NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #5

[Zeinbrad]

Know any reliable sources for soviet unit organization?

I would look, but I don't which ones are reliable, accurate sources.

Have you checked the OP?

Lowland stop, your making me feel stupid.....

I was on a phone that was about to die, that's my excuse....

[Kouralia]

I was on a phone that was about to die, that's my excuse....

No excuse. *bangs gavel* One...MILLION years Dungeon.

---

Right... So, what's so special about US Brigade Combat Teams? I look at the WikiMedia APP-06 chart for the 'Heavy Brigade Combat Team', and it seems to be very similar to the British Armoured Brigade formation from armedforces.co.uk. So, what is it that separates a BCT from a Brigade, as I thought a BCT was distinguished as having integral combat support service units, while it seems to have nothing that a British Brigade does or doesn't have...

[Spirit of Hope]

Right... So, what's so special about US Brigade Combat Teams? I look at the WikiMedia APP-06 chart for the 'Heavy Brigade Combat Team', and it seems to be very similar to the British Armoured Brigade formation from armedforces.co.uk. So, what is it that separates a BCT from a Brigade, as I thought a BCT was distinguished as having integral combat support service units, while it seems to have nothing that a British Brigade does or doesn't have...

From my understanding it is theUS moving to smaller more modular units. Mostly as a response to Iraq and Afghanistan where it was realized that the previous system was large and unwieldy outside of high intensity combat against a large foe.

[The Akasha Colony]

Right... So, what's so special about US Brigade Combat Teams? I look at the WikiMedia APP-06 chart for the 'Heavy Brigade Combat Team', and it seems to be very similar to the British Armoured Brigade formation from armedforces.co.uk. So, what is it that separates a BCT from a Brigade, as I thought a BCT was distinguished as having integral combat support service units, while it seems to have nothing that a British Brigade does or doesn't have...

The UK made the switch to smaller combat formations out of necessity. Prior to BCT, there was still an expectation that whole divisions would be employed together. Thus, the switch to BCT moved support elements to lower levels relative to what they had been placed at before.

That aside, if you will notice, the US armored BCT has a different ratio of infantry to tanks, as well as integration of tanks and infantry at the battalion level, unlike the British model which keeps them in separate battalions (and has more infantry battalions than tank battalions).

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I was on a phone that was about to die, that's my excuse....

No excuse. *bangs gavel* One...MILLION years Dungeon.

---

Right... So, what's so special about US Brigade Combat Teams? I look at the WikiMedia APP-06 chart for the 'Heavy Brigade Combat Team', and it seems to be very similar to the British Armoured Brigade formation from armedforces.co.uk. So, what is it that separates a BCT from a Brigade, as I thought a BCT was distinguished as having integral combat support service units, while it seems to have nothing that a British Brigade does or doesn't have...

Aren't the Brits also organized around brigades? It'd make sense seeing how there are literally 0 overland potential military operations that they'd carry out, and they haven't for a long time, have they? Perhaps except for the Troubles, but that was more COIN/peacekeeping, not a war. Overland large formations probably work better IMO, unless you're engaged in some sort of imperialistic rampage where you have to cover so much ground that your troops become scattered to the point that you'd be better off with a more decentralized strategy.

When your military is focused on expeditionary warfare (e.g. US, UK) you'd probably want smaller formations with more localized support etc. as they may or may not become too scattered for their supporting assets to work properly.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Hey everyone!

I am developing an armored patrol vehicle to replace the HMMWVs currently being used with my armed services. A contender I have looked at in the past was the Cadillac Gage Commando, specifically the new Commando Select 90mm Direct Fire version, and I was impressed but for several minor reasons decided I'd take a stab at creating my own. One of the things about the Commando that left a major impression on me, however, is the vehicle's amphibious abilities.

This is where I need a little help. The Cavall, what I have decided to name my vehicle, with utilize a V-Hull design to both protect the crew from IEDs and light to medium landmines as well as the following amphibious abilities that correlate to a V Hull: Good ability to hold a steered direction at speed and excellent performance in rough waters (the latter being essential to the Cavall's design if the Cavall is to operate during amphibious landings like I hope it too).

The Cavall has a maximum freeboard limit of 1.88m thanks to a very high bow (1.64m is the vehicle's generic freeboard under normal weight conditions), but I am unsure as to how exactly how well the extra 0.24m of freeboard allowed will hold up under:
A. Heavyweight conditions (vehicle loaded past suggested amount due to various military emergency scenarios)
and
B. Rough Seas (the hull design, while effect on rough seas, does not affect the bow.)


Any help, questions, comments, needed information or did is my research holding up for once?


-Thanks!

So this would replace your HMMWVs only for armored patrol?

Edit:

1. Something like a V-100 with a 90mm gun won't work well for armored patrol. I don't know what your definition of armored patrol is, what do you want to use this for exactly? A HMG or perhaps even light AC would be much better suited IMO. And really, the V-100 and similar vehicles won't work well for armored patrol, especially not with a cannon on top, because they are really meant to be scouts or lightweight fire support vehicles, not APCs, they're kind of cramped and only have room for very few dismounts, if at all.

2. V-hulls are OK, and I suppose the vehicle's amphibious capability further justifies it. Keep in mind however that depending on how pronounced they are, they impart a higher center of gravity and inherent higher risk of rollover. If you're imagining an amphibious MRAP, don't bother.

3. Unless you plan to use this as a landing vehicle too (LVTP style) which I don't really recommend, how it performs in rough seas shouldn't concern you too much as you should probably have a specialized vehicle for that. And you don't really want to overload your vehicles especially when they're to cross a body of water. Again, I'm not very knowledgeable, but as long as you keep it decent, it will probably just "sink" more in water and move slower because of the added weight.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I'd love it if someone could review this post. Because I'm unsure on like most of everything from his use of satellites to his deployment locations.

Jemand?

[Arthurista]

The UK made the switch to smaller combat formations out of necessity. Prior to BCT, there was still an expectation that whole divisions would be employed together. Thus, the switch to BCT moved support elements to lower levels relative to what they had been placed at before.

That aside, if you will notice, the US armored BCT has a different ratio of infantry to tanks, as well as integration of tanks and infantry at the battalion level, unlike the British model which keeps them in separate battalions (and has more infantry battalions than tank battalions).

Well, the separate battalions thing is mainly admininistrative. In active operations, battalions will cross-attach their organic subunits to each other to form 'battlegroups' - see here.

No excuse. *bangs gavel* One...MILLION years Dungeon.

---

Right... So, what's so special about US Brigade Combat Teams? I look at the WikiMedia APP-06 chart for the 'Heavy Brigade Combat Team', and it seems to be very similar to the British Armoured Brigade formation from armedforces.co.uk. So, what is it that separates a BCT from a Brigade, as I thought a BCT was distinguished as having integral combat support service units, while it seems to have nothing that a British Brigade does or doesn't have...

Aren't the Brits also organized around brigades? It'd make sense seeing how there are literally 0 overland potential military operations that they'd carry out, and they haven't for a long time, have they? Perhaps except for the Troubles, but that was more COIN/peacekeeping, not a war. Overland large formations probably work better IMO, unless you're engaged in some sort of imperialistic rampage where you have to cover so much ground that your troops become scattered to the point that you'd be better off with a more decentralized strategy.

When your military is focused on expeditionary warfare (e.g. US, UK) you'd probably want smaller formations with more localized support etc. as they may or may not become too scattered for their supporting assets to work properly.

In the 2003 invasion of Iraq the British Army sent the 7th Armoured Brigade as a heavy force, plus the 16th Air Assault Brigade and the Royal Marines' 3rd Commando Brigade, both light infantry formations, all under the 1st Armoured Division HQ. While the 7th Armoured is normally attached to the 1st AD, neither of the light brigades are. It's pretty obvious that there're significant similarities with the US 'plug-and-play' modular approach.

[Arthurista]

Would a laser SACLOS ATGM (say something like the Kornet, but with overfly top attack) be significantly cheaper than IIR+fire-and-forget? How do they compare in terms of defeating countermeasures?

[Kampala-]

1) Yes.
2) IIR is significantly better.

[The Akasha Colony]

Well, the separate battalions thing is mainly admininistrative. In active operations, battalions will cross-attach their organic subunits to each other to form 'battlegroups' - see here.

It is for the US as well, except nowadays the US does it at the platoon level, and it's closer to a 1:1 ratio of Abrams to Bradleys. It's also the only armored or heavy mechanized infantry unit the US fields, since the Stryker BCT is based on Strykers (obviously) and the Infantry BCT is based on Humvees and other unarmored vehicles. Neither of these other formations have tanks or tracked IFVs.

In the 2003 invasion of Iraq the British Army sent the 7th Armoured Brigade as a heavy force, plus the 16th Air Assault Brigade and the Royal Marines' 3rd Commando Brigade, both light infantry formations, all under the 1st Armoured Division HQ. While the 7th Armoured is normally attached to the 1st AD, neither of the light brigades are. It's pretty obvious that there're significant similarities with the US 'plug-and-play' modular approach.

Note that there was nothing very "special" about the BCTs themselves. The US had already been forming ad-hoc battle groups for a long time, going all the way back to WWII with the old regimental combat team. It was noteworthy in the US because adopting BCTs meant reorganizing from previous more specialized formations to more general purpose ones laid out along just three ground brigade types (leaving aside CABs). Alongside pushing support assets further down, another objective was standardization for all brigades to one of the three types, including special purpose divisions (101st and 82nd use the light infantry BCT organization).

It wasn't a revolutionary idea, but it was a major overhaul of existing organization, particularly when the Stryker BCT was added between the armored and infantry units.

[Questers]

They are meant to be in other vehicles, BUT - I want to find some way to abstract them into working separately. Possibly by relativising them against the other side's air defence (like air power) before calculating their combat value (which will be high.)

Looks like hilarious spending-per-head pays off. Although that also means I do need to sit down and tabulate up all of the miscellaneous vehicles I would have; they're sitting around in various places but I've never totalled them up aside from tanks, IFVs, reconnaissance vehicles, and non-mortar artillery.

EDIT: I was also wondering a bit about the APC category; does it simply include all armed vehicles even if they are not expected to engage in combat? For instance, do the Humvees attached to company/battalion/brigade command count if they're armed with MGs, even if they aren't meant to be frontline combat vehicles? Or even APC/IFV-derived command vehicles, also armed and armored, but not expected to fight?

Spending per head, realistically, should not exceed 400 ish.

A Humvee would be an APC. The reason APC is included is it adds off-road, protected, transport capacity, which is a force multiplier. As opposed to IFV which is a straight up battle wagon. Trucks would be "other" vehicles.

[Kampala-]

Humvee lacks troop transport and protection.

It's just a two and a half ton truck.

[Questers]

Actually, yea, humvee would not count as an APC. Dunno what I was thinking. It is neither armoured nor is it a personnel carrier.

[Kampala-]

Well, certain versions are armoured and it can carry like 2 people including the crew.

It's not standard though, and those are a very very small number of the 100,000+ produced. Most are just used for general purpose liaison and transportation you'd use a MUTT for.

[The Akasha Colony]

Spending per head, realistically, should not exceed 400 ish.

I suppose the question is the metric. US defense spending in 2013 per active-duty soldier was ~$490,000. Including reserves and National Guard though it drops to ~$310,000, but they don't receive the same payment or compensation as active duty soldiers, nor do they consume as much of the training or deployment budget. And of course it changes if compensation is removed and only direct procurement and training costs per head are considered. So I suppose the question is which metric is it supposed to use?

A Humvee would be an APC. The reason APC is included is it adds off-road, protected, transport capacity, which is a force multiplier. As opposed to IFV which is a straight up battle wagon. Trucks would be "other" vehicles.

Actually, yea, humvee would not count as an APC. Dunno what I was thinking. It is neither armoured nor is it a personnel carrier.

I'd put them in the "other vehicles" category for the time being, looks like I don't have to change it.

[Kouralia]

Looks like hilarious spending-per-head pays off. Although that also means I do need to sit down and tabulate up all of the miscellaneous vehicles I would have; they're sitting around in various places but I've never totalled them up aside from tanks, IFVs, reconnaissance vehicles, and non-mortar artillery.

EDIT: I was also wondering a bit about the APC category; does it simply include all armed vehicles even if they are not expected to engage in combat? For instance, do the Humvees attached to company/battalion/brigade command count if they're armed with MGs, even if they aren't meant to be frontline combat vehicles? Or even APC/IFV-derived command vehicles, also armed and armored, but not expected to fight?

Spending per head, realistically, should not exceed 400 ish.

A Humvee would be an APC. The reason APC is included is it adds off-road, protected, transport capacity, which is a force multiplier. As opposed to IFV which is a straight up battle wagon. Trucks would be "other" vehicles.

Do you think you'll add in some kind of training modifier? So say you could input something to determine the outcome between some Royal Marine Commandos, and some Kimgsmen of the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, and the difference in training quality could have an effect on it.

EDIT: christ, IDT locked due to bollocks and rabid anti-Brit fappery and counter fappery. :<

[The Akasha Colony]

Do you think you'll add in some kind of training modifier? So say you could input something to determine the outcome between some Royal Marine Commandos, and some Kimgsmen of the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, and the difference in training quality could have an effect on it.

EDIT: christ, IDT locked due to bollocks and rabid anti-Brit fappery and counter fappery. :<

I would guess at least in part such differences are controlled by spending-per-head. More money is more money available for training.

[Kouralia]

Do you think you'll add in some kind of training modifier? So say you could input something to determine the outcome between some Royal Marine Commandos, and some Kimgsmen of the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, and the difference in training quality could have an effect on it.

EDIT: christ, IDT locked due to bollocks and rabid anti-Brit fappery and counter fappery. :<

I would guess at least in part such differences are controlled by spending-per-head. More money is more money available for training.

S'pose.

[Zeinbrad]

Okay, let me try again for the Charon Independent Units.

Charon HQ-Lord and his retinue.
1,245 or 2,455 all ranks.
Battle Recon Unit.
- BMPT (About 6 or 7)
-BTR-D (10 or 12)
-A platoon of motobikes.
1st Combat Company.
2nd Combat Company.
3rd Combat Company.
4th Combat Company
Tank Company (About 40 or 45 2S25's)
Artillery Company ( 16 2S1 Gvozdika's)
AA Company (15 9K22 Tunguska's)
Field Kitchen (Normally serves just different flavored nutrient paste, only serves real food during religious events)
Vehicle Workshops/Technical support
Field Hospital.

What do you think? Anything missing?

[San-Silvacian]

Spending per head, realistically, should not exceed 400 ish.

A Humvee would be an APC. The reason APC is included is it adds off-road, protected, transport capacity, which is a force multiplier. As opposed to IFV which is a straight up battle wagon. Trucks would be "other" vehicles.

Do you think you'll add in some kind of training modifier? So say you could input something to determine the outcome between some Royal Marine Commandos, and some Kimgsmen of the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, and the difference in training quality could have an effect on it.

EDIT: christ, IDT locked due to bollocks and rabid anti-Brit fappery and counter fappery. :<

Really is because NS is filled with annoying English nationalism.

[Immoren]

Okay, let me try again for the Charon Independent Units.

Charon HQ-Lord and his retinue.
1,245 or 2,455 all ranks.
Battle Recon Unit.
- BMPT (About 6 or 7)
-BTR-D (10 or 12)
-A platoon of motobikes.
1st Combat Company.
2nd Combat Company.
3rd Combat Company.
4th Combat Company
Tank Company (About 40 or 45 2S25's)
Artillery Company ( 16 2S1 Gvozdika's)
AA Company (15 9K22 Tunguska's)
Field Kitchen (Normally serves just different flavored nutrient paste, only serves real food during religious events)
Vehicle Workshops/Technical support
Field Hospital.

What do you think? Anything missing?

Why would they need kitchen, if they almost solely eat pastes?

[Zeinbrad]

Okay, let me try again for the Charon Independent Units.

Charon HQ-Lord and his retinue.
1,245 or 2,455 all ranks.
Battle Recon Unit.
- BMPT (About 6 or 7)
-BTR-D (10 or 12)
-A platoon of motobikes.
1st Combat Company.
2nd Combat Company.
3rd Combat Company.
4th Combat Company
Tank Company (About 40 or 45 2S25's)
Artillery Company ( 16 2S1 Gvozdika's)
AA Company (15 9K22 Tunguska's)
Field Kitchen (Normally serves just different flavored nutrient paste, only serves real food during religious events)
Vehicle Workshops/Technical support
Field Hospital.

What do you think? Anything missing?

Why would they need kitchen, if they almost solely eat pastes?

Where are they going to store that paste?

It's more of a food storage thing, and I'm thinking Charons can buy different kind of food, if they have the money.

I think the Japanese did that during WW2.

[Questers]

Spending per head, realistically, should not exceed 400 ish.

A Humvee would be an APC. The reason APC is included is it adds off-road, protected, transport capacity, which is a force multiplier. As opposed to IFV which is a straight up battle wagon. Trucks would be "other" vehicles.

Do you think you'll add in some kind of training modifier? So say you could input something to determine the outcome between some Royal Marine Commandos, and some Kimgsmen of the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, and the difference in training quality could have an effect on it.

EDIT: christ, IDT locked due to bollocks and rabid anti-Brit fappery and counter fappery. :<

That is already currently included in per head spending - although I could include a training modifier, the problem is how to abstract it.

something like -
D36*(D37 / 200) where D37 is days of training.

[Anemos Major]

Didn't get this critiqued. Still very much WiP structure for a 'heavy' armoured regiment.

---

AR12 Armoured Regiment (Combat Structure)

RHQ
- Regimental Command Staff (Cmdr, XO, RNCO, staff)
> Logistics Liaison
> Engineers Command and Liaison
- Regimental Anti-Air Platoon (1x MA11 CV, 1x LSAM FCV, 4x LSAM LV)
- Regimental Medical Group (2x MA11 MEDEVAC, 2x Utility Truck, Medical)
- Utility Group (4x Utility Truck, General)

---

Manoeuvre Battalion (x3 per regiment):
- Battalion HQ (1x HT9A8, 2x MA11 CV, 1x MA11 C4I, 1x MA11 IFV, 4x utility vehicles)
- Battalion Recce (2x MA11 RV)
- Utility Group (4x Utility Truck, General)

---

Support Element (1x per battalion):
- Anti-Air Battery (1x MA11 CV, 1x MA11 APC, 4x MA11 SHORADS)
- Anti-Tank Platoon (1x MA11 CV, 4x MA11 ATGM, 1x MA11 VLATGM)

Armoured Company (2x per battalion):
- Company HQ (1x HT9A8, 1x MA11 CV, 2x Utility vehicles)
- Recce Element (1x MA11 RV, 1x Utility RV)
- Engineer Detachment (1x HT9A8 ARV, 1x MA11 ARV, 1x MA11 ECV)
- Support Element (1x MA11 MEDEVAC, 2x MA11 Mortar, 1x MA11 APC)
- Utility Group (2x Utility Truck, General)

---

Armoured Platoon (3x per company):
- Command Element (1x HT9A8)
- 2x Manoeuvre Troops (2x HT9A8, 4x total)

Infantry Component (1x per company):
- Support Element (1x MA11 IFV)
- Dismount Element (3x MA11 APC)