Composition of German Panzer Divisions

[Secadegas]

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]

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

 

[Rhetor]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Veers]

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.

 

[Telumar]

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!

 

[Heinz57]

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]

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.

 

[Telumar]

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]

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.

 

[Heinz57]

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...

 

[Telumar]

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]

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

 

[Telumar]

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.

 

[saper]

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