"How Were Company Support Weapons Used?" Topic

In working on my company level WW2 rules, I realized I'm not really sure how company support weapons (MMG teams, light mortars, etc.) were actually used in the field. Were they attached to platoons? Did they stay near the company commander? Did they operate more as an independent unit within the company? Or perhaps some combination of the above?

The light mortars were usually keep together in a positon to the rear of the company position where they could provide supporting fire to the platoons at the command of the Company commander.

The LMG (no MMGs in the US Army) were assigned tasks or attached to platoons by the company commander according to need.

MGs were often placed to cover gaps between platoons, to cover flanks, or to cover the most likely enemy avenues of approach.

My understanding is all of the above could apply, though generally, I believe they would be kept together, to provide fire support for the attack, or on defense, as needed.

Some years later, in Korea, my father-in-law distributed the MGs and recoiless rifles of his heavy weapons platoon around the company perimeter. He also had a .50 cal M2 MG set up as a single shot sniper weapon.

Give the book Company Commander by Charles McDonald a read if you have not already. It is just one example of one company, but he spends lot of time thinking about where the 60mm mortars are and deploying the MG's to cover the company's front. Plus a thousand other things like pre-planned artillery fires, chow, casualty clearing stations, LP / OP
s, coordinating with flank units, and the 1000 other things a company commander has to worry about.

MG's seem to have been attached to platoon and mortars near the company CP.

Plus they had adapters so 60mm mortar shells could be fired from rifle grenade launchers.

In Vietnam, I read about guys thumping them on the ground, rocks, walls, etc., and then throwing the 60mm mortar rounds like grenades.

Desperate times call for desperate measures, I guess.

no MMGs in the US Army

Surely the A4 was mounted on a tripod making it an MMG, the A6 was the Bipod version. AFAIK they both saw service in WW2.

Surely the A4 was mounted on a tripod making it an MMG, the A6 was the Bipod version. AFAIK they both saw service in WW2.

My understanding is that in the WWII US military terminology M1919 was called light machine gun regardless of how it was mounted. We actually had a very good discussion about the relevant teminology quite recently, I would heavily recommend reading it:

TMP link

I always thought MMG was a wargamer's term, invented to distinguish between bipod-mounted light MGs and tripod-mounted ones. But maybe it was actually used by other countries (UK?), I don't know.

MMG to me means Mounted MG – i.e. on a rigid mount and so capable of sustained fire along a fixed line.

What a nation cares to call them is irrelevant.

UK MMG generally means a Vickers gun on a tripod. MMG, ATG and 3" Mortar platoons were battalion assets. The mortar platoon was mostly kept together to provide fire support as required, the ATGs and MMGs might be doled out (sections of two guns) to support companies or be concentrated depending on tasks and situations.

I think just go on the basis that they were there to support the actions of the Rifle Pls to the best effect possible. If a Rifle Pl is operating in an advanced/independent role it may be useful to attach something like a 60-mm mortar directly to it, but that weakens the ability of the Rifle Coy to furnish direct fire support to the other Rifle Pls. Likewise dividing up the LMGs dilutes their firepower.

In a full Coy level engagement mortars of the 60-mm to 81-mm calibre bracket can provide extremely effective supporting fire to rifle subunits in either manoeuvre or defensive actions, and they may be required for smoke or illumination as well as HE. Coys can normally expect some degree of fire support from higher up the food chain as well, even in an action with limited objectives, which may be parcelled out as mentioned above. If you've got a single Rifle Coy leading an assault it could have a heck of a lot of firepower attached to it for the occasion.

Gary

Give the book Company Commander by Charles McDonald a read

I recommend this book as well …

Some notes :

Mortars were the Co Cdr's readily available "light" Artillery.

MGs could be distributed by the Co Cdr based on Plts' mission(s). And/Or based the Co's mission in the defense and the offense, etc.

M2 .50 cal is a HMG, total system weighting in at about 127lbs. Not counting the ammo. It took at least 4 Grunts to move it and the ammo around.

and the 1000 other things a company commander has to worry about.

That was my experience '87-'89 commanding a Mech Co. (M113).

Surely the A4 was mounted on a tripod making it an MMG, the A6 was the Bipod version. AFAIK they both saw service in WW2.

In the US Army the M1919 in all versions was a LMG, the M1917 water-cooled .30 was a HMG. The tripod on the A4 had nothing to do with it.

Not saying it didn't happen but I don't recall ever hearing of a single 60mm mortar being attached to a infantry platoon. They were highly valued as the company commander's "hip pocket" artillery having a longer range and heavier bomb than any of the other light mortars in use during the war.

UK MMG generally means a Vickers gun on a tripod. MMG, ATG and 3" Mortar platoons were battalion assets.

With the exception that in the infantry divisions Vickers tended to be concentrated in divisional MG battalion, from where they would then be allocated to support infantry battalions. In the para battalions and late war motor battalions the Vickers was an integral battalion asset, though.

Not saying it didn't happen but I don't recall ever hearing of a single 60mm mortar being attached to a infantry platoon.

My understanding is that in the early doctrine they could be under certain circumstances split in defense to individual platoons. In practice they were of course better employed as a whole section, especially when communication assets were in place to take advantage of their range.

In the US para companies the 60 mm mortars however were not treated as company weapons, but instead as integral company weapons. Probably the para platoons were expected to end up at times working more independently than the ordinary infantrymen.

Griefbringer…I don't know what I was thinking; I suppose I've just been way too much immersed in airborne units just lately. That said, the application would oft-times be much the same with MMGs allocated to battalions and then distributed by |Bat. HQ as required.

In the US Army the M1919 in all versions was a LMG, the M1917 water-cooled .30 was a HMG.

Yes that is what I understood. But it really IMO was not the "way to do things". But I was not born yet to tell them !

In more modern times things generally worked out more like …

30 cal. or < = LMG or SAW. Like the BAR was .30 cal. and really a SAW. But the design did not really lend itself to being a Med MG.

30 cal. = Med MG

50. cal or > = HMG …

Not saying it didn't happen but I don't recall ever hearing of a single 60mm mortar being attached to a infantry platoon. They were highly valued as the company commander's "hip pocket" artillery having a longer range and heavier bomb than any of the other light mortars in use during the war.

I agree and it appears generally that is true as far as we know. But again based on the situation a 60mm mortar(s) "could" be attached to an Inf PLT. However, mortars being the Co Cdrs' light readily available/"hip pocket" artillery seemed to be the norm. I'd imagine the Co Cdr could be located with the mortars to order adjustments of fire. To support the Co's overall mission. And the missions of the Co's PLTs movements, fire, etc., …

I agree and it appears generally that is true as far as we know. But again based on the situation a 60mm mortar(s) "could" be attached to an Inf PLT. However, mortars being the Co Cdrs' light readily available/"hip pocket" artillery seemed to be the norm. I'd imagine the Co Cdr could be located with the mortars to order adjustments of fire. To support the Co's overall mission. And the missions of the Co's PLTs movements, fire, etc.,

I would suggest that the critical issue here is communications. If you are stuck to passing fire requests by shouting (or messenger), then having the mortar team directly at hand. But if instead reliable radio or telephone contact can be established from platoon HQs to mortar section when needed, then the mortars can remain further back and use their range to their advantage.

Compared to the 60 mm mortars used by the US (and France), most militaries of the time employed lighter mortars of 45-52 mm calibre that had more limited ranges and were typically assigned directly to rifle platoons (except in the Italian military that for some reason organised their Brixias as battalion assets).

However, in the Soviet use the 50 mm mortars were eventually withdrawn from rifle platoons and organised as a mini-platoon at company level. This had initially 3 mortars, later reduced to 2 and eventually eliminated altogether. This may have been done to ease up the work of the rifle platoon leaders, or part of the general Red Army trend to centralise support assets. Considering the limited range (800 meters) and very limited communication assets, these mortars were not exactly ideal for providing highly responsive indirect support. Another asset that the Red Army rifle company commanders had was an MG section of 1-2 guns.

I would suggest that the critical issue here is communications. If you are stuck to passing fire requests by shouting (or messenger), then having the mortar team directly at hand. But if instead reliable radio or telephone contact can be established from platoon HQs to mortar section when needed, then the mortars can remain further back and use their range to their advantage.

Yes, I agree. And very well aware of all that.
When I was a Rifle PL in the 101 '80-'81. We had an 81mm mortar Plt in the Co.. And the CO was almost never collocated with them. And they had a range of 2-3ks, IIRC. So they were located to the rear of the Co positions. Of course commo [whether by radio or field phone] in WWII was not a good as in the '80s or even now.

Plus 60mm mortars really did not have the range so they couldn't be too far behind the Co location. And on the plus side were much lighter and smaller to hump than an 81.

Since we were short the 81mm Mortar PL for awhile. In the 101 Rifle Co I was a Rifle PL. If need be, the CO would have me fill in. But generally the Mortar PSG ran the tubes. Later as a Mech Cdr '87-'89. The TO&E had changed and the M125 81mm Mortar[M113] was removed. Which was fine as with better commo we could call-in from other assets. E.g. could call-in support from the Bn 4.2 inch Mortar Plt. And a 4.2 had a 4-5k range, IIRC.

But I can say without any reservation. Good Commo is paramount for the PL and Co Cdr. The radio could be your most powerful asset. The ability to call-in Mortars, FA, CAS, even Naval Gunfire would be lot of firepower in support of your mission.

Again, the WWII 60mm. With the short range, it would generally have to be pretty close behind the lead units to be of any real effective support. And was light enough to move fairly quickly to support the units' movements.

The CO didn't need to be located with the mortars (as shown in "Company Commander")to direct their fire as they had the radios necessary not to mention wire phones.

While it's true that the 60mm mortars were part of the Airborne (not paras) platoons per TO&E it was usual for the CO to gather them together as a battery under his control. They were much more effective when used together than when used individually.

The CO didn't need to be located with the mortars

No they did not as I said. Even in WWII as you pointed out. You had some pretty good commo, either radio or wire.

While it's true that the 60mm mortars were part of the Airborne (not paras) platoons per TO&E it was usual for the CO to gather them together as a battery under his control. They were much more effective when used together than when used individually.

Yes, that makes sense, I'd probably have done that as a Cdr in that situation. And yes, they would be more effective. And as we see or know, the Co. Cdr can modify the TO&E as the mission required. Sometimes based on loses he may have no choice.

"However, in the Soviet use the 50 mm mortars were eventually withdrawn from rifle platoons and organised as a mini-platoon at company level. … This may have been done to ease up the work of the rifle platoon leaders, or part of the general Red Army trend to centralise support assets."

The story of the 50mm mortars in the platoon is fascinating, and was a disaster. The new 50mm mortars were simply distributed to the platoons with no change in platoon organization and no training program. This meant that the platoon leader would have to pull men from the rifle platoons to handle the mortar. The lack of a training program was made worse by the odd design of the mortar: it had two elevations and a gas vent at the base for "fine" range adjustment. Unfortunately, the dial that controlled the vent was marked in arbitrary units, so you had to use a table to figure out which elevation to use and where to set the vent. The subsequent mod put two sets of markings on the dial, showing actual ranges for each elevation. Obviously made the things vaguely usable.

Anyhow, having the 50mm mortars in the infantry platoons was a bade idea, made worse by not modifying the TO&E to accomodate than and not having a training program. Oh, and it was quite heavy … Combined with snow smotherinng the effect of the small bombs during the Winter War, the mortar was a failure. It made much more sense to group there were you could put someone in charge of them all, both tactically and for training.

Thanks for all the replies. Some very helpful and fascinating stuff.

Also, thanks for reminding me about Company Commander. I had completely forgotten that I own the book and have yet to read it. I've dug it out and added it to the top of my reading pile (along with S.L.A. Marshall's Men Under fire).

Would even Russian companies have radio contact with the 50mm mortars (assuming it's after they re-organized them into a separate entity within the company)?

And more in general, would there be an FOO in most companies for their 50 or 60mm mortars? Or would FOO's be more for battalion level fire support?

Would even Russian companies have radio contact with the 50mm mortars (assuming it's after they re-organized them into a separate entity within the company)?

Generally I'd think not for a small caliber short ranged Company asset. E.g., IIRC, most Russian Tanks didn't even have radios. Only the Co Cdr's AFV would have a radio. To take orders, etc., from the Bn Cdr, etc.

And more in general, would there be an FOO in most companies for their 50 or 60mm mortars?

I'm not 100% sure. But for that small caliber and short ranged weapon I'd think there would be No FO. It is a Co/Plt asset. The CO or PL(s) could call for and adjust the fire. That is the way it way done based on my experience, '79-'90. And study of WWII history.

Or would FOO's be more for battalion level fire support?

I'd think again based on my experience, training and the historical record. Even in WWII, an FO(s) would be attached from an FA unit that was in Direct Support of that Inf Bn. And they, the FOs would coordinate the calls for fire from the larger FA pieces.

Remember a mortar, generally is an Infantry weapon. It is not FA. Infantry mortar crews and FA crews are generally 2 separate Branches. Based on the nation and time period, etc., …

Again, the light mortars are an Inf Co or Plt organic asset. Now I have seen the attached FO coordinate Company level mortars with the heavier FA. For certain ops/missions. But again in WWII, generally I'd believe the light mortar fires would be direct primarily by the CO and/or PL(s). As it was when I was a PL in the 101, '80-'81.

Now Trojan B, if you really want to know about Company Support Weapons, etc. I'm sure there is a recruiting station near by …

Forget about "Men Against Fire", when questioned about the interviews he claimed to have done with soldiers and used as the basis for the book had never actually taken place.

Forward Observation Officers tend to be artillerymen provided by field units and in contact with their 'own' guns first, and ideally able to plug into the larger artillery network. In a US Rifle Coy the FOO for the section of three 60-mm mortars would be the Staff Sergeant commanding said Section. Similarly in a British Inf Bn of 1944 vintage the Mobile Fire Controllers were the three Sergeants commanding the three Sections (each with a pair of 3-in mortars), who would accompany the HQ of the Rifle Coy they were supporting when operating in a devolved role. Comms was primarily by radio or sound powered telephone set.

Battalion level communications differed considerably throughout armies (trying to put more detail together is a current obsession). I can guarantee however that Red Army units did not have radio comms between the seven blokes manning the Dec 1942 era 50-mm Mortar Platoon (yes, it was termed a Platoon) and the forward riflemen. At the start of the war the Red Army Rifle Bn had a small line/wire detachment in the HQ of the 82-mm Mortar Coy, but that was culled. Some units look to have reformed some comms capability by re-tasking atk rifle personnel.

Gary

In a US Rifle Coy the FOO for the section of three 60-mm mortars would be the Staff Sergeant commanding said Section.

Yes and he would be organic to the Co.. an Infantryman trained additionally as a Mortar Crewmen. Not attached from an FA unit. The FO attached from an FA unit is Artillery Branch. And primarily there to call-in fires from the larger caliber FA assets.

IIRC, some of the Soviet 50mm mortars had rather long minimum range, making it necessary to separate them from the riflemen somewhat.

Not saying it didn't happen but I don't recall ever hearing of a single 60mm mortar being attached to a infantry platoon.

Only time I can think of it really happening was the initial divisions at Normandy. Each LCVP had a Mortar team and an M1919 LMG team, plus a flamethrower team, bazookas, I think 2 BAR teams…

The idea was to pack each boat with all the tools the troops could carry.

Not sure how it was done with 3in mortars in WW2 but I doubt it was much different from the way 81s are used today. The mortar platoon in the British Army is a battalion asset and a pair of MFCs (mortar fire controllers – usually a Sjt and a Cpl) are attached to each rifle coy. With the platoon split into three sections this allows one mortar section to provide fire support to each company while at the same time allowing all three sections to concentrate when needed. With a range of about two miles for the 3in, and three and a half miles for the 81mm they would be deployed well to the rear of the forward troops and the only way they can operate is by using MFCs. If you can see your target from the mortar line something has gone horribly wrong!

Yes, that's pretty much the same technique described in the 1944 Mortar Platoon field manual. So with No.1 and No.2 detachments out supporting A Coy, the Sgt from No.1 det accompanies the A Coy cmdr, while the L-sgt from No.2 det manned a section OP for both dets (total two mortars), who were under the direction of a Cpl back with the tubes. An example comms system was a sound powered telephone connection linking the L-sgt and Cpl, plus a No.38 set with the Sgt (acting as the MFC with A Coy) linking back to the No.2 det driver with a second No.38 set. The balance of the Pl (No.3-No.6 dets) would then operate as a whole under the Pl cmdr, but still allowing for two Sgts to act as MFCs with advance Rifle Coys, while the Pl cmdr set up with one of the two Sec OPs, accompanied by a Sig Pl signaller with a No.18 set, which could talk directly to the No.18 set with the Bn CO's Tac HQ.

The US manuals refer to a 'limited' number of sound powered telephones per Rifle Coy. I've not got the equipment tables for the Rifle Coy but Yves Bellanger's book gives them '2 reel equipments, CE-11', which I understand was a lightweight sound powered telephone; what I don't know is whether those two sets meant that the Coy could only form one line connecting two handsets, so Sec cmdr back to the 60-mm firing line? Radio wise the Coy was authorised one SCR-536 per officer in effect (so six), and latterly one spare for an attached Arty FO.

Gary

The Russian 50mms (and often the battalion 82s) otoh were often controlled by their own teams. Put the weapon in defilade while a bloke goes forward about 40 yards and calls out/hand signals the fire corrections.

The Russians also liked to use their 45mm AT guns as infantry guns as they were mobile and had a reasonable HE round.

50s and the 2" were often just sighted by the gunner, especially as the 2" was classed as a 'personal weapon'. On occasion 2" mortars were grouped into a company level team, but that was rare.

The Germans had heir own set of complexity, moving from 50mm mortars to 81s detached from the battalion heavy weapons company plus varying numbers of tripod mounted GPMGs at company level as well as the company anti-tank section armed with ATRs in the mid part of the war, plus attached infantry guns at various levels of the different orgs.

The 2in, and until very recently, the 51mm were allocated one per rifle platoon. They've been replaced by the UGL at a scale of two per section. Sometimes with a light role 60mm with platoon HQ. I've only seen 51s grouped together on one occasion. It was on a live fire exercise on Salisbury Plain years ago when I was a brand new Lance Jack. They were firing illum for a night ambush with the result that I witnessed the most bizarre incident I've ever seen in 20 years in the army. Two 51mm mortars fired at exactly the same moment and the bombs collided about 30m above our heads! Thank God it was only illum!!

equipment tables for the Rifle Coy but Yves Bellanger's book gives them '2 reel equipments, CE-11'

Those may have been the wire laying reel for field phones. I know we still had something like that when I was a PL, '80-'81.

But as we know, running wire for commo has some negatives:

The commo wire(s) can get fouled on most anything terrain-wise.

The commo wire reel has limited range.

And I've seen it more than once, a vehicle rolls by. Cuts your wire(s). Or snags them and drags the whole system down the road.

Plus wire commo can literally be hacked. By the enemy tying in to your land lines/commo wire.

Generally wire commo is best used for defensive ops,
IMO.

what I don't know is whether those two sets meant that the Coy could only form one line connecting two handsets, so Sec cmdr back to the 60-mm firing line?

That could be one use.

Radio wise the Coy was authorised one SCR-536 per officer in effect (so six), and latterly one spare for an attached Arty FO.

Even in WWII, I'd think the FO came with his own radio, RTO, etc. All the FO has to get on the Co. freqs. However, with only one radio the FO would have to change freqs to contact the Battery FDC to call for fire. Maybe that was why the Infantry had an extra radio ? The FO would have one radio on the Inf Co. freq and one on the Batteries' FDC.

E.g. I know as a Co Cdr. You had to switch freqs on our CVC Helmets back and forth between the Co freq and the Bn freq. By once the freqs were set, all you had to do is flip a toggle switch attached to the CVC.

With a range of about two miles for the 3in, and three and a half miles for the 81mm they would be deployed well to the rear

Yes, the 81 and as noted the 3in.[75mm] mortars have a longer range than the 60mm[or 50mm].

If you can see your target from the mortar line something has gone horribly wrong!

Yes especially for Med-Hvy Mortars. But with the shorter range of the 60mm/50mm. I could see it occurring based on the terrain and situation … as always. I kind of think of those kind of light mortars as a "big" Grenade Launcher[like the M79 or M203].

So I'd think at times they may be firing "with open sights" I think it was called ? Using the mortar sight to directly fire at a target you can actually see. But again light 60/50mm mortars are very easily moved quickly not too far behind the lead advancing units. To take "advantage" of their shorter range.
I.e. the US 6mm Mortar from WWII, Korea and Vietnam had a Maximum firing range :
1,815 m (1,985 yards). Which really is not too bad, if you think about it. But with the units' advancing depending on the again, terrain and situation. That distance could be covered fairly quickly. And the mortars would have to displace and step up again to support the advance. That is generally SOP for most support weapons.

The story of the 50mm mortars in the platoon is fascinating, and was a disaster.

I did dig up my Zaloga book, and according to it the 50 mm mortar went through a number of different ways of organisations in the infantry divisions:

1.) Before Winter War they were organised into a three tube mortar section on company level.
2.) After Winter War they were re-allocated to individual rifle platoons.
3.) After German invasion, due to (temporary) shortage of support weapons, only two out of three platoons were authorised 50 mm mortars.
4.) In autumn 1941, all the 50 mm and 81 mm mortars were centralised in a regimental mortar battalion.
5.) In 1942, the mortars were returned back to infantry battalions, with company authorised a 4 tube mortar platoon (later reduced to 3 and then 2 tubes, until finally removed for good).