CT Only: Military unit structure

[aramis]

The basic late 17th/early 18th century unit types were

Cavalry
Dragoon/Mounted Infantry
Infantry
Artillery
Engineers
Marines

Cavalry fought from horseback on war-trained horse. Lances, Carbines, and swords

Dragoons were originally infantry with riding horses for travel, and swords and pistols. Later became a subset of cavalry instead of infantry.

Infantry fought and travelled on foot. Rifles and bayonets.

Artillery - cannons and rockets. Usually horse drawn. Later, gatling guns were added.

Engineers - guys trained to build field fortifications and equipped to do so. Wagons and foot. Armed as infantry.

Marines - guys trained specifically to fight aboard and defend ships. NOT ship's crew.

Pretty much everything else in period is one of these... with special training or elite status.

Naval Infantry needs a mention: it was common for ship crews to dismount and fight ashore - the marines aboard, if any, formed the core of the naval infantry, but the bulk were sailors, not marines.

 

[mike wightman]

Grenadiers...

 

[vegas]

Thanks aramis.

That is not dissimilar in armament to the Striker IM Grav APC with a pulse fusion Y gun and a tac missile launcher, so I would assume the functional differences are that the platoon CO is sitting there, and it has better comms equipment for battle management and ordering strikes from support artillery/ortillery

 

[Condottiere]

Regiments were supposed to have specialist troops, the Grenadiers happened to be the best throwers of aerodynamically designed hand held explosives, and later the biggest guys assigned for that assault role.

At the other end, you have the best shots, and probably the sneakiest gits, who get to the usual screening and reconnaissance jobs, assigned as light troops.

Army commanders liked to mass the component grenadier companies, for the obvious reason; at some point, it just made sense to create grenadier regiments, same for the light troops, instead of constantly borrowing them from their probably annoyed commanders.

Panzer grenadiers were mechanized German troops that could keep up with the armoured spearheads.

 

[aramis]

Grenadiers...

Grenadiers are pretty much just infantry. Move on foot, fight on foot.

 

[McPerth]

Regiments were supposed to have specialist troops, the Grenadiers happened to be the best throwers of aerodynamically designed hand held explosives, and later the biggest guys assigned for that assault role.

At the other end, you have the best shots, and probably the sneakiest gits, who get to the usual screening and reconnaissance jobs, assigned as light troops.

Most battalions in late XVIII to Early XIX centuries (so to say, from 7 Years War to Napoleonic wars) those were the flank companies: Light and Grenadiers.

In combat, moslty when in column, the Light ones usually skirmished before tha main body, while the Grenadiers, in many cases, were on the rear of the column to stop stagglers and deserters and to keep the rest of the battalion in line.

Army commanders liked to mass the component grenadier companies, for the obvious reason; at some point, it just made sense to create grenadier regiments, same for the light troops, instead of constantly borrowing them from their probably annoyed commanders.

In many cases, those Grenadier and Light units (usually up to battalion in size) were ad hoc ones formed with the companies of several battalions...

Panzer grenadiers were mechanized German troops that could keep up with the armoured spearheads.

In WWII most German infantry units were told as Grenadiers, be them Volksgrenadier (foot or semi-motorized infantry) or PanzerGrenadiers. This did not mean any special elite or semi-elite status that they had before.

 

[mike wightman]

Grenadiers are pretty much just infantry. Move on foot, fight on foot.

I would argue that if marine warrants a distinction so do grenadiers

More seriously, I mentioned grenadiers because they were a new troop type for the era, whose name is still used , but whose role has disappeared.

There could be, in the future, names given to troop formations that are based on some ancestral role.

 

[jec10]

Thanks aramis.

That is not dissimilar in armament to the Striker IM Grav APC with a pulse fusion Y gun and a tac missile launcher, so I would assume the functional differences are that the platoon CO is sitting there, and it has better comms equipment for battle management and ordering strikes from support artillery/ortillery

It is also mentioned in CT/Spinward Marches Campaign and the original JTAS article about the 4518th.

On page 41 of CT/SMC it is described thus: "the fire support APC (in lift cavalry sections) carries superstructure racks of fire and forget missiles and a VRF gauss gun; it serves as a base of fire for the highly manoeuvrable lift cavalry elements of the regiment". That page mentions that the platoon command variant has better comms, etc.

Remember that the classic Imperial Army Grav APC (first introduced in Adventure 1, and also assigned to the 4518th according to canon) has no gun, it is only armed with tac missiles. So the fire support APC adds the gun and gives a lift infantry platoon something more than missiles for support.

In Regency Combat Vehicle Guide, Dave wrote a little colour text: "The Imperial APC is armed entirely with missiles, a fact that makes some crew members unhappy...The heavy missile magazine launcher is identical to that fitted on the Marine Grav APC family, but the Army APC does not carry as many reloads in the hull, instead making space for a much larger infantry section..."

"During the Imperial era, the Fire Support APC was originally used as a command vehicle at the platoon, company and battalion level..."

 

[Condottiere]

Dragoons apparently got their name from dragon, since their fire-arm, was a fire-arm.

Fusiliers were an elite unit because their advanced fire-arms were considerably less fiery, and could be assigned to protect the artillery. Anachronistically, some armies had them as default infantry.

Given their pop culture status, if the Bourbons dynasty continued, you might have had the King's Musketeers resurrected as one of the Royal bodyguard regiments.

Until recently, the Swiss had a Grenadier company attached to each regiment, though their role was a combination of combat engineers combined with heavy assault troops, in actuality, in war they would be the Triarii covering the withdrawal of the rest of the regiment.

 

[aramis]

I would argue that if marine warrants a distinction so do grenadiers

More seriously, I mentioned grenadiers because they were a new troop type for the era, whose name is still used , but whose role has disappeared.

There could be, in the future, names given to troop formations that are based on some ancestral role.

US Marines weren't actually trained for land fighting until the until the Civil War (mid 19th C). They were trained to fight in and on ship, and on the docks while the ship was parked. That they became the spearhead of the Naval Infantry is a great irony - it's exactly NOT what they were formed to do. (The USMC was initially created to defend the ships.)

The grenadiers units often weren't actually grenadiers (guys with grenades), but merely infantry or dragoons... It was, mostly, meaningless as to how they moved and how they fought.

It's also worth noting that by the mid 19th C (USCW era), the term Dragoon was morphing into "Cavalry Scout" instead of "Mounted Infantry" in many places, and "Underpaid Cavalry" in the UK.

 

[Condottiere]

Apparently, because size and strength helped determine ballistic qualities, grenadiers tended to be the biggest and strongest guys in the unit; at some point a light bulb lit up and they became the default storm troopers.

Since austerity isn't a modern concept, someone cynically redesignated a lot of cavalry as dragoons, whose role is mounted infantry, at those lesser pay rates. They were compensated with getting a royal designation.

 

[Condottiere]

I think we can agree that Lift would be a generic term for infantry units using a particular form of organic transport, which somewhat dictates how they are utilized in combat.

If it's not an anachronistic term by then, using the descriptive Foot means that that unit has no form of organic transport, except what's God given.

 

[Selandia]

I think we can agree that Lift would be a generic term for infantry units using a particular form of organic transport, which somewhat dictates how they are utilized in combat.

If it's not an anachronistic term by then, using the descriptive Foot means that that unit has no form of organic transport, except what's God given.

Agrees, after TL and wealth will change the basic practical understanding of the generic term "Infantry" and notation from "particular positive": Motorized, because not all infantry are Motorized to "particular negative" Foot because it would be construed Motorized without saying so otherwise; even if feet are the ultimate organic tranport.

On grenadier, a fine example of an evolving meaning "frozen" between death and resurection. The grenade throwing infantrymen in Imperial troops in WWI were called "bombers" (check the Mills bomb model 36) Because the term Grenadier acquired "Elite" meaning in the days of the cast iron grenade. When the hand thrown shell was resurected in WWI the Grenadier regiments (some Gen proudly boasting of service in Grenadier units) pressured GHQ to have the new meaning of the old preserved from cheapeaning by resurection of the old.

have fun

Selandia

 

[Condottiere]

The British had Horse Grenadier Guards, which emphasized size, and I guess being able to stay on the horse, while being shocking. The Swiss elite force used to be Paratroop Grenadiers.

If you think it isn't possible to be more elite, adding Grenadier to the unit title would dispute this.

Nowadays, grenadier is a role.

Though there are enough people in the galaxy, that you could create units with a strength nine, six foot requirement.

 

[Condottiere]

Infantry units can have historical or current official descriptors, or nicknames, of the principal weapon they are issued with.

. Handgunners
. Arquebusiers
. Matchlockers
. Musketeers
. Fusiliers
. Flintlockers
. Rifles

. Dragoons
. Carbineers

In the future, you could have:

. Lazeers
. Gaussers
. Rocketeers
. Fusioneers

 

[kilemall]

Given the Striker power of the ubiquitous RAM GL, grenadier could have a whole new far future lease on a functional naming scheme.

 

[Condottiere]

For units specializing boarding action and reaction:

Shotgunners
Pistoleros

I think that at a higher technology level, the ammunition can become more effective and explosive, and spaceships can become mazes.

While you may want to perforate the opposition, you may want to do so without too much collateral damage.

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

other futuristic options:

EVA troops: in a mid tech/early stellar culture, Vacc suit trained troops would be a elite, given the complexity of modern and near future space suits, same as Paratroopers were.

Drop troops: Orbital intsertion. the ultimate extension of the paratroop idea.