WesWorld

Wes asked me to take a swing at it and here is my take:

My take on the Atlantean Mobile Forces. Feel free to discuss.

The Atlantean General Staff used their experience in the Great War to shape their tank force, with the battalion been the largest permanent force but plans existed for the creation of larger units in case of war by grouping those battalions into so-called Operational Groups consisting of anything from two to four battalions. With thirty four battalions in active duty the unit designation was more of an administrative decision, with the number assigned to the unit stating the area of Atlantis were they were permanently assigned; From one to twenty in Atlantis proper, from twenty one to thirty five in Africa and above thirty-six in the Americas. (1)

The Atlantean General Staffs attitude to mechanization was very mixed. While the infantry considers the main task of the tank was to support infantry units and the cavalry was resentful of the new toys officers in both branches saw armored vehicles as the means to regain shock and mobility, both lacking during the Great War. In late 1933 the Infantry branch organized a Provisional Armored Division (2), by the end of 1934 still in embryonic stages. But the Cavalry branch was the one that give themselves some leeway in regard to mechanization, in 1931 reorganizing their four cavalry divisions into a mix of horse-vehicle units.

The cavalry divisions had two cavalry brigades each of two regiments, one armored car group equivalent to a battalion, one battalion of mechanized infantry, one engineer battalion and an artillery regiment of three battalions. (3) While the cavalry brigades were still horse reliant, the engineer, infantry, armored car and artillery units were fully mechanized. However, combining mounted and mechanized units was far from satisfactory. Very different maneouver speeds (8 km/h and 30 km/h respectively) and supply requirements made the Cavalry Divisions unwieldy units, being called horseshit and greasy cars by the troops assigned to them. (4)



(1) 2nd Batt: Mix of 45 AT31 1A2 and 1A1
9th, 22nd, 6th, 32nd Batt: 45 AT32 Mk1 each = 180 total tanks
51st, 43rd, 17th, 18th, 36th, 37th Batt: 63 AT17 Mk2 = 378 total tanks
33rd, 29th, 30th, 31st, 34th, 16th Batt: 63 AT17 Mk3 = 378 total tanks
13th, 3rd, 38th, 39th, 4th, 7th, 23rd, 5th, 12th, 20th, 24th, 10th, 1st, 35th, 19th, 21st, 14th Batt: 45 AT27 Mk1 = 720 total

(2) 36 AT32 Mk1, 54 AT17 Mk3, 16 AT27 Mk1 and 168 NH28 armored cars are assigned to this test unit. Wont go into the details of the organization to give Wes the chance to organize the unit as he wishes. Still in embryonic stages and just a test unit.

(3) 64 NH28 armored cars each in the armored car battalions, 99 Bison halftrack each in the 1st and
2nd Cavalry to move infantry, 99 Rhino halftracks each in the 3rd and 4th Cavalry to move infantry,
115 AAT-27 artillery tractors in the 1st Cavalry, 115 Rhinos halftrack each in the 2nd , 3rd and 4th
Cavalry used as artillery tractors.

(4)210 officers
7606 men
1210 horses
64 NH 28 armored cars
99 troop carrying halftracks
115 artillery tractors
200 motor vehicles
132 motorcycles and sidecars
84 HMG
36 60mm mortars
36 37mm AT guns
4 81mm mortars
24 75mm guns
12 105mm howitzers
12 20mm AA guns

Amazing....

I like it so far and your numbers for the NH-28's at Battalion strength is dead on to what I envisioned, with a standard 4/4/4 OOB.

I'll comment more later as I have to go to work!

Taking another look at your idea's Perdedor it seems the most pressing issue for Atlantis is to improve the Calvary units by adding armoured halftracks and additional light tanks. Recent talks with Mexico will see the resurection of the AT-31 design (Christie tank) in addition to some variants so that area is being dealt with.

Another point of interest is that it seems Atlantis has initially taken the British/American veiw on tanks, using them in a one-two punch, with the infantry tanks punching a hole in the enemy's defences and then using its faster tanks to then exploit this breach.

Little thought, at least initially, has been put into tank on tank engagements and the main tactic would seem to be avoiding the enemy's tanks and leaving them for anti-tank units. While this would be folly for the British, who acctually had 2 tank on tank engagements with Germany (historically) it would make sence for Atlantis, not having taken part in any tank on tank battles.

As a result early Atlantean tanks are not optimised to fight other tanks, but that seems to be changing with the new AT-27 Mk II's with their 57mm gun, the AT-32 1A3 with its improved 37mm gun and the current design in developement, the AT-35.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Taking another look at your idea's Perdedor it seems the most pressing issue for Atlantis is to improve the Calvary units by adding armoured halftracks and additional light tanks. Recent talks with Mexico will see the resurection of the AT-31 design (Christie tank) in addition to some variants so that area is being dealt with.

By 1935 your cavalry leaders should have figure out tying horse and mechanized units doesn't work. You should better served by separating the mechanized units from the horse mounted troops. Maybe announce the creation of two mechanized brigades in 1935 by separating the forces. The current forces available could be used to build infantry regiments of two battalions with an artillery regiment and add tanks to round the unit.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin

Another point of interest is that it seems Atlantis has initially taken the British/American veiw on tanks, using them in a one-two punch, with the infantry tanks punching a hole in the enemy's defences and then using its faster tanks to then exploit this breach.

Little thought, at least initially, has been put into tank on tank engagements and the main tactic would seem to be avoiding the enemy's tanks and leaving them for anti-tank units. While this would be folly for the British, who acctually had 2 tank on tank engagements with Germany (historically) it would make sence for Atlantis, not having taken part in any tank on tank battles.

As a result early Atlantean tanks are not optimised to fight other tanks, but that seems to be changing with the new AT-27 Mk II's with their 57mm gun, the AT-32 1A3 with its improved 37mm gun and the current design in developement, the AT-35.

Studying the recent armored experience of the Chileans and Mexicans should help in the future decisions of the Atlantean High Command. Peru's protoblitz should also help but IMO their info in that regard should be more spotty due to my doubts German or Iberian sources will share too much info with Atlantis.

It seems that everyone should have tanks similar to OTL circa 1941-42 tanks by 1938-39.

Maybe. I'd say more like 1939-40 tanks by 1938, the 1941-42 models required combat experience and that may or may not be available depending on what the fuiture holds.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Maybe. I'd say more like 1939-40 tanks by 1938, the 1941-42 models required combat experience and that may or may not be available depending on what the fuiture holds.

It seems more experience will be acquired in the fields of Argentina.

Maybe. Depends on how many tanks run into each other or anti-tank weapons, as opposed to supporting infantry against other infantry that's not equipped with anti-tank weapons. After all, against infantry, old designs will be sufficiently well armored and armed....

it seems it will be Christie Types on both sides with some smaller support tanks similar to Vickers 6 tons also being fielded by both sides. The unknown are the Brazilians. Does anyone remember if Brazil made a large purchase of vehicles in their history?

I think the 57mm is rather overkill at this point. The heaviest tank armour around is the 55mm@20° on the front of that Dutch tank. With normal AP shot you'll be able to penetrate this out to 1500m or so.

If a larger explosive shell is required use a 3" howitzer instead.

Historically the Brazilians purchased FT-17's and a few Italian tankettes. Later on M3 Stuarts, M3 Grants and M4 Shermans were purchased.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Historically the Brazilians purchased FT-17's and a few Italian tankettes. Later on M3 Stuarts, M3 Grants and M4 Shermans were purchased.

And what of WW? IIRC the Brazilian Army in WW is fairly large but no mention of their armored forces is made by either Frywolf or Swampen. IMO they should be very similar to the WW Argentine armored forces in number, maybe a little bit more due to the large size of the Army.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
I think the 57mm is rather overkill at this point. The heaviest tank armour around is the 55mm@20° on the front of that Dutch tank. With normal AP shot you'll be able to penetrate this out to 1500m or so.

If a larger explosive shell is required use a 3" howitzer instead.

Tank armour will eventually (and is) getting thicker.

Even the historical Panzer III was orriginally planned to mount a 50mm gun, the Germans instead opted to mount the Pak 35 because it had already been made the standard anti tank gun. In WW the Germans have obviously gone with the orriginal idea of mounting the 50mm gun.

The French Char B also has 65mm frontal armour, I'm assuming the French will introduce the tank slightly ahead of historical.

In WW, the standard German AT gun is the 28/20mm squeeze bore, which isn't suitable as a tank gun because while it has good armor penetration for it's size and weight, it's HE capability is terrible. German tanks are expected to carry HE rounds, so.....

Are the WW Panzer III's and IV's using an identical chassis?

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Are the WW Panzer III's and IV's using an identical chassis?

Yes, they are on the same chassis. Heck, the turrets are almost identical, with the differences being different front plates, different main guns, and different ammunition racks for the main gun ammo. As much as possible, everything else is the same.

Quoted

Studying the recent armored experience of the Chileans and Mexicans should help in the future decisions of the Atlantean High Command. Peru's protoblitz should also help but IMO their info in that regard should be more spotty due to my doubts German or Iberian sources will share too much info with Atlantis.

Mexico's experience might not be the best. The main tank action was a combined Horse Cavalry/Tank charge against infantry without viable anti-tank weapons. Mexico won't be using combined Infantry-Tank Tactics and will keep the Horse cavalry using mixed horse/tank units. It will probably work well in Mexico but not in other areas.

Chilean experiance has indicated problems with tanks operating in hot climates and high altitude and captured reports form Bolivia suggest difficulty in operations in hot humid areas. Engines overheating and crew suffering heat stroke and the like. Fuel issues later in the war as the Chilean Army was advancing and during the winter when the pass was more or less blocked seem to be an issue as well. Fortunately by that time the majority of Bolivian armor had been destroyed and Chilean forces were mounting a seige rather than an armored advance.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Mexico's experience might not be the best. The main tank action was a combined Horse Cavalry/Tank charge against infantry without viable anti-tank weapons. Mexico won't be using combined Infantry-Tank Tactics and will keep the Horse cavalry using mixed horse/tank units. It will probably work well in Mexico but not in other areas.

And the tanks performed their role as a shock weapon, part of the functions of true cavalry. Makes sense for Mexico to follow the early 1930's Atlantean design of mix cavalry/tank units. That makes three nations them in WW so far that had followed this.