Helping Test New Danube Front Update

[JDR Dragoon]

Suggested corrections to the NATO parts of the OOB. Some of these are definite musts, others are more points of debate (for instance: should the US Army have more B quality units?)

NATO in general:

-A lot of the LandJut OOB (part of Northag), especially the danish parts, are plain wrong. See this old thread for details:

https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards...741&page=1


-Quite a lot of the german Territorialheer units has errors (most of it not currently used in the stock scenarios, but still), most of them stemming from an overuse of Isby and Kamps Armies of NATOs Central Front, which contains some outdated information (and some plain wrong).

-The austrian OOB in general could probably benefit from a once-over with regard to equipment and unit naming. But most of it is fundamentally correct imho.

Country specific

There are some specific errors in the otherwise excellent Bundeswehr OOB:

-The reconnaisance battalions. Again Isby and Kamps is to blame (the information here is outdated and reflects Heeresstruktur 3, which was not in effect in 1985). A reconnaisance battalion (mid 1980s vintage under Heeresstruktur 4) should have: 2xcompanies of 13 Leopard 1s each, a mixed company of 7 Leopard 1s and 8 Luchs Scout Cars, an infantry company (3 MILAN ATGMS, 1 pr. platoon) mounted in Fuchs wheeled APCs. Apart from this there is a further 1 Leopard 1 and 2 more Luchs at battalion HQ, plus 9 GSR equipped vehicles (might be Luchs, but possibly older Schützenpanzer kurz). How best to represent this is of course an open question, since there are several possible options open here.

-Many german divisions (1 Panzer, 11 Pzg, 4 Pzg, 5 Panzer, 2 Pzg, 12 Panzer) only have 1 divisional level Jäger battalion, where they should have two. Their quality is also quite high (B), despite the fact that they were pure mobilization units.

-The exception here is the 1. Mountain Division, which unlike the others also has its divisional security battalion present (called 88. GjBtl in the game). Why is this the only german division to have this unit?

-The german corps engineer brigades all need to be reworked (again modelled in game on the Heeresstruktur 3 model as presented in Isby and Kamps).

-The same is true for the Corps level Airmobile paratroop brigades (numbered 25-26-27) which are also structured after Heeresstruktur 3 (as per Isby and Kamps). In Heeresstruktur 4 each battalion would have 4 companies (2 infantry companies with some MILAN ATGMs, 2 AT-companies with a smattering of TOW ATGM and 20mm Autocannons). In addition there would be a 4th (reserve) battalion with just 3 infantry companies and no AT companies.

-Letting units that are not 100% manned in peacetime (such as the Heimatschutzbrigades assigned to the 6 Pzg and II Ge Korps) start as understrenght is a bad decision imho, especially since this model isn´t used for other mobilization units, since the games loss-replacement routine doesn´t really reflect the mobilization process very well. A better design choise would be to delay those units with a large reserve component from being relased from their "Fixed" status.

-Each brigade had a reconnaisance platoon of 8 Luchs scoutcars, but this unit might be too weak and pointless to include (as a platoon it exerts no ZOC, and I notice that similar WAPA units do not have their regimental level recon either).

-Each brigade also has an engineer company mounted in Fuchs wheeled APCs (some of the older ones might have had M113s still), this unit isn´t represented either.

-The 1st battalion in each brigade would have been a mized unit (1 tank, 2 infantry companies in Pzg brigades, the opposite in panzer brigades) instead of a uniform one as it currently is.

-The 3rd company of each Pzg battalion in a Pzg Brigade (except 22 Pzg brig.) would have had M113 APCs instead of Marder IFVs. They had more ATGMs to compensate for this though, so it might not warrant much of a change in unit stats.

-Nothing (apart from Isby and Kamps) suggests that the german II Korps had an antitank company numbered 260. This seems anothe relic from out of date Heeresstruktur 3 information, where each german paratroop brigade had dedicated brigade level AT companies. In any event, if the unit did exist, it would belong to paratroop brigade 26 (a part of III korps), not II Korps.


British:

-The british 1st Infantry Brigade (the UKMF, part of LandJut) should only have a single Tank squadron, not an entire battalion. There were talks of enlarging the tank contingent to a battalion when moreChieftains were freed up as Challenger entered service, but this definitely wasn´t in 1985, and I do not know if this was even realized before the Cold War ended.

-Most british Chieftains didn´t get Thermal Imaging sights before the late 1980s.

-FV 102 Striker equipped ATGM units should probably have Thermal Sights (introduced by the mid-1980s).

-British bridge engineer units are still represented as vehicles, unlike practically all other OOBs. Is this intentional?

-The Territorial army units generally seems to be very highly rated at a uniform C morale, which is better than some nations regulars and better than most nations reservists. This seems somewhat high for a "SWAT" unit (SWAT = Some weekends and Tuesdays).

-There is a duplicate D squadron 23 SAS in the UK Special warfare Forces section.


Belgium:

-The 10th Mech Brigade (res) is missing its tank Battalion (8. Lanciers, Leopard 1 equipped, reserve unit).

-Belgian reconnaisance units also utilized the Striker ATGM vehicles, like their british counterparts.



France:

-The Force d´Action d´Rapide is missing a Corps HQ, thus making it impossible to reattach its divisions to other Corps.

-HOT equipped VAB APCs would likely have had Thermal Sights (introduced by mid-1980s).



United States:

-The US army is a mix of about 33% B quality to 66% C quality. This seems somewhat low compared to both the british and german armies (almost uniform B, with about a 10% leavening of A aquality units as well). But this is a judgement call, not a "must do".

-The number of attack helicopters at Corps level (both V and VII) seems rather high (I see that numbers here are again taken from Isby and Kamps). In fact it would seem, that they are overstrenght by almost 100%.

-The SETAF battalion directly under CENTAG usually arrives well outside command range and rarely gets C&C established due to the distance to CENTAG HQ. A solution might be to give it its own btn HQ or make it subservient to some kind of administrative "holding" Corps HQ, thus allowing it to change its line of command to another Corps. In addition, this unit also has an artillery battery that is classed as both "towed" and "helicopter", thus rendering it unable to fire and useless.