Tank Lances / Tank Companies TO&E

[CarcosanDawn]

Hello!

A buddy of mine and I are about to embark on a Battletech campaign pitting the 346th Heavy Tank Regiment of the Free Worlds League against a Warrior House of the Capellan Confederation.

As a heavy tank battalion player, I am somewhat lost on how to organize my companies.

FWL heavy tank regiments are "60-80 tanks with 20-30 transports" (FM:House Marik). This makes perfect sense - four ground companies of 15-20 vehicles, and an H&S company with 20-30 for supplies, engineers, ARVs, etc. ("transports")

Their companies are also 10-15 tanks (presumably 10 is the minimum before being folded or cannibalized, and 15 is full strength). That also makes sense... mostly. Doesn't quite add up to eighty.

HOWEVER.... Does this mean there are five tank Lances in the FWL? Alpha Strike's force builder implies that five-unit "stars" are more of a clanner thing.

Also, do companies not have Command Vehicles in the inner sphere? Even a traditional company of 12 units is just 3 line platoons, without any command tanks, and 16 is far too big for a platoon with a command lance tacked on...

House Marik companies should be 17, if they have five tank platoons, or 14 if not, surely?

Confusion abounds!

[AlphaMirage]

The TO&E of any unit is always to be taken with a massive block of salt. There is an 'ideal' and there is a 'likely' deployment just like any modern military unit.

By default Tank Platoons are 4 Tanks in SLDF/Inner Sphere units, command vehicles are typically attached at the over Company level (typically a Platoon per Company, etc...) The FWLM actually does respect conventional combined arms a lot (doing it before the RCTs) so these probably have supporting elements most of the time.

So a 'Light' Company could be made from two Platoons of Tanks or IFVs with an added recon/command section of 2 Scout vehicles (French Style) and fit into that 10 vehicle limit. Recon can spot for ambushes or indirect LRMs (The FWLM does love Missiles) from something like a Manticore or LRM Goblin while the Comms vehicle (which is basically anything with 3-7 tons of Comms gear and crew to operate it) can interface with Aerospace or Brigade assets including something like a Boomerang or satellites overhead.
 
You could also have a Heavy 'Line' Company with 3 Platoons, two of MBTs, and one of IFV Cav Scout/Strike Hover units that operate in pairs (to cover both flanks and each other, American Style), plus a command vehicle and some kind of artillery (which the Mariks do operate in decent numbers) or 'shorter range' fire support (such as LRM carriers) which are principally attached from the Regimental Support Batteries to make 13-15 vehicles per Company.

Mix and match 4-6 of these Companies to get you into range of that 60-80 number.

All of this is however how I'd do it as that makes the most rules and organizational sense.

[Lanceman]

Not five, FWL uses six tank "long platoons" is some cases.

[Gorgon]

In general, Inner Sphere tank forces are organized along the same lines as Mech forces:

• lance / platoon: 4 vehicles
• company: 3 lances (=12 vehicles)
• battalion: 3 (sometimes 4) companies; some houses like to add a command lance (36, 40, 48 or 52 vehicles)
• regiment: 2 - 4 battalions (with the norm being 3), sometimes with a command company added. A 'normal' regiment would come to 108 - 120 vehicles, but could range from 72 to ~200 vehicles.

The only Marik oddity I'm aware of is that light tank lances were made up of 6 vehicles. Not sure, if that's still true, though.

These numbers are usually understood to only include fighting vehicles - MBTs, scout vehicles, artillery, APCs, IFVs, etc. Support formations are rarely mentioned in the fluff. Overall, there's less information on conventional forces than Mech commands. So whether your APCs are organized in platoons independent of your infantry or if they form a single platoon is up to taste. Similar with how and on what level to attach artillery.

[CarcosanDawn]

So from all that, how do we arrive (if using the 4-vics-per-lance) at the organization that has 10-15 vehicles?

I am imagining that that 10-15 is *vehicles per company according to the default TO&E* not *vehicles per company including attachments, sometimes, now and again*

[Church14]

You could consider a square battalion of square companies supported by an infantry regiment with its own transport assets.

64 tanks from four companies of four lances of four tanks before any command element.
27 infantry platoons with vehicle support, some of which are non combat, some are combat stuff like maxims.


But if we stick with 60-80 combat vees and 20-30 transports as a regiment…
Run three battalions as two companies of tanks supported by a company of infantry each. So 24 combat vees, 3 platoons infantry each. Assume some of the infantry support is small non combat vees, but also a couple of blizzards or maxims. Maybe a lance of Po tanks as support for the infantry company in the heaviest battalion

[AlphaMirage]

So from all that, how do we arrive (if using the 4-vics-per-lance) at the organization that has 10-15 vehicles?

I am imagining that that 10-15 is *vehicles per company according to the default TO&E* not *vehicles per company including attachments, sometimes, now and again*

That's the thing, if there is a range then there is no 'default,' only 'recommendations' that might vary between 'League' forces and 'Provincial' ones and even between 'Provincial' ones (Anduriens might use a different organization than the Regulans which are different than Oriente, etc...) the FWLM is an administrative mess between its units which range widely in proficiency and kit. Its amazing the LCCC can keep everything even semi-operational.

As the 346th Heavy Tank Regiment is of SLDF vintage it is also likely that they follow the SLDF standard pattern of an Heavy Armored Regiment. That probably leans on Manticore (or Bulldog) and Von Luckner/Demolisher/Zhukov types with attached batteries of LRM Carriers and Pikes plus an attached Mechanized Infantry Battalion (including Engineers) rather than anything FWLM despite being in their service.

[beachhead1985]

Well, this will bottleneck you; does this unit need to fit in/deploy from dropships?

If yes; you need to adhere to a TO&E that will see your combat units fit in vehicle and not cargo bays.

[Alan Grant]

FM: FWL page 19 also has a chart that shows---- Platoons: 4-6 vehicles. Companies 2-3 (10-15 vehicles), Battalions/Squadron: 2-3 companies (30-45 vehicles), Regiment: 2-3 Squadrons (80-120 vehicles).

So with FWL Armor, it's just a bit more a bit more dynamic than the generally accepted rigid standards. Starting with the "long platoons" of 6 vehicles that we see pop up in some references.

I absolutely agree that what dropships can carry is a strong limiting factor.

I also agree that what you might be seeing here is direct attachment of units that would normally be organized separately. Contingents of anti-aircraft vehicles, support vehicles like drone carriers or HQ vehicles, fire support vehicles, artillery, or perhaps even some IFVs within the armor unit intended to be used by any infantry units the regiment finds themselves working alongside. IFVs and APCs also have other uses, like casualty evacuation, and general personnel/cargo transport under combat conditions that people tend to ignore but actually can be quite useful to a larger armor unit.

Don't forget about aviation either. There could be some combat or transport VTOLs in the mix. Or even something like Boomerang spotter planes.  When I think about the composition of something like an armor battalion or regiment I can definitely see those types of assets start to pop up.

That organizational structure allows for some direct permanent attachment of some of those types of assets. Whereas most other Great House and mercenary units probably do the same thing, it's just through not-permanent attachments. On paper organized into separate commands, but operationally they are likely to end up being part of a combined-arms operation.

[Gorgon]

FM: FWL page 19 also has a chart that shows---- Platoons: 4-6 vehicles. Companies 2-3 (10-15 vehicles), Battalions/Squadron: 2-3 companies (30-45 vehicles), Regiment: 2-3 Squadrons (80-120 vehicles).

So with FWL Armor, it's just a bit more a bit more dynamic than the generally accepted rigid standards. Starting with the "long platoons" of 6 vehicles that we see pop up in some references.

Sounds to me as a FWL tank company is intended to have 2.5 platoons. The half platoon could either be the command element or be made up of supporting elements different from the two 'main' platoons - either fire support, infantry (transport), bodyguard (for artillery / fire support), AA elements...

[CarcosanDawn]

Thanks for the advice guys. I am supposing a Union dropship for all the mass - am intending on leaning on Ontos for assault tanks and Manticores and Von Luckners for heavy tanks.

I suppose the big question is what dropship indeed! Showing my cluelessness in asking: I know the Leopard is the mech dropship of choice, is there a tank Ship?

[AlphaMirage]

The Triumph is the battalion armor transport, also you have the Excalibur, an Overlord variant or the lightweight Gazelle

[Gorgon]

An for the FWL, the Hannibal. A company-sized transport.

sarna.net is always a good start when looking for a unit: https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Hannibal_(DropShip_class)

There are two different kinds of vehicle combat bays: light (max vehicle weight: 50 tons) and heavy (max 100 tons). Heavy bays are more common among canon designs - the Triumph and Excalibur AlphaMirage mentioned feature only or mostly heavy bays (depending on model). Most tank transports can also transport a number of infantry platoons, too. So if you plan for organic infantry support, most dropships have that covered, too.

[CarcosanDawn]

Thanks; I will probably write in a Hannibal as it sounds about right.
The world of DropShips is bewildering and scary when it comes to CBT rules lol

[Marveryn]

dont forget if memory serve me.  That light vehicles and double up in a 100 ton bay so whatever drop ship you use, you may not need a huge amount of dropship to support your unit.  i cant remember if med vehicles can also double up or not.

[Starfury]

If you want a bigger vehicle carrier then the Hannibal, the Triumph can carry a battalion of vehicles.

[Arkansas Warrior]

It’s a small thing, but tanks (and infantry) come in platoons, lances are for mechs (and ASF).

[Hellraiser]

So the FWL is probably the only faction in the IS to have different sized formations for the same type of unit.

They do NOT adhere to the standard 4-3-3 pattern of most Tank/Mech formation for their tanks.

Instead the FWL has a different formation size based on whether the regiment is a Heavy Tank force or a Light Tank force.

This is why you see those variable figures above.


Heavy tank regiments commonly field 60 to 80 combat vehicles  (2 Battalions) and an additional 20 to 30 vehicles for support and transport purposes (1 Battalion).
** NOTE ** This type of 2+1 was also, IIRC, used by the 2nd SLDF for their few tank units or at least I think I recall a note about that in FM:CS SLDF section.

Light tank/patrol units usually contains 100 to 120 vehicles.  (3 Battalions)

The upper end figures are for their LIGHT units while the lower end figures are for their HEAVY units.

Platoon         1      4-6
Company         2-3 platoons   10-15
Squadron(Battalion)   2-3 companies   30-45
Regiment      2-3 battalions   80-120

So a typical Heavy Tank unit will probably look "normal" up to the battalion level.
Battalion #1 = 4-12-36
Battalion #2 = 4-12-36
Total of 72 right in the middle of that 60-80 range.
Then take on a 3rd battalion of logistics/support.

Light Tank formations on the other had often have those "long platoons" in them & allow you to vary a lot more.
2-3 Platoons gives you that 10-15 figure ranging from 2x5 or 3x5 or 2x6 or 3x4 or 4+5+6.
I'd imagine they vary based on what each unit gets assigned & you probably have a lot of pure platoons.
Something like 4 Vedettes or Pegasi here or 6 Galleons there or 5 Saladins etc etc.

[thesilverback]

I have never liked the 12 unit company but a square 16 unit company and 4 company battalion IMHO is the best set up.

[glitterboy2098]

Sounds to me as a FWL tank company is intended to have 2.5 platoons. The half platoon could either be the command element or be made up of supporting elements different from the two 'main' platoons - either fire support, infantry (transport), bodyguard (for artillery / fire support), AA elements...

2.5 to 3.75 really.. it would be 2.5 for the 6 vehicle light lances, but might be 3 lances of 4 heavier vehicles plus a demilance of 2-3 vehicles. which might also explain the 10 vehicle count.. two lances of 4 plus a demilance of 2.

suggesting the FWL vehicle company structure might actually be "two lances and a demilance of integral support"

[Hellraiser]

which might also explain the 10 vehicle count.. two lances of 4 plus a demilance of 2.

More likely its a pair of 5 vehicle Long Platoons.

I doubt you have any "half-platoons" involved, just various #s of those oversized one's thrown in.

[paladin2019]

It’s a small thing, but tanks (and infantry) come in platoons, lances are for mechs (and ASF).

Not necessarily true. Tanks' sub-company level organization can be a lance or a platoon. Both terms are used, with FWL using the latter in the fluff book being discussed.

[Arkansas Warrior]

Where do you see the use of Lance for conventional units?  Also, isn’t the OP wanting to build a FWL unit? Why would we not use FWL nomenclature?

[Hellraiser]

In the beginning, like 80's, you saw them called Platoons, but this millennium you see Tank's referenced as "lances" fairly often, its not a shift I like but the books have both examples these days.

[paladin2019]

Where do you see the use of Lance for conventional units?  Also, isn’t the OP wanting to build a FWL unit? Why would we not use FWL nomenclature?

[Iron Grenadier]

Where do you see the use of Lance for conventional units?  Also, isn’t the OP wanting to build a FWL unit? Why would we not use FWL nomenclature?

The old Draconis Combine and Mercenaries Field Manual had the armor company as three "lances" while the FWL, FedSun and Lyran books used "platoons"

[Arkansas Warrior]

The old Draconis Combine and Mercenaries Field Manual had the armor company as three "lances" while the FWL, FedSun and Lyran books used "platoons"

Really?  I never noticed that. (Granted I’ve never been a Drac fan probably just browsed the unit write ups.  I’ve read the Mercs one pretty thoroughly, though.)

[glitterboy2098]

More likely its a pair of 5 vehicle Long Platoons.

I doubt you have any "half-platoons" involved, just various #s of those oversized one's thrown in.

real world armored companies use demi-platoons for the command elements, and often have demiplatoons of mechanized infantry attached in actual deployments. so i have no issue assuming that the FWL might make use of them for HQ's, or integral support units.

[Hellraiser]

real world armored companies use demi-platoons for the command elements, and often have demiplatoons of mechanized infantry attached in actual deployments. so i have no issue assuming that the FWL might make use of them for HQ's, or integral support units.

1.  Real World & Battletech are rarely in alignment.   (See the standard 4-3-3 that totally lacks Demi-anything)

2.  Assuming Demi-Platoons also pretty much ignores the other existing info about FWL Platoons being 4-6 Tanks & about Company+ Orgs being built on a 2-OR-3 pattern v/s the standard IS "Fixed at 4-3-3" formations.

Why try to create something when there is an existing answer right in front of us.  IE.  Platoons that have more than 4 in them.

The FWL is pretty clear about having Heavy Tank Regiments & Light Tank Regiments & then also have Double Sized Infantry Regiments.

If you want to mix them, it's a called a Combined Arms / Mixed Forces,  "Combat Command",  for field operations.

No reason to reinvent the wheel with some new formation.

[CarcosanDawn]

I have thoroughly confused myself and am probably overthinking things.

I accept the 4-tank platoon, and the 4-12-36 construction of a battalion, but at the same time, I can't wrap my head around the idea that there is no Command Lance - i.e. the company commander just snatches a platoon tank. That seems wild for some reason, but maybe I am overthinking it.

I could also see "long" platoons (5) with a short platoon of command tanks (2 + 3 transport/supply/HQ vehicles). I dunno, haha.

[Hellraiser]

Nothing says there isn't a "Command Lance"

Just because a Company might be a formation of 2 platoons instead of 3 doesn't mean one of them can't be the "Command Platoon"

A Company of 2 "Demi-Companies" IE 6-tank Long Platoons, can still be 1 named "Command" with the CO & another named "Fire" with a Lt in charge.

[paladin2019]

IS standard formations take a more aviation-centric approach where supernumerary HQ platforms are restricted to much higher echelons than we use now. Hence why IS companies don't have separate command elements and you don't generally see those until regimental level.

digression As far as "demi-platoons" being "real-world" command section formations, that is highly dependent on base nation organization as to be  flat wrong. It also ignores that the purpose of is to have two separate command elements to deal with the tasks assigned to different sub-elements of the company. 66 and 65 (or 55) do not exist to be wingmen. Then you have Soviet-based formations with a single supernumerary command tank for a 3x3 company and understandably have a large influence on balance of armored formations worldwide. Also, a "demi-platoon" of infantry is fairly useless and just bad organization to begin with. You don't break up platoons. Western tank company teams trade a full tank platoon for a full mech platoon as the normal task organization.

[CarcosanDawn]

I guess I meant Demi-Platoon more in the sense of "a dedicated command element smaller than a full platoon that can focus on commanding the company as a whole rather than just his own platoon"

I can visualize how it works for mechs and aviation because those are single humans, I have a harder time understanding that a Captain of a company is also the Lieutenant of one of its platoons, I felt like he would be the premium of overtaxed, ergonomically.

Conversely, having a Command Lance for one other platoon seems excessive - that's an equal number of captains and lieutenants...

[Hellraiser]

I can visualize how it works for mechs and aviation because those are single humans, I have a harder time understanding that a Captain of a company is also the Lieutenant of one of its platoons, I felt like he would be the premium of overtaxed, ergonomically.

Conversely, having a Command Lance for one other platoon seems excessive - that's an equal number of captains and lieutenants...

1.  Nothing says a 6-tank formation can't have a Commander & a Sub-Commander.
For example.
You could have a Captain, 2 Sgts,  Lt., 2 Sgts, as your 6 Tank Commanders.
And in Platoon-6 #2 you could have a Lt.  MST-Sgt,  & 4 Sgts.

These SubCommanders can manage "Sections" the size of a Russian 3-Tank Platoon.
Also, a Tank Commander is likely less taxing a job at the CO level than a MW or ASF is.
The Driver/Loader/Gunner can operate the tank if needed while the CO is dealing w/ Radio Calls & giving orders.

I've done training exercises on a short crew before & its not ideal but you can do it w/o having both TC & Gunner slots filled.

[CarcosanDawn]

True, I was thinking traditional 4-tank lances for the heavy tank units, not six-tank units.

I could absolutely see a lance divided into sections that way, though it seems clumsier than just 3 tank platoons.

For my heavy tank regiment, should the companies be 2 platoons (more like ComStar Level IIs in the rules, with 6 units each, for unit construction) divided into 2 sections each platoon, leaving 3 three-tank units plus a 3 tank element with the Company Commander, or... what?

[Arkansas Warrior]

Nothing says there isn't a "Command Lance"

Just because a Company might be a formation of 2 platoons instead of 3 doesn't mean one of them can't be the "Command Platoon"

A Company of 2 "Demi-Companies" IE 6-tank Long Platoons, can still be 1 named "Command" with the CO & another named "Fire" with a Lt in charge.

One command element and one other element is a very strange organization.  Every theory of span of control I’ve heard would say that that’s too few subordinates.  3-5, or even up to 7 in some circumstances, is more normal.

IS standard formations take a more aviation-centric approach where supernumerary HQ platforms are restricted to much higher echelons than we use now. Hence why IS companies don't have separate command elements and you don't generally see those until regimental level.

digression As far as "demi-platoons" being "real-world" command section formations, that is highly dependent on base nation organization as to be  flat wrong. It also ignores that the purpose of is to have two separate command elements to deal with the tasks assigned to different sub-elements of the company. 66 and 65 (or 55) do not exist to be wingmen. Then you have Soviet-based formations with a single supernumerary command tank for a 3x3 company and understandably have a large influence on balance of armored formations worldwide. Also, a "demi-platoon" of infantry is fairly useless and just bad organization to begin with. You don't break up platoons. Western tank company teams trade a full tank platoon for a full mech platoon as the normal task organization.

You don’t break up platoons? What was the point of all those squad tactical exercises I ran in the Army?

[paladin2019]

You don’t break up platoons? What was the point of all those squad tactical exercises I ran in the Army?

No, you don't break up platoons. The squad attacks as part of the platoon's mission.

[Arkansas Warrior]

That feels like a bit of a cop-out.  By that standard, couldn't you say that you don't break up platoons, because they're all part of the company's mission, and on up the chain until you're saying that RCTs aren't broken up because they're all operating as part of the AFFS' mission.

[CarcosanDawn]

No need to fight about it, guys - I'm not planning to break platoons up in the operational or strategic sense, haha. Just a six-wide tank platoon splitting into 3-tank sections for tactical bounds, or a 4 tank platoon into two like modern western stuff.

Just worried about that command element, but willing to drop it if the wisdom is "there's no discreet command element, commanding a tank company in the future is far easier than modern ones"

[paladin2019]

That feels like a bit of a cop-out.  By that standard, couldn't you say that you don't break up platoons, because they're all part of the company's mission, and on up the chain until you're saying that RCTs aren't broken up because they're all operating as part of the AFFS' mission.

You don't break up platoons, but you you do cross level them to make company teams. The point is that the squad attack is a thing because the platoon's mission often has squads in attack, support, and/or reserve, depending on the mission. But a squad conducting a squad attack won't be doing it alone, the rest of the platoon will be part of the operation.

No need to fight about it, guys - I'm not planning to break platoons up in the operational or strategic sense, haha. Just a six-wide tank platoon splitting into 3-tank sections for tactical bounds, or a 4 tank platoon into two like modern western stuff.

This is exactly what I'm saying. The platoon isn't broken up, its parts are conducting mutually supporting tasks.

Just worried about that command element, but willing to drop it if the wisdom is "there's no discreet command element, commanding a tank company in the future is far easier than modern ones"

The default is that command elements are not supernumerary to the unit's fighting strength in IS organizations. If you want to spend some BV to have some extra units in excess of the /4 model that you define as command vehicles, that's how your force is organized and you do you.

[Hellraiser]

For my heavy tank regiment, should the companies be 2 platoons (more like ComStar Level IIs in the rules, with 6 units each, for unit construction) divided into 2 sections each platoon, leaving 3 three-tank units plus a 3 tank element with the Company Commander, or... what?

As I mentioned upthread, the Heavy Regiments only have 60-80 Tanks in them.
Personally, I'd just do a pair of typical 4-3-3 battalions of 36 for a total of 72 & call it a day.

The Light Regiments are where I think you'd see a lot of the bigger platoons used so thy bulk up firepower for a single platoon patrol.

[truetanker]

Long time Marik here, but:

I'd run two 6-tank Lights and two 5-tank Heavies per Platoon.

Given that the odd Infantry can be deployed as well, I'd give 2 Bulldog and 3 Goblin per "Lance" here. Going as far as making two of the Goblin LRM variants and a single standard as Command. If going by the classic 1-ton of Infantry, 7 being standard, while up to 10-troopers could be used as well. This unit would have heavy LRM support, and 3 LL to defend themselves, as well as Quad SRM racks to throw around. Infernos and Smoke anyone? Not to mention the preverbal MG stopping fire to hose the local scene with.

And as a precaution, 2 Platoons of Lights followed by a Platoon of Heavy in my Light Battalion units. Reverse this for the Heavier ones, but use the Combined arms in these.

Galleons and Harasser Mini-Peggy's are really good at these, but so are the standard Harassers as well.

What ever floats your ideal unit.

TT

[CarcosanDawn]

I always took that "platoon" (the 10-15 line) to be a typo/confusion with Company, given that 10-15 is a Company in the manual.

5-tank heavy lances is new... I do recall reading it somewhere but don't remember where. Possibly on a forum, haha.

[Hellraiser]

Long time Marik here, but:

I'd run two 6-tank Lights and two 5-tank Heavies per Platoon.

I always took that "platoon" (the 10-15 line) to be a typo/confusion with Company, given that 10-15 is a Company in the manual.

5-tank heavy lances is new... I do recall reading it somewhere but don't remember where. Possibly on a forum, haha.

I think what TT was saying is that for a Light Company, he runs 2 platoons of 6 Light Tanks.
For a Heavy Company he runs 2 platoons of 5-Heavy Tanks.


I assume the 10-15 variable # for a platoon is to allow for some flexible formations based on what any given unit has.

For Example:  Possible Configurations using 4-6/Platoon & 2-3/Company per FM:FWL

Company-10A  =  2x  Platoon-5
Company-10B  =  Platoon-4 + Platoon-6
Company-11  =  Platoon-5 + Platoon-6
Company-12A  =  3x  Platoon-4
Company-12B  =  2x  Platoon-6
Company-13  =  Platoon-4 + Platoon-4 + Platoon-5
Company-14A  =  Platoon-4 + Platoon-5 + Platoon-5
Company-14B  =  Platoon-4 + Platoon-4 + Platoon-6
Company-15A  =  3x  Platoon-5
Company-15B  =  Platoon-4 + Platoon-5  +  Platoon-6

Any of those could be for Heavy or Light companies in theory.
The key is that by the time you hit Regimental Level that the total #s between Light or Heavy Regiments vary a lot with Heavy Regiments only being 1/2 to 2/3 the size of a Light Regiment in total #s but easily equivalent in terms of total firepower.

[truetanker]

I think what TT was saying is that for a Light Company, he runs 2 platoons of 6 Light Tanks.
For a Heavy Company he runs 2 platoons of 5-Heavy Tanks

Correct.

But I would also run 6 and 5 in my Companies as well and reinforce some of the more heavier ones once in a while.

I've done both 2 Platoons of either 6 or 5, I've combined 6 and 5 with Infantry and even ran three Heavy Platoons one with Infantry in support. This might be Demolisher, Parisan, Ontos or their LRM variants with the "classic" Bulldog/Goblin w/ Infantry combo.

I've run Harasser/Mini-Peggy and Heavy Hover APC and Jump as the Light unit while running Drillsons in the Heavy category. There's always different units that seem to work together.

One of the reasons I am called Truetanker. I've done pretty much every type unit combo out there, mostly got beaten up for my troubles. But surprises do happen. Once you get use to the idea, another tank or two does help.

Quick way and a reminder, if you can get use to moving with 2 tanks as "one", your halfway there to the Clan way of thinking. Buddy system all the way, you can even split the unit in half to cover more ground, on top of the Lance formation.

TT

[Hellraiser]

Bulldog/Goblin w/ Infantry combo.

I was using the 4th SW Atlas TO&E's one time to make up units.

The "Mechanized Infantry Regiments" are an interesting formation that I've never seen anywhere else in canon.

1 Battalion Foot Infantry
1 Battalion Motor Infantry
1 Battalion Light Tanks

For my Light Tank battalion I figured having IFV ability would be good since it was after all an Infantry unit as a whole.

Lots of Platoons were Heavy Tracked APC (Regular or LRM) pairs w/ pairs of Hunters/Vedettes/Goblins
Other combos were H-Wheeled APC (Any Model) with Hetzers/Strikers.

I liked that a single Motor or 2 Foot Companies were able to pair up with a Light Tank company for transport & still had some actual "Light-Tank" level of firepower in each platoon.

[truetanker]

Yeah, once upon a time, the Standard APCs was all we had... Now there are dozens of interesting designs that we can use.

VTOL, WiGE and even Submersibles. All have been retcon'd back. Still disagree to the 3039-restart date... but, eh, I get new things to play with!

TT

[Hellraiser]

Still disagree to the 3039-restart date

What's this?

[truetanker]

What's this?

OG was 3025-26.

NU is 3039.

"Start" date for Battletech Beginners Intro-dates.

Was a way to regroup the game so new players and older ones had a common start date, backfilling as they went along.

And as a way to separate them from "others" that shall not be named... previous employers.

TT

[CarcosanDawn]

I think two maneuver elements per company is way to small. If I wanted a 10 tank company, I would do 3x3 + 1 CO, but I think 12-15 with three maneuver elements each is sensible (4 tank platoons or five tank platoons).

A square company is unwieldy, but a line company is weak - one platoon forward with one in reserve just seems tiny. Two forwards and one reserve (the traditional triangular military unit) is superior.

If anything, I would expect the debate to be more "is it square or triangle based" - 2 maneuver units per company is really uncomfortable lol. For me anyways.

[thesilverback]

A square unit is more for 2 maneuver units forward to find the enemy weakness and once the weakness has been found 1 unit for the breakthrough, followed by the last unit to exploit the breakthrough.

A triangle unit lacks the exploitation force while still good.

A pair of units is just to constricting on what a commander can do.