Soviet 1943 Motorized Rifle Battalion TO&E

[cbovill]

Decided I'd take a breather from building ships and expand my Soviet WWII infantry as one can simply not have enough of these to throw into the meatgrinder. But in trying to refresh my memory with these, I've run into two questions I need help with:

1. Does anyone have a really good TO&E for Soviet shtats valid for the summer of 1943 (Operation Zitadel timeframe) for their motorized rifle battalions (and everything else Soviet for that matter).

2. These battalions seemed to be pretty lacking in assets when compared to their western and German counterparts. Right now I'm building for 1-5 ratio and trying to represent various weapon systems in the battalion. MG's are presenting a problem. This battalion from the TO&E's I've seen is very lacking in MG's. It looks like there were two issued to each of the two Rifle companies, none issued to the SMG(desant) company and then perhaps a MG platoon with 11 men and two MG's. Obviously these assets cannot be represented well in 1-5 ratio, so I was thinking of just putting together one MG stand and giving it to the battalion to use however its commander wants to. I'd be interested in knowing how have others been representing this and other battalion assets in this austere unit?

Thanks for your help!
Chris

[jb]

Chris,
Here is a link to a site that will give you the TO&Es you request;
http://www.vy75.dial.pipex.com/
click on the box that states organization&units(The box is too small to state "Tables of organization and equipment" etc,etc)
what I like about the Soviet TO&Es in this site are the fact of 1942 and 43 TO&Es

[BattlerBritain]

There's also the Battalion Organisations site at:
http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Red ... talion.htm

Scroll down for 1943.

[cbovill]

Thanks guys, I had tried all those sites already, the Kursk site doesn't list that the battalion had any HMG's, which seems to be incorrect, The battalions site listed each of the two rifle companies having a MG platoon of 11 men and 2 HMG's for a total of four, and I couldn't find this battalion in the Yahoo TO&E's. I use Spearhead rules, and Spearhead fields the battalion with no MG platoons, but it seems as if one combined stand should be represented.

It just seems odd that they would have so few MG's. When I checked out standard rifle battalions, they had a little more but still paltry by other major power's standards. I've got all of these beautiful GHQ Soviet MG's and looks like I will rarely ever see them in combat. It's got to be difficult for the Soviets to suppress the German infantry.

All of you who are actually fielding these battalions on the table top, how do you represent this important weapon?

Chris

[jb]

Thanks guys, I had tried all those sites already, the Kursk site doesn't list that the battalion had any HMG's, which seems to be incorrect, The battalions site listed each of the two rifle companies having a MG platoon of 11 men and 2 HMG's for a total of four, and I couldn't find this battalion in the Yahoo TO&E's. I use Spearhead rules, and Spearhead fields the battalion with no MG platoons, but it seems as if one combined stand should be represented.

It just seems odd that they would have so few MG's. When I checked out standard rifle battalions, they had a little more but still paltry by other major power's standards. I've got all of these beautiful GHQ Soviet MG's and looks like I will rarely ever see them in combat. It's got to be difficult for the Soviets to suppress the German infantry.

All of you who are actually fielding these battalions on the table top, how do you represent this important weapon?

Chris

If you are talking about straight leg infantry then there was a weapons platoon at company with either 2 or 3 HMGs. This number varied depending on availability. So if you are using a ratio of one stand equals a platoon,then you should use one stand per company...

[cbovill]

chris then did you ask ?? .. we dont bite ..

I was looking for one of those little emoticons with a bite taken out of it, but I can't find one.

...so, do you have this TO&E?

p.s. - I once bit my brother when I was six years old.

[Mk 1]

p.s. - I once bit my brother when I was six years old.

Last time I spoke with my brother he said: "Bite me!". And we are both older than six!

[Timothy OConnor]

It looks like there were two issued to each of the two Rifle companies, none issued to the SMG(desant) company and then perhaps a MG platoon with 11 men and two MG's. Obviously these assets cannot be represented well in 1-5 ratio, so I was thinking of just putting together one MG stand and giving it to the battalion to use however its commander wants to. I'd be interested in knowing how have others been representing this and other battalion assets in this austere unit?

Thanks for your help!
Chris

I experienced the same problem when I first switched to "5:1" battalion gaming from 1:1 company gaming. After a lot of research and through the use of an excel spreadsheet to compare organizations I realized just how poorly a strict 5:1 ratio is for WWII & modern armies!

The problem is that most military assets are organized in groups of 2-4 items.

Frank Chadwick has stated on the CD TOB forum that 5:1 was first chosen for battalion level games for one reason only: WWII German and American tank platoons had 5 tanks at full paper strength!

http://www.testofbattle.com/phpBB2/view ... ight=ratio

Every other platoon, company, and battalion level asset is organized in groups of 2-4 but because early 5:1 gaming focused on tank companies 5:1 was chosen. The result is that when trying to scale just about any other organization at 5:1 you get all sorts of weird results. The CDTOB forum is filled with discussions as to how to represent various assets in light of this problem.

Here's a good example: US Armored Infantry 57m ATGs. There were 3 per company. At 5:1 various battalion-level rules have struggled with how to represent the 9 ATGs present in the battalion. The US leg infantry battalion had 3 of these weapons at battalion level. And German Armored Panzergrenadier heavy company assets came in multiples of 2 or 3 vehicles/weapons. Using a ratio of 2-4 assets per stand you can accurately represent these weapons at the proper level instead of aggregating/abstracting them up to higher levels.

So here's what I did: for battalion-level games my approach is that each stand = 2-4 heavy weapons, vehicles, guns, squads, etc. If 2-4 assets were present at a given level then a stand appears at that level. If a given unit (eg platoon) had access to about 2-4 special weapons (eg bazookas) then the stand is credited with that special weapon.

The result is very close to tradtional "warped" 5:1 gaming TO&Es at a high level but far more accurate in terms of relative company and battalion strengths. It's also far more accurate when representing company-level assets (eg those 57mm Armored Infantry ATGs).

Since those 5:1 tank platoons are the exception rather than the rule (and they're rarely at full strength anyway), you'll have a much easier time building accurate TO&Es if you simply say that at 2-4 assets such as MGs and mortars you get one stand and at 5-8 assets you get two stands.

For AFV companies look at the company aggregate and the number of maneuver elements present. For example, for my US Sherman companies (17 historical tanks) I have 1 command tank and 3 other tanks so each stand represents 4 tanks and the company-level organization represents the historical company command element and the 3 maneuver platoons.

Compared to traditional warped 5:1 organizations you'll end up with an extra stand here or there but your companies will look more llike their historical counterparts and relative company strength will be more accurate too. This is not to say that you never aggregate with this approach, but even when this happens the result still looks more accurate than a strict 5:1 approach.

[cheese_99]

It looks like there were two issued to each of the two Rifle companies, none issued to the SMG(desant) company and then perhaps a MG platoon with 11 men and two MG's. Obviously these assets cannot be represented well in 1-5 ratio, so I was thinking of just putting together one MG stand and giving it to the battalion to use however its commander wants to. I'd be interested in knowing how have others been representing this and other battalion assets in this austere unit?

Thanks for your help!
Chris

I experienced the same problem when I first switched to "5:1" battalion gaming from 1:1 company gaming. After a lot of research and through the use of an excel spreadsheet to compare organizations I realized just how poorly a strict 5:1 ratio is for WWII & modern armies!

The problem is that most military assets are organized in groups of 2-4 items.

Frank Chadwick has stated on the CD TOB forum that 5:1 was first chosen for battalion level games for one reason only: WWII German and American tank platoons had 5 tanks at full paper strength!

http://www.testofbattle.com/phpBB2/view ... ight=ratio

Every other platoon, company, and battalion level asset is organized in groups of 2-4 but because early 5:1 gaming focused on tank companies 5:1 was chosen. The result is that when trying to scale just about any other organization at 5:1 you get all sorts of weird results. The CDTOB forum is filled with discussions as to how to represent various assets in light of this problem.

Here's a good example: US Armored Infantry 57m ATGs. There were 3 per company. At 5:1 various battalion-level rules have struggled with how to represent the 9 ATGs present in the battalion. The US leg infantry battalion had 3 of these weapons at battalion level. And German Armored Panzergrenadier heavy company assets came in multiples of 2 or 3 vehicles/weapons. Using a ratio of 2-4 assets per stand you can accurately represent these weapons at the proper level instead of aggregating/abstracting them up to higher levels.

So here's what I did: for battalion-level games my approach is that each stand = 2-4 heavy weapons, vehicles, guns, squads, etc. If 2-4 assets were present at a given level then a stand appears at that level. If a given unit (eg platoon) had access to about 2-4 special weapons (eg bazookas) then the stand is credited with that special weapon.

The result is very close to tradtional "warped" 5:1 gaming TO&Es at a high level but far more accurate in terms of relative company and battalion strengths. It's also far more accurate when representing company-level assets (eg those 57mm Armored Infantry ATGs).

Since those 5:1 tank platoons are the exception rather than the rule (and they're rarely at full strength anyway), you'll have a much easier time building accurate TO&Es if you simply say that at 2-4 assets such as MGs and mortars you get one stand and at 5-8 assets you get two stands.

For AFV companies look at the company aggregate and the number of maneuver elements present. For example, for my US Sherman companies (17 historical tanks) I have 1 command tank and 3 other tanks so each stand represents 4 tanks and the company-level organization represents the historical company command element and the 3 maneuver platoons.

Compared to traditional warped 5:1 organizations you'll end up with an extra stand here or there but your companies will look more llike their historical counterparts and relative company strength will be more accurate too. This is not to say that you never aggregate with this approach, but even when this happens the result still looks more accurate than a strict 5:1 approach.

Also, Command Decision: Test of Battle has a "Battalion Gun Rule". If a TOE lists a stand as a battalion gun, it always has an ROF of 1, no matter what the listed ROF is. This to represent 2 or 3 gun sections of guns.

I don't have the rulebook in front of me, so this is all as best as I can remember.

[hauptgrate]

Oops, it appears that I replied to this thread on the "I'd thought I'd seen it all thread..." Anyway, for what it is worth, my comments are there.

[Timothy OConnor]

Hauptgrate's comments were so good I took the liberty of pasting them back to this, the correct thread. I hope you don't mind Hauptgrate!

To echo your comments, the same applies to modern war too. In Viet Nam at the platoon level the M60 was generally assigned directly to individual squads instead of being kept in a weapons squad. And total platoon strength was usually no more than two squads and often only one! At the company and battalion level units were often left behind to provide higher level CPs with security.

The book "Red Thunder, Tropic Lightning" provides an excellent overview of the theoretical organization and reailty. After providing security elements for higher level CPs and rear areas and accounting for MIAs, WIAs, KIAs, and those on R&R units could routinely operate at half strength. One veteran in the book notes that his rifle company had an authorized paper strength of 188 but usually went out with 80-90!

Another book about Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan also explains how lift capacity in helicopter operations can also severly limit the assets available to a battalion or company commander (in this case the couldn't take their mortars along which proved to very disappointing!).

Finally, Hauptgrate's comments about the 57 also demonstrate just how much varience there can be between units. I too have read that many 57mm armed units were converted to rifle platoons (same happened in Viet Nam where many battalion/company-level mortar units served as riflemen since the 81mm and 60mm weapons were tough to hump in the jungle and many units operated with plenty of arty support).

But while at the Tank Museum in Virginia I met a vet who said that his 57mm ATG unit fought from Normandy to Germany with the 57. Their usual procedure was to shoot the tracks of heavier German tanks and to then call for air support to destroy the tank. They also shot the horses of German ambulances since these horse-drawn vehicles often carried ammo rather than casualties.

Basically they functioned like a 57mm sniper team! And while many vets were convinced that every tank was a Tiger and every gun an 88 this veteran said that his 57mm platoon proved useful precisely because such heavy tanks were rare and the 57 was accurate enough and powerful enough to handle the more common light and unarmored German assets.

On the other hand (starting to sound like an economist) I've also read that lighter guns often served forward of heavier ATGs to provide a defense in depth. For example, the Russians would place lighter ATGs in hidden positions along the anticipated route of an enemy advance. But instead of being positioned to engage from the front they would be positioned to engage from the sides and rear. This way they couldn't be engaged at longer range from their own front and they could ambush targets from the side where armor was weaker.

So I suppose it all depends on local unit practices, the needs of offense and defense (ATGs do make terrible assault assets!), and the availability of resources (if a more useful resource is available that gets used while a useless resource get's converted to something else).

Hauptgrate wrote

I have run in to the problem with 5-1 for many years as I play a Command Decision based game. When organizing my armies, I worry more about the balance of weapons rather than the strict 5-1 ratio. sometimes this means bumping up weapons one level -- two MGs per company would bump up to one MG stand per battalion, etc. The whole thing about TO&E somtimes makes me laugh -- units on the actual front lines were rarely at full strengh and/or often had substitute or unathorized equipment. The above example with the 57mm ATG in American armored infantry bats is a good case in point. A collegue of my father, and one of my high school teachers many years ago, commanded an M-5 Stuart in the 4th Armored. When I first started wargaming, I recall him shaking his head when he saw us using the 57 to support an assault by armored infantry. He said most common use of his tanks was in infantry support and that he NEVER saw a 57 anywhere near the front lines. In fact, he rarely saw a 57 at all, except in the depot -- where there appeared to be plenty of them -- or sitting abandoned along the roadside. Basically, the troops found little use for the heavy gun and got rid of it as soon as possible. My gaming armored inf bats have just one stand at the battalion level representing the few that might have been kept around. Another case is British reconnasance units, which have quite a large number of scout cars and such. Gamers need to understand that besides actual recon, Brit recon units were also tasked with traffic control and communication line security. Soooo... remove about half of the scout cars and bren carriers from the board....they were busy doing other duties! My point is that TO&Es should be taken as a guide, and in a 5-1 scaled game, imperfect adherance to the exact ratio can be explained in many ways...

[jb]

here is an interesting site that might help
http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Red ... talion.htm