I still don't know what a heavy tank template is supposed to look like?

[coffeemm8]

And I don't mean a "space marine" template where it's just one heavy TD. I mean an actual heavy tank division with regular heavy tanks.

[DrPlowKing]

There are a few different variations for it. I personally prefer to always have Support Artillery, Logistics, Signals, Motorized Recon and Engineers in all tank templates. As for the tanks themselves, I like to have 15 heavy tanks and 5 motorized (or mechanized if it's late game) if I am using Mobile Warfare doctrine. For other doctrines, I prefer to have 13 tanks and 7 mot/mech to have enough organization.

You can vary it up a bit depending on the situation however. If enemy has much air, it's very worthwhile to add some SPAA in the template. You can also add some SPART if you're feel like experimenting, they are very powerful as well, trading some breakthrough and little armor for more soft attack.

[mk11]

Why add support artillery to a heavy tank division? It is a trivial extra amount of soft attack at a cost in organisation. I would rather add rocket artillery, maintenance, field hospital or even leave it empty.

[DrPlowKing]

Originally posted by mk11:

Why add support artillery to a heavy tank division? It is a trivial extra amount of soft attack at a cost in organisation. I would rather add rocket artillery, maintenance, field hospital or even leave it empty.

I disagree. While maintenance can be good (I usually just pump up my reliability so I won't need it), org is usually rather high when using Mobile Warfare doctrine, and Support Artillery adds quite a nice amount of Soft Attack when using Superior Firepower thanks to the +50% damage bonus. And the lack of organization can be easily mended just by switching more tanks to mot/mech. As for rocket artillery, it only starts to overtake conventional artillery in terms of damage very late game, and has the same organization impact. At that point, the game is usually more or less over.

[mk11]

Rocket artillery gives bonus breakthrough.

If you switch a tank to a motorised then you are losing more soft attack than you gain from that support company.

Maintenance is good for reduced attrition on the trucks/half-tracks. However, it isn't much use in the 1936 version. The opener gives no indication of time or nation so doctrine research and models are all unclear. Templates for divisions should change over the course of the game.

[Imhotep]

If you want the real-life answer, heavy tank divisions don't exist.

Heavy units, in I think all WWII nations' armies, operated outside the divisional structure as independent battalions or regiments that could be attached to Corps or Armies as needed. German Tiger tanks, for example, operated in independent heavy tank battalions[en.wikipedia.org].

It was not just heavy tanks that existed outside the divisional structure. For the German army[tmg110.tripod.com]:

Roughly 10% of the German Army’s combat power was embodied in the Heerestruppen or General Headquarters Troops. These were non-divisional units controlled by higher headquarters for allocation to field armies, corps and divisions as required. Most were battalions and almost all were motorized or mechanized. About half of the HT units consisted of artillery battalions; the rest were assault gun battalions, machine gun battalions, engineer battalions, antitank and antiaircraft battalions, panzer (armored) and infantry formations, and various specialized units.

This would include heavy artillery, like the 21 cm Mörser 18[en.wikipedia.org] and Nebelwerfer[en.wikipedia.org] rocket launchers.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I ignore the 40-combat width mechanic when designing divisions as it's "gamey" - the AI doesn't build divisions according to combat width. Instead, I try and design them to be historically accurate/realistic.

I haven't played a major power in the game yet that builds heavy units, but I've been thinking about how I would simulate these independent Army Troops.

My current thinking is that I will create smaller-sized heavy divisions and attach them to Armies as support. The template I'm thinking of is a division containing a regiment of two heavy tanks and one heavy tank destroyer, and a second regiment of two heavy self-propelled artillery and one heavy self-propelled anti-air. Support companies would be recon (light tank), engineers, signal, maintenance.

[mk11]

In 1941, USSR tank corps nominally consisted of one brigade of heavy tanks and 2 of medium and light tanks. Also I think the late war USSR mechanized corps had a regiment of heavy tanks or SPG. (Note that a USSR tank or mech corps is a division in HOI terms and a USSR tank regiment is a battalion again in HOI terms.)

Apart from that I think you are correct that they were mostly in independent battalion level forces (or a few cases where one company in a division was replaced by heavies).

Heavy SPG and TD I think were integral to some divisions.

[Imhotep]

Originally posted by mk11:

In 1941, USSR tank corps nominally consisted of one brigade of heavy tanks and 2 of medium and light tanks. Also I think the late war USSR mechanized corps had a regiment of heavy tanks or SPG. (Note that a USSR tank or mech corps is a division in HOI terms and a USSR tank regiment is a battalion again in HOI terms.)

Apart from that I think you are correct that they were mostly in independent battalion level forces (or a few cases where one company in a division was replaced by heavies).

Soviet organisation was different to pretty much everyone else, with, as you say, corps being more like the divisions of other countries.

Originally posted by mk11:

Heavy SPG and TD I think were integral to some divisions.

I don't know about the Soviets, but I don't think Heavy SPG or Heavy Tank Destroyers were part of the divisional structure for Germany or the Allies. Self-propelled guns like the Wespe and Hummel were used in Panzer divisions. These are basically the infantry division artillery guns mounted on a tank-style chassis/casemate, and would be represented by medium SPG in the game. German Heavy SPGs would be heavy assault guns like the Sturmtiger, which weren't divisional.

[mk11]

I was specifically thinking of the USSR and particularly the Mech Corps but also some of the Guards infantry divisions.

The Germans and Allies produced few heavy SPG or TD.

[Imhotep]

Originally posted by mk11:

I was specifically thinking of the USSR and particularly the Mech Corps but also some of the Guards infantry divisions.

The Germans and Allies produced few heavy SPG or TD.

I think one could argue that only the Germans and Soviets went down the game's heavy tank line in the tech tree. American doctrine was very mobile medium tank-oriented and the closest the British had to a heavy tank in operational use was the Churchill infantry tank. The German "medium" Panther tank actually weighed more than the American M26 Pershing "heavy" tank, that saw some service later in the war, and the British Churchill tank.

[Big [REDACTED] Marty]

Originally posted by Imhotep:

Originally posted by mk11:

I was specifically thinking of the USSR and particularly the Mech Corps but also some of the Guards infantry divisions.

The Germans and Allies produced few heavy SPG or TD.

I think one could argue that only the Germans and Soviets went down the game's heavy tank line in the tech tree. American doctrine was very mobile medium tank-oriented and the closest the British had to a heavy tank in operational use was the Churchill infantry tank. The German "medium" Panther tank actually weighed more than the American M26 Pershing "heavy" tank, that saw some service later in the war, and the British Churchill tank.

yeah, but the germans also made a "heavy tank" that weighs more than modern MTBs, so who's to tell?

[Imhotep]

Originally posted by Big Dicc Marty:

yeah, but the germans also made a "heavy tank" that weighs more than modern MTBs, so who's to tell?

The Germans were also making a super-heavy tank, the Maus[en.wikipedia.org]. (Please, no-one bring up the Ratte).

Comparison video you've probably already seen of German WWII vehicle sizes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eub93nHvn8Q&ab_channel=AmazingViz

[mk11]

You could argue that the USA researched super-heavy tanks with the T28/T29/T30 but never put them into production.

[Imhotep]

Originally posted by mk11:

You could argue that the USA researched super-heavy tanks with the T28/T29/T30 but never put them into production.

The British also had the Tortoise[en.wikipedia.org] and other experimental heavy tank projects such as the T14 (with the US) and the Excelsior. They didn't see action in the war, though.

So, in game terms, I guess you could say that the British and Americans did go down the heavy tank path in the tech tree, but were behind in their research compared to the Germans and Soviets, and didn't do much production-wise.

[Imhotep]

Here's a bit[en.wikipedia.org] about American WWII tank philosophy:

At the start of World War II, the United States fielded the M3 Lee and M4 Sherman as its primary medium tanks. After-action reports from the North African Campaign and other engagements convinced commanders including Jacob L. Devers that the U.S needed to deploy a heavier tank with more firepower in order to counter German Tiger I and Panther tanks.
...

[Commander of Army Ground Forces] McNair opposed this request, still convinced that smaller but heavily armed self-propelled tank destroyers could be employed faster and more effectively, especially when considering factors such as available space on cargo ships transporting weapons and equipment to Europe.
...

In December 1943, Devers and other commanders with tank experience succeeded in convincing George Marshall of the need for a tank with more armor and firepower than the M3 and M4. An improved prototype, the T26, was produced as the M26 Pershing, and the Army ordered 250 Pershings. McNair was opposed, stating that the M4 was adequate, and arguing that tank-on-tank battles requiring the U.S. to employ heavier tanks with bigger guns were unlikely to occur. The Pershings were fielded, but arrived in Europe too late to have an effect on the conduct of the war.

[hermes]

13 heavy tank 7 mechanized for superior firepower , right left sides for superior firepower doctrine

11 heavy tank 2 td and 7 mech for mobile warfare if u have green air and mobile warfare

10 heavy tank 2 heavy td 2 heavy AA 7 mech if no planes and mobile warfare

if u do mass mob/ grand battle plan (unless ur france) and tanks just alt f4


support comapnies if green air: armored car recon, engineer, logistics, signal, maintanence

Support comapnies if fighting red air high supply areas: armored car recon, engineer, signal, maintanence, AA

support companies if fighting red air low supply areas: armored car recon, AA, logistics, engineer, maintanence


support artillery useless, rocket ART is not ideal for tanks since u prob already have 500 soft attack and 1k breakthrough, military police only use for garissons ofc, field hospitals is debatable, as you can replace signal companies with field hospitals its not a bad idea, i usually just do signal thoough