Modeling the logistic tail of LCU

[elcid]

In the semi-abstract system used by WITP/AE, we get details of weapons and special units,
but not of support. So the size of a unit, in terms of logistics - the cost to move it and the
cost to feed it - is directly proportional to its composition of these functional squads.

This is somewhat improper insofar as there is a significant difference in the size of a unit
which is motorized, draft or pack. Motor units tend to have more firepower, and pack
less firepower, than draft. And some units are hybred - combining motor and draft,
or draft and pack support elements.

In addition, in some armies, most notably the IJA, the draft units contain COMBAT squads
which a strict count of the combat battalions does not reveal. Thus, a draft company includes
three platoons of draft carts (quarter ton wagons in the main) - plus a platoon (section) of
infantry. A motor company includes a section of armored cars and a section of road engineers.
Then too, 1/3 of the men in the actual supply sections carry rifles, and if required, they fight.
[Dupuy's model says every weapon in the unit counts] If we model these organizations,
we will get a more correct sense of what lift it takes to move them, and what supplies it takes
to feed them, and a slighty more correct combat value.

[elcid]

In keeping with the abstract support model of the system,
I created only a few "squads" - and propose to mix with
these rifle squads and engineer squads and armored car
sections where appropriate. The new units are

1.5 ton trucks in packages of 4

2.5 ton trucks in packages of 4

1/4 ton carts in packages of 20

mule trains in packages of 40

manpack trains in packages of 60

These units, when added, require support, and so support squads -
standard or motorized - are also added in equal numbers. This
helps make the pack units harder to move - but those very same units
have generally lighter weapons (e.g. mountain guns vice field guns,
no medium artillery, no AFVs, etc). The motor units will have
significantly fewer elements added - but tend to have more firepower.

Typical organization is something like this:

An IJA division gets one draft and one motor (or two draft or two pack) battalions of supply train

A draft battalion has four companies with 3 sections (12 total) of carts and 4 sections of infantry

A motor battalion has three companies of 4 sections trucks (12 total), an armored car company, and an engineer company

A pack battalion has four companies with 4 sections of draft horses or mules and no infantry sections

A US division tends to get not only more battalions, but all of them have bigger trucks.

Thus lift of a motor company is (never mind it must carry fodder)
1.5 tons x 16 = 24 tons for Japan
2.5 tons x 16 = 40 tons for the US (if we use the same number of trucks - but often it is more as well)

while a draft company
0.25 tons x 60 = 30 tons (of which half is lost because it is fodder)

and a pack company
0.1 tons x 160 = 16 tons (of which about half is lost because it is fodder)

a manpack company with four sections
0.05 tons x 240 = 12 tons

If we ignore fodder, the majority of "supplies" a unit needs is ammunition. Most of that tends to
be for artillery - if there is any. Thus units with artillery, and with more artillery (of any kind),
and of larger guns, tend to have more logistical tail. For one thing, the artillery units themselves
have a significant logistical componant. It usually carries one unit of fire (for Japan) or two
(for the US). [A unit of fire for field guns is typically 100 rounds per gun]

The weight and people required to life a motor company is less, never mind it lifts more.
It is obvious why a pack unit tends to have very light weapons - with correspondingly lower ammunition
weight required to feed them. The theoretical advantage is that pack should be better in rough
country, sans roads.

[noguaranteeofsanity]

I think you are forgetting there are already both motorised support and plain old support devices in use in the game. They have anti-soft values of 5 iirc, which is probably about right, if as you say only 1/3 had rifles and would routinely get involved in combat. 

While the combination of various support and combat components of a unit are also already modelled with a mix of combat and support devices in the TOE of each unit, with the assault value of a unit automatically reflecting the devices that make up the unit.

Also trying to model the use of carts/trucks/draft horses etc and their impact on logistics is probably pointless, as terrain determines supply flow. 

Finally I also believe the movement of a unit is based on its type, eg armour, infantry, AA, engineer etc, as well as the terrain, not the devices that make up that unit.  Although the benifits of motorised support on movement is already modelled for the some of the Allied nations, as they can use strategic movement to move along main roads, but the Japanese cannot.

Edit: This was in reference to your first post... but seems you are referring to trucks/carts/pack horses, rather than the existing support squads.

[elcid]

ORIGINAL: noguaranteeofsanity

I think you are forgetting there are already both motorised support and plain old support devices in use in the game. They have anti-soft values of 5 iirc, which is probably about right, if as you say only 1/3 had rifles and would routinely get involved in combat. 

While the combination of various support and combat components of a unit are also already modelled with a mix of combat and support devices in the TOE of each unit, with the assault value of a unit automatically reflecting the devices that make up the unit.

Also trying to model the use of carts/trucks/draft horses etc and their impact on logistics is probably pointless, as terrain determines supply flow. 

Finally I also believe the movement of a unit is based on its type, eg armour, infantry, AA, engineer etc, as well as the terrain, not the devices that make up that unit.  Although the benifits of motorised support on movement is already modelled for the some of the Allied nations, as they can use strategic movement to move along main roads, but the Japanese cannot.

Edit: This was in reference to your first post... but seems you are referring to trucks/carts/pack horses, rather than the existing support squads.

It is quite true that support squads have some defensive value - apart from empowering other squads in combat (if there are 0 support squads, it appears the value of the unit in combat is actually 0). However - a support squad is always the same weight to lift - and it supports a squad of any weight equally well. What I was seeking is a sort of inverse system - where lighter units (that is pack) are actually harder to lift - and to feed - never mind they also have less firepower. While motor units are the easiest to lift and feed - never mind they tend to both move faster and have more firepower. To achive this, we need to add a number of squads to each unit. With appropriate labels they also will create the appearane of the right kind of support - trucks, carts, mule strings, manpack strings, etc. To which also add that we are not omitting the actual combat infantry, or armored cars, or engineers, in some supply trains. Finally - different kinds of units have different combat values: a truck unit has fewer men - and is not worth much in a fight. A manpack unit has more men - and is worth more. A draft unit with carts is in between. Anyway - it is a small impact - but it is also a real one.