Detailed Organization, American Mountain Infantry Regiment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Detailed Organization American Mountain Infantry Regiment Mountain Infantry Heavy Weapons Company 1 April 1942 Table of Organization 7-138 Company Headquarters 1 Captain (1 .30 cal M1 carbine & 1 riding horse) 1 1st Lieutenant (1 .30 cal M1 carbine & 1 riding horse) 1 1st Sergeant (1 .30 cal M1 carbine & 1 riding horse) 1 Staff Sergeant (mess)(1 .30 cal M1 carbine) 1 Sergeant (reconnaissance & signal) (1 .30 cal M1 rifle & 1 riding horse) 1 Sergeant (stable & packmaster )(1 .30 cal M1 carbine & 1 riding mule) 1 Sergeant (supply)(1 .30 cal M1903 rifle) 1 Corporal (company clerk)(1 .30 cal M1 rifle) 13 Privates 1 Armorer-artificier (1 .30 cal M1903 rifle) 1 Bugler (1 .30 cal M1 rifle & 1 riding horse) 2 Cooks (2 .30 cal M1 rifles) 2 Cook's Helpers (2 .30 cal M1 rifles) 1 Horseshoer (1 .30 cal M1 rifle & 1 pack mule) 2 Messengers (2 .30 cal M1 rifles) 1 Orderly (1 .30 cal M1 rifle & 1 riding horse) 1 Saddler (1 .30 cal M1 rifle & 1 pack mule) 2 Basics (2 .30 cal M1 rifles) Light Machine Gun Platoon: Platoon Headquarters 1 2nd Lieutenant (1 .30 cal M1 carbine & 1 riding horse) 1 Staff Sergeant (platoon)(1 .30 cal M1 rifle) 1 Corporal (agent & instrument)(1 .30 cal M1 rifle) 1 Corporal (animal transport)(1 .30 cal M1 rifle) 2 Privates (basics)(2 .30 cal M1 rifles) 2 Squads, each with: 1 Corporal (squad leader/machine gunner) (1 .45 cal M1911 pistol & 1 .30 cal LMG) 10 Privates 4 Ammunition Bearers ( .30 cal M1 carbines) 1 Gunner (1 .30 cal LMG & 1 .45 cal M1911 pistol) 2 Assistant Gunners ( .45 cal M1911 pistols) 3 Pack Animal Leaders (3 .30 cal M1 carbines & 3 pack mules) 81mm Mortar Platoon: Platoon Headquarters 1 1st Lieutenant (1 .30 cal M1 carbine & 1 riding horse) 1 Staff Sergeant (platoon)(1 .30 cal M1903 rifle) 1 Corporal (agent & instrument)(1 .30 cal M1 rifle) 1 Private (messenger)(1 .30 cal M1 rifle) 3 Squads, each with: 1 Corporal (squad leader)(1 .30 cal M1 rifle) 8 Privates 2 Ammunition Bearers (2 .30 cal M1 rifles) 1 Gunner (1 .45 cal M1911 pistol & 1 81mm mortar) 1 Assistant Gunner (1 .45 cal M1911 pistol) 1 4 Pack Animal Leaders (4 .30 cal M1 carbines & 4 pack mules) Total Equipment: 56 .30 cal M1 carbines, 4 .30 cal LMGs, 6 81mm mortars, 20 .45 cal M1911 pistols, 35 .30 cal M1 rifles, 5 .30 cal M1903 rifles, 41 animals (8 riding horses & 33 pack mules) Source: US TO&E Documentation obtained at US Army Historical Center, Carlisle Barracks, PA Copyright GFN 1999 2 .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

The United States Atomic Army, 1956-1960 Dissertation
INTIMIDATING THE WORLD: THE UNITED STATES ATOMIC ARMY, 1956-1960 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Paul C. Jussel, B.A., M.M.A.S., M.S.S. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2004 Dissertation Committee Approved by Professor Allan R. Millett, Advisor Professor John R. Guilmartin __________________ Professor William R. Childs Advisor Department of History ABSTRACT The atomic bomb created a new military dynamic for the world in 1945. The bomb, if used properly, could replace the artillery fires and air-delivered bombs used to defeat the concentrated force of an enemy. The weapon provided the U.S. with an unparalleled advantage over the rest of the world, until the Soviet Union developed its own bomb by 1949 and symmetry in warfare returned. Soon, theories of warfare changed to reflect the belief that the best way to avoid the effects of the bomb was through dispersion of forces. Eventually, the American Army reorganized its divisions from the traditional three-unit organization to a new five-unit organization, dubbed pentomic by its Chief of Staff, General Maxwell D. Taylor. While atomic weapons certainly had an effect on Taylor’s reasoning to adopt the pentomic organization, the idea was not new in 1956; the Army hierarchy had been wrestling with restructuring since the end of World War II. Though the Korean War derailed the Army’s plans for the early fifties, it returned to the forefront under the Eisenhower Administration. The driving force behind reorganization in 1952 was not ii only the reoriented and reduced defense budget, but also the Army’s inroads to the atomic club, formerly the domain of only the Air Force and the Navy.
[Show full text]
PANZER BRIGADES on the EASTERN FRONT by Phil Yates
By Phil Yates UPDATED ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2014 1 PANZER BRIGADES ON THE EASTERN FRONT Y HIL ATES B P Y After the destruction of Army Group Centre in Byelorussia by the Soviet Operation Bagration, there was little left to stop them short of the German border, 600 kilometres to the west. Hitler ordered twelve new panzer brigades created to ‘surprise and destroy the attacking armoured spearheads’. The first four of these entered combat on the Eastern Front in late August 1944, launching immediate counterattacks against the Red Army’s deepest thrusts. When the Red Army launched its counteroffensive after the The first four were to be ready in just over one month. Bearing Battle of Kursk in August 1943, the German Army had little in mind that a panzer division was usually given six months to stop it. The much vaunted panzer divisions had worn to rebuild after being mauled at the front, the timetable for themselves out attacking the Soviet defences around Kursk, creating whole new units was incredibly short. The Army had leaving the new Panther and Tiger battalions being rushed to suggested rushing refitting panzer divisions back to the front, the front as the only significant armoured forces. A number but Hitler had insisted on forming new units instead. of Kampfgruppen, ad hoc battlegroups, were formed around The first of these was 101. Panzerbrigade under the command these battalions and the remains of various panzer divisions of the highly decorated Generalmajor Hyacinth Graf von under the command of experienced panzer leaders. Wherever Strachwitz und Camminetz (Major-general Hyacinth Count they were employed these powerful battlegroups halted and of Strachwitz and Camminetz), known as the Panzergraf or threw back the Red Army’s thrusts.
[Show full text]
REFERENCE BOOK Table of Contents Designer’S Notes
REFERENCE BOOK Table of Contents Designer’s Notes ............................................................ 2 31.0 Mapmaker’s Notes ................................................. 40 26.0 Footnoted Entries ........................................... 2 32.0 Order of Battle ....................................................... 41 27.0 Game Elements .............................................. 13 33.0 Selected Sources & Recommended Reading ......... 48 28.0 Units & Weapons ........................................... 21 29.0 OB Notes ....................................................... 33 30.0 Historical Notes ............................................. 39 GMT Games, LLC • P.O. Box 1308, Hanford, CA 93232-1308 www.GMTGames.com 2 Operation Dauntless Reference Book countryside characterized by small fields rimmed with thick and Designer’s Notes steeply embanked hedges and sunken roads, containing small stout I would like to acknowledge the contributions of lead researchers farms with neighbouring woods and orchards in a broken landscape. Vincent Lefavrais, A. Verspeeten, and David Hughes to the notes Studded with small villages, ideal for defensive strongpoints…” appearing in this booklet, portions of which have been lifted rather 6 Close Terrain. There are few gameplay differences between close liberally from their emails and edited by myself. These guys have terrain types. Apart from victory objectives, which are typically my gratitude for a job well done. I’m very pleased that they stuck village or woods hexes, the only differences are a +1 DRM to Re- with me to the end of this eight-year project. covery rolls in village hexes, a Modifier Chit which favors village and woods over heavy bocage, and a higher MP cost to enter woods. Furthermore, woods is the only terrain type that blocks LOS with 26.0 Footnoted Entries respect to spotting units at higher elevation. For all other purposes, close terrain is close terrain.
[Show full text]
The U.S. Military's Force Structure: a Primer
CHAPTER 2 Department of the Army Overview when the service launched a “modularity” initiative, the The Department of the Army includes the Army’s active Army was organized for nearly a century around divisions component; the two parts of its reserve component, the (which involved fewer but larger formations, with 12,000 Army Reserve and the Army National Guard; and all to 18,000 soldiers apiece). During that period, units in federal civilians employed by the service. By number of Army divisions could be separated into ad hoc BCTs military personnel, the Department of the Army is the (typically, three BCTs per division), but those units were biggest of the military departments. It also has the largest generally not organized to operate independently at any operation and support (O&S) budget. The Army does command level below the division. (For a description of not have the largest total budget, however, because it the Army’s command levels, see Box 2-1.) In the current receives significantly less funding to develop and acquire structure, BCTs are permanently organized for indepen- weapon systems than the other military departments do. dent operations, and division headquarters exist to pro- vide command and control for operations that involve The Army is responsible for providing the bulk of U.S. multiple BCTs. ground combat forces. To that end, the service is orga- nized primarily around brigade combat teams (BCTs)— The Army is distinct not only for the number of ground large combined-arms formations that are designed to combat forces it can provide but also for the large num- contain 4,400 to 4,700 soldiers apiece and include infan- ber of armored vehicles in its inventory and for the wide try, artillery, engineering, and other types of units.1 The array of support units it contains.
[Show full text]
Download Machine-Gun-Employment
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS THE BASIC SCHOOL MARINE CORPS TRAINING COMMAND CAMP BARRETT, VIRGINIA 22134-5019 MACHINE GUN EMPLOYMENT B3N4478 STUDENT HANDOUT Basic Officer Course B3N4478 Machine Gun Employment Machine Gun Employment Introduction This lesson will cover the basic principals and definitions surrounding Machine Gun Employment. Also discussed will be offensive and defensive considerations, to include the support relationships that will be used when dealing with supporting elements such as machine gun units. The class will be based around the three Machine Guns found in an infantry battalion, the M240G, M19 MOD3 and the M2 HB .50 cal heavy machine gun. We have already been introduced to the organization of the weapons platoon and weapons company and the individual machine-gun units within. Individual classes on the M240G, M2, and MK19 will also be given. You will be expected to be familiar with these organizations and the capabilities of these weapons prior to familiarization with this material. The focus of this class will be centered upon the introduction of the employment of machine guns. Importance For some, this handout in conjunction with the practical application will be the last formal instruction received on the employment of these weapons. But the likelihood of these weapons being employed by all MOS’s, from the Marine Wing Support Squadron to the Truck Platoon, is highly likely. In This Lesson The basic principles, definitions and operating guidelines of machine guns will be outlined in this text. More specific details in relation to the individual weapons systems mentioned above will be covered in their respective classes.
[Show full text]
Marine Divisions
Chapter 4 Marine Divisions 4001. Marine Division b. Concept of Employment a. Mission The Marine division is employed as the GCE of the MEF or may provide task-organized forces for smaller The mission of the Marine division is to execute amphibious MAGTFs. See figure 4-1 for Marine division organ- assault operations and such other operations as may be ization. directed. The Marine division must be able to provide the ground amphibious forcible-entry capability to an amphibi- c. CSS ous task force (ATF) and conduct subsequent land opera- tions in any operational environment. The division The Marine division depends on the FSSG as its primary commander fights by using combined-arms tactics and source of CSS. However, the organic capability of the tailors the force to the demands of each mission. division must be fully understood and used before request- ing support from the FSSG. In the areas of combat engineer 1010 S Marine Division USMC USN Off Enl Off Enl 1,021 15,890 50 843 1 1090 F 4238 G 4654 F 1378 N Infantry Tank Assault Combat Regiment Battalion Amphibian Battalion Engineer Battalion USMC USN USMC USN USMC USN USMC USN Off Enl Off Enl Off Enl Off Enl Off Enl Off Enl Off Enl Off Enl 160 2,838 11 201 48 743 2 31 47 1,091 2 21 43 817 2 26 1100 E 1988 G 4680 D Artillery Headquarters Light Armored Regiment Battalion Reconnaissance Battalion USMC USN USMC USN USMC USN Off Enl Off Enl Off Enl Off Enl Off Enl Off Enl 218 2,639 28 59 141 1,207 8 41 39 724 3 66 Legend Note Off = Officer 1 The 3 Regiments Have 480 Marine Officers, 8,526 Marine Enlisted Enl = Enlisted Personnel, 33 Navy Officers, And 603 Navy Enlisted Personnel.
[Show full text]
United States Army Late War Battle Group
TOURNAMENT BATTLE GROUP POINT LIST Use this points list (only) to assemble battle groups for the tournament. Note that the values in red on the British list are different that those published elsewhere. UNITED STATES ARMY LATE WAR BATTLE GROUP US 1944 COMBAT TEAM - (Regular Morale 8/ Experienced 8/ Veteran 9) Core Unit Notes Cost Taskforce (Battlegroup) Required 415/475/620 Headquarters (40/50/65) 1 command stand 1 jeep 2 Rifle Companies, each (95/120/155) 1 command stand 3 infantry stands 1 weapons stand (integral bazooka) Medium Tank Company (200/250/330) 1 command M4 Sherman 75mm tank 1 M4 Sherman 76mm tank Dedicated Battery (off board) 1 105L23 howitzer off Board Augmentations: Supplemental units and modifications Regimental Headquarters (Veteran 9) max 1 60 1 command stand 1 jeep Staff radio truck (Veteran 9) max 1 (note 1) 40 Battalion Headquarters Max 1 40/50/65 1 command stand 1 jeep Rifle Company max 3 80/100/130 1 command stand 2 infantry stands 1 weapons stand (integral bazooka) Weapons Company Max 1 155/190/250 1 57L52 AT gun and crew 1 light truck 1 81mm mortar stand (ds) 2 MMG stands 1 bazooka stand Add infantry platoon to infantry company 1 per infantry 15/20/25 company Recon Infantry Stand max 1 20/25/30 Add integral bazookas to infantry or armored Infantry company (note 2) 10/10/15 HMG stand max 1 35/45/55 Armored Infantry Company max 1 150/185/245 1 command stand 2 infantry stands 1 weapons stand (integral bazooka) 2 half-tracks with MG 1 half-track with AAHMG Armored Infantry Platoon 1 per Armored 40/50/65 1 infantry
[Show full text]
SS Fallschirmjaeger Battalion 500/600
SS Fallschirmjaeger Battalion 500/600 A brief outline of the Battalion. The battalion was formed from prisoners from the SS and Polizei penal camp in Danzig Matzkau. Prisoners made up about 70% of its complement, the unit was called SS Fallschirmjäger Battalion 500. There are three distinct periods in the battalion's history 1. From its formation in 1943 up to the completion operation Rosselsprung shows the battalion is at its strongest. 2. As the Lithuania fire brigade the unit was at its weakest. The ORBAT for this period it’s a bit subjective. While it reflects its combat strength of the unit there is no information to say if it kept its four company structure or it combined them into one or two companies. Personally if a player or scenario designer wants to combine battalion into two companies that is equally valid. 3. In the last phase the battalion received Wehrmacht replacements, the prisoner complement drops to about 30% and the battalion is renamed SS Fallschirmjäger Battalion 600. The battalion became part of Otto Skorzeny’s SS- Jagdverbande group. The first company participated in the Ardennes Offensive and based on the number US vehicles it captured it may have had the option to mount a company in captured vehicles. After the Ardennes the battalion and the SS-Jagdverbande group were transferred back to the Eastern Front and spent the remainer of the war there. Between April 26 1945 and May 2nd 1945 the battalion managed to cover 200km to cross over into the American zone and surrender to the Americans.
[Show full text]
Machine Guns and Machine Gun Gunnery
MCWP 3-15.1 Machine Guns and Machine Gun Gunnery U.S. Marine Corps PCN 143 000014 00 MCWP 3-15.1 Machine Guns and Machine Gun Gunnery DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY Headquarters United States Marine Corps Washington, D.C. 20380-0001 1 September 1996 Foreword 1. PURPOSE Marine Corps Warfighting Publication (MCWP) 3-15.1, Machine Guns and Machine Gun Gunnery, describes how various machine guns are maintained and employed by the U.S. Marine Corps' machine gun crews. It also provides the principles and techniques for their use in engaging and destroying enemy targets. 2. SCOPE This reference publication is designed for machine gunners, platoon commanders, platoon sergeants, S-3 officers and chiefs, armorers, and ammunition technicians. It outlines a stan- dardized way to train Marine machine gunners through the use of gunnery tables. 3. SUPERSESSION FMFRP 6-15, Machineguns and Machinegun Gunnery, dated 17 August 1988. 4. CHANGES Recommendations for improving this manual are invited from commands as well as directly from individuals. Forward suggestions, using the User Suggestion Form format, to— Commanding General Doctrine Division (C 42) Marine Corps Combat Development Command 3300 Russell Road Suite 318A Quantico, Virginia 22134-5021 5. CERTIFICATION Reviewed and approved this date. BY DIRECTION OF THE COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS PAUL K. VAN RIPER Lieutenant General, U.S. Marine Corps Commanding General Marine Corps Combat Development Command Quantico, Virginia DISTRIBUTION: 143 000014 00 User Suggestion Form From: To: Commanding General, Doctrine Division (C 42), Marine Corps Combat Development Command, 3300 Russell Road Suite 318A, Quantico, Virginia 22134-5021 Subj: RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING MCWP 3-15.1, MACHINE GUNS AND MACHINE GUN GUNNERY 1.
[Show full text]
NATO Infantry Weapons Standardization: Ideal Or Possibility?
University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2016 NATO Infantry Weapons Standardization: Ideal or Possibility? Zhou, Yi Le (David) Zhou, Y. L. (2016). NATO Infantry Weapons Standardization: Ideal or Possibility? (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/27061 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/2872 master thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY NATO Infantry Weapons Standardization: Ideal or Possibility? by Yi Le (David) Zhou A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF STRATEGIC STUDIES GRADUATE PROGRAM IN MILITARY AND STRATEGIC STUDIES CALGARY, ALBERTA March, 2016 © Yi Le (David) Zhou 2016 ii Abstract This thesis examines the efforts that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has taken regarding the standardization of rifles and small arms ammunition from the Cold War to the present day and the limitations of these standardization efforts. During the Cold War, NATO was unsuccessful at standardizing a common rifle and its member states only agreed to standardize ammunition calibers. This thesis will discuss the factors that prevented all of the alliance’s militaries from adopting the same rifle models and the problems associated with NATO’s ammunition standardization efforts.
[Show full text]
Assessing Conventional Army Demands and Requirements for Ultra-Light Tactical Mobility
Assessing Conventional Army Demands and Requirements for Ultra-Light Tactical Mobility Matthew E. Boyer, Michael Shurkin, Jonathan P. Wong, Ryan Schwankhart, Adam Albrich, Matthew W. Lewis, Christopher G. Pernin C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/rr718 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN 978-0-8330-8776-8 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2015 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover photo courtesy of Spc. Jesse LaMorte, Special Operations Task Force - South Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface For over a century, the conventional Army has formally and informally used relatively small and light ground vehicles to meet tactical mobility needs in circumstances where standard tac- tical vehicles were too heavy, too large, or otherwise inappropriate.
[Show full text]
How the Marines Finally Got Their Infantry Automatic Rifle
M27M27FROM BAR TO IAR: HOW THE MARINES FINALLY GOT THEIR INFANTRY AUTOMATIC RIFLE by ROBERT BRUCE 48 SADEFENSEJOURNAL.COM SADEFENSEJOURNAL.COM 49 THE U.S. MARINE CORPS’ M27: PART 2 s threat forces match the firepower of the current rifle squad, the Ma- rine Corps must maintain the inno- vative edge for which it is famous. AWhile experimentation is still re- quired, the evaluations undertaken by Second Battalion, Seventh Marines, de- finitively indicate that the Marine Corps should place the M249 into a light ma- chine gun role and add a true automatic rifle to the squad’s inventory. (Conclusion to AUTOMATIC RIFLE CONCEPT, an un- signed monograph circa 2001, circulated in the USMC Infantry community) Friends and foes of the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon in the U.S. Marine Corps’ infantry fire teams have been en- gaged in often fierce verbal firefights dat- ing back years before this innovative light machine gun entered Leatherneck service; soon after the Army adopted FN’s MINI- MI in 1984. While the reasons for this are many and varied, astute observers often cite two main points of contention: won the argument. “After a rigorous testing process, • Advocates of belt fed weapons like both in garrison and deployed environ- the M249 admire their relative por- ments, and in-depth consultation with tability and high volume of fire at weapons experts through the Corps, the critical times in offensive and defen- Commandant approved the fielding of the sive actions. M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle. Fielding • Critics say the 5.56mm SAW‘s hefty of the IAR will significantly enhance the 20+ pound combat weight slows ability of infantrymen to gain and main- movement and reliability issues too tain fire superiority, reduce the fighting often degrade the gun’s claimed fire- load and provide them with a more ergo- power advantage.
[Show full text]