"Composition of squads/platoons etc...." Topic

Can anyone supply a link to a site showing what would encompass a platoon or larger for the major players in WW2?

bayonetstrength.150m.com

Perfect!

Thanks

No Soviets? What about the Russians?

That's weird, didn't that site use to have Red Army info?

It did, but the entire site closed down for a while and reappeared on a different server minus the Soviet info.

Actual TO&E's changed several times during the course of the war as manpower and equipment losses took a toll in addition to changes in tactical doctrine, so it is by no means certain that any given unit followed a particular standard at any time – the official structures can only be taken as guidelines at best.

Basically they used a nine man squad: the squad leader had an SVT self loading rifle, a light machine gunner with the Dp1928 "record player" LMG and a pistol, and seven privates with Moisin Nagant M91/30 bolt action rifles. Four squads pus a sergeant and an officer made a platoon. Initially there were two 'heavy' squads and two 'light', the heavy ones having a second LMG – this organization was dropped once the German offensive got underway, but returned in December 1942 as replacements filtered through to the front line units.

As more Ppsh41 SMG's became available, one replaced the squad leader's rifle and another rifleman's weapon. The fourth rifle squad was deleted fairly quickly, although on paper it was not officially disbanded until July 1942. The reduced strength organizations of July thru December 1941 authorized just two LMG's per rifle platoon!

Three platoons and a small HQ section made a company along with an MMG platoon (one or two Maxim M1910's and their crews); a pair of 50mm light mortars were added at company HQ at various times, but finally withdrawn for good around August 1943. Around that time, manpower shortages forced the RKKA to go to a two platoon company rather than the usual three. Platoons now had three rifle squads each with a single LMG

(Source:Red Army Handbook)

Does the platoon sergeant disappear later in the war or just become a rarity ? I could have sworn I've read descriptions that only give the commanding officer and the 3 squads in 44-45 ?

Fire & Fury has a listing and link to the Nafziger collections.
PDF link

Yes, in October 44 the platoon sgt. goes (cue cheering), the snipers, a whole 82mm mortar platoon, a medic and one crewman from each of the battalion heavy weapons team. This data comes from the 3rd Ukrainian Front – the discretion of who to get rid of was left to Front (Army Group in western terms) commanders as long as they arrived at the required number, so there was probably a fair amount of variation elsewhere.

The final iteration of the Soviet rifle regiment was: 2x Battalions, each of 2x companies, each company containing two rifle platoons of three eight man squads. Battalion level support was six Maxim MMG's and six 82mm mortars

As you can see, the Soviets produced a different TO&E just about every six months!

From the Nafziger link:

Strength of 243rd Guards Rifle Regiment, 84th Guards Rifle Division, 15 October 1944

1st Rifle Company (4/102/106)* (officers/Nco's/Men/Total)
2nd Rifle Company (4/102/106)
3rd Rifle Company (4/86/90)
4th Rifle Company (3/104/107)
5th Rifle Company (4/104/108)
6th Rifle Company (4/74/78)
7th Rifle Company (4/106/110)
8th Rifle Company (4/106/110)
9th Rifle Company (4/73/77)

1st Machine Gun Company (3/36/39)
2nd Machine Gun Company (3/36/39)
3rd Machine Gun Company (3/36/39)

1st Anti Tank Rifle Company (1/15/16)
2nd Anti Tank Rifle Company (1/15/16)
3rd Anti Tank Rifle Company (1/15/16)

1st Machine Pistol Company (3/44/47)
2nd Machine Pistol Company (No data – may have been disbanded)

Pioneer Platoon (1/19/20)

Gas Defense Company (1/9/10)

45mm Gun Battery (2/27/29)(4 guns)

76.2mm Gun Battery (4/57/61)

120mm Mortar Company (4/54/58)

1st (82mm) Mortar Company (3/41/44)
2nd (82mm) Mortar Company (3/41/44)
3rd (82mm) Mortar Company (3/41/44)

Probably a combination of all three. One issue does seem to have been that a shortage of western style NCOs meant one extremely overworked junior lt had to run everything in the platoon, so ruthless simplification of his job was required.

The low strength of Soviet infantry units does mean you can build very impressive sounding units with very few figures! For 1944 anyway.

Pretty much as soon as contact happens with the Germans, once the initial shock subsided, the Soviets began cutting and reducing unit sizes, both to accurately reflect what could be quickly rebuilt and what the commanders in the field could actually control.

Gary did explain why he pulled the Soviet TO&Es from his site – they were essentially just those in the Red Army Handbook.

Personally I'd really like to know if any Soviet infangtry units ever actually had two LMGs per section as the late war TO&Es.

I've seen references to them, but I don't know if they were
"we happened across extra DP and decided not to leave them behind" or were officially issued.

What is in the TO&E on paper and in the field may not always resemble each other much :)

Probably a handful of newly raised/converted Guards regiments got them before being hurled back into the meat grinder.

From what I've read Soviet Junior officers in WWII tend to be much more 'hands on'(sometimes literally!) when dealing with their troops and there is no core of veteran or professional NCO's that other armies have to call on in 1942 – they're either all dead or in training.

The OP hasn't returned, but if he does there are a few more good sources of information:

The official TO&E documents for US Army forces, and Archive.org has related Field Manuals too. It takes a bit to get used to it, but the level of detail is superb. (you just have to remember some things like vehicle drivers are typically assigned an SMG, machine guns are listed separately from halftracks, etc.)

And for the Germans, many of the KStN documents are online now. Like the above link, you would be getting weapon and total manpower listings, and if you are willing to scroll through hundreds of pages of digitized microfilm (in German), this is also an excellent source of information.

Thanks folks!!

Personally I'd really like to know if any Soviet infangtry units ever actually had two LMGs per section as the late war TO&Es.

Keep in mind that there were massive amounts of LMGs cranked out during the war (and before), though not all of those went to rifle companies: some were used to arm tanks, or issued to artillery units for close defense etc.

Personally I'd really like to know if any Soviet infangtry units ever actually had two LMGs per section as the late war TO&Es.

As others have pointed out, the Soviet TOEs often changed to reflect reality on the ground … or at least to reflect occasional / partial reality on the ground.

With almost all armies in WW2, veteran infantry formations shifted towards higher ratios of support arms to riflemen. When casualties mounted in combat, the more valuable weapons were retained in service and the number of riflemen dropped. With enough losses, squads, platoons, and even companies were consolidated, so that fewer formation had reasonable retained combat power. As a result you saw formations with fewer squads with more LMGs.

When pulled out of the line for refitting, it was hard to convince the veteran squads to give up their excess LMGs. Easier to just add one or two more "green" squads with normal 1-per LMG distributions to the existing veteran squads. To prevent over-zealous REMFs from getting cross-wise with the valued frontovics, the TOEs were updated to show that multi-MG squads were in fact authorized.

That doesn't mean new units were issued multiple MGs per squad. Only that they were authorized to keep them if they had them.

I think. Could be wrong. But that's how it has been explained to me.

Keep in mind that there were massive amounts of LMGs cranked out … though not all of those went to rifle companies: some were used to arm tanks …

The Red Army lost a lot of tanks during the war, each armed with multiple MGs. The MG mounted in Soviet tanks was the DT (Degtyarev Tanka), an LMG based on the same action as the infantry's DP m1928, but modified to work in the confined spaces of a tank. As DTs were expected to be removed from their co-ax and hull MG mounts to serve as turret-top AAMGs (during road marches) and sentry LMGs (while in lagger), it was designed to be equally usable by hand as in a vehicle.

The prevalence of surplus LMGs among the tank wrecks was not lost on the infantry formations. And not only were they available, but they seem to have been preferred! Veteran formations often carried a number of DT tank machine guns, perhaps to supplement, and perhaps to replace, their DP infantry LMGs.

There is amply photographic evidence of this accumulation of DTs … note the weapon this grizzled veteran carries in Stalingrad:

(Photo from: link )

The DT was an altogether more compact gun than the DP … shorter, lighter, and the compact and robust drum actually carried more ammunition than the wide, flat, relatively fragile drum of the DP, making it a more reliable weapon if roughly handled.

But sadly I have never seen a miniature of Soviet infantry armed with the DT. I know Dragon makes a 54mm figure with DT, but that is a tank crewman, not a rifleman.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Yes, it is a shame there aren't many figures armed with DTs, as there are plenty of photos showing them. Thanks for the two LMG explanation Mark, that makes perfect sense.

Seems like QRF or PP could jump on this and whip up a few packs :)

If it was shorter and lighter, that seems like the sort of thing an infantryman would be very pleased with.

If it was shorter and lighter, that seems like the sort of thing an infantryman would be very pleased with.

From my readings it appears that the more compact design was something that the frontovics liked. The DP was a pretty long gun.

But the magazine seemed to be the bigger issue in the preference for the DT. The wide flat disc magazine of the DP, which earned the gun the nickname "proigryvatel'" ("record player") was perhaps that weapon's greatest shortcoming.

The action of the gun, and the feed mechanism itself were pretty robust. But the large wide flat disc protruding several inches to each side when mounted on the gun was easily bumped on the ground, or walls, or tree trunks, or sandbags or whatever by the gunner when moving about in close terrain. Also the ammo bearers carried 2 loaded mags in a pouch slung from the shoulder and positioned on the hip, and after running from here to there, throwing himself against a wall or tree trunk, flopping down on his belly, crawling or rolling on the ground, or whatever, they often came out of the pouch dented or bent. In either case (bumped or bent) they would not feed reliably.

If there's one thing a gunner doesn't want, it is a gun that doesn't fire when he pulls the trigger!

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I have handled a de-act DP, and it was……horrible..
Seemed incredibly unweildy, and amazingly barrel heavy, very difficult when carrying it to keep it level, the weight tended to always mean the barrel was pointing down (which in some ways is not a bad thing).
Compared to a Bren it seemed very poorly designed from a handling perspective.
One can see why bipods were invented.

I went to the link under the photo, and that appears to be a part of a factory. Fascinating photos with headache-inducing captions.

To prevent over-zealous REMFs from getting cross-wise with the valued frontovics

More like, "to prevent over-zealous REMFs from getting shot by the valued frontovics"…

The DP action is exceedingly reliable, Armalite used that for a semi-auto .338 Lapua sniper rifle.

And I'd definitely buy some veteran Soviet infantry with DT LMGs!

When pulled out of the line for refitting, it was hard to convince the veteran squads to give up their excess LMGs. Easier to just add one or two more "green" squads with normal 1-per LMG distributions to the existing veteran squads.

Wasn't necessary – replacements didn't come armed with LMG's but as basic riflemen who were folded into the existing squads to bring them back up to strength. Those sub units kept the one or more guns they had in the hands of more experienced men. New "green" squads wouldn't last a New York minute in combat.

Not to say that green troops weren't sent into battle wholesale, but that's a different issue.

number4 are you speaking from knowledge of the Red Army's replacements process?

It reads to me as if you are more describing how the US Army approached replacements. The US Army sent replacement soldiers to units in the field. The Red Army did not.

In the Red Army units stayed in combat until they were exhausted, or until the campaign came to an end. Then they were withdrawn from the line and re-formed.

You are correct that soldiers often did not come to the unit armed -- they were issued their weapons in their units. But the various infantrymen did not receive cross-training in all the weapons a squad or platoon might operate while in boot camp. In the Red Army of WW2 a soldier trained to use an LMG was issued an LMG, while a soldier trained to use a rifle was issued a rifle. So reforming units took in drafts of riflemen and machine gunners to fill out their TOEs … and if a company had a few veteran squads those were likely to remain in place as it was re-formed/re-fitted.

At least that was the theory. All kinds of things happened in practice, I'm sure…

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Speaking of replacements, keep in mind that the Red Army rifle divisions also had integral Infantry Training Battalion with all sorts of armament. I would presume that a lot of green guys sent to the front would pass through this battalion before making it to the actual rifle battalions.