View Single Post
  #18  
Old 07-21-2009, 11:14 PM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
While it is stated in cannon that certain units had limited vehicles, etc (the 10 M1E2s of 3-70 armor for example), this state of affairs was at the end of an offensive that had kicked off some time before. It is conceivable that some weapon systems and vehicles had been lost in the precceeding weeks but not enough time for a reorganisation of remaining personnel and equipment (especcialy so in the last few days of the 5th).

Therefore we are not necessarily required to see the 5th as the template for US divisions in the latter stages of the war - the US 8th ID as described in the Eastern European Sourcebook might actually be a better unit to look at with all heavy armour concentrated into one company sized unit, infantry reorganised, artillery concentrated, etc.
I agree that there will be many models for organization, regardless of one's interpretation of the meaning of the given strengths of battalions in Escape from Kalisz. The Soviet 10th Tank Division (Ruins of Warsaw) has been dramatically reorganized. How different models of reorganization emerge would be an interesting thread. I do believe that divisions reduced to approximately brigade strength might well cope with the situation by eliminating the platoon level of command. In the case of 5th ID, eliminating the platoon makes sense of the remaining command structure, since both brigade and battalion levels of command are nominally intact.

Before continuing with the idea of more radical restructure, I’d like to have a look at the US Army Vehicle Guide's numbers for surviving MBT in the 5th ID. As of July 1, 2000 the division has 9 M1, 21 M1A1, and 12 M1A2. Taken together, these 42 tanks represent approximately the pre-war TO&E of a US Army armored battalion. The armored battalions of 5th ID named in Escape from Kalisz are 3-77 AR, 1-40 AR, and 3-70 AR. Dividing the available tanks (42) among the three battalions gives them a starting strength of 13 tanks apiece: about one company. Real combat operations did not commence until after July 9, so we should expect approximately the number of tanks given in the US Army Vehicle Guide to enter combat in Poland.

I acknowledge that there is room for interpretation in the numbers given and that not all interpretations will match mine. For starters, one might ask about non-US tanks. The game is all about the hodge-podge amalgamation of forces that are in the field in 2000. Perhaps there are Soviet or other NATO tanks that are not included in the roster given in the US Army Vehicle Guide. This is possible, but I think it’s unlikely. To try to count Pact or other NATO tanks in the tank park of 5th ID because they aren’t listed is to throw the entire accounting system of the US Army Vehicle Guide into question. If one wants to add to the diversity of the tank park of 5th ID, I think it’s acceptable to swap out a Pact or NATO tank for an M1. I don’t think it is in keeping with the intent of the established material to count tanks that aren’t listed, even though the US Army Vehicle Guide lists only US AFV at a time when there must be non-US AFV serving in US Army formations. As a rule, we should not be counting phantom tanks.

It is US Army doctrine to create mixed tank and mechanized infantry battalions called task forces, thereby creating combined arms formations out of what are nominally infantry or armored battalions. One might argue that 3-70 AR has only 10 tanks because its other tanks have been swapped to an infantry battalion within 1st Brigade. This may be so, in which case we might see 3-70 AR as a two-company battalion; but we run up against the numbers given in the US Army Vehicle Guide. If 3-70 AR has the equivalent of two companies of tanks, which would be in excess of 20 tanks, then only twenty tanks are left for 1-40 AR and 3-77 AR. These two battalions definitely have been reduced to company-level formations. There are other ways to juggle the numbers, but in the end the fact remains that there are 42 tanks given for 5th ID and three armored battalions listed in the lineup. Swapping a few tanks here and there does little to mitigate the fact that the battalions are operating with about 13 tanks apiece when 5th ID makes contact with Fourth Guards Tank Army.

Having said all of this, clearly not every division or brigade is going to operate this way or be able to operate this way. As Legbreaker mentions, the 8th ID is not a good candidate for simple elimination of the platoon level of command. Wholesale restructuring of the division is a more workable solution. There are plenty of divisions that simply don’t have the numbers to support a platoon-elimination organization. 28th ID, for instance, has 1000 men and 4 M60A4. This division may have been reorganized into two small battalions backed by division troops that may or may not include all four operational tanks operating as a single platoon.

Everything I’ve said should be taken in context. Thunder Empire is, after all, nothing but violations of the official source material. Poseidon’s Rim (the name I’m giving my work on the US Coast Guard in northern New England) is more-or-less the same. It would be hypocritical for me to claim that numbers could not be crunched to support a specific theory about TO&E in the 5th ID or in USAEUR organization in Europe of 2000 as a whole. Exceptions to the rule are what Twilight: 2000 is all about. All I can do is offer my interpretation of the evidence available in an effort to form general patterns. Clearly, by 2000 US Army divisions in Europe and elsewhere in the world are going to reorganize their existing strength to suit the resources at hand, their expected mode of operation, and the thinking of the commanding officer.


Webstral
Reply With Quote