The best WW2 infantry squad or Platoon, choose, construct compare.

[Soren]

To anyone who doesn't know much about Iceland, VERY few parts of it are populated, less than roughly 5% of the entire island infact, with most cities/villages lying close to the shore. So taking control of atleast the captital could be done with 40 men. Controlling Iceland for a few days is also made easier by the fact that there are very few areas where an enemy can land his troops.

Also worth noting here is that the Icelandic population was sympathic towards the Germans for a good period of time during the war.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And 40 troops are going to cover the whole island? Yeah okay...

How are those 40 troops going to stop an airborne landing?

 

[Juha]

Parsifal
you are right, the city airport was made during the war, but there was a airstrip more or less at same place before the war. so gliders and paras. I chose Stirlings and Halifaxes just because they probably could have made from from Stornaway to Reykjavik and back while carrying paras, with Hamilcars they probably would have had to divert to Greenland and refuel there.

Soren
I have been in Iceland, interior is almost empty of population but there are population all around the island in settlements, in villages, in small towns and on farms around the whole island, of course there are also long unpopulated stretches also on the coastal area. And in 40s road connections were very limited, boats and ships were main instruments of contacts between many places. And if the places could visited by ships, then one can land troops there. Also southern coastal plain in in many areas suitable to aerial landings, paras and gliders.

Juha

 

[Soren]

And 40 troops are going to cover the whole island? Yeah okay...

How are those 40 troops going to stop an airborne landing?

Please read my above post.

First of all there isn't much area to cover, secondly the men need only occupy the capital for a few days until reinforcements arrive.

As for stopping an airborne landing, depending on where it is ofcourse, they can inflict pretty serious casualties, while although not stop it if its a large one of the kind. The goal would also only be to set up a command post to monitor the island and guide the reinforcements. A similar thing was done on Greenland, the Germans setting up a small station with troops there.

Now lets quit this discussion aout Iceland, we're heading offtopic here.

 

[Juha]

Soren
are you claiming that those few Germans in a weather station controlled Greenland?

How you monitor a 103.000sqkm island from one place? There were many places where Allies could land soldiers, a platoon could not put even one man to every possible landing place, not even one super-German could be a serious opponent for ex Royal Marine raiding party with a heavy cruiser and a couple destroyers in call for fire support if needed.

Juha

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

First of all there isn't much area to cover, secondly the men need only occupy the capital for a few days until reinforcements arrive.

Soren, occupying the Capitol does not control the island. How are they going to keep bands of people from forming resistance groups over the island. 40 people can not stop that.

By the way I have been to Iceland, and the terrain is perfect for waging a gorilla type war against your 40 troops. In a few days time, the US could land massive amounts of troops in an airborne operation so in the end I still don't buy your scenerio.

 

[Soren]

Soren, occupying the Capitol does not control the island. How are they going to keep bands of people from forming resistance groups over the island. 40 people can not stop that.

By the way I have been to Iceland, and the terrain is perfect for waging a gorilla type war against your 40 troops. In a few days time, the US could land massive amounts of troops in an airborne operation so in the end I still don't buy your scenerio.

Been there myself as-well, many many times. One of my best friends lives there.

As for guerilla warfare, how are they gonna succeed in that with no weapons Adler ? Even today there are not many people with let alone a hunting rifle or shotgun on Iceland.

Furthermore they would not rebel as they actually sympathized with the Germans, I already made that clear.

And finally the Germans could land massive amounts of troops as-well, infact that would be the plan, the 40 man airdrop just serving to monitor the island for a few days. And such a plan was even made by Germany during the war, even when British troops occupied the place.

Now shall we get back on topic or divert ever more away from it?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Been there myself as-well, many many times. One of my best friends lives there.

As for guerilla warfare, how are they gonna succeed in that with no weapons Adler ? Even today there are not many people with let alone a hunting rifle or shotgun on Iceland.

Furthermore they would not rebel as they actually sympathized with the Germans, I already made that clear.

And finally the Germans could land massive amounts of troops as-well, infact that would be the plan, the 40 man airdrop just serving to monitor the island for a few days. And such a plan was even made by Germany during the war, even when British troops occupied the place.

How do you know that the people did not have weapons at that time. You are only speculating again.

I think you have been reading Red Storm rising lately...

 

[Soren]

How do you know that the people did not have weapons at that time. You are only speculating again.

I'm not speculating as much as you think. The Icelandic population have always lived off of their fishing, not hunting as there is very little to hunt on Iceland. My good buddy over there has told me that nearly no Icelander owns a hunting rifle or shotgun, something he told me after I asked him wether he had ever went hunting before. He joked that the only guns on Iceland were those left by some of the 18th century settlers there over 200 years ago

I think you have been reading Red Storm rising lately...

I have honestly never even heard of the book

 

[Juha]

Soren
your buddy might have exaggerated a bit, according to Wildlife Management | english.ust.is

"The total population in Iceland is 290.570 as of 31st of December 2003. The total number of active hunters is 18.400. "

Juha

 

[Soren]

Facts about Iceland:

In 1940 the population of Iceland was in total ~120,000 people, and less than 40,000 were grown up males.

Hunting was almost none-existant in Iceland during the 1940's, with less than 1% of the population owning as much as a shotgun. Only the native police force of the capital, consisting of 70 men, had access to small-arms, i.e. their pistols and rifles. But only 60 of these men were trained in the use of firearms when England invaded in may 1940.

The morning of 10 May 1940 Iceland was invaded by a British invasion force numbering no more than 746 men. The only place occupied was the capital. The soldiers met no resistance, however the angry Icelandic government public protested against the invasion. Later on 25,000 men were sent cover the entire island, making sure no Axis forces could invade the island undetected and unpunished.

 

[Juha]

Soren
Quote:" The morning of 10 May 1940 Iceland was invaded by a British invasion force numbering no more than 746 men. The only place occupied was the capital."

No, British were more professional than that, see: Invasion of Iceland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote: "The invasion began in the early morning of 10 May 1940 with British troops disembarking in Reykjavík, capital of neutral Iceland. Meeting no resistance, the troops moved quickly to disable communication networks, secure strategic locations and arrest German citizens. Requisitioning local means of transportation, the troops moved to Hvalfjörður, Kaldaðarnes, Sandskeiði and Akranes to secure landing areas against the possibility of a German counterattack. In the following days air defence equipment was deployed in Reykjavík and a detachment of troops was sent to Akureyri."

With a battalion one can do much more than with a platoon.

Juha

 

[Soren]

Some more facts about the Invasion of Iceland:

The British invasion force consisted of 746 marines, ill-equipped and only partially trained.

The invasion was started by a recon plane flying over the capital, removing all elements of surprise in the case there was enemy troops there. Not until 2 hours later did 400 marines begin to sail towards Reykjavík to dock. In the case that there would have been enemy troops on the island the situation could've very quikly gotten ugly for the invading British troops.

 

[Juha]

Yes
but British were at least so clever that they used a battalion as an initial force, with fire support of 2 cruisers and 2 destroyers in hand just in case. And saw need to occupy nearby landing areas immediately. A way more practical than put a platoon somewhere with a few vehicles to drive to Reykjavik, as someone has suggested.

Juha

 

[Soren]

In the case of a German invasion of Iceland an initial force of 40 men landing first to interrupt radio telecommunications could prove very useful as a preparation for the main force to arrive and to assess possible dangers. The scout team could be landed somewhere close to the city at 1 AM, or sailed in by small boats, take over the radio and telecommunication stations under the cover of darkness. Meanwhile a second part of the team would move down through the town, making sure there are no enemies present, and find a suitable place for the troops to land. In the following hours the main force could move in to dock. All the while the Icelandic government officials could be alerted of what was going to happen and be told to remain calm and not resist.

After that a main force of probably 2,000 troops would move in to temporarily take over the rest of the island, or atleast the other nearby towns.

 

[parsifal]

I have a list somewhere that gives the comparative costs of a large amount of different pieces of equipment. When I find it I will come back to this issue of cost. Suffice it to say that much of this luxurious German equipment is far more expensive than any of its competitors. This suggests that it is good quality, but that the cost of equippiung the squad will be prohibitve, and threfore the total number of squads that can be fielded will be limited. This, in my opinion makes the path of providing the most expensive and lavish scale of issue exactly the wrong way to go

Before embarking on the equipment issue, one has to understand the theory of small unit tactics, so that the right balance of force structure to unit costs can be arrived at. In WWII there were subtle, but important differences between the main combatants.

The most revolutionary concept in squad makeip came from the germans, involving principally the addition of a second LMG to the squad, and later, the introduction of assault rifles. An interim measure was the use of SMGs whyich gave enhanced firepower, but at short range.

The British tended to view the rifle section as a separate element to the support guns. With the Lee Enfields they were equipped with, they could just get away with that thinking, but I think overall it was a mistake to view the rifle group as a separate source of firepower for the squad. I think the germans were closer to the mark, when they began to introduce a second LMG to the squad, which gave them an effective enfilade capbility. SMGs greatly increased the short range firepower of the squad, but this ability was achieved without loss of range with the late war assault rifles.

Strangely, the US squads had greeatly enhanced rates of fire with their garand equipped Infantry, but were then promprtly let down by LMG they were using, the BAR, which in no sense could be considered as adequately fulfilling the role of support gun for the squad

Anti-tank defence was also and issue. Early on this tended to be provided by AT rifles, but later these were supplanted by PIATs, Bazookas and the german equivalents. The Russians and Japanese failed to produce an effective squad level tank defence system in the late war period. For the japanese this was somewhat understandable, and in any case every third squad could rely on their 70mm BN guns, which remain one of the most versatile little pieces of ordinance ever devised. The Japanese were fighting mostly in restricted terrain, so their lack of a dedicated ATG is understandable (they also had access to a very effective 20mm ATR, so this explains why they did not make much effort in this regard). But until the end, the Russians relied on the ATRs they had had since before 1941, and these were pretty useless even at the best of times.

Understanding Squad doctrines is the key to answering this issue. I thought people might want to look at that issue, so here is a link to a favourite page of mine....

Small Unit Formations

 

[Juha]

Soren
your 2nd plan is much more realistic but
Quote:" Meanwhile a second part of the team would move down through the town, making sure there are no enemies present, and find a suitable place for the troops to land."

is a bit unneccessary, the German consul with a couple helpers could do that and landing places were known beforehand but one could use a part of team to secure the landing place.

Juha

 

[Soren]

Good post Parsifal, but lets forget about cost. This is about creating the best platoon possible, not about equipping an entire army the same way.

So lets take it from thereon please.

 

[yoda55]

Bushido code imposed two reasons for fierocity with which the IJA/IJN troops treated an enemy:
(a) The energy with which the attacker imposed his actions both compensated for the inherent defender-to-attacker advantage in prepared positions AND as shock value to cause the opponent to hesitate.
(b) Prisoners were despised because the inmate failed to achieve success (shame) AND he failed to satisfy honor by committing Sepuku (ritual suicide).

These are the pre-eminent reasons for the energy and savagery with which the IJA/IJN conducted operations.

 

[yulzari]

Bushido code imposed two reasons for fierocity with which the IJA/IJN troops treated an enemy:
(a) The energy with which the attacker imposed his actions both compensated for the inherent defender-to-attacker advantage in prepared positions AND as shock value to cause the opponent to hesitate.
(b) Prisoners were despised because the inmate failed to achieve success (shame) AND he failed to satisfy honor by committing Sepuku (ritual suicide).

These are the pre-eminent reasons for the energy and savagery with which the IJA/IJN conducted operations.

Yet they treated their german prisoners quite well in WW1. What changed in 25 years I wonder?