OGRE Force Names

[Centerfire]

In a past life my Combine force was the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment.

I have to come up with something else, now.

[Macunaima]

Here's some info for Order of Battle builders.

More and more in the modern military, OoBs are dual natured. On the one hand, you have the administrative OoB and on the other, the unit as it actually fights.

The first sort of OoB is generally set up to meet off-battlefield concerns such as deployment, maintenance and administration. To put it briefly, the best thing to do is concentrate like with like, as much as possible, as this GREATLY simplifies supply and bureaucratic problems.

On the battlefield, however, units fight better as combined arms forces and, since the Seocnd World War, the level at which units have been combined has been greatly reduced. This means that any given combat force on the battlefield is liable to be a mix-'n-match unit made up of several administrative level OoBs.

In the Ogre world, both of these tendencies seem to be continuing apace. A battalion, it will be remembered, generally attacks on a 30 KM front, which means that a division could be expected to hold up to 400 KM of front. The average size of the typical administrative unit has thus probably continued to drop. In fact, I'd say that what we probably have in the Ogre world are administrative battalions, combined building-block fashion in tailored combat brigades. The Battalion is probably the "flag carrying unit" for the most part, as it's probably the lowest level any sort of meaningful administrative support structure can be tailored to. There are also probably some Regiments, but I'd bet those units rarely see combat all on the same battlefield (with the possible exception of infantry regiments). Regiments probably only exist as higher-level recruiting and training echelons, spitting out successively numbered battalions for battlefield duty across the face of the planet.

On the battlefield level, however, companies and even platoons are probably swapped back and forth to build battlegroups which are balanced for each specific situation.

In the American army, a battalion-level temporary bettlegroup is properly called a "Task Force" and is generally named for its commander (i.e. "Task Force Desobry") though sometimes these days they'll also get unit-specific names ("Task Force Pegasus", say, for an air-cav unit) or foolish-macho moto names like "Task Force Enduring Erection" (or whatever).

Yanks call company-level battlegroups "Teams" and these are usually named in alphanumeric order (i.e. "Team Yankee").

Germans call their battlegroups "Kampfgruppes" and, AFAIK, are even more mix-n-match than the Yanks, eschewing even simple size signifiers like teams and task forces. The Germans, of course, are the inventors and past masters of the battlegroup concept and don't like to be bound by any artificial limits which might get in the way of a commander's assigning the proper force to the job done.

The Brits tend to follow American terminology, AFAIK, and I have no idea what the Russians and French do.

What does this mean for you Ogre OoB constructors?

Well, first of all, no matter what selection of minis you have, you can justify their presence on the battlefield simply by calling your force a battlegroup. If the force has multiple paint schemes and what not, so much the better.

I, personally, see the average Ogre OoB in this fashion...

The base unit is the battalion (i.e. about 30-60 equal or similar vehicles). This is the administrative "at peace" unit and for bureacratic, training and replacement purposes, battalions are linked up in notional regiments back home.

So, let's say we have a Combine GEV battalion. It has 4 companies, each of 14 GEVs and 8 LGEVs, plus a HQ and support company (2 GEVs, 4 LGEVS, 16 Hovertrucks, 1 GEV-PC and a platoon of engineers). The battalion's "home regiment" is named after some morale-inspiring historical North American unit and it should be recognized here that armys are masters at creating "instant moto" bull-**** traditions. You can thus feel free to draw the unit from ANY part of North American history. So let's call our regiment the Coraceros Cavalry Regiment. It's headquarters is in Vera Cruz, where it maintains its training establishiment. Currently, the Coraceros have 3 battalions out and about in the world, each organized like the one above, plus a depot battalion in charge of training back at home. Ideally, 2 battalions will be on the line and a third will be back in Mexico, working up, absorbing replacements and getting ready for deployment. In times of very intense warfare, however, all three battalions might be in the field and replacements are catch as catch can.

Our battalion is thus the 3rd Coraceros. Following Combine doctrine and because the unit is cavalry, each company called a "troop" (the battalion is in fact called a Squadron) and is labeled alphabetically by battalion as A, B, C, D and Headquarters Troops.

The battalion/squadron is thus the logical unit for the Ogre minis completist to buy - I know I usually do. However, those of you with smaller, more varied collections need not worry, because the 3rd Coraceros rarely takes to the field in one massed group.

3rd Coraceros is now assigned to the 4th Light Brigade in North Africa. 4th Light is a "building block" unit consisting of a set core (an artillery battalion of 8 Howitzers, 4 MHTZRs and infantry battalion of 36 INF and 6 MSL and an Engineer company of 12 ENG, 12 GEV-PCs which act as a "base") and a mix of other battalions which swap in and out as need be. The 4th Light is designed to be a semi-independent, rapid deployment force, and on its current deployment, it's set to be a desert-mobile striking brigade. It thus has a GEV-PC mounted Infantry battalion, the 3rd Coraceros and the 4th Monterey Lancers (another GEV cavalry squadron) attached to it.

The 4th Light splits its forces into Task Forces and Teams, as demanded by the situation. For example, the 3rd Coraceros and the 4th Lancers generally peel off one of their troops to the infantry and artillery battalions to hold the Brigade's main line of resistance. The HQ companies of the INF and ART battalions become Task Force HQs with a mix of artillery, INF, and GEVs under their command. The GEV-PC Battalion gives up a company to each of the GEV Battalions. It takes the Brigade's Engineer component under its wing and serves as the 4th Light's general reserve.

Meanwhile, the 3rd Coraceros is now Task Force Bendejo, with 32 GEVs, 20 LGEVs, 5 GEV-PCs, 12 INF and 3 ENG under its direct command. These are grouped into Headquarters Troop (2 GEV, 4 LGEV, 1 GEV-PC and 3 ENG), A Troop (14 GEVs, 8 LGEVs), Team Bravo (10 GEVs, 6 LGEVs, 1 GEV-PC and 3 INF) and Team Gama (5 GEVs, 2 LGEVs, 3 GEV-PCs and 9 INF).

On the attack, any one of those troops or teams - or any combination - may be used. On defence, they'll obviously be interfacing with other units - either from 4th Light Brigade or other Combine Brigades in North Africa.

By creatively using the Task Force/Team combat structure overlaid upon the Battalion/Squadron administrative structure, one can pretty much build and justify any force one likes for the Ogre/GEV battlefield.

[Marcus Heinous]

Originally Posted by Centerfire

In a past life my Combine force was the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment.

I have to come up with something else, now.

Well, you were kind enough to share the TO&E for that wonderful unit with me. I used it as a guideline for the TO&E for my fictional 42nd ACR.
So what happened the the 11th? They get hit with a sneak attack while at undergoing a depot refit?

[DSumner]

Originally Posted by Macunaima

Here's some info for Order of Battle builders.

More and more in the modern military, OoBs are dual natured. On the one hand, you have the administrative OoB and on the other, the unit as it actually fights.

The first sort of OoB is generally set up to meet off-battlefield concerns such as deployment, maintenance and administration. To put it briefly, the best thing to do is concentrate like with like, as much as possible, as this GREATLY simplifies supply and bureaucratic problems.

On the battlefield, however, units fight better as combined arms forces and, since the Seocnd World War, the level at which units have been combined has been greatly reduced. This means that any given combat force on the battlefield is liable to be a mix-'n-match unit made up of several administrative level OoBs.

Actually the US Army uses what's known as a Table of Organization and Equipment (TO&E). Many units operate under modified versions of this (an MTOE).

When units deploy they "Plus up" (adding additional personnel and equipment to perform their specific war time missions) and operate under DTOE (Deployed Table of Organization and Equipment). Under the DTOE, you might have additional maintenance, communications, and medical personnel attached to make the unit more self sufficient. Or additional combat troops, but it will vary depending on the unit's specific mission and the area it's operating in.

Originally Posted by Macunaima

In the American army, a battalion-level temporary bettlegroup is properly called a "Task Force" and is generally named for its commander (i.e. "Task Force Desobry") though sometimes these days they'll also get unit-specific names ("Task Force Pegasus", say, for an air-cav unit) or foolish-macho moto names like "Task Force Enduring Erection" (or whatever).

Yanks call company-level battlegroups "Teams" and these are usually named in alphanumeric order (i.e. "Team Yankee").

The smallest level you'll see a TF in the US Military is at the battalion level, but it's used up to Brigade sized forces, or when joint units are deployed (Say US Navy, Army, and Marine unit operating together).

As far as names go, they vary. They tend to be either based off the type of unit (Cav units being called Task Force Saber, armored units being called Task Force Armor, etc.), the unit's assigned task (a unit assigned to security duties being called Task Force Guardian, Sentry, etc.), the unit's "nick name" (Task Force Gunslinger - my current real life unit, Task Force Rakkasan, etc.), or their commander just wanting a cool sounding name (Task Force Reaper).

At the company level and below we usually operate in either platoons, sections (two or more squads, but less than the full platoon), or squads. The platoons are just called either 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. platoon. The same with sections and squads. Sections and Squads are divided into teams, which are designated Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta, etc. Depending on the mission, you might have a anything form a single team, up to a whole platoon or company, "chopped" and attached to another unit for a mission. It just varies (hell I've been loaned out to the Air Force on several occasions - we helped them pull perimeter security around airfields, and trained them up on a couple of weapons systems).

As far as the NAC OOB in Ogreverse goes, they give a decent overview of how units are organized at the back of 1st edition Ogre Minis (and no second edition hasn't been released yet, so don't go looking for it).

[Macunaima]

Thanks, DS. My post was regarding modern militaries in general, rather than the U.S. in particular.

The main point is that you tend to have a "peacetime" or "rear" administrative unit, a field operational unit and basic field tactical units (currently the battalion in most Western armies).

Then you have the unit which actually fights, which is generally a battlegroup: a mish-mash of one or more "basic" units, with cross-attachments and subunits peeled off or added on.

I'm not that happy with the Ogre Minis OoB section. It's not wrong, per se, but it seems to postulate a trend back to larger units being the "basic" field tactical unit. I think this is unlikely and also not really convenient for the Ogre Minis player who's unlikely to want to build a regiment or brigade unless he can make a combined arms force. And, for the reasons I describe above, combined arms regiments and brigades are unlikely to be the basic field tactical units in the future. They will most likely be temporary, mission-tailored units or core units with battalions mix 'n matched in.

So a good Ogre OoB, for me, has a unit's "parent" flag-carrying unit, which probably has some colorful instant-moto tradition glommed from history. This unit administers (supplies, replaces, etc.) a series of field tactical units, usually battalions or squadrons, perhaps ocasionally regiments. The tactical units are assigned to field operational units at the brigade level, which normally keep the same tac units per deployment, but get them swapped in and out according to operational designs between deployments (or occasionally on deployments).

Finally, at the combat mission level, task forces and teams are formed on an as-needed basis, tailored to the situation at hand and made up from the various sub-units of a given brigade's assigned tactical units. The tactical units' HQs provide field headquarters and their supply and maintainenance echelons support their sub-units in the field.

I'm bringing this up to show folks how flexible they can be in building their forces. If you've got a lot of minis, the best thing to do is to build several field tactical units (i.e. battalions) with their own paint schemes and traditions. If you've got few minis, model a taskforce or even a team, which can actually have several different paint schemes in it, because it's presumed to be drawn off of the several tactical field units in its brigade.

With regards to regiments as field tactical units in the Ogreverse, I think you'll see them in two areas...

1) With the Combine, if they exist they're likely to be Armored Cavalry Regiments, which are currently the only field regiments still operated by the U.S. Army. On a more linear, conventional battlefield such as that postulated by Ogre (as opposed to the non-linear, assymetrical warfare battlefield currently faced by the U.S. in Iraq), there's some justification to keeping a cav regiment together as these are supposed to be relatively elite (or at least well-trained) units which have specific roles: screening the front of friendly forces or in-depth armed recon. The U.S. has traditionally used its cavalry regiments following the lessons learned in the Civil War: i.e. as fast-moving, semi-independent raiding, breakthrough and screening regiments. This tradition is liable to continue in any war situation where the U.S. faces a similarly-armed foe.

2) With the Paneuropeans, they are probably Russian regiments, as the Russians have a LONG tradition of using that unit as their basic field unit, due to a penchant for centralization and a reliance on junior officers rather than long-term NCOs.

In both cases, however, I'd see the regiments as most likely being binary (i.e. two battalions/squardons) with company-level supporting units.

[OgreMarkXXX]

51 Armored Division, The Iron Tigers, NAC
Sadly my only painted minis right now.

[Centerfire]

Originally Posted by Marcus Heinous

Well, you were kind enough to share the TO&E for that wonderful unit with me. I used it as a guideline for the TO&E for my fictional 42nd ACR.
So what happened the the 11th? They get hit with a sneak attack while at undergoing a depot refit?

They took a wrong turn at Albequerque and fell into an enormous puddle of Simple Green.

[Centerfire]

I'd like to associate myself with a lot of what Mac has said -- as I was researching orders of battle and whatnot, I became increasingly dissatisfied with the two pages in the back of Ogre Miniatures, because it assumed a trend away from the modern practice of assembling combined-arms forces out of battalion- or even company-sized units drawn from larger parent units. I thought that the technology and future-history of the Ogreverse would accelerate adoption of the modern practice, not reverse it -- and I just don't see militaries being willing to either field unitary regiments, or to slap together diverse battalions and call them a regiment.

Nor, really, do I think it probable that the combined-arms doctrine is going to be driven down below the company level unless the company is, itself, a detached force. A battlefield commander pulling together a cavalry troop, an armor platoon, and a couple of infantry platoons for a particular operation? That I buy. But I don't buy that kind of frankenunit existing on a permanent basis within a battalion.

The other thing that Mac said, that I think deserves special emphasis, is that most players want to build combined-arms forces, and I think the OM orbat descriptions ought to harmonze with that desire to the extent practicable.

[OgreMarkXXX]

I guess I should revise my units name considering what has been posted. I hadn't thought that battle units would have to be so big. I was going to divide my armies into groups of 6 Hvies, 6 GEVs, 6 Msls, 6 Lts, 6 LGEVs, 2 MHWZs, 2 SHvies, and some infantry. I'll have to seriously reconsider the composition of my armies.

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by OgreMarkXXX

I guess I should revise my units name considering what has been posted. I hadn't thought that battle units would have to be so big. I was going to divide my armies into groups of 6 Hvies, 6 GEVs, 6 Msls, 6 Lts, 6 LGEVs, 2 MHWZs, 2 SHvies, and some infantry. I'll have to seriously reconsider the composition of my armies.

"Battle units" can be any size -- I have a scenario which involves a whopping
2 AU and 10 INF on one side, and 20 MIL on the other. (It's a "maquisard"
scenario, to give you an idea.)

What you have there would be the "official organization" -- that is, "Heavy
Tank Company", "GEV Company", etc.; in practice, however, forces would be
closer to the German "kampfgruppe" -- in essence, only as many units as
would be needed to accomplish the task at hand.