Cross Attachments

[KEYSTONE07950]

If this has been asked before, please forgive me.

Is it possible to create (in US parlance) Task Forces.  ie - 2 panzer companies and 1 pzgren company to make a battalion armor heavy task force.

I'm not sure this was german doctrine as early as July '43.  Would be good to have for DYO scenarios.

Thank you.

[Strela]

If this has been asked before, please forgive me.

Is it possible to create (in US parlance) Task Forces.  ie - 2 panzer companies and 1 pzgren company to make a battalion armor heavy task force.

I'm not sure this was german doctrine as early as July '43.  Would be good to have for DYO scenarios.

Thank you.

Currently this is only available by adjusting the OOB to reflect the organisation you want.

We have discussed with John having the capability to do this but want to be careful before we look at any implementation.

It means the 'corp attach' function would have hundreds of possible configurations and they maybe very confusing for some players.

As most scenarios are less than a day old, adjusting the OOB is sometimes an option. In Normandy we have done exactly that for the Cherbourg scenarios.

David

[KEYSTONE07950]

Thanks for the information. Seems to me a realistic grand tactical treatment of 1943 - 1945 west and east front fighting should include the ability to cross attach units. I have read numerous accounts where the german and US forces task organize almost every engagement. Pure formations almost never went into combat without attached units.

You can tell John that at least one fan of his games would like the "corps attach" function to be expanded.

[Xaver]

This could be a great add to the engine, in general, not only in PzB serie.

Maybe here the point is improve the OOB tree to see it in a "dinamic" way, i refer that if you want create an add-hoc formation see the new unit in OOB with all subunits under it.

This could be interesting to help in PBEM the team games, at least be a first step.

Any way all improvement is allways wellcome.

PD: one thing you can do is add this "dinamic OOB" as optional rule to activate it or not... maybe limit it to single player and in future give it to multiplayer to.

[Strela]

Guys,

Request heard, but also be aware we try and build features that stay within historical norms.

A free for all regarding attachments might have big impacts on balance as well as 'ahistorical' formations.

Mixed formations had to train together for a period of time before they could effectively work together. The Allies in particular were quite poor in this regard and examples of attempts to create ad-hoc formations generally unsuccessful (read a little about the British armour in Operation Bluecoat).

The nice thing with Panzer Battles is that we normally cover discreet battles and usually for a day or less. If we think there was an existing cross attachment that was significant we then model it in the OB. There are a number of these already in Normandy under Kampfgruppe. This is less prevalent for the Allies who due to the number of units available had less need to build scratch units. That's not to say different formations didn't work together but in many case they were not integrated under single commands with appropriate doctrine. Of interest the US 'light' Armored Divisions are set up in Combat Commands while the two heavy's (2nd & 3rd) are in their more traditional regimental order of battle - this is a reflection of the lessons learned in the first 4 - 6 weeks after D-Day.

Later in the war, where there was more emphasis on Task Forces and Combat Commands for the Western Allies there is more likely hood that we build these directly into the OB or potentially adjust the cross attach function. This all an exercise in giving players flexibility where they should have it versus the actual historical norm of the time.

David

[ComradeP]

Well, in some ways typical US divisions were already task forces as their organic TOE included limit kinds of some support assets compared to what they used on the battlefield, as engineer, TD, tank, artillery, recon and AA assets were attached to them whilst technically still being counted as independent units that were temporarily on loan to the division.

This was one of the things that made the US army so adaptable to circumstances, compared to nations with divisions with more divisional support assets but the rest being assigned to corps/army HQ's.

It will be interesting to play with a nation that has a plethora of everything, albeit a mediocre plethora in quality.