NationStates Jolt Archive

OOC:

Forgive me for the typo in the title, I'm really tired.



I have been working out the stats for my navy and air force and now the time has come for me to start working on my army. The problem, I have to idea how an army is supposed to be organized. I know it has something to do with armored divisions and infantry divisions but I don't know how many of each item would go in them.

If someone could point me in the right direction it would be much appreciated.

OOC: Technicly, there is no way you're supposed to organise your military, any way is fine.
I organise on the platoon level (54 soldiers for a platoon for me), and then mix and match what platoons I need where when I need them. This is very time consuming, and quite a bit more frustrating to do, but it gives me the advantage of micromanagment in a battle. I don't nessicarily suggest it, unless you like organising something large.
Another step is using divisions, or any other arbitrary name you come up with for larger units. Here you can decide on a division size, say 15,000 soldiers a division? From there you can break your army down into it's divisional units, like armor, infantry, mechanised infantry, artillery, and logistics units. All you have to do here is list how much of what each division has, it's the system that seems to be most common here because it's fairly easy to do, and still capable of moving groups of soldiers.

In the end, your organization is up to you. You can arange then in any way you feel is best, from individual soldiers to groups of hundreds of thousands. The groups can be any number you choose, ad can divide into whatever number of smaller groups you choose, as well as the names of groups can be whatever you want them do be.

Whatever your combat style is, will greatly help if you can organize your army around it.

Firstly, you need to work out what is most important to you, your navy, your airforce army etc, or if its all about the same. That way you can tell how many troops you have etc etc.

Then, you have to remember that for every ground troop you have there are MANY more people supporting him with supplies, orders, weapons etc, having just 10,000 soldiers with no logistics doesn't work. Im not sure what the exact numbers used right now are, but if yu check out one of the threads which have been pinned(i think its THIS ONE (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=393153) which tells you exact numbers.

Once thats all done its up to you if you want a cheap, all infantry, balanced or mechanised army, i'd look at some other nations websites with their military stats etc to work out sizes of battalions how many of each to have.

How does this look for an armored division?

80- M1A2 Abrams MBTs
15- M-2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles
10- M-113A3 Armored Personnel Carrier
24- M-48 Chapparral Mobile SAM Launcher
20- M6 Bradley Linebacker
50- Crusader Artillery
20- M-270A1 MLRS Mobile Rocket Launcher
10- M992 FAASV Field Artillery
20- RAH-66 Comanche Helicopters

OOC: Since I'm no army expert, I've had to do some searching as well. This (http://www.hyperbear.com/acw/essays/acw-essays-army-org.html) is a pretty good general guide for organization of an army.

My Talzecki War is going to be my proving ground for army combat. Hopefully things will go well there.

How does this look for an armored division?

80- M1A2 Abrams MBTs
15- M-2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles
10- M-113A3 Armored Personnel Carrier
24- M-48 Chapparral Mobile SAM Launcher
20- M6 Bradley Linebacker
50- Crusader Artillery
20- M-270A1 MLRS Mobile Rocket Launcher
10- M992 FAASV Field Artillery
20- RAH-66 Comanche Helicopters

I'd say thats a bit to small, thats more like a battalion, although some nations have like 300 M1A2s instead of 80, :D.

Thats pretty good, but dont forget your logistical support, you need trucks there, perhaps one per fighting vehicle?

You could also perhaps do with some Airtransport for troops? Chinooks do that well, and for artylerry, trucks etc you can get helos from RL that can carry them, can't remember the name right now...

Just remember that different tasks need different weapons, so you could keep that as your basic design, but change it for different Jobs.

Ohh, and look at storefronts to get some good ideas, the ones that do packages are the best...Clan Smoke Jaguar is in my opinion an excellent person to look at, his ground packages cover many different aspects of warfare...its all good!

EDIT:

Sarzo- " The organization of an American Civil War army, from the company, up. This includes infantry, cavalry, and artillery organizations. "

This is MT, ;) , still i suppose it is quite useful...

Yeah, the Macabees thread on Logistics gives you a good idea. He suggests a 1:7 combat:support ratio for logistics. That's probably your best bet right there.

There is some info that I used to organize my forces...

www.freewebs.com/wolfish/wolfishforces.htm

Just scroll down to the Land Force section.

Cheers,
W.

Armored division

Soldiers: 21,190
4,500 armed with M16s
2,000 armed with M4s
500 armed with M14s
250 armed with 12gauge Shotguns
250 armed with M60s
150 armed with <sniper rifles>
100 armed with M136 Rocket launchers
100 armed with a total of 50 M224 60mm mortar systems (two per mortar)
13,000- Engineers/Mechanics
60 Medics
30 Cooks

280- M1A2 Abrams MBTs
175- M-2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles
110- M-113A3 Armored Personnel Carrier
25- M-48 Chapparral Mobile SAM Launcher
40- M6 Bradley Linebacker
75- Crusader Artillery
21- M-270A1 MLRS Mobile Rocket Launcher
10- M992 FAASV Field Artillery
22- RAH-66 Comanche Helicopters
220- HEM Tactical Trucks
40- CH47 Chinooks
10- LAV Engineering Vehicle
1- C-17 Globemaster III

Increase the logistics more. I have only around 2 brigades of combat soldiers per division, and there's around 6 to 7 brigades per division ( 2,000 to 3,000 per brigade). I usually have around 9,000 combat soldiers to 11,000 logistics, but with an armoured division it's more mechanized, requiring more mechanics and logistics. So I bring it down to around 6,000 to 7,000 combat soldiers for 12,000 to 11,000 logistical personel. Also I would personally add some Humvees for transporting soldiers, and for light combat. That's all I can think of now. It's not that bad though. Good work.

I. Ground Forces
A. General
1. Triangular Organizations
Most armies have discovered that a triangular organization works best (1 Division = 3 Regiments/Brigades, 1 Regiment/Brigade = 3 Battalions, 1 Battalion = 3 Companies, 1 Company = 3 Platoons, 1 Platoon = 3 Squads). The reason is simple: a commander with three units under his command can send two into battle while leaving a third in reserve. If s/he only has two units, it's 50% in reserve or nothing at all; if he has four units, putting three on the line and leaves 25% in reserve, which is usually not enough to exploit success in decisive fashion or stave off defeat in a pinch.

Some armies use a quadrangular organization with the fourth unit being artillery and/or support (thus, 1 division = 4 regiments/brigades, one of artillery and 3 of combat arms, etc.). This is not a bad way to go.
2. Combined Arms
Seldom can one combat arm dominate the battlefield; usually a mixture of forces is needed for success. This means that it's better to have armored divisions comprised of both tanks and infantry than to have pure tank divisions (and the same applies in reverse for infantry). This integration usually happens at the regiment/brigade level, but sometimes it can happen at lower levels (eg, an armored regiment/brigade could have 2 tank battalions and a mech infantry battalion).
3. Depot Organization vs. Combat Organization
Some armies lump units together by type on paper (i.e., in the depot) and then reorganize in ad hoc fashion in the field. For example, an armored division might have four regiments on paper (2 tank, 1 mech infantry, 1 self-propelled artillery) but reorganize itself into three brigades (each with 2 tank battalions and 1 mech infantry battalion) for battle. The regiments are paper (or 'depot') units, designed to provide maximum support for training, refitting/repair, and resupply; the brigades are the actually fighting units.

With this method of organization, it is often the case that the combat units are formed in ad hoc fashion. They may not be identical in size or composition; indeed, each could gain or lose battalions (or detached companies) as mission objectives change. OTOH, some armies have long and glorious regimental histories and prefer to keep regiments intact; they might still augment regiments into brigades by adding (or deleting, for assignment elsewhere) sub-units, which allows them flexibility while basing these ad-hoc units around their proud regiments and thereby maintaining the morale advantages of regimental spirit.
4. Grand Tactical Organization
Divisions are generally lumped into corps, armies, and (ultimately) army groups. These are almost always ad-hoc organizations (although very large armies the base unit might be the army corps; this was the case in WWI and also in the post-WWII Soviet Order of Battle (Order of Battle = roster of available forces with their specified organization)
A. Armored Forces
1. Optimal Armor-to-Infantry Ratio
Armor does not do well on its own. Consequently (successful) armies have always mixed armor with infantry (usually motorized [truck-borne] or mechanized [AFV-borne]) to provide tanks with infantry support.
Typical ratios run as low as 1:2 and as high as 2:1. 3:1 is too high; such armored units tend to have difficulty holding ground against counterattack. The optimal ratio is probably somewhere between 1:1 and 4:3.
1. Company/Platoon Size
The building block of the tank battalion is the company or platoon. Whether you choose the company or the platoon depends on how much you trust your NCO's. A platoon will be commanded by a seargent (an NCO); a company by a captain (an officer). If you have an intermediate rank, like "sub-lieutenant" or "sub-altern", you could put a (full or first) lieutenant in charge of a platoon; it's your call.

Usually, officer ranks alternate between staff/adjutant and command, such that new officers (just promoted from cadet rank) assist the next rank (command), giving them time in harness before they get to make life-and-death decisions. Thus, a typical rank progression might be:
Lieutenant - Assists a Captain
Captain - Commands a Company
Major - Assists a Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel - Commands a Battalion
Colonel - Assists a General (any rank)
Brigadier General - Commands a Brigade
General - Commands a Division
Major General - Commands a Corps or Army
Marshall - Commands an Army Group or Theater
This is why the role of your NCO's matters - or rather relates directly to the size of a platoon. If you trust your NCO's to make independent decisions, you'll have big, independent platoons; if you want officers making all decisions, you'll have small, subordinate platoons and it'll be the comanies that are independent.
So with strong NCO's you might have:
5 Tanks (led a Seargent) = 1 Platoon
3 Platoons + 2 Tanks (in an HQ Section, led by a Captain) = 1 Company (17 Tanks in all)
3 Companies + 3 Tanks (in an HQ Section, led by a Lieutenant Colonel) = 1 Battalion (54 Tanks in all)
While with weak NCO's you might have
3 Tanks (led a Seargent) = 1 Platoon[/I]
3 Platoons + 1 Tank (for the Captain in command) = 1 Company (10 Tanks in all)
3 Companies + 2 Tanks (in an HQ Section, led by a Lieutenant Colonel) = 1 Battalion (32 Tanks in all)
Which of course means a lot more officers. If you're a feudal society, this could be good (lots of jobs for nobles).

1. Division Size
This depends on the size of your battalion. If a battalion ~50 tanks, you'll probably want 5-7 battalions in a division for ~300 tanks in all. If your preferred armor-to-infantry ration is between 1:1 and 4:3, that means 5-6 mechanized or motorized infantry battalions (maybe half and half, if you can't afford to be 100% mechanized) for a division of 10-13 battalions (3-4 brigades, preferrably 3).

If your battalion is ~30 tanks, you'll probably want 6-8 battalions in a division for ~200 tanks in all. Assuming your infantry platoons are equally small (for the same reasons - more captains), that means 5-7 mechanized or motorized infantry battalions (again, maybe half and half) for a division of 11-15 battalions (again, 3-4 brigades, preferably 3). Since your armored divisions are 1/3 smaller than other peoples, maybe you should formalize the organization of an armored corps (2-3 armored and 1-2 mechanized division), so that your basic operational unit is as big or bigger than theirs (400-600 tanks)

(Continued)

*Edited post #9*

Excellent post, Ayaddha and one I'd like to tag for my own uses if I could.

Just a point that general ranks are usually thus:

Brigadier General
Major General
Lieutenant General
General
Marshal

I invert it in my own army (a Brigadier General outranks a Major General in my RPs), but that's the usual rank. Other than that, excellent resource post.

*** Thanks for the correction on field ranks, Sarzonia. It's been a while since I played with this stuff. ***

I. Ground Forces (Continued)
C. Infantry Forces
1. Presence of Armor
A constant argument is over whether to scatter tanks among your infantry or concentrate them into armored divisions and corps. Of course you should do both ;)

Giving an infantry division even 1-2 tank battalions can make a world of difference in terms of its capability. Just make sure you don't dilute all your armor this way.
2. Company/Platoon Size
Here, the building block is a fire team. You'll have to assume that your NCO's have some independence and brains if you want good infantry, since it would be absurd to have a lieutenant or such in charge of such a team, and squad operations require some skill in the maneuver and positioning of fire teams, no matter how stupid your team leaders may be.

A typical team will be 3-4 people, although 2 men with a heavy weapon (eg., a light machine gun) could also be a team. Since each squad should probably have one such weapon, the smallest practical squad would be 8-11 men (2-3 teams of 3-4 soldiers plus a heavy weapons team).

A typical platoon will then have 3-4 squads plus a mortar team (2-3 men) plus a HQ section (3-4 men inluding a comm specialist). This puts anywhere from ~30 to ~50 men under a platoon seargent.

(In WWI [c. 1914] platoons were larger - just over 80 men, usually organized into 4 sections each of 20 men, which in turn were each divided into 2-3 squads. Here, the squads would function as fire teams; unfortunately this is too ungainly a structure for good small unit tactics, since it puts too much pressure on the section leaders (corporals). If you wanted to have this kind of structure, you'd have to introduce a new NCO rank either below the corporals or between them and your seargents.)

A company will typically have 3-4 platoons plus a heavy mortar team (4-6 men, with 1-2 mortars) and a small company staff (5-10 men). You could pool your mortars at the company level to produce smaller platoons, but the overall number of men in a company would probably end up being the same (100-175+). This is the smallest number of men led by an officer (a captain). Again, if you don't trust your NCO's, you could probably keep it on the small side and add a couple free lieutenants serve as the leaders of ad-hoc combat teams.

3-4 companies would comprise a battalion. Somewhere around here you're going to need to start adding non-combat staff, which will swell the size of your unit. Typically, there will be 400-600+ men in the unit (and maybe more). Remember that the smaller the battalion, the more of them you'll need to balance our your armor, unless your tank battalions are equally small.

(In WWI, battalions were frequently much larger, weighing in at 1,000 men or more. They were also far less flexible - which is why most modern battaltions are much smaller).

As you move to larger units, the number of support personnel will increase. Keep in mind that the resilience of a unit is inversely proportional to its so-called "tooth-to-tail" ration. To have 45% of your troops in combat roles is to be pretty "toothy" - but also somewhat fragile. Most armies have 25-33% of their troops in a combat role; some have even less.

Notice that armored battaltions have fewer men than infantry battalions in most cases, often by half (or more). This means that an infantry division could have as few as 7,500 men up front (with 15,000-18,000 men in the overall organization), while an armored division could have less than 5,000 (with only 10,000-12,000 overall). A typical corps would then consist of 45,000-75,000 men, depending on the number of divisions and its intended role. A lavishly equipped corps with extensive logistical services and auxiliary arms might run 100,000-125,000 men, if the army fielding it had a very low "tooth-to-tail" ratio.

(In WWI [c. 1914], a corps was uniformly 45,000-50,000 men, so this is not a lot different from later usage.)

(Continued)

I have to do lunch now. Air forces next...

Umm this topic doesn't have anything to do with the structure of the air force...

Umm this topic doesn't have anything to do with the structure of the air force...He might be referring to army air forces or aerial support for an army. If so, that'd be appropriate.

Okay, here's the lowdown on basic unit organization.

Army Group: Consists of as little as two field armies and as many as necessary. Usually not a constant and standing organization level, but something that is fluid based upon the needs of the senior field commanders and the overall strategic situation.

Field Army: Consists of at least two corps and as many as five.

Corps: Consists of at least two division and as many as five.

Divisions: Usually has three ground fighting brigades, an air mobile brigade, support, and divisional artillery units. Armoured divisions usually have two armoured brigades to one mech infantry brigade, the opposite is true for mech infantry divisions, and light infantry/airborne divisions have no heavy armour and little mechanization.

Brigades: Brigades are the core component of any division and the smallest of the unit types able to deal effectively with strategic situations. Typically they are made up of three manuever (frontline) battalions, several field artillery batteries, brigade support elements, and usually a recon battalion.

Regiments: Regiments are almost exactly like brigades, except they tend to be composed of pure fighting units. So you won't see anything in a regiment that can't fight on a moment's notice. If an army uses regiments instead of brigades, it typically means that all of the support units are going to be at the divisional level and split off to support regiment-level action as needed.

Battalions: The core of any brigade or regiment and what individual support units are typically organized as. Battalions are typically composed of three to six companies/batteries/troops.

Companies: Known by various names depending on the battalion they belong to, company-level units are used where platoons just won't do. Typically companies are composed of five platoons, although more or less have been known to be used.

Platoons: Infantry platoons are composed of three infantry squads, a headquarters section, and a heavy weapons section. In armour a platoon is composed of four vehicles with a command track directing the action.

Squads: Squads are composed of two fire teams/sections with a NCO in command.

Section: Also known as a fire team in the infantry, a section is the smallest viable fighting unit in an army. They are composed of as many as five soldiers, or in the case of heavy weapons sections as many as three two-man teams with a Corporal in charge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't be afraid to get creative, a rigid army is a dead army.

EDIT: I forgot to mention something. When you look at support:fighting rations, keep in mind they're citing equivilant units not total men. A support company in going to be a hell of a lot smaller manpower-wise than an infantry company, but it'll support an infantry company with ease. Another thing to keep in mind is that it's becomming apparent to definding divisional organization by using the old ratios, much less any ratio at all, is very close to becomming obsolete. Like I said above, an inflexible army is one that will be destroyed in combat, a ratios are a very inflexible thing.

He might be referring to army air forces or aerial support for an army. If so, that'd be appropriate.

Actually, that was kind of what I was thinking. :-)

The U.S. Marines include an air wing with each division - not a bad idea, considering that it gives the division commander tactical air he can call on. In that context, I think we can talk a bit about aircraft (at least tactical A/C)

(And then there's always rotary wing A/C [a/k/a helos].)

I'll be much briefer: you can organize men or you can organize machines. Infantry has one organization, based on building up from the smallest unit (a single soldier) to a fire team, to a section, to a platoon, to a company, to a battalion (as someone else here has pointed out, brigades are really the smallest level of strategic unit, and that's why they're almost almost combined arms entities). Likewise, armor has another, based on vehicles. Here, the vehicle is a fire team, in a sense; we then group vehicles into sections and/or platoons, then companies, then battalions. If you're FT and you have mechanoids, you should organize them in a fashion similar to tanks (though in whatever numbers you feel are appropriate).

The same applies to aircraft (fixed and rotary wing). Individual machines are grouped into flights (usually of 4-5 A/C). These are grouped into squadrons of 12-20 A/C [3-4 flights], and these squadrons are then built up into groups of 3-6 squadrons (60-80 A/C).

(If I'm not mistaken this is where naval aviation matches fleet organization: if you have fleet carriers, usually each carrier's air complement is organized as a naval air group. Escort carriers would then likely be organized as squadrons. Strangely, if you have hybrids with small numbers of A/C [3-8, usually helos], these are not "organized" in the purest sense of the term, but simply associated with the ship in question. A very large carrier might have two air groups, but that's rare.)

Groups are organized into wings (of 3-4 groups, 200-250 A/C). These are then organized into divisions, air forces, air fleets, or whatever. That goes beyond the scope of this thread, though.

In terms of size, a wing is considered to be the equivalent of a brigade (which is why you could have one attached to an army or marine division). Where it gets strange is one level down, where groups are often thought of as analogous to regiments and squadrons to battalions. In truth, if a flight is the rough equivalent of a platoon, then a squadron would be equivalent to a company and a group to a battalion (and this meshes with the number of vehicles, although triangular organization is rare aloft - quadrangular organization is more common, which leads to larger units very quickly.

The reason why squadrons and groups are considered like battalions and regiments is mainly logistical: squadrons and groups, like battalions and regiments, play a major role in training, refitting/repair, and resupply. But the numbers of personnel are smaller - a wing would seldom have more than 2,000-3,000 people assigned to it, and a group would seldom be more than 1,000.

Helos are yet another matter, because they have traditionally been shoehorned into another organization (the U.S., for instance, calls the "air cavalry" and uses the anachronistic terminology of pony soldiers [though not entirely: there are, AFAIK, no "troops" in place of platoons]. Here, a squadron is larger, equivalent to a battalion, and terms like "flight", "group", and "wing" are not used.

I like the old Soviet dictum, "rotor is to track as track is to boot", and recommend organizing helos in the same fashion as armor (companies of 12-20 and battalions of 30-60, respectively); it helps you think of airmobile forces as another form of strike/exploitation unit. But you can do what you please, because there are no hard and fast rules. A little imagined history helps: did your rotary wing aviation arm come from fixed-wing aviation, did it replace the cavalry as a recon force, or is it designed as an adjunct to your heavy armored forces?

Finally, as you organize, keep the command structure and the system of ranks in mind. Ultimately, your organization matches your system of rank, because - just like industrial organization - this is how orders flow through your chain of command.

One more comment. I'm currently involved in the Malgerian thread (I'm the guy who's playing the "Al Jazeera" of that war, ANN [Ayadi News Network], with secondary references to the World Service of the Allemande Broadcasting Corporation [ABC]).

The Parthians are, according to their order of battle, organized into 30 infantry divisions of 20,000 men each, plus 4 armored divisions of 1,000 tanks each, plus a division of "Immortals" (elites of some kind, organization unknown). The infantry divisions are a bit bit (20-30% larger than the average), but not outrageous. The armored divisions, OTOH, are (IMNSHO) way too big - each is about the size of three full armored divisions in my book, so basically AFAIC, the Parthians are committing 4 armored corps of 3 divisions each, for a total of 12 armored divisions. Add the elite Immortals, and this is an invasion force of 45 divisions, roughly equal to what the U.S. committed to France in WWII.

That leads me to speculate that the logistical requirements behind the invasion of Malgeria must be huge, but that's another thread...

Also, note that most small countries will have armies of just 100,000-250,000 men (if not fewer). While this might translate into 5-15 combat divisions, realistically I'm not sure that an army of less than 150,000 would be organized into meaningful divisions. Each "division" is likely to be a regional command, and the manuever units in that command are probably going to be brigades. I'd be far more interested in the brigade organization of an army like that than its divisional structure.

Finally, the entire concept of a "division" dates back to the Napoleonic Wars. Divisions were much smaller then - just 2,000-5,000 men - and therefore analogous to a brigade (of course, another way of looking at it would be to figure that today's divisions are simply the divisions of Napoleon's day with tails grown out the back of them :-)).

The point is, Napoleon's divisions are a good inspiration for today's military organizer, in that they came in all sizes (deliberately, in fact, because Napoleon wanted that ambiguity to confuse the enemy). Others have said what I will repeat: the key to everything is flexibility. It's OK to have a strict depot organization - in fact, it's probably essential for a good army (it was the strength of the 18th Century British Army) - but, like Napoleon or the WWII Wehrmacht, one should organize ad hoc groups for battle, tailoring each command to the mission at hand.

Ayadhha, the term Troop is indeed used where cavalry is concerned, both land and air, but it has always referred to company-level formations, not platoon level. Also, not all helo units are considered cavalry, just those that are used to scout and engage enemy forward units.

Thanks for the correction, Scandinavia. A lot of what I've posted is dated; my brother was with 1st Cav in 'Nam in the 70's, and my father was at Command & General Staff School in the 80's (hence the Soviet vs. NATO-type comparisons in the "do you trust your NCO's" line). Organization has changed since then, and I've been too busy making a living to keep pace.

Fortunately, with my little Third-World country, I don't have to be too precise... ;)

Wow...I've been looking to do my military for a while now. This is a *TAG* to refer to later. Thanks!!

Well, some outstanding explanations and posts here, and certainly taught me a lot of things as well through the first skim (my level of knowledge about militaries generally places my knowledge about the army last, though depending what you are asking I could answer a bit more on air forces and navy).

With my army (a relatively large one), my experience is generally to start off from Battalions as a base, then work up to Brigades and Regiments, and if necessary, Divisions. To be truthful, along with my experiences with organization, things like companies and platoons could be considered later, as in most situations you'll need at least a Battalion for most combat engagements. As mentioned, it's best to be much more flexible to organize your army around your overall military doctrine as well as your foreign policies, instead of the other way around. Divisions are good for large-scale combat, but are still too overwhelming in smaller engagements (not mentioning harder to supply) with its large size. For the same reason, independent brigades with its own organic support and combat elements (including army aviation, tube and rocket artillery, and various engineering and support units) would be better for smaller-scale deployments, which is why most of my light mechanized infantry units are in the form of Brigades with their own combat support units.

After figuring that out, if you are aiming for a large army, you should work on larger organizations, specifically Corps, Armies and Army Groups (or even Theatres if your army is big enough). While organizing these units, you should as well base their organization around your own policies and doctrines (for example, if you want a primarily defensive army, you'll be focusing more on the defensive aspects rather than long-range offensive capabilities). As well, keep in mind that generally Corps has some of its own combat units attached, such as Aviation (helicopters), Artillery (tube artillery and rocket artillery), and Air Defense.

Ayadhha, the term Troop is indeed used where cavalry is concerned, both land and air, but it has always referred to company-level formations, not platoon level. Also, not all helo units are considered cavalry, just those that are used to scout and engage enemy forward units.
Not necessarily. For example, in the British Army during the Napoleonic Wars, a cavalry regiment would generally be split into 2-4 squadrons (each approximately 100-200 strong), which would then be split into 2-4 troops (ranging generally from 25-50 strong), essentially a cavalry platoon, with the squadron acting as the company.

Excellent post, Ayaddha and one I'd like to tag for my own uses if I could.

Just a point that general ranks are usually thus:

Brigadier General
Major General
Lieutenant General
General
Marshal

I invert it in my own army (a Brigadier General outranks a Major General in my RPs), but that's the usual rank. Other than that, excellent resource post.
Some nations would include Colonel General and Captain General in there, changing the order to this, I think:

Brigadier General - commands brigade
Major General - commands division
Captain General - commands small corps/regional forces
Lieutenant General - commands normal corps
General - commands army
Colonel General - commands large army/small army group
Field Marshal - commands army group (also known as Front, as in '1st Ukrainian Front', as used by the Red Army in WW2)

I'm not quite sure where Captain General fits in, but I think they act more as regional commanders, then anything, perhaps 1 or 2 divisions, but not meriting a full Corps commander (Lieutenant General).

Not necessarily. For example, in the British Army during the Napoleonic Wars, a cavalry regiment would generally be split into 2-4 squadrons (each approximately 100-200 strong), which would then be split into 2-4 troops (ranging generally from 25-50 strong), essentially a cavalry platoon, with the squadron acting as the company.

I don't know anything about how the Brits organize their army, I'm talking about US Army organization.

I just came upon this thread once again and was thinking about something as I'm working on my reorganisation of my army. One of the things that The Merchant Guilds and I were talking OOCly about was the need to determine what your army's specialisation should be and plan your organisation based on that.

What I'd told him was that I was trying to organise my army to specialise in counter-insurgency operations, though I think now I could also use a reorganisation to include urban warfare. Perhaps if someone has a link to a general outline for the needs of a particular army focus, that would help.

One thing that I've come across in my research about army combat is that part of the problems facing the United States is the army is still geared toward conventional warfare, which it still excels at (witness the first Persian Gulf War, where the U.S. was able to beat a "larger" Iraqi army rather soundly in conventional warfare). In a counter-insurgency campaign, the US Army has all kinds of problems.

When I was RPing during Sarzonia's interdiction in Upper Xen's civil war, I realised early on that the battle between the Free Xenizens and the Red Xenizens was going to be very similar to an insurgent campaign. When I read about the British army in Malaya, I read that they spent considerable efforts at trying to explain to the people what their intents were, inform them they weren't there to hurt the *people*, in short, they fought the battle for the hearts and minds of the people and eroded the support for the insurgency. That's how the British managed to succeed in a counter insurgent campaign.

Using that information, I decided to use electronics warfare aircraft to broadcast messages to citizens in Communist Xen that were spoken by the people of Free Xen telling them that we were there to help them and that we would restore their liberties and that our quarrel was with their government and not THEM. I also coordinated with most allies (except for Mass Pwnage who went his own way) and instructed them not to launch strategic bombing raids, which do NOT demoralise a population; instead, it serves to anger them.

Another thing I noticed, both in a IM with DontPissUsOff and in some reading I found online was that conducting patrols in transports (especially unarmoured vehicles like the Humvee) was one of the problems when roadside bombs and mines and other insurgent weapons would cause havoc. The U.S. would need BOOTS on the ground with their men using foot patrols as a method of dissuading the insurgents.

This turned into a much longer ramble than I expected, but as someone who is still trying to learn some ground combat basics for improved RPing, I figured I'd get some thoughts down.

You can get infomantion on how to organize you military from here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/intro.htm

Clan Smoke Jaguar has packages all organized in Divisions.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=281702

That's a pretty good link, but I'm not sure if there's an equivalent link that outlines the doctrine that goes into organising an army that specialises in one aspect of warfare, from conventional to counterinsurgency to other possible machinations.

Besides just the mechanics of knowing how many divisions of infantry go into an army corps or the makeup of a typical mechanised battalion, something that explains the thinking might be more useful.

OOC: Technicly, there is no way you're supposed to organise your military, any way is fine.
I organise on the platoon level (54 soldiers for a platoon for me), and then mix and match what platoons I need where when I need them. This is very time consuming, and quite a bit more frustrating to do, but it gives me the advantage of micromanagment in a battle. I don't nessicarily suggest it, unless you like organising something large.
Another step is using divisions, or any other arbitrary name you come up with for larger units. Here you can decide on a division size, say 15,000 soldiers a division? From there you can break your army down into it's divisional units, like armor, infantry, mechanised infantry, artillery, and logistics units. All you have to do here is list how much of what each division has, it's the system that seems to be most common here because it's fairly easy to do, and still capable of moving groups of soldiers.

In the end, your organization is up to you. You can arange then in any way you feel is best, from individual soldiers to groups of hundreds of thousands. The groups can be any number you choose, ad can divide into whatever number of smaller groups you choose, as well as the names of groups can be whatever you want them do be.

Whatever your combat style is, will greatly help if you can organize your army around it.


You know...i could really use the help of writing the text for the ns battle - the unofficial ns battle generator - like the divisions and reports and you guys have great imigaination...if you are interested (and for the password)- drop me a telegram. Its still in its infancy stages...but i could use a lil help.

link:
http://secretp.ath.cx/ns/test1.html
pass:
xenophobia
forum for misc bugs /etc:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=444741&page=7&pp=15
main forum:
http://s13.invisionfree.com/The_NS_War_Simulator/index.php?act=idx

The Soviet Contingent in Afghanistan had a total number of 85.000 men.
One (motorized) division counted upto 11.000 men of these 7800 were divided up into brigades(2600 each time) the remainder of the division is Artillery(mixed), Signals, Engineers and Recon.
Logistics to the frontline is part of the brigade(an organizational novelty that they learnt from the Germans).

The Soviets had 4 divisions, of which one was an AAD or Air Assault Division which counts only 7000 men. 3 independant brigades and 4 independent regiments which brings their entire combat force to 55800, some 10000 men belonged to the Soviet Airforce, which not only took care of the Soviet force of 45 MiG23s, 45 SU17s and 24 SU25s but also the Afghan airforce. The Afghan army and airforce were especially in the early years, not trustworthy, each Afghan aircraft had one Soviet crewember and one Afghan crewmember. The Soviets also provided techical assistence of Afghanistans 200 aircraft.
that leaves 19200 men for independent engineers units, overall logistics, signals, command etcetc.

But that isnt all, the Afghan Army was weak, many Afghan soldiers defected to the Mujahideen and the Afghan army quickly fell to a force of only 25000 men at one point, Some of Afghanistans 11 divisions could bring together only 1000 men, the biggest had no more than 5000 men, most were around 2500. Afghanistan had no industry to support its army so it was supplied by the Soviet army.

I hope it can help you out.