Tanks v. AFVs

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Hey all...

I was doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations last night, and per what I was able to pull out of the NATO Vehicle Guide, I came up with about 140 or so "tanks" per the guidebook that are operational and listed in US military stocks.

What I'm interested in is: does this mean just what it says - tanks (M48, M60, Leo-1, Leo-2, Leo-3, ad-hoc captures and other acquisitions of MBTs), are we to assume that can mean anything from an M113 up to an MBT? Or is it strictly tanks but support vehicles are also to be considered? Like 1.5 or 2 to 1 IFV/APC/other armored vehicles?

This last option would seem to make the most sense; i.e., if a unit is listed as having 8 tanks, it also operates with 10-12 APCs (M113, Marder, Luchs, etc.)

[Olefin]

We debated this on another thread (will see if i can find it) but Kings Ransom and a couple of other modules offer the best guideline here.

In Kings Ransom when it says AFV it means tanks

An example can be found in the description of the Tudeh

"'AFVs are a mixture of third line
Soviet tanks (mainly T-55s) with a few captured NATO tanks
(M60A4s and Chieftains). APCs are scarce, with the infantry
either walking or riding in trucks. What few exist are usually
BTR-70s or OT-64s. The BRDM-3 is the standard armored car.
Artillery consists of 82mm and 120mm mortars."

So you can see that AFV's are tanks while the M113 and the Bradley wouldnt be.

You can also see it with the 74th KGB Motor Rifle Regiment and the 19th Division as well

"AFVs are T-72s and T-80s; APCs are
BTR-70s and BMPs. The unit uses the BRDM-3 armored car."

"The 119th Tank Regiment
consists of 32 AFVs, mostly T-55s with 6 SU-130 assault
guns for long-range fire support"

Since Frank Frey wrote both it and the NATO Guide you can see that when he says AFV's he is clearly meaning tanks or tanks and assault guns, not APC's

You also have this from the US Army Guide

"Strengths of units are given in overall manpower to the nearest
thousand and current tank (or assault gun) strength. Most of
these units have additional numbers of lighter armored vehicles
and soft-skinned tactical vehicles. They have also acquired nonissue
vehicles by various means."

Hope this helps

[raketenjagdpanzer]

That does, greatly. I'm going to go with a ratio of 3:1 on "personnel carriers" of some kind or the other, and 10:1 on soft-skinned vehicles (Hummers, trucks, civvie vehicles pressed into service, jeeps, etc. etc.), even units listed as having noe.

Thus an armored division listed as having 0 tanks may well still have armor.

[Olefin]

Realistically unless the unit is an all cavalary division - and there are some of those units by 2000 - or the canon specifically says they have no vehicles at all there should be some kind of armored or non-armored vehicles with any division even with no tanks.

By the way one idea you can use for non-standard armored vehicles would be gun trucks - i.e. modified trucks with non-standard armor and mounting anything from heavy machine guns to mortars and recoiless rifles.

[HorseSoldier]

Does anybody have a copy of the v1.0 Referee's Guide handy? My recollection is that the order of battle for Poland at the back of the ref's manual mentions a specific ratio of AFVs and howitzers the tank numbers listed. I'm wanting to say that they talk about a 5:1 ratio for approximating the number of other AFVs available to a unit, but might be wrong on the specific number.

[simonmark6]

Had a quick look, the notes don't specify a ratio of AFVs to tanks, it only mentions that there'll also be 1-2 howitzers per 1,000 men.

[Hybris]

This it what im using. I have take quite a lot of inspiration from the German army in ww2 who had a fair share of field mechanics and logistics.

All numbers and such is just a gut feeling for the purpose to create a diversity between units depending on cantonment and proximity to support units etc.




Military vehicle composition in the Twilight 2000 War regarding cannibalization in units..
Company:
Ratio: per 1 Tanks there is 1d2+1 not rolling.
Ratio: per 1 APC there is 1d2 not rolling
Ratio per 1 wheeled vehicle there is 1 not rolling being used as spare parts.

Battalion:
Per 1 Tank there is 1d3+1 not rolling.
Per 1 APC there is 1d3 not rolling.
Per wheeled vehicle there is 1d3 not rolling.
Regiment and above:
Per 1 tank there is 1d3 +2 not rolling
Per APC there is 1d3+1 not rolling
Per wheeled vehicle three is 1d3 not rolling
Above company level there is often recovery assets that are capable off logistic and recovery operations. These assets will help immensely to create repair and mechanic depots at battalion and regimental level.
As a rule of thumb.
Per 1000 men there is 1d2 tank in operational status.
Per tank there is id3 Tracked apc in operational status.
Per apc there is 1d3+1 Wheeled apc is in operational status.
Per apc there is id6 of mixed vehicles (both civilian and military and im sure captured)

Note In all categories above a fair share (say 20-30%) is of a captured stock and therefore spare parts are vary limited. Probably will they be used as long that is possibly and will then be scraped. If possibly all captured vehicles will be pooled together at same units in an effort the get some familiarity in spare ports logistics. Captured vehicle are also (freee) excellent supply and recovery vehicles in the rear with the gear and with less trigger happy G.Is.