• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Teeth to Tail Ratio

Timerover51

SOC-14 5K
I received a question on this in a private message, and ran into a character limit in answering. Given that the "Teeth to Tail" ratio is not going away, and will exist in the Traveller universe, I thought that the following would be a good piece to start a discussion with.

The following data is taken from FM 101-10, Staff Officers' Field Manual-Organization, Technical,and Logistical Data. Part I -Unclassified Data, February 1959, Headquarters, Department of the Army. There are a couple of caveats in the introduction which bear quoting.

“This volume is for use as a planning guide only. It provides general planning data for staff officers of all echelons.”

Caution: Data contained in this volume are based on experience principally from World War II and Korea, and can be applied to the future only with judgment and discrimination. Whenever a known factor is available, it should be used instead of one from this manual.
[Editor Note: Bold is in the original.]

The Army used the concept of the “division slice”, and included for planning the Air Force “wing slice”, as the Army would be supporting the Air Force logistically, for planning for major overseas deployment.

The following definitions are again taken from the Field Manual.

The division slice includes the strength of an average combat division plus proportionate shares of the total corps,army, communications zone, and zone of interior (for worldwide slice only) units operating to the rear of the division (and of Naval units directly supporting the Marines in case of Marine divisions). The division slice for any given force is equal to the total strength of the force divided by the number of combat divisions in the force.

The wing slice includes the strength of an average wing plus a proportion-ate share of the Air Force and Army units engaged in developing or operating the airbases (and of Naval units which directly support the Marine or Naval air units).

Relation Between Division Slice and Wing Slice. The 7,000-man wing slice includes about 1,000 Army communications zone men not counted in a division slice. These 1,000 Army men are required for communications zone support of Air Force units and installations present in the theater of operations. In the charts in d below, and in a and b above, this same assumption is made-the wing slice and not the division slice contains the communications zone support for Air Force. This allows troop planners to use these tables with varying ratios of air wings to Army divisions in any specific force.

Having defined, to a degree, what is meant by the “division slice” and “wing slice”, the following is the number of men in each slice and where they are located based on 1959 calculations.

The Division Slice: Average basic division 13,960 troops, with additional Corps and army troops totaling 18,540. This is the Combat Zone slice of 32,500 troops. To this you add the Communications Zone troops of 10,750 to get the Theater Division Slice of 43,450. Lastly, you have the Zone of Interior slice of 20,000 men for a total Worldwide Slice of 63,450 troops. The total Worldwide Slice does include replacements totaling 10% of the entire slice, or 6,345 troops.

It should be noted that these figures are for a combat theater such as Europe or Korea involving a large land mass, and not for a division attacking an island in the Pacific. There you would have significantly less army and corps troops, and basically no Communication Zone troops. Many of those roles would be filled by Naval units, with cargo shipping replacing the Communication Zone logistic support troops.

The Air Force Wing Slice: The Wing is broken down into two sections, a combat portion of 1,300 and a service portion of 1,250, for a basic wing portion of 2,550. There would be additional Air Force support units totaling 3,450 and approximately 1,000 Communication Zone Army troops supporting the Air Force. This gives a total Wing Slice of 7,000, of which 6,000 are Air Force and 1,000 are Army.

In World War 2, the Theater Division Slice for the Army was approximately 40,000, with an additional Army Air Force Group (equivalent to a Wing) of 5,000. The British Division Slice was about the same as the United States.

Now, the Field Manual does give a detailed breakdown as to how many of what type of troop would compose the slice, but I suspect that would be going into too much detail. For those who wish to take a look at the manual for themselves, it can be found online at the following site. I also have it in hard copy, along with the 1949 and 1956 editions. The 1987 version is also online, but is not quite as useful. Most of the really good stuff is not there, i.e. still classified.

http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p4013coll9/id/523/rec/8

I should note that the manual is intended for use by staff officers who have been in the Army a while, and who understand the terminology. It is not exactly the most exciting reading on the planet. However, having been trained as a supply officer, I find it totally fascinating.
 
Last edited:
It's technology level dependent.

Ideally, you'd like to maintain it at one to one, realistically one to five, and you could probably tolerate it one to ten.
 
It's technology level dependent.

Ideally, you'd like to maintain it at one to one, realistically one to five, and you could probably tolerate it one to ten.

That's one half of the equation...

Teeth to tail ratio = actual combatants / (technicians + service workers + bureaucrats)

Technology can actually increase the later rather than decrease them. The bigger the service is the more bureaucrats you'll end up with (see: Parkinson's Law).

You have a high tech widget you use. It takes three engineers and six technicians with years of training to maintain it. This is as opposed to you have a low tech thingamajig... You service it yourself...
Technology can add complexity and that adds technicians.

Service workers depend on what the service is providing the troops. If you're expected to forage for food much of the time, the messing and rations pipeline will be much slimmer than if that's going to be provided to you.
 
That's one half of the equation...

Teeth to tail ratio = actual combatants / (technicians + service workers + bureaucrats)

Technology can actually increase the later rather than decrease them. The bigger the service is the more bureaucrats you'll end up with (see: Parkinson's Law).

You have a high tech widget you use. It takes three engineers and six technicians with years of training to maintain it. This is as opposed to you have a low tech thingamajig... You service it yourself...
Technology can add complexity and that adds technicians.

Service workers depend on what the service is providing the troops. If you're expected to forage for food much of the time, the messing and rations pipeline will be much slimmer than if that's going to be provided to you.

Technology definitely has increased the number of maintenance people required for items such as combat aircraft and tanks. The proliferation of high horsepower tanks and military vehicles has also massively increased the fuel requirement, and the corresponding logistic load. While, in theory, fusion power would get around the liquid fuel problem, that does all additional maintenance people to the equation

How much care and maintenance does a suit of Battle Dress require?
 
That doesn't even cover that as TL goes up, the troops have to have more medical exams, shots, physicals, and other stuff. Or, that they have to undergo all sorts of "training."

"Okay men, we all have to have Zhodani cultural sensitivity training today... Report to classroom three at oh eight hundred hours..."

Or, the troops have to have "technical" training...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfQPJ3WRfWo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vVV8hRTxgE

Hey! It's a chance to catch up on your sleep... :rolleyes:

You can imagine on some Imperial cruiser the engineers getting that on say the Jump drive... :devil:

Or, having to fill out paperwork, or getting ready for testing for promotion, or the like.
 
Technology definitely has increased the number of maintenance people required for items such as combat aircraft and tanks. The proliferation of high horsepower tanks and military vehicles has also massively increased the fuel requirement, and the corresponding logistic load. While, in theory, fusion power would get around the liquid fuel problem, that does all additional maintenance people to the equation

How much care and maintenance does a suit of Battle Dress require?

well, its notable that even the third imperium, with all its power and money, finds it impractical to equip every soldier with Battle Dress, instead preferring Combat Armour as a standard. I would imagine the higher maintaince requirements of the powered Battle Dress would be one factor in that. Some of the rulesets imply that training might be a issue (MgT in particular), but others don't, so that's a "maybe".
 
well, its notable that even the third imperium, with all its power and money, finds it impractical to equip every soldier with Battle Dress, instead preferring Combat Armour as a standard. I would imagine the higher maintaince requirements of the powered Battle Dress would be one factor in that. Some of the rulesets imply that training might be a issue (MgT in particular), but others don't, so that's a "maybe".

And like any sophisticated machine, power armor (PA) requires maintenance, upkeep, and a logistics train... They do break, right? Other than being damaged...

You only have to wear or replace combat armor as it is damaged...

Power Armor or Battledress is a whole other level of complication and demand...

I can easily imagine that in the same way that tank crews bellyache about changing out treads, PA troopers must have maintenance practices they bellyache about...

Shabbat Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.
 
How much care and maintenance does a suit of Battle Dress require?

one per 10 for basic maintenance. two per 10 for after-action servicing. one for battledamage repair (just throws away anything questionable and slaps in new parts).

its notable that even the third imperium, with all its power and money, finds it impractical to equip every soldier with Battle Dress, instead preferring Combat Armour

could be a space issue -there's only so much hull space to go around, do you want 2 troops in combat armor or 1 in bd?

could be a size issue - ship corridors can be quite narrow and bd may not fit.

could be an ecm issue - bd will have quite a power signature, while ca won't.

could be a seniority issue - senior troops get the bd, everyone else gets ca.

teeth to tail

it helps if you realize that the "tail" represents capability. consider an alligator - lots of teeth and not much tail, but he's only dangerous to things next to him. consider a plesiosaur - not many teeth, but he has a long neck so he can reach anywhere he wants to. the support sections enable the combat troops to go places and do things they could not otherwise do.
 
I'd suspect power armor has a support group at company and battalion level much like modern military vehicles do.

At company you have some techs that can do basic repairs and routine serious maintenance. They can swap out a part, make sure the suits are running right, that sort of thing.

At battalion you have a group of technicians that support not only the suits but other tech. Ones to do electronics, mechanics, maybe a couple that can make new parts on some sort of high tech 3D printer / machining center. These guys might not even be military but civilians being paid big bucks for their expertise.

All the grunts do is use the suits and make very basic run checks on them. They don't do much in the way of repairs or maintenance relying on the techs to take care of things.
 
Technology definitely has increased the number of maintenance people required for items such as combat aircraft and tanks. The proliferation of high horsepower tanks and military vehicles has also massively increased the fuel requirement, and the corresponding logistic load. While, in theory, fusion power would get around the liquid fuel problem, that does all additional maintenance people to the equation

How much care and maintenance does a suit of Battle Dress require?

Not to mention the bureaucracy expanding. All that maintenance has to be documented. The logistics system requires multiple layers of people rubber stamping documents and such.

Ever have to spend $93,000 in less than 60 days (a sort of "Brewster's Millions")? I did one end of FY in the Navy. A SK 1 told me she learned more from me in those 60 days about how to massage and navigate the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) than she had in 8 years in the Navy... :devil:

Those troops wearing that battle armor...

Shots and medical exams?
Administrative paperwork?
Reports and other routine paperwork?

I remember when they made the 3M system (Navy maintenance system) go to SAP on a computer from the old paper system. Before I did the charts and the whole process took about an hour a week or so.
With SAP (as we called it "Hitler's revenge..." a German company had designed the software) I had to assign a First Class full time to managing it...

So, more technology doesn't necessarily mean less bureaucracy, it often means more.

You might look up the Skyway Patrol episodes of My Life as a Teenage Robot. They make the Vogon look efficient...!
 
The logistics system requires multiple layers of people rubber stamping documents and such.

it's not just logistics, and it's not rubber-stamping. it's the entire acquisition system. which parts are buidling up in inventory not being used, which parts are consantly shipping everywhere because they're wearing out faster than anticipated, which parts are getting shot, which parts are not getting shot. hey, cold weather causes this servo to fail, hey, sand causes the laser-protective coating to abrade away, hey, this lubricant used in this machinery space for one piece of equipment causes the gaskets for another piece of equipment to degrade, etc. it all feeds back into the acquisition system - what do we need to fix, what do we have to ignore, do we stop buying this part, do we buy more of this part. and how do we do better next time? there's a reason for all of it.
 
Not to mention the distinct possibility that the supply people expect you to navigate a labyrinth of paperwork to get a part issued...

"You didn't fill out form 1348-3Z properly. I can't issue you anything until you do..."
 
Reports and other routine paperwork?

I remember when they made the 3M system (Navy maintenance system) go to SAP on a computer from the old paper system. Before I did the charts and the whole process took about an hour a week or so.
With SAP (as we called it "Hitler's revenge..." a German company had designed the software) I had to assign a First Class full time to managing it...

So, more technology doesn't necessarily mean less bureaucracy, it often means more.

I was on active duty (USMC, A-6E Intruder avionics tech) when that change was made. I was a Sgt, and had my QA inspector stamp from the IMA facility at MCAS El Toro - and my squadron was assigned to Carrier Air Wing 2 aboard USS Ranger CV-61 (and I had just received a QA stamp from the ship's IMA) when the change-over began.

What took me a couple of minutes on the old paper MAF (Maintenance Action Form) now took 20 minutes or so on the computer - if the system terminal in the work center was up, and if the system terminal in Maintenance Admin was also up.

If ours was up but MA's wasn't, then I had to print out a copy of the form after I was done and hand-carry it 2/3 the length of the ship (and down 2 decks) just like used to be done with with the paper MAFs (except that an entire shift's forms from the whole work-center used to be taken together at the end of the shift, but now each one had to go individually) - and if theirs was up and ours wasn't (or if both were down), I had to fill out a blank form and walk it over and enter it in MA's system (or give it to the MA chief so he could write out a "system waiver") so the item I had just fixed could be sent to supply.

If I was ordering a part for something, and the system was down, then MA had to hand-approve the part requisition before it could be taken to supply - who had a separate computer system that was linked to the new Maintenance computer system - with the old form I took the request directly to supply.

Back at El Toro, our shop complex, supply, and MA were all in separate buildings at least a half-mile from each other, so that was even worse!

So yes, the new "paper-saving" system added a statistically-significant amount of time for each documentation task.
 
"You didn't fill out form 1348-3Z properly. I can't issue you anything until you do..."

well they can't. it's easier to make sure the paper work is correct before it's filed, than to ship all kinds of equipment everywhere around the world twice trying to figure out what people mean.

heh. one of our guys fixed a piece of equipment, found it needed a resistor replaced, went up to supply and ordered the part. a few weeks later they sent down, "hey, your part arrived, it's in the hanger bay" - usually they just bring down small stuff. the guy went to the hanger bay and found a big crate. broke it open, found a 16 inch shell for the new jersey. after the usual fire drill the guy went back and checked his original order. he'd gotten one number wrong.

the mystery was why they sent the shell to a carrier ....
 
well they can't. it's easier to make sure the paper work is correct before it's filed, than to ship all kinds of equipment everywhere around the world twice trying to figure out what people mean.

heh. one of our guys fixed a piece of equipment, found it needed a resistor replaced, went up to supply and ordered the part. a few weeks later they sent down, "hey, your part arrived, it's in the hanger bay" - usually they just bring down small stuff. the guy went to the hanger bay and found a big crate. broke it open, found a 16 inch shell for the new jersey. after the usual fire drill the guy went back and checked his original order. he'd gotten one number wrong.

the mystery was why they sent the shell to a carrier ....

Put the shell on the lathe and turn it into some table legs. If HE, scoop out the explosive first for hand made fireworks.

Unless he got a crate of propellant bags. Then he already has the fireworks.
 
... because the paperwork was filled in correctly.

oh yeah, I made a contribution to a presidential briefing once in just that way. got the paperwork, it was filled out correctly, went down, popped the breaker, as I was walking back all the lights started to waver and then half of them went out ... and the topside radar ... and the topside comms ... while the captain was on ... talking to one of his pilots trying to steer him through a diplomatically sensitive contact with a soviet bear bomber. got to visit the captain the next day.

Put the shell on the lathe and turn it into some table legs.

the machine shop boys could have done that.
 
well they can't. it's easier to make sure the paper work is correct before it's filed, than to ship all kinds of equipment everywhere around the world twice trying to figure out what people mean.

heh. one of our guys fixed a piece of equipment, found it needed a resistor replaced, went up to supply and ordered the part. a few weeks later they sent down, "hey, your part arrived, it's in the hanger bay" - usually they just bring down small stuff. the guy went to the hanger bay and found a big crate. broke it open, found a 16 inch shell for the new jersey. after the usual fire drill the guy went back and checked his original order. he'd gotten one number wrong.

the mystery was why they sent the shell to a carrier ....

One of my friends was once looking though the system and realised that their was a NSN (NATO Stock Number) for a complete C-130, and it was described as something rather innocent, like "cargo handling gear, C-130". he was seriously considering putting In the request, just to see if anyone actually rang up and asked what a comms troop needed with its own personal cargo plane......
 
Back
Top