NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #6

[Das-husland]

I am looking at possibly turning my military inside out as it were to create squads of roughly ten troops, upscale to a platoon of 100 troops, regiment of 1000 troops, and a battlelion of 10 000. Whilst I see most IFV and APCs have seating for five, Would the scale of ten actually work.

Regiments would be essentially each different discipline of squad, and individual platoons and squads would be drawn from each regiment, rather than having mixed squads. In certain situations I could see the usefulness of having mixed squads (Snipers spotting for an AT squad or automatic rifleman squad). but, as my forces do tend to have numerical advantage, this'd mean a greater affect on the situation on the ground. So you'd end up having *approximately* 20 or 30 men in a single squad engagement.

Just something I am pondering for future reference.

[Yukonastan]

I am looking at possibly turning my military inside out as it were to create squads of roughly ten troops, upscale to a platoon of 100 troops, regiment of 1000 troops, and a battlelion of 10 000. Whilst I see most IFV and APCs have seating for five, Would the scale of ten actually work.

Regiments would be essentially each different discipline of squad, and individual platoons and squads would be drawn from each regiment, rather than having mixed squads. In certain situations I could see the usefulness of having mixed squads (Snipers spotting for an AT squad or automatic rifleman squad). but, as my forces do tend to have numerical advantage, this'd mean a greater affect on the situation on the ground. So you'd end up having *approximately* 20 or 30 men in a single squad engagement.

Just something I am pondering for future reference.

Your platoons seem large, but that's just me with my lulzily small 20 and 18 man plts, probably.

[Tule]

So, questions!

1. How long does it take a division (a Soviet-scale division) that's in a reasonable state (well-trained officers, vehicles in a good state of maintenance) - to get out of its barracks and onto transport trucks/trains upon alert? Is 24 hours a reasonable time figure to aim at?

2. How long would it take to load a ship such as the SS United States with troops?

During the first two days of operation Dynamo, 25,000 men were evacuated from Dunkirk, 7,600 of which arrived in England on the first day.
Mind you that these troops were not in great shape and the evacuation took a week of planning.

If your division is ready to move and the transport is available, I think 24 hours is achievable.

[Imperializt Russia]

Or you could not be so catastrophically dangerous and just use lead as your rocket fuel.
That'd be far safer than these mad compounds.

Hey, hey, it was just a playful thought. I know that FOOF is violently hypergolic with just about everything there is.

The joke being that mercury is also ludicrously dangerous as a rocket fuel, yet not catastrophically dangerous.
Mercury was considered for shipboard missile fuel in the USN.

I meant mercury, not lead.

I am looking at possibly turning my military inside out as it were to create squads of roughly ten troops, upscale to a platoon of 100 troops, regiment of 1000 troops, and a battlelion of 10 000. Whilst I see most IFV and APCs have seating for five, Would the scale of ten actually work.

Regiments would be essentially each different discipline of squad, and individual platoons and squads would be drawn from each regiment, rather than having mixed squads. In certain situations I could see the usefulness of having mixed squads (Snipers spotting for an AT squad or automatic rifleman squad). but, as my forces do tend to have numerical advantage, this'd mean a greater affect on the situation on the ground. So you'd end up having *approximately* 20 or 30 men in a single squad engagement.

Just something I am pondering for future reference.

This isn't how units work. Refer to this post. Disregard the angry tone.
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=296708&p=21611370#p21611370
You need command, logistical and supporting elements to straight-up infantry.

It is typically considered that a commander will not be able to handle organising more than five distinctly subordinate combat units. Consider the Soviet model, as I posted in that reply. The platoon commander only commands three sections. The company commander only commands three fighting platoons. The battalion commander commands three fighting companies and a support network - the mortar unit and anti-tank unit. There is a logistical tail to this unit, from which fuel, munitions, ammunition and weapon systems are moved to subordinate units from.
The Soviet Divisional Commander has a lot more units to deal with - four fighting Regiments, reserve tank battalion, large artillery formations, air defences and reconnaissance units etc - but he has a lot of staff and a lot of opportunities for delegation.

Fifty troops, though this should not be considered a hard limit, is about the maximum that one would expect for a platoon. The Soviet motor rifle platoon had 21 fighting men, two command personnel and two or three vehicle crew for three vehicles, giving a total of 32 personnel. Western light infantry, on account of larger squads or sections (rather than 7+3 or 7+2 as may occur in the Soviet system, the USMC have three fireteams of four plus one squad leader per squad, giving 13 men) and not having mechanised vehicles for supporting firepower typically push 35-45 men depending on the country and unit.

[Questers]

I am looking at possibly turning my military inside out as it were to create squads of roughly ten troops, upscale to a platoon of 100 troops, regiment of 1000 troops, and a battlelion of 10 000. Whilst I see most IFV and APCs have seating for five, Would the scale of ten actually work.

Regiments would be essentially each different discipline of squad, and individual platoons and squads would be drawn from each regiment, rather than having mixed squads. In certain situations I could see the usefulness of having mixed squads (Snipers spotting for an AT squad or automatic rifleman squad). but, as my forces do tend to have numerical advantage, this'd mean a greater affect on the situation on the ground. So you'd end up having *approximately* 20 or 30 men in a single squad engagement.

Just something I am pondering for future reference.

None of this is a good idea.

(Edit - nevermind, Samoz sorted it.)

[Immoren]

I am looking at possibly turning my military inside out as it were to create squads of roughly ten troops, upscale to a platoon of 100 troops, regiment of 1000 troops, and a battlelion of 10 000. Whilst I see most IFV and APCs have seating for five, Would the scale of ten actually work.

Regiments would be essentially each different discipline of squad, and individual platoons and squads would be drawn from each regiment, rather than having mixed squads. In certain situations I could see the usefulness of having mixed squads (Snipers spotting for an AT squad or automatic rifleman squad). but, as my forces do tend to have numerical advantage, this'd mean a greater affect on the situation on the ground. So you'd end up having *approximately* 20 or 30 men in a single squad engagement.

Just something I am pondering for future reference.

Great Khan, is that you?

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

I have a similar question about command:

I have a very simplified way to group people. Privates are in fire teams of two to three, and in a group of five (tactical firetram), it is commanded by a Corporal. Squads are ten man strong and are governed by a Sergeant. Platoons are 20 man strong, governed by Lieutenants. Companies are commanded by a Captain, with 200 to 250 soldiers in it. Past that it gets fuzzy. But would a system like that work?

[Questers]

I have a similar question about command:

I have a very simplified way to group people. Privates are in fire teams of two to three, and in a group of five (tactical firetram), it is commanded by a Corporal. Squads are ten man strong and are governed by a Sergeant. Platoons are 20 man strong, governed by Lieutenants. Companies are commanded by a Captain, with 200 to 250 soldiers in it. Past that it gets fuzzy. But would a system like that work?

Yesss, but it's a huge company.

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

I realize that, but when I checked out the normal sizes, that's about a good size.

[Imperializt Russia]

I have a similar question about command:

I have a very simplified way to group people. Privates are in fire teams of two to three, and in a group of five (tactical firetram), it is commanded by a Corporal. Squads are ten man strong and are governed by a Sergeant. Platoons are 20 man strong, governed by Lieutenants. Companies are commanded by a Captain, with 200 to 250 soldiers in it. Past that it gets fuzzy. But would a system like that work?

Past that it should get fuzzy for a number of reasons.
As my link above suggests, above a Company-sized unit is the Battalion, a critical element of military command and structure. The Battalion is traditionally the smallest unit that can operate independently, and is usually allocated its own supporting arms and logistical capabilities. An infantry or "Rifle" Battalion, as well as fighting companies of men, may additionally feature reconnaissance squads or platoons, air defence, anti-tank platoons, mortar batteries, field kitchens, medical units and supply trucks.

In broad senses, your numbers are perfectly conventional. Your platoons are undersized which offer a somewhat oversized Company unit. Assuming it's all fighting platoons, your Company Commander has to command about ten small platoons. If you increased the size of your platoons to thirty by adding a third Squad unit, then the manpower requirement for ~200 overall is about seven platoons. Factor in supporting arms and a command element, and this could be a bloated but manageable five or six fighting platoons.

[Imperializt Russia]

I realize that, but when I checked out the normal sizes, that's about a good size.

Traditionally, platoons and/or squads are much larger than yours.
The "list" on wiki is only really for a broad understanding.

So that when someone says to you "battalion", you think "okay, this is a unit of a few hundred or over a thousand men. It must have a number of Companies as part of it."

I have a similar question about command:

I have a very simplified way to group people. Privates are in fire teams of two to three, and in a group of five (tactical firetram), it is commanded by a Corporal. Squads are ten man strong and are governed by a Sergeant. Platoons are 20 man strong, governed by Lieutenants. Companies are commanded by a Captain, with 200 to 250 soldiers in it. Past that it gets fuzzy. But would a system like that work?

Binary organization for maximum hi-speed-lo-drag?

Well...
http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/ ... opic=10574

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

Well, as a rule, I have a list of standardized, expected sizes of battalions, brigades, etc. Actually... I don't even use Brigades.... I just jump to Divisions, then to Corps and Armies. If I use simplified, and smaller than expected numbers, will I be good?

[Immoren]

Well...
http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/ ... opic=10574

You managed to caught my derp.
Obviously it's not binary at COy level for they.

Well, as a rule, I have a list of standardized, expected sizes of battalions, brigades, etc. Actually... I don't even use Brigades.... I just jump to Divisions, then to Corps and Armies. If I use simplified, and smaller than expected numbers, will I be good?

Depending on size of your army you shouldn't skip regiment/brigade level.
And if it's small enough rather keep brigade and do away with division.

[Questers]

Well, as a rule, I have a list of standardized, expected sizes of battalions, brigades, etc. Actually... I don't even use Brigades.... I just jump to Divisions, then to Corps and Armies. If I use simplified, and smaller than expected numbers, will I be good?

If Divisions are the size you would expect them to be, you need a link inbetween battalion and division; either regiment or brigade.

Using a real life system is much easier until you have an understanding of the complexity of the matter.

[Imperializt Russia]

The Brigade, as a level of unit, can be considered analogous to the Regiment. The Regiment, or Brigade, is another key level of unit.
The way I see it, Regiments would be the subordinate of Divisions, whilst Brigades would be Regiment-sized independent units.

Consider the US. The US military is transitioning to what it calls the BCT system - the Brigade Combat Team. A BCT Brigade is essentially an oversized regiment or an undersized Division. Critically, unlike in the previous US system on the Divisional model - the Brigade is an independent unit and will be the primary manoeuvre unit of the US military, sort of replacing Divisions.
The Regiment is a key bridge between the complexity of the Division and the capability of the Battalion.

Additionally, independent units are also key. Even large, heavily-mechanised forces will have a large number of "independent" units (the Russians were very fond of independent tank battalions and regiments) to operate in concert with larger formations, though not under them.

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

Hmm..

My divisions are 10,000 strong, armies 100,000.

So if I have an independent unit 2,500 to 5,000 man strong, that would work? Hmm... I think I'll use 2,500...

[Questers]

They don't scale linearly. A Division could consist of 30-50 subunits, some regiments, some battalions, some companies, some platoons, all of varying sizes.

Choose an Army that is as similar to your own as possible (from real life, from any time period tbh) and we'll see what information about its structure we can dig up. You can then use that and modify it to your needs.

You can't just have a system which is like:
unit A - X
unit B - X*10
unit C - X*100
unit D - X*1000

because this isn't the roman army

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

I like being standard

[Immoren]

They don't scale linearly. A Division could consist of 30-50 subunits, some regiments, some battalions, some companies, some platoons, all of varying sizes.

Choose an Army that is as similar to your own as possible (from real life, from any time period tbh) and we'll see what information about its structure we can dig up. You can then use that and modify it to your needs.

You can't just have a system which is like:
unit A - X
unit B - X*10
unit C - X*100
unit D - X*1000

because this isn't the roman army

You mean Mongols?
Romans didn't have linearly scaling army through whole organization. At least during entirety of history.

[Questers]

What you like, unfortunately, is not causally related to how things work.

[Gallia-]

Hey, hey, it was just a playful thought. I know that FOOF is violently hypergolic with just about everything there is.

The joke being that mercury is also ludicrously dangerous as a rocket fuel, yet not catastrophically dangerous.
Mercury was considered for shipboard missile fuel in the USN.

I meant mercury, not lead.

I am looking at possibly turning my military inside out as it were to create squads of roughly ten troops, upscale to a platoon of 100 troops, regiment of 1000 troops, and a battlelion of 10 000. Whilst I see most IFV and APCs have seating for five, Would the scale of ten actually work.

Regiments would be essentially each different discipline of squad, and individual platoons and squads would be drawn from each regiment, rather than having mixed squads. In certain situations I could see the usefulness of having mixed squads (Snipers spotting for an AT squad or automatic rifleman squad). but, as my forces do tend to have numerical advantage, this'd mean a greater affect on the situation on the ground. So you'd end up having *approximately* 20 or 30 men in a single squad engagement.

Just something I am pondering for future reference.

This isn't how units work. Refer to this post. Disregard the angry tone.
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=296708&p=21611370#p21611370
You need command, logistical and supporting elements to straight-up infantry.

It is typically considered that a commander will not be able to handle organising more than five distinctly subordinate combat units. Consider the Soviet model, as I posted in that reply. The platoon commander only commands three sections. The company commander only commands three fighting platoons. The battalion commander commands three fighting companies and a support network - the mortar unit and anti-tank unit. There is a logistical tail to this unit, from which fuel, munitions, ammunition and weapon systems are moved to subordinate units from.
The Soviet Divisional Commander has a lot more units to deal with - four fighting Regiments, reserve tank battalion, large artillery formations, air defences and reconnaissance units etc - but he has a lot of staff and a lot of opportunities for delegation.

Fifty troops, though this should not be considered a hard limit, is about the maximum that one would expect for a platoon. The Soviet motor rifle platoon had 21 fighting men, two command personnel and two or three vehicle crew for three vehicles, giving a total of 32 personnel. Western light infantry, on account of larger squads or sections (rather than 7+3 or 7+2 as may occur in the Soviet system, the USMC have three fireteams of four plus one squad leader per squad, giving 13 men) and not having mechanised vehicles for supporting firepower typically push 35-45 men depending on the country and unit.

Dimethylmercury you mean?

That isn't mercury, and it is a literal cancer fuel.

Cancer USN of the Skeleton Future runs on extreme carcinogens, and cancailors have no flesh being only bleached skeletons from their missile exhausts. Cancer USN uses twin arms too.

[Yukonastan]

The joke being that mercury is also ludicrously dangerous as a rocket fuel, yet not catastrophically dangerous.
Mercury was considered for shipboard missile fuel in the USN.

I meant mercury, not lead.
This isn't how units work. Refer to this post. Disregard the angry tone.
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=296708&p=21611370#p21611370
You need command, logistical and supporting elements to straight-up infantry.

It is typically considered that a commander will not be able to handle organising more than five distinctly subordinate combat units. Consider the Soviet model, as I posted in that reply. The platoon commander only commands three sections. The company commander only commands three fighting platoons. The battalion commander commands three fighting companies and a support network - the mortar unit and anti-tank unit. There is a logistical tail to this unit, from which fuel, munitions, ammunition and weapon systems are moved to subordinate units from.
The Soviet Divisional Commander has a lot more units to deal with - four fighting Regiments, reserve tank battalion, large artillery formations, air defences and reconnaissance units etc - but he has a lot of staff and a lot of opportunities for delegation.

Fifty troops, though this should not be considered a hard limit, is about the maximum that one would expect for a platoon. The Soviet motor rifle platoon had 21 fighting men, two command personnel and two or three vehicle crew for three vehicles, giving a total of 32 personnel. Western light infantry, on account of larger squads or sections (rather than 7+3 or 7+2 as may occur in the Soviet system, the USMC have three fireteams of four plus one squad leader per squad, giving 13 men) and not having mechanised vehicles for supporting firepower typically push 35-45 men depending on the country and unit.

Dimethylmercury you mean?

That isn't mercury, and it is a literal cancer fuel.

Cancer USN of the Skeleton Future runs on extreme carcinogens, and cancailors have no flesh being only bleached skeletons from their missile exhausts. Cancer USN uses twin arms too.

We were joking around a bit a few pages back about chlorine trifluoride(CF3) or dioxygen difluoride(F2O2, FOOF) as chemical weapons or in military use.
A slight problem is that both are strongly hypergolic with military personnel and just about everything else to boot.

[Imperializt Russia]

Hmm..

My divisions are 10,000 strong, armies 100,000.

So if I have an independent unit 2,500 to 5,000 man strong, that would work? Hmm... I think I'll use 2,500...

In a Soviet Motor Rifle Division, the total manpower was approximately 12,500 men and the primary unit was the Motor Rifle Regiment of approximately 2,500 men.

Critically, the Division did not comprise five Motor Rifle Regiments. It comprised three MRRs, and one Tank Regiment of less than 2,500 men. It also comprised an Artillery Regiment, of over a thousand men, air defences, mechanics, medics, logistical troops, and a helicopter formation.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm considering reviving my old large-unit platoon structure as a model for the paramilitaries.

Does anyone see any real issues with this? Unlike the Army, paramilitaries are pretty much light-infantry and many will not be mechanised, so I don't see much reason sticking to the conventional Army model.

[The Kievan People]

I believe this depends strongly on the type of battalion. During WW2, a Soviet T-34 battalion could load or unload onto its platforms within 45 minutes.

Of course, this would not scale, because you are not going to be loading the entire 40 battalions simultaneously onto trains. On a vary low ballpark number, a Soviet division would require something around 700-800 railcars to move. (A wholly ballpark estimate based on the amount of vehicles in a division, and I have never discovered any documentation elaborating like this). Because an 800-railcar train is impossible, and would be a bad idea even if it existed.

I believe that the rational way to prepare a division for train transport is to first of all divide it into regiments. They can load into trains separately. Practical reasons will prohibit you from simultaneously loading all the regiments into 6 trains or more (because of space limitatios at most rail yards), but you could likely load 2-3 at once.

With this in mind you could I believe you could get a division into its constituent trains within 24 hours of start time (i.e. of the moment the alarm rings at the division barracks and annoyed men leap out from their beds).

Good question!

It would depend on the loading platforms available. A division will require over 2000 rail cars, 20-40+ train loads. Loading each train probably will not take very long at all, as long as there is enough space to rapidly load and unload them. But if you are loading 2-3 at once and have enough rolling stock that you don't need to wait for empty trains to return, getting the the entire division on the rails in 24 hours is plausible.

These are worth perusing:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a538094.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/711639.pdf