Question on Combat Vehicles & MG's

[mussey]

Do the various combat vehicles in the equipment data base include their machine guns as well as their main armament (ie main cannon)? I'm evaluating some units, and noticed that many units have Heavy & Medium MG's in addition to the combat vehicles. I don't want to double dip.

As always, thanks in advance for any help!

[Lobster]

A mg would be part of the anti personnel and/or anti air combat number. Some heavy mg are capable of armor penetration. Regardless, any equipment database worth it's salt would have all of this included in a weapons platform such as a tank.

[cathar1244]

ORIGINAL: mussey

Do the various combat vehicles in the equipment data base include their machine guns as well as their main armament (ie main cannon)? I'm evaluating some units, and noticed that many units have Heavy & Medium MG's in addition to the combat vehicles. I don't want to double dip.

As always, thanks in advance for any help!

The weapons organic to a vehicle should be represented in the vehicle's firepower and not shown as an additional equipment item. There are grey areas, such as armored infantry that could mount their machine guns on half-tracks as well as dismount them for employment on the ground. Designer's call in that case. Note that armored units might include dismounted machine guns for headquarters defense, etc ... again, a designer's call to include them as separate equipment items or to simply ignore their presence. For dismounted weapons, consider transport for them.

Cheers

[mussey]

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

ORIGINAL: mussey

Do the various combat vehicles in the equipment data base include their machine guns as well as their main armament (ie main cannon)? I'm evaluating some units, and noticed that many units have Heavy & Medium MG's in addition to the combat vehicles. I don't want to double dip.

As always, thanks in advance for any help!

The weapons organic to a vehicle should be represented in the vehicle's firepower and not shown as an additional equipment item. There are grey areas, such as armored infantry that could mount their machine guns on half-tracks as well as dismount them for employment on the ground. Designer's call in that case. Note that armored units might include dismounted machine guns for headquarters defense, etc ... again, a designer's call to include them as separate equipment items or to simply ignore their presence. For dismounted weapons, consider transport for them.

Cheers

Thanks Lobster & Cathar. As I dig deeper into this I'm beginning to reevaluate how MG's should/should not be included. For example fighting vehicles known for these armaments will not need extra MG's. Light MG's (5.00 to 6.00mm) should already be embedded with their respective Infantry Squads. That leaves for United States units, the M-60 MG which I will add to TO&E (or if I find anything else this caliper & higher).

I'm having a devil of a time finding consistent TO&E's for this in the 1980 time frame. Thus far I found only US Inf platoon equipment (2007) which lists x2 M60's. Thus 6-8 per Co., x24/Bn., x72/Bde.

Since I served in an Artillery unit, I know that each SP Howitzer has an accompanying M548 Cargo Carrier that had a M2 .50 cal above the cab. (I'm adding Half-tracks for these). I'm sure I must be missing other units that have this kind of thing...

[Lobster]

In any equipment database you find there is almost certainly LMG already accounted for in the squads if they had them. They are not, in my experience, treated separately from the squad regardless of squad type. If a squad uses a vehicle in their TOE and that vehicle had any type of weapon that was historically and commonly removed and used by the dismounted squad then that weapon should be part of the squads TOE. It should not be part of the vehicle's makeup. So whether or not the squad was dismounted the weapon on the vehicle should still be accounted for since it should be a part of the squad's TOE.

Now, where a problem could potentially and probably will arise is the use of the new dismounted rule. Most of the equipment databases were made before this feature became available. So if this feature is being used and a weapon was historically and commonly removed from a vehicle for use by the dismounted squad then it may not be present in the squad's TOE in the equipment database. There is likely a lot of research and equipment database editing to be done to square the eqp files with the new dismounted rule.

[cathar1244]

I'm having a devil of a time finding consistent TO&E's for this in the 1980 time frame. Thus far I found only US Inf platoon equipment (2007) which lists x2 M60's. Thus 6-8 per Co., x24/Bn., x72/Bde.

This resource from 1978 lists equipment summaries for various U.S. battalions. All 743 pages, lots of good info to be had for H-series tables of organization.

http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us ... 878%29.pdf

Cheers

[cathar1244]

Now, where a problem could potentially and probably will arise is the use of the new dismounted rule. --Lobster

Lobster, thanks for the heads-up. Sounds like ... some study is in order.

Cheers

[mussey]

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

I'm having a devil of a time finding consistent TO&E's for this in the 1980 time frame. Thus far I found only US Inf platoon equipment (2007) which lists x2 M60's. Thus 6-8 per Co., x24/Bn., x72/Bde.

This resource from 1978 lists equipment summaries for various U.S. battalions. All 743 pages, lots of good info to be had for H-series tables of organization.

http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us ... 878%29.pdf

Cheers

Cathar, this is phenomenal. A plethora of data. I started this thread thinking MG's were over-represented, now I think otherwise. How do you interpret this? x257 M2 MG's for ground use (about 85 per brigade); x552 M60 Mg's, not sure if this includes vehicle mounted?

[cathar1244]

Cathar, this is phenomenal. A plethora of data. I started this thread thinking MG's were over-represented, now I think otherwise. How do you interpret this? x257 M2 MG's for ground use (about 85 per brigade); x552 M60 Mg's, not sure if this includes vehicle mounted? --Mussey

This is a classic design call for wargames. How many of the weapons do we really want to count? My opinion; it resolves to DOTS [depends on the situation]. So, your situation:

You wish to model brigades in a NATO-Soviet conflict. For your brigades in mechanized and armored units, your equipment list will include both the rifle squads and their carriers -- which TOAW shows as having organic firepower. In those mech infantry battalions, the ground mounted .50's would probably be deployed if the infantry had to go into terrain in which the M113s could not follow. (Watch out for the new dismount rule.) In an attack in regular terrain, the infantry would be dismounted and supported by fire from the APCs (or so Army doctrine went back then IIRC). My take is that showing both the vehicle and ground mounted .50's for the mech infantry battalions would be over-counting what would typically be placed into action. Another consideration is if those ground mounted .50's had dedicated crews -- if not, that means rifle squad members would have to be robbed to man the guns. Likewise, the tank battalions -- those ground mounted .50's are probably for defense when the tanks are in laager; certainly not used when the battalion is engaged in mobile operations. I would leave them out of the count. Will the MPs really use the eight 90-mm recoilless rifles? Maybe, but if you're up against equipment slot limitations for the unit, they could be dropped without issue.

Any battalion-level units depicted separately (for example, engineers), I would leave them with their weapons in case they get attacked. Likewise, division artillery, unless they are part of the brigades (they should not be IMO).

I'm trying to recall what kind of multiple rocket launcher the artillery had in the 1970s -- 115-mm (4.5-inch) -- any ideas?

Cheers

[Lobster]

The question is whether or not the vehicle mounted weapons are represented by the .eqp file. If they are then there is no way to accurately represent them both on the vehicle and with the squad without editing the .eqp file. Even then it's an either/or situation. Either they are on the vehicle or they are with the squad. They can't be both without over representing. However, if you want to enable the squad to take them then you have to edit the .eqp file so the guns are a permanent part of the squad TOE. At the same time you have to edit the .eqp file so the vehicles never have the guns. Which forces you to add a piece of the same equipment that does have the guns so they are present in situations where their AAA value can be used if not part of a mobile infantry unit. Hope that isn't too confusing.

As far as how many weapons do you want to count? All of them every time.

[mussey]

[/quote]

I'm trying to recall what kind of multiple rocket launcher the artillery had in the 1970s -- 115-mm (4.5-inch) -- any ideas?

I did a quick google search last night on these, I think there were for chemical munitions only(?).

[mussey]

As far as how many weapons do you want to count? All of them every time.

The way I'm beginning to see this, is what is the quantity of MG's the opposing forces have. If both forces have the same amount then it is a wash/even, and maybe for sake of ease (and conserving slots) they could be deleted for a div/bde scenario. But if there is a discrepancy in numbers then they need to be counted. I need to get more sources on Soviet TO&E to see the numbers.

In any event, the above 1977 US TO&E is an excellent source for my 1979 scenario. Major kudos.

[mussey]

Here is a look at Opposing Force mech infantry company. The source is 1997, so its well past my 1979 target scenario date...

Shows no dismounted MG heavier than 5.45. If this is true, than there is large difference in the number of MG's (m60 size and above) between the opposing forces at the Company level. If my count is right:

US M60's: x1 or 2 Squad; x4-8/Platoon; x12-32/Company
Soviet MMG's: 0

[cathar1244]

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/ ... ll9/id/335 is a link to the U.S. manual on Soviet organization as of 1991. Still a bit late for the 1979 scenario, but closer than 1997.

Your comment on MG comparisons illustrates another design consideration. You have loads of information about one army, but basic information about others. IMO, it is not balanced to include all of the U.S. weapons while giving the Soviets only the basics. (Consistency in approach.) The division totals are also problematic. A British infantry division in World War II had hundreds of Bren light machine guns that were with "ash and trash" units in the division that probably never saw combat, or, if so, only very rarely.

Cheers

[cathar1244]

https://archive.org/details/FM30-102

This is better -- 1977 information on the Soviets.

Cheers

On edit: That document looks like it is missing some tables. Here is another copy of it.

http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-army.htm

Look for FM 30-102 in the list. That one appears to have the tables.

[mussey]

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

https://archive.org/details/FM30-102

This is better -- 1977 information on the Soviets.

Cheers

On edit: That document looks like it is missing some tables. Here is another copy of it.

http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-army.htm

Look for FM 30-102 in the list. That one appears to have the tables.

Excellent source. On p. A-12 lists Soviet MRD with x515 MMG's (7.62mm), vs. 601 for US Mech Div. For Soviet computation, all are totaled from the x2 MMG's for each Mech Squad, whereas the US total is derived from a few other units.

Now apples to apples. Unless I can obtain the totals for the other NATO countries for this equipment, I might be at an impasse. I need to figure out how to proceed on this.

Once again, thanks for the source!!![&o]

[cathar1244]

Yes, the other countries will be a problem, especially for 1979. I have some data, but it is generally by battalion and only for a few of the countries.

Cheers

[r6kunz]

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/ ... ll9/id/335 is a link to the U.S. manual on Soviet organization as of 1991. Still a bit late for the 1979 scenario, but closer than 1997.

Your comment on MG comparisons illustrates another design consideration. You have loads of information about one army, but basic information about others. IMO, it is not balanced to include all of the U.S. weapons while giving the Soviets only the basics. (Consistency in approach.) The division totals are also problematic. A British infantry division in World War II had hundreds of Bren light machine guns that were with "ash and trash" units in the division that probably never saw combat, or, if so, only very rarely.

Cheers

Cathar, you bring a number of good points to the table.
Your statement Consistency in approach is key. One can debate what to include but whatever it is, it should be consistent.

There are two online sources from the miniature community that has some TOEs by nationality and date. It is also worth checking some of the links.

This generally focuses on the AFVs that were available by type and the number assigned. Circa 1980's.

https://coldwargamer.blogspot.com/2012/ ... -tank.html

Another source, with 1980-89 TOEs by nationality even including Portugal!

http://www.fireandfury.com/extra/orders ... e.shtml#CW

Back to your question about how what to do with MGs in the "ash and trash" units (I love that expression!). Personally, I count the firepower in the teeth and not the tail. But I will typically include an infantry platoon in HQ/Arty unit to represent the inherent combat power when attacked. ("how many cooks does it take to set the headspace on a 50 cal?").

Looking forward to comments and ideas from you and others here.

Cheers

[cathar1244]

RAK, thanks for the comments and links.

Question for you. The fireandfury material. I've seen it before but wonder how to interpret it. I think their data is for miniatures wargames; for example, if they state "1x machine gun", that represents a machine gun section of however many weapons. Their data is interesting, but I am unsure of how to translate it into real numbers of equipment. Have you used their information, and if so, how?

Some useful order of battle (but not equipment listings) URLs:

http://sites-bruno.chez-alice.fr/ (French OOB since 1965)

http://www.mgfa.de/html/standorte_index_brd.php (West German unit garrisons, also has links for the E German Army and Soviet forces in Germany)

http://baor-locations.org/default.aspx.html (British garrisons and units in British Army of the Rhine)

http://www.british-army-units1945on.co.uk/ (British units since 1945)

Perhaps we can get a "sticky" topic made that keeps all these URLs in one handy place for scenario designers).

Cheers

[r6kunz]

ORIGINAL: cathar1244
Question for you. The fireandfury material. I've seen it before but wonder how to interpret it. I think their data is for miniatures wargames; for example, if they state "1x machine gun", that represents a machine gun section of however many weapons. Their data is interesting, but I am unsure of how to translate it into real numbers of equipment. Have you used their information, and if so, how?
Cheers

I have used the fire and fury data, but not the wargames or manuals. You are correct, it is somewhat difficult to interpret. I came up with a chart that compared the "1x machine gun" to actual TOE numbers. Ditto for AFV. That gave a table that I was able to extrapolate to their other TOEs.
I do not readily have my calculations, but it should be easy enough for you to do. Perhaps even post it with their link so others would not need to reinvent the wheel...
I have the period TOEs for Brits and Bundeswehr, circa 1988, but since that is not what you are looking for I won't go digging for them. The ones in Red Thunder II are based on these.
Cheers