Announcement

**Abbott Shaull** · 01-23-2011, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by dragoon500ly View Post

As you can see, there is quite an extensive list of support units, and this is just for a single Corps! I should note, that while this is the doctrine troop list, in real life, no Corps had this many support units during the Cold War.

That is the truth in real life none of the units had their full compliment until they were deploying...*shrug*

**Dog 6** · 01-23-2011, 03:18 PM

good stuff dragoon. thanks!

**dragoon500ly** · 01-23-2011, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Abbott Shaull View Post

That is the truth in real life none of the units had their full compliment until they were deploying...*shrug*

In truth, no service has fielded all of the doctrine units since WWII! And I doubt that we will ever see mobilization on that kind of scale ever again.

Still, as a paper study, it has its points

**dragoon500ly** · 01-23-2011, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Dog 6 View Post

good stuff dragoon. thanks!

No Prob!

Just for a trivia....this troop list represents over 350 TO&E tables....someday I'll get my greedy claws on all of them!

**Abbott Shaull** · 01-23-2011, 04:12 PM

Yeah well WWII the US had planned on some 187 Divisions, but ended up with half of that since so many troops were needed for support roles.

**dragoon500ly** · 01-23-2011, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Abbott Shaull View Post

Yeah well WWII the US had planned on some 187 Divisions, but ended up with half of that since so many troops were needed for support roles.

A lot of that was Army Ground Forces desire to have the smallest, most combat effective division. Then grouping the extra units at Army/Corps level...too bad they didn't realize that once the ole fhit hit the san that the divisions would latch onto as many extra combat elements as they could get their greedy hands on. 1st Infantry Division, at one time had two tank bns, two tank destroyer bns, a cavalry sqn, three antiaircraft bns, two field artillery bns and a combat command from an armored division....maybe the stories about the Army consisting of the Big Red One and a million replacements were true!

S&T magazine, back in the SPI days, did a study and figured out that if the "extra" combat elements had been converted into divisions, that at least another 42 divisions could have been fielded. One thing was for sure....a lot of waste and duplicated effort went into fielding the WWII army.

**Abbott Shaull** · 01-23-2011, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by dragoon500ly View Post

A lot of that was Army Ground Forces desire to have the smallest, most combat effective division. Then grouping the extra units at Army/Corps level...too bad they didn't realize that once the ole fhit hit the san that the divisions would latch onto as many extra combat elements as they could get their greedy hands on. 1st Infantry Division, at one time had two tank bns, two tank destroyer bns, a cavalry sqn, three antiaircraft bns, two field artillery bns and a combat command from an armored division....maybe the stories about the Army consisting of the Big Red One and a million replacements were true!

S&T magazine, back in the SPI days, did a study and figured out that if the "extra" combat elements had been converted into divisions, that at least another 42 divisions could have been fielded. One thing was for sure....a lot of waste and duplicated effort went into fielding the WWII army.

I don't think any Division actually went into with just their authorize strength. Even when they units detached to others and if they were on the line, they had other units attached to replace them...

**dragoon500ly** · 01-23-2011, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Abbott Shaull View Post

I don't think any Division actually went into with just their authorize strength. Even when they units detached to others and if they were on the line, they had other units attached to replace them...

Actually, when the divisions didn't have their support elements, the "regular" divisions had been so stripped of any excess that when committed by themselves, the losses outstripped the ability of the division to replace. An example would be the 106th Infantry Division....only attachments it had was a towed tank destroyer battalion, and part of a antiaircraft battalion...and of course, it didn't help that they were grass green!

And then there was the practise by the veteran divisions of laying their hands on anything resembling an automatic weapon. The 2nd Infantry Division had an average of two BARs per squad, and there were some squads that had as many as 4 BARs and a bazooka, well above normal TO&E!! Not to mention helping themselves to German field phones, they were able to wire in every unit, right down to squad level...when the 106th took over the positions, they didn't have the sweet stuff...and it cost them dearly.

**Adm.Lee** · 01-23-2011, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Abbott Shaull View Post

Yeah well WWII the US had planned on some 187 Divisions, but ended up with half of that since so many troops were needed for support roles.

They also didn't quite account for the manpower that would be needed to field the Army Air Force and base forces, either. They had to compromise on 90 divisions.

A big reason the divisions were stripped down as much as they were, was to minimize the shipping needed to send them overseas. After all, a division going to the Pacific might not need the tank-destroyer battalion or tank battalion that an ETO division did. And even then, there were not enough GHQ tank or TD battalions for each infantry division to keep one of each permanently, they rotated among divisions as needed in the ETO.

As it was, just about all of the "normal" attachments (tank battalion, AAA battalion) were standardized in the postwar TO&E.

**Abbott Shaull** · 01-23-2011, 08:52 PM

Yeah that is another problem is when people help themselves with their light fingers to equip their unit to higher than TO&E.

**bobcat** · 01-24-2011, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Abbott Shaull View Post

Yeah that is another problem is when people help themselves with their light fingers to equip their unit to higher than TO&E.

that depends on who's supply dump is being used. one of the enemies LMG's is worth 10 of your own and such. considering all the resources put into geting one new LMG to the front when you need it compared to stealing one from the other guy.

hence why in game i tend to live off the commies backs(not like i have that many other options without a friendly supply chain)

**dragoon500ly** · 01-24-2011, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by Adm.Lee View Post

They also didn't quite account for the manpower that would be needed to field the Army Air Force and base forces, either. They had to compromise on 90 divisions.

A big reason the divisions were stripped down as much as they were, was to minimize the shipping needed to send them overseas. After all, a division going to the Pacific might not need the tank-destroyer battalion or tank battalion that an ETO division did. And even then, there were not enough GHQ tank or TD battalions for each infantry division to keep one of each permanently, they rotated among divisions as needed in the ETO.

As it was, just about all of the "normal" attachments (tank battalion, AAA battalion) were standardized in the postwar TO&E.

Yeah, that led to the divisional tank battalion, the regimental cannon company (M-4 w/105mm hows), the regimental tank company (17 M-26)...by the time all of the "attachments" became official, the infantry division would field 197 tanks...the armored divisions would have 272 tanks.

The shipping problem was the real drive to streamline the divisions. But it was the excess wasted on the numerous support units that really caused the problems. This bleed off heavily impacted the combat arms to such an extent that by 1944, Eisenhower had to make the decision to cull his service units in order to make up shortfalls in infantry replacements, this led Marshall to cancel many programs (ATSP for one, several army air forces cadet classes for another) and send these men to Europe as replacements.

**dragoon500ly** · 01-24-2011, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by bobcat View Post

that depends on who's supply dump is being used. one of the enemies LMG's is worth 10 of your own and such. considering all the resources put into geting one new LMG to the front when you need it compared to stealing one from the other guy.

hence why in game i tend to live off the commies backs(not like i have that many other options without a friendly supply chain)

Favorite GIs antitank weapon was a Panzerfaust! Just like the GIs perferred the MP-40 over the M-3 SMG and liked to wear jackboots and carry the German Army's shelter half, it was better than the issue crap!

**bobcat** · 01-24-2011, 04:45 AM

and the tenth's favorite machinegun was the MG42. (of course we were told to grab everything we could off the germans right before we took riva ridge and mount belvadere

)

Announcement

Troop List

Troop List

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment