WesWorld

The following is not in any sense a finished document; it's unevenly edited and subject to change pending research and my own whim. It is, however, complete enough to have reached a stage where commentary and input seems useful.

Accordingly...



NORDISH LAND FORCES



Nordish Land Forces

512 Stridsvagn (64 Finland, 64 Vinland, 64 southern Sweden, 320 reserve) (Strv)
288 Luftvarnskanonvagn (16 Finland, 16 Vinland, 16 southern Sweden, 16 Infantry Division I, 80 armor reserve, 144 infantry reserve) (Lvkv)
576 Pansarvarnskanonvagn (32 Finland, 32 Vinland, 32 southern Sweden, 32 Infantry Division I, 160 armor reserve, 188 infantry reserve) (Pvkv)
288 Artillerivagn (16 Finland, 16 Vinland, 16 southern Sweden, 16 Infantry Division I, 80 armor reserve, 144 infantry reserve) (Artv)
368 Pansarbargningsvagn (16 Finland, 16 Vinland, 16 southern Sweden, 24 Infantry Division I, 80 armor reserve, 216 infantry reserve) (Pbv)
7,448 KP-bil (266 Finland, 266 Vinland, 266 southern Sweden, 532 Infantry Division I, 1,330 armor reserve, 4,788 infantry reserve)
532 Tortuga Armored Personnel Carriers
64 Tortuga Tanks w/20mm cannon
64 Tortuga Tanks w/75mm howitzer

Armored Corps (~36,000 wartime, ~6,000 peacetime)

In early 1943, the Nordish General Staff identified and acted on the need to replace the increasingly-obsolescent German-built Panzerkampwagen IIIs that formed the backbone of the Nordish armored forces. The AB Landverk's development of the Chilean CdC M41 made them an obvious choice to produce the new tank, and the resulting vehicle, identified as the Stridsvagn 81 - the first Nordish tank to carry an eighty-millimeter gun - was essentially the same chassis used in Chile, with certain ergonomic and other improvements revealed by its service in South America and the addition of night vision scopes and 'winterization' features that would allow it to operate in the heart of the Arctic winter, such as insulated fluid lines, heated fluid reservoirs, an electrical engine-block heater, improved cabin heating, and the addition of a hand-started 1Kw supplementary generator to allow the operation of those features without running the fuel-hungry main engine.

As part of the same program, ABL undertook to design and produce three factory-variants of the Strv 81 - a 'Luftvarnskanonvagn 41', which mounted twin Bofors 40mm anti-aircraft guns in a fully-enclosed hemispherical turret, an 'Artillerivagn 121' self-propelled howitzer, and a 'Pansarvarnskanonvagn 101' assault gun that was also considered competent to serve in the tank destroyer role. In theory, given the availability of the appropriate turret, the tank and antiaircraft variants could be interconverted in any depot including a suitable crane by simply unshipping whatever turret had originally been mounted and replacing it with the desired one. The conversion between the assault gun and howitzer variants was somewhat more involved, since the howitzer was designed as a rear-firing weapon, but not onerous unless proper parts were unavailable. In practice, of course, even the simpler conversions are too involved to be routine procedures, and are impossible outside of full depots, but the commonality did ease supply issues. The Pansarbargningsvagn 11 is an Armored Recovery Vehicle based on the same chassis, but, although it shares many drive train and other components, it is not interconvertible and is armed only with a 10mm machine gun in a top cupola.

The Strv 81's namesake gun is an 80mm/L25 cannon ideally suited for use against 'soft' targets, including infantry, but is not capable of penetrating opposing tank armor armor using kinetic energy. Nordmark issues HEAT rounds as well as high explosive to its tank units, but the current-generation rounds suffer from a design flaw that cuts their effective penetrative ability in half, vs similar designs in foreign service. The General Staff is aware of the issue, and a replacement is in development, expected to enter general service no later than 1947 - or three weeks after the order to fast track it, whichever comes first.

The relatively low priority of new HEAT rounds for Nordmark's tanks is due to the plentiful supply of Pvkv 101s, whose 100mm/L50 is considered powerful enough not to need them to ensure a kill against hostile armored units.

The Lvkv and Artv are, respectively, equipped with adapted versions of the famous and widely sold Bofors 40mm antiaircraft gun and the standard 120mm/L20 howitzer whose towed versions are the primary Nordish field artillery.

Organizationally, the Nordish armored arm consists of eight Armored Brigades, one stationed in along the shore of the Danish straits in southern Sweden, one in Vinland, and one along the Russian border, with five more inactive reserve Brigades. Each brigade fields five battalions - One of medium tanks (64 Strv 81, in the current organization), two of mechanized infantry (somewhat less than 640 men riding KP-bil armored personnel carriers, a native Nordish armored truck well suited for Arctic conditions), a support battalion providing maintenance and combat-engineering support and including 16 Pansarbargningsvagn 11s, and a mixed 'fire support' battalion consisting of two companies of tank destroyers (32 Pvkv 101), one company of howitzers (16 Arv 121), and one company of anti-aircraft vehicles (16 Lvkv 41).

On the 'ground level', the mechanized infantry are organized in twelve-man squads, which in turn make up four-squad platoons. Each company contains four platoons, and the battalion as a whole consists of four companies.

Rifle squads have eight men armed with the Ag m/42 semi-automatic rifle, a squad-leader and assistant armed with Helsinki Arms KP-31 submachineguns, and one two-man light machine gun team using the Lahti-Saloranta M/26 LMG. The SMGs are chambered for the same 9x19mm parabellum round as the Lahti L-25 pistols each man carries as a reserve sidearm, but the rifle and LMG cannot share ammunition, and replacing one or the other with a weapon that can is under consideration by the Nordish General Staff.

One squad out of each platoon will be a mortar platoon, with seven rifleman and a three-man light mortar team replacing the LMG of the standard rifle squad. The platoon commander will also have a two-man radio team attached to him.

In the mechanized battalions attached to the armored brigades, the seperate platoons and companies are not distinguished aside from their own small command detachments, under the assumption that the associated armored elements will provide all neccessary anti-armor and anti-aircraft cover.


Nordish-Pattern Armored Brigade (4500, 2000 in peacetime)
1 Tank Battalion (64 Strv 81)
2 Mechanized Infantry Battalions (266 KP-bil, 3,142 Infantry - 642 in peacetime)
2 Tank destroyer companies (32 Pvkv 101)
1 AA Company (16 Lvkv 41)
1 Howitzer company (16 Arv 121)
1 Logistical Battalion (16 Pbv 11)

512 vehicle crew
532 KP-bil crew
314 logistics
3142 infantry
4500 men


Infantry Forces (~300,000 wartime, ~18,000 peactime)

Nordmark fields ten Infantry Corps, each consisting of three Divisions with four Infantry Brigades. In peacetime, only one Corps will be active and fully man; the others will have only armory caretaker personnel assigned.

Brigades consist of four Battalions each, one mechanized and three foot infantry; pure infantry battalions are the same size as the mechanized battalions, giving a full-strength Division a paper strength of 25,136 infantry before add-ons. Armored fire-support battalions are attached to each Infantry Brigade, using the same number and vehicle mix of the fire-support battalions of the Armored Brigades - 32 tank destroyers, 16 antiaircraft vehicles, and 16 howitzers. A logistical battalion is attached at the division level, and additional logistics companies attached to each frontline brigade, to the artillery battalion, and to the fire support battalion.

In the infantry brigades, squad and platoon organization resembles that used by the armored brigades, but one platoon per company will be designated as a 'cover support' unit, with its rifle elements reduced to six men per squad and four man teams serving either man-portable light antiaircraft weapons (two squads) or anti-tank weapons (two squads).

The anti-tank weapon issued in Nordish service, beginning in late 1944, is known as the Raketnave, and in concept closely resembles the historical German Panzerfaust, consisting of a bulbous shaped-charge warhead housing and an extended finned tail - a shape that gives it its name of 'rocket fist'. Unlike the Panzerfaust, the Raketnave's launcher section is designed to be reusable, and of the four men per squad assigned to use the weapons, each will be assigned one 'stick' and in theory up to five projectiles.

The Raketnave's performance is mixed; it meets its design criteria of being man-portable and an all-angle threat to any tank in service, but is so heavy that the Staff-determined reload quota presents an unacceptable burden in the field. Additionally, the range is as short as the OTL weapon it resembles - 150-200 meters at most, with an arcing trajectory that is difficult to aim. Mechanized anti-tank squads carry no more than one reload per man, leaving as many as ten more stored in their carrier vehicles, while 'leg infantry' units experiment with assigned snowmobiles and sidecar motorcycles from their logistical units, distributing reloads across the antitank squads' entire platoon, and limiting tank squads to two launchers and distributing the resulting lower weight across the squad. Formal doctrine for a solution has not yet been established.

Nordish-Pattern Infantry Division (~30,000 wartime, ~18,000 peacetime)
4 Infantry Brigades (25,136 Infantry, 532 KP-bil)
1 Artillery Battalion (24 120mm towed howitzers)
2 Tank destroyer companies (32 Pvkv 101)
1 AA Company (16 Lvkv 41)
1 Howitzer company (16 Arv 121)
1 Logistical Battalion (Central supply)
6 Logistical Companies (Forward supply and support, 1 per Infantry brigade, armor battalion, artillery battalion)


Marine Jaegers

The Nordish Jaegers are organised as an infantry division, with a full wartime strength of approximately twenty-four thousand. Unlike the line infantry, they are entirely mechanized, mounted on Chilean-bought Tortuga Amphibious Carriers, but their armored support is limited to two battalions of Tortuga Amphibious Tanks, vehicles much lighter than the Strv 81-based support units used by the line divisions. As of 1945, only one of the Jaeger Division's four brigades has been supplied with its carrier vehicles, although all of them have received their light tanks. In the current peaceful times, that brigade is the only one active, stationed on the Finnish shores of the Baltic.

Nordish-Pattern Marine Division (~24,000 wartime, ~6,000 peacetime)
4 Jaeger Brigades (21,280 Infantry, 2128 Tortuga)
1 Howitzer Battalion (64 Tortuga Amphibious Tanks w/75mm howitzers)
1 Tank Battalion (64 TATs w/20mm cannon)
1 Logistical Battalion (Central supply)
6 Logistical Companies (Forward supply and support, 1 per Jaeger brigade, howitzer battalion, tank battalion)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahti_L-35
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suomi_KP/-31
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahti-Saloranta_M/26
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag_m/42
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_cm_felthaubits/m32
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_75_mm_Model_1929

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_m/42
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KP-bil

A number of comments, jotted down as I read through:

Night vision scopes on tanks. I am uncertain this is plausible/possible with 1940s technology. What sort of scopes are you envisioning?

Convertible armored vehicles. I have serious doubts of this working out in practice, particularly if someone tried to do this in the field. Who carts around the ‘spare parts’ and turrets to make this possible? How much specialized equipment would be necessary? Doing this sort of thing in a factory is possible, but not at first or second line maintenance units.

Technically, the 40mm Bofors gun does not exist in Wesworld, except in Irish service. RLBH (the Nordish player several iterations ago) fielded a 37mm weapon, not a 40mm.

Your proposed infantry division is far too large to be manageable. It would be rather inflexible. Given the rather undeveloped nature of the Nordish road network, the poor terrain for cross-country motorized movement and sheer expense having everyone in armored carriers would be very poor use of resources.

The level of armored vehicles is far more reminiscent of the 1960s than the 1940s, particularly for your Jaeger division. I am also doubtful that the fire support versions of the Tortuga would be practical with 1940s technology – but I’d need to see more details before offering a definitive opinion.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

A number of comments, jotted down as I read through:

Night vision scopes on tanks. I am uncertain this is plausible/possible with 1940s technology. What sort of scopes are you envisioning?

Wiki has it that the Germans were attempting to develop an active infrared system starting around '43 or so - I'm picturing something similar, an IR illuminator, possibly hand-aimed from the commander's hatch, and a scope mechanism adjunct to the gunsight. Better than nothing, but far short of the kind of full nighttime capability we think of as 'night vision' gear.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Convertible armored vehicles. I have serious doubts of this working out in practice, particularly if someone tried to do this in the field. Who carts around the ‘spare parts’ and turrets to make this possible? How much specialized equipment would be necessary? Doing this sort of thing in a factory is possible, but not at first or second line maintenance units.

This is intended to be a technical ambition that has not and will not pan out except in terms of shared spares.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Technically, the 40mm Bofors gun does not exist in Wesworld, except in Irish service. RLBH (the Nordish player several iterations ago) fielded a 37mm weapon, not a 40mm.

Seeing a '1.5in' weapon on a continental European ship report offends my sense of craftsmanship, and I've been shifting to the 40mm ever since I started playing. You will never see me field a new anything with a 37mm.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Your proposed infantry division is far too large to be manageable. It would be rather inflexible. Given the rather undeveloped nature of the Nordish road network, the poor terrain for cross-country motorized movement and sheer expense having everyone in armored carriers would be very poor use of resources.

What would be manageable, then? The current totals are basically a shot in the dark on my part; army operations aren't a strong point of mine.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

The level of armored vehicles is far more reminiscent of the 1960s than the 1940s, particularly for your Jaeger division. I am also doubtful that the fire support versions of the Tortuga would be practical with 1940s technology – but I’d need to see more details before offering a definitive opinion.

See above, with the addition that mounting them on amphibious vehicles is a deliberate gambit to save myself the hair-pulling associated with sorting out the mess of landing craft I inherited.
The Tortuga is a Chilean design; in that service, the tank variant is equipped with a 28mm antitank rifle or a 75mm howitzer.

Regarding night vision, I assume you're thinking of this...
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/german-infr…cheinwerfer.htm

According to 'reliable' wiki, "The first military night vision devices were introduced by the German army as early as 1939."

I agree with Bruce in saying that the divisions are HUUuuuge. "Divisions" are usually between 11-15000 men strong.

Quoted from "Valles"

...while 'leg infantry' units experiment with assigned snowmobiles...

What are these 'snowmobiles' you speak of?

Quoted from "Valles"

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Night vision scopes on tanks. I am uncertain this is plausible/possible with 1940s technology. What sort of scopes are you envisioning?

Wiki has it that the Germans were attempting to develop an active infrared system starting around '43 or so - I'm picturing something similar, an IR illuminator, possibly hand-aimed from the commander's hatch, and a scope mechanism adjunct to the gunsight. Better than nothing, but far short of the kind of full nighttime capability we think of as 'night vision' gear.

I could accept this as an experimental idea for the 1940s, but not at operational levels. I could maybe accept it operationally by the late 1950s, no sooner.

Quoted from "Valles"

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

The level of armored vehicles is far more reminiscent of the 1960s than the 1940s, particularly for your Jaeger division. I am also doubtful that the fire support versions of the Tortuga would be practical with 1940s technology – but I’d need to see more details before offering a definitive opinion.

See above, with the addition that mounting them on amphibious vehicles is a deliberate gambit to save myself the hair-pulling associated with sorting out the mess of landing craft I inherited.
The Tortuga is a Chilean design; in that service, the tank variant is equipped with a 28mm antitank rifle or a 75mm howitzer.

Valles is correct. Properly, there's an amphibious truck version, and an "amtank". The Tortuga amtank is a standard vehicle modified with a limited traverse 3" mountain howitzer, designed to assist in suppressing bunkers or demolishing beach obstacles. There's also a few with a 1.1"/L80 antitank gun designed for last-ditch defense against enemy tanks or armoured cars. Imagine a DUKW-mounted "en portee" gun, equipped with some shields for crew protection, and you've got it. The goal, at least in the eyes of the Chileans, was to get a few larger direct-fire weapons ashore as quickly as possible.

Speaking purely out-of-character, I've been considering for a year or two buying some US-made LVTs in order to replace the Tortuga amtanks; but up to this point I've just left things alone, judging that the Chileans really don't see a desperate need to go fiddling with something that currently works okay. On the flip side of things, though, the Tortuga was driven in Chilean service by the amount of sealift assets available to them (which were almost nonexistent when the Tortuga was designed). Now, though, the Chileans have quite a number of ships capable of transporting real tanks onto a beachhead, and the need for the Tortuga Amtank has pretty much evaporated.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the Americans did field trials on IR devices for tanks towards the end of the war. I could be mistaken though.

I'm not sure IR is experimental, airborne IR detectors were used in the early 1940s by the Luftwaffe, and in WW R.V. Jones has developed his ideas for the RAF (albeit limited use).Illumination I think is the biggest problem, the Germans tried half-track mounted IR searchlights (the detectors won' be great but over the shorter ranges on the ground and use at night in colder Nordish environments you might get decent results). I'm not saying every tank should have it, but some command tanks or a company in every battalion at most perhaps?

Given your more detailed description of your view of “night vision devices” and Walter’s very useful link, I could see something like the Infrarot-Scheinwerfer coming into existence in the middle 1940s. Germany has not yet fielded such, though testing might be ongoing. The problem, as alluded to in the Achtung Panzer article, is that only Solution A – a scope operated by the commander – would be feasible given constraints of size. The alleged Solution B – putting 30cm IR searchlights in the mantlet and the glacis – would seem to defeat the purpose of the heavy armor put there to protect the vehicle.

Not to toot my own horn that much, but if you look through this thread - Tables of Organisation and Equipment you can see how divisions and their constituent units relate to each other. I think if you consider them you will see how huge and ponderous your proposals are.

Brock has addressed some of my concerns regarding the Tortuga variants, reigning in their capabilities. Still, trying to mount everyone in amphibious vehicles does not get you away from dealing with your problem of landing craft. How are you going to get supplies ashore? What you trying to do is far too simplistic.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Given your more detailed description of your view of “night vision devices” and Walter’s very useful link, I could see something like the Infrarot-Scheinwerfer coming into existence in the middle 1940s. Germany has not yet fielded such, though testing might be ongoing. The problem, as alluded to in the Achtung Panzer article, is that only Solution A – a scope operated by the commander – would be feasible given constraints of size. The alleged Solution B – putting 30cm IR searchlights in the mantlet and the glacis – would seem to defeat the purpose of the heavy armor put there to protect the vehicle.

I don't think it would be acceptable to permit, since we've shot this idea down before for other countries, despite the initiators citing precisely these sort of links.

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Given your more detailed description of your view of “night vision devices” and Walter’s very useful link, I could see something like the Infrarot-Scheinwerfer coming into existence in the middle 1940s. Germany has not yet fielded such, though testing might be ongoing. The problem, as alluded to in the Achtung Panzer article, is that only Solution A – a scope operated by the commander – would be feasible given constraints of size. The alleged Solution B – putting 30cm IR searchlights in the mantlet and the glacis – would seem to defeat the purpose of the heavy armor put there to protect the vehicle.

I don't think it would be acceptable to permit, since we've shot this idea down before for other countries, despite the initiators citing precisely these sort of links.

I cannot remember the specifics of this coming up before, but I agree it would be a stretch given the very experimental nature of such devices in the OTL. Particularly as it would come out of nowhere without backstory...

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Given your more detailed description of your view of “night vision devices” and Walter’s very useful link, I could see something like the Infrarot-Scheinwerfer coming into existence in the middle 1940s. Germany has not yet fielded such, though testing might be ongoing. The problem, as alluded to in the Achtung Panzer article, is that only Solution A – a scope operated by the commander – would be feasible given constraints of size. The alleged Solution B – putting 30cm IR searchlights in the mantlet and the glacis – would seem to defeat the purpose of the heavy armor put there to protect the vehicle.

I would presume that the searchlights would be mounted on the armor, rather than set into it. This would, of course, still leave them exposed to small arms fire, shrapnel, and errant tree branches, but it'd preserve the integrity of the armor and the vehicle as a whole.

Nordmark, Russia, and Canada are the three nations I'd see having a real motivation to look extra-close at this technology in Wesworld, barring some doctrinal emphasis on night warfare - their positions near the pole mean that for much of the year, night hours dominate the clock and the majority of potential operating time, and even just the ability to keep moving would be really valuable.

Edit: ...and apparently moot, given posts made while I was working on this one. Enh. If there's a consensus against it, obviously the system doesn't work as intended.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Not to toot my own horn that much, but if you look through this thread - Tables of Organisation and Equipment you can see how divisions and their constituent units relate to each other. I think if you consider them you will see how huge and ponderous your proposals are.

Looking through the thread, and admitting that I find the cross-referencing required to understand it rather opaque, I think I've still not taken quite the lesson you intended away.

I have taken a lesson, though, so let's see how it goes over...



Infantry Forces (~300,000 wartime, ~23,000 peactime)

Nordmark can field a theoretical total of six infantry corps, each consisting of four front-line brigades and a logistical brigade. In peacetime, only I Corps is kept active, and then at half-strength.

Brigades consist of four Battalions each, one mechanized and three foot infantry; the infantry battalions are to the same pattern as the mechanized battalions used in association with the armored brigades - squad and platoon organization are identical, but one platoon per company will be designated as a 'cover support' unit, with its rifle elements reduced to six men per squad and four man teams serving either man-portable light antiaircraft weapons (two squads) or anti-tank weapons (two squads).

The anti-tank weapon issued in Nordish service, beginning in late 1944, is known as the Raketnave, and in concept closely resembles the historical German Panzerfaust, consisting of a bulbous shaped-charge warhead housing and an extended finned tail - a shape that gives it its name of 'rocket fist'. Unlike the Panzerfaust, the Raketnave's launcher section is designed to be reusable, and of the four men per squad assigned to use the weapons, each will be assigned one 'stick' and in theory up to five projectiles.

The Raketnave's performance is mixed; it meets its design criteria of being man-portable and an all-angle threat to any tank in service, but is so heavy that the Staff-determined reload quota presents an unacceptable burden in the field. Additionally, the range is as short as the OTL weapon it resembles - 150-200 meters at most, with an arcing trajectory that is difficult to aim. Mechanized anti-tank squads carry no more than one reload per man, leaving as many as ten more stored in their carrier vehicles, while 'leg infantry' units experiment sidecar motorcycles from their logistical units in summer or small man-towed sleds in winter, with distributing reloads across the antitank squads' entire platoon, and with limiting tank squads to two launchers and distributing the resulting lower weight across the squad. Formal doctrine for a solution has not yet been established.

In addition to the three infantry battalions, each infantry brigade will have a single mechanized support battalion. The support battalion includes a battery of towed heavy howitzers, an armored company of sixteen vehicles (by establishment, eight tank destroyers and eight anti-aircraft vehicles), the brigade logistical establishment, and a mechanised infantry company trained for scouting.

Nordish-Pattern Infantry Corps (~50,000 wartime, ~23,000 peacetime)
4 Infantry Brigades
1 Logistical Battalion (Central supply)

Infantry Brigade (~10,000 wartime, ~5,000 peacetime)
3 Infantry Battalions (ea 3,142 Infantry, ~9,450 total)
1 Artillery Company (8 120mm towed howitzers, 24 KP-bil)
1 Armor Company (8 Pvkv 101, 8 Lvkv 41)
1 Mechanised Company (192 infantry, 32 KP-bil)
1 Logistical Company (forward supply and communication, 4 Pbv 11)

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Brock has addressed some of my concerns regarding the Tortuga variants, reigning in their capabilities. Still, trying to mount everyone in amphibious vehicles does not get you away from dealing with your problem of landing craft. How are you going to get supplies ashore? What you trying to do is far too simplistic.

Trying to address the issue on the terms I inherited led to, what, a three month stall from me? I'm not doing that dance again, whatever happens. Alternative angles for cutting the gordian knot would be welcome.

Permit me to go over some basics on the organization of military units – I think we have a problem with terminology. Forgive me if I overstate the obvious. This may help you understand the table of organization and establishment (TO&E) to which I referred you.

The basic building block of most any military unit is the company, which comprises anywhere between 100 and 200 personnel. A company will in turn be subdivided into platoons of somewhere between 30 and 50 men, and each platoon in turn into squads or sections of approximately 12. In cavalry or armored units the alternative term for company may be squadron, with platoons denominated as troops.

A battalion is the basic unit of maneuver, and numbers between 500 and 1,000 men. It comprises a varying number of companies, normally 3 to 5. For cavalry or armored units the term regiment might be used in lieu of battalion (a British-ism, but followed by other European forces).

Depending upon arm of service or the traditions of a particular army, the terms regiment or brigade might be used inter-changeably for a unit comprising between 2,000 and 4,000 men. The term regiment in this instance normally refers to infantry units with their supporting arms (machineguns, mortars etc.) while brigade usually connotes an all-arms formation (attached artillery, armor, medical, etc.) capable of independent action.

A division is an all-arms force numbering between 12,000 and 18,000 troops, with full supporting arms and logistics units. It is capable of sustained independent action and may have other maneuver elements attached to it for specific operations.

A corps comprises two or more divisions, with additional supporting troops, and may number between 30,000 and 50,000 troops, give or take.

At the least, taking another look, a significant problem of mathematics. I've only been caring about the terminology in terms of 'this unit is bigger than this unit'.

OK.

Twelve-man infantry squad, equivalent to a single armored vehicle.

Four squads to a platoon, forty-eight men.

Four platoons to a company, one hundred and ninety two.

Four companies to a battalion should be 768.

Four battalions to a brigade, three thousand and a bit.

Four brigades to a division, twelve thousand three hundred.

Four divisions to a corps, a hair under fifty thousand - assuming all line infantry. I'd expect quartermaster and supply types to cancel out the parts of the table that are slimmer on manpower than foot infantry.

So, yeah, my math got crisscrossed somewhere.