"Team Yankee Canadians - Basing" Topic

With the sudden plethora of choice fro Canadian figures circa 1980s (QRF, Armies Army) I am contemplating taking the plunge into Team Yankee.

The Model Town Gaming blog does a have a complete selection of unofficial unit card available for the 4CMBG.

I have one question about basing the infantry sections and wanted to get a feel for what more experienced TY plays thought.

I see 2 options for an Infantry section :

1 – 2 medium stands with a mix of FNC1s/C2s and LAWs plus a Carl Gustav team on a small base.

or

2 – 1 medium stand with a mix of FNC1s/C2s and LAWs and 1 Medium stand with a mix of FNC1s/C2s and a Carl Gustav team.

I am not committed to either option, I just want to get a feel for what others, think

Thanks

Greg

2 seems to follow the pattern

Ours are just going into mould this week. We always sell them in packs of 8 by weapon type, so you can mix and match to suit whatever rules you like and to match different orbats.

Wait till.BF releases the actual list and range, it's due sometime soon…I think…

Cold War Canadian infantry sections used the tried and true battle procedure from WW2 and Korea.

Rifle Group with 4-5 FNC1, under the section commander with SMG. The Carl G team would usually be manned from this rifle group. They would also have most of the LAWS.

Gun group with 2 FNC2 under the section 2 i/c with FNC1.

When you start dismounting the .50 cal from the M113, there aren't a lot of riflemen left…

At least that was how I learned how to do it.

Brian

Brian Thanks, That's what I assumed.

I know 1st hand they were bring in new battle drills in 1986 -- but the section break down did not include the Carl G.

Yeah, the new battle drills reflected the change from the FN Rifle to the C7 and C9 weapons.

Mech Infantry (M113, Grizzly) were supposed to have a Carl G per section…that happened for sure in 4CMBG, not so much in Canada. 1 or 2 Carl G per platoon would be realistic IMO.

I don't play TY, is there a role for the 60mm mortar at the platoon level?

Hi Brian,

Not to hi-jack the thread, but side question regarding Carl G's… for 5GBC going to Norway as part of the CAST, would they likely have been given extra Carl G's to achieve 1 per section? Or would they have gone with the 1 per platoon in your opinion?

Thanks,
Max

Max,

As reservist who had friends who went with 5GBC to Norway as part of the "Refoger" exercises, I seem to remember them saying that they had 1 Carl G per section, like 4CMBG.

Most of the Brigade group was made up of regular army unit from Quebec and Gagetown. So they were pretty up to strength as far as kit was concerned.

Even for our biggest Sector exercises, if there was one Carl G per platoon we were doing good!

I have used the 60mm mortar, they were issued 1 to a platoon (as part of the HQ section) They could fire HE or smoke, but I think they were being phased out by the early to mid 80s.

Y0u were more likely to have to lug a Carl G around rather than a 60mm mortar.

Wouldn't mind fielding them ,either. Did the CF Ground Forces use the Leopard 1 at that time?

The CAF would have been using Leopard Ia3s or a4s. Not sure which. They would have been designated C1s by the Canadian forces.

1A3. There were some minor modifications to the turret for the C1. I'm just putting them on now and we will have the C1 shortly.

I just finished the basic hull and turret for the Cougar and Grizzly too. We already have the Lynx C&R of course

Good to know, thanks 608722!

Double from here,bud.

I agree with 608722CAR, Carl G at the section level for CAST and AMF.

The 60mm mortar was still around when I retired in 2010. There was a some of talk about platooning the 4 mortars held in a rifle company so the Company commander would have a decent indirect fire element all his own…

Brian

I was taking to a friend this weekend about this and he sent me something with a breakdown of support equipment for a Canadian Infantry Battalion based in Germany.

This list has 24 Carl Gustav per BN. Divided equally would give 6 per company and only 2 per platoon. However other sources quote 1 per section.I would assume 5GBC was similar.

Reservist units in Canada would only have 1 per platoon in the HQ section.

The link below provides an interesting evolution of the Canadian armies infantry section for anyone interested.

link

Very nice 608722CAR.

Great link.

Brian

Excellent link, thanks!

Does anybody know the strength of the Platoon Headquarters and the Company Weapons Detachment?

Thanks.

Quick answer, it depends. The Coy Comd can make adaptations as he sees fit, but the stock answer is:

Platoon HQ is usually Comd, Pl WO, signaller x 2.

Platoon Wpns Det should be Carl G, (2 men), 60mm Mtr (2 men), GPMG (2 men)

Coy Wpns Det would look similar to the Platoon Wpns Det.

So, 4 GPMG per Coy, 4 60mm Mtr per Coy, and 4 Carl G per Coy in a Light Infantry Coy, 12-16 Carl G per Mech Infantry Coy…

Brian

Hi Brian,

That's great thanks.

I primarily play Modern Spearhead, where platoons are the smallest maneuver units (sometimes companies are represented by only 2 stands in the case of small platoons like Soviet VDV or 10 tank platoons), and battalions are the lowest level headquarter units (company command structures don't exist in the game). Games are usually multiple battalions per side fighting it out.

Given that the GPMG and 60mm were nominally platoon weapon systems that could be aggregated at the company level, do you think they should be represented in a game like Modern Spearhead? Or just folded into the fighting platoons? Basically, is their employment something a battalion commander would be concerned about? My gut reaction is no, he's concerned about getting companies to the fight, where the TOW sections go, etc. But I could be wrong…

Basically my options are:

1) Each company is 3 x Rifle Platoons
2) Each company is 3 x Rifle Platoons, 1 x Weapons Platoon (with both MG and 60mm attributes)
3) Each company is 3 x Rifle Platoons, 1 x MG Platoon, 1 x 60mm Mortar Platoon

What would your recommendation be for gaming at that level?

Thanks,
Max

Max,

Based on your description of Spearpoint and that the 60mm and the GPM.G (C5) would be under the control of the platoon I would role them into the platoons.

Tactically the weapons were never massed together.

Greg

I would try to represent them separately as a platoon. I don't think Spearhead takes that into account in the firepower numbers, or in accordance with doctrine either.

The GPMGs and .50 cal MGs would be used to fill out the defensive and offensive fire plan, which was a battalion planning responsibility. Granted, offensively this usually devolved to coy and platoon level planning, but since 4 CMBG was intended to fight mostly in a defensive mode, I think it should be represented. A case could be made for platooning that firepower together, kind of like the WW2 Commonwealth MG and 4.2" Mortar platoons from the Brigade level attached down to the battalions.

I'm assuming that the 81mm mortar platoon is already represented in Modern Spearhead? I wouldn't try to represent the 60mm mortars, the effective range, and the amount of ammo available to the crew is insufficient to be represented in the level of game you describe.

So…option #2 is appropriate, or option #3 minus the mortars.

My .02 cents.

Regards,

Brian

I can never remember them being massed as they were in the MG companies n WWI and WWII,

That being said, if the firepower they represent is not being incorporated onto the platoons directly, I would create and MG platoon.

As Brian suggested I too would dispense with the 60mm mortars.

Greg

Hi Brian and Greg,

Thanks for your answers. Modern Spearhead isn't terribly concerned with the weapons make-up of the platoons; however they do acknowledge that the majority of firepower comes from the crew served weapons. Infantry are pretty much universally given an identical attack factor and range of 600m, as it assumes that platoons have a few GPMG/SAW type weapons in them, along with rifles, grenade launchers, etc.

It does acknowledge that, much more rarely than in previous decades, some countries still aggregate their machine guns into 4-6 weapon detachments, and these are given a range of 900m in the rules, same attack factor though. Main examples of this are the "Drums platoon" for UK Infantry battalions (6 x GPMG), and possibly the MG section of a USMC rifle company (also 6 x GPMG).

So if they weren't generally tactically aggregated, then their strength is assumed to be already factored into that of the rifle platoon.

However, for example the USMC rifle platoon of the early 1980s (pre-SAW) contained no crew-served weapons, the only thing close was the M16 with the XM3 bipod. The 6 x MGs of the Weapons Platoon could be farmed out to the platoons, but my Marine friends tell me that the "classic, approved solution" for doctrine was to mass them at company level for support. So in this case, I'm thinking of reducing Marine rifle platoon range to 400m, and including an MG stand with every rifle company.

The 81mm mortars are definitely represented.

Would your answer regarding the 60mm mortars change if they were grouped together at the company level, as they are in a USMC rifle company? I agree that if they're at the platoon level, one tube isn't enough to make a meaningful difference at a battalion level game like this (the 2" mortar in UK platoons is similarly not represented).

Thanks,
Max

Max, I would treat them like the 2" Mortar. That is essentially what they were.

Aside from smoke, I think it much more likely that the M72 would replace their role within the platoon. The LAW being easier to aim and fire and not requiring specialists.

With the tripod, the effective ranges would be similar.

Having fired the 60mm its's more art than science.

Greg

Hi Greg,

Ok, so you wouldn't include them even if they're grouped together in a 3 gun section at company level? Or are you referring to the tubes at platoon level?

I would think that the 3500m range of x3 M224 60mm could be significant at the battalion level.

-Max

The 60mm M19 mortar in Canadian service came with and without a bipod.

Effective range without bipod was generous at 800-900 metres.

With bipod perhaps 1000-1100 metres.

Battle load for 60mm mortar bombs was 18-20 rounds per platoon, about 25% smoke.

Leave them included in the platoons.

The MG platoon base would really be an abstract of the total firepower available at the company level. It really shouldn't represent at tactical entity, just a reflection of the area coverage out to max range. Out of curiosity, what is the range given for a MG element in Spearhead.

GPMGs were expected to fire beaten zones out to 1200-1800 metres, with the .50 cal firing out to 2000-2200. These beaten zones were preset, range carded, and tied into the fireplan up to battalion level. Added to mortar, anti armour and artillery fireplans, this was intended to deny ground, cover obstacles, and break up enemy formations in there form up areas.

Brian

Hi Brian,

Ah didn't realize it was the older M19 60mm.

The standard infantry platoon's range is 600m, while an MG platoon is 900m. It's assumed there's combat taking place outside these ranges, but not effective enough to be represented at the battalion and higher level.

I think just assuming they're part of the platoon is probably the way to go.

Max,

Brian's answer nailed it. Go with the abstract of a platoon of GPMGs,

Just curious, how many GPMGs in a platoon?

Pooling a company's resources would give you 3-4 GPMGs. if the Platoon where a BN asset you would have 9-12.

Game wise I don't know which fits better with the design philosophy.

Greg

Hi Greg,

How many GPMGs in an MSH platoon? They don't really specify, they assume there will be some GPMG/SAW/RPK type weapons in every platoon, along with rifles, grenade launchers, etc. In the vast majority of cases, a platoon is a platoon is a platoon. Only their AT weaponry is really differentiated (RPG-7 vs Carl G vs Dragon vs Milan etc).

The game is generally more concerned with differences in doctrine and command structure than the nitty gritty of differing infantry weapon systems.

So the only time a separate MG platoon is called for (generally 4+ machine guns grouped and tactically employed together) is if it was part of that nation's doctrine. A lot of the (more 3rd World-ish) countries that still used WW2 like tactics will have them in their OoBs, but most NATO countries do not.

In the case of the Canadians, if you guys say the 3-4 GPMGs in a company were generally employed on the platoon level and rarely if ever grouped together, then it's more appropriate to not have them as a separate platoon; their firepower is already being accounted for in the rifle platoons with their 600m range.

Likewise in the US Army, where the 6 GPMGs are organic to the rifle platoons (2 per), a separate MG platoon would not be appropriate; just not part of US Army doctrine.

But, as in the case of the USMC where (according to my Marine buddies), the classic tactic is to group the company's 6 MGs together and not distribute them to the platoons, then I think MSH would consider this an appropriate use of an MG specific platoon with a range of 900m.

(I should also point out that the designers of MSH acknowledge that the actual effective ranges of weapon systems are generally greater in real life than they are in the game. Again, they assume that combat is taking place beyond these ranges, but due to the intervening "micro-terrain," smoke, use of cover, suppressive fire and maneuver, etc that this combat is not effective/damaging enough to be represented in a battalion/brigade/division level game. So generally the furthest default spotting distance is 1800m, this can be increased somewhat if you're on a higher elevation. So yes your TOW-2B can range out to 3750m, but rarely in modern combat can you actually see that far due to the reasons mentioned above. Yes the ace gunner in your platoon may score a hit or a kill on a single enemy vehicle at that range, but it's not significant enough to be represented at the level of the game).

Canadian doctrine of the day was the GPMG (2-3 crew) was under the control of the platoon 2i/c when in use. Company HQ may or may not have had a GPMG as well.

So 3-4 GPMGs per company. The Company Commander could strip them from the platoons and mass them if required, but more often than not the stayed with the platoons.

Not to open a new can of worms, but the .50s were often dismounted from the M113s in a defensive position.

I would give the option of an HMG stand of per platoon ( one from each of the 4 M113s)

Greg

Hi Greg,

Sounds pretty similar to US Army doctrine except the massing part (though I wasn't an infantryman, so I don't know for sure).

One of the cool things about MSH is how it treats mechanized infantry. Instead of an infantry element and a vehicle element that carries them, it's a combined "combat team." It's assumed the vehicles and infantry are operating in close cooperation. It moves at the vehicle's speed in the open, uses its weapon systems to fire, in the open it is spotted like a vehicle and uses the vehicle's defensive values, while in cover it's spotted like infantry and uses the infantry's defensive values. So in the open they're pretty vulnerable, but mech infantry in cover is pretty nasty to deal with.

You can completely dismount them from the vehicle (this represents sending the IFVs to the rear, they take no other part in the battle, it's a permanent decision) and then they operate like normal leg infantry.

I'm preparing to play the S&T game Nordkapp (North Norway engagements) with miniatures, and one of the features of the Nordkapp game is the ability to dismount your battalions to enter terrain that is unfriendly to vehicles (or you can be forced to abandon your equipment as part of a retreat).

But you do bring up a good point, if a Canadian light mech battalion dismounts from its Grizzlys and M113s to conduct extended dismounted operations, then presumably they would bring the .50s with them (though I wouldn't want to be lugging that up and down the Norwegian countryside!). In this case, I'd probably just give the rifle platoons the 900m range of the machine gun platoons or something like that.

Max,

I never heard of anyone dismounting the 50s or GPMGs from the turret of the Grizzly. The M113s had a much simpler pintle mount in comparison and was therefore easier to mount and dismount it from the vehicle.

I had the pleasure of riding around in a Grizzly from time to time but never had to prep and mount the guns in the turret.

Installing the guns in the turret would have much more time consuming and I imagine the guns would have to be aligned/sited to work properly in the turret. Whereas the M113s had hand held 50cal

Your're right, carrying the GPMG was bad enough, I can't imagine having to lug the 50 around, never mind the ammo to feed the beast!

But giving the platoon the option to have a .50 HMG cal stand in the defense makes sense to me for units using M113s only.

As to massing GPMGs, it wasn't doctrine but it wouldn't have been hard to do. I think it would have been for a very specific attack or operation. 99% of the time the C5s would be under the control of the platoon. If the company HQ had a GPMG it would be more likely attached to a platoon forming a fire base while the other 2 platoons went on to attack a position.

Greg

I really wasn't very clear on my earlier post I guess. The GPMG's are not physically massed together, their fireplan and targeting was.

Never less than 2 guns assigned to fire beaten zones or fire lanes, these guns would alternate bursts of 20-30 rounds to maintain continuous fire until redirected or the ammo ran out. These targets would have interlocking fire by guns from other parts of the Battalion, so you could have 4-6 guns firing on important targets, as dictated by the Battalion MG Officer.

We always had 4 GPMGs per company, one per platoon and 1 in the company weapons detachment.

The arcs that the guns used would let them apply their beaten zones across the frontage of neighbouring platoons and companies, or at targets in depth. Wire, mine and anti-tank obstacles were always priority targets, followed by dead ground and potential form up areas.

GPMG crews ideally would have crews of 3, and the .50 cal really needs a crew of 5… Receiver (1 man), barrels (1 man), tripod (1 man) ammo (2 men). 100 rd belts weigh about 35 lbs… Gun, barrel, tripod around 125 lbs.

We never dismounted the MGs from the Grizzly, just from the M113. Grizzly was never intended for use in Europe, but did get to Norway. I know that there was a trial for the Grizzly on one Reforger exercise, but it didn't have the mobility of the M113.

Brian

Ah that's good to know on the Grizzly's. I guess I was just assuming it was like on a Bradley, we had a dismount kit for the co-ax M240C, so wasn't hard to turn that into a ground mounted weapon if necessary. Was the .50cal on the Grizzly the same M2 as on the M113? Or was it a different one, like the modification for the M48 turret type on the M48 Patton tanks?

Yeah, understand on their fireplan and targeting being linked at the company/battalion level. I think that is assumed/abstracted out at the MSH level, where the specific "MG Platoons" are the WW1/WW2 model of a specific unit of MGs tactically employed together, rather than incorporated into rifle infantry formations if that makes sense.

The M2 .50 cal/Mark 19 "Heavy Guns" platoon in a USMC infantry battalion (at least in the 80s, not sure about today) would be a good modern example of this I think.

I'm not sure, Wiki states the following:

"Mounting a Cadillac-Gage 1 metre turret, armed with a .50 BMG and a 7.62 mm machine gun"

The link to the AVGP page of Canadiansoldiers.com isn't much more enlightening.

link

I'm not sure if that helps any?

Greg

I believe the .50 cal was the same gun as the one on the M113, but installed through the turret. If I remember correctly, the receiver went in through the turret hatch, and the barrel was attached to the receiver from the outside. The coax GPMG was installed the same way.

It's been a while since I worked with the Grizzly, at least 20 years…so that might not be accurate.

Brian,

That was my impression too, but then I was a passenger, never got to play with the toys -- I could swear to it!

:)

Greg

I used them as an infantryman in the early 80s… We had a few Grizzlies in Bosnia as late as 2003-2004, the Engineer Squadron were using them as Engineer section vehicles. There were only 2 or 3 though, all the rest of our vehicles were Coyote or LAV III.

Brian

Glad I decided to renew my TMP membership in anticipation of getting back into the hobby. I'd forgotten about those articles on Canadian Army on Section and Platoon org from my misspent youth. Regarding how GPMG and HMGs were organized in a Mech. Inf Company in 4CMBG during the Cold War this old training aid is good place to start. link