Russian Platoons and Companies

[Tannenberg]

I'm trying to get some more information on the make up of RCW platoons (and companies) - especially for the Bolsheviks and information on the 'Whites' would be much appreciated as well.

Cheers, Marco

[Mark Plant]

For Whites use WWI organisations, except after February 1919 in the AFSR. The following was posted by Tom Hillman in the Yahoo RCW group for them.

Company consists of five platoons – 4 rifle and 1 machinegun. Personnel stats in the company are 7 officers and 255 soldiers. Combat composition of these numbers is 160 infantrymen (bayonets), the remaining 95 personnel are machinegunners, support, and standing headquarters.
Each company has two machineguns (in one platoon).
Battalion consists of four companies and a battalion machinegun command – 4 machineguns. Total in the battalion is 640 bayonets and 12 machineguns.

Squadron consists of four platoons of 18 rows, and four machineguns. Total in a squadron is 220 men.

I don't know whether the Cossack units of the AFSR went over. I doubt it.

Of course these are theoretical organisations and were not even remotely observed in the actual units.

I have never seen similar detail for the Reds.

[Tannenberg]

For Whites use WWI organisations, except after February 1919 in the AFSR. The following was posted by Tom Hillman in the Yahoo RCW group for them.

Company consists of five platoons – 4 rifle and 1 machinegun. Personnel stats in the company are 7 officers and 255 soldiers. Combat composition of these numbers is 160 infantrymen (bayonets), the remaining 95 personnel are machinegunners, support, and standing headquarters.
Each company has two machineguns (in one platoon).
Battalion consists of four companies and a battalion machinegun command – 4 machineguns. Total in the battalion is 640 bayonets and 12 machineguns.

Squadron consists of four platoons of 18 rows, and four machineguns. Total in a squadron is 220 men.

I don't know whether the Cossack units of the AFSR went over. I doubt it.

Of course these are theoretical organisations and were not even remotely observed in the actual units.

I have never seen similar detail for the Reds.

That's a lot of very interesting information - many thanks Mark.  It's quite a grey area though and I've even been on the Great War Forum to try and gather details.

The following was the information I received from the site....


".....according to the "Handbook of the Russian Army", published just before the War by the British General Staff, an infantry company at full war establishment consisted of four officers, 20 NCOs (a CSM, a CQMS, 4 sergeants and 14 corporals) and 220 rank and file.

This is very similar to the structure of a British infantry company which was organised in four platoons, each under an officer, the platoons each of four sections of an NCO and about 12 men.

There were four companies in a Russian battalion and four battalions in a regiment. I would guess, therefore, that there were probably four sections/squads in a Russian platoon and four platoons in a company, but I stress that this is only a guess. The Handbook does not show any breakdown below company level....."

"......As someone who has never done any serious research into the Russian Army of World War I, I hesitate to offer a comment. However, as no one has taken up this particular challenge, I will offer what little I know.

Walter Krueger's 1915 translation of the fourth edition of William Balck's Tactics, which deals with matters prior to the outbreak of World War I provides a brief description (taken from the Russian infantry drill regulations of 1907) of the Russian infantry company. According to this description, the Russian company consisted of four platoons, each of which was divided into four squads.

According to the diagram provided by Balck, each squad consisted of a leader and ten men. As this would make for a relatively small company for the times (176 men), I suspect that a war-strength company (of 250 or so men) would have much larger squads.

In saying this, I should probably add that the contemporary British practice of permanently assigning men to particular squads and platoons was not a universal practice in the armies of 1914. In the German Army, for example, platoons and squads were formed anew everytime that the company formed for drill. Balck's description of the Russian platoon suggests that this was also the case in the Russian Army.

"In Austria, France, and Italy, platoons are considered as distinct bodies ... In Germany and Russia the company is at each formation divided into platoons of approximately equal strength." (Vol. I, pp. 48-49)

The volume of Krueger's translation of Balck is available from Google Books".


I also found the final piece of information quite useful and interesting as well.


".....On July 28, 1916, the Russian General Staff recommended to the Directorate of the Field Inspector-General of Artillery that flamethrower detachments be formed and merged with the trench-gun batteries already planned for each of the 236 Guard infantry, infantry, and grenadier regiments. Each of these new infantry subunits would be armed with 12 portable flamethrowers and four 37mm Rosenberg M1915 trench guns, or 3 portable flamethrowers and one trench gun per infantry platoon.

The flamethrower detachments were trained by February of 1917, but before they could be deployed to the front the March Revolution forced the Tsar to abdicate and the armed forces were thrown into chaos. The flamethrower detachments never made it to the infantry regiments. Instead, the 14 Chemical Detachments (each army at the front had its own Chemical Detachment) would temporarily attach flame-chemical sappers armed with flamethrowers to individual divisions or brigades within its army.

Apparently most infantry regiments never received their batteries of four trench guns, either...."

I have never seen anything for the Reds either....which is a shame.

[Mark Plant]

Well I think we can guess that the Soviet infantry company structure was triangular, given the rest of the structure. Three platoons per company then.

Looking at the Osprey Red Army structure, we can work out the MG structure for a Regiment. With no MG platoon at company level, the remaining six platoons (1 for each battalion, 3 at regiment level) would be six MGs each. Which is kind of big. If we allot an MG platoon to each company then a regiment has 15 platoons, each of 2.4 MGs.

So we dish 30 MGs out to those platoons, giving two MGs per company, two more per battalion and six at regiment level. This leaves six unaccounted for, but they could be in the school, scouts, or perhaps there are four at battalion level. 

Actually, I've just had a brain-wave and looked at my Soviet encyclopedia. It seems (and I say seems because I can't really read Russian) that the above structure is right. A company is three rifle platoons and an MG platoon.

[Tannenberg]

Well I think we can guess that the Soviet infantry company structure was triangular, given the rest of the structure. Three platoons per company then.

Looking at the Osprey Red Army structure, we can work out the MG structure for a Regiment. With no MG platoon at company level, the remaining six platoons (1 for each battalion, 3 at regiment level) would be six MGs each. Which is kind of big. If we allot an MG platoon to each company then a regiment has 15 platoons, each of 2.4 MGs.

So we dish 30 MGs out to those platoons, giving two MGs per company, two more per battalion and six at regiment level. This leaves six unaccounted for, but they could be in the school, scouts, or perhaps there are four at battalion level. 

Actually, I've just had a brain-wave and looked at my Soviet encyclopedia. It seems (and I say seems because I can't really read Russian) that the above structure is right. A company is three rifle platoons and an MG platoon.

That's excellent stuff Mark(!!!).....and it looks as though it does make a great deal of sense with the unit make-up...has anyone ever told you you're a genius!   Just so I can get my head round this (as I'm not the quickest on the uptake ) are you saying there would be 6 MG's in the MG platoon then?

[Altius]

So were the Red platoons a similar size as the Whites? I realize that during the civil war, nothing was close to paper strength, but if the platoons were the same, that would mean that Red companies were significantly smaller than White ones. I wonder if that's reflected by reality in the field.

So, in game terms, if the Reds kept their MGs at a higher level, would that translate into seeing fewer of them on the tabletop, particularly during small-scale fights?

[Mark Plant]

So were the Red platoons a similar size as the Whites? I realize that during the civil war, nothing was close to paper strength, but if the platoons were the same, that would mean that Red companies were significantly smaller than White ones. I wonder if that's reflected by reality in the field.

By my reckoning the average Red company in the field was about 100 men, while the average White one (in the south) was about 80 men.

"Average" being only a very rough guide though.

So, in game terms, if the Reds kept their MGs at a higher level, would that translate into seeing fewer of them on the tabletop, particularly during small-scale fights?

My guess is not. They were not clumped and used in large groups to my knowledge, so they spread of MGs should be more or less the same.

are you saying there would be 6 MG's in the MG platoon then?

No. Two MGs per platoon.

One platoon at company level. One platoon at battalion level. Three platoons at regiment level. Three platoons unaccounted for.

[former user]

I agree

in general, the logistical organization does not necessarily reflect the tactical use

organizing MG on a higher lever would simply mean that they would be pooled and distributed as necessary in contrast to units trying to keep their "own" heavy equipment
this gives the formation commander a more flexible use of specialized equipment by not having to discuss reassignment with his subordinate commanders

same system like heavy battalion infantry guns in German infantry formations in WWII being pooled on regimental level later in the war