What proportion of infantry to armour do you play with?

[runequester]

Just curious.. how much armour do you use to support, say a company of infantry. Or the other way around?

[PatG]

One to three. One infantry coy gets a tank platoon and vice versa with the other support stuff added on top of that.

[Imp]

Originally Posted by PatG

One to three. One infantry coy gets a tank platoon and vice versa with the other support stuff added on top of that.

Good general rule of thumb for mech or armoured brigade certainly for modern era & two to three is possible forces tend to be made up to meet the expected threat. As foot sloggers ATGM vehicles RCL jeeps more the order of the day or WW2 TD though Allies could have a few tanks to as Germans though very rare more like 1-2 Stug per Inf Co. Varies on nation of course playing as Japs Marines or lesser nations WW2 you wont have much armour terrain makes it not that usefull. As a general rule you tend to suffer a lot less if have more infantry than armour in my experience, plus they are cheap.

[PatG]

Originally Posted by Imp

Good general rule of thumb for mech or armoured brigade certainly for modern era & two to three is possible forces tend to be made up to meet the expected threat. As foot sloggers ATGM vehicles RCL jeeps more the order of the day or WW2 TD though Allies could have a few tanks to as Germans though very rare more like 1-2 Stug per Inf Co. Varies on nation of course playing as Japs Marines or lesser nations WW2 you wont have much armour terrain makes it not that usefull. As a general rule you tend to suffer a lot less if have more infantry than armour in my experience, plus they are cheap.

The trick with WWII, esp the "lesser" armour is to remember what it was designed for - to move MG/guns across swept ground and support the infantry by taking out opposing MGs etc. Hang back and throw HE over the heads of your own squaddies. Yes, German, Russian and late US/Allied armour are a different proposition.

As for the Japanese - stay away from any enemy armour greater than or equal to a Stuart....

[Cross]

Originally Posted by runequester

Just curious.. how much armour do you use to support, say a company of infantry. Or the other way around?

I agree with some others on this thread; I typically prefer to use a one to three ratio. One tank company supporting about three infantry companies. Or one tank platoon supporting one infantry company.

One to three is the 'rule of thumb' but this would be adjusted depending on terrain, mission, visibility and other factors.

Typical ajustments may include going up to four infantry companies, supported by one tank company. Or buying a tank company (to support three infantry) but then removing one or two platoons of tanks.

I usually also like to support three infantry companies with a battery (8 tubes) of artillery, not including mortars.



Cross

[nuNce]

I'd like to join the thread, by hijacking it a little bit. Talking about arty, what's the historical proportion? I'm sure I always get too much arty, especially against the japs, but in a real war contest, how much OB and OFB arty would an infantry company get?

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by nuNce

I'd like to join the thread, by hijacking it a little bit. Talking about arty, what's the historical proportion? I'm sure I always get too much arty, especially against the japs, but in a real war contest, how much OB and OFB arty would an infantry company get?

meeting engagements, delays, defence:
1 battery [4 - 6 guns for most, 8 for UK] of artillery per rifle batallion.
1 section of medium mortars per rifle company.
(USA - section of 60mm integral to rifle coy too)

Attacks and assaults:
Arty: As much as was deemed necessary
Mortars : extra 4.2 inch/120mm a available from brigade etc.

Armoured formations had less arty assigned than infantry - tanks were mobile arty support for the riflemen of course.

Germany and Japan had less arty than the Allies - and especially, lower ammo stocks.

Russians had huge amounts of arty in prepared assaults, less indirect arty in mobile warfare due to poor comms. Hence the use of SU-122/152 or field guns firing over open sights etc.

Later war USA and UK could fire all arty in range whenever needed. UK did this routinely - with standardised techniques (Uncle, Victor etc targets), and UK FOOS issued fire orders, not requests as in the USA system.

http://nigelef.tripod.com/maindoc.htm

Andy