"Unit size comparisons" Topic

I continue to tweak ideas for a more operational level game and one idea I am considering right now is having my UK, WG and U.S. units as a battalion per stand. For my Soviets I am going to have half regiment stands based on everything I have seen about divisional size comparisons. I will probably need some other modifiers as some have said that the disparity would be greater, but I don't want to have a Soviet division with a pathetic amount of figures.

My main question, since I haven't started with other NATO units yet is how do the other NATO divisions stack up against Soviet divisions? The Belgians, Dutch, French, etc? Are these divisions comparable to the larger NATO divisions? Is it easier to say all NATO units are battalions and all pact units are half regiments and then modify accordingly?

Here you go: link

Scroll down to the bottom for the Cold War TO&Es and orbats.

Note that each model vehicle/aircrarft/heavy weapon represents 2-3 actuals and each infantry stand represents a squad.

The TO&E Y:ahoo group link has a lot of information on division organization.

I would say most NATO divisions will match up with the Soviet divisions pretty well. The Soviets will have a huge advantage in artillery but otherwise they are pretty comparable. The advantage the Soviets have are the numbers, which they need do to the quality of the equipment.

Instead of half regiments, you might consider twinning a 1/3 and a 2/3 regiment, to reflect Soviet echeloned deployment.

US Divisions are larger and more powerful than Soviet ones.

French divisions are the main oddity on the western side – they're about half the strength of a US one – more like a really well-rounded and beefed-up brigade group.

The advantage is the quality of the US equipment. The Soviets will typically have 328 tanks and over 200 APCs in a TD. Additionally, they will have 36 152mm, 72 122mm and 18 Rocket launchers. A US tank division will have 298 tanks and 288 APCs. The artillery is smaller 36 155mm and 18 MLRS. US forces have more APCs but far less artillery. A US division will also have more AA than a Soviet division.

a 1989 German division would have:
274 tanks
210 Marders and 40 M113
36 155mm artillery
30-36 120mm mortars
36 Gepards AA

At the level of game you are talking about, NATO battalion stands vs Warpac two stand regiments would work fine. I presume the regimental artillery groups would be factored into the regiment stands.

It is a very similar level of representation to that used for the SPI 'Next War' series, except that Warpac had single huge regiment sized stands (typically with a combat value of 2+ times that of the NATO battalions).

One thing to bear in mind are the vast defensive frontages NATO units were expected to hold, typical frontage for a Panzergrenadier brigade being 20-25km, and battlegroups roughly 4km square with 2km dispersion between boxes in the face of nuclear threat. The Sovs were equally dispersed of course, with regimental frontages of 6-7km but the regimental columns seperated by at least 6km. Don't want to lose the whole division to one nuke:)

Martin, I keep struggling with the frontage issue, especially when I consider adapting games to a hex or grid format… I want to be able to have the battlefield cover a lot of real estate so it gets a bit tricky.

Yes, I think the regimental artillery would just be factored in and then having a stand for divisional artillery.

Sadly, years ago I got rid of my SPI The Next War…still kick myself for ditching it.

It isn't too bad if you adopt an area rather than a ZOC approach. In e.g. 'The Thin Red line' (covering the BAOR front), hexes are 2km, so NATO Battlegroups can cover 6km including ZOC, as can Warpac Regiments and e.g. 33rd Panzer Grenadier Brigade can just deploy its four battalions across a 12 hex (24km) front with everything in the shop window.

A simple conversion is to use the controlled area, so set your grid size at e.g. 6km, an area which can be defended by one NATO battlegroup, but obviously you can stick more in there if you don't mind them being shelled/nuked to oblivion.

For my grid based version of Panzergruppe I went with brigade/regiment stands and a 10km grid, and maximum stacking of one division per grid area, which seemed to fit the optimum and maximum frontages of the theatres concerned. Phil Sabins version of 'Korsun Pocket' uses and even more grandiose 20km grid with division sized stands, with the option to split divisions down into two half size battlesgroups to occupy the historical defensive frontages (up to 40km), but also unlimited stacking (to cover the pocket itself) but with attack limits per hex so e.g. a maximum of three divisions can attack or defend across a particular hexside.

If you fiddle around with your defence, attack and stacking limits and I'm sure you can come up with something. Attack/defence limits of 2 or 3 three seem to work well (I'd use the lower limit for large units).

For Warpac div artillery I'd be tempted to have two stands – one for the guns the other for the BM21s, and if you are going to use chem or tactical nukes delivered by the rocket artillery battalion just abstract that. The WMD rules in Modern Spearhead scale up quite well to operational engagements, although you might want to make the tac nukes a bit bigger than the piddly ones in MSH. Once you are into tens of kilotons it does make a bit of a mess of your battlefield of course.

The declassified tactical nuclear weapons effects tables have been included in the republished version of the 1956 British Army Tactical Wargame (published by the history or wargaming project), as they were originally intended to explore Corps level manouvre in a nuclear environment. The weapons go up to 100kt (!) which is certainly a new definition of 'tactical.

Martin, I have been a big fan of your rules and I must confess to downloading as many of them as possible to steal ideas from. Recently I have picked up Phil Sabin's Simulating War book—got it for Christmas.

Thanks for the detailed thoughts. I will definitely have to tinker with this some.

Well, just try to keep it simple and don't get too carried away with loads of chrome. Good luck!

Martin,

Would you consider the chemical/nuclear artillery being their own counter/stand. It would have a very weak defense but one heck of a punch.

@Paul: I wouldn't, as most of the WMD delivery systems were standard launchers. Unless you're talking SCUDs or Pershings, at any rate.

A 100 kiloton weapon is one hell of a "tactical" weapon.

Step 1: Light game table on fire….