Ask An Expert- LAND Forces.

[Albany Rifles]

Mmm. Both Germany and France abandoned this around 1916 because it simply doesn't work once you're stuck in position for the long haul. Cycling divisions back and forth between front line and reverse positions was what was developed then, and what worked quite fine.

I was referring to a Cold War fight in West Germany. The US would have done that if possible. I was speaking in the sure knowledge within our brigade in 1981-1984 that we were having to hold what we had for at least 72 hours regardless of what happened. Not doctrinal or preferred but it was the deal we made with ourselves as payback for the skiing and beer!

[kato]

In the West German Army the running gag was much rather to calculate how long your estimated time left after E-Day was in your position in the troops. 72 hours? Not doable after E-Day, i.e. the begin of nuclear exchange. 72 minutes maybe.

[Albany Rifles]

In the West German Army the running gag was much rather to calculate how long your estimated time left after E-Day was in your position in the troops. 72 hours? Not doable after E-Day, i.e. the begin of nuclear exchange. 72 minutes maybe.

Agreed....if E-Day occurred all bets were off.

We were talking strictly conventional

[zraver]

"...The Soviet tank division had 32 howitzers assigned in support, this is only about half what a US division could call on...."

36 2S3s in two battalions plus a BM-21 rocket battalion. MRDs possessed three battalions of 2S3s plus a rocket battalion. Very comparable. In some instances, those howitzer battalions were boosted to 24 guns. U.S. armored and mechanized infantry divisions didn't see 24 gun D.S. battalions until the Corps 86 structure came down. Heretofore it had been 3 eighteen gun D.S. battalions with a 12 gun 8" battalion in general support. U.S. divisions looked to Corps Arty to augment their fires.

IIRC that is a late cold war augmentation. prior to the mid-late seventies the bulk of the artillery was towed not mechanized.

That being said, 36 tubes vs 66 tubes. The BM-21 gave it a good barrage ability but was not effective as a support weapon.

[1979]

IIRC that is a late cold war augmentation. prior to the mid-late seventies the bulk of the artillery was towed not mechanized.

That being said, 36 tubes vs 66 tubes. The BM-21 gave it a good barrage ability but was not effective as a support weapon.

The tank and bmp regiments had a organic SPA battalion each.
that is another 72 2S1 Gvozdika in adition to divisional arty.

Us Tank brigades had no organic arty battalions
AFAIK.

[Albany Rifles]

The tank and bmp regiments had a organic SPA battalion each.
that is another 72 2S1 Gvozdika in adition to divisional arty.

Us Tank brigades had no organic arty battalionsAFAIK.

US maneuver brigades had no organic FA battalion but always had a FA battalion attached on a habitual basis....i.e., this battalion went with this briagde always, year after year. The support battalion in the brigade even had organic artillery maintenance personnel.

[1979]

I have some quetions if you guys don't mind.

Why were the Soviet rifle divisions in WW2 so small in terms of man power? At 7200 men standard, they were like a brigade of 2 infantry regiments in the western militaries.

I was reading about the battles in China between IJA and Nationalist forces. It appeard that Chinese divisions are about the same size, or even smaller. Often I read about an entire army consisted of only 50,000 men.

How come western armies, especial the US Army, had huge divisions in terms of man power? They often exceed 12,000 men each.

Because in practice one german infantry regiment faced one soviet infantry division by mid 1944.

german regiment 3250 men vs soviet division 6500 men
german howitzers: 8 vs soviet howitzers :44
german mortars : 45 vs soviet mortars: 160
german machine guns: 160 vs soviet machineguns : 605
german AT guns : 12 vs soviet AT guns 48

In 1944, 160 german divisions on the eastern front with 3 regiments each, had 480 regiments facing about 450 soviet divisions.

[1979]

US maneuver brigades had no organic FA battalion but always had a FA battalion attached on a habitual basis....i.e., this battalion went with this briagde always, year after year. The support battalion in the brigade even had organic artillery maintenance personnel.

attached from Divisional arty ? or independent FA battalion ?

[gunnut]

Because in practice one german infantry regiment faced one soviet infantry division by mid 1944.

german regiment 3250 men vs soviet division 6500 men
german howitzers: 8 vs soviet howitzers :44
german mortars : 45 vs soviet mortars: 160
german machine guns: 160 vs soviet machineguns : 605
german AT guns : 12 vs soviet AT guns 48

In 1944, 160 german divisions on the eastern front with 3 regiments each, had 480 regiments facing about 450 soviet divisions.

I understand the numbers. I just want to know why Soviet divisions were so small.

From the various replies here, I gathered that the Soviet divisions were small because of a lack of organic support units, mostly in maintenance and sustainment.

[gunnut]

You have to remember the purpose of the pentomic division battle groups. It was the idea that conventional units could fight on a battlefield with nukes being tossed around.

I don't quite understand this. How would a division with 5 battle groups be better suited in a nuclear environment? And were these battle like the bridgade combat team we have today?

Hell we gave atomic weapons in the hands of battalion commanders!!!! It was an attempt by the Army to stay relevant during the budget battles between USN/USAF in the nuclear build up of the 1950s.

Yeah...but those were small nukes, right?

[zraver]

The tank and bmp regiments had a organic SPA battalion each.
that is another 72 2S1 Gvozdika in adition to divisional arty.

Us Tank brigades had no organic arty battalions
AFAIK.

According to this the total is 36 tubes plus 3 frog launchers, 16 200mm MLRS and 8 240mm MLRS.

http://orbat.com/site/history/volume...te%201960s.pdf

[S2]

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-3.pdf (1991) shows the BMP equipped regiment possessing a 2S1 battalion of 18 tubes. The BTR equipped regiments possessing a battalion of D-30 122mm towed howitzers.

[Albany Rifles]

attached from Divisional arty ? or independent FA battalion ?

DIVARTY. But those relationships existed for years. For all intents and purposes those "attachments" lasted 25 years.

[Albany Rifles]

I don't quite understand this. How would a division with 5 battle groups be better suited in a nuclear environment? And were these battle like the bridgade combat team we have today?

Yeah...but those were small nukes, right?

Pentomic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On a battlefield where nukes are being tossed around, you want your forces more dispersed. So smaller units meant easier to spread out.

And small nukes is kind of like being a little pregnant!

[zraver]

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-3.pdf (1991) shows the BMP equipped regiment possessing a 2S1 battalion of 18 tubes. The BTR equipped regiments possessing a battalion of D-30 122mm towed howitzers.

That is a late cold war re-organization with a shift back towards a conventional fight.