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.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Hybris

This it what im using.

That's very good, and I'm going to add it to my game. Thank you.

[Olefin]

You may want to look at this thread

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.p...reorganization

Its the Reorg of the 5th Infantry Division that Graebearde (sorry hope I spelled that right) posted and Kato reposted

In it you can see lots of details as to the Fall 1999 composition of the 5th

excerpt here:

Heavy Battalion

The division still maintains strength of 36 M1’s, 48 M2/3’s and 60 M113-series vehicles in the maneuver battalions. These combat vehicles, considered operational, are consolidated into three heavy battalions. Their primary constrains are the lack of fuel, spare parts, and ordnance for the main guns. Each of the battalions has 12 M1’s, 16 M2/3’s, and 20 M113-series in two companies and a headquarters & support company. Each battalion also has four 120mm mortars. Each battalion consists of a Headquarters and Support Company and two Heavy Companies with an aggregate strength of 400. The 256th Armored Battalion is equipped with M60A3s and M113 carriers, where as 61st units are equipped with M1/M2/3 series vehicles.

Headquarters and Support Company [200]
Command 3
Battalion staff 20
Communications 20
Medical 20
Logistics 50
Scouts 36 (6x M2/3 six-man)
Mortars 33 (4x 120mm)
Tank 8 (2x MBT)
Commandant 10

2x Armored Company [100]
Headquarters 16 (staff and maintenance)
Tank 20 (5x MBT)
IFV Infantry 64 (8x IFV/APC eight-man)


So if you look you have a total of 36 tanks and 108 APC's of various types - i.e. a 3 APC (i.e. M113/Bradley, etc..) for every 1 tank

[Raellus]

I think there's another thread dedicated to this subject in the archive.

IIRC, in the U.S. Army Vehicle Guide, it identifies the types of MBTs in each unit by name and gives a number for each group. I'm almost positive that it also states somewhere in there that, in addition to the MBTs specified, each unit may also contain a number of other armored vehicles like APCs and/or IFVs. Why else would the guides include many other light armored vehicle types in the guides if there aren't any around? From the vehicle guides, we can safely infer that the "AFV" figures given in the other sourcebooks refers to operational MBTs only.

[Olefin]

the US Army Guide has this

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

Now it does give the authorized levels they had pre-war - so that tells you what authorized vehicles they had to give you a guide what they had left over

Soviet Guide has a similar statement

the howitzers ratio of 1-2 per 1000 men is stated in the Guide but cant find anything on APC's or for lighter vehicles like HMMVW

[boogiedowndonovan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I think there's another thread dedicated to this subject in the archive.

IIRC, in the U.S. Army Vehicle Guide, it identifies the types of MBTs in each unit by name and gives a number for each group. I'm almost positive that it also states somewhere in there that, in addition to the MBTs specified, each unit may also contain a number of other armored vehicles like APCs and/or IFVs. Why else would the guides include many other light armored vehicle types in the guides if there aren't any around? From the vehicle guides, we can safely infer that the "AFV" figures given in the other sourcebooks refers to operational MBTs only.

There is another thread in the archives. It got very heated from what I recall...

[raketenjagdpanzer]

If it got out of hand, ferget I asked...!

[The Rifleman]

As mentioned above, I remember reading somewhere that each unit has 1 or 2 howitzers per 1,000 men and that the number of "tanks" describes how well the unit is equipt. I believe that comes out of the US army vehicle guide, V1. Here is a military break down of vehicles

AFV = Armored Fighting Vehicle, is described as something with a large caliber gun as a main weapon and alot of armor. Its a fancy way of saying "tank" like the T series of soviet tanks, the M-1, Challenger, even the older tanks like the M45A5.

IFV = Infantry Fighting Vehicle, is a Bradley or BMP. Its something that carries infantry and has chain guns or ATGMs that can stand up to tanks. Their gunnery is stabilized, meaning they have fire control and thermal.

APC = Armored Personal Carriers, are the old versions of the IFVs. They typically do not have the same level of armor, speed, and most importantly weapons. Typically they have ring mounted weapons, such as machine guns. Some do have ATGMs, but there is a huge difference between an ATGM mounted to a turret and fired by a gunner and one fired from an open ring mount on top of a "track".

I took the numbers listed in the US army vehicle guide completely litterally as to "how well equipt" the unit is and created formulas on how many other vehicles they would have. For example, the 16th Armored Division has 2,000 men, 4 M-1s and 14 M1A1s. Then, I used the US army vehicle guide and opened the TO&E. I determined that each armor battalion has 58 tanks. Then I shot across to the spread sheet and noted that each armored division has 6 tank battalions. The 16th therefore should have started the war with 348 tanks. So 5.2% of the 16th Armor's tanks survive. I then use the TO&E to figure out the total number of assigned M2s, M109s and so on, and give the unit 5.2% of each. For light infantry, or for divisions with no tanks, I work off the premise that 1 artillery piece survived for each 500 men, and then based off the total number of surviving artillery pieces, I add in 1 IFV or APC per artillery piece, as the book stated that generally, the units with tanks had more equipment surviving.

Of course, none of this is set in stone with units having the perfect amount of gear in ratio destroyed. With replacement vehicles of different types, different circumstances and so on. This is simply a rule of thumb I use to build a unit, then I create circumstances that make sense to make it more realistic.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Olefin

the US Army Guide has this

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

There it is. Thanks for posting this.

Rifleman, I like your formula. Seems like a pretty logical way to determine non-MBT AFV strength. A long while back, we had a discussion about whether certain types of AFVs- SPAAA, for example- would have a greater survival rate than others. I tend to think that vehicles that had a slightly reduced exposure to the FOB would be slightly more common, c.2000, than vehicle types that saw more direct combat. So, perhaps 7.5-10% prewar strength adjustment for "non-combat" vehicles like prime movers, SPA, SPAAA, etc, as opposed to MBTs, IFVs, and APCs, would be reasonable?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Rifleman FTW.

[The Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Rifleman, I like your formula. Seems like a pretty logical way to determine non-MBT AFV strength. A long while back, we had a discussion about whether certain types of AFVs- SPAAA, for example- would have a greater survival rate than others. I tend to think that vehicles that had a slightly reduced exposure to the FOB would be slightly more common, c.2000, than vehicle types that saw more direct combat. So, perhaps 7.5-10% prewar strength adjustment for "non-combat" vehicles like prime movers, SPA, SPAAA, etc, as opposed to MBTs, IFVs, and APCs, would be reasonable?

I thought alot about what you said. I'm thinking about other factors in this. For example, artillery in the cold war faced radio direction finders, artillery radar, and counter battery fire. Not to mention, the soviets placed field artillery concentrations as their number two target (after nuclear weapons!), so they'd get a lot of attention from their air units too.

I can't see prime movers getting hammered from direct fire at all! But, I can see them getting a lot of cross fire hits. SPA would be a target that would get a lot of attention. On the other hand, SPAAA is an interesting topic. I could see ZSU 30-4s and M988s getting into the trenches with those autocannons pressed into service. As a matter of fact, I believe that the Soviet armor forces actually have ZSUs at either battalion or regiment level and they are expected to be right up from providing cover fire. On the other hand SPAAA systems mounting SAMs would be only have aircraft as a natural enemy, and would have a much, much higher probability of survival.

I could also see logistical assets surviving better too. Spetnaz teams would get their licks in, as well as the nukes, tactical bad decisions, lightning attacks and so on, but they aren't actively engaging in combat, thus creating no signature. I would think that would lead to more survivabity.

Also, I would think items like HMMWV weapons carriers would do better. Maybe not in the scout platoons, but once they move forward and drop off their infantry, they camaflage and wait. They would try to aviod combat, more so than say a BMP or M1.

What about something like this:

AFV/IFV/APC 0.0%
Towed artillery +0.5%
SPA +1.0%
HMMWV/UAZ +3.0%
SPAAA with chaingun +3.0%
SPAAA with missles +10.0%
CSS vehicles +10.0%

[The Rifleman]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

Rifleman FTW.

Hooah, its that old 90s tanker mentality coming out of me. I still have the MTOE of an M1 and M60 battalion in my head lol.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by The Rifleman

AFV/IFV/APC 0.0%
Towed artillery +0.5%
SPA +1.0%
HMMWV/UAZ +3.0%
SPAAA with chaingun +3.0%
SPAAA with missles +10.0%
CSS vehicles +10.0%

Brilliant. This is one of those things where I am kicking myself that I didn't think of it.

I might put Humvees at +5.0 or a bit higher, simply because everybody in the game world seems to have one!

As a side note, it's likely that a lot of those SPSAMLs would be sans missiles c. 2000.

[The Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Brilliant. This is one of those things where I am kicking myself that I didn't think of it.

I might put Humvees at +5.0 or a bit higher, simply because everybody in the game world seems to have one!

As a side note, it's likely that a lot of those SPSAMLs would be sans missiles c. 2000.

Thank you. Good idea with the UAZ/Humvees. Alot probably did survive. Every colonel and staff officer had one to ride in. Just so many of them started the war they'd have to be in huge numbers. I wish I could remember how many were in the old cold war tank battalions. I'd say at least 12, and that doesn't include the medics. That adds up to a lot of non-combat vehicles kicking around!

[The Rifleman]

If you want to go into this without your head exploding..... this is the MTOEs from the US army in the 90s when they were going through the transition to Force 21. I was able to decipher it because I work with the unit manning reports (UMR) and MTOEs. In the first collum on the link shows how many of each type of company are in that battalion. The second collum gives major end items each company has. If you click on the links, into goes into ALL the details. You can find out how many E-3s are in every platoon if you really want, or how many wreckers or fuelers are in each battalion.

Some advice, go to the Divisions that don't have XXI and you'll get the real cold war style units. Also, when you click on the links, there are two collums, the one on the left that says BTOE and the one on the right says OTOE. You want the OTOE. The BTOE has the right type of vehicles not MTVs but old duece trucks, and 4.2" mortars instead of 120mm. But the problem is that they deleted most of hte support vehicles. . Some of the hidden codes:

tank, 105mm = M1IP
carrier cp = M577
TRK wrecker and TRK Tank Fuel are the HEMMTs
carrier 120mm mortar = M106
carrier armored = M113

Strangely, I saw no mention of the battalion's scout platoon. They typically had 8 M113s/M901s....

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/unit/toe/index.html

[Legbreaker]

I spent a LOT of time agonising over the vehicle and heavy equipment of the 2nd Marines a few months ago. In my opinion, what I posted here: http://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php...6&postcount=61 is a pretty good estimation for that unit bearing in mind also what their mission was (I imagine other units might have a similar make-up though).

[Olefin]

Keep in mind also that some vehicles would be more surviveable just from being easier to maintain as well. Look at how many German tanks were lost during WWII to breakdowns where the more easily maintainable American tanks didnt have those issues.

And numbers will definitely matter as to spare parts as well that are gleaned from either recovered or wrecked vehicles - i.e. there are a lot of Bradleys and M1's and Hummers running around but if you have a Stingray there werent that many built to where you can easily find parts for it.

As for missile equipped vehicles - it will probably come down to what missile they had. Some missiles were made in much higher numbers than others so you may see some vehicles still relatively well equipped while others arent.

Also you could see some of them changed into different styles of vehicles - i.e. like the Germans in WWII took older tanks and turned them into dedicated tank destroyers. Some could be as simple as removing the AA system only while others could be repurposed.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Keep in mind also that some vehicles would be more surviveable just from being easier to maintain as well. Look at how many German tanks were lost during WWII to breakdowns where the more easily maintainable American tanks didnt have those issues.

And numbers will definitely matter as to spare parts as well that are gleaned from either recovered or wrecked vehicles - i.e. there are a lot of Bradleys and M1's and Hummers running around but if you have a Stingray there werent that many built to where you can easily find parts for it.

As for missile equipped vehicles - it will probably come down to what missile they had. Some missiles were made in much higher numbers than others so you may see some vehicles still relatively well equipped while others arent.

Also you could see some of them changed into different styles of vehicles - i.e. like the Germans in WWII took older tanks and turned them into dedicated tank destroyers. Some could be as simple as removing the AA system only while others could be repurposed.

Not to pick on you but part of Stingray's "appeal" was COTS - the gun was just a standard M68, the sighting system came off of Abrams, the engine was (and is) used in a wide array of not only military but civilian vehicles.

I definitely understand what you mean though. Some vehicles are simple & robust, others are hopelessly complex...

[Olefin]

You are right there about the Stingray - should have used a different example but you can see what I meant.

As for missile equipped vehicles that could be repurposed one would be the M920 M2 Hellfire AT Vehicle. Assume that Hellfire missiles are no longer available but the older TOW's are. Then you could have a Bradley turret mounted back on it and its back to being a regular Bradley again. Or you could turn it into a gun only AA vehicle similar to the M757 Blazer but without the quad Stinger launcher if those arent available anymore.

And a triple barreled 30mm chain gun has a lot of utility against cavalry or dismounted infantrymen attacking without armor support, which is a very common situation by 2000.

[bobcat]

have you guys heard about the new stryker varient looking to replace the 113?
http://defense.aol.com/2012/11/02/gd...-to-replace-m/
the fanatic is going to have a fit about that (even though it addresses his only valid complaint about the stryker)

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by bobcat

have you guys heard about the new stryker varient looking to replace the 113?
http://defense.aol.com/2012/11/02/gd...-to-replace-m/
the fanatic is going to have a fit about that (even though it addresses his only valid complaint about the stryker)

Hm.

I wonder if they could do a tracked MGS variant. Of course, if they did, they'd probably want to beef up the armor with some laminate. Maybe go with a rear-mounted gas turbine engine for extra power at that point.

'course, with that much power you might as well switch to a 120mm gun and th-

Heyyyyy wait a second...

[The Rifleman]

Originally Posted by bobcat

have you guys heard about the new stryker varient looking to replace the 113?
http://defense.aol.com/2012/11/02/gd...-to-replace-m/
the fanatic is going to have a fit about that (even though it addresses his only valid complaint about the stryker)

Thank god! Its something with armor and treads. Get rid of these dam armored cars. I hate the strikers, but this looks and sounds like a move in the right direction.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by The Rifleman

Thank god! Its something with armor and treads. Get rid of these dam armored cars. I hate the strikers, but this looks and sounds like a move in the right direction.

its a stryker with treads instead of wheels it has no more armor than a normal stryker(which is still better than an m113)

[The Rifleman]

Originally Posted by bobcat

its a stryker with treads instead of wheels it has no more armor than a normal stryker(which is still better than an m113)

Exactly. Its nothing more than tracks instead of wheels, and that is a move in the right direction!