East Africa 1930: An ORBAT Quest

[Dessard]

Since troops in training count towards the target, my objection to Making Boolit is withdrawn, we'll just have to keep it in mind when we're structuring the expanded army.

I think we should be more specific with how we want to organize our new army, especially with regards to mobilization, so here I have two writeups styled after what @C_Z wrote, one where we have the high readiness vs low readiness split at the brigade level, and one where it is at the regimental level.

High/low brigades
--[] The enlarged force is structured into brigades of three regiments (one active service, the other two reservists). Each regiment is structued after the current organization of the 2nd 'Kismayo' Regiment, except the AT/AA battery is moved to the battalion level (as in the 1st 'Reewiin Guards' Regiment) and a headquarters unit is provided to each battalion once sufficient officers are available. The aim is to have one (1) high readiness brigade containing the infantry battalions that have gone through the full 1 year training regime of the infantry school, as well as three (3) low readiness 'mobilisation' brigade that are a mix of an officer and NCO cadre as well as the infantry battalions with troops still going through the second half of training, ready to be filled up with reservists or even troops still going through basics in an emergency.

High/low regiments
--[] The enlarged force is structured into brigades of three regiments (one active service, the other two reservists). Each regiment is structued after the current organization of the 2nd 'Kismayo' Regiment, except the AT/AA battery is moved to the battalion level (as in the 1st 'Reewiin Guards' Regiment) and a headquarters unit is provided to each battalion once sufficient officers are available. The aim is to have four (4) brigades, each with one (1) high readiness regiment containing the infantry battalions that have gone through the full 1 year training regime of the infantry school, as well as two (2) low readiness 'mobilisation' regiments that are a mix of an officer and NCO cadre as well as the infantry battalions with troops still going through the second half of training, ready to be filled up with reservists or even troops still going through basics in an emergency.

Click to shrink...

I figure we still have time to hammer out the specifics of the structure when we do our Expansion action (unless the conscription action covers it). That said, I would rather split reserve formations off from the training pipeline entirely. That way reserve formations can be raised with cohorts of personnel who mostly all worked with each other during their active service, and no ambiguity on who needs to where when we press the button.

Instead, maybe we could say that one of each active regiment's infantry battalions will be back at Buur Gaabo in later-stage training during peacetime. That fits the overall numbers, with twice as many troops fully trained as are in later-stage training at any given time. It also means that battalions will age out and go into the reserve as more or less intact units.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Uhhhh lemme get back to you

Click to shrink...

Another question - if we take an Implement Conscription action, it's just preparing the troop pipeline, and we will still need to take another action to actually organize the army expansion, right?

 

[FrangibleCover]

Another question - if we take an Implement Conscription action, it's just preparing the troop pipeline, and we will still need to take another action to actually organize the army expansion, right?

Click to shrink...

Nope, this is the whole enchilada. You're setting up the recruitment pipeline and forming the units that the recruits are going to fill. I'm strongly considering an interstitial vote where we hammer out what you guys want to do with the conscripts just because it's a big and confusing topic, but this is the time step in which you decide to really start changing the ORBAT around.

 

[C_Z]

Okay, so let's talk formations in advance of an interstitial vote.

To start with, because it's (relatively) easy, the infantry rifle company. If we copy Japanese practice, then the company headquarters has the commanding officer, two officers in charge of personnel, two NCOs, ten runners and orderlies, and four medical orderlies. I see no reason to change this.

In addition, each company has three rifle platoons. A platoon has the commanding officer, the liaison NCO, and then the sections - 4 in the Japanese case, but I think we should go with three rifle-LMG sections for now at 1 NCO and 17 enlisted each, and then later on we can shave some dudes from each section to form a fourth grenade discharger section in each platoon.

Japanese companies then get more varied, with A Type rifle companies either having or not having an attached heavy weapons platoon of 2 MMG sections and 2 ATR sections. At present, we just have a single MMG section, which I think is fine.

We also have the combat sustainment support field unit, so sure, what the hell, let's keep it around.

 

[Dessard]

Okay, so let's talk formations in advance of an interstitial vote.

To start with, because it's (relatively) easy, the infantry rifle company. If we copy Japanese practice, then the company headquarters has the commanding officer, two officers in charge of personnel, two NCOs, ten runners and orderlies, and four medical orderlies. I see no reason to change this.

In addition, each company has three rifle platoons. A platoon has the commanding officer, the liaison NCO, and then the sections - 4 in the Japanese case, but I think we should go with three rifle-LMG sections for now at 1 NCO and 17 enlisted each, and then later on we can shave some dudes from each section to form a fourth grenade discharger section in each platoon.

Japanese companies then get more varied, with A Type rifle companies either having or not having an attached heavy weapons platoon of 2 MMG sections and 2 ATR sections. At present, we just have a single MMG section, which I think is fine.

We also have the combat sustainment support field unit, so sure, what the hell, let's keep it around.

Click to shrink...

This seems like a good approach for building up the OOB. At the Company level, what if we ditch the MMG section (which won't have any Type 3 MMGs for years, we may as well stick the handful of MMGs we do have in a battalion level MG group with the 13.2s where they can get moved around as needed) and instead have 4 slightly smaller rifle platoons? That will move us towards less cumbersome sections sooner while still building in the manpower in a more useful way than waiting for MMGs.

Also, where's the company supply unit mentioned?

 

[C_Z]

This seems like a good approach for building up the OOB. At the Company level, what if we ditch the MMG section (which won't have any Type 3 MMGs for years, we may as well stick the handful of MMGs we do have in a battalion level MG group with the 13.2s where they can get moved around as needed) and instead have 4 slightly smaller rifle platoons? That will move us towards less cumbersome sections sooner while still building in the manpower in a more useful way than waiting for MMGs.

Also, where's the company supply unit mentioned?

Click to shrink...

It's in the most recent OOB. I'm not sure if it's really worth it, tbh.

 

[Helher]

[X] Plan: Making Boolit

 

[KlavoHunter]

which won't have any Type 3 MMGs for years

Click to shrink...

Damn, you think we're that bad off? I personally am hoping to hear of our local production bearing fruit soon, after all the bumps the programme has had already... which will be another expenditure of 6.5mm ammo!

 

[Bruhmoment]

[X] Plan: Making Boolit

 

[C_Z]

Damn, you think we're that bad off? I personally am hoping to hear of our local production bearing fruit soon, after all the bumps the programme has had already... which will be another expenditure of 6.5mm ammo!

Click to shrink...

If not, we can just purchase them from Japan, it'd only be around 325 guns.

I'm thinking we probably will never get Type 3 production running, but it's been a good learning experience regardless. We've got some people who've been doing an extended homework problem of "design a gun for production", that'll be helpful when we want to simplify the Type 39 and if we want to do something like designing a submachine gun or domestically producing grenades.

 

[Dessard]

• Infantry Company: 18 officers, 205 enlisted, 12 LMGs, probably a few animals
  • Company HQ: (2 officer, 12 misc. NCOs, runners and medics)
  • 4x Rifle & LMG Platoon: (4 officers, 45 enlisted, 3 LMGs)
    • Platoon HQ (1 officer, 1 enlisted)
    • 3x Rifle & LMG section (15 enlisted, 1 officer *once we take Expand the Officer Corps*)
  • Field support section (1 officer, 13 enlisted, probably a few draft animals)

For the sake of having alternatives, here's my company level proposal - it pulls in a fourth, smaller infantry platoon for now rather than a vestigal weapons platoon, since we still need to acquire all the weapons systems such a platoon would use and none are super high on the list. It keeps the company level supply unit because A. less changes will be easier, and B. we may be operating at lower concentrations of force than most other countries expected to in many places. We can reduce the battalion level supply numbers to compensate. The HQ numbers are based on a somewhat later Japanese company minus most of the 'medical orderlies' which we probably don't have enough of for the company level (we should probably do something about that sometime).

If there are any comments/unofficial votes between these, soon we should be able to move onto the battalion.

 

[Traveller76]

[X] Plan: Making Boolit

 

[C_Z]

• Infantry Company: 18 officers, 205 enlisted, 12 LMGs, probably a few animals
  • Company HQ: (2 officer, 12 misc. NCOs, runners and medics)
  • 4x Rifle & LMG Platoon: (4 officers, 45 enlisted, 3 LMGs)
    • Platoon HQ (1 officer, 1 enlisted)
    • 3x Rifle & LMG section (15 enlisted, 1 officer *once we take Expand the Officer Corps*)
  • Field support section (1 officer, 13 enlisted, probably a few draft animals)

For the sake of having alternatives, here's my company level proposal - it pulls in a fourth, smaller infantry platoon for now rather than a vestigal weapons platoon, since we still need to acquire all the weapons systems such a platoon would use and none are super high on the list. It keeps the company level supply unit because A. less changes will be easier, and B. we may be operating at lower concentrations of force than most other countries expected to in many places. We can reduce the battalion level supply numbers to compensate. The HQ numbers are based on a somewhat later Japanese company minus most of the 'medical orderlies' which we probably don't have enough of for the company level (we should probably do something about that sometime).

If there are any comments/unofficial votes between these, soon we should be able to move onto the battalion.

Click to shrink...

I'm fine with keeping the company level supply if we think our captains are up to it. I'd fold it in as part of a headquarters platoon, then, and the MMG section can be lumped into it. I'd like to keep the medical orderlies; it's four dudes acting as stretcher bearers and being the point-of-contact for people in the company who need to find the first-aid kit. They're not exactly crack medical specialists.

If we do put everything together into a headquarters unit, then adding a MMG section should be reasonable. It's 16 more men, bringing the headquarters platoon up to a decent size. We don't need to expand it into a full weapons platoon.

I'd rather not have four infantry platoons, it has knock-on effects for unit size down the line if we don't switch the sections, and if we do, that's more officers we need right away. It's a complication for little benefit at this point, I think, and a fairly easy thing to switch up later (probably alongside the introduction of the grenade section).

Here's a TO&E and org chart for what I'm thinking of, based in part on the Japanese and German formations in advance of WWII and British formations during WWI:

	Off.s	NCOs	Enl.	Rifles	Pistols	LMGs	MMGs	Mules	Carts
Co HQ Plat	3	8	44	48	7		2	17	14
1st R Plat	1	4	51	53		3
2nd R Plat	1	4	51	53		3
3rd R Plat	1	4	51	53		3
Total	6	20	197	207	7	9	2	17	14

Company HQ Platoon

	Off.s	NCOs	Enl.	Rifles	Pistols	LMGs	MMGs	Mules	Carts
HQ Section	3	2	10	10	5			1	1
MG Section		2	14	14	2		2
Supply		4	16	20				16	13
Medical			4	4
Total	3	8	44	48	7		2	17	14

Rifle Platoon:

	Off.s	NCOs	Enl.	Rifles	Pistols	LMGs	MMGs	Mules	Carts
Platoon HQ	1	1		2
1st Sec		1	17	17		1
2nd Sec		1	17	17		1
3rd Sec		1	17	17		1
Total	1	4	51	53		3

Scaled to 27 companies per division, we'd be looking at a total of 162 officers, 740 NCOs, 5319 enlisted, 5589 rifles, 189 pistols, 243 LMGs, 54 MMGs, 459 donkeys, mules, or horses, and 378 carts, ignoring all the stuff introduced at higher levels.

Edit: For comparison, here's yours:

 

[Josiah]

Company HQ Platoon

Click to shrink...

I believe you've miscalculated the number of NCOs here? You have 2 in HQ section, 2 in MG section, 4 in supply, butt add it up to 2 total? Shouldn't it be 8? And then the NCO total in company should be 20 instead of 14.

 

[DegenWeeb]

@C_Z I have but one suggestion, I believe that adding a mobile infantry division/section for reconnaissance would be a good idea. We've already spent a fuck load of time and money on getting horses so we may as well use em for something other than supply.

 

[C_Z]

I believe you've miscalculated the number of NCOs here? You have 2 in HQ section, 2 in MG section, 4 in supply, butt add it up to 2 total? Shouldn't it be 8? And then the NCO total in company should be 20 instead of 14.

Click to shrink...

Perils of doing mental math at 1 am, you make typos.

@C_Z I have but one suggestion, I believe that adding a mobile infantry division/section for reconnaissance would be a good idea. We've already spent a fuck load of time and money on getting horses so we may as well use em for something other than supply.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, that'll probably happen at a higher level though.

Belated edit, because I don't wanna make a new post:

A possible thing we could (out of quest) reference for our structure on is the Finnish Sissi-battalion, which was intended to operate independently in areas difficult to supply traditional units in. It had an enlaregd HQ, similar to that intended for a normal regiment (with reinforcements to the command and logistics parts), and the rifle companies had 3 rifle platoons, a light machine gun platoon, a signals platoon, and a logistics platoon. This seems like a more extreme version of the inclusion of runners and a logistics section in the command platoon, suggesting that it's more reasonable than I initilaly thought to have company-level supply assets.

 

[Dessard]

I'm fine with keeping the company level supply if we think our captains are up to it. I'd fold it in as part of a headquarters platoon, then, and the MMG section can be lumped into it. I'd like to keep the medical orderlies; it's four dudes acting as stretcher bearers and being the point-of-contact for people in the company who need to find the first-aid kit. They're not exactly crack medical specialists.

If we do put everything together into a headquarters unit, then adding a MMG section should be reasonable. It's 16 more men, bringing the headquarters platoon up to a decent size. We don't need to expand it into a full weapons platoon.

I'd rather not have four infantry platoons, it has knock-on effects for unit size down the line if we don't switch the sections, and if we do, that's more officers we need right away. It's a complication for little benefit at this point, I think, and a fairly easy thing to switch up later (probably alongside the introduction of the grenade section).

Here's a TO&E and org chart for what I'm thinking of, based in part on the Japanese and German formations in advance of WWII and British formations during WWI:

	Off.s	NCOs	Enl.	Rifles	Pistols	LMGs	MMGs	Mules	Carts
Co HQ Plat	3	8	44	48	7		2	17	14
1st R Plat	1	4	51	53		3
2nd R Plat	1	4	51	53		3
3rd R Plat	1	4	51	53		3
Total	6	20	197	207	7	9	2	17	14

Company HQ Platoon

	Off.s	NCOs	Enl.	Rifles	Pistols	LMGs	MMGs	Mules	Carts
HQ Section	3	2	10	10	5			1	1
MG Section		2	14	14	2		2
Supply		4	16	20				16	13
Medical			4	4
Total	3	8	44	48	7		2	17	14

Rifle Platoon:

	Off.s	NCOs	Enl.	Rifles	Pistols	LMGs	MMGs	Mules	Carts
Platoon HQ	1	1		2
1st Sec		1	17	17		1
2nd Sec		1	17	17		1
3rd Sec		1	17	17		1
Total	1	4	51	53		3

Scaled to 27 companies per division, we'd be looking at a total of 162 officers, 740 NCOs, 5319 enlisted, 5589 rifles, 189 pistols, 243 LMGs, 54 MMGs, 459 donkeys, mules, or horses, and 378 carts, ignoring all the stuff introduced at higher levels.

Click to shrink...

That makes sense. With it totaled that way though, comparing the animal numbers to the 1932 report, that may be a disproportionate amount of them at the company level. So maybe we should skip or reduce the service section after all, because keeping more at higher levels might make it easier to coordinate limited transport capacity.

 

[C_Z]

That makes sense. With it totaled that way though, comparing the animal numbers to the 1932 report, that may be a disproportionate amount of them at the company level. So maybe we should skip or reduce the service section after all, because keeping more at higher levels might make it easier to coordinate limited transport capacity.

Click to shrink...

We could tweak it a bit. I was basing things off of the German Type 1944 division's structure, and my transport unit was sized by taking their company-level unit, as well as all the platoon-level units, and lumping them together. I'm not sure if we have the same transport needs, but I also have no idea how to assess that; how much cargo actually needs to be carried?

We also don't need to use just horses for this. These units will move as fast as a person can march, and that means that things like oxcarts are an option. Human porters are also a rather inefficient option.

 

[Dessard]

We could tweak it a bit. I was basing things off of the German Type 1944 division's structure, and my transport unit was sized by taking their company-level unit, as well as all the platoon-level units, and lumping them together. I'm not sure if we have the same transport needs, but I also have no idea how to assess that; how much cargo actually needs to be carried?

We also don't need to use just horses for this. These units will move as fast as a person can march, and that means that things like oxcarts are an option. Human porters are also a rather inefficient option.

Click to shrink...

OK, it looks like back in 1932 the estimate on a peacetime animal force drawn from the general population was about 2,000. It also estimated that the farms we ended up building would be breeding 650 horses per year, and that we would see 10% annual attrition in peacetime. If we assume that horses start working at 4 and don't work more than 15 years, that's maybe 3,500 or more horses from our current breeding program, based on some big assumptions.

So if we call it 5,500 animals without much strain for the overall peacetime military, and that we want to give maybe 1,000 to the Carabineri sometime; then we are left with about 1 animal per 4 men, which is still less than the 1932 report's estimate of 1 draft animal per 1.5-2 men in European/Japanese militaries. That's also ignoring any mounted troops, who must need more than 1 on average. So unless we plan to expand the breeding programs further soon, we still can't afford European/Japan levels of animal use without mobilization (even if we also have less heavy weapons and ammunition currently).

Looking at the Japanese infantry battalions, they seemed to have about half their horses the MG and artillery units, at 4 horses per weapon; and ~100 horses for ~750 men in the general battalion train. If we were to cut the overall numbers and call it 3 per notional MG, plus 1/6 of that general supply number being distributed to the companies, it'd be about 12 per company, if that seems reasonable?

 

[C_Z]

OK, it looks like back in 1932 the estimate on a peacetime animal force drawn from the general population was about 2,000. It also estimated that the farms we ended up building would be breeding 650 horses per year, and that we would see 10% annual attrition in peacetime. If we assume that horses start working at 4 and don't work more than 15 years, that's maybe 3,500 or more horses from our current breeding program, based on some big assumptions.

So if we call it 5,500 animals without much strain for the overall peacetime military, and that we want to give maybe 1,000 to the Carabineri sometime; then we are left with about 1 animal per 4 men, which is still less than the 1932 report's estimate of 1 draft animal per 1.5-2 men in European/Japanese militaries. That's also ignoring any mounted troops, who must need more than 1 on average. So unless we plan to expand the breeding programs further soon, we still can't afford European/Japan levels of animal use without mobilization (even if we also have less heavy weapons and ammunition currently).

Looking at the Japanese infantry battalions, they seemed to have about half their horses the MG and artillery units, at 4 horses per weapon; and ~100 horses for ~750 men in the general battalion train. If we were to cut the overall numbers and call it 3 per notional MG, plus 1/6 of that general supply number being distributed to the companies, it'd be about 12 per company, if that seems reasonable?

Click to shrink...

If we use oxen, how much larger does that number of available animals get? An ox can pull about twice as much as a horse, from what I can see online and are less susceptible to various diseases in addition to freeing up the horses for cases where their mobility would be useful.

I'd cut it down to a single horse (or, preferably, donkey) per MMG - that's what the British Americans used in WWI, and it should be fine for us here, especially since we're using air-cooled machine guns and aren't going to be engaging in WWI-levels of ammunition consumption. Not sure how that affects horses per infantry, though.

Edit: As an aside, I wonder if we could/should make tachankas for our cavalry?

 

[DegenWeeb]

As an aside, I wonder if we could/should make tachankas for our cavalry?

Click to shrink...

At that point we might as well make or buy armoured cars imo, tachankas are a bootleg technical that is far too exposed for my liking.

 

[Dessard]

If we use oxen, how much larger does that number of available animals get? An ox can pull about twice as much as a horse, from what I can see online and are less susceptible to various diseases in addition to freeing up the horses for cases where their mobility would be useful.

I'd cut it down to a single horse (or, preferably, donkey) per MMG - that's what the British Americans used in WWI, and it should be fine for us here, especially since we're using air-cooled machine guns and aren't going to be engaging in WWI-levels of ammunition consumption. Not sure how that affects horses per infantry, though.

Edit: As an aside, I wonder if we could/should make tachankas for our cavalry?

Click to shrink...

The 2000 already included non-horses, though the estimate was we could pull 10 times that for a short campaign.

 

[TheBlueBananaPig]

My major question about what happened to the roads and trains already got asked, but my strategy gamer brain thinks in economics first to build the army after. So, it's been bothering me to ask. In building rail and road into all the empty/ lightly settled interior, is there a chance to find undiscovered/ unexploited resources?

 

[Acc. No. 1409]

Probably, but that is ultimately based upon if the people running the quest would allow that.

 

[Manowl]

My major question about what happened to the roads and trains already got asked, but my strategy gamer brain thinks in economics first to build the army after. So, it's been bothering me to ask. In building rail and road into all the empty/ lightly settled interior, is there a chance to find undiscovered/ unexploited resources?

Click to shrink...

The civilian government will expect us to care about the safety of the nation first not getting more money even if it's for getting more guns.

 

[FrangibleCover]

My major question about what happened to the roads and trains already got asked, but my strategy gamer brain thinks in economics first to build the army after. So, it's been bothering me to ask. In building rail and road into all the empty/ lightly settled interior, is there a chance to find undiscovered/ unexploited resources?

Click to shrink...

I mean, I guess? You're not fully exploiting the iron, zinc and rare earths you have though, Reewiin doesn't have the tech or the population to do it yet.

The thing is, this isn't your problem. You're the Defence Council, the Economics Council is two doors down. The purpose of the Defence Council in building the railway isn't economic (although I admit you did get an investment point out of it, that was more about a rising tide lifting all boats), it's military. You can now deploy a battalion of guys from one end of the country to the other in two or three days instead of having to force march them up there over the course of weeks, then supply them by rail instead of by ox.