Something's been bugging me about Modern Microarmor Rules...

[Waddell]

I downloaded the guide for Producing statistics for units in the rules and after working with them for a bit I found a couple of issues that were bugging me.

First, starting with modern infantry. A U.S. platoon, particularly the USMC rifle platoon is roughly 50% bigger than it's Russian/Soviet equivalent but has the same rating. This doesn't seem right, particularly in comparison with the WWII rules where there is far more variety in the unit ratings.

Second, a U.S. tank company (among others) has 14 tanks in it versus the Russian's 10 tank companies yet both field 3 stands in the game.

I'm just curious if anyone else was bothered by this and what methods they found to address it if they did. My view is that this grossly inflates the firepower of a Russian unit versus other opponents. In FFT-3 they dealt with this by making the Russian tank companies have only 2 stands. The alternative I'm looking at is adding an extra tank stand to the U.S. and/or other forces where this is an issue.

Also, how many aircraft is a stand supposed to represent, 2, 4, or more???

Any thoughts on the subject? I'm curious if this is just a personal quirk on my part of if others have encountered this and what their solutions are.

[dougeagle]

I've never tried but I'm kinda curious about your numbers.

Care to share a bit more info?

[RedLeif]

AS to your second point about 14 vs 10 tanks in the US company vs. Russian company. About the best way to deal with this is give the US a 4th stand, basically representing the Co.Hq. I find myself doing this in WWII organizations as well. for example when the russians have 10 tanks/company in 3 platoons and the Germans have 20 tanks per company in 4 platoons, sometimes I have given them a 5th stand.

An aircraft stand generally represents 2 to 4 aircraft But I usually figure its just two. As for helicopters I figure 2 for attack helicopters and 4 for utility helicopters but that's just my rationalization of it.

Another way to deal with the issue is to mess with the units cohesion rating. But I usually add more stands to balance out a 'numbers' issue even if it makes it inaccurate historically or to TO&E standards.

[TAMMY]

I disagree on the addition of a stand.

The rules clearly states [03.02] "Each stand will represent a "platoon" of from three to six vehicles .."

The same s stated on [3.2] of WWII The Game

[Waddell]

Here's what steered me onto this issue. A Soviet Infantry Platoon has 29 men in it with 3 LMG, 3 RPG's, 1 Sniper rifle, and about 24 AK-47's total. A Soviet Airborne platoon has 15 men in it. with 3 RPG's, 3 LMG's and 9 AK-47's. I have not counted vehicle drivers in these numbers as they are represented in the vehicles of each platoon type. Both are represented by a TL3 Infantry(A) stand. The current Russian platoon isn't much different, A USMC platoon has 43 men in it with 9 LMG's, 18 M-4's or M16's, and 9 M16's with a grenade launcher.

A USMC platoon is 2 men shy of being the size of a Russian Airborne company but has roughly the same firepower in the game! The support units in each company show even greater discrepancies. While being similar in size the USMC weapons platoon has considerably more firepower. Even considering that the Javelin and SMAW's are assigned out to the platoons the weapons platoon still has 6 MMG's and 3 60 mm mortars. The Russian equivalent has 3 MMG's. Both units in the game have similar firepower.

Unfortunately I'm on the road for the next week and my database is lurking on my home computer. However, some of the HE numbers I've been getting (depending on methodology) run around 10 to 14 HE points for a US platoon versus 6 to 8 HE points for a Russian platoon. This is due entirely to the larger sizes of U.S. units.

As for the tanks my concern was that the Russians hit the minimum essential number for a platoon while nearly all western platoons are 25% to 40% larger. With the exception of the tank companies in BTR regiments this essentially grossly inflates the combat capabilities of the Russian formations. This seems to give an advantage to Russian units versus nearly all opponents. While I am not disputing the fighting capabilities of the Russians I also think they aren't supermen nor do they operate tanks as good as what they advertise to 3rd World buyers.

My solution has been to try the FFT method of 2 tank stands per company as well as the alternative of an additional U.S. tank. I'm leaning towards the latter. However, if 3 - 6 vehicles are a platoon then conceivably the U.S. could have 5 tank stands per company (14/3 = 4.667 rounded to 5). This would keep the balance closer to reality but seems to be overkill, at least to my thinking.

Maybe I'm just being picky but I also dislike just disregarding large numerical discrepancies to keep the number of platoons right. Another alternative would be to alter the point at which Western formations are forced to retreat but this appears to open a whole new can of worms.

[Waddell]

I also understand that there is a group working to update the ruleset and I wish them well. The research to get this data is difficult since militaries don't really like to advertise their data all that much.

[piersyf]

My take on platoon based games is that a stand is an indicator for command control, not a comparable firepower measurement. The relevant combat data should then measure morale, training, unit cohesion, rate of fire and the number of targets that may be engaged simultaneously. The UK often field 3 tank troops, but the difference between them and the Russians is the higher level of autonomy, and often a much higher burst rate from the main guns. Essentially, 4 US Abrams in a platoon could, in theory, put out around 60 rounds of 120mm ammunition at almost as many individual targets in 60 seconds (15rpm per gun, achieved in combat). They'd probably need to hose out their pants afterwards, but it is within actual combat capability. A platoon of 3 T90's can put out 21 rounds per minute. I have no idea how well integrated the Russians are these days for autonomous engagement (rather than platoon fire at one target), but it seems to me a burst rate 3 times higher must confer a significant advantage.

[Waddell]

I was aware of the rate of fire issue after a conversation with a friend of mine who was a lieutenant in one of the first units to get the Abrams in Europe aswell as reading an article on a tank competition where the Israeli's had a rate of fire double that of the Russians. There a whole host of issues like that.

You also mentioned the issue of autonomy. One thing that has continued from the cold war days is the miniscule amount of command assets available to Russian commanders. I'm not sure how to read into this given their efforts to computerize their units along Western lines.

[Waddell]

Since starting this little fracas I've thought about how to solve some of the problems. Redlief suggested adding a stand and I think that may be the easiest way to resolve the problem of Soviet/Russian versus U.S./nearly everybody else tank company size. As for the issue of Soviet/Russian VDV units I found a simple solution. I treat them as Infantry(R) units. It shrinks their size and firepower as well as reflects their higher level of training. I'm also adjusting the BMD units carrying capacity accordingly.

An alternate solution comes up in campaign style games where the units get to regenerate between rounds. My alternate solution was to keep the stand counts the same in the units but give armies with larger units an easier time of it in recovering their fighting strength between rounds.

Now for aircraft issues. It was mentioned above that an aircraft stand represents 2 to 4 aircraft. Is there any guide on how to determine which it is for any given type of aircraft? I've always gone with 4 for everybody.

[Mk 1]

This is one of my long-standing concerns about 1-to-many unit rules.

You can set it up so each model represents a consistent number of actual tanks (or troops). 1-to-3, 1-to-5, whatever. Or you can set it up so each model represents a consistent unit scale. 1-to-platoon, 1-to-company, whatever.

If you chose a 1-to-unit scale, you have a problem with sub-units. 1-to-platoon is fine, but what happens when a Sherman company with 3 platoons gets a 2 tank assault gun section attached? Well then you have to change the strength of one or two of the platoons, or make a sub-platoon sized unit, or something. Also, how do you handle similar units of such widely divergent strengths as a 5 tank vs. a 3 tank platoon?

If you choose 1-to-several scale, you have a problem with your scope of maneuver. Sure you can add a stand to represent a company that has more tanks in each platoon, but that changes how the company can (and, in most games, will) fight. US tank companies in WW2 had 17 tanks. Russian tank companies had 10 tanks (in many, not all, TOEs). That's 70% MORE tanks in a US tank company, but it is still only 3 platoons, and it should not be able to maneuver as if it were more than 3 platoons, because US tank companies did not have 4 maneuver elements, they had 3.

Then you have the whole question of how you manage under-strength units. From mid-war on, most German tank companies had far fewer tanks in action than their TOE called for.

I think the best way to manage these issues is by up-rating or de-rating the capabilities of the stands. So a tank platoon stand with a 3 tank organization should have only 3/5th of the combat capability (firepower or staying power) of a 5 tank platoon. If it is a company that is at 50% strength, each platoon can be de-rated by 50%. (Most company commanders would re-assign soldiers to balance out platoon strengths as part of the re-org/re-fit/re-supply after an action or before an action.)

But that leads to lots of arguments about "my tanks are way under-rated". I never liked the Panzerblitz rating of T-34s vs. Pz IVHs. 10xT-34s have defensive power 9 while 5xPz IVHs have a defensive power of 8? I don't think so! Of course you can plead that unit cohesion made the Pz IVs better per tank, but it just seemed too close to the 1-to-1 comparison, with the number of tanks being an after-thought. Just never liked it.

Of course I don't have those problems in my 1-to-1 gaming. One model is one tank. A 10 tank company has 10 models. A 17 tank company has 17 tank models.

But of course my Romanian infantry platoons, with 14 man squads, has the same number of stands as a Russian infantry platoon with 10 man squads. Hmmmmm.....

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

p.s.
I know the question was regarding moderns, but the same issues apply. I use the WW2 examples for illustration, because I can reference the organizational strengths as facts rather than what-if's.
d.s.

[Waddell]

Mk1 you have hit my problem squarely on the nose. While I still prefer platoon based stands (one to one at 1:285th is hard on my ancient eyes) I did find a solution in the Microarmor The Game WWII rules. In those rules each type of infantry unit got a different rating based on nationality, unit size, armament, etc. I've been trying to sort out how to do that for the Modern Version but still have a ways to go.

As a side note, I'm willing to share what data I have with anyone working on an updated version of those rules. I'm not quite there yet but if someone's interested I can convert the database to a text version and send it them. Just give me an email address and it's yours!

[Extra Crispy]

Just to stir the pot...

I tend to come at this issue from the other side. Let's say you have one Blue Unit (10 tanks) facing off against one Yellow Unit (16 tanks). Let's assume they use the same/similar doctrine. If our history says these forces were, historically, evenly matched, then they get the same combat value. In that case I don't care about the hardware too much. To me the major adjustment would be to base size (to reflect frontages correctly). So if my mainstay of combat is PzIV vs T34 I adjust all the ratings from there.

I ran in to the issue with, for example, headquarters platoons made up of 1 or 2 of different vehicles. Suppose you had a unit with 2 main battle tanks, 2 recon APCs, and two At missile platforms. How do you rate that when another unit is just 5 tanks?

[BattlerBritain]

Good thread and I'm coming across similar questions myself.

I've been looking at rules of around the platoon scale for a while. I've got just about all the rules out there for platoon scale and all have some good elements and some bad. Hence I've been picking the best bits out of each for my own 'rules'.

The thing about the combat at platoon scale comes back to: what was the real effect of that platoon in action?

It's fine to say that a modern US M1 platoon can fire off 60 rounds in 1 minute, but they'd never do that. They'd be out of ammo in minutes.

So max rate-of-fire is an indicator but shouldn't be held as the focus example. Because it's not rate-of-fire that matters but the number of engagements and the amount of exposure time a firer is willing to use. In action that's 'as little as poss'.

Looking at real life the best example of, say, modern platoons in action that I use is Golan '73.

The Israeli's had Centurions with ammo capacity of 72rds each with a roughly 50/50 mix of AP and HE. When the Syrians attacked the Israeli's engaged from around 2000m down to minimum range. Apparently they claim they were taking out a Syrian tank with every 1.5 rds fired, but difficult to confirm this.
After 2hrs they were out of ammo and having to scrounge ammo and try and re-supply under fire. That's hard.

Looking at specific examples, and I'm looking at the Osprey Centurion vs T-55 book for this, one Israeli tank took out 20+ BMPs and about a 5 tanks using a full ammo load: that's around 3 rds per target, even with good hit chance and no armour on a BMP.
One Israeli platoon of 3 tanks took out 10 T-55s in a few minutes.

The thing here is that even with high hit probabilities multiple rounds are fired at each target and usually even if hits are scored a firing tank will continue to pump rounds in until something visibly happens to the target.

How many rounds does it take before that happens?

Well, at Overloon Museum in Holland I saw Shermans with x5 75mm sized holes in them with all holes touching.

And in Desert Storm between 1000 and 1500 Iraqi tanks varying from T-55s to T-72s were taken out with a stated expenditure of 9000 DU rounds (according to some 'ban-the-DU' websites). That's around 6 to 9 rds per target, where the target was usually stationary, not firing back and the round (supposedly) would go in one side and out the other.

Hence I tend to take a 'rate-of-fire' as the number of engagements a platoon is liable to make. The best I've come across is FFOT3 using a rate-of-fire of 3 'engagements' for a NATO platoon in around 15 minutes and a rate-of-fire of 2 'engagements' for a WP platoon. This seems to fit with historic.

FFOT3 uses 5 vehicles for that base fire. I personally think that 4 is about right, and that fits platoon size better.

Each engagement also seems to take multiple actual rounds expended. For 105mm to 125mm rds I take it as an average of 3 rds per 'engagement'. For 75mm to 88mm I use 5 rds per engagement. Why track this, well, a modern T-64/72/80 only has 40 rds in it's ammo loader, and only 12 of those are AP. That means that each Sov tank only gets 4 'engagements' at another tank before they're down to lobbing HE at them. That's where the Sov tactics of using multiple units as a unit of ammo comes in.

For NATO an M-1HA with a 120mm only carries about 52 rds. At a 50/50 mix of AP and HE that's 26rds AP or about 8 shots. At a rate-of-fire of 3 they're going to be out of ammo in about 45mins, then they'll just be another target.

What about handling hits on a platoon?

I use it that a platoon is 2 steps and the first 'Hit' takes the platoon down and halves its' rate-of-fire, rounding down, so basically down to rof of 1.

If x2 'Hit' platoons Rally I allow them to merge but leave a wreck in the place of one of them - gives the recovery boys something to do.

Hope this helps,

B

[sultanbev]

Current Russian Tank companies in the independent brigades are 13 tanks (3x4 + 1 CHQ) so about the same size as US/UK tank companies. I think the new reformed tank divisions will revert to teh 10 tank organisation.

I had this problem when I played modern Spearhead, which uses 1 model = 4 or 5 tanks depending on who you believe. I got round it by using a strict 1:4 ratio, rounded down to represent breakdowns, realworld shortages etc. However, I calculated the number of stands based on how many tanks there were in teh battalion, then divided them up into the correct numebr of tank companies, with any odd ones left over added to the Bttn HQ.

Thus a British 1950s Tank Regiment of 45 Centurions is 11 models, in 3 squadrons each of 3, the Bttn HQ and a spare "HQ guard" if you like. A Soviet 31 tank battalion is 7 models split into 3 tank companies each of 2 stands and the Bttn HQ.

Where you have isolated sections of 2 guns per company, eg Sherman/105mm, these were amalgamated as an independent stand under Bttn HQ. A compromise, but at least you get the effect.

As regards the rate of fire, no tank will fire flat out 15rpm simply because the amount of dust kicked up when firing modern high energy guns means you can't see anything for 30 seconds after the first shot from the same place. See the videos of T-72s fighting in Syria for proof. Okay, the M1 series has TI, so in theory can see through all that dust, but I wouldn't count on it. We simply factor it into our command system, where generally, NATO/IDF type units will activate more often than Soviet style ones, so tend to get more shots off.

Yes, tanks will fire multiple times at targets, it is US policy to keep firing until you brew it up. We have rules for this in our games. Once you've penetrated, we roll to KO on a D20. If you roll 4 over what you need, the target brews up, if 8 over, it blows up.
If however, you are over 750m away, and only get a KO, then, the wreck still counts as a viable target for subsequent shots. Target priority rules ensure that it stays thus. If you are under 750m, then it is assumed you spot the KO'd tank crew baling out and you can ignore it if other targets are available.

I have to say, though, I dropped MSH and 1 model = 1 platoon type games and reverted back to 1;1 play with battalions/regiments. I do like the intricacy of odd TOEs. And lots of models

[panzergator]

Not a gamer, just a collector, but I am curious about a tactical issue concerning the US vs Russian employment. As the US employs a platoon, it is 4 tanks divided into 2 maneuver sections, whereas the Russian platoon of 3 tanks maneuvers generally as one unit. If you have a stand representing a platoon, the US platoon must maneuver as a 4 tank unit. The platoon stand takes away the ability of the US platoon to maneuver as a two separate elements, a rather significant capability, in my estimation as a former platoon leader. Ultimately, a Russian company has 3 maneuver units, while a US company has 6, plus the headquarters section.

How is the US platoon's ability to maneuver and the different number of maneuver units accounted for in the game?