World war 2 alternate world political/war RP

[Shepard]

Wait, you put all your best troops into the units that are at most risk of heavy casualties?

Not all best troops. The selection process takes about 1 of 5 of the best soldiers and creates a well populated force capable of performing the harder tasks. 


Imagine it as being the Rangers of an Infantry Division

 

[admiral9]

So... you´re just wasting 20% instead of 100%?
Theres a reason not a single nation used their elite units for frontal assaults anymore after ww1.

 

[Shepard]

So... you´re just wasting 20% instead of 100%?
Theres a reason not a single nation used their elite units for frontal assaults anymore after ww1.

So it wouldn't be okay to have a Ranger Battalion per Division? 


Because from what I've seen and read, having a group capable of performing the more difficult tasks with smaller units could get a division through most hardened defenses. 


If not, the First Cohort is really just a tradition from Ancient Rome where only the centurions were hand picked 


There's always the Praetorians who will come into the picture later. 

 

[Axel The Englishman]

I curious. 

[SIZE= 13px]Well, the Bone Corps (AKA, the 14th Infantry Division), was formerly the previous 3rd Brigade[/SIZE][SIZE= 13px] under the 24th 'Victor's Troop' Infantry Division, before being broken off and reformed after Operation: West Iron in 1933. During this military operation against a hostile rebel insurgency, there was a series of miscommunications between telecommunications experts which resulted in only the 5th and 6th Companies under the 3rd Battallion within this division actually reaching the initial objective. Due to a lack of sufficient manpower to press the main assault against enemy forces, these companies were forced to 'dig in' and establish trench systems in a defensive tactic against enemy forces. There was a total of 500 Labinian infantrymen, whilst the enemy presented a force of 900. There 5th Company eventually withdrew from the area after being ordered the company's Lieutenant Major to regroup with the rest of the 3rd Battallion. After severe rainfall and heavy fog, the enemy launched on attack on the trenches established. When reaching the Trench, the 6th Company was not present and was assumed to have withdrawn along with the 5th Company. The 6th then began launching a series of surprise attacks against hostile personnel with what they could: AT Rifle barrels, 50. Calibre bullets, sharpened shovels, barbed wire, ammunition belts, empty magazines, with some have even being said to have used their own helmets. The 6th Company managed to hold the line for 8 days before the 3rd Battallion moved in to reinforce them. The 3rd Brigade was eventually reformed into the 14th Infantry Division and given the nickname 'Bone Corps' in honour of the 6th Company.[/SIZE]

 

[admiral9]

Well see what the issue is with this idea, its taking what you know "elite units are capable of achieving a breakthrough under specific circumstances" but then in that line of thought you appear to come to the conclusion that they achieve this through frontal assault.


A nice example would be the trappenjagd.


Here the german 11th army was tasked with sieging down Sevastopol and clearing the kerch peninsula of the crimean front which was composed of the 51th and the 44th army, it did this through the application of special formations equiped with river crossing equipment using them to infiltrate behind the soviet lines, in doing this they surprised the soviets and weakened their front lines allowing, after a 10 minute preparatory barrage, for a general assault to overrun the soviets and crush them.


This was only possible because of specific situations.


It was an operation carried out at night.


The enemy had terrible organization and higher level command was not united in the slightest.


Supply was generally not that great on the soviet side


etcetc


What I want to get at is, the use of these units is both situational to the extreme and their usage is generally not for frontal assaults because its a waste of units with a specific skillset.


And arguing every division would have a battalion or company of such "elite" units would require a general devaluing of the quality of these troops.

 

[Shepard]

Well see what the issue is with this idea, its taking what you know "elite units are capable of achieving a breakthrough under specific circumstances" but then in that line of thought you appear to come to the conclusion that they achieve this through frontal assault.


A nice example would be the trappenjagd.


Here the german 11th army was tasked with sieging down Sevastopol and clearing the kerch peninsula of the crimean front which was composed of the 51th and the 44th army, it did this through the application of special formations equiped with river crossing equipment using them to infiltrate behind the soviet lines, in doing this they surprised the soviets and weakened their front lines allowing, after a 10 minute preparatory barrage, for a general assault to overrun the soviets and crush them.


This was only possible because of specific situations.


It was an operation carried out at night.


The enemy had terrible organization and higher level command was not united in the slightest.


Supply was generally not that great on the soviet side


etcetc


What I want to get at is, the use of these units is both situational to the extreme and their usage is generally not for frontal assaults because its a waste of units with a specific skillset.


And arguing every division would have a battalion or company of such "elite" units would require a general devaluing of the quality of these troops.

Okay. I see what you mean. Think of the First Cohort as the ones (in the case of a "special force") tasked with crossing a river at night to secure tow lines or a bridge or wreaking havoc on reinforcements. 


In the "frontal assault", think of it as being the unit tasked with taking the down town of a city or assaulting the physical building of a building like Monte Cassino. 


I can't think of an example but it's like a mix between Rangers and regular Infantry

 

[Cashdash25]

Okay. I see what you mean. Think of the First Cohort as the ones (in the case of a "special force") tasked with crossing a river at night to secure tow lines or a bridge or wreaking havoc on reinforcements. 

So they're light infantry?

In the "frontal assault", think of it as being the unit tasked with taking the down town of a city or assaulting the physical building of a building like Monte Carlo. 

So they're badly outnumbered and under equipped regular infantry?

I can't think of an example but it's like a mix between Rangers and regular Infantry

So they're a military unit with two completely different objectives, training programs and equipment types? That makes up approximately 20% of your military? Dedicated to supposedly elite military forces?


Are you genuinely completely clueless or just hoping everyone else is?


Monte Cassino was taken after extensive, repeated mass assaults against outnumbered defenders by regular infantry forces that took massive casualties in the process over a period of days with extensive artillery and air support bombing the place into ruins. A single battalion sized force at Monte Cassino would have been, killed to a man within minutes, much less a light infantry force with minimal heavy support. What a waste of all that "elite" training of hundreds of soldiers in every Division.

 

[Shepard]

So they're badly outnumbered and under equipped regular infantry?

The 5 double centuries make up 1,000 infantry

So they're a military unit with two completely different objectives, training programs and equipment types? That makes up approximately 20% of your military? Dedicated to supposedly elite military forces?

Everyone goes through the same training. The equipment is the same and they'll usually be given anything that's scenario specific at the time. And they make up 8% of just combat infantry per division. They're just about as "elite" as US Army Airborne in World War 2.

Monte Cassino 

I forgot the name and the kind of building it was. Thanks for the reminder.

A single battalion sized force...with minimal heavy support.

They operate in tandem with the rest of their regiment and most operations will call for the employment of the entire division.

Are you genuinely completely clueless or just hoping everyone else is?

Are you an ass? 


I don't see what the big deal is with having a unit that has more infantry and more combat and being the go-to for anything that can't be done by the whole division at once. 

 

[Shepard]

If it really bugs you that much, they can just be a showy thing based on tradition. 


I mean, ffs, I'm using ANCIENT ROMAN organization structure. You think I give a damn?

 

[Cashdash25]

The 5 double centuries make up 1,000 infantry

Congratulations, you have a tenth of an average sized division's forces dedicated to an elite unit.

Everyone goes through the same training. The equipment is the same and they'll usually be given anything that's scenario specific at the time.

So you're training your entire army to use specialist equipment they may never be issued? Or are you issuing regular infantry equipment they don't have a clue how to use?

And they make up 8% of just combat infantry per division.

1 out of 5 is not 8%.

They're just about as "elite" as US Army Airborne in World War 2.

So not elite at all? Then why compare them to the Rangers in the first place?

They operate in tandem with the rest of their regiment and most operations will call for the employment of the entire division.

That completely ignores the point of having specialist battalions in the first place.

Are you an ass? 

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Yyyyyyyyyeeeeeessssssssssss.

I don't see what the big deal is with having a unit that has more infantry and more combat and being the go-to for anything that can't be done by the whole division at once. 

Because it: A. Exhausts your supply of good, well-trained troops the instant a difficult enemy entrenchment comes up by throwing them into a meat-grinder better filled with conscripts, B. Ties units that would otherwise be operating independently behind enemy lines to your regular command structure, limiting their actual ability to function as a specialist unit, C. Ignores why these kinds of units exist to begin with, D. Ignores why these units get the training that they do, and E. Devalues the units in question, either by reducing them to regular infantry or by raising the rest of their unit to the same level as them, neither of which is realistically achievable on any usable level.

If it really bugs you that much, they can just be a showy thing based on tradition. 


I mean, ffs, I'm using ANCIENT ROMAN organization structure. You think I give a damn?

I don't give a rip how much you care, I care, because as the seemingly self-appointed combat moderator of the game, I expect you to understand basic concepts of period combat, such as the employment of specialized troops for operations like Trappenjagd.

 

[Shepard]

elite unit.

Let's just not use this term because clearly, this conversation has been clusterfucked by this term.

So you're training your entire army to use specialist equipment they may never be issued? Or are you issuing regular infantry equipment they don't have a clue how to use?

I never said there would be a difference in equipment other than if a specific situation called for specific equipment, the First Cohort will have it - that equipment being nothing more than probably satchel charges, river boats (small ones), ladders and rope, maybe?

1 out of 5 is not 8%.

1 out of 5 of the experienced or high performing would be sent to be NCOs or COs in the First Cohort. The other 80% of experienced or high performing group would stay.

So not elite at all? Then why compare them to the Rangers in the first place?

Again, elite doesn't belong in this conversation any more because its only clusterfucked this.

That completely ignores the point of having specialist battalions in the first place.

B. Ties units that would otherwise be operating independently behind enemy lines to your regular command structure, limiting their actual ability to function as a specialist unit, C. Ignores why these kinds of units exist to begin with,

What do you mean by "Specialist battalions"? And what I meant by that was that any offensive action would occur with support of at least the regiment. And I'll admit that Rangers were a bad comparison. 

D. Ignores why these units get the training that they do, and E. Devalues the units in question, either by reducing them to regular infantry or by raising the rest of their unit to the same level as them, neither of which is realistically achievable on any usable level.

Again, they're the same people with the same training. 

seemingly self-appointed combat moderator of the game, I expect you to understand basic concepts of period combat, such as the employment of specialized troops for operations like Trappenjagd.

1) I am because I asked Tahana. 2)This will be my fifth time doing so and I always have a chat room open for those wishing to appeal.


I'm making the First Cohort cosmetic because anything they do will be considered simple tactics anyway and differences in training are going to be evaluated on the division level anyway. 

 

[Cashdash25]

Let's just not use this term because clearly, this conversation has been clusterfucked by this term.

Backpedal much?

I never said there would be a difference in equipment other than if a specific situation called for specific equipment, the First Cohort will have it - that equipment being nothing more than probably satchel charges, river boats (small ones), ladders and rope, maybe?

Light infantry, such as the Rangers, have a fundamentally different equipment set compared to regular infantry as suits their differing roles. Light infantry tend to have substantially less organic artillery, heavy weapons and armor and superior training in stealth, reconnaissance and fieldcraft, as befits their role as more mobile support forces. Throwing light infantry forces into an assault on a defended position is basically suicide by hostile forces.

1 out of 5 of the experienced or high performing would be sent to be NCOs or COs in the First Cohort. The other 80% of experienced or high performing group would stay.

That's still 20% of the troops in question.

What do you mean by "Specialist battalions"?

A battalion sized force used for special operations you wouldn't typically use regular troops for, like, for example, 1st Ranger Battalion. They typically operate as independent forces to grant them the mobility, both literal and metaphorical, necessary to do their job.

And I'll admit that Rangers were a bad comparison. 

Not so much 'bad' as 'completely inaccurate'.

Again, they're the same people with the same training. 

So there's nothing special about them outside of dubious prestige?

1) I am because I asked Tahana.

That's the same thing really.

2)This will be my fifth time doing so and I always have a chat room open for those wishing to appeal.

That does not change the inherent conflict of interest present.

I'm making the First Cohort cosmetic because anything they do will be considered simple tactics anyway and differences in training are going to be evaluated on the division level anyway. 

Meh, fair enough.

 

[Shepard]

Backpedal much?


Light infantry, such as the Rangers, have a fundamentally different equipment set compared to regular infantry as suits their differing roles. Light infantry tend to have substantially less organic artillery, heavy weapons and armor and superior training in stealth, reconnaissance and fieldcraft, as befits their role as more mobile support forces. Throwing light infantry forces into an assault on a defended position is basically suicide by hostile forces.


That's still 20% of the troops in question.


A battalion sized force used for special operations you wouldn't typically use regular troops for, like, for example, 1st Ranger Battalion. They typically operate as independent forces to grant them the mobility, both literal and metaphorical, necessary to do their job.


Not so much 'bad' as 'completely inaccurate'.


So there's nothing special about them outside of dubious prestige?


That's the same thing really.


That does not change the inherent conflict of interest present.


Meh, fair enough.

The only difference is that First Cohort is all volunteer. That's what I should've said when I said that they are as "elite" as US Army Airborne. Bad explanation on my part. 

 

[Axel The Englishman]

This was more salty than the chips they serve at McDonald's.

 

[Best Trekkie.]

The Biggest threat I have is basically a Renault light tank but without the turret and instead a 10mm gun shield protecting the massive 47mm anti -tank gun and crew slapped on top.


In other words The FTAC>

 

[Axel The Englishman]

The Biggest threat I have is basically a Renault light tank but without the turret and instead a 10mm gun shield protecting the massive 47mm anti -tank gun and crew slapped on top.


In other words The FTAC>

What, couldn't your biggest threat just be easily countered with... Aircraft?

 

[Best Trekkie.]

well I do have 100mm flak emplacements

 

[Moldie]

This got way out of my hands, turned into something I don't really want to be a part of.

 

[Shepard]

This got way out of my hands, turned into something I don't really want to be a part of.

As in you're leaving the RP or not moderating?

 

[Axel The Englishman]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

 

[Moldie]

As in you're leaving the RP or not moderating?

I honestly don't know.

 

[Best Trekkie.]

plz don't leave!

 

[Shepard]

I honestly don't know.

We can help you if that's what you need. You've got a great RP idea here and plenty of people interested in playing it.

 

[General Deth Glitch]

Hello. Is there still space on this fun looking ride?

 

[KAmber]

NOOOOOOOO!


oh wait sorry @General Deth Glitch i did'nt mean you.