Page 1 of 1
Designing armored units (Regiment size)
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2022 10:28 pm
by TheJSFFenix
Hello!
I have a simple question this time. Armored battalions are quite easy to design in game, most often being between 36 and 45 tanks and that's it. But what about Regiments?
Recently I watched this video about US Armored Divisions in WW2-
https://youtu.be/qX3-oehjkvw
It breaks down the organizational structure pretty well, but I wondered how would the design of those "heavy" division template (2 Tank Regiments with 3 tank Battalions each + 1 Mechanized Rifle Regiment with 3 Rifle Battalions each) look in a Regiment-scale scenario? Would those Armored Regiments have only tanks in them then? That doesn't really seem right, as I recall that in the France 1944 scenario the Tank Regiments on both sides still had rifle squads and halftracks in them although not as much as infantry regiments obviously (along with all sorts of equipment an infantry regiment unit would have, like machineguns and mortars). Korea 50-51 also did the same thing, although this is post-WW2.
So was it just for gameplay purposes so that units behaved better in combat? (maybe pure armor units were breaking off the attacks too much since anti-tank combat is resolved first?) Or did armored regiments have some sort of infantry support attached to them permamently or semi-permanently and this was just how the scenario designers simplify that? How do you design your armored regiments in terms of equipment assigned?
Re: Designing armored units (Regiment size)
Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2022 10:44 am
by golden delicious
I can tell you that pure armour units don't behave well in TOAW in a wwii environment, as it's hard to inflict losses on defending armour except with self-propelled AT (I'm not sure of the actual mechanics of this but the result is very clear from testing). In the real world unsupported armour would find itself quite vulnerable except in very very open terrain.
As such you'll probably get more realistic results from organising units as combined arms in the scenario. This is how US troops specifically would fight anyway, underneath the "Combat Command" HQs
For reference, here's Niehorster on the "Heavy" armoured division structure:
http://niehorster.org/013_usa/42_org/di ... /_da_.html
Re: Designing armored units (Regiment size)
Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2022 11:24 am
by TheJSFFenix
Well, inflict losses, yes, it is difficult due to their armored nature, but it's actually easier to push out a pure armour unit than an infantry unit due to the lower defense strength. That's why in France 1944, with the armored units having infantry with them they are an absolute hell to push out of hexes once they dig in.
A solution I found out was to take a two battalions worth of infantry from the mechanized regiment and stick them one each onto the armored regiments, as it is conceivable that for a mission an armored regiment would get at least some ad hoc formation slapped onto it. And since TOAW doesn't allow you to mix and match mid-scenario, those Bn's need to stay attached at all times. The mechanized regiment then grows weaker by those two battalions (ending up with 7 instead of 9) but at least it fixes the behaviour of the armored reg. somewhat. And their halftracks will still grant them more of a punch when compared to regular or motorized infantry regardless.
Re: Designing armored units (Regiment size)
Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2022 3:22 pm
by Curtis Lemay
To some extent it comes down to philosophy: Just how much of a combat unit do you model?
Some purists say you should only model the elements that were in the front lines with weapons pointing at the enemy. For example, if a division consists of, say, 10,000 men, only about 2 to 3 thousand of them meet that description.
In my design of France 1944, I just couldn't buy into that philosophy. There were German divisions who's total manpower was 9,000 men - with about 2,000 being front-line. Yet some of those divisions had already taken 7,000 losses by Cobra! Clearly, non-frontline elements were getting into the fighting. Furthermore, the situation ensured that plenty of divisions were going to be cutoff and totally annihilated. I just felt that much more of each division had to be modeled to attain any semblance of reality. And, if I was going to do that for the Germans, it had to be done for the Allies as well. But don't assume I padded anything with bogus equipment. I just included more of the official TO&E than the "frontline only" philosophy dictated.
Other situations will need different solutions. If units aren't being decimated - perhaps pulled out of the line for refitting once they get to used up and the lines never rupture - rear area elements may not be required. One example might be the trench warfare of WWI - at least till the Stosstruppen and tanks arrive.
Re: Designing armored units (Regiment size)
Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2022 5:29 pm
by cathar1244
Neither the heavy or light armored divisions fought with "pure" regiments. Combat command organization included a mix of armor, mech infantry, and SP artillery, as well as elements like engineers etc.
Cheers
Re: Designing armored units (Regiment size)
Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2022 5:46 pm
by TheJSFFenix
Curtis Lemay wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 3:22 pm
To some extent it comes down to philosophy: Just how much of a combat unit do you model?
Some purists say you should only model the elements that were in the front lines with weapons pointing at the enemy. For example, if a division consists of, say, 10,000 men, only about 2 to 3 thousand of them meet that description.
In my design of France 1944, I just couldn't buy into that philosophy. There were German divisions who's total manpower was 9,000 men - with about 2,000 being front-line. Yet some of those divisions had already taken 7,000 losses by Cobra! Clearly, non-frontline elements were getting into the fighting. Furthermore, the situation ensured that plenty of divisions were going to be cutoff and totally annihilated. I just felt that much more of each division had to be modeled to attain any semblance of reality. And, if I was going to do that for the Germans, it had to be done for the Allies as well. But don't assume I padded anything with bogus equipment. I just included more of the official TO&E than the "frontline only" philosophy dictated.
Other situations will need different solutions. If units aren't being decimated - perhaps pulled out of the line for refitting once they get to used up and the lines never rupture - rear area elements may not be required. One example might be the trench warfare of WWI - at least till the Stosstruppen and tanks arrive.
Oh, now it makes so much more sense! I always wondered why you included so many different kinds of equipment in those units, or had those RES troops in Soviet Union 1941 and Germany 1945.
I guess I'll stick to being a purist though, since otherwise the issue is that those rear area, non combat units would be getting used in every assault even if the unit itself is not in danger, which would be pretty unrealistic. But thanks for the explanation, I've really been wondering this one for the longest time.
Re: Designing armored units (Regiment size)
Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2022 6:24 pm
by Curtis Lemay
TheJSFFenix wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 5:46 pm
Curtis Lemay wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 3:22 pm
To some extent it comes down to philosophy: Just how much of a combat unit do you model?
Some purists say you should only model the elements that were in the front lines with weapons pointing at the enemy. For example, if a division consists of, say, 10,000 men, only about 2 to 3 thousand of them meet that description.
In my design of France 1944, I just couldn't buy into that philosophy. There were German divisions who's total manpower was 9,000 men - with about 2,000 being front-line. Yet some of those divisions had already taken 7,000 losses by Cobra! Clearly, non-frontline elements were getting into the fighting. Furthermore, the situation ensured that plenty of divisions were going to be cutoff and totally annihilated. I just felt that much more of each division had to be modeled to attain any semblance of reality. And, if I was going to do that for the Germans, it had to be done for the Allies as well. But don't assume I padded anything with bogus equipment. I just included more of the official TO&E than the "frontline only" philosophy dictated.
Other situations will need different solutions. If units aren't being decimated - perhaps pulled out of the line for refitting once they get to used up and the lines never rupture - rear area elements may not be required. One example might be the trench warfare of WWI - at least till the Stosstruppen and tanks arrive.
Oh, now it makes so much more sense! I always wondered why you included so many different kinds of equipment in those units, or had those RES troops in Soviet Union 1941 and Germany 1945.
I guess I'll stick to being a purist though, since otherwise the issue is that those rear area, non combat units would be getting used in every assault even if the unit itself is not in danger, which would be pretty unrealistic. But thanks for the explanation, I've really been wondering this one for the longest time.
Which is why, in later designs (like Germany 1945 and Soviet Union 1941) I started putting the rear-area stuff in those RES units and either debilitated those units via MPs or house rules.