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]

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.phpt=1920&highlight=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 M1s, 48 M2/3s 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 M1s, 16 M2/3s, 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]

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]

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