"Italian Platoon Tactics" Topic

How did the italians use their 2 section platoons (2x10 men, MG section with 2 x 2 MG)

Thanks

Brief description I read was they were very thoroughly trained to have the "fire team" and the "maneuver team". It's a good trick, but it's dangerous to rely on just one trick.

The 15 man squadras in the Beraglieri and Alpini broke down into a 5 man LMG group (gruppo mitragliatori) under the caporale and a 8 man Rifle group (gruppo fucilieri) under the sergente for the squadra. The 20 man groups in the Fucilieri regiments broke down into a 9 man gruppo mitragliatori commanded by a 'corporal major' with 2 LMGs ('machine rifles') and an 10 man fucilieri group. The whole squadra was commanded by a Suttofficiale.

Infantry manual: note paragraphs 221-222
link

Excellent find BBob!

For those who have not yet looked -- the paragraphs he suggests are in the section on ATTACK. This is followed by the section on RESISTANCE (ie: DEFENSE). There are also sections on reconnaissance, and on administration, etc.

Really very useful to those of us who have wondered how oddly sized and organized Italian infantry formations were expected/trained to fight.

Many thanks for the link.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

The Italian WW2 platoon is organised very similarly to many late WW1 ones (with two LMGs), and as noted above, essentially you end up with two LMG groups and two rifle groups.

The Italian WW2 platoon is organised very similarly to many late WW1 ones…

I had thought, for many years, that the Italian rifle regiment's platoon structure was a left-over, an archaic organization from WW1.

But my more recent readings have indicated that it was only adopted in the years leading up to WW2 -- that it was a result of recent (at that time) re-thinking of infantry tactics.

For those who are not up on the topic, the platoons of the rifle regiments of the Italian army were organized into 2 squads. Each squad had a rifle group and an LMG ("f.m.") group. The squads were large, about 20 men. So each group was about 10 men. The rifle group of the squad had nothing but rifles, the LMG group had 2 LMGs (the dreadful Breda Modello 30).

… essentially you end up with two LMG groups and two rifle groups.

Yes, you ended up with 2 LMG groups and 2 rifle groups. But did they fight as 4 elements? Did they fight as 2 elements -- 1 element with LMGs and another with rifles? Or did they fight as 2 elements -- each with LMGs + Rifles? It may, in fact, turn out to be the way the Italians actually fought was as if it was four elements, or as if it was a large LMG element and a large rifle element. It's hard for me to say, as I have found very little in the way of first hand accounts of small-unit tactics from Italian soldiers of the period.

But it appears that the training, at least, focused on the workings of the squad for establishing it's own base-of-fire vs. maneuver elements. And so the platoon fought as 2 elements -- 2 squads.

From the training manual in the link (translated using deepl, which I find does better than google):

221. – As long as possible, the squad moves forward, with broad swings, without firing, facilitated by artillery fire and accompanying weapons. When, in order to advance, it is necessary to use weapons, the f. m. [ie: the LMGs -Mk1] enter into action. ….

223. – In the face of an inactive enemy reaction, it may be agreed that the coordination of movement and fire takes place within the platoon.

In such a case, one squad fires with its machine gun group, the other advances.

There is no mention in the training manual of the LMG sections of the two squads joining together to provide a base of fire. Nor is there mention of the platoon operating as 4 coordinated elements. I might have anticipated these, based on the structure, but it was evidently not part of the doctrine.

Instead the doctrine seems to have been very much squad oriented. Squads could act independently, each providing its own base of fire and maneuver elements, or one squad provided a base of fire for the other squad. But there is no mention of the LMG groups of the two squads providing a coordinated base of fire for the rifle groups of the two squads to maneuver.

Once again my thanks to Buckeye for a good find. Interesting stuff.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

So I could operate the 4 MGs as 2 pairs under the sergeant, with the Officer leading the 2 rifle teams in under covering fire?

There will only be 2 or 3 battles on Sicily against the Italians. Its not so much a 1v1 campaign, more Sunjester leading a British Company in platoon/Company battles 1943-45 with me 'GM'ing it.

So I could operate the 4 MGs as 2 pairs under the sergeant, with the Officer leading the 2 rifle teams in under covering fire?

This was what I had assumed, but this is specifically what is NOT present in the training manual linked to above.

This provides a picture of the platoon organization.

There are two squads ("squadra"). Each squad has two groups. Within the squad there is one group with two LMG teams, and another group comprised only of riflemen.

There is NO mention in the training manual of combining the LMG groups of both squads to form a base of fire for the platoon.

There is only mention of:

1) The LMG group of the squad forming a base of fire while the rifle group of the squad advances

--OR--

2) One squad forming a base of fire while the other squad advances. In this case the manual specifically highlights using the LMGs to form this base of fire for the other squad. But there is no mention of combining the LMGs of both squads under one combat leader, or having the rifle groups of both squads advance together.

If they actually stayed to this doctrine in combat I can not say. But this is what the training manual linked to above says.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I was gifted a copy of the Squad manual "Le Squadre Della Fanteria" dated 1943, with no month.

It does indeed only refer to the Squad in terms of the MG Group and the Rifle Group. In 'fila' the Squad commander was to lead, with the MG Group following him and the Rifle Group behind it, the 2-in-C being the last man. When in 'spiegata', spread (or possibly skirmish?) the whole MG Group was to flank on one or other side of the Rifle Group, but not split up.

We know that field modifications are universal so I'd never say never, certainly the 'book' did not perceive of the two MG Groups being combined to form a base of fire.

When the Italian Combat Groups were formed in Italy in late 1944, the British issued the War Establishments for them. The Rifle Platoon still consisted of two Rifle Squads, each now with seven riflemen in the Rifle Section and 11 men in the LMG Section. The LMG allocation looks to have been doubled – "…and a LMG Section of 11 men and 4 LMGs". Frustratingly the Italian Combat Group WEs don't include any detail of weapons, either personal or crew served. From the way it's written I'd have to assume it means four Bren guns for the LMG Section of 11 men, so eight for the Platoon. Platoon HQ also add a 2-in mortar detachment in this model.

Gary

Gary: in context, 'spiegata' naturally does mean 'spread out'.

'Spiegare' (the infinitive) is to 'unfold' or (same word) 'deploy'. Also in more common usage, to 'explain'.

Ah, I misunderstood Google's ropey translation.

@Mark has it correct. There were two squads in a platoon, each of two groups. They were trained to have the LMG group lay down covering fire, while the Rifle group advanced. Then they would hold the fort, while their LMG group caught up. And then do it all over again.

The two squads did not normally train to coordinate their efforts. The CO gave the orders, the squads carried them out. The two LMG groups did not train to join up, under a single leader, nor did the two Riflemen groups joined up to form an even larger mob of men.

Command and control would have been a nightmare.

The layout shown by Mike is the 38-Man 1939-Mid 1941 Platoon TOE. From Mid 1941-1943 the squad grew to 42 men, with each rifle group gaining two more soldiers. So the LMG group still had 9 men, and the rifle group now had 11 men.

Could they have done so in combat? Of course. Were they trained to do so? Not according to all my notes.

My opponent felt I'd made the Italians too co-ordinated.

I have card activation, one card per section. Thats fine for Brits and germans – 2x infantry base, 1 MG. He felt the Italians getting 3x Rifle and 2xMG was a bit excessive, and that the MGs should be on their own card.

Thoughts?

Additionally I was allowing the Italian MGs to be part of the close assault. I know this did happen with British and German, but he was of the opinion the Italians wouldn't do this – SG says similar above.

I have card activation, one card per section.

I guess the first question I have is what definition of "section" do you use?

In the Italian vernacular there seems to be squad and group. No reference to anything called a section.

Thats fine for Brits and germans – 2x infantry base, 1 MG.

From this I might infer that you use the term section in reference to a component of the squad. As perhaps the term "fire team" is used today in the US Army vernacular. So by this, do I infer that a British squad would be comprised of 3 sections -- two with rifles and one with LMG?

Italians getting 3x Rifle and 2xMG was a bit excessive…

How did we get to 3 rifle sections?

Part of the problem is that the Italian organization just doesn't fit neatly into a form that was developed for other nations' doctrine. The riflemen in the squad … all 9 of them in the 1939 platoon, and all 11 of them in the later mid-war platoon, did not divide into fire teams or sections. They worked together as one large fire team or one large section.

And while the two LMG teams are shown on the diagram I posted as being separate, it appears that they too worked as one fire team or section with 2 LMGs. There is no indication that they were trained or expected to operate on separate targets or in separate locations, and they only had one leader between the two. So one section.

How you manage that in the rules is a bit of a challenge, I expect.

I was allowing the Italian MGs to be part of the close assault. I know this did happen with British and German, but he was of the opinion the Italians wouldn't do this …

The Breda LMG was uniquely un-qualified to serve in the assault. It had no handles of any sort. Not even a wooden foregrip. The gunner had to put hands on the hot barrel to carry it, or had to leverage it up and balance it by holding the bipod, which might work while displacing and re-locating but was not useful for firing the gun from the hip or shoulder.

Also the gunner was almost helpless to reload the gun. Loading was a two-handed job that required someone else to hold the gun steady. The magazine, which projected from the right side, only held 20 rounds (not much when you fire full auto). It was NOT detachable. Rather it hinged forward, and had to be loaded by a charging strip (similar to the strippers for rifles but larger, although I believe it could also be reloaded with 4 rifle strippers).

Going into the assault with an LMG that can't be held properly, only holds 20 rounds, and can't be reloaded without someone else coming along to help does not inspire me as being very productive. Better to sit back and continue providing some measure of covering fire.

Brens and BARs would have been far more useful in that role. MG-34s or -42s might also serve, although in a limited fashion relative to their superior capabilities when emplaced.

All per my readings and understandings. Never trained to fight with any of them. Your mileage may vary.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

From this I might infer that you use the term section in reference to a component of the squad. As perhaps the term "fire team" is used today in the US Army vernacular. So by this, do I infer that a British squad would be comprised of 3 sections -- two with rifles and one with LMG?

Last Hussar's description could be more explicit, but considering that he is Brit I would presume that in his rules the game term "section" refers to an actual section (in WWII context, full strenght British army rifle section consisted of around 10 men and could be split into a rifle group and MG group). Apparently in his rules such unit is represented on the table with three bases (each thus representing 3-4 men), which are all activated together on a single card.

Unfortunately, while the sensible chaps from the rest of the Commonwealth roughly followed the British structure, actual Johnny Foreigner armies used all sorts of organisations and terminologies to confuse future game designers.

Unfortunately, we do not have much information about Last Hussar's card activation mechanisms, which makes it difficult to comment on how to represent the Italian "squadra" in an interesting manner. I think it depends on whether each side has a separate deck, or both sides cards are in the same deck.

Assuming that the Italians have their own deck, I could think of the following alternatives:

1.) For each squadra there are two activation cards, one for the MG element(s) and second for the rifle elements.

2.) For each squadra there is an actual activation card, which activates both the MG and rifle elements simultaneously, and a "Mamma mia!" card on which nothing happens (other than leaders running around shouting loudly and waving their arms trying to coordinate the squadra, while nothing actually happens).

3.) For each squadra there is one activation card, and when it is drawn the player can choose to activate either the MG element(s) or rifle elements. However, when it comes time to draw the next card, the player gets to skip drawing a new card and instead has to activate the other half of the squadra that has not yet acted this turn.

I guess it depends on whether the Italians should come with a special flavour of some sort.

Apologies – I am a well known idiot of this parish. I've been working so much on these I fell into jargon.

Section as in the British Section- basically the rifles with their MG – 2-4 (depending on nation) to a Platoon. 1 base is 2-4 men. SO a British 8-10 man section is 2 rifle bases and 1 MG.

That group of bases gets an activation card, plus one for each leader in a platoon – for the British that would be the Lt, and platoon Sgt. The scouts (1 base) get their own card, as well as activating on the Lt card, even if not in command range (to simulate their more proactive approach.)

The difference to other card activation rules I've played (eg IABSM) is you can activate twice – once on the leader card and once on your own. Only leaders can order a Close assault, and I'm looking at leader ordered fire action to be more focused.

The italian platoon has 2 leaders (Lt and Sgt) plus 2 sections/squads – each of 3 rifle bases and 2 MG.

The difference to other card activation rules I've played (eg IABSM) is you can activate twice – once on the leader card and once on your own.

I think I have seen similar concept in the Face of Battle rules, though on those rules the cards activated single models rather than squads, and also junior NCOs could get leader cards.

I presume that in your rules a leader card allows you to activate the leader and one unit of your choise in his platoon? In this case Italians getting to activate a whole squadra with a single leader card would make them quite powerful, as with two leaders and two squadras per platoon they would get to activate each squadra twice (once on unit card, once on leader card). I would suggest either splitting each squadra into two units for activation purposes, or reducing the number of leader cards per Italian platoon.

OK now with a working model of what was meant by the vocabulary…

You may notice in the Italian platoon structure that each squad (which would be out-sized "sections" in Brit-speak) has in fact 2 NCOs -- the squad leader and the squad vice-leader. This provides one combat leader for each group within the squad.

So you might wish to treat the Italian squad as being in fact 2 sections per your rules. Now you have two cards -- one for the rifle group and one for the LMG group. The rifle group could be 2 or 3 stands … however you want to do it. There is no parallel in the Italian doctrine -- they had no smaller team sub-groupings within the rifle group that I can find in the manuals. But if you need to put the men on stands of less than 9 – 11 men, then sure, put them on three stands of 3 or 4 each, all with one activation. Then the LMG group could be divided into two stands, with a separate card due to the separate NCO.

At least that would make sense to me. Not that I speak for your rules. Just trying to figure out how to force a square squad into a round game structure.

My preferred rules use squad-based ("section" in Brit-speak) infantry. Typically one stand is 8-12 men with one or two LMGs. Again, the structure of the Italian infantry is hard to fit. I have done my infantry as one rifles-only squad and two LMG support teams (half-squads). I am pretty well convinced by this thread that I should instead have them based as one squad with only rifles, and one squad with rifles and 2 LMGs. But I have not yet taken any steps to re-base them, in part because the rules don't provide for a dual-LMG squad in the Italian equipment tables. (And in part because jeeezus I just got the unit finished and I'm gonna have to re-base it already?!?!)

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Thanks for replying G-B.

A unit is usually a single section/Squad made up of 2-5 bases: so a Britsh Section of 2 rifle bases and 1 LMG. When it turns its card, all the bases in it can activate, and each do a different thing, subject to limitations – e.g the 2 rifle bases in a British section must always stay in contact with each other, so if one moves they must both move together – if a base is pinned or suppressed then it can't move, which would tie the other base to not moving.

When a leader activates he can give 2 orders, or move once and order once. Now, I'm not sure how well I will explain this, so bear with.

An ordered base must be within a base width (about 6m) of the leader, but the whole unit can do that, as long as they are 'in command' with that leader. To be in command the base must be within a BW of a leader in its direct chain of command OR be in a BW of a base in the same unit that is also in c-o-c. Thus base 'A' is in command as it is near the Leader. Base B isn't in a BW of the leader, but it is a BW of base A, and so is in command. If base C is also in the same unit, and in BW of B, it is in command, and thus can fire. Think of it as the junior Non-Coms passing the boss's order along to the men.

The important thing here is the Leader DOESN'T activate the unit like its own card would, but he gives an order, or 2. This means if he wants to, say, have the Bren Fire, then move the rifles this is 2 orders, even if they are in the same Unit he must be in a position to give 2 orders, thus be a BW from the Bren to say 'Fire', AND a BW of one of the Rifles to say 'Move' as the 2nd order if he is at the other end of the line to the LMG he can't communicate what he wants easily.

One of the happy effects of the way I've written the rules is leaders become incredibly important; not only do they bring the chance of a unit firing up to 75% from 50%, but there is a 1 in 4 chance that unit will act twice. They are the only way a unit can Close Assault – a Unit must be ordered in – they can't do it on their own initiative. Plus 'Out of command' is -1 on a rally roll (all dice are d6), and Near (ie a BW) gives you +1. This means having your leaders in the right place becomes important – the Lt and Sgt need to be visible. Apparently proportionate to numbers Lieutenants suffered the highest number of casualties in the British army during the war: They lead by example.