ATGM availability
 

Hi want to pick brains of people who have served or done some research as having trouble finding details.

Want a rough rule of thumb for ATGM availability, generalising here as obviously varies due to formations not sticking to on paper layout but I am thinking West has a higher ratio than the likes of China Eastern Block

1) West roughly 1 per Platoon & handled fine by game as in Company formations.

2)Eastern Block tends to be in Support Company (Heavy Weapons whatever) so if present assume normal use 1 Support Comp to 3 Inf Comp
So 1 ATGM per Inf Comp or am I being thick?

3) We are talking alloted usage here fully realise if think a tank threat likely in area one would hope they assign more there by stripping other units.
To that end is there a HQ formation that can be assigned for such a purpose.

4) Also do infantry & armour formations have same allotment of or does one recieve more. Realise they can switch companies to form combat groups not talking about that.

5) Also vehicular ATGMs again can find very little info how are they alloted
From what can tell without going into specifics for certain dates.
Eastern Block assigns to Inf formations at 1 Comp per Regiment plus has a few dedicated tank killer regiments composed purely of. Does not give to tank Regiments though obviosly whole or part of tank killer could be assigned to

6) USMC Tend to have more TOW HMMWV than tanks 3:2 ratio?
7) What about the rest & Eastern theatre, likes of dessert storm did ATGM vehicles work with tanks or seperatly.

Hope this makes some sort of sense & don't take what I have said as correct, tis why this is out there to get a feel for the presence of ATGMs as had a big effect on the battlefield.
Any handy links welcome
thanks John

Re: ATGM availability
 

1) and 2) depends largely on which class of ATGM you are dealing with: short-range (Dragon, Eryx, AT-7), medium-range (Milan, AT-4) or long-range (TOW, AT-5). US gets 1-3 short-range ATGM per platoon starting in the 70s (Dragon), but no one wuld get TOWs at this level.
Regarding light-vehicle ones, they are generally foot ATGMS mounted in the field.
More on this later or if someone else kicks in.

Re: ATGM availability
 

In more detail:

1) & 2) are really country-dependent. As said above, it depends on the class of ATGM you are talking about, US being the exception with overwhelming quantities of short-range weapons. As far as I have seen in the different countries I have researched, medium-range ATGMs are generally battalion-level assets, even though the actual units are often cross-attached to lower levels (say one 6-ATGM platoon at btn level give one 2-ATGM section to each of its 3 infantry cos).
That's what you describe as your Eastern model, but it should work for most European countries and those working on the same model. Let's say:
-1 to 3 medium-range ATGMs per infantry company. When not available (e.g. US pre-Javelin), substitute with long-range ATGM.
-1 to 3 short-range ATGMs per infantry platoon when available. In most cases these will replace unguided AT rocket launchers (RPG-7, Carl-Gustav, Panzerfaust). Depending on the country, these heavy AT weapons were assigned one per platoon or one per section.

3)As you said, most Western TOEs had huge battalion-level anti-armor allotments (at least until the 90s). In many cases, these would not necessarily be manned to full strength, so I'd suggest that it would be more about AT assets being stripped of or converted against low-armor enemies. Typically, a US airborne battalion would have about 12 TOW-armed Hummers in its tables, but the TOW launchers could be replaced by heavy MGs or AGLs if not needed, so you would convert from a mobile ATGM-jeep squadron to a mobile infantry support/recon force.
In Eastern countries, you may have more AT reinforcement, as the basic TOE included less low-level ATGMs, but the standard Soviet division had an integral anti-tank regiment (MTLBs with AT-6 SP). Also bear in mind that most Eastern countries have gone on using non-ATGM anti tank weapons (AT guns, recoilless rifles) much longer, so this may shift the balance and suggest there were unduly low level of AT weapons if you count only ATGMs. For instance, the standard AT-3 platoon had 3 launchers, supported by 2 SPG-9 RCLs and 3 RPGs for short ranges.

4)Basically, tank units don't get many ATGMs since they are their own tank killers. That's particularly true about modern MBTs, which are much more antitank-oriented than previous models, and much more accurate. Playing 60s-70s forces, you can add one SPATGM platoon per tank battalion if you have high-end forces.
Also mechanized infantry gets less organic ATGMs. Particularly Soviet-style BMP units get zero infantry ATGMs while BTR infantry gets one short-range platoon per company (when available) and at least one medium-long-range platoon per battalion. The basis being that the BMPs carried their own AT weapons (see mixed AT platoon above).
Of course, mechanized or armored infantry has more chances of getting SP ATGMs.

5)In most cases, vehicular were used to replace foot ATGM one on one in mechanized units. SPATGMs are generally higher-level assets when medium-range foot ATGMs are available, because most armored ATGM carriers use long-range missiles. Jeep-mounted ATGMs are either substitute for armored carriers in light units or field mounts of foot-borne weapons, as said before.

6)No idea about the actual mix, but keep in mind that the USMC is not exactly an armor-heavy force. I guess this is reflect in the game picklists, so if you run a battle with a large IA-purchased USMC force, chances are that the computer will purchase not a lot of tanks and a fixed amount of ATGMs based on the force size. If you want to have a less balanced, more armored force, better pick the units yourself.

7)See above, most Middle East countries have a mix of British and Soviet structures. Without much actual info, I repeat the baseline that ATGMs are more about supporting infantry than supporting tanks. After all, tanks once used to be more about supporting infantry. :D

Some actual orbat links:
orbat.com public library
Some wargame-based TOEs
and some more
and then some

Also make sure to check out the US battalion TOEs and the Field Manuals posted not long ago here.

Hope this helps.

Re: ATGM availability
 

Cheers Plasma Crab that pretty much got it & your answers were nice & concise so easy to pick the bones out of.
I prefer to at least field a possible force rather than cherry picking to win hence the question. They can deal with most threats anyway & regard more as a sim than a game.

Re: ATGM availability
 

I can give a little help with #6, been working (when I have time/energy) on the USMC OOB for a "while" now.

In 1972 the USMC adopted the TOW missile.
At the time these were jeep mounted and placed in an anti-tank company (48 launchers) that was part of the division tank battalion. This unit was intended to be split for operational attachment to the infantry units.
In apx. 1985 each infantry regiment got a TOW platoon added to it as well (12 launchers).
In 1993 the regimental TOW platoon was reduced to 8 launchers in a TOW section.
In apx. 2004 the TOW company in the tank battalion was deactivated (except one platoon with the Anti-tank and Scout Platoon), as was the regimental TOW platoon. In it's place each infantry battalion was given a TOW platoon (12 launchers).

In 1975 the USMC adopted the Dragon missile.
These were first allocated to an anti-tank platoon in each infantry battalion (12 launchers). This was operationally split so each infantry company had 2-4 launchers.
In 1999 the 12 Dragons were replaced by 8 Javelin's (each company normally gets 2).

Yes, the USMC uses a LOT more ATGM's then tanks.

In addition the USMC relies heavily on helo mounted TOW and Hellfire missiles and the Maverick (usually on the AV-8 Harrier jump jet) for it's anti-tank capability.

Hope this helps.

Re: ATGM availability
 

12 launchers in a platoon? That sounds pretty high. Are you sure you didn't mean to say company? I mean, I can understand the need to be ATGM heavy if you are low on tanks, but wouldn't 12 launchers in a platoon form at least some leadership problems?

Re: ATGM availability
 

It would be similar to most common practice. The platoon breaks down to sections, every section several launchers (same for MANPADs or machineguns - USSR MANPADS platoon cxonsisted of 3 MANPADS sections, 3 MANPADS teams each).

Re: ATGM availability
 

One of the main things I've been doing with my USMC OOB revision is attaching such things as ATGM's, MANPADS, etc. to the infantry companies and platoons.
The current OOB does a great job with the administrative organization of the USMC. But unlike many military forces their combat organization is very dependent on attachments from higher headquarters.
Problem is, the current OOB really only allows you to buy these attachments in platoon size units, makes it very difficult to create anything less then a battalion size infantry component for battles.

Re: ATGM availability
 

Cheers Suhiir again nice & clear. I agree with your later comments that in a lot of cases to reasonably represent a force you often have to go big. I presume what you are saying is you are making date specific pre tailored combat formations if so great looking forward to.
If possible the odd note on expected use or a doc outlining would also be great if have the time.

Re: ATGM availability
 

the number of ATGMs in formations seems ok for me, yes, the eastern nations have less ATGMs, but as the name says: Anti-TANK Guided Missle, it means that it's developed for fighting tanks, and in places like china, tanks aren't the best units, so you'll see less specialized Anti-Tank weapons, and you'll see a lot more of LAAWs (Light ANTI-ARMOR Weapon) like RPGs, LAWs, and other stuff like this

Re: ATGM availability
 

Yes, the OOB revision is date specific pre tailored combat formations (platoon and company level).
Due to the numerous reogs and changes in equipment between 1946 and 2020 it's been a "lot" of fun. And I fully understand why the official design staff wouldn't touch a project like this with a 10 foot pole :)
Due to this I also have to revise the AI picklists (of course) and that's a major pain in the tush.
As to documentation...
I have a dozen books, five zillion web sites, discussions on blogs, a couple letters, and a few dozen scraps of paper with notes scribbled on them. So I'm afriad providing any worthwhile documentation would be more work then the OOB reorg has been.
Sorry.
I've been working (on and off) for over a year now so I wouldn't suggest holding your breath for it.
If you have specific questions however I'll try to answer them.

Re: ATGM availability
 

For cold war years don't forget that the armies weren't general all-purpose but often tailored to a specific task. Take the dutch for example; they'd be defending the area south of Hamburg against an expected onslaught of WP armor. The make up of dutch formations was heavily geared towards defensive operations against large numbers of AFV's. In the 80's a typical dutch mech infantry battallion had a huge amount of AT capacity: usually 2 dragon ATGM's per platoon or 18 per battallion and from 12 to 16 TOW-SPATGM's per battallion. Add to that law's and carl-gustav's on squad level and IFV's with chainguns to take on light armor and you have a very big AT capacity for just 3 mech companies.
But as they were the main defenders of one of the primairy WP attack routes they were organised for just that purpose.

Btw, the dutch TOW-SPATGM is one of my favorite units; not in the game unfortunately as it's special ability is hard to translate into the game. It's launch installation could be elevated into the air up to such a height it could fire over walls, trees, buildings and other obstacles. That way it could fire without exposing the vehicle itself but due to the height it would fire from still have a great field of view and make optimal use of the high range of the TOW.

Re: ATGM availability
 

Yes, this launcher (often referred to as the "Hammerhead" and I'm sure I have a designation lying around somewhere) was used on the US M901 first I believe. It was also used on the Marine's LAV-ATs, and a variant without the missile hardware was used for the same reasons, but in a purely observational role on the M981 FIST-V. It got passed along to the Dutch YPR-series and I believe others as well. The unit on the Stryker AT vehicle I believe is closer to the unit used on the Norweigan NM142, which does not have the variable height function of the unit in question. I believe it was produced by Emerson Electric, but I could be completely wrong about that. It really is too bad there's no way to represent this functionality in game.

Re: ATGM availability
 

Okay I am getting some nice trafic now, Cheers all

Re: ATGM availability
 

As said previously, you simply structure them into suitably sized sub-units (say, section/squad of three launchers). Then assign a capable NCO to lead every such sub-unit, and detach the sub-units to support other formations like individual infantry companies.

If a USMC sergeant can direct a squad consisting of three fireteams of four men each, then directing a missile section of three missile teams should not be too much harder.

And for those interested in seeing how much stuff you can bang into a platoon, I would recommend checking out the TOEs for such things as USMC infantry company weapons platoon in the 60's, or US army cavalry units from WWII or Vietnam.

Griefbringer

Re: ATGM availability
 

According to GlobalSecurity, the ATGM turret on the Stryker is made by GDLS. The one on the NM-142 (named ALT) is from Kvaerner Eureka (Norway) and is also used on the Canadian LAV-III TUA (hence the confusion?). Canada also uses this turret on an M-113/MTVL hull, not sure if this is still in service or was replaced by the LAV version. For information, the Stryker ATGM turret is entirely remote-controlled (hence the thin base) while the NM-142 turret is manned.
Apparently the Emerson TUA is the "Hammerhead" actually mounted on the M-901.

Not that it adds anything to the debate :D

Re: ATGM availability
 

Yeah, I completely blew it on the Stryker turret. I didn't remember that it had both tubes on one side. Totally different setup. I did remember the Emerson bit hehe, so I'm not totally off on my trivial military knowledge.