Solo Tank Divisions

[GhengisKhan]

I've been thinking about something since the last SP Japan game by Daniel.

He created a light tank division that consisted solely of 4 light tank btns.

Do divs with tanks only get any kind of malus for having 0 infantry. Realistically a div with armor only would have gotten eaten alive by infantry in real world use. Was there even a div composition like this ever in the war ? (maybe so i just haven't heard of one)

Are infantry free Divs a viable option in HoI4? if so what was the thinking behind it? are some amount of inf abstracted into an armor btn? If the answer is no i really think there needs to be some form of heavy malus to an armor div that lacks inf.

 

[vipic]

Ya i'm a little confused on this one as well, I thought there was some sort of combined arms bonus similar to HOI3 but than I read some forum posts saying there was no combined arms bonus than some saying there was. Could anyone source me on this or point to a spot in the WWW streams where they talk about it?

Edit: A combined arms bonus would make all tank divs not quite as effective. Not quite the same as malus, but same idea.

 

[kosmoface]

Depends on the weapons of the soldiers. Something like a Bazooka wasn't really around in 1939 and when Germany invaded Russia, even their AT Guns weren't good enough to stop some of the better Russian tanks.

In the first attack on Smolensk russian Infantry resorted to throw molotow cocktails on german tanks. Which surprisingly didn't stop them..

In HOI3 you got bonusses when you combined different arms. I can imagine it will be likewise in HOI4.

 

[OrbitalOverlord1939]

There's been a large debate about combined-arms bonus, as it seems to have been removed from the game. From what I've seen, tank divisions don't get a penalty if there's no supporting infantry but they don't get a bonus if there are. It might not sound historically correct, but we don't know about terrain penalties and how tanks fair in bad environments. It could be a tank-only division will be fine on plains, but get hammered elsewhere.

As far as abstracted infantry in a tank btn, we'd have to see how much manpower there is and if it's more than the crew and support staff complement warrants.

 

[GhengisKhan]

There's been a large debate about combined-arms bonus, as it seems to have been removed from the game. From what I've seen, tank divisions don't get a penalty if there's no supporting infantry but they don't get a bonus if there are. It might not sound historically correct, but we don't know about terrain penalties and how tanks fair in bad environments. It could be a tank-only division will be fine on plains, but get hammered elsewhere.

As far as abstracted infantry in a tank btn, we'd have to see how much manpower there is and if it's more than the crew and support staff complement warrants.

If i recall correctly each armor btn was 500 which doesn't seem like enough for abstracted inf.

Im fine with no CA bonus but i really think armor with no inf back should have a pretty hefty penalty. Even pre bazooka period with no inf backup tanks could be immobalized pretty easily ( the treads are always a vulnerable component ).

 

[keynes2.0]

I dont believe that armor battalions included accompanying infantry within the battalions themselves. The armor battalions and infantry battalions in the same division might need to maneuver independently as well as coordinate.

Pre-bazooka infantry divisions would still have organic artillery. Romania for instance was infamously poorly equipped in terms of divisional artillery but their OOB in 1941 still has five battalions. I believe that it's 3 batteries per battalion so 60 pieces of artillery per division and that's in Romania, the guys famous for being artillery poor. A French infantry division for example would have 36 75mm guns, 8 47mm AT guns and 24 155mm guns at the divisional level, another 18 25mm AT guns at the regimental level and another 18 25mm AT guns at the battalion level. That ads up to 104 guns that would have an easy time taking out a light tank if they hit. Tanks definitely needed to work with infantry to avoid being targets to those guns. On the other hand there is the Chinese who would have no artillery at all in most divisions so there is that.

I dont really know this stuff very well however so take what I say with a healthy dose of salt unless someone more familiar with the subject chimes in.

 

[Sun_Killer]

i think the the amount of tanks per bat where 48 for light, 36 med and 24 heavy. Some one said a tank bat has 500 manpower. So lets take the med tanks: 36 tanks *4 crew are 144 manpower. Lets say on every tank there come another 2 people maintance and supply, so 72. 144+72=216. Don´t know maybe at some 30 people command and admin and another 20 transport. so you are at 266 manpower. This would still leave 234 manpower for other use in an tank bat, which could be abstracted inf, but then it should also need inf equip.

Really hard to say alltogether.

 

[Lt Dogbone]

Armor battalions does not contain infantry. IRL you cant really occupy terrain or buildings with just armor. You need infantry to climb a hill or go into a building. Gamewise however thats not a problem so I would probably also have some version of a pure light armor formation as it is very mobile.

 

[vector1]

I don't know if this has changed recently, but as far as WWW goes I saw light tanks/medium tanks from the first MP and Japan SP having 60 tanks per brigade with 500 MP, and Johan's medium TD brigades with 20 M-TD.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Maybe tank battallions also include enough infantry to ride tanks maybe, known as "tank desants"

Enough infantry to avoid malus, but not enough to get combined arms bonus maybe?

 

[vector1]

At 500 men for 60 tanks I doubt that's the way it should be modeled. That's basically half the menpower inside a tank (4-5 per tank), and the rest can be considered abstract supporting staff. I doubt having 3-4 men sitting on top of the tank would count as enough infantry (assuming it's all combat menpower).

 

[Praetori]

Tanks don't need supporting infantry as long as they just mock about in terrain where infantry is superfluous.
I expect the terrain penalty to deal with the absurd combined-arms stuff that was needed previously so that infantry will beef org and work well in terrain where tanks lose operational flexibility and that tanks on the other hand rule maneuver warfare over open ground. AT guns and artillery likewise has a good advantage in the open but lack of mobility makes would make them worse in crappy terrain.

 

[Fonz]

I guess it's better not to have the CA bonus at the intra-divisional level, but rather have it on an inter-divisional level.
It wouldn't make much sense that a tank division that came with infantry gets massive bonus while an independent tank brigade gets massive penalties while fighting the same battle with another infantry division.

 

[Swinds]

The Russians used their Tank units without infantry support in the early part of the war.

This was inexperience rather than design

 

[TheRomanRuler]

I guess it's better not to have the CA bonus at the intra-divisional level, but rather have it on an inter-divisional level.
It wouldn't make much sense that a tank division that came with infantry gets massive bonus while an independent tank brigade gets massive penalties while fighting the same battle with another infantry division.

I think i agree with you, but i would like to point out that in same battle you could have tanks without infantry support, and still have 20 000 infantry in the battle. But i feel like it is better to make inter-divisional Combined Arms bonus, for numerous reasons. One example is that it would allow you to create heavy panzer brigades and use them historically, as fire brigades, sending them where most needed strategically. They did not have almost any supporting units attached, and always used what local forces where available. Also it would be possible to model corps level assets like heavy artillery that are not available for every division, you would simply create division with only heavy artillery and send it into battle where you think it is most needed. In HOI3 that would be suecidal, but with inter-division CA and historically it makes sense.

 

[ingwe]

I don't have a problem with it per se. But if you have just that tank division in a province and it gets attacked, they should get stomped by pretty much anything. Tanks can't really hold ground as has been mentioned already. If they are attacking, they should also get stomped because they should need to have accompanying infantry to support them. So I am okay with having a division formed of only tanks, I just want it to be practically useless. Yet to be seen though. I suspect a lot of this type of stuff will come down to the results of beta testing and the like for balancing.

 

[KalZakath]

I've been trying to see if Da9l had any motorized available to add to it - don't think he had any self propelled arty either. It doesn't make any sense to create an armored division for quick breakthroughs that is then slowed to a crawl because you put un-motorized infantry battalions with it, or does it?

If anyone can see if he had the trucks available to make the motorized and just didn't, I think that could go a long way to answering the question? What I see a lot in the WWWs is Da9l using what he has, and just making sure that he's more advanced in whatever than his opponent (which he gets to choose). If he needs the quick-breakthrough-exploiting armored units and has nothing else to pair with them to beef them up, then pure armor it will be.

I think until we let him get into later timeframes with these WWWs, unless we know he's got something researched or available that would beef up the units in question, I'd take his builds in these early goings with a grain of salt.

 

[Denkt]

Tanks are extreamly expensive, a light tank battalion cost atleast 600 production compared to an infantry battalion who cost 50 production.

Cost for cost tanks can not hold ground against infantry. Motorised infantry is not as good as tanks but they can be used as a cheap way to fill out your armored divisions.

Tanks are very weak against anti tank artillery but infantry is even weaker against normal artillery.

 

[lekim]

It is a high level abstraction, support infantry is already there. Otherwise 60 tanks and 500 people - and only 2 fit (max 3) in.

If you are talking about joint operations than it is a mixed division.

 

[lekim]

Tanks are extreamly expensive, a light tank battalion cost atleast 600 production compared to an infantry battalion who cost 50 production.

Cost for cost tanks can not hold ground against infantry. Motorised infantry is not as good as tanks but they can be used as a cheap way to fill out your armored divisions.

Tanks are very weak against anti tank artillery but infantry is even weaker against normal artillery.

Have you ever tried to attack a tank a infantry division? Me neither, only read german and russian ww2 reports and they are ugly. Tanks are almost invincible against infantry alone - especially if they are supplied with ammunition.