"How strictly do you adhere to TO&Es?" Topic

TO&E discussions is always a popular one on gaming forums. Over the years, I've seen everything from "You can only field exactly what was in the TO&E" to "a couple squads + a tank is fine".

Where do you stand on it?

Bible?
Rule to be occasionally deviated from?
Vague guideline?
Fascist oppression?

Depends upon the models/minis at hand.

Generally, I like to stick to the real TO&Es, but with budgetary issues that I can't afford to field everything, and/or losses on the way to the battle due to artillery, airstrikes, manpower shortages, etc., I'm learning to adapt to less than the real TO&E perhaps being okay too.

Throw in some extras perhaps occasionally, on the other side as well, to account for broken units being assigned/reallocated to fresh units just getting into battle.

I like to own a force based on real TO&Es as accurately as I can. But, when I game I like write and play scenarios based on actual battles using forces as they were on the ground as accurately as possible. Sometimes that means a TO&E that is paper strength and sometimes not. Depends on what I am able to tell about the actual forces strength from the historical records.

I think it's more practical to buy and paint to a strict TO&E and then deviate from there once they hit the table based on the scenario.

TO&E is a base line to start from. I try to build to it or atleast common sub-units. Adjustments are then made for the scenario

How often does "history" adnere?
After the first day, things start to get a little…

To paraphrase a bit: No TO&E survives contact with the enemy.

I adhere as much as the real troops do/did.

No TO&E survives the first road march before contact with the enemy. Something always breaks down or takes a wrong turn.

No, TO&Es don't survive contact with the enemy, though the resultant TO&E should still remain within the parameters of a particular formation, period or theatre of war.

A British Armoured Regiment in NW Europe circa 1944-45 might therefore be depleted, have a non-standard recce troop and have attached divisional and corps assets, but it isn't suddenly going to sprout organic Crocodiles and Comets.

Can't cite a specific source, but I read years ago, maybe in the context of the Bulge, that new divisions had their TOE, but veteran divisions would typically have, e.g., double their TOE of heavy machine guns (stolen from non-divisional trucks passing through). "We need that more than you do."

'but it isn't suddenly going to sprout organic Crocodiles and Comets.'

Well… not really. There are examples of this sort of thing happening – two certainly spring to mind. One is when the Australians used captured Italian tanks in the desert:

link

The other is when (Rommel? Guderian? – can't remember, but think Rommel) found himself with a load of tanks belonging to another formation and which had been separated. Basically, he was very reluctant to give them back.. think it must have been Rommel, my mind is telling me that his Division used Czech tanks and the ones he 'acquired' were mostly Pz3s…

As others have stated above, I like to build my forces on the paper TO & E and then keep some odds and ends as supplements and attachments. I also like to follow as close as I can determine, the actual historical force rather than what is on paper. Things like US paras on D-Day: To BAR or not to BAR, that is the question. Or Assault Boat teams swapping out BARs for .30 cal. LMGs. Also, as in the Skirmish Campaigns books; a die roll to remove a soldier or two to reflect casualties from previous combat.

I treat and follow them exactly as the real world troops did, which is as a guide, or largely not at all.

The most unrealistic thing possible is a force built exactly to the TO&E. Which, by the way, is infinitely amusing to point out to people that uptight.

We're building a home-brewed company-level game (one 1:1 figures/humans) in which each section/squad is diced for at the first contact with the enemy and the difference – if any – between two average dice is removed from the section.

Chaps on career courses, detachments, casualties etc, plenty of reasons a TO&E might not be 100%. Of course there are limits with equipment and 3SA would not suddenly use T-72, but then as has been mentioned, sometimes it depends what is handy in the toy drawer!

Tally Ho!

Tend to play scenarios where the units are given, otherwise I use TO&Es as a good guide – as DS6151 wrote, units with exactly the TO&E would bot be common.

TO&Es are good starting point for building forces up. For historical battles I prefer to use what each side actually had, but frequently accounts are maddeningly vague.

uglyfatblock,

Are the rules for modern or WWII? If modern, could I get some details on the rules? We are working on a modern set and would love to see someone else's idea.

Martin – A big problem I find is if you play games at a smaller scale. A lot of history books don't care about anything below the battalion (if it even gets that low) so trying to find out what a given company might have looked like in a battle is an exercise in madness.

Put all the toys in the box on the table-let god sort them out…

"A lot of history books don't care about anything below the battalion (if it even gets that low) so trying to find out what a given company might have looked like in a battle is an exercise in madness."

Yes indeed, although you do occasionally find some indications or enough to make a good guess based on strength reductions. Company level is probably the worst as it is so sharp end, battalion level and up you can just drop a few (or many) platoons to show reduced strength.

Anybody who expects a real world army to turn up with everything in working order every time is living in fantasy land! Therefore we use it as a guide. Dropping the off few foot or shrinking the odd platoon by a tank is acceptable. even adding a tank to platoon in an under strength company is acceptable. Like the man says, adding 8 engineering vehicles to one company is obviously fantasy!
A better question might be why would you do it? If it's to exploit the rules then that is not a real world question and I have no answer. We do it to get the right balance in a scenario so that the objectives can be achieved with good generalship and provide an interesting enjoyable game.

Also which TOE? The administartive one or the tactical one. Although you have an infantry company and a tank company the tactical TOE is to have say 2 platoons of tanks and 1 infantry in one and 1 tank and 2 infantry in the other. Bren carrier companies were parcelled out to one carrier per infantry platoon or lower to provide almost a Pill box effecive at 400yds, out of rifle range, and reasonably protected from all but anti tank fire.

Paulgenna – they're for late WW2 I'm afraid. They're a long way from being ready and they will be very, very fast-play, but you'll be welcome to have a copy when they're done.

None whatsoever

Pretty much rigidly in my case, because units at the sharp end of things consolidated to stay near to strength as possible. Three platoons might become two in this way, or a battalion shrink to an over strength company, but the front line remained more or less intact.

With airborne operations it's a different ball game. You get what survives the drop and can be gathered together.