18th Cav Squadron deployment in the Losheim Gap

Discussion in 'Command Ops Series' started by Keydet, Sep 19, 2017.

  1. Keydet

    Keydet Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    13
    Have been curious for a long time about the deployment of the Cav platoons in the Gap for Battle of the Bulge Dec 16 scenarios.

    Cole and other sources describe the platoons as having dismounted their weapons from the vehicles and positioned the mg's in static defenses, Why do we have the units intact and mobile? Seems the vehicles should have been a separate unit manned only by drivers and track commanders for the armored cars. And deployed at the western end of the defended villages/strong points.

    Was their a discussion on this way back when?.
     
  2. simovitch

    simovitch Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    574
    Likes Received:
    37
    Paul,
    It was our understanding that the fire algorithms abstractly represented dismounted fire for stationary mobile units. We also figured that making some additional estabs to represent the dismounted cav units would cause confusion to scenario designers and have little or no impact on the game. So we chose the regulation TO&E's for the cav units. We created dismounted infantry and pzgr simply to allow them the ability to enter woods, or to represent the situation later in the campaign where the germans did not have enough fuel to motorize their pzgr, like the 9SS at St. Vith.

    The beauty of KOAD estabs is that it allows you can be completely independent of the BFTB estab development...
     
  3. Keydet

    Keydet Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    13
    seems reasonable for mech or motorized units. Think it is a different matter for US recon. Especially the 18th Cav in Dec 44. The platoons in the FEBA had been there for almost two months. Cole says they and their mg's were dismounted and implies well entrenched. Remounting the vehicle would not have been an easy matter. These units were as fixed as any straight leg outfit.
     
  4. Keydet

    Keydet Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    13
    Thats what i think I will do.
     
  5. jimcarravallah

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2014
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    54
    I had a similar issue when I did my experimental Saipan scenario under CO1.

    The landing forces included foot troops on LVT transports vehicles designed to provide initial fire support as the troops they carried deployed to safe terrain.

    To emulate the sequential landings, my shore troops appeared in the same location as the armed LVTs allowing the vehicles that "transported" them ashore to operate independently of the fire teams that were offloaded to seize the shoreline.

    I would have preferred a dismounted troop capability, where the vehicle could move independently with the troops aboard, and then separate into two independently maneuverable units once ashore, but that wasn't in the cards, and what I did was the best work around.
     

Share This Page