Which was superior?
Bitchass manlet
>>65241542WTF are you talking about
>>65241856https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=what+is+a+square+division
triangle probably streamlines operations because it flattens command hierarchy while reducing the number of pieces. but Discordianism teaches us that things appear in fives, so pentagonal divisions are certainly superior
>>65241542The answer has always been that organisations capable of independent operation should be square and anything else should be triangular. The reason comes entirely down to the level that a reserve is held at. Square gives an integral reserve for most tactical tasks but disproportionately greater command challenges, triangular requires an external reserve but optimally traded off command scope.
>>65241856Fucking tourist.
>>65241926They tried that with the Pentomic Division.I think it really meant shitloads of infantry spread out with relatively limited support.>>65241946Wouldn't that mean the next logical step is to just accept everyone will end up formed into battelgroups/kampfgruppe/whatever you want to call it, consisting of companies of whatever you need or have?I know this is easier said than done, but basically accept that chaos is inevitable, and so you just train and prepare for it.
>>65241946There's no reason you can't have a reserve with a triangle. Left wing, right wing, reserve.
>>65242015Then what’s your fire supremacy unit? Three infantry formations with only integrated fire support sounds terrible.
>>65241992>just accept everyone will end up formed into battelgroups/kampfgruppe/whatever you want to call it, consisting of companies of whatever you need or have?Yeah, that is the theoretical ideal
>>65242028At higher echelons, those are usually counted separately, because they're not maneuver units. Also, a lot of them tend to be held at Division/Corps-level and rationed out as the generals see fit.At lower echelons, such as the platoon, fire-support sub-units are considered integrated.
>>65241542Honestly, it really depends upon the circumstances. In the classic debate--WWII US Divisions--it came down to shipping. A price was paid, in that a division no longer had 2 regiments on the line and 2 reconstituting, which together with the whole Individual Replacement scheme and the abbreviated infantry training the last couple years meant that green soldiers suffered disproportionate casualties. Square divisions could have really helped with that problem, but the counterargument is that there would have been a lot fewer of them on the front line due to logistical bottlenecks.I can see both sides, and have a hard time saying which is correct. Triangular divisions may well have been a necessary evil, and one side benefit of them was to force combined-arms integration down to lower levels, since line regiments were now less likely to operate without brigade-level (or higher) assets attached.In modern times, I'm somewhat enamored of the late-Cold War armored cavalry approach, which used composite Abrams/Bradley units down to like the platoon level. Not as efficient for peacetime training--infantry (even mech) and tanker training schedules and requirements don't mesh very well--but it has the advantage of giving everybody lots of small-unit combined-arms training up front, as opposed to being thrown together into ad hoc teams and task forces.
>>65242015Thay literally doesn't work for any tactical task at all. For eg in the attack you cannot create tempo, in the defence you cannot have depth, in the advance a single unit must screen more than one frontage etc. You also cannot ever really have a main effort in any task. Honest to god, this is fundamentals of tactics stuff.
>>65242100And yet people used that setup for hundreds of years.In modern times the Israelis used three-tank platoons as one example of doing it on the small scale.
>>65241992>Wouldn't that mean the next logical step is to just accept everyone will end up formed into battelgroups/kampfgruppe/whatever you want to call it, consisting of companies of whatever you need or have?No, because some types of units have core functions that always require an integral reserve that has similar capabilities to them but won't be redundant within the unit of action in a military. The classic, even archetypal, example is screening or covering cavalry - its parent organisation will only have one of it, it will always need three manouevre elements to screen itself as well as fight the recon battle, it must have great autonomy, flexibility and physical distance between itself and its parent to do its job, it must be able to react very quickly to unexpected events or it will fail and there is not another kind of unit in the parent that has commensurate capabilities (especially mobility and logistic independence) to it that you could reinforce it with an element of to bring it up to strength. So any real cavalry organisation will have at least 4 elements, while the line units of the same parent organisation will have 3. There aren't really exceptions to this, for eg a US ACR is a behemoth organisation that screens and covers the corp, but the anemic div cavalry really doesn't really do that for the div and actually just does a battle handover with the covering ACR.
>>65242028You're dumber than the faggots I talk into sucking my dick. Like haha retard, I'm not even GAY! I'm just getting my dick sucked, hell it could be a dolphin for all I care. Go ahead and call me back though cause that number is a Domino's.You'll fall for anything.
>>65242326That really sounds like you just move the organizantional plug'n'play capability up one echelon.
>>65242318Those that did lost to those that did the fundamentals right. And Israeli tank platoons are not doctrinally or practically capable of independent tasking as structured.
>>65242332If by "organizantional plug'n'play capability" you mean "independent operations" then yes, that's exactly what's meant. If you have an organisation that always needs attachments to do any of its assigned tasks, then for better or worse it's not an organisation that's intended to conduct independent operations. The argument for doing it is that not all capabilities can be efficiently generated or reallocated at every scale (eg having a tank platoon in every infantry battalion would just mean a bunch of undertrained and marginally useless crews that couldn't do company or up armored warfare, and a bunch of small pockets of poorly maintained tanks out in the wild), the argument against doing it is that habitual relationships reduce friction, improve decision velocity, synchronisation, orchestration, etc, and above some scale you can't reasonably replicate these things with collective work ups of sensible scale and duration.
>>65242347I guess it's a bit like squaring the cricle, you have to be able to do both.It also looks like a lot more capability will have to become organic in the here and now, regarding counter-UAV and UAV, and UGV.
squarefags can't even triforce
whats a square and triangular division?
>>65242028What a completely nonsensical question. Is that really the best counter argument you could think of?
>>65241542Why does he look like a squishy fish boy?
>>65242100The US used 3xCO/3xBN/3xBDE infantry divisions for quite a while. And during the late Cold War, divisions usually had 3 line brigades of 3 battalions apiece plus extra BN/BDE formations for DIVARTY, helos, engineers, etc.
>>65241542Triangle on top of square, atop square, atop oval.
>>65241706brutal mogging
>>65244581I based it on the understanding of British and American triangular formations in ww2 and assume that my contemporaries are at least partially familiar with the subject matter before they open their pie holes, sorry
>>65242015Implication is no reserve, fucking faggot.
>>65242318>isrealisStopped reading there.
