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?
< Message edited by cathar1244 -- 1/15/2019 6:41:26 AM >