planning to make ahistorical panzer divisions

[Dalwin]

I imagine that I will not be alone in this. I don't like what was done to the TOE of the panzer divisions after the fall of France. I plan on using something like the following even if it means that I end up having fewer panzer divisions.

2 panzer regmt
2 bn med pz
1 bn lt pz
1 bn recon

1 mot inf regmt
3 mot inf bn

1 support regiment
1 eng bn
some mix of self propelled arty and AA depending on what I have available.

If I have historical production levels, this would also mean additional motorized divisions to support my fewer panzer divisions.

Does this seem like a reasonable plan?

Edit: support regmt would likely have a bn of TDs later on as well.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Infantry has always ruled battlefield, and will always rule (rocket launcher can be made dirt cheap like Panzerfaust proved, so with 100€ you can destroy something worth of 6 000 000€), so it sounds like a good plan. Altough hard to say yet since we don`t know game mechanics, but historically i think German early panzer divisions were stronger than allied divisions becouse they had more infantry in them.

 

[Dalwin]

I am certainly not saying that the vast majority of my German army would not still be good old leg infantry. It has to be. There is no way around that one.

 

[GhengisKhan]

I think its a little to early to plan anything until we have some info on mechanics etc.

 

[Mannstien]

I think its a little to early to plan anything until we have some info on mechanics etc.

You mean how quickly they can repair the tanks?

 

[Alpha2518]

Infantry has always ruled battlefield, and will always rule (rocket launcher can be made dirt cheap like Panzerfaust proved, so with 100€ you can destroy something worth of 6 000 000€), so it sounds like a good plan. Altough hard to say yet since we don`t know game mechanics, but historically i think German early panzer divisions were stronger than allied divisions becouse they had more infantry in them.

Infantry ruling the battlefield? That depends on the situation. In the open desert the Tank is obviously going to rule the battlefield and same for open plains or steppe. But in forested terrain, rough terrain, and urban terrain, the infantry rules. But lets not forget what Napoleon taught everyone, a good force of cavalry (now tanks) and artillery, will beat any force of infantry anywhere or almost anywhere.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Infantry ruling the battlefield? That depends on the situation. In the open desert the Tank is obviously going to rule the battlefield and same for open plains or steppe. But in forested terrain, rough terrain, and urban terrain, the infantry rules. But lets not forget what Napoleon taught everyone, a good force of cavalry (now tanks) and artillery, will beat any force of infantry anywhere or almost anywhere.

Sure Napoleon tough that, but at his time forces could not be surrounded, and modern day tanks eat so much more fuel than massed formations of WW2 that many nations have started to reduce number of tanks, rendering them obsolete compared to, here it comes, Infantry fighting vehicle, which costs way less, but with missiles can destroy much more expensive tank. And regular foot infantry are even cheaper, but are still able to destroy IFVs, so in war of attrition or Total War, they would still rule the battlefield. Or actually, tanks would still be kings of the battlefield, but without people supporting king, he becomes useless.

And btw, in Victorian era Napoleon was already proven wrong since infantry could out shoot them so very very easily. Modern day tank costs 6 million, but anti-tank rocket launcher only 10 000. So just count how many anti-tank weapons you can get with price of ONE tank, amount of those weapons would propably be enough for entire war! So it can be said that infantry out shoots tanks, but since we don`t fight in lines anymore, it is not so apparent.

 

[BlitzWarfare]

Infantry ruling the battlefield? That depends on the situation. In the open desert the Tank is obviously going to rule the battlefield and same for open plains or steppe. But in forested terrain, rough terrain, and urban terrain, the infantry rules. But lets not forget what Napoleon taught everyone, a good force of cavalry (now tanks) and artillery, will beat any force of infantry anywhere or almost anywhere.

In case a new war breaks out I hope you are my opponent. The war will be over quickly but you will definitly not be the victor, desert or not.
I don't even need AT (launcher)weapons if you think tanks rule the battlefield.

 

[Alliegorical]

In case a new war breaks out I hope you are my opponent. The war will be over quickly but you will definitly not be the victor, desert or not.
I don't even need AT (launcher)weapons if you think tanks rule the battlefield.

Er, in a new war, i.e. modern day symmetrical warfare, the MBT does rule the battlefield. Today, infantry is a situational niche unit that's approximately worthless in open terrain.

 

[magitsu]

Hypothetical modern symmetrical warfare. Because we've seen only asymmetrical warfare for decades. No real experience in peer to peer fighting for MBTs or jets.
But I see MBT suffering from the same problem that capital ships experienced previously. Missiles have made big and bulky platforms obsolete.

 

[safe-keeper]

In case a new war breaks out I hope you are my opponent. The war will be over quickly but you will definitly not be the victor, desert or not.
I don't even need AT (launcher)weapons if you think tanks rule the battlefield.

You and your friends see a tank, tank sees you. You fire a rocket. Tank's automatic defense system shoots rocket down. Tank readies big guns and tells on you to F-16 at 50 000 feet. F-16 very angry. Now what?

Heck, even kids know about these things now that it's been featured in COD...

 

[BlitzWarfare]

Er, in a new war, i.e. modern day symmetrical warfare, the MBT does rule the battlefield. Today, infantry is a situational niche unit that's approximately worthless in open terrain.

Give me a platoon of infantry, some mines and some shovels and I promise you your nice $6 million tank won't go anywhere.
Give me some ATGM like javelin, spike or milan and you won't even take your tanks home.

Tanks are at the end of their lifetime, defense systems like Trophy are all nice and shit but in their current form they are useless against any modern force.
The Trophy system is already obselete with the design of the RPG-30.
The use of top attack munitions, DPICM artillery rounds and the ability of infantry to carry several ATGMs, SLAM like weapons and practicly being imune to tank fire if they are dug in make them (the infantry) real tank killers. Weapons like SPIKE are even able to engage vehicles that took safety behind a hill for example.

Cost of a Javelin is 80.000, cost of an M1 Abrams is 6.200.000.
That means you can buy almost 80 Javelins for the price of 1 Abrams. Unless those fancy tanks suddenly are able to fight of 80 missiles, the infantry is still ruling the battlefield,
no matter where you fight.

You and your friends see a tank, tank sees you. You fire a rocket. Tank's automatic defense system shoots rocket down. Tank readies big guns and tells on you to F-16 at 50 000 feet. F-16 very angry. Now what?

Heck, even kids know about these things now that it's been featured in COD...

You replied while I was typing this post.
Please read my post before you make posts that make you look stupid, I fired plenty of MILAN rockets during my active service and even those old missiles make a tank look like a matchbox.
As opposed to your idea Trophy like systems are not 100% accurate and they are worthless against super-sonic missiles because they simply don't get a lock. To prevent you from making stupid posts again, supersonic missiles are common (9M123 Khrizantema and 9K121 Vihkr on Russian side and I believe the TOW missile is supersonic aswell).

I believe the maximum range of the M1 is 4.000 yards with the use of rocket assisted munitions. Optimum range is around 2.500 yards.
this means that the tank is usually outranged by modern ATGM's. Even in desert terrain you will rarely be able to use your tank at that range while most ATGM's are able to just toss a missile into an area and select a target when spotted.

Infantry can survive on it's own, tanks... not so much.

edit: Friendly advice don't use your extensive use of CoD as an argument, because in case you didn't know people don't have a healthbar that regens and shit (and neither do tanks BTW).

edit 2: Heck even kids should know that calling in CAS (or arty) is not as easy as "drop bomb here"
http://www.krauselabs.net/dump/CASQuickReferenceSheet.pdf
This is how you call in CAS. So it is not a case of "hello this is tank, I need help, please drop bomb here F-16".
I guess that is not featured in CoD...

 

[battlemac007]

Dalwin posted : I imagine that I will not be alone in this. I don't like what was done to the TOE of the panzer divisions after the fall of France. I plan on using something like the following even if it means that I end up having fewer panzer divisions.

2 panzer regmt
2 bn med pz
1 bn lt pz
1 bn recon

1 mot inf regmt
3 mot inf bn

1 support regiment
1 eng bn
some mix of self propelled arty and AA depending on what I have available.

If I have historical production levels, this would also mean additional motorized divisions to support my fewer panzer divisions.

Does this seem like a reasonable plan?

Edit: support regmt would likely have a bn of TDs later on as well.

Basically, this was a German Panzer division in 1939-1940. In 1940-41, the second Panzer regiment was stripped out to basically double the number of panzer divisions for the invasion of Russia.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

This is not place for MBT vs Infantry argument, but it is so interesting that i opened new thread for it:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...-tanks-modern-warfare&p=17642950#post17642950

 

[BlitzWarfare]

Not sure if it really needed it's own thread but anyway .

 

[mursolini]

Sure Napoleon tough that, but at his time forces could not be surrounded, and modern day tanks eat so much more fuel than massed formations of WW2 that many nations have started to reduce number of tanks, rendering them obsolete compared to, here it comes, Infantry fighting vehicle, which costs way less, but with missiles can destroy much more expensive tank. And regular foot infantry are even cheaper, but are still able to destroy IFVs, so in war of attrition or Total War, they would still rule the battlefield. Or actually, tanks would still be kings of the battlefield, but without people supporting king, he becomes useless.

The problem is, artillery shell is far cheaper than missle.
It is hillariously expencive to destroy anything properly set up and masked with them. To the point, USA was still keeping it`s ww2 battleships around as it was cheaper to have those, than missles for support.

Tanks may be expencive, but they provide support to infantry.

But I see MBT suffering from the same problem that capital ships experienced previously. Missiles have made big and bulky platforms obsolete.

WTF carriers are supposed to be then?
They are similar to battelships in size, just different, massive weapon system(Jet).

Give me a platoon of infantry, some mines and some shovels and I promise you your nice $6 million tank won't go anywhere.
Give me some ATGM like javelin, spike or milan and you won't even take your tanks home.

Tanks are at the end of their lifetime, defense systems like Trophy are all nice and shit but in their current form they are useless against any modern force.
The Trophy system is already obselete with the design of the RPG-30.
The use of top attack munitions, DPICM artillery rounds and the ability of infantry to carry several ATGMs, SLAM like weapons and practicly being imune to tank fire if they are dug in make them (the infantry) real tank killers. Weapons like SPIKE are even able to engage vehicles that took safety behind a hill for example.

Cost of a Javelin is 80.000, cost of an M1 Abrams is 6.200.000.
That means you can buy almost 80 Javelins for the price of 1 Abrams. Unless those fancy tanks suddenly are able to fight of 80 missiles, the infantry is still ruling the battlefield,
no matter where you fight.

Don`t be an idiot. Tanks don`t fight alone.

People like you could`ve cried that tanks are too expencive for WW2 as, mines, AT rifles, and AT guns are far cheaper.
However, as it turned out, tanks can easilly survive on WW2 battlefield, because they are supported by artillery, mortars, and infantry.
And infantry is supported by the tank`s guns and machineguns.
Current tanks are alike.

Man-controlled AT missles apeared in 60s. And, guess what? tanks didn`t dissaper.

 

[Dalwin]

Dalwin posted : I imagine that I will not be alone in this. I don't like what was done to the TOE of the panzer divisions after the fall of France. I plan on using something like the following even if it means that I end up having fewer panzer divisions.

2 panzer regmt
2 bn med pz
1 bn lt pz
1 bn recon

1 mot inf regmt
3 mot inf bn

1 support regiment
1 eng bn
some mix of self propelled arty and AA depending on what I have available.

If I have historical production levels, this would also mean additional motorized divisions to support my fewer panzer divisions.

Does this seem like a reasonable plan?

Edit: support regmt would likely have a bn of TDs later on as well.

Basically, this was a German Panzer division in 1939-1940. In 1940-41, the second Panzer regiment was stripped out to basically double the number of panzer divisions for the invasion of Russia.

That is indeed my point. I intend to keep the 1939 panzer division model throughout the war. Modifying it as things like self propelled AA become available.

 

[dsteve3]

I really hope we'll be able to include an entire Artillery regiment in a division, as that seemed the norm for almost everyone.

I would also like to see things broken down into BOTH brigades and regiments:

1 (Combat) Bde:
- 1st Reg: 2 med Pz bn
- 2nd Reg: 1 lt Pz bn, 1 AC bn (recon)

2 (Combat) Bde:
- 1st Reg: 2 mob Inf bn
- 2nd Reg: 2 mob Inf bn

3 (Support) Bde:
- 1st Reg: 1 mob Art bn, 1 SPA bn
- 2nd Reg: 1 mob AT, 1 mob AA

This is probably too large for the current division models being bandied about, but to be honest, I don't understand how the "Regiment -> Brigade -> Division" stacking actually worked in practice.

I was always of the impression that it wasn't until after the war that Regiments were broken up when assigned to Brigades. Shouldn't Regiments be seen within Brigades in the Division template?

 

[Dalwin]

Actually I think having regiments as part of brigades and brigades as part of divisions was going out of practice during WWII. It was certainly commonplace during the ACW on the other hand.

Most nations in WWII built divisions directly from regiments and brigades were not involved. Some brigade organizations were still in use, but most often this was in the form of independent brigades that were not part of a division structure. They were in effect mini-divisions. These independent brigades typically were not made up of regiments and were, just like regiments inside of divisions, themselves directly composed of battalions.

That is all a bit oversimplified and exceptions certainly existed, but for the most part during this period brigades were no longer composed of regiments.

 

[catz27]

Just please, please make it slightly more historical.

Armored divisions went from very tank heavy (2:1 ratio to infantry) to the opposite by the end of the war. Ridiculous heavy armor builds should be punished by making them unable to defend or do much of anything in any sort of difficult terrain.

Ultra heavy armor should have severe supply and maintenance issues.

And, please, please get rid of armored cars as a unit.

I'd like to see the combined arms bonus adjusted to reflect accepted observations. Anything more than, say, 45% hard should be punished and there should be major penalties for anything over, say, 60%.

You needs lots of infantry, artillery and, especially, recon.