Unit Sizes

[BackworldTraveller]

I'm confused...Probably by design

It seems that the rank system for COACC Vs GFC means that

COACC GFC
Aircraft (O2+E5) Tank (E5)
no Equiv Platoon (O2/E6)
Flight (O3/E8+E7) Company (a.k.a Squadron) (O3/E8+E7)
Squadron (O5/E9) Battalion (O5/E9)
Group (O6) Regiment (O6/E9)
Wing (O6) Brigade (O7)
No Equiv Division (O8)
Region (O7) Corps (O9)
Continent(O8) Army (O10)

Have I got the equivalents anywhere near correct?

Which seems that if I have 4x10 dTon tanks I have a Platoon
and if I have 4x10 dTon aircraft I have a Flight - so from the number of elements in a unit perspective, the COACC are just bumping everyone one rank for the same role.

I realise logic doesn't have to apply...but is my assumption of the illogic correct for the Imperial Army?

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

I'm confused...Probably by design
…so from the number of elements in a unit perspective, the COACC are just bumping everyone one rank for the same role.

I realise logic doesn't have to apply...but is my assumption of the illogic correct for the Imperial Army?

in essence, yes, your right. what your missing is a few things:


1) the ground forces have levels below that of a tank, that being infantry fire team and the individual soldier, with the "tank" equiv in infantry branch being a squad or section (depending on national terminology).

2) in terms of numbers of vehicles, air squadrons and tank squadrons are actually the same size, but the greater number of support staff needed for aircraft means that the total unit size for a air squadron is closer to a battalion. and the same is true of the "flight/platoon" sized unit, they both put the same number of fighting vehicles in the field but the flying one needs extra ground crew to do it, so many extra that its actually the size of a army company.

3) due to a combination of historical factors and the nature of air combat, their has been a lot less need for a formal tactical unit of larger than squadron size, with wings rarely being deployed as a single formation and more often as individual squadrons, often in a staggered fashion to spread coverage over a longer period (for example, each squadron provides air cover in turn over the airfield to protect it, ensuring any attackers will always meet at least some prepared air defence. in comparison, tanks have had a much greater need for a more articulated command structure with more ranks, especially since almost every tank formation bigger than a battalion/regiment is normally a combined arms force with infantry and other branches included

 

[aramis]

It's also worth noting that the COACC ranks assigned to various levels are strongly grounded in the USAAC/USAAF/USAF...

The CO rank is based upon the number of officers, more than the total strength of the units.

Also note:
Cavalry was at one point...
Lance
Section
Troop
Squadron
Wing
Regiment
Brigade
Division
Corps

Air Units have used a variety but the US copied strongly from the Cav, especially since the the first combat aircraft were mostly cavalry.
Element (3-12 men, or 1 aircraft)
Section (not always used, but... when used 2, 3 or 4 planes, or 2-3 elements)
Flight (3 to 6 Elements of men, or 5 to 24 planes)
Squadron 3-5 flights
Group usually 2-3 squadrons.
Wing Usually 4-10 squadrons
Air Division (historic only - 2-3 wings)
Numbered Air Force.
Major Command.

The historic reason USAF wings are commanded by Colonels is because Generals were generally restricted by congress, and colonels far less so; there weren't enough generals for all the wings, despite their being manpower and officers commanded closer to Brigades.

Note that flying units are, in the US model, officer heavy. A typical Army company has fewer officers than an aviation flight (platoon). In fact, some flights have as many officers as a battalion. Hence the O4/O5 command.
This forces the group to be an O6, but usually a junior one, and the Wing an O6 as well, due to the shortage of generals. Really, COACC is too close to USAF, IMO.

 

[BackworldTraveller]

Thanks

Would COACC have the flying element and the support element in the same unit or are station and aircraft separate co-located units?...the COACC book suggests the latter.

 

[Condottiere]

Speed and persistence differs between gravitational powered vehicles and fast fighter jets.

While we like to say combined arms, let's say the third dimension of the airland battle differs in command and control, so you have to break up air fleets into more digestible chunks.

The Germans seemed to have utilized their cavalry traditions for organization, then refined it during the Spanish Civil War.

The Americans (and presumably the Russians) adopted more Armyesque formations and titles. The United States Navy managed to keep their aviation arm independent.

The British decided to amalgamate, which is why the resultant Royal Air Force uses both cavalry and naval terms.

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

Thanks

Would COACC have the flying element and the support element in the same unit or are station and aircraft separate co-located units?...the COACC book suggests the latter.

yes.


ok, let me expand that mathematicians answer:

Would COACC have the flying element and the support element in the same unit

yes. the planes and the ground crew are part of the same unit, and when asked both would identify as being part of "XYZ sqn, of the ABC wing" or whatever they are organised into. since the planes can't fly without the ground crew, and having the same ground crews working constantly on the same planes ensures continuity, it doesn't make sense to separate them out.

However,

are station and aircraft separate co-located units?

also yes. Their are a significant number of troops and facilities that are not part of the aircraft units that need a command and administration structure. For example, the mess hall cooks, the perimeter security team, the base gym staff, 2nd line technical support, medics, and several other jobs that need to be done. these shared facilities are kept in a separate "airbase" unit (ie "RNAS Yeovilton", or "Edwards AFB"), form which they are controlled.

This airbase unit is also usually superior to the squadrons based there and acts as their higher command for many aspects, deconflicting any competing claims to shared resources. For example, who gets the gym for unit PT on Friday morning, or which unit (if any) has priority for repairs and spares.

having a separate "airbase" unit has the advantage that if the air squadron are redeployed somewhere else, the base support systems aren't suddenly under-manned because, say, the cook who was supposed to cook breakfast is now on the other side of the planet.


all the above is also true for army units as well, normally their will be a clearly defined and agreed chain of command for any base with more than one unit on it, such as a brigade base with infantry, armour, artillery, recon, signals, logistics and more besides all bickering over who is top dog.

 

[aramis]

Thanks

Would COACC have the flying element and the support element in the same unit or are station and aircraft separate co-located units?...the COACC book suggests the latter.

COACC follows the late 80's USAF model... which was separate support squadrons from flight squadrons. And not a 1:1, either. ISTR that 21TFW was almost pure fighters, and the various squadrons of maintenance centralized and attached as a group. Then the base had a separate group (616 gp) incluing the an Operations Support Group, 611 Civil Engineering Squadron, 616 Aerial Port Squadron, plus an SP Squadron.

 

[Straybow]

Just note that a "10 dTon tank" would be three times the size of the German WW1 A7V tank...


tank-photographs.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/ww1-german-Strumpanzerwagen-a7v-tank-replica-bovington dot jpg


(I don't have a public domain link to an image)

 

[JimCook]

relatively modern Air force

At least in the 1980's the USAF did have air divisions. I was in the 416 Field Maintenance Squadron, 416 bomb wing, 40th air division, 8th air force, SAC.

The USAF was officer heavy because all pilots, navigators, bombardiers, and electronic warfare operators were officers. The only enlist flight crew were gunners on B-52s and boom operators on KC135s. Most cargo aircraft had load masters to stow cargo (passengers were just ambulatory cargo) and a few had flight engineers.

The USAF was actually very thin on officers in leadership positions. Often a maintenance squadron had only a single commanding officer, usually a major or Colonel. The most I ever saw in a maintenance squadron was 3, the commander, the exec, and a maintenance officer. Most of the leadership positions in the maintenance and support squadrons were senior enlisted.

Once an officer reached major, they has to start working in staff or command positions. Until then they had been air crew. They would still fly enough to keep their flight pay, but they were no longer full time air crew.

There were non flying officers in the USAF, but if you didn't have wings, promotions were hard to come by.

 

[Condottiere]

As frontline forces shrink, rank requirement for a particular command tends to increase.

I believe post Hiroshima, strategic bomber commanders tended to get preference, and going by gossip and snide comments, the Fighter Mafia gained prominence early Seventies.