miniMo | 23 Feb 2015 9:56 a.m. PST |
I'm preparing forces for a Bolt Action scenario game set about 5 days into a prolonged battle in 1945 and wondering about the best way to represent a Canadian infantry platoon stuck in the thick of the fighting that has sustained casualties in the prior days, say at about 2/3s original strength. With Canadian doctrine of the time, were they likely to be regrouped: * down to 2 full strength sections, one with 2 Bren guns? * with 3 roughly equal sections? * with 3 unequal sections, say 1 small for support fire with the 2" mortar, and 2 larger ones? * any of the above at CO's choice? |
Weasel | 23 Feb 2015 10:55 a.m. PST |
Any number of things could and did take place, but generally they'd try to keep each section going where possible, rather than disband down to two. That's my impression at least. |
Los456 | 23 Feb 2015 11:03 a.m. PST |
just to add, it also depends on if they have enough effective leaders to field three sections, so basically you could do it any way you wanted. Los |
Skarper | 23 Feb 2015 11:08 a.m. PST |
Hmm – given the LOOB system they'd be kicking off with 7-8 plus an HQ group of maybe 4-5? Say 27 men. 2/3 then equals only 21. So I'd go with 2 reduced sections of 8 and a 5 man HQ with the extra bren as a platoon asset. Of course – the LOOB men could have come forward to replace losses – 33% being serious – giving another 4-5 men. You might get an extra rear echelon type or two thrown in if the situation was desperate. It you mean 2/3s TOE then you have a starting TOE of 36? meaning 24. Could be 3 x 6-7 man sections and an HQ of 4-5? I don't think it was practice to combine sections unless they were below 6 men per section – unless if short of NCOs or men who had enough experience to stand in. I think you can make a rationale for almost anything really. |
BattleCaptain | 23 Feb 2015 11:17 a.m. PST |
In practice, it's the platoon commander's job to decide how he wants to organize his resources for battle. So, you are free to do whatever you think will work best. |
Jemima Fawr | 23 Feb 2015 11:17 a.m. PST |
According to a number of infantry platoon commanders' memoirs (including Jary and White), it was VERY common to fight the platoon as two sections. Jary goes into some detail about this and states that it was more often composed of two sections than of three. The spare Bren was either discarded or was massed at platoon level; presumably with the 2-inch mortar as a platoon 'fire support group'. |
Mr Canuck | 23 Feb 2015 11:19 a.m. PST |
I've read that the Canadians in Italy would sometimes group the Bren teams into one unit as a "fire base" to support attacks. That might be something to think about if you're generalizing, based on the units listed in the rules. |
miniMo | 23 Feb 2015 12:01 p.m. PST |
I was suspecting it was pretty flexible. I've been leaning towards 2 sections + platoon firebase, so will run with that. Mr Canuck — any recommended reading that mentions those Bren teams? So far I've been focusing my reading and modelling on NWE, but will venture into Sicily & Italy eventually. |
Jemima Fawr | 23 Feb 2015 12:07 p.m. PST |
Grouping of Brens was done by Commonwealth troops in all theatres, though as a tactical decision made by the platoon commander at the moment of crisis, rather than as a permanent or even semi-permanent organisational grouping. Similarly, there are examples of Brens and 2-inch mortars being grouped at company level, but only for a brief and very specific task – they'd immediately be farmed out to sections again. |
Brian Smaller | 23 Feb 2015 1:04 p.m. PST |
My father told me a story about holding a farmhouse against a German counter attack in Italy one night. The guy carrying the spare barrel for the Bren had been killed and after so much firing they were down to peeing on it to try to cool it. Eventually the barrel started to warp and it became unserviceable so they ended up throwing it out the window at the Germans. Here is my father's section in Italy 1944 – two Bren's on display.
|
Mr Canuck | 23 Feb 2015 1:37 p.m. PST |
@ miniMo It was a few years back, that I read that, but it might have been Farley Mowat's "And No Birds Sang" book? link You can probably find copies in Used bookstores too. |
Mr Canuck | 23 Feb 2015 1:42 p.m. PST |
It might also have been "Not All of Us Were Brave" by Stanley Scislowski. link At the time, I was voraciously reading whatever I could find relating to the Canadians in Italy, to put together a "Seaforth Highlanders of Canada" force for Flames of War. link |
Jemima Fawr | 23 Feb 2015 2:05 p.m. PST |
Ah, two Brens per section – there were examples where extra Brens were issued when battalions and even whole brigades were disbanded, with the Brens being re-distributed. I seem to remember that 46 Div did that in Italy by divisional order when one of its three brigades was disbanded. |
miniMo | 23 Feb 2015 2:20 p.m. PST |
I have Mowat and White on order now from ABE.com |
Martin Rapier | 24 Feb 2015 12:22 a.m. PST |
Iirc the minimum size for a section to be able to function was recommended as around six men, after that they amalgamated. As above, two sections was very common. |
Martin Rapier | 24 Feb 2015 5:14 a.m. PST |
If going with two sections, one of the more common arrangements would be a a fire section with a couple of Brens and the 2" mortar led by the Platoon Sergeant, while the Lt led the plucky assault section. A way of stretching the available leaders, but as mentioned above, it was up to the platoon CO really. Excess Brens came from a number of sources, including disbanded carrier, AT and AA platoons, as well as disbanded sections and rifle companies. It was Lt Col Wigram in Sicily who observed that whatever the official TO&E, the majority of actual platoons in action had around 20 men (presumably they got amalgamated below that level). Such a unit could operate three minimal sections and a small HQ, or two larger sections. |
miniMo | 24 Feb 2015 5:15 p.m. PST |
|
BattleCaptain | 25 Feb 2015 11:40 a.m. PST |
By coincidence, I just read this passage in Copp's Cinderella Army: "On the basis of the experience in October [1944], Spry [commanding 3rd Canadian Infantry Division] considered it vital to maintain the size of infantry sections so that each would always include a strong rifle group as well as a Bren gun team. If necessary, battalions were to operate with three instead of four rifle companies to ensure that the sections in each platoon could do their job." |
enfant perdus | 25 Feb 2015 11:48 a.m. PST |
As long as you're ordering books, I would recommend Tug of War by Denis and Shelagh Whitaker. link Whitaker commanded the 1/Royal Hamilton Light Infantry during most of the fighting in NWE, including that which is detailed in the book. Besides his own experiences and analyses, there is a great deal of input from other veterans of the fighting in the Low Countries. I point it out because, not only does it have a very strong Canadian bent, but because the Canadians, at this point, were getting desperate for trained infantry replacements. You should get some ideas about how they fought with understrength units. |
miniMo | 25 Feb 2015 9:17 p.m. PST |
Back to ABE, the Canadian bookshelf grows…. |