Divisional TOE's

[MPK]

First, just like everyone else,

I'd like to say "wow" and "thanks"...

Second, I guess it's time to get familiar

with Divisions...what they have and what

they can do...

I have played with 3 Battalions a side

in CMBB Ops...but 3 Bns do not a Regiment

make...

If those out there who have studied the

Eastern Front at an operational/strategic

level could post some useful info & links,

especially divisional TOE's, I'm sure this

would be appreciated...

At least by me

Thanks in anticipation,

Matt

[Steiner14]

German

Infantriedivision ID:

16.000-20.000 Mann

Führungs- & Versorgungsstaffel

(lead- & supply squadron)

Kartenstelle m. Kradzug

(map-unit with side-car platoon)

Musikkorps

(music corps)

Feldgendamerie

(military police)

3 Infantrieregimenter

(3 inf.regiments)

Infantrieregiment:

14 Kompanien

(14 companys)

13. Kp.: Infantriegeschützkpompanie IG-Kp.

(13. company = infantry-gun company)

14. Kp.: Panzerabwehrkompanie PzAbw.Kp.

(14. company = anti-tank company)

1 Artillerieregiment

(1 artillery regiment)

Artillerieregiment: 4 Abteilungen -

3 leichte Feldhaubitzen-Abteilungen,

1 schwere Feldhaubitzen-Abteilung;

1 Abteilung zu 3 Batterien

(4 artillery-units -

3 light field-gun units,

1 heavy field-gun unit;

1 unit = 3 batteries)

1 Panzerjägerabteilung mit

3 Kompanien

(tank-hunting unit with

3 companys)

1 Pionier-Batallion mit

3 Kompanien

(pioneer-battalion with

3 companys)

1 Feldersatz-Batallion mit

3-5 Kompanien

(field-reserve-bat. with

3-5 companys)

Kraftfahrpark (vehicles):

1-2 Kompanien + 1 Werkstattkompanie

(1-2 companys vehicles + 1 repair-company)

1 Verwaltungskompanie

(administration company)

1 Schlächtereikompanie, 1 Bäckereikompanie

(butcher-company, baker-company)

2 Sanitätskompanien mit

3 Krankenkraftwagenzügen

(2 sanitation companys with

3 platoons transportation vehicles)

1 Veterinärkompanie

(veterinary company)

1 Feldpostamt

(field post office)

Carell, Paul: Unternehmen Barbarossa

[ October 16, 2005, 03:46 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Steiner14]

German

Panzerdivision:

Sollstärke:

(nominal strenght)

150 - 225 Panzer

20 - 125 SPW

Stab seit Ende '42: mit Begleitkompanie

(staff; since end '42 with 1 protection company)

1 Panzerregiment mit Stab+Kompanie zu

2-3 Panzerabteilungen +Stab

(1 tank-tegiment +staff+company:

2-3 tank-units each one with staff)

Panzerabteilung: Stabskompanie +

3 Pz.Kp. + 1 Werkstattzug

(1 tank-unit: staff-company +

3 tank-companys + 1 repair-plt.)

2 Panzergrenadierregimenter jeweils: Stab+Stabskompanie,

1 Kompanie mit SPW

(2 tank-grenadier regiments: each with Staff + staff-company,

1 company equipped with SPW)

1 Panzer-Aufklärungsabteilung mit Stab

(1 tank recon unit with staff)

1 leichte Panzerspäh-Kompanie

(1 light tank-recon company)

1 schwere Panzerspäh-Kompanie

(1 heavy tank-recon company)

1-2 Kradschützen Kompanien

(1-2 side-car infantry companys)

1 Panzerjägerabteilung mit Stab

(1 tank-hunting unit with staff)

Panzerjägerabteilung: Stabszug,

3 schwere PzJgKp motorisiert mit Zugmaschinen od. auf Selbstfahrlafetten

(tank-hunting unit: staff-platoon,

3 heavy tank-hunting companys either with trucks or self-propelled)

Panzerpionier-Batallion

3 Pionierkompanien, wobei

1 Kompanie gepanzert (SPW)

(tank pioneer battalion:

3 tank-pioneer-companys, with

1 company armoured with SPW)

1 Brückenkolonne

(bridge-building unit)

1 Panzer-Brückenkolonne

(tank bridge-building unit)

1 Panzer Nachrichten Abteilung mit Stab (tank communication unit with staff)

Fernsprechkompanie (mot.)

(communication company, motorized)

Panzerfunkkompanie

(tank-radio company)

1 Panzer-Artillerieregiment

3-4 Artillerieabteilungen, mot., davon

1 Abt. Heeresflak

(tank artillery-regiment consisting of

3-4 motorized artillery-units with

1 unit equipped as anti-air unit)

1 Panzer Feldersatzbatallion mit Stab,

3-4 Kompanien

(tank field-reserve battalion with

3-4 companys)

3 Werkstattkompanien (mot.) mit Ersatzteilstaffel

(3 motorized repair companys with 1 replacement-part unit)

Carell, Paul: Unternehmen Barbarossa

[ October 16, 2005, 03:53 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[MPK]

Thanks, Steiner14...

Did a little looking myself; it's

amazing to consider the power of these

sizes of formations.

SOVIET TANK CORPS LATE 1944

***HQ***

195 T-34/85 in 3 Brigades each of 65 tanks

21 IS-2 (Heavy Tank Regt)

21 SU-76 (Light SP Arty Regt)

21 SU-100 (Med SP Arty Regt)

21 SU-152 (Hvy SP Arty Regt)

24 Zis-3 76mm ATG (AT Regt)

12 45mm ATG (AT Bn)

24 120mm hvy mortars (Hvy Mortar Regt)

8 BM-13 Katyusha (Rocket Bn)

3 Motor Inf Bn (Motor Inf Bde)

3 SMG Bn (with Tank Brigades)

1 Pioneer Bn

1 Armored Recon Bn (BA-64, M3 Scout)

1 Signals Bn

18 ATR (in Tank Brigades)

18 37mm AA guns (in AA Regt)

plus Service troops...

and about 300 trucks & 8 tractors...

I'd like to see my Guards Tank

Corps vs your Panzer Division

(source: Andrew Mollo and

Steven Zaloga)

[Ike]

Find the TO&Es for Soviet Rifle Division, Soviet Guards Rifle Division, German Infantry Division, etc etc, then the fun part: start working up combined arms battlegroups/kampfgruppen from those TO&Es, based around the principal line battalion. So, for tanks, your core unit is a tank battalion, etc.

[MPK]

So a possible Sov battlegroup

might be:

1 x Tank Brigade

65 x T-34/85

1 x SMG Bn

6 x ATR teams

1 x Motor Inf Bn

1 x Armored Recon Coy

1 x SU-76 Coy (7)

1 x SU-100 Coy (7)

1 x SU-152 Coy (7)

2 x Zis-3 76mm ATG battery (8)

1 x 45mm ATG battery (4)

with maybe 8 120mm mortar tubes in

direct support, and 16 more on call...

possible reinforcements might include

IS-2's from the Corps' Heavy Tank Regt,

and/or BM-13 rocket support, as well as

Sturmoviks...success might be rewarded

with more Motor Inf, to hold newly taken

ground...

[MPK]

"So, for tanks, your core unit is a tank battalion"

oops...sorry.

If that was the case it's more like

21 x T-34

SMG Coy

Recon Plt

Motor Inf Coy

SU-76 Plt

SU-100 Plt

SU-152 Plt

2 x 76mm ATG

2 x 45mm ATG

and so on...

probably a much more workable force

to actually battle with on a 2km x 2km map...

[Ike]

Something like that second one, but if I were the Campaign Coordinator, I think I'd put some type of limit on how many Battalion Battlegroups get a pair of SU-152, -100, -76, etc. Probably by requiring each team/side to get all of their equipment, vehicles, AFVs, guns, etc from a division-level TO&E from history ... or ... from a division-level TO&E that the Campaign Coordinator makes up prior to the start of the campaign. Of course, if you're doing a brigade-level campaign, then you're limited to brigade-level assets plus one brigade's share of division-level assets, etc.

Just my ideas on it. I don't mean to say that I believe that CMC will have these things; only that I see this as a potential problem and I'd solve or forstall the problem in the way I wrote above.

[Sergei]

I thought the force composition was set by the designer of the campaign.

[Ike]

Sergei: I'm uncertain how that would work, in detail, in CMC. From the standpoint of a team of German players vs. Soviet players, I would think that they - each team - would want some imput into how the battlegroups are made up, as well as how the MEs are composed. Guessing that the Campaign Coordinator would enter the force composition choices in CMC, I would also expect the players to want to make up their own kampfgrupp compositions. One of the potential problems is players stuffing a division's worth of rifle battalions (9) with an Army Corps' worth of artillery and ATG assets. This would be my proposed solution to that potential problem. Trying to address campaign issues and/or problems in advance.

[Sergei]

I would prefer if the designer of the campaign created units according to the historical OOB. The players would have the choice of stacking units together as they saw fit, then.

[Shmavis]

Musikkorps (music corps)

Oooooooh! Just give me the brass section with their handy panzersaxophonebuchse and I would rule the battlefield!

[Ike]

Sergei: I agree, but the campaign designer would in any event have to take care to be certain that the teams are limited to both the unit types available to - for example - a Russian Rifle Division as well as to the number of tubes of 152 mm field guns/howitzers. I am not certain as I sit here now that the CMC program will keep track of those force totals or in some other way insure that the players don't have a "division" in the campaign, but a Panzer Armee's worth of supporting tanks and artillery, nicely split up among their battlegroups. I'm am also not certain that the players will be able to change the OOB, but they may be able to designate what collection of CMBB "units" are included in one Maneuver Element. Maybe it's just the words. I'm thinking that a ME is going to be something different than a battlegroup in the CMC program. Perhaps I misunderstand what information we have available.

Shmavis: I much prefer the fife and drums of the Soviet Guards Bands. <laugh>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Ike:

Sergei: I agree, but the campaign designer would in any event have to take care to be certain that the teams are limited to both the unit types available to - for example - a Russian Rifle Division as well as to the number of tubes of 152 mm field guns/howitzers. I am not certain as I sit here now that the CMC program will keep track of those force totals or in some other way insure that the players don't have a "division" in the campaign, but a Panzer Armee's worth of supporting tanks and artillery, nicely split up among their battlegroups.

It is my (mis-?)understanding that CMC comes with ready divisional TO&E's for both sides throughout the war. Custom TO&E's can also be made and exported/imported, and probably if and when the original are found to have imperfections, this makes it easy to patch the them. And why not trust the campaign designer? You have to trust him while playing CM battles and operations, already. How often do you see totally screwed up OOB's in those (well, if you except the "tis was my 1st un, i clal it 'StrumTigres vs. JS3's', i hop u like it!!!!111" kind...)?

I guess we could use some quotes from Hunter or Moon to clarify the situation here.

[Renaud]

Ugh...a whole division. That's going to require a crapload of players.

I'd prefer to bite off a more manageable chunk, like say a regimental combat group from a panzer division, with maybe some supporting units from an infantry division covering the flanks.

My idea of a great game will be a large map featuring relatively few smaller battlegroups in a fluid situation with many operational objectives and pathways, not a slug fest. Or maybe an initial slugfest followed by exploitation and wide-ranging operations behind the main line of resistance.

I can hardly wait to get involved in a big multiplayer campaign. I still think it might require an organizer or GM of some sort, what do you think? To schedule battles and so forth.

[Ike]

Sergei: Sorry, my friend; my misunderstanding and failure to communicate clearly. I had forgotten that CMC will come with several campaigns all ready to play. Yes, the Campaign Designer(s) of those campaigns may certainly be trusted. In my excitement about being able to create our own campaigns, I had forgotten that.

So, yes, you are correct: the pre-made campaigns that will be contained in CMC are certain to have such limitations built in to them by the Campaign Designer. My posts were - I apologize my friend - directed toward a campaign which one of us would create on his own, separate from the pre-made ones. I hope that makes my thoughts more clear.

Renaud: I agree, unless we have several players on each side to fight the battles. Even so, like you, I tend to lean toward a smaller campaign in terms of forces: a Soviet rifle brigade battlegroup against a German infantry regiment kampfgrupp, each with a small armored reinforcement, perhaps only 40 or so tanks, including light armor for recon. Those forces with a relatively large map and well-defined campaign objectives that neither side has sufficient force to control or defend would be fluid and exciting. And, yes, I agree again that a larger campaign would require an organizer or GM - I am referring to such a person as "Campaign Coordinator", even though that is likely to be the person who designs and builds any new campaigns. Even the pre-made campaigns that come with CMC will, in my opinion, require a GM or Campaign Coordinator to make them run smoothly. The actual schedule of battles, I believe, is taken care of by the CMC program itself. The Campaign Coordinator's (CC) role would be to make sure all other aspects of the campaign work smoothly.

[Renaud]

Ike, I agree with your thoughts on a good campaign.

I guess there could be 2 theories of CMC OOB and ME creation.

OPTION 1:

Split up battalions into company-size ME's and put one human player in charge of all the companies in the battalion. So for example, for a regimental size kampfgruppe, you would have: 1 PZG battalion with 3-5 ME units, commanded by player #1; 1 Panzer battalion 3-5 ME units commanded by player #2; 3-5 support units commanded by player #3, assigned from some higher echelon unit. Such as engineers, AT, foot infantry, whatever. Player #4 would be the overall kampfgruppe commander, perhaps also commanding a reserve, recon and supporting arms.

The beauty of the above is that players must really cooperate to achieve a combined arms attack or defense, since no one player has all the pieces. Who would fight the CMBB actions during combination battles is the prickly part that would have to be decided, since battalion commanders are really co-equal, or is that even possible in CMC...dunno

OPTION 2:

Each of 3 field commanders has 2-3 combined arms kampfgruppes already assigned certain proportions of armor, infantry and supporting arms. For instance, an armor company + PZG company + engineer platoon. The overall commander could have control of arty, recon and reserves and assign as requested and warranted.

I kind of like OPTION 1 right now, for the challenge of player coordination. Option 2 might be a lot simpler to implement in game reality.

[MPK]

Just because we can, how many

players would be needed, do

you think, to handle a Division?

I would guess it could be done

with about... six????

1 Divisional Commander

4 Battlegroup Commanders

1 Support commander

Personally, I rather like the idea

of having to depend on the whims of

the Div commander..."I do not reward

failure" etc etc... for your share

(or more)of Divisional assets...

BTW, please post useful links to TOE

info if you have them; I am especially

interested in Soviet Winter War and

early E.Front organisations...

pref in english, but any appreciated.

Thanks,

Matt

[MPK]

Also, don't forget the obvious

fact that formations are hardly

ever at their paper strength;

and definitely won't be after

a few weeks of PBEM...

Perhaps it comes down to what

people think is a feasible force

size for a player, and for a 4 sq

km map...

Time and again one reads of enormous

concentrations of men and vehicles

battling in quite small areas...

[Sergei]

Originally posted by MPK:

BTW, please post useful links to TOE

info if you have them; I am especially

interested in Soviet Winter War and

early E.Front organisations...

pref in english, but any appreciated.

Here's Winter War era Soviet Tank Brigade.

http://www.winterwar.com/forces/SUvsFIN/sutankbgd.htm

[MPK]

Thanks Sergei- great stuff,

especially the Detailed

Composition...

Send in the Political Section!

[Shmavis]

Originally posted by Renaud:

Ike, I agree with your thoughts on a good campaign.

I guess there could be 2 theories of CMC OOB and ME creation.

OPTION 1:

Split up battalions into company-size ME's and put one human player in charge of all the companies in the battalion. So for example, for a regimental size kampfgruppe, you would have: 1 PZG battalion with 3-5 ME units, commanded by player #1; 1 Panzer battalion 3-5 ME units commanded by player #2; 3-5 support units commanded by player #3, assigned from some higher echelon unit. Such as engineers, AT, foot infantry, whatever. Player #4 would be the overall kampfgruppe commander, perhaps also commanding a reserve, recon and supporting arms.

The beauty of the above is that players must really cooperate to achieve a combined arms attack or defense, since no one player has all the pieces. Who would fight the CMBB actions during combination battles is the prickly part that would have to be decided, since battalion commanders are really co-equal, or is that even possible in CMC...dunno

OPTION 2:

Each of 3 field commanders has 2-3 combined arms kampfgruppes already assigned certain proportions of armor, infantry and supporting arms. For instance, an armor company + PZG company + engineer platoon. The overall commander could have control of arty, recon and reserves and assign as requested and warranted.

I kind of like OPTION 1 right now, for the challenge of player coordination. Option 2 might be a lot simpler to implement in game reality.

I think your option 2 would be the better way to go, as the various combined arms branches would not have to be constantly reassigned. The battlegroup commanders would have all the tools necessary for victory at their disposal, and there wouldn't be any quibbling over who would get to play each engagement, all things being equal.

[Renaud]

The number of reasonably sized manuever elements to simulate an entire panzer division will be insane. Figure 40+ company sized units not counting artillery or the non-combatants (of course). 24 grenadier companies combined with 8 Panzer Co's might be 10-12 combined arms kampfgruppe ME's of 2-3 CO's each. Most of the support CO's such as engineers and AT would be integrated among these kampfgruppe. The recon companies should be broken into 8-12 small ME units. The would only concentrate for the odd attack or defense (by stacking).

I think it would be 20-24 ME's counting only the front-line combat units as i've done. You would want a divisional commander and at least 3 regimental level players (colonels) to handle all the ME battles. Perhaps a 4th to command all the recon ME's.

That's assuming my option 2.

Option 1 would allow seperate panzer and PZG commanders who would only control panzer and PZG ME's respectively, and have to stack to achieve combined arms.

Either way I think TCP/IP CMBB resolution with 3-5 minute round timer is going to be critical to get the battles finished. PBEM would be hell.

[Moon]

Originally posted by Sergei:

I would prefer if the designer of the campaign created units according to the historical OOB. The players would have the choice of stacking units together as they saw fit, then.

Bingo!

Martin

[Steiner14]

Excellent, if the design of the included campaigns goes in that direction.

But will there be a possibility, to give stacked units a new name ('Stosstrupp X', 'Kampfgruppe Y')?

If yes, does the operational player do that, or can every player rename them for his taste and just for his personal battlefield-view?