golden delicious
Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000 From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheJSFFenix Every unit obviously has squads, but equipment such as machineguns or anti-tank guns I can see are often separated into different units. Sometimes even mortars are represented in separate Bn's. Is there any rhyme or reason to that? It seems overly clunky to my taste, and those units more often than not end up sticking with their parent battalions anyhow. Likely these are not part of the battalions, but rather units which are separate from an organisation standpoint. Typically, the elements of a machine gun or anti-tank battalion would be parcelled out amongst the line infantry, so designers may prefer to distribute their equipment. However, that's not entirely accurate either, as the anti-tank guns for example would likely be concentrated at the point of greatest need. quote:
Then, as scales go up all the way to Corps (XXX), said materiel can be multiplied by however many Battalions would make up said unit size on top of merging all those previously separate assets (artillery, recon, engineers, anti-air ) into one counter. Typically, real world organisations have supporting equipment all the way up the hierarchy. So an infantry battalion might have an organic heavy weapons company- but there could be AT guns attached at the regiment level and an AA battalion at the division level- then more stuff at the corps level too. It's not just a heap of battalions. Are you familiar with Niehorster? http://niehorster.org/ quote:
2. On the topic of Squads. From what I gathered reading Norm's official designer notes one squad equals 10 men, is this correct? It's a rule of thumb. Squads in real armies have widely variable numbers of men from country to country and period to period. I would suggest sticking to the organisational strength of the unit- if a platoon is divided into three squads, there are three platoons in a company and four companies in a battalion, that makes 36 squads to the battalion. Doesn't matter than there are 800 men and 500 rifles- those guys aren't all going to be on the firing step. Having said that, if the squad itself is 17 men or something (like in the Polish army) you might want to consider adding extra light rifle squads to compensate. quote:
4. Do crewed weapons (MGs, AT guns, Mortars, Artillery pieces) represent only said gun/mortar etc. or the equipment and it's crew, does anybody know this? It'll fire nicely enough on its own, I'd say it includes the crew. quote:
5. How much vehicles does exactly one "Truck" or one "Horse Team" represent? I remember reading in Soviet Union 1941 (Mobile variant) AAR that there's no definite answer and that I should be simply adding as many of them as is needed until the movement allowance is what I want it to be (roughly paraphrasing). That's exactly right. Don't worry about how many trucks were in the inventory. When the unit moved, did the men go in the truck, or did they march? quote:
6. Back to the infantry - Are you meant to mix them within one unit? E.g having part of its strength as Light Rifle and part as Heavy Rifle? I've seen some scenarios do that, I presume for historical flavor/accuracy, but again, neither exactly explains why. Some Light and some Heavy Rifle is probably to manage replacement rates (you see this a lot in long scenarios, especially in a WWI setting), as this would otherwise just be merged into one pool of rifle squads. Otherwise, there's no "a bit light" rifle squad, so a mix of rifle and light rifle is a good compromise, e.g. if only two squads per platoon have an LMG.
< Message edited by golden delicious -- 1/22/2022 6:50:22 PM >
_____________________________
"What did you read at university?" "War Studies" "War? Huh. What is it good for?" "Absolutely nothing."
|