Shortround6
Major General
That is the normal answer now. It was much less clear in the 1920s and 30s. A British infantry Battalion in the late 30s and first year of the war only had two 3 in mortars and those had the pathetic range of 1600yds and so could not always answer long range fire. Likewise the British also held the Heavy machine guns (Vickers) at divisional level and only parceled them out to battalions as needed. Other armies thought differently and equipped their armies differently.
Time devoted to training plays a part as does the tolerance for casualties.
Tactical doctrine in the 1950s was often quite different than tactical doctrine in 1939-41. A much higher emphasis being placed on accompanying armor (even if APC/AFV and artillery support (including medium/heavy mortars), A much more widespread use of radios also entered into it. Most WW II armies having very little ability for an individual platoon (let alone squad) to call in support fire.
The US army was probably the best equipped with radios and by 1944 the little walkie-talkie was supposed to issued 6 to a company (one in each rifle platoon, two in the heavy weapons platoon and one with the company commander) but even if working and with good batteries they only had a range of a few hundred feet to one mile depending on terrain. The back pack radio had a range of around three miles but depending on battery set up weighed 32.23lbs or 38.23lbs.
Result was often a squad or platoon had to relay a fire request through several layers of command/radios to get support fire. By which time????? had happened.
In the fighting this century in the mid-east things are not normal and troops were/are being sent on foot patrols that take them to limits and beyond of the support weapons and the support weapons are too heavy to carry very far or fast with the rest of the load the modern soldier carries. The insurgent opposition, being much less encumbered, can withdraw faster once the situation turns against them.
