence (and reform for movement). 1 hour.
Take over enemy dug in position. 3 hours.
Deploy and dig in for defence. 5 hours.
Improved positions. 24 hours.

Which chimes with Uschas timings, the time it takes to dig a hole hasn't vastly decreased in 60 years! Improved positions include 18" of overhead cover, local wire & minefields. Taking over enemy positions includes the time it takes to resite the fields of fire etc, and the attackers are also very vulnerable to counterattacks while this is taking place.

uscha and martin rapier, I understand that you both talk about acompany? I am curious, are these wargame rules available online?

There are some rules that purport to be company or platoon level. Spear Head uses 1 base to a platoon but does not do it very well (in my personal opinion). Rapid Fire is similar with a few figures making a company.
None are cheap and certainly not free! Both abstract ground to an extent that is not very credible (again personal opinion).

To be fair our Rules (Maneouver Group) are not free and use a ground scale of 1mm = 1m |(at 12mm) so you can at least do a single company attack over realistic but relatively open terrain. Small scale (12mm and below) urban is not for other than the dedicated few as you can't get your fingers in the roads between 2 and 3 story buildings. Spacing the buildings too wide means thet Line of sight becomes too long to be representative. So urban needs to be in 15mm and above.

The timeings of positions are not likely to change much as the basic human phsique has not changed. It may be worse now as the US admits that its army can no longer march!

Digging trenches depends on ground an so can vary by 1 or 2 hour from my figure.

Digging trenches depends on ground an so can vary by 1 or 2 hour from my figure.

From experience, I can tell you it can sometimes vary far more than that! In particularly rocky ground, such as that of the Canadian armour, infantry, and artillery schools, it took us ages just to dig a slit trench – 4 or 5 feet deep, at least 3 hours, IIRC. It was brutal work. In sandier regions of the Canadian Shield, the same trench layout took about half an hour.
--
Tim

"I understand that you both talk about acompany"

I was talking about battalions.

The original version of the 1956 British Army Tactical Wargame can be obtained for free from the Public Records Office now they are de-classified.

John Curry has however reprinted them as part of his history of wargaming project, and includes things like the effectiveness of various yields of nuclear weapons (which were deleted from the originals as they were still classified).

johncurryevents.co.uk

follow the rules links. They aren't free but they are pretty cheap.

I'm guessing Dunn Kempf will also have realistic task timings for digging, but I haven't got those.