You are not logged in.

1

Monday, December 8th 2008, 11:10am

The Bulgarian army

A couple comments on the OOB just posted:

1 - the sharpshooter/sniper squad at company level seems a bit early, and a bit large for such a unit.

2 - the number of mortars at battalion level seems rather large.

2

Monday, December 8th 2008, 11:16am

And the DShKM came in 1946....

3

Monday, December 8th 2008, 4:33pm

RE: The Bulgarian army

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
A couple comments on the OOB just posted:

1 - the sharpshooter/sniper squad at company level seems a bit early, and a bit large for such a unit.

2 - the number of mortars at battalion level seems rather large.

1. It's possible it's a bit too large; I just set a number that seemed realistic to me. Currently though, there are 0 of them; it's mostly just an extra squad attached to the company which has hand-picked Schmidt-Rubins and training in cover, concealment, and marksmanship. As to date - I'm working a bit off Russian tactics, and the Russian Army did train snipers in quantity.

Would it be better if I made the "sniper squad" into a heavy MG squad, and put the scout snipers directly into the squads themselves?

2. Again, I suppose it's possible. As I've consistently said, Bulgaria had a reputation pre-Great War for it's artillerymen, and I intend to work off of that. Would eight 81mm mortars at the battalion level - rather than 12 - be a better number?

Honestly, an army's OOB isn't something I know much about: I basically wrote it up over the past few days saying "Hm, it'd be nice to have more of this, this, and this." So long as I keep the heavy infantry/artillery-centric approach to the Army, I'm willing to make changes.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
And the DShKM came in 1946....

Ooops. Checking back on my dates, I see the DShK itself is a bit... early. That'll need fixing.

4

Monday, December 8th 2008, 4:39pm

RE: The Bulgarian army

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
A couple comments on the OOB just posted:

1 - the sharpshooter/sniper squad at company level seems a bit early, and a bit large for such a unit.

2 - the number of mortars at battalion level seems rather large.

1. It's possible it's a bit too large; I just set a number that seemed realistic to me. Currently though, there are 0 of them; it's mostly just an extra squad attached to the company which has hand-picked Schmidt-Rubins and training in cover, concealment, and marksmanship. As to date - I'm working a bit off Russian tactics, and the Russian Army did train snipers in quantity.

Would it be better if I made the "sniper squad" into a heavy MG squad, and put the scout snipers directly into the squads themselves?


Not necessarily. I would probably back it down from a squad to a team, or attach the squad at battalion rather than company level.

Quoted

2. Again, I suppose it's possible. As I've consistently said, Bulgaria had a reputation pre-Great War for it's artillerymen, and I intend to work off of that. Would eight 81mm mortars at the battalion level - rather than 12 - be a better number?

Honestly, an army's OOB isn't something I know much about: I basically wrote it up over the past few days saying "Hm, it'd be nice to have more of this, this, and this." So long as I keep the heavy infantry/artillery-centric approach to the Army, I'm willing to make changes.


The issue, from my POV, is that right now you have more heavier mortars in the battalion than you have lighter mortars, it ends up being a top-heavy structure. If you're going to have 12 mortars at battalion, you could get rid of the company level mortars, with the assumption that several mortars will be assigned (in most cases) to support the company. An alternative will be to reduce the number of mortars at battalion level, as you suggested.

5

Monday, December 8th 2008, 5:08pm

RE: The Bulgarian army

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
A couple comments on the OOB just posted:

1 - the sharpshooter/sniper squad at company level seems a bit early, and a bit large for such a unit.

2 - the number of mortars at battalion level seems rather large.

1. It's possible it's a bit too large; I just set a number that seemed realistic to me. Currently though, there are 0 of them; it's mostly just an extra squad attached to the company which has hand-picked Schmidt-Rubins and training in cover, concealment, and marksmanship. As to date - I'm working a bit off Russian tactics, and the Russian Army did train snipers in quantity.

Would it be better if I made the "sniper squad" into a heavy MG squad, and put the scout snipers directly into the squads themselves?


Not necessarily. I would probably back it down from a squad to a team, or attach the squad at battalion rather than company level.

Hm, I suppose I could do that. Only reason I would resist the change is because I'd have to go back and add up all the personnel totals again... ugh, maths.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson

Quoted

2. Again, I suppose it's possible. As I've consistently said, Bulgaria had a reputation pre-Great War for it's artillerymen, and I intend to work off of that. Would eight 81mm mortars at the battalion level - rather than 12 - be a better number?

Honestly, an army's OOB isn't something I know much about: I basically wrote it up over the past few days saying "Hm, it'd be nice to have more of this, this, and this." So long as I keep the heavy infantry/artillery-centric approach to the Army, I'm willing to make changes.


The issue, from my POV, is that right now you have more heavier mortars in the battalion than you have lighter mortars, it ends up being a top-heavy structure. If you're going to have 12 mortars at battalion, you could get rid of the company level mortars, with the assumption that several mortars will be assigned (in most cases) to support the company. An alternative will be to reduce the number of mortars at battalion level, as you suggested.

A bit of quick research... it seems the Bulgarian Army historically did not deploy its mortars to the company level at all, but it did deploy some HMGs - which I've missed. In that case, I'm going to switch the company heavy-weapons squad over to HMGs or MMGs, and have the 50mm mortars and 81mm mortars both combined in the battalion mortar platoon (leaving the total number at 12; call it 8 50mm and 4 81mm mortars). Does that sound workable?

6

Monday, December 8th 2008, 5:09pm

Yep, that sounds workable. I'd use MMGs, they're better for most purposes against infantry.

7

Monday, December 8th 2008, 5:11pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Yep, that sounds workable. I'd use MMGs, they're better for most purposes against infantry.

Okiedokie. More ZB30 machine guns, then...

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Brockpaine" (Dec 8th 2008, 5:37pm)


8

Monday, December 8th 2008, 11:25pm

The Czechs would probably be happy to sell the beltfed ZB30 developed for Persia

9

Monday, December 8th 2008, 11:37pm

Eh, for that purpose, you'd probably be better off with one of the water-cooled MMGs, assuming you want it to be a sustained fire weapon mostly for defensive use.

10

Monday, December 8th 2008, 11:42pm

Why? Both the ZB53and MG34 worked well as MMG´s

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Vukovlad" (Dec 8th 2008, 11:55pm)


11

Tuesday, December 9th 2008, 12:08am

I have ZB-30s already, so it's no big deal to deploy them. If I buy any new armaments, it's going to be the Steyr-Solothurn S2-200 / 31M for license production, but that's not going to be a 1937 project.

12

Tuesday, December 9th 2008, 12:45am

Because at this point in WW history, about the only aircooled MMG that's been used to speak of is the MG33, and it was having problems in Lithuania (not necessarily because of the design, but because of sub-standard parts mostly). If Bulgaria's buying large numbers of ZB30s, saving some money and keeping the old reliable water-cooled guns in inventory is not a bad idea. Also, keep in mind that while the MG34, et al, did do good service, so did the Vickers, Maxim, etc. They're really hard to better in a defensive, fixed position role.

13

Tuesday, December 9th 2008, 1:25am

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Because at this point in WW history, about the only aircooled MMG that's been used to speak of is the MG33, and it was having problems in Lithuania (not necessarily because of the design, but because of sub-standard parts mostly). If Bulgaria's buying large numbers of ZB30s, saving some money and keeping the old reliable water-cooled guns in inventory is not a bad idea. Also, keep in mind that while the MG34, et al, did do good service, so did the Vickers, Maxim, etc. They're really hard to better in a defensive, fixed position role.

My best research tells me that Bulgaria did have some Maxim guns, but not many.

14

Tuesday, December 9th 2008, 4:44pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I have ZB-30s already, so it's no big deal to deploy them. If I buy any new armaments, it's going to be the Steyr-Solothurn S2-200 / 31M for license production, but that's not going to be a 1937 project.


What I mean is that if you are already using the ZB30 then the beltfed ZB30P makes sense as a MMG perhaps with a Heavier barrel

15

Tuesday, December 9th 2008, 4:49pm

Well, like I said, machinegun replacement isn't for 1937 yet. There's already a massive order for K31 rifles and Mp34 SMGs, and the Bulgarians are spending a lot of money replacing some old artillery and buying new tanks, AT and AA guns. In other words, they're operating at the high end of their procurements budget already, and what they have works well enough for now.