Where did they come up with the idea of a "lance" consisting of 4 battlemechs?

[Dayton3]

I was going some research and the closest I could find was there was a medieval basic military organizing principal that had the word "lance" it it.    Those "lances" consisted of three people.   A knight,  a squire that carried the knights weapons and kit and another squire that carried the Knights non combat related kit.

Makes sense but how did we get from the three person "lance" back in the Middle Ages to the Battletech "lance" of four mechs?

At least the two aircraft "lance" for fighters makes sense.   Lead aircraft and wingman.

[dgorsman]

I think it migrated through horse mounted cavalry, and eventually armored cavalry (lance being the equivalent of a platoon in a conventional/non-cavalry group).  Although squadrons and troops didn't make the cut.

[pokefan548]

It's a matter of U.S. military doctrine. Army and Marine Corps tank platoons are each 4 tanks, a structure copied by most other armored vehicles of the sort, which I believe is also common in most other NATO countries. I presume they called it a lance to evoke the strong sense of neo-knighthood that they were leaning particularly hard into during the early days.

[Sartris]

the lance fournie was a sort of precursor to the squad based around a knight - a mixed unit of squires, men at arms, and/or archers. there were multiple variations around Europe. it makes sense given the original premise of the mechwarrior. rather than use that organization, they just made lance the word for mech platoon.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Because it is a tank. The structure resembles modern armored company/platoon, although most armored company in battletech lacks the tank for company commander and xo. Despite they bring the ancient word 'lance' it's actually come from modern armored company/platoon.

Also it is worth noting that tanks are works with a pair by default as well. It is not the individual fighting force. That is why the basic structure is four - two teams of - tanks. Since battlemech is the tank, not the ancient knight, it is reasonable to follow the standard of modern armored corps.

[Colt Ward]

Although squadrons and troops didn't make the cut.

Depends on the formation . . . but yeah, Hussars & Lancers formations would have made sense to use those higher formations.

[Kovax]

...so where does the rank of "Lance Corporal" come from?  Is that the leader of half of an 8-12-man squad?

[Colt Ward]

...so where does the rank of "Lance Corporal" come from?  Is that the leader of half of an 8-12-man squad?

No . . . Lance Corporals are section/fire team leaders, a squad still has a sergeant.  Lance Corporals is a USMC rank, US Army equivalent is Corporal though it is not used that much any more as it denotes a command while most at that grade are Specialists (aka, E4 mafia) with a sham shield.

Have to ask Marines like Charlie 6, but I would assume the rank is related to some of the older references here involving a 'lance' sized tactical unit.

[glitterboy2098]

...so where does the rank of "Lance Corporal" come from?  Is that the leader of half of an 8-12-man squad?

actually it stems from the term lancepesade, derived from the italian lancia spezzata.. "broken lance", a term used for a veteran soldier derived from the lances fournies. a lancepesade is a soldier who has "broken his lance" in combat, and thus a leader. generally these were connected to small mercenary units in the italian wars of the 14th and 15th century known as lances, groups of 4-6 men with a structure similar to the Lances fournies. (these would be recruited then combined with other mercs and militia to create larger formations) the lancepesades were usually soldiers from one of these units who had either left the unit or had gone on detached detail to take service as an individual. they tended to fill lower ranking officer positions.

[Sartris]

that's consistent with what i've read

[VhenRa]

No . . . Lance Corporals are section/fire team leaders, a squad still has a sergeant.  Lance Corporals is a USMC rank, US Army equivalent is Corporal though it is not used that much any more as it denotes a command while most at that grade are Specialists (aka, E4 mafia) with a sham shield.

Have to ask Marines like Charlie 6, but I would assume the rank is related to some of the older references here involving a 'lance' sized tactical unit.

And of course its also different in Commonwealth lands.

[Kovax]

No . . . Lance Corporals are section/fire team leaders, a squad still has a sergeant.

That's why I said "half" of an 8-12-man squad, not the full squad.  By that logic, does half of a squad qualify as a "lance" (or a "fire team" in more modern terms)?

The convoluted terminology and background lore of the BT universe seems to have been created by a couple of guys with surface familiarity with a wide range of military history and terminology, but without a lot of depth to it at times.  I just have to wonder if they didn't pull the term "lance" out of somewhere slightly off context, but close enough to make the mental connection.

[Hellraiser]

No . . . Lance Corporals are section/fire team leaders, a squad still has a sergeant.  Lance Corporals is a USMC rank, US Army equivalent is Corporal though it is not used that much any more as it denotes a command while most at that grade are Specialists (aka, E4 mafia) with a sham shield.

Have to ask Marines like Charlie 6, but I would assume the rank is related to some of the older references here involving a 'lance' sized tactical unit.

Isn't a "Lance Corporal" only an E-3 though?    Army Equivalent would be PFC.

[Frabby]

The convoluted terminology and background lore of the BT universe seems to have been created by a couple of guys with surface familiarity with a wide range of military history and terminology, but without a lot of depth to it at times.  I just have to wonder if they didn't pull the term "lance" out of somewhere slightly off context, but close enough to make the mental connection.

That seems to describe the BT approach to a lot of things pretty well.

I too had read years ago that the BT Lance derived from the medieval/renaissance concept of a mini-warband centered on a mounted knight and his retainers, as explained upthread; but I cannot recall if it was official or who said it. It certainly fits the "fantasy tropes in space" flair BT was originally built from.

[Dayton3]

That seems to describe the BT approach to a lot of things pretty well.

I too had read years ago that the BT Lance derived from the medieval/renaissance concept of a mini-warband centered on a mounted knight and his retainers, as explained upthread; but I cannot recall if it was official or who said it. It certainly fits the "fantasy tropes in space" flair BT was originally built from.

Of course the term could simply have originated because four guys were sitting at a table and playing the game.

[BATTLEMASTER]

actually it stems from the term lancepesade, derived from the italian lancia spezzata.. "broken lance", a term used for a veteran soldier derived from the lances fournies. a lancepesade is a soldier who has "broken his lance" in combat, and thus a leader. generally these were connected to small mercenary units in the italian wars of the 14th and 15th century known as lances, groups of 4-6 men with a structure similar to the Lances fournies. (these would be recruited then combined with other mercs and militia to create larger formations) the lancepesades were usually soldiers from one of these units who had either left the unit or had gone on detached detail to take service as an individual. they tended to fill lower ranking officer positions.

That really makes MechWarrior 5's limit to a single player-controlled lance make more sense, especially if we're going for a neo-medieval setting.  Thanks for sharing that - today I learned  :thumbsup:

[Daryk]

Of course the term could simply have originated because four guys were sitting at a table and playing the game.

Five... you need a GM, after all..  8)

[SlightlyIrritatedCat]

It's not hard they were American and they wanted a game with big stompy robot tanks, the standard US tank platoon is 4 tracks, 12 per company.  So they just swapped platoon to lance to play up the neofeudal "knights in space" aspects of mechs.

[abou]

Some of the original writers for the game also had a military background and were likely bringing their personal experience to the game as well.

[Hellraiser]

the standard US tank platoon is 4 tracks, 12 per company. 

When I was in the US Army the CO had his own separate tank in the HQ Platoon, along w/ the Humvees & such.
So 13.   Just sayin.

[MyndkryM]

When I was in the US Army the CO had his own separate tank in the HQ Platoon, along w/ the Humvees & such.
So 13.   Just sayin.

You forgot the XO...14 tanks :)

[Hellraiser]

You forgot the XO...14 tanks :)

XO didn't get a Tank in any of the units I was in.  (He was in a Hummer doing XO duties, I got tasked to be his Driver for 6+ months)

In the Armored Cav Regiments the Company (Troop) XO gets a Bradley while the CO got an Abrams.

[MyndkryM]

XO didn't get a Tank in any of the units I was in.  (He was in a Hummer doing XO duties, I got tasked to be his Driver for 6+ months)

In the Armored Cav Regiments the Company (Troop) XO gets a Bradley while the CO got an Abrams.

Hmmmm....interesting. When I was in '86-'93 (19K), a tank company had 3 platoons with 4 tanks each and the HQ platoon was two tanks, two HUMVEEs and a Deuce-n-half. Yeah....the last 6 months at my first duty station I got assigned as the COs HUMVEE driver...an interesting gig to say the least  >:D

[CVB]

The 1970s and early 80s M48 and M60 TO&Es had 3 platoons of 5 tanks each, plus 2 for CO and XO, total 17. 3 companies plus 3 tanks for the battalion HQ&HQ Co. resulted in 54 total.

[Hellraiser]

Hmm, interesting.
I was in from 90-95 on Abrams & we had 13/Company both units I served. 
Also 4 Line Companies + HHC.

[Charistoph]

Oddly enough, after having played Protomechs a few times in Points of 5, I honestly have found running them in packs of 4 where they pair up in a hex usually works better as it encourages me to have them easily support each other.

Translating that forward, Mechs should operate the same.  When I construct a lance for our weekly games, I usually set them up in each weight class with the Heavy supporting the Assault, and the Medium supporting the Light.

[Hellraiser]

Translating that forward, Mechs should operate the same.  When I construct a lance for our weekly games, I usually set them up in each weight class with the Heavy supporting the Assault, and the Medium supporting the Light. 

I'm a pretty big fan of having at least 2 of the same unit in a Lance just to give it a "role/core" to the force.
Then using the other 2 units to give it a special flavor.

[Charistoph]

I'm a pretty big fan of having at least 2 of the same unit in a Lance just to give it a "role/core" to the force.
Then using the other 2 units to give it a special flavor.

I only have a few models that are mated up, so for everything not a 'Mech, I do pair up, but for 'Mechs, I can't.  So I pair up roles or have roles that work well together, like Strikers with Scouts, Brawlers with Juggernaughts, etc.