"Defensive unit frontages" Topic

The following is information from:
link

Frontages. Guidelines for defensive frontages are just that--guidelines. The following measurements should be used as just planning guidance. In siting a defense, key factors which will increase or reduce these measurements include, in priority--

Nature of the terrain.

Time available to defenders to prepare positions.

Estimated size, strength, and intentions of enemy forces.

Defensive Positions

The basis for a tank battalion defensive position is the antitank fire plan. A commander lays out his defense so that tanks have overlapping areas of observation at 1,000 meters without turning the turret. Mathematical analyses are used to arrive at the following frontages depths, and intervals as ideal:

Platoon 150 meters between tanks
300 meters frontage
No depth

Company 300 meters between platoons
1,000 meters frontage
500 meters depth

Battalion 1,000 meters to 1,500 meters between companies
5 kilometers frontage
3 kilometers depth

Tanks are positioned on reverse slopes when possible and have one or two alternate positions. The intervals between subunits are covered by indirect fire means. Local protection for tanks is given by motorized infantry dug in up to 200 meters in front of tank positions. The BMPs and APCs of the MR units are also positioned on reverse slopes. Each platoon and company position is designed as a strongpoint with all-around defense. The battalion position is setup so that strongpoints are in mutual support.

Wolfhag

No, no, no. Armored vehicles are deployed hub to hub.

This illustrates the problem of figure and ground scale, especially when using anything but small scale figures.

Here is some collaborating information for the above and information about other unit frontages.
link

Funnily the battle group frontages (and depths) used by BAOR back in the good old days of the Cold War were 4km x 4km. Increase to 6km if the nuclear threat was high.

A far cry from WW1 when 3km was the optimal divisional frontage (and about 10km depth)

When they determine frontages does that mean they have two maneuver elements up front and one behind?

Wolfhag

The Russians seem to like two up as a standard deployment, along with security outposts etc.

Depends on the army. West Germans had most of a formation on the front when on the defense with a small reserve. ?During the 2nd Gulf Wars at the battle of Medina Ridge the US division had all its battalions except one on the front line at several kilometers per battalion when they attacked. The Iraqis were deployed in depth for defense.

There are several free manuals on Russian tactics and formations available on line
PDF link
PDF link

There is a link to Canadian defensive tactics on my blog post. Based on the company frontage diagrams either two or three platoons would be on the front line.

willliamb do you have a fm 100-1 link?

and could you post a blog link or a lind to the Canadian defesive tactics post?
thank you

FM 100-1 covers the army's purpose and not combat frontages. This is the direct link to the issue with the article on the tactics for the Leopard tank and LAV.
PDF link
Also reachable through the link to my blog six posts above along with links to other sources.

79th PA its a problem peculiar to Modern Gamers. Napolionic folk have no problem making troops fit on bases that represent their correct space usage at ground scale. You would need sabot bases as the frontage in attack will be closer but NEVER (if possible) less than 40m between tanks, to avoid an almost 100% hit rate if next to a a vehicle that was hit.

So what is the point of all this?
No gamer is going to have the several sets of units, one on defensive frontages, a second on offensive frontages, a third to represent approach marches, another road marches, and so forth. Take Command Decision as an example. Each platoon of either 40 or so troops or 4 or so vehicles or guns are on bases, well, a platoon with a frontage of 50 or so meters.
And that cannot be altered. So what would a CD company of say, three infantry platoons, a heavy weapons platoon, with maybe an anti tank platoon and a couple of platoons of extras have as its company frontage? Don't laugh as many years ago I had the dubious experience of participating in an on line discussion about these platoon frontages, to include discussions about some sort of zones of control around the platoons to discourage gamers from attacking through the gaps between the platoons. That idea was shot down, the fix being increased firepower. Yet four tanks or so in fifty meters is fantasy stuff. And too many other games use the hub to hub method, such as Team Yankee.
You might ask why the real world frontages and depths are so spread out? It is the artillery, which doesn't appear in CD or TY, not the massed artillery which would accompany any Soviet offensive. Why the lack of artillery in CD? I can only refer to a conversation of many years ago with Chadwick, when expressed his disdain for the opening moves of any engagement(which also explains the irrelevance of recon troops and vehicles and the placing of all the miniatures on the table, even though they are not spotted, as the preliminary, pre game recon and intelligence would give approximate locations)having interest in the so called middle game. So you get a few batteries for the game. TY follows suit. In my last TY game, well, funny how the high rise buildings and the hot dog stand suffered no damage from artillery and couldn't be damaged as there was no artillery(or rules about artillery damaging such buildings)

Dick Burnett
I'm the Op that started the discussion. I agree with you about the issues with the games you mentioned. However, I don't play them for the reasons you mentioned, I'm writing my own.

There are some pretty knowledgeable people here that have the same ideas that I do and I was hoping to get some input mainly for more realistic scenario development and some pre-game activities that would shape the final game scenario.

Wolfhag