View Full Version : Composition of German Panzer Divisions
Hi All,
There is one thing which I cannot understand. When one plays TOAW WWII western front scenarios, one usually finds US armored divisions neatly divided into Combat Commands, while German panzer divisions have two PzG regiments and a panzer regiment (over 100 tanks in one unit without any real infantry support).
As it is, the German player has to divide their precious armored regiments, thus losing 10% of the profficiency of the unit.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that it were the Germans who invented the concept of Kampfgruppe - to mix armor, mot infantry and artillery. Therefore the German armored divisions should be divided into Kampfgruppen from the very beginning of the game.
Comments welcome :-D
The germans put together Kampfgruppen as an operational need, when the situation called for it, they were quite flexible, a Kampfgruppe could range from battalion to brigade size, depending on situation etc. They put together so many Kampfgruppen at so many times that this is impossible to model with toaw if one wants historical correctness.
The US Combat Commands are an inherent part of the divisional composition afaik, i may be wrong, though.
A design solution could be to have two german Panzer Bns instead of one Regiment (so no need to divide and loss of proficiency) at a high cooperation level to simulate german flexibility.
Heldenkaiser
25 Jul 06, 07:26
The US Combat Commands are an inherent part of the divisional composition afaik, i may be wrong, though.
Being no specialist for the era, it always was my understanding that the combat commands in a U.S. armoured division were essentially HQs for ad hoc assignment of forces, even though it appeared that in practice it worked out so that they were permanently assigned 1/3 of the divisions infantry, armour and artillery each. So in theory not much difference from the German concept. But I may be wrong.
Ben Turner
25 Jul 06, 09:23
On the whole I don't see this as much of a problem. The Panzer divisions shouldn't really get spread out enough to need to worry about combined arms at the regiment level; rather they should be concentrated for attack or counterattack.
Of course depending on how the scenario is designed this may not work so well in TOAW.
Being no specialist for the era, it always was my understanding that the combat commands in a U.S. armoured division were essentially HQs for ad hoc assignment of forces, even though it appeared that in practice it worked out so that they were permanently assigned 1/3 of the divisions infantry, armour and artillery each. So in theory not much difference from the German concept. But I may be wrong.
General Maczek, commander of the 1st Polish Armoured Division, which fought with the 1st Canadian Army, used his two brigades (the division was organized by British standards) as HQ's for ad hoc assignment. As he wrote in his memories, it often happened that most units subordinated to the HQ of the armoured brigade came from the motorized brigade and the other way round. The composition and size of brigade combat groups varied. I don't see much difference between such combat groups and German "Kampfgruppen".
Ben Turner
25 Jul 06, 12:26
General Maczek, commander of the 1st Polish Armoured Division, which fought with the 1st Canadian Army, used his two brigades (the division was organized by British standards) as HQ's for ad hoc assignment. As he wrote in his memories, it often happened that most units subordinated to the HQ of the armoured brigade came from the motorized brigade and the other way round. The composition and size of brigade combat groups varied. I don't see much difference between such combat groups and German "Kampfgruppen".
German kampfgruppes were the exception rather than the norm. Ideally, the Germans would rather just use a whole panzer division.
German kampfgruppes were the exception rather than the norm. Ideally, the Germans would rather just use a whole panzer division.
Hans von Luck's memoirs tell a somewhat different story.
Ben Turner
25 Jul 06, 13:54
Hans von Luck's memoirs tell a somewhat different story.
Well, to be clear, the idea was that the Panzer division was already a perfectly satisfactory combined arms force and there was no need to subdivide it into small such forces.
Of course as things turned out, the Germans were often so battered that they had to patch several units together into a kampfgruppe in order to deal with a particular situation. von Luck had the misfortune in 1944 to find himself in 21st Panzer division, which was very badly mauled in the early fighting in Normandy. Note that for the previous five years, he had been part of panzer divisions which largely fought as formed bodies, and it was only for the last year of the war (which forms the most popular part of his memoirs) that he was shoved from kampfgruppe to kampfgruppe following the obliteration of 21st Panzer as a viable combined arms organisation.
Well, to be clear, the idea was that the Panzer division was already a perfectly satisfactory combined arms force and there was no need to subdivide it into small such forces.
In 2,5 km/hex scale scenarios, such as Mr. McBride's "Plan Martin" and most of the Bulge scenarios, we see a tank regiment and two PzG regiments. Are you suggesting that the panzer regiment ever operated alone, without infantry support?
Of course as things turned out, the Germans were often so battered that they had to patch several units together into a kampfgruppe in order to deal with a particular situation.
I'd rather say that the task determined the compositon of forces sent to deal with it, not the disorganization of the command structure.
Germans organized battle groups for specific tasks within divisional command structure as early as in the September campaign in 1939.
Ben Turner
25 Jul 06, 17:28
In 2,5 km/hex scale scenarios, such as Mr. McBride's "Plan Martin" and most of the Bulge scenarios, we see a tank regiment and two PzG regiments. Are you suggesting that the panzer regiment ever operated alone, without infantry support?
If the scale is regiments then it is to facilitate concentration. So just put the two units in the same hex.
I'd rather say that the task determined the compositon of forces sent to deal with it, not the disorganization of the command structure.
Germans organized battle groups for specific tasks within divisional command structure as early as in the September campaign in 1939.
Sure- but only very occasionally (for example 1st mountain division sending an ad-hoc motorised group on a dash to Lvov). Guderian's corps was transfered in its entireity from the Corridor to East Prussia. It operated as a formed unit on the drive to Brest. When German tanks first reached Warszawa it was as a division, not as a kampfgruppe. One ad-hoc mechanised unit was formed for the campaign- Panzerverband Kempf- but this too was basically just a special panzer division.
Forming combined armed groups at the regiment level rather misses the point; mechanised forces in general and armour in particular is to be massed and delivered at the crucial point. This is just as valid on the defensive as it is on the attack.
If the scale is regiments then it is to facilitate concentration. So just put the two units in the same hex.
And I have a big red dot, heavy casualties, and I am throwing in 100+ tanks on a 2,5 kilometer wide stretch of land.
A US armoured division throws in a single combat command, which is a reasonable mixture of armor, infantry and artillery.
If you look once more into von Luck's memoirs, you will find that druring the training period after the Polish campaign Rommel insisted that units should always cooperate with the same units from the other regiments, and thus battle groups developed within the division, which proved to be very important in the future campaigns.
Von Luck does not command a battle group before 1944 for a simple reason - before that he commands a reconaissance battalion, which more often than not operates independently. However, from early June 1944 he is the commander of a battle group of combined arms, organized around his HQ (192nd PzG Rgt).
Peiper was the commander of the 1st SS Pz Rgt, yet from the very beginning of the December offensive a battle group of combined arms was organized under his command.
And I have a big red dot, heavy casualties, and I am throwing in 100+ tanks on a 2,5 kilometer wide stretch of land.
A US armoured division throws in a single combat command, which is a reasonable mixture of armor, infantry and artillery.
If you look once more into von Luck's memoirs, you will find that druring the training period after the Polish campaign Rommel insisted that units should always cooperate with the same units from the other regiments, and thus battle groups developed within the division, which proved to be very important in the future campaigns.
Von Luck does not command a battle group before 1944 for a simple reason - before that he commands a reconaissance battalion, which more often than not operates independently. However, from early June 1944 he is the commander of a battle group of combined arms, organized around his HQ (192nd PzG Rgt).
Peiper was the commander of the 1st SS Pz Rgt, yet from the very beginning of the December offensive a battle group of combined arms was organized under his command.
So break down the two armoured units and throw in a broken down Inf unit?
Instant battle group, just add enemies. :laugh:
So break down the two armoured units and throw in a broken down Inf unit?
Instant battle group, just add enemies. :laugh:
Battle group, battle group...always battle group. It's Kampfgruppe! Kampfgruppe rocks, sounds evil nice, sinister, frightening and deathly.:clown:
But that was his point, that in this case proficiency and thus combat strength is lost while the US counterpart has combined arms units from the start.
Battle group, battle group...always battle group. It's Kampfgruppe! Kampfgruppe rocks, sounds evil nice, sinister, frightening and deathly.:clown:
But that was his point, that in this case proficiency and thus combat strength is lost while the US counterpart has combined arms units from the start.
Oh right, I did read that, but it was after midnight when I posted that comment. My bad.
Battle group, battle group...always battle group. It's Kampfgruppe! Kampfgruppe rocks, sounds evil nice, sinister, frightening and deathly.
Well, the Englishman who translated Oberst Hans von Luck's memoirs into English wrote that Rommel used a "jeep" instead of "Kuebelwagen"; the English-speaking world invariably says "King Tiger" instead of "Koenigstiger"... I merely tried to fit in :-D
Ben Turner
26 Jul 06, 10:21
And I have a big red dot, heavy casualties, and I am throwing in 100+ tanks on a 2,5 kilometer wide stretch of land.
If putting two regiments in a hex produces a red density light then obviously the unit scale in the scenario should not be regiments.
I should probably add here that I tend to stick to the official TO&E when I'm designing a scenario. So our intrepid Americans get armoured regiments and mechanised regiments. Not those bloody acronyms.
I should probably add here that I tend to stick to the official TO&E when I'm designing a scenario. So our intrepid Americans get armoured regiments and mechanised regiments. Not those bloody acronyms.
Well, the official documents do not always match with what really happens in the field. Classic example - for the most of the Napoleonic era French infantry manuals did not mention such a trifle as voltigeurs, or skirmishers.
Back to the point - I have specifically written, that I "build my case" on existing western front scenarios, which are mostly Bulge scenarios. I do agree that maybe battalion scale, as in the Overlord scenarios, would be better (fewer red dots :-D). As it is now, we see in those scenarios that in 1944 only the Americans are using combined arms combat commands, and the Germans and the British have their tanks and mot infantry separated in different units. Hence it seems that the Americans are the only ones who have learned how to use their armour to the greatest effect.
Ben Turner
26 Jul 06, 13:03
Back to the point - I have specifically written, that I "build my case" on existing western front scenarios, which are mostly Bulge scenarios.
Yeah. To a certain extent we're talking at cross-purposes. I'm mostly interested in the first two or two and a half years of the war.
I do agree that maybe battalion scale, as in the Overlord scenarios, would be better (fewer red dots :-D). As it is now, we see in those scenarios that in 1944 only the Americans are using combined arms combat commands, and the Germans and the British have their tanks and mot infantry separated in different units. Hence it seems that the Americans are the only ones who have learned how to use their armour to the greatest effect.
Of course ironically in TOAW pure armour units work great- especially on the defence.
Secadegas
26 Jul 06, 15:13
(...) Back to the point - I have specifically written, that I "build my case" on existing western front scenarios, which are mostly Bulge scenarios. I do agree that maybe battalion scale, as in the Overlord scenarios, would be better (fewer red dots :-D). As it is now, we see in those scenarios that in 1944 only the Americans are using combined arms combat commands, and the Germans and the British have their tanks and mot infantry separated in different units. Hence it seems that the Americans are the only ones who have learned how to use their armour to the greatest effect.
As Ben is been saying the problem isn't about TOAW. It concerns scenario design.
And it's understandable...
Everybody knows everything about 4th US armoured's CCB. Composition, commanders, campaigns, SOP, etc...
What about KG "Schneider"??? Not even "himself" remembers exactly what troops "he" had available on October 44 or February 45 or ...
Edit: Schneider...
Panzer-War
26 Jul 06, 15:36
Designers I think organize them into the combat commands because most of the Armored Divisions do not have official regiments towards the end of the war. Its either that or have 3 armor and 3 mech bns run around as independent bns in a regimental scale scenario. The 2nd and 3rd Arm Div maintained the heave organization of 3 regiments.
Secadegas
26 Jul 06, 15:45
The 2nd and 3rd Arm Div maintained the heave organization of 3 regiments.
On paper...
on terrain (at least the 3rd) had fix CCA, CCB and CCR... (see Stolberg - Aachen operations)
and fix combat teams (parts from CC's)
Panzer-War
26 Jul 06, 16:07
Are you saying that because they had combat commands they just had the heavy organization on paper?
The 2nd and 3rd AD were in England when the new organization was introduced. But both divisons were tasked as the armored reserve in OVERLORD, filling essentially the same task as CCB, 1st AD at Anzio. It was felt that the redundancies built into the divisions (which McNair believed to be inefficiences) meant that the divisions were more robust. However, a second major factor was that the equipment required to make the change, including 42 M-4 105mm, were not going to be available until July, when the light armored divisions themselves were going to begin to be available. It was finally felt that the changeover simply wasn't worth it in the circumstances and Marshall granted Eisenhower's request for the two divisions to be exempted. The 2nd and 3rd Armored Divisions retained their 1942 "heavy" organization until after the war.
http://www.orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/013_usa/43_org/div-arm/div-armd.html
What about KG "Schneider"??? Not even "himself" remembers exactly what troops "he" had available on October 44 or February 45 or ...
The solution is quite simple - create battle groups around the three regiment by dispersing the assets between them. Let's say, that each PzG regiment receives 25% (30%?) of the tanks from the panzer regiment, while giving away some infantry and supports to the panzer rgt. And so reasonable Kampfgruppen built around the regiments appear. Call them, eg. "KG 1st SS Pz Rgt", or something like that...
Secadegas
26 Jul 06, 16:18
Are you saying that because they had combat commands they just had the heavy organization on paper?
No, no... i wasn't able to make myself clear...
Those 2 divisions mantained (as you say) the heavy organization during 43/45 for sure. More tanks, less infantry...
I meant they also operated in "well known" Combat Command basis just like the "light" divisions. They usually were reinforced with "independent" armoured infantry batallions to compensate their lack on infantry.
Panzer-War
26 Jul 06, 17:07
The solution is quite simple - create battle groups around the three regiment by dispersing the assets between them. Let's say, that each PzG regiment receives 25% (30%?) of the tanks from the panzer regiment, while giving away some infantry and supports to the panzer rgt. And so reasonable Kampfgruppen built around the regiments appear. Call them, eg. "KG 1st SS Pz Rgt", or something like that...
As a designer I feel like this is dammed if you do dammed if you don't. The real solution in my opinion is for TOAW to be improved so that players can create Kampfgruppen, Task Force, Ad hoc units out of the oob built by the designer. Instead of it being locked one way or another.
As a designer I feel like this is dammed if you do dammed if you don't. The real solution in my opinion is for TOAW to be improved so that players can create Kampfgruppen, Task Force, Ad hoc units out of the oob built by the designer. Instead of it being locked one way or another.
You speak the truth, PW.
As a designer I feel like this is dammed if you do dammed if you don't. The real solution in my opinion is for TOAW to be improved so that players can create Kampfgruppen, Task Force, Ad hoc units out of the oob built by the designer. Instead of it being locked one way or another.
Second that. That would be a great enhancement!
Pretty much every country that put an armored division into the field in WWII included motorized/mechanized infantry. The Soviet tank brigade included motorized infantry, or tank-riding infantry in some cases.
What makes for the strongest combination in TOAW?
I always tend to be playing on the East Front and the Soviet Tank Brigade includes a battalion of infantry. In Goetterdammerung, partly for the unit limit - the panzer regiments were merged with the panzergrenadier regiment. IIRC, there were a couple units that had a tendency of evapping...not sure if it was a straight panzer regiment or a composite.
Ben Turner
27 Jul 06, 08:32
What makes for the strongest combination in TOAW?
Pure armour gives a couple of advantages in TOAW;
a) armour on the defensive, particularly if dug in in the open, is extremely difficult to budge and can produce round burning attacks for your opponent.
b) on the attack, using pure armour means that half your opponent's firepower is wasted. Same to a lesser extent goes for pure infantry, I suppose.
In more modern environments, armour can die just as fast as infantry. So mixed forces probably are best. The most important part of combined arms in TOAW would be making good use of your artillery in conjunction with the other arms.
Pure armour gives a couple of advantages in TOAW;
b) on the attack, using pure armour means that half your opponent's firepower is wasted. Same to a lesser extent goes for pure infantry, I suppose.
How do you mean this?
Ben Turner
27 Jul 06, 10:12
How do you mean this?
Well, if you attack with just armour, then all the AP strengths of the defender have nothing to fire at. I believe that with TOAW III, some of this now gets converted to AT fire, but you're still taking less fire than if you attacked with a mixed force.
Same goes for attacking with pure infantry. All the defender's AT strengths are idle.
When armor attacks all of the defense's Anti-Personnel fire is effectively useless...it fires, but there's nothing for it to hit.
But this does bring up the question of inclusion of motorized anti-aircraft assets frequently included in a number of scenarios panzer regiment TO&E's - whether they should or should not be integrated?
The matter was debated extensively by German generals - with the infantry arm desiring distribution of armored assets to provide local support to counter the increasingly frequent appearance of Soviet armor; and the panzer generals understanding that sentiment - but strenuously pressing for mass of armor.
In effect, distribution of armor might help locally against relatively minor incursions, but wouldn't be sufficient to stop massive concentration of force. Consequently, the distribution of armor across a wide front would prevent it from assembling in sufficient force to counter a large penetration. It's one good instance where what makes sense tactically doesn't make sense on a more strategic level.
I think most TOAW scenarios provide the Axis considerable versatility for replicating whatever kampfgruppe one would want to create - not necessarily within the same unit or formation. Being able to merge, separate or reassign specific TO&E components between units would lead to some pretty absurd situations...can imagine Goetterdammerung - TIGER Korps?!?! With the Special Forces Icon... That would be a headache...
I think most TOAW scenarios provide the Axis considerable versatility for replicating whatever kampfgruppe one would want to create - not necessarily within the same unit or formation. Being able to merge, separate or reassign specific TO&E components between units would lead to some pretty absurd situations...can imagine Goetterdammerung - TIGER Korps?!?! With the Special Forces Icon... That would be a headache...
Reply With Quote
:laugh: I don't think that the OOB manipulation allowed to the players should go that far. Just to add or detach units from or to a formation, or let's say a headquarter already on the field with the possibility to rename the formation or a auto rename as a Kanpfgruppe 21.Panzer Div i.e when the original formation had this name (or Battle Group, Task Force or whatever might be suitable). But i think this would also require a hierarchical order of battle, something like i've seen from the Combined Arms, WWII previews at the Matrix forums. And a limitation of how many units could be attached to a certain HQ, depending on size of the HQ as well as on the size and type of the units and certainly all this should be adjustable in the scenario editor.
Panzer-War
27 Jul 06, 13:23
I agree with Telumar that it wont go that far.
Thought some might be interested in this thread.
http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38078
Nice, now i remember having read this thread too..but i think the command group solution he proposes in the thread would require a too big rewriting of the code for a simple patch.
Hi All,
There is one thing which I cannot understand. When one plays TOAW WWII western front scenarios, one usually finds US armored divisions neatly divided into Combat Commands, while German panzer divisions have two PzG regiments and a panzer regiment (over 100 tanks in one unit without any real infantry support).
As it is, the German player has to divide their precious armored regiments, thus losing 10% of the profficiency of the unit.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that it were the Germans who invented the concept of Kampfgruppe - to mix armor, mot infantry and artillery. Therefore the German armored divisions should be divided into Kampfgruppen from the very beginning of the game.
Comments welcome :-D
I read over whole discussion and I see main problem - you have to big unit to scale.
Toaw correctly giving you signal that your unit is too big - it is effect of knowledge of creator the engine.
Without base tactical knowledge you will never create good scenario (most of all created scenarios in toaw is crap).
You should know that 2,5 km/hex is battalion level - I think the worst of levels to game in TOAW - try to hold position when you have one battalion of infantry in defense, and another one is attacking you with support of regiment 36 pieces of 105 mm howitzers - not possible in any terrain.
Best in my oppinion is regimental level and map in net 5km/hex
Advices of Mr. Bond-Wiseman Ben, are useful but probably not for you ...
:)
p.s: for 2,5 hex you should give for attack, not more than 50 tanks
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.