*retreats back to dark factbook hole*
Advertisement
by Palakistan » Sun Oct 04, 2015 1:42 pm
Your worst In Character enemy should be your best Out Of Character friend.- to you who said that: genius!
by The Greater Aryan Race » Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:29 pm
Palakistan wrote:The Greater Aryan Race wrote:I've taken the liberty of tweaking your armoured division TOE, in particular removing the Stryker brigade and keeping just one Mechanised Infantry BCT instead. Since you're using BCTs, I assume that they take after the American model and have indicated as such. Also, I've standardized your IFVs to the M2 Bradley (although you can change this however you want to).
Thank you! And that concludes my 1st Armored Division! What other types of Divisions are there?
by Western Pacific Territories » Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:32 pm
by The Corparation » Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:34 pm
| Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here | A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc. | Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia- |
| Making the Nightmare End | WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety | This Cell is intentionally blank. |
by Western Pacific Territories » Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:35 pm
The Corparation wrote:Western Pacific Territories fix your quote and spoiler tags. You've broked the page.
by Dostanuot Loj » Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:35 pm
by The Corparation » Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:39 pm
[quote][spoiler][/quote][/spoiler]
[quote][spoiler][/spoiler][/quote]| Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here | A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc. | Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia- |
| Making the Nightmare End | WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety | This Cell is intentionally blank. |
by Palakistan » Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:47 pm
The Greater Aryan Race wrote:Palakistan wrote:Thank you! And that concludes my 1st Armored Division! What other types of Divisions are there?
Well for starters, you have infantry divisions which are usually mechanised formations in many modern militaries, often comprising chiefly of IFVs and/or APCs.
Depending on where your country is situated, the terrain and whatnot, you can try to have specialised formations such as mountain divisions, paratroopers, light infantry and so on and so forth.
Edit: Frack, turns out the armoured division is supposed to have 324 tanks and not 108. My bad.
Your worst In Character enemy should be your best Out Of Character friend.- to you who said that: genius!
by Dostanuot Loj » Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:50 pm
by Nachmere » Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:54 pm
Dostanuot Loj wrote:Nachmere wrote:
lol but why? thats a brigade size force your describing.
Because tank-centric proper.
Also, 36 is really small for a battalion. Most sit around 50-60.
As it is you're running 3x3x3 Tanks/Platoons/Companies.
I run 5x3x4.
UK is 4x3x3 btw. US Army does 4x3x4. Soviets loved 3x3x3, but also did 3x4x3.
by Imperializt Russia » Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:57 pm
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Nachmere » Sun Oct 04, 2015 3:00 pm
Imperializt Russia wrote:It sort of does because if you have the same number of tanks but twice as many battalions due to smaller battalion sizes, your force may have greater flexibility and be able to manoeuvre around the larger enemy units.
by Nachmere » Sun Oct 04, 2015 3:02 pm
by Immoren » Sun Oct 04, 2015 3:04 pm
discoursedrome wrote:everyone knows that quote, "I know not what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones," but in a way it's optimistic and inspiring because it suggests that even after destroying civilization and returning to the stone age we'll still be sufficiently globalized and bellicose to have another world war right then and there
by Korva » Sun Oct 04, 2015 3:12 pm
Nachmere wrote:tank-centricism (is that even a word?)
by The Greater Aryan Race » Sun Oct 04, 2015 3:22 pm
Palakistan wrote:The Greater Aryan Race wrote:Well for starters, you have infantry divisions which are usually mechanised formations in many modern militaries, often comprising chiefly of IFVs and/or APCs.
Depending on where your country is situated, the terrain and whatnot, you can try to have specialised formations such as mountain divisions, paratroopers, light infantry and so on and so forth.
Edit: Frack, turns out the armoured division is supposed to have 324 tanks and not 108. My bad.
Would you recommend me having a Mechanized Division? My terrain is Turkey/Egypt, and I currently have 10 Armoured Divisions, which make up my entire army. Should I instead have 8 Armoured Divisions and 2 Mechanized Divisions?
by Dostanuot Loj » Sun Oct 04, 2015 3:24 pm
Nachmere wrote:Dostanuot Loj wrote:
Because tank-centric proper.
Also, 36 is really small for a battalion. Most sit around 50-60.
As it is you're running 3x3x3 Tanks/Platoons/Companies.
I run 5x3x4.
UK is 4x3x3 btw. US Army does 4x3x4. Soviets loved 3x3x3, but also did 3x4x3.
Tank-centric has nothing to do with how many tanks you have in the battalion, it has to do with the general ratio of tank to non-tank units. It makes no difference if I have 36 tank battalions and you have 77 tank battalions if I have the same overall amount of tanks...
At most I could see having another tank company in the battalion, upping the number to 44. I feel like 50+ would make for a clumsy battalion.
there is of course a critical mass cutoff point where the battalion does not have enough tanks to do what a tank battalion does, but this is not at 36 tanks. not even close. I would say 20.
by Palakistan » Sun Oct 04, 2015 3:34 pm
The Greater Aryan Race wrote:Palakistan wrote:Would you recommend me having a Mechanized Division? My terrain is Turkey/Egypt, and I currently have 10 Armoured Divisions, which make up my entire army. Should I instead have 8 Armoured Divisions and 2 Mechanized Divisions?
Mechanised divisions are essentially infantry divisions but equipped with IFVs/APCs rather than just trucks so they're pretty much a necessity in all modern militaries. Also, because of the immense maintenance and logistical demands of maintaining such a disproportionately large number of tank divisions and the fact that infantry usually constitute the mainstay of ground armies, (plus the fact that you occupy a large amount of territory with such open land borders) I recommend you shift your army composition towards something like seen Mechanised infantry divisions and three armoured divisions, with a view perhaps towards expanding the overall size of your military. It doesn't seem to make sense with having so many tank divisions with so little supporting units.
Your worst In Character enemy should be your best Out Of Character friend.- to you who said that: genius!
by Nachmere » Sun Oct 04, 2015 3:34 pm
Dostanuot Loj wrote:Nachmere wrote:
Tank-centric has nothing to do with how many tanks you have in the battalion, it has to do with the general ratio of tank to non-tank units. It makes no difference if I have 36 tank battalions and you have 77 tank battalions if I have the same overall amount of tanks...
At most I could see having another tank company in the battalion, upping the number to 44. I feel like 50+ would make for a clumsy battalion.
Base formations have evolved (Again 50-60 most common) around distribution ideals. Ignoring proficiency in platoon size regarding engagement needs, the structure of the company-battalion aspect can provide advantages and disadvantages. IR (above) is talking about a point I made here years ago where the Soviets used a 3x3x3 structure, having moved from 4x4x3 to 3x4x3, then finally 3x3x3. The short of it being that the Soviets decided they could increase the number of maneuver units (Battalions) by shrinking them to a minimum adequate size. By reducing from 56 to 31 tanks per battalion they could have three battalions for the cost of 1.6. When you're waging large sweeping maneuvers with divisions and corps, with vastly mixed units, it works. So they did it to have more battalions for the same number of tanks.
But the point of evolution regarding the upper levels in Western formations was splitting. A 4x3x4 structure, for example, allows a battalion to split its companies amongst four units, or a company to split amongst 3 units, or a platoon amongst 2 units. They do this to split tanks among infantry units. The UK does this as well, as does Canada, and so on. The Soviets didn't split them below battalion as much.
For reference, my structure is designed to fight in open warfare between heavily armoured formations, not to split among infantry. Also I work three platoons of tanks, plus a platoon of "gun tanks" which are slightly different, but I added them in. Regardless, I have large battalions, but you have small ones. I would suggest an extra formation in there at some level.there is of course a critical mass cutoff point where the battalion does not have enough tanks to do what a tank battalion does, but this is not at 36 tanks. not even close. I would say 20.
The Soviets decided the absolute minimum was a 2x3x3 structure. Which means 18 if there are no command tanks. Any less was untenable. But they played dangerously close to the limit where things became untenable, it was a risk they were willing to take because replacements were readily available at all levels.
by Dostanuot Loj » Sun Oct 04, 2015 4:06 pm
Nachmere wrote:Dostanuot Loj wrote:
Base formations have evolved (Again 50-60 most common) around distribution ideals. Ignoring proficiency in platoon size regarding engagement needs, the structure of the company-battalion aspect can provide advantages and disadvantages. IR (above) is talking about a point I made here years ago where the Soviets used a 3x3x3 structure, having moved from 4x4x3 to 3x4x3, then finally 3x3x3. The short of it being that the Soviets decided they could increase the number of maneuver units (Battalions) by shrinking them to a minimum adequate size. By reducing from 56 to 31 tanks per battalion they could have three battalions for the cost of 1.6. When you're waging large sweeping maneuvers with divisions and corps, with vastly mixed units, it works. So they did it to have more battalions for the same number of tanks.
But the point of evolution regarding the upper levels in Western formations was splitting. A 4x3x4 structure, for example, allows a battalion to split its companies amongst four units, or a company to split amongst 3 units, or a platoon amongst 2 units. They do this to split tanks among infantry units. The UK does this as well, as does Canada, and so on. The Soviets didn't split them below battalion as much.
For reference, my structure is designed to fight in open warfare between heavily armoured formations, not to split among infantry. Also I work three platoons of tanks, plus a platoon of "gun tanks" which are slightly different, but I added them in. Regardless, I have large battalions, but you have small ones. I would suggest an extra formation in there at some level.
The Soviets decided the absolute minimum was a 2x3x3 structure. Which means 18 if there are no command tanks. Any less was untenable. But they played dangerously close to the limit where things became untenable, it was a risk they were willing to take because replacements were readily available at all levels.
IDF formations have been mostly 3X3X3 for nearly ever. I could possibly have 4 tank platoons or another company. IDK that it is a clear cut need though. I rather prefer a smaller, leaner battalion. I guess there are pros and cons to both.
If the battalion is to work in 4 different groups, it will work as following:
2 pure tank companies
1 2:1 tank/armored infantry
1 2:1 armored infantry/tank
My IFVs are basically my tanks with BMP-3 like turrets...
As for the soviets and the 18 tanks thing, I had not though someone actually played around with this. I pull the number 20 out of my head(read ass) after thinking about what is the minimum number of tanks my RL battalion would need to get the stuff it usually does done. It seems however my guesstimate is very close to reality.
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Aidoshi, Rustovania
