CT Only: Military unit structure

[Whipsnade]

The anarchic nature of the company sized Free Troopers might be more fun and suitable.

The Free Troopers are perfect for over-the-top fun. Sort of like the Marx Brothers/Three Stooges meet Traveller

For Danarii's Platoon, you would need a head's up and lead time, because they'd have to do opposition research on prospective contractors (to avoid any surprises), and then you're looking at three to nine months to train new recruits, and to impose their authority on the existing (or non existing) military hierarchy.

It would be a high level campaign definitely, much like ACKS or the corporate campaigns Wil posts about occasionally. I felt the three section nature of the unit meant a player could have a PC in each; planning, training, fighting.

 

[Condottiere]

I always felt that it missed three types of specialists, ninjas to infiltrate the opposition, engineers to help wartime production along, and a SEAL team.

 

[Whipsnade]

Ninjas and SEALs are pretty much the same. I think certain "specialists" are mentioned as being part of the planning/analysis section.

As for wartime production, a government/polity small enough that a platoon-sized cadre would be able to plan, recruit, train, and lead it's armed forces is also too small to have a significant arms industry. Such a government/polity is going to be buying pretty much everything except rations and maybe uniforms.

 

[Condottiere]

Ninja in the more traditional sense, sending in infiltrators into the enemy's camp, whether to collect intelligence, recruit agents, sabotage, or facilitate an attack.

While the odds are that military equipment has to be imported, anything that can be manufactured locally should.

 

[mike wightman]

Ninja in the more traditional sense, sending in infiltrators into the enemy's camp, whether to collect intelligence, recruit agents, sabotage, or facilitate an attack.

That's what SpecOps do, which is why Whipsnade was correct to equate SEAL/SAS with ninja.

While the odds are that military equipment has to be imported, anything that can be manufactured locally should.

What if it cheaper offworld?

 

[Condottiere]

I see a SEAL team in the more functional straight military role, not as infiltrating the opposition society and possibly their military.

As regards to logistics, never rely on one source, especially one where the enemy could more easily intercept it. Also, your paymasters may prefer to have their money circulating around their local economy and cronies, than some distant interstellar industrial combine.

 

[Major B]

I see a SEAL team in the more functional straight military role, not as infiltrating the opposition society and possibly their military.

I think you have direct action in mind - one of a number of missions for special operations forces. SEALs are capable of a number of other missions but seem most often to be used for direct action (DA) or strategic recon (SR).

Special Forces are also employed for these missions (as are Rangers) and SF also take on unconventional warfare (UW) and foreign internal defense (FID).

Terrain, available forces, and many other factors determine who does what where but it is good to remember that these units are incredibly versatile. They do not have a straight role.

 

[RandyB]

I think you have direct action in mind - one of a number of missions for special operations forces. SEALs are capable of a number of other missions but seem most often to be used for direct action (DA) or strategic recon (SR).

Special Forces are also employed for these missions (as are Rangers) and SF also take on unconventional warfare (UW) and foreign internal defense (FID).

Terrain, available forces, and many other factors determine who does what where but it is good to remember that these units are incredibly versatile. They do not have a straight role.

All true.

It is also good to remember that their versatility is not unlimited. This is heavily implied by the statement "Terrain, available forces, and many other factors determine who does what where" but history* shows that it needs to be called out.

*Ex: The use of the British SAS in Northern Ireland was a gross misuse of those troops, far outside of their training and mission profile.
Ex: In general, U.S. Navy SEALs are only to be deployed within a certain distance of the sea. SEAL Team Six is an exception due to its unique mission profile.

 

[Selandia]

The smaller politie would likely be seeking a global package and military contractors bidding for the job would be likely to practice some form of vertical integration.

"I work with you to assess your need. When we agree on troop types (and general weapons types) I select amongst my Cadre Units who could train/lead your troops, and amongst my Combat & Support Units which ones you need, for it would be impossible to train some specialist within the time parameter of the mission. Therefore i'd rather choose their specific weapons and suppliers." (and pocket the middlemen commission/volume discount in the process).

Remember that the guys that sign on the doted line are in (usually) for a warrior's life while the military contractor that sign their pay check is in for the money (and will go out of business if no profit is made)

High level merc campaign should add a corporate headquarter. Gamingwise, there is adventure potential there if we thrust the typical warrior novel: the deskjockey nuisance or the I don't care villains, the enemy within. Arthur Harris (Air Marshall of RAF, Bmbr Cmd, WWII) said of a procurement bureaucrat that "His unimpeachable and meticulous dedication to his bureaucratic duty was worth a division to the ennemy"

Have fun

Selandia

 

[Condottiere]

Strategic bombing doctrine looked good until put into large scale practice, despite any number of warnings about a prepared near peer enemy.

But prospective mercenary employers are going to look at the unit's past successes, and current strengths, hence the muster, constrained by time, money and desperation.

 

[Timerover51]

I think more interesting would be a summary of the doctrines that drive the discrepancies between the different methods of organization.

If you are interested, the following study can be found at the listed website.

United States Army Force structure and force design initiatives 1939-1989

http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll11/id/1061/rec/1175

Since 1935 the U. S. Army has undergone a series of changes in both force structure and force design. The more complex adjustments have been in force design. Beginning with the triangular division in 1939 and continuing over the intervening years, the many changes have conspired to confuse planners about force design antecedents.

 

[Condottiere]

Let's say, not counting special forces and guards units, your military gets allocated twenty thousand infantry.

That's about thirty line battalion equivalents, if you assume most battalions will have between six to seven hundred troops.

You then divide them up to cover a number of roles:

1. Armoured infantry (heavy)

2. Mechanized infantry (medium)

3. Light infantry

The degree of air assault and/or lift will depend on the technological level; at eight it could just be a sub division of light infantry, whereas at fifteen, every unit is gravitated, and it's a degree of armouring, light infantry just more willing to go to ground and use the terrain for cover and camouflage.

Of the thirty battalions, six could be heavy, twelve medium and the remaining twelve light.

One third would be training, one third prepping for their next deployment, and one third deployed, or in the case of a rapid reaction force, ready to go.

The six heavy infantry units could be assigned to three armoured brigades, possibly with one medium infantry battalion as well.

The default infantry brigade could be two light infantry battalions, backed up by one medium infantry battalion.

 

[kilemall]

Hmmm, that does present a terminology issue- mechanized for everybody on wheels, armored for heavy tracked direct fire combat vehicles- should be something for grav beyond 'gravtank'.

Gravitated doesn't work for me.

Does Lift work for the grav analogue of mechanized? Or does that have a spaceborne derivation?

 

[mike wightman]

Words change meaning over the centuries.

Armoured cavalry could be anything from chariots to (grav) gunships.
Mechanised could be lorry, wheeled/tracked APC or gravsled.
Airborne could be parachute, glider, helicopter, grav belt.

I think you are correct in that lift tends to denote grav mobile.

 

[Condottiere]

Sometimes it's just tradition, sometimes it's meant to be a defining, or redefining, role.

I'm working out how penal battalions function and operate.

 

[aramis]

Looking at the 4518 Lift Infantry Regiment (7+ Bns, by the way... large even by the british use), lift is the equivalent of motor.

Looking t the FFW counters...
1/4518, 2/4518, and 3/4518 are armored infantry - grunts in cans -, while 4/4518 and 5/4518 are lift armored cavalry (tanks), and 6/4518 is jump troops (grunts in individual cans). All have the grav-mobile.

Striker II shows some changes in the TOE...
but gives us equipment.

4518 LIR

• 3× LInf Bn
  • 1×HQ Plt
    • 1× Command APC
    • 2× staff APC
    • 1× Comm APC
  • 3× Grav mech inf Co
    • 1× Command Plt
      • 8× infantry troops, incl CO
      • Fire Support APC
    • 3× Rifle Platoon
      • 1× Fire Support APC w/Plt CO
      • 3× Rifle Suqads of 9 troops + APC each
    • 1× Tank Platoon
      • 4× grav Tanks
  • 1× Grav Tank Co
    • 1× Command Squad of 1 command tank
    • 3x Tank Plt (as above)
  • 1× Grav Arty Btty (Co)
    • 1 FT command staff
    • 1 FDC APC
    • 3× MRL Plt
      • 4× grav MRL
    • 1× Drone Missile
      • 4× Drone Missile Vehicles
  • 2× LCav Sq (Bn)
    • 1× HQ Plt
      • 1× Command Tank
    • 4× Lift Cav Troops (Co)
      • 1x Fire Support APC w/CO
      • 2× tank squads of 1 tank each
      • 1× Rifle Squad (as above)
  • 1× DT Bn
    • 1 HQ Plt
      • 1 FT infantry including CO
      • 1× Command APC
      • 1× Staff APC
      • 1× Comm APC
    • 3× Jump Troop Co
      • 1× Command Sq, 8-man
      • 3× DT Platoon
        • 1× Command Sq, 8-man
        • 3× Tactical squad of 9 troops
    • 1× Grav Tank Co (as above)
    • 1× Artillery Plt
      • 1× FDC APC
      • 4× MRL Vehicles
    • 1× Support Plt
      • 25× support troops incl CO
      • 3× utility sleds
  • 1× Combined support Bn
    • 1× Artillery Btty
    • 1× Medical Plt
      • 4× APC
    • 1× Flight Wing
      • 1× HQ flight
        • 2× Rampart
      • 1× Fighter Squadron (Bn)
        • 10× Rampart
      • 1× Transport Squadron (varies)
      • 1× Ortillery Sqdn
        • 3× SDB
  
  So the cav are mixed armor and infantry
  the armor are pure armor
  the mech infantry are mounted infantry with company level tank support...
  and the regiment, if the transport's correct, is self-transporting. And, since it uses SDB's, obviously uses a rider concept.

 

[Selandia]

One of the key function of a concept is to organize knowledge to allow for information interchange. The semiotic exercise linking significant and signified can be rooted in whatever work. The most standard root is tradition confronted with evolution. Sometime new words are needed, but often pairing two olds in a new combination work fine because it capitalise on previous knowledge at risk of missnaming

Cavalry refered to mobility, function given by generic type: -light-medium-heavy even if a specific unit designation is actually used: Hussard, Lancer, Reiter, Ironside, Chasseur...

Then you had to trow in Armored Cavalry, for armored unit that used the term Cavalry to refer to specific function (beside traditionnal name) and not at all to refer to horse. Mind you the term Armor also changed meaning for it refered at the same time to mecanisation (Armored cavalry would simply mean Heavy before the internal combustion engine). Some units were called Mecanized Cavalry in certain countries.

Then you already had Mounted Rifle to refer to horseback mobility for soldier that were not "real cavalry", meaning that the term cavalry was refering to a function in the countries using the term. Motor Rifle was an easy switch for those units.

Then you ger Air Cavalry for Air Transported Rifles (Light Rifle in the Mecanized Infantry age) because it is a hell more sexier and initially allows some ambiguity in naming a type of unit still trying to figure its potential.

In a two words: whatever works

well time to work

have fun

Selandia

Selandia

 

[Condottiere]

Motorized implies, in English, thin skinned or very lightly protected mobility, whereas in Russian it might just be a holdover for their (later) mechanized units.

Weight is usually an indication of the tactical role the unit is expected to play.

Dragoons were originally mounted carbines, before the cavalry role was emphasized.

Striker could now be used for a mobile mediumish formation.

 

[vegas]

I have a detail question. The 4518 Lift Regiment calls for a "Fire Support APC w/ CO" with the rifle platoons. What is the role of that vehicle? Does it mount indirect fire weapons? Is it a command vehicle to call fire support from another source?

A google search reveals that the vehicle is detailed in the Regency Combat Vehicle Guide, but that is something I don't have. I am curious what that vehicle is doing as I am designing an IM platoon.

 

[aramis]

I have a detail question. The 4518 Lift Regiment calls for a "Fire Support APC w/ CO" with the rifle platoons. What is the role of that vehicle? Does it mount indirect fire weapons? Is it a command vehicle to call fire support from another source?

A google search reveals that the vehicle is detailed in the Regency Combat Vehicle Guide, but that is something I don't have. I am curious what that vehicle is doing as I am designing an IM platoon.

VRF Gauss Gun, tac missiles, and command/control functions. The platoon CO also rides on or in.