It bugs me that in movies they sometimes throw around "platoon", "company", "battalion" or even "brigade", sometimes even in the wrong order of size (a brigade smaller than a company for example) and then show a dozen or maybe a couple dozen guys. A platoon is roughly 20-40 people in most NATO countries. Companies are 100 to 200, approximately. That's already a lot of people.
Reality undermines it. You will mever have things laid out like that. You always split your forces between front line, reserves, a refit/rest units. You will also conform to your terrain and operational needs. There's no scenario where this formation will need to exist.
oh fuck me I've gone into a nerdy enough segment of war nonsense that youtube has started recommending actual university videos to me. I kept on waiting for someone to explain what wargame this was.
It's pretty normal to compare large measurements to familiar things. You don't think the Euro's put things in terms of football pitches in the exact same way?
I though "soccer fields", but the guy is probably using insame measurements, so not soccer fields but something that only exists on TV in most of the world.
Nice display of GHQ Micro-Armor. Correction on the scale - it's 1:285th scale (effectively 1mm per foot). What's not mentioned is the sheer amount of firepower (combat power) possessed by an actual ABCT and the amount of precision that can be achieved by those weapons. Logistically, keeping that force supplied is critical.
To those who are so worried this reveals too much of our doctrine to potential enemies - us being good at our doctrine means more than them knowing what it is. Also, it's not like this type of doctrine doesn't have to be so widely known that there's no chance potential enemies won't have all of it to begin with. If we keep it secret from our own troops it's worthless. On top of that, it's not like any of America's potential enemies are competent to deal with our combined arms doctrine anyway -- none of them are remotely competent nor can afford the training it takes to counter it, as it requires very good combined arms doctrine to beat it. And as we've seen with Russians in their warfare, and as you should also know from seeing how the Chinese only pretend to train at all, it's like expecting them to flap their arms and fly to the moon.
It's an easy shorthand when you're measuring in hundreds of meters because a football field is almost exactly 100 m long. You can just use it instead of saying 200, 300, or 400 m
@@death_parade Unironically, it's most likely better (at least you could argue) in the case of the U.S. military. For many, a "football field" probably carries more contextual understanding than "100 m" as they've likely seen one and know what it feels like to run across one, so in terms of spatial comprehension to brevity, the tradeoff is probably worth it. But I agree, very ironic.
4000 people is about what you can fit in a moderately sized office building, I guess this is like a moderately sized business but spread out to avoid enemy fire.
As of 2019, when I was a company commader with 1st BDE 1st CAV, everything was at 70% strength (personnel and equipment) and was led by an Infantry officer
Why the Infantry officer remark? 1st Cav div is a combined arms division and led by infantry officers just like any division. They retained the “cavalry” name for historical reasons
@@G4x5da "Thank you sir for letting me play with your tanks..." was the quote the BDE CDR gave to the DIV CDR during his change of command. A change of command with an Armor Officer who appreciated and understood tank maintenance. CABs are bullshit and so are infantry officer that lead them.
The command team just likes playing with the small models. They are normally pretty detailed, so I can't hold it against them. (The Russian ones were my favorite)
It is artillery to support the brigades cavalry squadron. Unlikely to actually be allocated since all our cavalry troops have organic mortars in their formations. Plus guns went to Divarty recently so doubt they’d be forward supporting cavalry like that haha
@@emiel_nl The more forward your own artillery is, the further it can reach into enemy terretory. Imagine the forward scouts would recieve enemy artillery fire, but your own artillery is too far behind to offer effective counter artillery fire. And other then in the model, the scouts are probably several miles ahead off the main body. It's their job to scout ahead after all. Also, the scout bataillion has a tank company of it's own. So that artillery is still behind a first line of 36 Bradleys (3 troops with each two plattons of 6 Bradleys) and a second line of 14 Abrams tanks (one company)
Incredible Freedom Amazing Demonstration Mostly Understood but This Is Invaluable in Reminding Me of The Perspective and Showcasing Potential Lesser Patrol Tactics Thank You so Much for This Public Service The Comfort Of Man Know’s No Bounds
Did the armored forces fighting in Gulf Wars I and II use these formations? Or is this organization and structure the product of more recent reorganization?
The push across the desert in 91 was very much like this - Long sight lines and open, unobstructed terrain. If you have the time I recommend The Operations Room's Desert Storm series of videos here on TH-cam to give a frame of reference
Until recently, there was no organic Air Defence assets at the brigade or even division level (BCT's were organized in the early 2000's primarily to fight a counter insurgency) only in the past couple of years has the Army been moving to reintroduce ADA to the Division level and reorganize the main independent fighting formation from Brigades to Divisions
Well it must have worked well in open deserts like Kuwait, Iraq, etc. You'd have space there, but I think you're right in most cases the terrain will never let you spread out like this and you must be fighting in columns up the main roads.
You don’t fight in a BDE on line like this massive movement. BNs will have movement corridors and each have a sub objective which achieves the overall mission. Within the BNs is the COs who are executing the BN mission. Fighting in a massive line like that isn’t possible or desirable.
What does it matter in the age of constant surveillance, mine fields and drone warfare with corrected artillery fire? Looks cool, but as Ukraine war shows, the strategies will have to change.
BCTs have organic assets that allow them to deploy in dependent of division support. Biggest warfighting function is fires. BCTs have an organic FA BN, unlike the pre-BCT structure where FA BNs were organic to DIVARTY.
None of this is remotely secret. The actual formation and employment of a unit for a particular operation would be a different matter. But this is first grade stuff, not University stuff.
@@jb76489 Armoured doesn't mean they can't be defeated. Look at Russia armoured columns in the start of the invasion. Almost no infantry. Result was that they were easily defeated by ATGMs and other portable AT weapons.. genius.
Not really. Most of those vehicles are 100 meters apart, are armored, and have CBRN protection along with the ability to over-pressurize their cabins. Not to mention that in order to nuke this brigade, you'd have to suppress the air defense, much of which is capable of shooting down an ICBM, and/or fight through the US Air Force in order to launch a missile-borne nuke. In short, it's not that easy.
@@notcrazy6288 indeed, but this scenario was tested with under sea torpedo that can damage seriously if not destroying. But i agree it won't be that easy.
that is easier said than done for all of the reasons said by @notcrazy6288, and in most scenarios we'll probably be fighting on the enemy's soil and an enemy using a nuke on their own soil would hurt them more than it would hurt us...
@@Scorpio.1989 I'd like to piggyback off of your piggyback by adding that if this brigade was engaged in combat and someone nuked it, they'd also be nuking whatever element was in combat with this brigade along with this brigade. That was fun to write.
@@Scorpio.1989 The use of a weapon of mass destruction, even on one's own territory, is conceivable in military thinking; this is known as the scorched earth tactic. When Napoleon's forces entered Russia, they found only cities burned by the Russian forces, which starved the troops and prevented them from advancing.
And now we know looking at Ukraine that this formation will fall apart quite quickly. If the ISTAR isnt superior and able to counter anything the enemy throws at them they will not break through minefields and enemy positions without huge losses from artillery, drones and NLAWs.
This unit has engineer assets capable of blowing through minefields. That said, drones are turning into a real pain-in-the-ass problem that a lot of people are working to solve. We'll see how that pans out.
Tanks in Ukraine are simply being misused and wasted. Since the begining of modern tank warfare in WWII, the purpose of tanks has been one: To assist the infantry in attack and defense. Tanks are organized into tank battalions only to ease the burden of administration and maintenance. They never operate on their own. Tanks aren't invincible and can't operate on their own, and it's a lesson that must be relearned in every single war.
Movies have completely undermined the sense of scale of mechanized warfare in the minds of most people. Nothing compares with reality.
That's why I study real life warfare and strategy for my worldbuilding
It bugs me that in movies they sometimes throw around "platoon", "company", "battalion" or even "brigade", sometimes even in the wrong order of size (a brigade smaller than a company for example) and then show a dozen or maybe a couple dozen guys. A platoon is roughly 20-40 people in most NATO countries. Companies are 100 to 200, approximately. That's already a lot of people.
@@JanB1605 Or a division that’s like 30 guys
Reality undermines it. You will mever have things laid out like that. You always split your forces between front line, reserves, a refit/rest units. You will also conform to your terrain and operational needs. There's no scenario where this formation will need to exist.
@@gardnert1 Desert Storm was probably a lot like that
This is the most badass arts and crafts project I've ever seen.
Surprised there wasn't a PowerPoint to go with with it.
A GHQ Microarmor wargamer's dream right there!
There’s a lot to say about America and our history in the way that “football field” has replaced “acre” as our common unit of area.
RIP homeowners.
How many football fields big is a football field?
Acre foot is our water measurement!… however it’s still measured in my brain as football field with a different name soooo nvm. 😂
We’re not farmers anymore. At the time of the civil war, most of the soldiers on both sides were farmers. That changed around Korea to Vietnam
@@christopherneufelt8971You guys would use any unit of measurement, except for metric.
And its hilarious.
Alright private. Put all of this away, thanks.
oh fuck me I've gone into a nerdy enough segment of war nonsense that youtube has started recommending actual university videos to me. I kept on waiting for someone to explain what wargame this was.
And imagine, the we have three Armored Divisions. Each with three BCTs. Mechanized warfare is truly massive.
…In active duty.
Not including Sustainment Brigades
Not including Aviation Brigades
Not including Division’s assets
The scale is massive
@@NotShadowsit'll all end up in a scrap heap one way or another, the size of a couple football fields
Sure beats the PowerPoint I made at Ft Knox back in 1992 😅😅😅
0:50 of course the standard american measurements. How many football fields it is across. But the question is, how many Ford F150's does it weigh?
And how many cheeseburgers does it consume per day?
It's pretty normal to compare large measurements to familiar things. You don't think the Euro's put things in terms of football pitches in the exact same way?
I though "soccer fields", but the guy is probably using insame measurements, so not soccer fields but something that only exists on TV in most of the world.
About as many as your mother does.
measured in good old American football fields. very cool visualization
Nice display of GHQ Micro-Armor. Correction on the scale - it's 1:285th scale (effectively 1mm per foot). What's not mentioned is the sheer amount of firepower (combat power) possessed by an actual ABCT and the amount of precision that can be achieved by those weapons. Logistically, keeping that force supplied is critical.
This presentation was very pleasing and immersive!! I wish you did more videos like that!!
To those who are so worried this reveals too much of our doctrine to potential enemies - us being good at our doctrine means more than them knowing what it is. Also, it's not like this type of doctrine doesn't have to be so widely known that there's no chance potential enemies won't have all of it to begin with. If we keep it secret from our own troops it's worthless.
On top of that, it's not like any of America's potential enemies are competent to deal with our combined arms doctrine anyway -- none of them are remotely competent nor can afford the training it takes to counter it, as it requires very good combined arms doctrine to beat it. And as we've seen with Russians in their warfare, and as you should also know from seeing how the Chinese only pretend to train at all, it's like expecting them to flap their arms and fly to the moon.
last war you won? 🤔🤔
I love how football fields are an actual unit of measure
same
It's an easy shorthand when you're measuring in hundreds of meters because a football field is almost exactly 100 m long. You can just use it instead of saying 200, 300, or 400 m
@@Its-Just-Zip For a nation with a military that take brevity codes to an extreme, saying "football field" instead of "100 m" just sounds ironic.
@@death_parade Unironically, it's most likely better (at least you could argue) in the case of the U.S. military. For many, a "football field" probably carries more contextual understanding than "100 m" as they've likely seen one and know what it feels like to run across one, so in terms of spatial comprehension to brevity, the tradeoff is probably worth it.
But I agree, very ironic.
@@death_paradeAmericans doing everything to avoid using the metric system.
Very useful visualization
4000 people is about what you can fit in a moderately sized office building, I guess this is like a moderately sized business but spread out to avoid enemy fire.
And now, replacing the football field as a unit HD measurement, it is the MSOB!!!
As of 2019, when I was a company commader with 1st BDE 1st CAV, everything was at 70% strength (personnel and equipment) and was led by an Infantry officer
Why the Infantry officer remark? 1st Cav div is a combined arms division and led by infantry officers just like any division. They retained the “cavalry” name for historical reasons
@@G4x5da "Thank you sir for letting me play with your tanks..." was the quote the BDE CDR gave to the DIV CDR during his change of command. A change of command with an Armor Officer who appreciated and understood tank maintenance. CABs are bullshit and so are infantry officer that lead them.
Football fields are the best unit of measurement for us Americans. We can all intuitively understand it
i fucking love football fields
How do drones effect this formation
Seems like you guys should start using augmented reality overlays. You could use something like ARMA for positioning.
The command team just likes playing with the small models. They are normally pretty detailed, so I can't hold it against them. (The Russian ones were my favorite)
I NEED THESE MINIATURES OMG 😮😮😮
why is the artillery in front of the tanks?
It is artillery to support the brigades cavalry squadron. Unlikely to actually be allocated since all our cavalry troops have organic mortars in their formations. Plus guns went to Divarty recently so doubt they’d be forward supporting cavalry like that haha
@@ryanmartin279 doesn't that expose the artillery or is the range to short to be put behind the armor?
@@emiel_nl The more forward your own artillery is, the further it can reach into enemy terretory. Imagine the forward scouts would recieve enemy artillery fire, but your own artillery is too far behind to offer effective counter artillery fire. And other then in the model, the scouts are probably several miles ahead off the main body. It's their job to scout ahead after all.
Also, the scout bataillion has a tank company of it's own. So that artillery is still behind a first line of 36 Bradleys (3 troops with each two plattons of 6 Bradleys) and a second line of 14 Abrams tanks (one company)
The Quartermaster`s nightmare
Incredible Freedom
Amazing Demonstration
Mostly Understood but This Is Invaluable in Reminding Me of The Perspective and Showcasing Potential Lesser Patrol Tactics
Thank You so Much for This Public Service
The Comfort Of Man Know’s No Bounds
Incredible.
Did the armored forces fighting in Gulf Wars I and II use these formations? Or is this organization and structure the product of more recent reorganization?
The push across the desert in 91 was very much like this - Long sight lines and open, unobstructed terrain. If you have the time I recommend The Operations Room's Desert Storm series of videos here on TH-cam to give a frame of reference
Didn’t see any AA teams in the brigade or would Manpads be distributed among the squads?
Until recently, there was no organic Air Defence assets at the brigade or even division level (BCT's were organized in the early 2000's primarily to fight a counter insurgency) only in the past couple of years has the Army been moving to reintroduce ADA to the Division level and reorganize the main independent fighting formation from Brigades to Divisions
I have more respect for those who develop these massive op orders. That's crazy organization
Sprzed ilu wojen to jest? Korea? :D
I'm signing up tomorrow. Semper Fi.
What about the aviation elements ?
I play this period of wargaming in my basement use these 285th scale figures. I use Fist Full of TOWS 2 rules set.
I’m having a hard time understanding where in the world would a formation like this fit any where?
Well it must have worked well in open deserts like Kuwait, Iraq, etc. You'd have space there, but I think you're right in most cases the terrain will never let you spread out like this and you must be fighting in columns up the main roads.
You don’t fight in a BDE on line like this massive movement. BNs will have movement corridors and each have a sub objective which achieves the overall mission. Within the BNs is the COs who are executing the BN mission. Fighting in a massive line like that isn’t possible or desirable.
Where's the field kitchen?
Ok this seems to be the only useful and actually proper content on this profile ;)
Why it has University in the name is mistery for me.
y'all need to hire some like, warhammer model painters or something. Like just some basic hobbiests.
The models were fine, but they didn't really pop
The British army is smaller than this
That is not true at all
@@TheLiamster yeah I think they have the RtR and two cavalry regiments which means they have three of the units shown in the vid
To clarify there are THREE regular tank battalions in the British army, organised into two regular brigades (12th and 20th ABCT).
@@yescharliesurfs British Army does not follow the ABCT orbat, does it?
@@death_paradeyes they do.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_British_Army?wprov=sfti1#Field_Army
average game of warhammer lore
That is two tactical nukes worth of forces.
What does it matter in the age of constant surveillance, mine fields and drone warfare with corrected artillery fire? Looks cool, but as Ukraine war shows, the strategies will have to change.
This used to be called just a brigade. I wonder why the ptb felt the need to "enhance" the description?
BCTs have organic assets that allow them to deploy in dependent of division support. Biggest warfighting function is fires. BCTs have an organic FA BN, unlike the pre-BCT structure where FA BNs were organic to DIVARTY.
Why the USA? Maybe use a fictional map.
1200 vehicles and 450 personnel?!?
That is a wierd ratio.
He says 45 hundred, so 4500.
hey guys, it's interesting stuff but who said "why don't we tell our potential enemies our setups and tactics" and then let it happen
smh
None of this is remotely secret.
The actual formation and employment of a unit for a particular operation would be a different matter.
But this is first grade stuff, not University stuff.
Not enough infantry.. if you look at what's going on in Ukraine.
No shit Sherlock, what do you think the word “armored” means? Next you’ll tell me that bomber squadrons don’t have enough infantry either
@@jb76489 Armoured doesn't mean they can't be defeated. Look at Russia armoured columns in the start of the invasion. Almost no infantry. Result was that they were easily defeated by ATGMs and other portable AT weapons.. genius.
Ibct have more infantry w strykers. Abct have fewer
@@heinedenmarkAbct & Ibct will work together as a task force. Don’t know how it will fair against Russia
@@productionkos8816 I know.
In one nuke it's all over
Not really. Most of those vehicles are 100 meters apart, are armored, and have CBRN protection along with the ability to over-pressurize their cabins. Not to mention that in order to nuke this brigade, you'd have to suppress the air defense, much of which is capable of shooting down an ICBM, and/or fight through the US Air Force in order to launch a missile-borne nuke.
In short, it's not that easy.
@@notcrazy6288 indeed, but this scenario was tested with under sea torpedo that can damage seriously if not destroying. But i agree it won't be that easy.
that is easier said than done for all of the reasons said by @notcrazy6288, and in most scenarios we'll probably be fighting on the enemy's soil and an enemy using a nuke on their own soil would hurt them more than it would hurt us...
@@Scorpio.1989 I'd like to piggyback off of your piggyback by adding that if this brigade was engaged in combat and someone nuked it, they'd also be nuking whatever element was in combat with this brigade along with this brigade.
That was fun to write.
@@Scorpio.1989 The use of a weapon of mass destruction, even on one's own territory, is conceivable in military thinking; this is known as the scorched earth tactic. When Napoleon's forces entered Russia, they found only cities burned by the Russian forces, which starved the troops and prevented them from advancing.
Too much information for the CCP and PLA who is trying to learn all our tactics and capabilities.
I assure you, the PLA already knows all of this, it's pretty standard stuff.
Obsolete organization and tactics.
And now we know looking at Ukraine that this formation will fall apart quite quickly. If the ISTAR isnt superior and able to counter anything the enemy throws at them they will not break through minefields and enemy positions without huge losses from artillery, drones and NLAWs.
This unit has engineer assets capable of blowing through minefields. That said, drones are turning into a real pain-in-the-ass problem that a lot of people are working to solve. We'll see how that pans out.
Tanks in Ukraine are simply being misused and wasted.
Since the begining of modern tank warfare in WWII, the purpose of tanks has been one: To assist the infantry in attack and defense.
Tanks are organized into tank battalions only to ease the burden of administration and maintenance. They never operate on their own.
Tanks aren't invincible and can't operate on their own, and it's a lesson that must be relearned in every single war.