General Discussion thread.

[James1978]

Do the FRG 500 - 600 Series Jäger Battalions still have the over-size tank platoon of seven tanks?
If yes, I'm assuming Leopard 1A5?

If the Marder 2/35 is armed with EUROSPIKE, why was the Marder 2/50 not built with EUROSPIKE?
Also, I'm not sure their were enough Jaguar 2s to do the TOW thing. There were only ever 162 Jaguar 2 and it looks like there are at least 312 Marder 2/50.

[Eaglenine2]

I think so does Heimatschutz Regiments also have a AT platoon of 7 tanks in the staff company.

[Jotun]

Do the FRG 500 - 600 Series Jäger Battalions still have the over-size tank platoon of seven tanks?
If yes, I'm assuming Leopard 1A5?

If the Marder 2/35 is armed with EUROSPIKE, why was the Marder 2/50 not built with EUROSPIKE?
Also, I'm not sure their were enough Jaguar 2s to do the TOW thing. There were only ever 162 Jaguar 2 and it looks like there are at least 312 Marder 2/50.

I just took a look at my Territorialheer orbat, and from the looks of it, Jan and I agreed to give every battalion a fifth company with - depending on the location - Either Leopard 1A5/A6 or the Leopard 2A5.
Places like LANDJUT and Bavaria with their strategic importance would get the Leo 2, all other places with more of a backstop (other countries) would get the Leo 1.

[Eaglenine2]

500 - 600 Series Jäger Battalions has their AT platoon in Heavy Company?

[Bernard Woolley]

Hi, thought I’d set up a general discussion thread. Gives us somewhere to talk about a variety of stuff.

[Matt Wiser]

Good idea.

Big question: who are the major neutrals left out of those who were so inclined prewar? China, India, Pakistan (riots and civil unrest notwithstanding), Switzerland seem to be the big ones.

[Bernard Woolley]

Just a random thought, but there is an argument that with modern tanks like the Leo2 being far more effective than their predecessors, and the Marder 2 having fire and forget ATGW, there is an argument for disbanding the AT Companies in Panzer and Panzergrendadier divisions. Rather than, as I have done at the moment, given them new equipment. Manpower could be redistributed and the surviving Jaguar 1A3 and 2 passed on to the Territorial Army.

I’d say that there is also a good argument for replacing tanks in Heer recce battalions with the Marder 2/50.

[Johnnie Lyle]

Just a random thought, but there is an argument that with modern tanks like the Leo2 being far more effective than their predecessors, and the Marder 2 having fire and forget ATGW, there is an argument for disbanding the AT Companies in Panzer and Panzergrendadier divisions. Rather than, as I have done at the moment, given them new equipment. Manpower could be redistributed and the surviving Jaguar 1A3 and 2 passed on to the Territorial Army.

I’d say that there is also a good argument for replacing tanks in Heer recce battalions with the Marder 2/50.

I’d be really leery were I in one of those battalions and told I was exchanging my big, very well protected tank for something a lot lighter and more likely to die if hit. Even if the tank itself is knocked out, the armor and survival features make it a lot more likely I’d come back in one piece with everything working as it should.

[James1978]

Depend on your reconnaissance philosophy.
The Cold War US Army and FRG Heer divisional reconnaissance units were heavy enough to fight for information. On the other hand, the British Army used smaller, lightly armed and armored vehicles and thought recon by stealth with a small footprint was the way to go.

A TLWverse 2005 US Heavy Division Cavalry Squadron looks like this:
Divisional Cavalry Squadron (Heavy Division)
Headquarters and Headquarters Troop: x2 M3, x1 UH
X3 Armored Cavalry Troop with x9 M1, x13 M3 and x3 120mm SPM each
- x2 Tank Platoon w/ x4 M1, x2 Scout Platoon w/ x6 M3, x1 Mortar Section
X2 Air Cavalry Troop with x4 AH and x6 OH/RAH each
X1 Long Range Surveillance Troop with x1 UH

A late Cold War FRG Panzer Reconnaissance Battalion looked like this:
Panzer Reconnaissance Battalion
Staff Company w/ X1 tank, X2 Luchs
X2 Heavy Panzer Reconnaissance Company w/ X13 tanks
Mixed Panzer Reconnaissance Company w/ X8 tanks and X8 Luchs
Panzer Jäger Reconnaissance Company w/ X9 Fuchs w/ recon team
Radar Platoon w/ X9 Fuchs/RASIT

TLWverse 2005 British Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment:
Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment
Regimental HQ & HQ Squadron w/ 8 Sultan, 3 Spartan, 2 Land Rover FFR, 1 Samaritan
LAD REME w/ 1 Sultan, 1 Spartan, 1 Sampson, 1 wheeled recovery vehicle
X4 Recce Squadron
- Squadron HQ w/ 2 Sultan, 1 Spartan, 2 Land Rover FFR, 1 Samaritan
- X3 Recce Troop w/ 4 Scimitar
- GW Troop w/ X4 Striker
- Support Troop w/ X4 Spartan
- REME Troop w/ X1 Sampson, X2 Spartan

[Jotun]

Don‘t forget that the MBTs in a West German armored recon battallion were supposed to do recknnaissance by fire in a single battle group, with the recon part as an afterthought.
At D-Day, they would have been used to blunt armored spearheads by direct action.
The sneaky part was ro be fulfilled by the Fuchs/Luchs/Fennek-mounted recon troops.

There is also the fact that every ATGM is a potential flying tank turret. Spike can be launched from portable launchers and is smaller than TOW, IIRC, so why deprive the Grendiers of their AT punch?

[James1978]

There is also the fact that every ATGM is a potential flying tank turret. Spike can be launched from portable launchers and is smaller than TOW, IIRC, so why deprive the Grendiers of their AT punch?

I think Bernard is talking more about if a dedicated tank destroyer company is needed if all those Marder 2s have vehicle mounted Spike-LR launchers.

In @, US Army M113 equipped mechanized battalions had an fifth company with M901 tank destroyers. They initially stuck around after the M2 replaced the M113, but were phased out as the elevating turrets got harder to maintain. In @, the US Army looked at replacing the M901s in the fifth companies with more M3, but instead just disbanded the fifth companies. The TLWverse US Army kept the fifth company a bit longer, since LOSAT was supposed to replace the M901. When LOSAT was cancelled, the AT companies were disbanded in M2 battalions and the soldiers redistributed around the Army.

Just to clarify, Spike-LR is either vehicle or tripod mounted, correct?
Does the FRG have a direct replacement for Milan, e.g. Spike-MR?

[Johnnie Lyle]

Depend on your reconnaissance philosophy.
The Cold War US Army and FRG Heer divisional reconnaissance units were heavy enough to fight for information. On the other hand, the British Army used smaller, lightly armed and armored vehicles and thought recon by stealth with a small footprint was the way to go.

Being honest, my philosophy is heavily colored by my experience of radio calls of disaster coming in over the radio net, putting my friends in the casualty report, and the heavy responsibility of deciding when my people head into danger.

It was very sobering experience, especially the knowledge that I would cold-bloodedly send my friends into danger if duty required it.

As such, I am very well aware of what it feels like to be a commander. As Jotun pointed out, sometimes there really is no alternative but rolling out, seeing who shoots at you, and hoping you survive. More frequently, I’d say it’s all about luck. Light units require a lot more luck and things going as planned, and all too frequently things go very badly when they’re unlucky, because they’re extremely fragile. That fragility concerns me, and I fully admit I sympathize with the poor bastard who has to write a letter to explain why something was worth sending someone’s son or daughter home in a box.

[Bernard Woolley]

Was more of a thought experiment, than anything else. Just as an aside, Marder 2 would have been a very well protected vehicle. They were in no way fragile.

I think Bernard is talking more about if a dedicated tank destroyer company is needed if all those Marder 2s have vehicle mounted Spike-LR launchers.

That was what I was thinking about. Sure, in an ideal world, there's no such thing as too many anti-tank weapons. However, if every Marder 2 has MELIS/Spike-LR? Just putting that out there.

Does the FRG have a direct replacement for Milan, e.g. Spike-MR?

At the moment we have Spike-LR/MELIS down as the replacement for MILAN 2T.

[Jotun]

What did we put into the NATO ATGM file?
I only remember the somewhat convoluted way we shunted aside PARS-3 LR/TRIGAT.
Spike MR would make sense for the squishies to have, but I suggest that because the Bundeswehr is sitting on so many TOW-2 missiles, the Spikes are planned to be acquired. Starting in 2006. Tough luck, but Wir sind hier nicht bei "Wünsch Dir was"!(1)

Aunt Edith says that in @, Spike-LR is also to be used by dismounted troops. So…what now?


(1) Standard Bundeswehr "shut up" answer to troops whingeing about not having this or wanting that. Roughly translates to "This ain‘t the "Make a Wish"-foundation!"

[Eaglenine2]

Question so in the earlier chapters a British Armored Regiment has a Guided Weapon troop is this a thing or a artifact of the earlier times?

[Jotun]

Jan, I still have the ATGM file on my phone.

MELLS
Formerly known as EUROSPIKE, MELLS is a variant of the Spike-LR. Replaced the MILAN in Heer service. Was mounted on the Marder 2 and some Wiesel, as well as being used on a tripod by infantry.

This should settle it, I guess?

[Bernard Woolley]

Question so in the earlier chapters a British Armored Regiment has a Guided Weapon troop is this a thing or a artifact of the earlier times?

It's an artifact of earlier times - i.e. a mistake.

[James1978]

For what it's worth, I've got nearly every NATO equipment fact file saved except the small arms ones. But most of them are in the midst of not small updates/revisions behind the scenes. And I also have draft Warsaw Pact ones.

I only remember the somewhat convoluted way we shunted aside PARS-3 LR/TRIGAT

1) TRIGAT, or the Third Generation AntiTank missile was planned as a multinational replacement for MILAN, HOT and TOW, as well as possibly Swingfire. The programme was initiated by France, West Germany and the UK (MR only) in 1988. Belgium and the Netherlands were also briefly involved in the project. The missile was planned to have two variants - Medium Range and Long Range. The MR would replace MILAN and HOT, while LR would replace TOW. As with many multinational projects, TRIGAT ran into developmental problems as well as going over budget. TRIGAT MR was also a beam-riding weapon in a world of fire-and-forget ATGW. Although, had it entered service on time it would have been a world beater. Both France and the UK, tired of waiting for a missile that was heading for obsolescence, cancelled their orders for MR in the late 1990s. There was a brief attempt to keep MR going as the Trigan system, which would have married TRIGAT-MR missiles to .MILAN 3 firing posts. But none of the project partners were interested. The larger LR variant used Passive IR sensors in the missile for guidance, making it fire-and-forget, which kept it alive. However, it too suffered from delays, which led to France deciding to also cancel its order for LR missiles. West Germany persisted with development of LR, which became PARS 3LR for largely political reasons. However, West German Defence Minister Peter Struck, known as a pragmatist when it came to many defence issues, directed that production of the missile be ended in 2004. Getting support from Chancellor Gerhard Schröder. By that time West Germany had obtained a licence for Brimstone and Brimstone 2, which, as observed above, would be built by the consortium formed to produce PARS 3 LR. The Heer showed more interest in the Dual Mode Brimstone than the British MoD did and it was possible that version of the missile might enter Heer or Luftwaffe service before being used in its country of origin.

[Eaglenine2]

Question how are unit organized are they similar to their cold war counterparts?

[Johnnie Lyle]

Was more of a thought experiment, than anything else. Just as an aside, Marder 2 would have been a very well protected vehicle. They were in no way fragile.

Very well protected depends upon what we’re comparing it to, though. Is it very well protected compared to an APC, an IFV, a light tank, or a MBT?

From what I found, Marder 2 was protected against 30mm, which makes it much weaker than a Leo II, and so much less likely to shrug off ATGMs, tank cannon fire, and artillery. It would also require a lot of retraining of crews used to maneuvering with Leo II, and factoring in that greater invulnerability. If you have to fight for information, put your butt out there to see what’s happening, or get used for other cavalry purposes, you’re in a worse situation.