Imperial Guard standards... kind of confused

[Squirrelloid]

Long story short, the models from the Raging Heroes kickstarter (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/loudnraging/raging-heroes-the-toughest-girls-of-the-galaxy) are so amazing that I just had to get some, so now while I plan out what I want I figured I might as well start planning a guard army to make use of them.

 

The first thing I noticed that GW seems to have no idea how armies on the scale that 40k demands are actually organized. (Regiments as an organizational unit are defunct in the U.S. except for armored units, even though many units retain regimental designation. And the US military is obviously a lot smaller than the Imperium of Man's). The UK seems to have effectively eliminated the regiment level, but continues to use the term as a synonym for Battalion. But its not really the term that I find silly, its that discussing the Imperium's armies in terms of regiments is like discussing the number of grains of sand on the beach as if counting each individual grain was a good way to understand the shape of the beach. Division should really be the *smallest* unit size any discussion of Imperial Guard armies ever uses (in a fluff context). Talking about regiments is on the one hand way too large for reference to actually playing the game, and way too small for understanding the way the Imperium uses and deploys its forces.

 

But let's ignore that, at least it's obvious how regiments would fit into a command structure. The actual unit size we're playing a normal game of 40k with is the company, which is somewhere between 1/4 and 1/10 the size of a regiment - basically, we're never going to actually field anywhere near a full regiment anyway. (2-5 companies to a battalion, 2+ battalions to a regiment). (And some even smaller fraction of armored cavalry, air cavalry, cavalry, artillery, and potentially specialist regiments like engineers. These don't get combined into one organizational unit before the Brigade level for most of them).

 

Which brings me to standards.

 

So, the company command squad can carry the regimental banner... what? Shouldn't that be the provision of the Regiment HQ, which is far beyond the scope of a 40k battle? (For that matter, the fleet officer being attached to a company HQ unit is kind of silly, but i suppose we need to put him on the table... The Master of Ordnance being joined to an infantry company HQ is perhaps even sillier, especially since he's a glorified spotter). I'd say they should bring the *company* standard, except companies don't have standards... A company has a guidon.

 

(A guidon is distinct from a standard in a number of ways, not least of which is that a standard is entitled to a coat of arms unique to the unit whereas a guidon generally is not. Only the commanding officer of a unit with a coat of arms can use a guidon with (that) coat of arms, otherwise guidons use the branch insignia).

 

Well, at least companies do have identifying flags of some sort, so that's something, even if GW seems to have delusions of grandeur as to what they'd be. It's like GW forgot that a company is not an entire regiment...

 

GW's weird treatment of regiment and company as being the same thing is not nearly as silly as platoons having a "Platoon standard". A what now? Wikipedia seems to believe US army platoons might be able to have guidons, without citation, and without any description of guidons below the company level. Google has thus far failed to turn up a description of a platoon guidon. I can't find any source which describes UK platoons as having guidons or standards. (Actually, I can't find anything about UK military flags below the regiment level). Continental useage of guidon is different from US useage, applying specifically to cavalry and dragoons, and I can find no reference to any such thing as low as a platoon. (Nor a reference to any continental standards below the regiment level).

 

Anyone know if platoons carry any sort of flag whatsoever in real militaries, and what kind of insignia and designations they might use?

 

I suppose I can just not use platoon standards, but if its a real thing it would be nice to come up with a suitable representation. I would think if it was a real thing, I'd have found some description of how they're laid out by now, though...

 

I'm sure someone is going to say I'm overthinking this, but developing the heraldry of a guard army is at least half the fun.

[exetus]

In the US military, the guidon extends only down to the Company level.

 

http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/flags/manual-of-the-guidon.shtml.

 

The only time this may be different is supposedly to designate platoons during Basic Training. That said, as a member of the Air Force, I have nothing to back that up.

[Squirrelloid]

In the US military, the guidon extends only down to the Company level.

 

http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/flags/manual-of-the-guidon.shtml.

 

The only time this may be different is supposedly to designate platoons during Basic Training. That said, as a member of the Air Force, I have nothing to back that up.

Thanks. I was starting to suspect that strongly, but absence of evidence not being evidence of absence kept the devil's advocate going.

[CaptainHelion]

On the other hand, the Imperial Guard ISN'T a modern military force, and can frankly do whatever the heck it feels like. The fact that you can give platoons a Platoon Standard means that at least some groups of IG have a tradition of Platoon Standards. 

Other than that, it is all a wee bit wacky, and there is an issue of scale on the organisational front, to be sure.

[elmo]

May help - may not but for the UK military...

A Guidon is a heraldic banner carried by cavalry regiments, the equivalent of the colours borne by regiments of line infantry. Until about a century ago guidons and colours were taken into battle as the distinguishing symbols and rallying points for fighting units.

The word Guidon derives from the Italian guidone meaning guide or marker and the Middle French corruption guyd-hommes,

hence it is the focus for soldiers in battle. There developed for this precious symbol of unity a reverence for its own sake, endorsed by the
religious practice of blessing a banner before it was carried into battle. That the Roman legions fought fiercely to protect their eagle
standards and suffered disgrace for their loss illustrates just how highly prized such things became. For a very long time soldiers have
given high regard to these talismans of corporate identity and so it is today.

Traditionally, the carrying of a Guidon or Colour remained the exclusive privilege of those who fought face to face with
the enemy, namely, the Cavalry and the Infantry.

and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colours,_standards_and_guidons#United_Kingdom

Standards can also be the gun itself (for artillery) and carried as battle honours on drums (Light infantry)

The UK tends not to have official platoon/squadron/company flags (but T shirts with badges are common )

If you look here http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/209225/flag/2344/Forms-and-functions there is a historic precedence that may get you out of trouble

[facmanpob]

The UK seems to have effectively eliminated the regiment level, but continues to use the term as a synonym for Battalion.

Just because you seem interested in this sort of thing, I thought I'd take the opportunity....

In the British Army, the Infantry Regiment is an administrative command level, rather than an operational one. When battalions deploy operationally, they will be attached to a Brigade HQ, which will then form battlegroups from its attached battalions, the make-up of which will be determined by the mission requirements and available forces. The Regiment to which a battalion is attached carries out administrative functions back home in the UK, such as family liaison, for example.

Just to make it confusing, however, the cavalry still use the Regiment as an operational organisation (instead of the battalion), and an armoured regiment will be made up of several squadrons, rather than companies.

And if that weren't enough, support organisations such as the Royal Corps of Signals also use the regimental unit as an operational one.

On a 40K note, there is, of course a significant difference between an IG platoon and a modern infantry platoon, namely that a maximum size IG platoon is about 120 men strong (1 PCS, 5 10-man squads, 5 HWT squads, 2 Special teams and a conscript team - 117 dudes if my maths is correct), whereas a modern-day platoon will number around 1/4 of that, and a modern day company will hover around the 120 man level. So you can't really compare in IG platoon with a modern-day platoon, as they are like apples and oranges. Whilst few people will take a full size IG platoon to the table, th opportunity does exist.

[Squirrelloid]

The UK seems to have effectively eliminated the regiment level, but continues to use the term as a synonym for Battalion.

Just because you seem interested in this sort of thing, I thought I'd take the opportunity....

In the British Army, the Infantry Regiment is an administrative command level, rather than an operational one. When battalions deploy operationally, they will be attached to a Brigade HQ, which will then form battlegroups from its attached battalions, the make-up of which will be determined by the mission requirements and available forces. The Regiment to which a battalion is attached carries out administrative functions back home in the UK, such as family liaison, for example.

Just to make it confusing, however, the cavalry still use the Regiment as an operational organisation (instead of the battalion), and an armoured regiment will be made up of several squadrons, rather than companies.

And if that weren't enough, support organisations such as the Royal Corps of Signals also use the regimental unit as an operational one.

Amusingly enough, armored regiments in the US still have an organizational role (unlike most other types of units). I'm not completely sure about support units like signal or engineer units.

On a 40K note, there is, of course a significant difference between an IG platoon and a modern infantry platoon, namely that a maximum size IG platoon is about 120 men strong (1 PCS, 5 10-man squads, 5 HWT squads, 2 Special teams and a conscript team - 117 dudes if my maths is correct), whereas a modern-day platoon will number around 1/4 of that, and a modern day company will hover around the 120 man level. So you can't really compare in IG platoon with a modern-day platoon, as they are like apples and oranges. Whilst few people will take a full size IG platoon to the table, th opportunity does exist.

I always assumed the heavy weapons squads and special weapons squads were attached to the platoon from the company's heavy weapons platoon, which is how a heavy weapons platoon is usually employed. (Most infantry companies in the U.S. have 1 heavy weapons platoon per 3 regular platoons, or otherwise they get designated as a specialist company). GW just gives HW and SW limits per platoon to make it easy to employ a special weapons platoon in a reasonably balanced manner without silliness (if you take multiple regular platoons, you can actually field more heavy weapons teams than a modern company could).

Modern platoons in the U.S. seem to hover around 50ish people, actually, at least at full strength. A modern US army platoon has 5 squads of 2 4-man fire teams + a seargent, and then a platoon HQ of 6 (PL, SFC, medic, RTO, FO, FO RTO), or 51 soldiers. So that's actually pretty close to GW's 55-man full strength platoon, not counting HW and SW teams (which, as noted, should represent attached assets from a HW platoon). Variation in squad size is usually because of having a different number of fire teams. (Ex: US Marines use 1 seargent commanding 3 fire-teams of 4 as a squad).

So at least at the platoon level, I can pretend they're adherent to something resembling modern military organization.

Now, the *squad* level organization has absolutely nothing to do with modern organization. (Each fire team should have a LMG and a Grenade Launcher. 40k doesn't seem to even have a LMG weapon available for general imperial forces, and instead the whole squad gets maybe a single grenade launcher (or other special weapon) and an attached HW team. Storm Bolter might qualify as an LMG, but it doesn't actually put out enough firepower, since rapidfiring weapons get as many shots at 12" and represent semi-auto weapons. I'd think an LMG would be assault 3 at a minimum). A fire team is also supposed to be able to cover an area up to 500m in radius. 500m is bigger than the entire table area we play on, once you reduce that to 40k scale. (~250", with a generous 1" = 2m) The fire team is also supposed to disperse its members much more than the 2" coherency distance, usually dispersing over 50m. Try covering 25" of distance with 4 models and remaining in coherency in 40k!

Of course, for ridiculous 40k conversions of battlefield roles, artillery takes the cake. Even WW1 artillery range was measured in *kilometers*. Deploying artillery on the table size we use for 40k, much less having some with ranges as short as 36-48", is absolutely ridiculous. If artillery is coming under direct attack at all, its because the infantry lines have already failed, and what the artillery crew should do is either retreat with the guns, or destroy the guns and retreat without them. For the range 40k gives artillery pieces, you'd think we were still using horse-drawn gun carriages and not self-propelled guns (ex: basilisk) and self-propelled mortars (ex: griffon).

[Warhead01]

In the US army the guidons for platoon seemed to stop after training. The smallest unit that I have been in with a guidon during service after training was a company then battalion and brigade and division in that order.  

In a way it is a shame platoons don't continue to carry guidons outside of a training environment.

As far as it goes for the IG I wish that their were more options for banners and guidons. It would be cool to give a guidon to a set of squads that have been combined, even if the only advantage was +1 LD or something small like that. 

I still might try ad add some models like that for my army if for no other reason then it would look good.

[RolandTHTG]

In the US army the guidons for platoon seemed to stop after training. The smallest unit that I have been in with a guidon during service after training was a company then battalion and brigade and division in that order.  

In a way it is a shame platoons don't continue to carry guidons outside of a training environment.

As far as it goes for the IG I wish that their were more options for banners and guidons. It would be cool to give a guidon to a set of squads that have been combined, even if the only advantage was +1 LD or something small like that. 

I still might try ad add some models like that for my army if for no other reason then it would look good.

Might be a way to represent the comissar, if like me you usually only run one for pts purposes.

[Warhead01]

With out thread jacking..

 

Might be a way to represent the comissar, if like me you usually only run one for pts purposes.

I like commissars they are the flavor of 40K I think.

Not because they will shoot some one. But because they don't have to. I have enjoyed the Caine books and I have recently watched all of the Sharpe's movies. Sharpe was basically a commissar. having the best and worst of both worlds. officer and grunt. 

I think you might be on to something putting a guidon in a squad with a commissar announcing to friendly units that he is their and to kindly not shoot or shell in that dereliction.  Well. it sounds good on paper any way.  It might be a good idea to be able to add the platoon command to the "blob" squad as well. Though I don't know what the effect of that would even be, if any.

[RolandTHTG]

I guess I was thinking more as adding a Guidon gives the squad stubborn, keeping them in the fight longer, fighting for the flag type thing. But using it to announce the presence of a comissar could be a neat theme too.

[Kierdale]

I think you might be on to something putting a guidon in a squad with a commissar announcing to friendly units that he is their and to kindly not shoot or shell in that dereliction.

Lovely Freudian slip there :D

[WarriorFish]

Good old Sharpe! Always good to watch, even if it's just to see something Sean Bean doesn't die in... Fitting too since IG regiments still have some of the Napoleonic era in them - chiefly the standards part.

 

This is an interesting topic, but let's not forget the reason you can have standards in command squads is because someone at GW thought it looks cool (and likely a civilian with little knowledge of the modern military at that). My CCS has made many a glorious charge to victory and it would be nowhere near as good if there wasn't a banner at the head of the charge so I'm inclined to agree. In 40k things tend to not make much sense or only be partially be based in reality before veering off into the warp so trying to make sense of it seems to be to be asking for a headache!

[Mr.selfdestruct]

I run a Drookian Fen Guard infantry force and make regular use of standards, both platoon and 'regiment'.  I completely agree with the well researched perspective that having standards/flags/what have you at this level is wonky, however instead of splitting hairs about the presence of a flag let's simply look at the effect the equipment gives.  Platoon:  +1 to combat resolution.  Translation:  We fight harder in the vicinity of this item.  Regimental: Same, PLUS reroll failed morale/pinning saves. Translation:  Keep it together boys, the X is watching over us!     Frankly the way I see it, these items do not have to be flags at all. I am in the process of converting pipers for my Fen Guard for example.  Much like the Tanith, who wouldn't unfurl a giant tapestry in the middle of a stealth mission, the presence of the ancient traditional songs of Tanith have the same effect on the morale of the men and women who can hear it.  Historically, look at some of the combat shenanegans of Jack Churchill in WW2.  He was known to play his pipes in combat to great effect.  Alternatively, I can see the Catechans keeping the skull of a particularly large alpha predator around as a motivational icon/mascot in battles, having much the same effect as a standard.  

  I guess my point is that you are totally right about the military inaccuracy of platoon standards, but the best way around it is to find a reasonable explanation for your army as to what is boosting morale.    In the book World War Z they describe a large battle where heavy metal was blasted out of loudspeakers to amp up the weary soldiers fighting hordes of zombies.  My two cents.

[WarriorFish]

Agreed completely, just make it work for your army - your piper plans being a fantastic example. Also Jack Churchill was awesome, but I think his non-pipe exploits are more impressive :P

 

I don't really use Platoon level standards because they don't do that much but I think I'll model some up now. After discussing in another topic the merits of the Marine banners (or lack thereof) I decided to use the banner model but just not buy the actual banner. There's nothing stopping me doing the same for my Platoons if I want :)

[shandwen]

     Hey i've just got to give a little input on the U.S.M.C.'s way of organizing a unit.  I spent a decient while with 1/9, even deployed with them, so I have quite a bit of understanding of the flexibility and organization of a unit. 

     First off the Marines still use the regimental level. But before i explain the regiment, lets cover a battalion.

     A typical marine infantry battalion consits of 800-900 marines and sailors, in 5 companies, 3 line infantry companies, 1 weapons company, and a headquarters and logistical company.  Inside the line company, there is a mirror of the battalion level, 3 infantry platoons, 1 weapons platoon and a headquarters element.  The Weapons company is split into different sections based on what weapon system(s) they are trained on.  There will be a mobile section to use TOW missiles, and differetn section to utilize the other weapons such as HMGs and mortars.  The Headquarters company consits of the operations staff, with ushually two pilots acting as forward observers, the logistical section, the intelligence section, the comand section, the medical section, and a scout/sniper section.

     The great thing about the battalion level is its flexibility.  Each weapons platoon is made to be combined with the other infantry platoons in its company, and also trained to act as regular infantry if it needs to.  In my deployment, my squad actually consited of 2 0351's (assualt/missile), 2 0331's (machinegun and mk-19 opperators), a corpsman, and the rest were regular infantry.

     The regiment is just as flexible, as it adds another level of mobility (with more trucks for logistics and movement), and another level of command with roughly 300-400 more personel.  Each regimental HQ oversees 3-4 infantry battalions.  So in the U.S.M.C. a regiment consits of roughly 3,000 men.  To support each regiment there are further battalions of APCs, Engineers, Light Armor, Recon, Tanks, and a full regiment of Arty.  Each of these other assets is avialable to be shifted to any given unit as the division staff sees fit.

  The last thing of note is how even without specific trained personel, there is a huge level of avialabity of heavier weapons on just the squad level.  In my deployment I saw nearly every squad in the battalion having multiple medium or heavy weapons.  My squad alone had 2 240b mgs, and a .50 mg that was traded out for a mk19 later on.  There really was a inbuilt level of flexibilty at every level, to adapt to any situation.