Professional Documents
Culture Documents
To the readers;
The intention of these documents is to provide potential Steel Panthers scenario designers an
understanding and ability to create historical and realistic scenarios. Additionally, E-Mail games can now
be “based” real force distributions instead of spur of the moment and ad hov creations. There are three
take aways:
Most nationalities utilized triangular formations. The different forms were dependent upon units available,
strength of units and operational goals. Almost all armies used battalion sized unit formations as their
minimum size. Steel Panthers limits this important characteristic with formation sized parameters.
I am not recommending playing regimental sized battles, but true battalion sized battles are currently
impossible with the limits on unit numbers. An example of an realistic operational unit would be an
American Regimental Combat Team.
Normally the RCT would have two advancing formations with a third in reserve. Each advancing
formation would be a battalion of infantry and 1 or 2 companies of engineers. The artillery battalion and
battery would be with the reserve formation. The armored company would be split between the
advancing formations. This basic formation (one of the advancing columns) requires: 1 or 2 platoons of
tanks, 2 or 3 sections of off board artillery (maybe on board), 1 or 2 platoons of engineers with trucks,
roughly 28 infantry squads with supporting heavy weapons. The divisional motor pool would provide
transportation for the infantry - some on the tanks and the rest in trucks. This may seem like a lot of units
but it is only roughly 400 points!! (120 for the tanks, 40 for the artillery, 32 for the engineers, 16 for their
trucks, 84 for the infantry, 36 for their trucks, and 70 for misc. (like a company from the Recon battalion -
ACs)). This would be a standard formation used in SP. Yet, this type of formation is impossible to
achieve with the unit number limitation.
1
NEW TACTICAL OPPORTUNITIES
If players could create this type of formation, tactics would be dramatically different. Effective flanking
maneuvers, thrusts ,etc. could be staged. You could afford to be aggressive because you could have
some on board reserve to accomplish the mission if you make a mistake or miscalculation. Now, if a
tactical mistake is made, you are essentially up a creek.
My goal was not to compliant, but provide an easy reference source to truly challenge other players in
games. With unit formation charts, players can simulate an armored attack against an infantry unit and
know what possible units would be available. Again it changes tactics. If you know the enemy will not
have tanks, your selection of forces is going to be different. You might choose slow moving SP artillery
units to “blast” at bunkers, etc. versus fast moving mobile tanks because you do not have to worry about
an armored counter attack.
Thus, challenges would be what type of engagement, the year and month, the nationalities, and the unit
type (Armor division versus an infantry or Armored infantry). This will create “unbalances” in player
formations strengths. Armored units will have force advantages over infantry. This is what real military
commanders hoped to achieve when attacking.
So how to make the game “fair”? Simple, negotiate point reallocations before the game; such as the
infantry division defender has a 25% point bonus or the armor attacker has 25% penalty. Again these
point reallocations change your tactics. It is not enough to capture two of the three objective areas, but
as the armored commander you must assault all three to win.
My goal is to provide the resources to create circumstances like these, allowing different tactical plays.
Unit structures and organizations create limits for force selections. In turn these limits provide different
opportunities for tactics based on unit types. Indeed you’ll be faced with the same chooses actual
commanders had or the lack of chooses dependent on you perspective.
Furthermore, anyone using Spedit can now create additional units based on realistic structures. For
example, I have integrated (with the editor) the 4th platoon of the standard German infantry company into
the other three platoons. This is realistic, the heavy weapons rarely operated alone, and it allows a large
group (pool) of men to transport (carry) the heavy weapons. So their movement rates are not
dramatically different than infantry (now they are so slow without motorized transport).
2
NATIONALITIES COMPLETED
1. German
2. American
3. British (still being cleaned up)
4. Russian (still being cleaned up)
These documents are not commercial in nature and the information found in them is freely
available in public libraries, etc. I highly recommend reading the reference sources listed. Most of the
stories and accounts are dramatic and compelling. Any copyright infringement is unintentional and this
documents distribution is free. My sole request is: if you create scenarios with these charts, I’d love to
play them.
Please include this preface and the reference sources with any distribution.
CONCLUSION
I do not plan to update or revise the documents - the compilation took too much time. I would appreciate
receiving corrections or adjustments. Again these charts and tables are from multiple sources, which
sometimes had slightly different organizations and unit strengths. Additionally, I have rough draft forms
of the British and Russian forces. Once I clean them up, I post ‘em.
S. Sheckells
SSHECKE277@AOL.com
3
REFERENCE SOURCES
The Ardennes: The Battle of the Bulge. US Army in World War II.
Hugh Cole, Department of the Army, 1965
The Last Offensive: European Theatre of Operations. US Army in World War II.
Charles McDonald, Department of the Army, 1965.
Hitler’s Last Gamble: The Battle of the Bulge, December 1944-January 1945.
Trevor N. Dupuy, Harper Perennial, 1994.
The Russian version of above - sorry I do not write nor speak Russian. I had the help of several Russian
friends with some translations.
Hitler’s Greatest Defeat: The Collapse of Army Group Centre, June 1944.
Paul Adair, Arms and Armour, 1994.
Leonard Rapport and Arthur Northwood, Jr., 101st Airborne Division Press, 1948.
4
American Units
2. The formations specified have optimums unit numbers. Most units functioned at 80% to 90% of
their optimum. Even the American units were understrength. However, unlike the Germans, they did
not have to consolidate units and re-form unit structures. There formations stayed the same but with
less “working” or operating personnel.
3. Organizational is what was supposed to be on paper. How an army thought it would operate.
Additionally the organizational set up defines how an army replenishes itself. Thus most units are
assigned to a division. Normally new units (replacements or replenishment of people and material)
are sent to a division to be assigned to the formation needing the resources. Note: new “units” ,like
new divisions, are formed at higher levels (like the US “creating” new divisions for WW II) or are
“created through re-organization” from the remnants of other units (like the German as the war
continued).
4. Americans operated in triangular formations. There would be two operational formations with a
reserve force. The operational groups (Regimental Combat Teams, Combat Commands, etc.) also
operated in triangular positions. The groups tended to be combined arms formations with a armored
element, infantry, and artillery element. The armored element did not necessarily mean tanks. It
could be TDs, ACs, etc.
5. The Americans, unlike the Germans, used TDs in a defensive role rather than in an offensive
role. Consequently, most of the advancing formation’s armored elements were tanks (light, medium,
heavy), ACs, or even SP artillery. The TD formations and units were for screening and counter-attack
prevention.
6. Usually tanks were not “mixed”. However, the Americans were converting Shermans into Jumbos.
Thus in tank battalions, you would find Jumbo platoons operating with normal Shermans. Note both
units have similar speeds. That is the real issue. Units with differing speeds did not operate together.
It is bad news on a battlefield to have one tank doing 17 and another doing 13. They will be unable
to support each other - hence the enemy can divide and conquer.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
AMERICAN
1. Infantry
2. Infantry Divisions
Infantry Division
Airborne Division
3. Infantry Regiments
Infantry Regiment 1943 - 1945
Parachute Infantry Regiment 1943 - 1945
Glider Infantry Regiment 1943 - 1944
Glider Infantry Regiment 1944 - 1945
Armored Infantry Regiment 1943 - 1944
4. Regimental Combat Teams
5. Infantry Battalions
Infantry Battalion
Parachute or Glider Battalion
Armored Infantry Battalion
Ranger Battalion
6. Armored Division
Armored Division 1943 - 1944 (Heavy)
Armored Division 1944 - 1945 (Light)
7. Armored Battalions
Light Tank Battalion 1943 - 1944
Medium Tank Battalion 1943 - 1944
Armored battalion 1944 - 1945
8. Armored Combat Commands
9. Cavalry Groups (Recon)
Armored Cavalry Squadrons
Mechanized Cavalry Squadrons
Cavalry Squadrons
6
10. Engineering Combat Battalions
Armored Engineering Battalions
Mechanized Engineering Battalions
Motorized Engineering Battalions
Parachute Engineering Battalions
7
American Infantry 1944 and 1945
The former two had divisional structure, while the third was a component of an Armored Division, and the
fourth a specialized unit.
8
Infantry Divisions
Infantry Division:
Airborne Division:
9
American Infantry Regiments 1943 - 1945
10
Regimental Companies:
11
Regiment Combat Team
• The Armored companies could be a SP TD (Self Propelled Tank Destroyer) Company, a Light Tank
Company (Recon), or even a Medium Tank Company on loan from an Armored Division. Typically
they were SP TD companies or Light Tank companies.
Anti Tank units are Towed or SP (Self Propelled). I will use TD (Tank Destroyer) to indicate SP
units and AT (Anti Tank) to indicate towed guns.
• Since all Regimental formations had 3 battalions the companies had sequential
alphanumeric designations.
• The heavy weapons companies were integrated with the other three companies or served
with the HQ unit. Rarely do you see them listed or accounted for separately. Additionally the
heavy weapons platoon operated with the other platoons. It was rarely encountered alone.
12
American Infantry Battalions 1943 - 1945
Infantry Battalion:
13
American Infantry Battalions 1943 - 1945
Unit Inf. MMG HMG 60mm 81mm Baz AT 57mm HTs Trcks
Sctns Mtr Mtr Tms Guns
Platoon 3 1 3 3
Company 9 6 1 9 11
Battalion 31 3 21 3 3 6 9 37 18
14
American Infantry Battalions 1943 - 1945
Ranger Battalion:
• These units were assault troops. They were not intended for prolonged mobile attacks, but quick
static assaults. Their truck companies were used for transportation not mobile attacks! They were
“hard core” foot soldiers. Essentially, they served the function of British commandos.
• They would equipped with flame-throwers, satchel charges, etc.. Their equipment was like an
engineer, but significantly more varied.
• Note: I could not find specific Ranger Battalion organization. However the above is “constructed”
from various descriptions.
15
Armored Divisions 1943 - 1945
16
Armored Battalions 1943 - 1944
17
Armored Battalions 1944 - 1945
18
Armored Combat Commands
19
Cavalry Groups
• Mechanized cavalry or Cavalry units were Reconnaissance units. They employed light armor with
mobile infantry.
• The units were attached to other commands and served as ancillary or auxiliary forces i.e. they were
not the core of a unit such as armor or infantry. Consequently a Cavalry Group (regiment would be
attached to a corp. or army sized unit. A Cavalry Squadron (Battalion) would be attached to a
divisional or greater sized unit. The Squadrons were dispersed to augment other forces. In other
words, a Cavalry Troop (company) could be assigned to a Combat Command or a Regimental
Combat Team.
• The majority of the duties were not Recon but mobile reserves and or screening forces.
• The units were supposed to mostly armored cars, but gun equipped half tracks can be frequently
found in the units.
• The units were not well service designed (as far as I know). However, if a cavalry unit was part an
armored division it was typically a Armored Cavalry Squadron or predominately armored cars (the
armor divisions needed fast Recon units not more light tanks). A Mechanized Cavalry Squadron was
typically assigned to infantry divisions or groups. It had additional Light Tank components to “beef
up” the infantry.
Designation:
Cavalry Groups
20
Armored Cavalry Squadron
21
Mechanized Cavalry Squadron
22
“Motorized” Cavalry Squadron
Cavalry Squadron
23
Engineering Combat Battalions
• All engineering units were motorized the difference is in what they utilized. Engineering units not
“titled” (armored, parachute, etc.) can be assumed to be motorized. Actually, you probably will never
see a Motorized Engineering Battalion designation. The engineering units were that by default.
However, to designate half-tracked equipped units attached to infantry units (which were typically
truck transported) an engineering unit would be labeled mechanized. In summary:
• Engineering units considered themselves unique because of their extensive training, mobility, heavy
equipment and weapons, and the ability to “do it all”. When things got tough they called in the
engineers. Consequently the engineering units were often used as assault troops spearheading the
advances (albeit in small numbers).
• Engineering Combat Groups were assigned to large parent units and consisted of 2-3 engineering
battalions, bridging (heavy, light, medium, etc.) companies, and support units. Essentially they could
be considered Engineering brigades or regiments, but they never operated alone or as whole units.
Their forces were piece-mealed to those sectors, units etc. that needed support. As a result,
engineering units, unlike infantry and armor, were found in company sized units augmenting “local”
forces.
24
Engineering Combat Battalions
25
Engineering Combat Battalions
26
Anti Tank Battalions
Originally (1943) the American AT units towed. They were copying the German and British organizational
styles. Additionally, the few AT guns that were SP were not as effective as the towed guns.
Consequently, most AT units were towed. The SP AT units were separate battalions operating from a
Corp. or Army parent structure.
However North African experiences (space, lots of space) proved SP AT units were needed and critical.
Towed AT units were not effective in forward operations (attacking, assaulting, etc.). Thus the American
command began to upgrade AT units to SP AT units. From my understanding AT (towed) or even TD
(Tank Destroyer - SP AT) units were generally defensive weapons. They functioned as screen forces,
stopping forces, delaying forces, counter attack (retake not advance) forces, etc.. This was counter to the
German use of TD units (offensive and defensive weapons). Granted the Germans were increasingly
utilizing TDs because of their lack of tanks, but their TD (not open topped) also functioned as assault
guns.
The Americans seemed to use SP Artillery in assault gun roles, I believe, because their operations were
offensive in nature. Advancing on semi-fixed positions with large tank reserves suits SP artillery. The
Germans had to use vehicles that could fulfill multiple roles (TD, Assault Gun, etc.). The Germans did not
have the luxury of “specialized” role vehicles (they were developed but production was very limited).
In either case, the American AT units were AT (Towed Anti Tank with infantry) or TD (Tank Destroyers -
Self Propelled Anti Tank with armored or mechanized (armored infantry) forces).
27
Anti Tank Battalions
28
Artillery Battalions
29
Artillery Battalions
30
Artillery Battalions
31
Anti Aircraft Battalions
Light AA Battalion
>Towed Infantry or Airborne Light Anti Aircraft Battalion
32
Anti Aircraft Battalions
Heavy AA Battalion
>Towed Heavy Anti Aircraft Battalion
33