TOE for 1941 Antitank Brigade please?

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Amedeo]

According to the NKO directive dated 26 April 1941, the AT Brigade TOE was:

5322 men

120 "AT" guns

16 37mm AA guns

16 HMGs

92 LMGs

718 cars & trucks

165 tractors

The AT Brigade consisted of two AT regiments, a minelaying engineer battalion and a motor transport battalion (plus command and service elements).

Each of the brigade AT regiments consisted of five 12 gun AT battalions and an AA battalion.

Each AT battalion was made up of three 4 gun batteries. Two battalions were equipped with 76mm F-22 guns, two with 85mm 52-K guns and one with 107mm M-60 guns (often replaced in actual use by more 76mm guns).

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Amedeo

[JasonC]

The 107s on TOE were practically never available, since only 139 were produced before the war and production ceased on the war's outbreak. It was believed the gun was way more powerful than would ever be needed for AT purposes, and prime movers capable of moving the guns (as heavy as a 152mm gun-howitzer) were lacking. They were replaced by either 76mm or additional 85mm AA guns.

The AA section in each regiment had 8 37mm AA plus 36 12.7mm HMG. This is in addition to the 24 85mm AA in the 2 85mm battalions.

There was also a pioneer battalion, with 1 minelaying company and 2 field engineer companies (which in practice dug anti-tank ditches and created other, similar obstacles). There was also a transport battalion for truck prime movers.

The 1st ATA Brigade had the 680th and 712th anti-tank artillery regiments, specifically. There were 10 such ATA brigades, each with 2 ATA regiments. The previous formations for some of the ATA regiments shows some of them "descended" from AA or heavy artillery regiments, while others "descended" from divisional or light artillery regiments.

It is possible the TOE given for the regiments in fact reflects the strength of the whole brigade, with the 2 component regiments being parallel 3 battalion forces, one with 76mm and 107mm (in practice all 76mm) and the other with the AA, 2 battalions of 85mm and one of mixed 37mm and 12.7mm AA MGs.

When there are 2 possible forms for a regiment structure, and the brigade has one of each, the nomenclature is often confused on the point. On that hypothesis, there would be 6 gun battalions in the entire brigade, not 12, with main armament 24x85mm, 36x76mm, 8x37mm, 36x12.7mm.

If someone has detailed TOEs for the 680th and 712th ATARs, it would settle the issue.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[JasonC]

Adam, if you are still interested, I've since been able to confirm my hypothesis, pretty much. The regiment forms are alternatives, though both are not present as a rule.

I found actual rather than TOE strengths for the 6th, 7th, and 8th Antitank brigades at the outbreak of the war. They had main armament of, respectively, 40 76mm guns, 40 76mm guns, and 24 76mm plus 18 107mm guns. Manpower strength was 2500 to 2750, consistent with the half sized assumption.

So the AA configuration and the standard gun configuration were in practice alternative forms, and not both present in each brigade, let alone in each (supersized) regiment.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[JasonC]

The brigades were intended to be 2 regiment formations and they were 2 regiment formations. Plus attachments of course, of a pioneer battalion, a transportation battalion for trucks, and a headquarters unit.

But what is in each regiment? The TOE table makes it look like each regiment has 6 battalions of guns. But it would be incredible, far more than the normal size of a single artillery regiment, for it to have 6 full battalions of guns, each.

TOEs need to have some way of encoding alternative forms for subordinate formations. But generally they don't. If a brigade has 2 regiments each of which can take one form or another, how do you show that on the brigade's TOE?

Well, here they are apparently listing both forms of the regiment, side by side. There is a gun regiment form, and an AA regiment form. A brigade might have 2 gun regiments or 2 AA regiments or one of each. They apparently show this by listing the alternate forms for the regiments side by side. Which makes it look like *each* regiment had 6 tube battalions. As the actual strengths show, instead they had a more normal 3 battalions each, not 6. It is the brigade that has 6 battalions of guns.

The "regiment" TOE shows 1st and 2nd tube battalions with 76mm guns and 3rd tube battalion with 107mm guns. My reading is that that is the intended strength of a gun-type regiment. The same "regiment" TOE shows 4th and 5th tube battalions with 85mm AA guns, and a 3rd tube battalion with 8 37mm and 36 50 cal HMGs. My reading is that those battalions 4-6 are an alternate form for one of the component regiments.

If a brigade had one gun type and one AA type regiment, then the whole brigade would have the mix shown, 6 battalions, with one of the regiments controlling the first 3 firing battalions and the second controlling the last 3. That may have been the intended norm, but that mix was not always going to be available or preferred, depending on the units deployment and role. If might instead have 2 gun-type regiments, or 2 AA type regiments.

In addition, of course, the gun type regiments might be missing their 107mm guns, since there weren't nearly enough of them to equip anything like all units to TOE.

This makes a regiment within these brigades the same strength, approximately, as every other artillery regiment in the Russian force. The divisional artillery regiments had 16x76mm and 8x122mm, for example. A "regiment" of 68 guns would be unprecedented, it doesn't fit the Russian size designations in use anywhere else.

Since we know the actual gun strength of 6th - 8th brigades and it was 40, 40, and 42, for the entire brigade, this tracks. They also do not mix in AA, being pure gun type formations, with only the last having 107mm guns on strength. The manpower strength also tracks - around 2500 for the whole brigade, not for each regiment.

There isn't a "nomenclature" error, there is, instead, an attempt to show alternative forms for the component regiments as side by side regiment patterns. Implicitly there is simply an "or" on the regimental TOE chart, between the battalions listed as 1-3 and those listed as 4-6. That is my take on it.

[JasonC]

Consider how clumsy it would have been in practice to have 2 regiments each of the full weapon mix. There are 4 tube artillery piece types, all with different ranges and enemies against which they are effective, ammunition types, prime mover requirements. What would be the point of exactly duplicating this mix in each of 2 component regiments? I suspect the original intention was to give the full brigade a regiment of each pattern, able to meet both tank and air threats. But that, in practice, even that idea proved too cumbersome, and many of the units quickly became all gun formations with an exclusive ground combat role, and uniform gun types. This must facilitate training, supply, deployments making sense, etc. Naturally at some cost in "total dose" combined arms. But I'd much rather have a 76mm AT brigade plus a dedicated AA regiment with an independent commander and training for air defense, sighted differently, supplied independently, etc.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[JasonC]

I don't know from any data in front of me, no.

I can imagine the dedicated AT formation having somewhat more AP, and a div arty unit having effectively unlimited supplies of HE, if not all of it right with the guns. But that is really beyond the scope of CMBB at the tactical level. Either one is more likely to lose the guns than to run out of ammunition of either sort.

Understand that in practice, div arty expended something like 1000 rounds per gun and upward before the gun was lost, if firing indirect. Firing direct they'd be lucky to get off a tenth of that over the weapons service life.