Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
Good point, Web. I hadn't thought about the dramatic downsizing of unit staffs. That would free up more officers for line duty.
Web, I agree about not adding too may captured enemy to NATO TOEs. I figure, though, that one or two wouldn't be pusing it too much. On the other hand, for some of the German units, captured Soviet-made MBTs are listed in the sourcebooks. So, there's a bit of a quandry there.
The 8th ID does seem like an anomaly, even for 2000. Looking through the U.S. Army Vehicle Guide though, there are a couple more units with similarly anemic listed strengths. For example...
4th ID (Mech.): 1000 men; 8 M1s & 10M1A1s
I don't know if this is helpful, but some of the listed Brigade strengths may give some clues as to unit TOEs below division level.
1st Brigade, 40th ID (Mech): 400 men; 4 M60A4 & 2 M1
2nd Brigade, 2nd Armored: 300 men; 1 M1, 3 M1A1, 1 M1A1
vs.
2nd Armored Regiment: 100 men; 2 M1A2 & 6 LAV-75
It's pretty much all over the place so I guess anything goes. Maybe the designers wanted it that way since it gives the GM a lot of flexibility.
|
My problem was not with the tanks. 1000 men could support ~20 tanks. The problem comes from something like 70 AFVs beyond the tanks (including 9 M109s 2 MLRS and 4 M691s IIRC plus 4 or 5 helicopters). I always assumed that the units listed above were just very tank heavy.
My answer was they started with 3000 men but lost a few to combat and many to a virulent flu. They were then trapped with to much equipment. I think I remember calculating that if you only had one support truck per combat vehicle listed that over 40% of the division was vehicle crews. And one truck per tank is not at all realistic.