[Mass Combat] "Real Soldiers Dig"

[nik1979]

How would you recreate the capability of certain soldiers to perform minor siege works or combat engineering?

In the tradition of the fort-camp building legionaries and their successors.

I guess this limited ability it will reflect in their Engineering TS contribution.

[vierasmarius]

I think the ability of soldiers to construct their own fortifications is best represented by having them start a battle encamped, possibly with improvised fortifications. Troops digging foxholes for themselves during a battle is probably just an example of the force using a Defensive strategy. True engineering units would be trained and equipped for mining and sapping.

[nik1979]

Thanks, let me clarify.

The professional soldier having entrenching tools as a standard part of their equipment can be found in professional legions by the equipment lists per contebernium/squad and later came back to style in modern times, as shovels became part of basic equipment. Examples of 2 picks and 2 shoves and a saw are found roman kits.

other than the romans, soldiers capable of fighting and engineering were present in the crusades with the italian merchant city state (Pizans, Genoes, Venitians etc.) very much like their roman counterparts were skilled in carpentry that allowed them to build siege towers. These itallians were not a seperate group of experts, they were soldiers capable of engineering. Although they were a smaller part of the armies.

There is a distinct difference in Eras where soldiers saw engineering as really part of their profession while others that left it to the "experts". Earthworks and Basic carpentry for early eras, and later on Demolition came to play a role in combat engineering.

Another way to look at this is, what if each squad was issued a specialist capable of managing engineering operations.

[Icelander]

I've always seen it as possible to have one type of troops being trained for more than one role. After all, despite the relative impracticality of attempting to field troops that are both cavalry and infantry, early dragoons did receive training in both.

And Roman legionaries would certainly, in my opinion, qualify as sappers and heavy infantry both.

I simply treat such troops as having a cost and upkeep of the most expensive unit type and add 1/5th of cost and upkeep for every other type they are capable of acting as (based on the rules for Alternate Abilities). For each combat round the general of their side must choose what type they count as.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Icelander

For each combat round the general of their side must choose what type they count as.

Maybe that's a tad generous. If the legionaries are deployed as heavy infantry, the shovels are in the encampment. If the dragons are deployed on foot, the horses are safe way back in the rear areas, while if they are deployed on horseback, they'll have the problem of where to leave the horses there on the battlefield if the CO orders them to dismount.
Maybe choosing how to use the troops capable of more than one role should be done early in the morning, for the whole day, in early eras, and not too often in later times.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Michele

Maybe that's a tad generous. If the legionaries are deployed as heavy infantry, the shovels are in the encampment. If the dragons are deployed on foot, the horses are safe way back in the rear areas, while if they are deployed on horseback, they'll have the problem of where to leave the horses there on the battlefield if the CO orders them to dismount.
Maybe choosing how to use the troops capable of more than one role should be done early in the morning, for the whole day, in early eras, and not too often in later times.

Meh.

Rounds can be pretty long in Mass Combat battles involving a lot of men.

And as a generic rule, this has to cover units that can change between Light and Medium infantry too, which only involves moving from skirmish order into line.

Besides, there will rarely, if ever, be any tactical advantage in changing roles in mid-battle. Only when the there is a significant influx of reinforcement would that be beneficial in any way, and in that case, it is not unreasonable to expect there to be a period of adjustment anyway.

The GM is, of course, free to rule that the commander has to state where the extraneous equipment is kept and forbid elements from changing roles if no plausible way exists for them to fetch their gear.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Michele

Maybe choosing how to use the troops capable of more than one role should be done early in the morning, for the whole day, in early eras, and not too often in later times.

One way to do it would be that the troops don't contribute to the force's TS for one battle turn while they retask.

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by Michele

Maybe that's a tad generous.

I dunno. I would be leaning in Ice's direction on this one.

FREX At the Battle of Gettysburg Union General John Buford with his two calvary brigades fought very well as dismounted infantry. With 1 man in 5 back a few hundred (??) yards with the horses (IIRC). One of his brigades disengaged from battle, mounted up, rode a few miles to the block a Confederate Division that was marching in on an open flank, and once there deployed out to fight dismounted again. Of Course the Spenser carbines they carried did not hurt either.

Second FREX. The Battle of the Bulge. One of the factors that surprised the Germans was that US Engineer units were trained(fairly well) and (somewhat) equipped to fight as infantry (I believe the branch designation was Combat Engineers). A number of engineer units fougt bravely and well alongside the 4 US divisions struggling to slow the Germans. It was because of those Engineers, fighting as infantry and doing demolitions, alongside the 106th, 99th, 28th (?) and 4th(??) Divisions that the Germans were beaten as soundly as they were.

Well trained troops will drill for those situations...after all that is what training is all about and while they will not be elite formations in both roles they can be very good in both.

I am sure people can think of other examples.