Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have several questions that I've found several answers to, so here's hoping you guys can help me with a decision or two.

1. In terms of 'Armored' Regiments, I've found that 40k breakdowns are random at best, and don't really adhere to any set system. This is understandable given the variety of IG armies and the worlds they come from, backgrounds and such. However I do see a basic underlying rule that a tank squadron is made up of three to four tanks and three to four of the squadrons make up a company under a single command vehicle. My question here is, the different tank types in each company seem to be random, or is that just me?

2. Do Armored Regiments tend to operate with infantry? As in, apart of the same unit?

3. Are super-heavies are their own 'group' and not lumped in with Russ regiments?

4. With regards to the distinction between Cavalry and Armored, what's the major difference? From looking at the U.S. Cavalry and Armored regiments of today I don't see anything aside from history that distinguishes them from each other.

5. In terms of infantry regiments, I can only assume mechanized units are more prevalent, but what would be a good way to organize one?

6. As far as artillery goes, is it a good idea to keep them in their own unit or is it ok to include them in an armor/infantry unit?

I've been using the USARS information to set up my army, but given the differences between 40k and today...I ran into a few issues. Heh.

Armored Companies tend to refer to primarily vehicle oriented units. Infantry are present, but they will always be mechanized, having a chimera transport or Valkyrie.

Mechanized Regiments are infantry regiments supported by armor and transports.

I'm aware of those two pieces of info, thanks though.

Artillery would be kept on its own. It makes little sense for a rapid assault force to bring their artillery along with them. Better to have them divided so that the chain of command is more structured. It would help keep each leader focused on his own units. If the commander of a detachment has to defer to basilisks ten miles back from the frontline while he is riding shotgun in a Chimera, it wouldn't make much sense.

Fair enough. Arty would be in the rear, some odd miles away.

Love armored regiments of guard...loads of leman russes standard of course.

 Frankenberry wrote:
I have several questions that I've found several answers to, so here's hoping you guys can help me with a decision or two.

1. In terms of 'Armored' Regiments, I've found that 40k breakdowns are random at best, and don't really adhere to any set system. This is understandable given the variety of IG armies and the worlds they come from, backgrounds and such. However I do see a basic underlying rule that a tank squadron is made up of three to four tanks and three to four of the squadrons make up a company under a single command vehicle. My question here is, the different tank types in each company seem to be random, or is that just me?

There is no fixed size and it's all on a regiment-by-regiment basis. There is a standard Regimental organization though. see here. Beyond that, a squadron could be 1 tank or 100 depending on the Regiment.

2. Do Armored Regiments tend to operate with infantry? As in, apart of the same unit?

Usually an Armored Regiment will contain only tanks, just as a standard regiment will contain infantry (albeit with Chimeras and the like) and an artillery regiment artillery. This is done to ensure that if a Regiment goes heretic, it will not be self-sufficient.

3. Are super-heavies are their own 'group' and not lumped in with Russ regiments?

Super-Heavy Tanks usualyl operate in independent companies that go about their own business, being attached to other Regiments as the Departmento Munitorum desires. A few Regiments of Super-Heavies exist, but given the dwindling supply of these vehicles in the Imperium they're very rare.

4. With regards to the distinction between Cavalry and Armored, what's the major difference? From looking at the U.S. Cavalry and Armored regiments of today I don't see anything aside from history that distinguishes them from each other.

It's a real world parallel. Today, "Cavalry" Divisions usually refer to infantry that is meant to rapidly deploy to a combat zone from helicopters or armored vehicles. IG Cavalry Regiments are similar.

Now keep in mind the IG also has Rough Rider Regiments/Companies, which operate actual horse Cavalry....

5. In terms of infantry regiments, I can only assume mechanized units are more prevalent, but what would be a good way to organize one?

Infantry Regiments follow the standard Regimental structure. i.e. Regimental HQ, Company's, Platoons, Squads.

Few Regiments are fully mechanized or have Chimeras to transport the entire force. The Armageddon Steel Legions are stated as being an exception to this rule. Otherwise, most Regiments are under-equipped for their duties (welcome to grimdark).

6. As far as artillery goes, is it a good idea to keep them in their own unit or is it ok to include them in an armor/infantry unit?

Artillery Regiments operate independently and are attached to a Guard battlegroup as the campaign requires. However an Artillery Company could be attached to an Infantry Regiment for a campaign as required.

@Harriticus Thanks for the responses, clears up some confusion.

From my own view/opinion;

 Frankenberry wrote:
1. In terms of 'Armored' Regiments, I've found that 40k breakdowns are random at best, and don't really adhere to any set system. This is understandable given the variety of IG armies and the worlds they come from, backgrounds and such. However I do see a basic underlying rule that a tank squadron is made up of three to four tanks and three to four of the squadrons make up a company under a single command vehicle. My question here is, the different tank types in each company seem to be random, or is that just me?

There are several ways to look at it. From a personal standpoint I tend to think of it as similar to Troops of British armoured regiments circa 1944-1945. 3x Sherman or Cromwell tanks with 1x Sherman 'Firefly'. I translate that to 40k as being 3 Leman-Russ battle tanks with 1 specialised Leman Russ depending upon the regiments origin & available supply - if I made an armoured regiment it would mostly mirror my above example by having 4 Leman-Russ & 1 Vanquisher.

 Frankenberry wrote:
2. Do Armored Regiments tend to operate with infantry? As in, apart of the same unit?

I disagree with Harriticus on this one. Combined arms are better for dealing with whatever the enemy throws at you. Armour can smash through lines but finds it harder to hold ground whereas infantry can dig deep and hold areas more easily. If an infantry regiment nearby can not rapidly redeploy to take advantage of a successful armoured thrust then as that armoured regiment passes through with just its tanks it runs the risk of being cut off. Several companies of infantry mounted in Chimera's as part of the regiment would allow it to smash through enemy lines & have trained infantry familiar with armour tactics ready to exploit or maintain the breech until other units can reinforce whilst the armour keeps smashing deeper into enemy lines. Chimera mounted infantry can also be used to support an armoured advance by holding the ground the armoured squadrons take and moving up to catch up with them to keep a healthy distance between ground held & the tip of the advance - allows for tactical flexibility in case the armour needs to fall back they have infantry ready & prepared to support them.

 Frankenberry wrote:
4. With regards to the distinction between Cavalry and Armored, what's the major difference? From looking at the U.S. Cavalry and Armored regiments of today I don't see anything aside from history that distinguishes them from each other.

It's a lot easier for me to talk about it from the perspective of being English & using the British cavalry regiments as an example. With cavalry regiments, such as the Household Cavalry Regiment, they are equipped with lighter tanks, such as the Scimitar & Sabre AFVs and act as fast moving, mobile support or reconnaissance for the heavy tank regiments, such as the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment & its Challenger 2 MBTs.

 Frankenberry wrote:
6. As far as artillery goes, is it a good idea to keep them in their own unit or is it ok to include them in an armor/infantry unit?

Something the Panzer forces realised in 1939 during their thrust into Poland was the need for artillery units that could keep up with their advance, so they began to modify Pz. 1's to carry artillery cannon, meaning that the Panzer's could penetrate deep into enemy lines and still have some heavy 'thumpers' who can bombard any problematic/stubborn units that slow the advance. Once again, combined arms is better than just infantry, just tanks or just artillery. With a lot of the examples of IG artillery generally being mounted on versions of the Chimera chassis, it would be sensible for armoured regiments to have their own small self-propelled artillery units to support their advances, being more than able to keep up.

Super-heavy tanks are almost always organized in their own super-heavy detachments at a regimental level and will be assigned to a company when the need arises to field them. Only in larger scale battles will they operate in groups together, for example a group of shadowswords working together on taking down a titan.

On the distinction between Cavalry and Armored regiments, isn't there some precedent for traditionally cavalry regiments trading in their horses for helicopters as tech gets better? Maybe there are Valkyrie cavalry regiments somewhere.

Air Cavalry would be a nice term for that.

I think the term cavalry should just be used to describe animals that carry people, not machines. There's plenty of terms for "Armored Fist" units, and other mechanized units.

a Modern/40k Armored/Cavalry units designation may more hinge on its use and role rather than any major changes in TO&E . In the US Army the 2nd Cav (ACR) and 1st armor divisions were very simular in equipment and even having the 2nd Cav (ACR) with as many or more heavy armor assets pound for pound..
they were just used differnetly on the battlefield.
But instead of Cavalry you can always replace the word with hussars, dragoons, lancers whatnot.

Cav regiments did not trade their mounts for Helicopters, that was Airborne units..making them Airmobile or Air assault, I myself prefer getiing out of a nice heli on the ground then jumping outta a perfectly good airplane.

40k has all kinds of versions of IG armored regiments/Divisions/Legions/Battalions/Squadrons/Troops/Cohorts etc. Feel free to invent as you please..its a big universe.

My own TO&E was 2 RUSS to 1 Varient RUSS, and 3 such units with a command section of 3 RUSS for a total of 12 Tanks to a Company, but thats just my interp all are valid.

 Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
a Modern/40k Armored/Cavalry units designation may more hinge on its use and role rather than any major changes in TO&E . In the US Army the 2nd Cav (ACR) and 1st armor divisions were very simular in equipment and even having the 2nd Cav (ACR) with as many or more heavy armor assets pound for pound..
they were just used differnetly on the battlefield.
But instead of Cavalry you can always replace the word with hussars, dragoons, lancers whatnot.

Cav regiments did not trade their mounts for Helicopters, that was Airborne units..making them Airmobile or Air assault, I myself prefer getiing out of a nice heli on the ground then jumping outta a perfectly good airplane.

40k has all kinds of versions of IG armored regiments/Divisions/Legions/Battalions/Squadrons/Troops/Cohorts etc. Feel free to invent as you please..its a big universe.

My own TO&E was 2 RUSS to 1 Varient RUSS, and 3 such units with a command section of 3 RUSS for a total of 12 Tanks to a Company, but thats just my interp all are valid.

I was referring to the U.S. 1st Cavalry, which became the 1st Cavalry (Airmobile) during Vietnam; you may have seen people based off them in Apocalypse Now.

And then there's the US 7th cavalry who are depicted in We Were Soldiers that went to helicopters and then back to ground vehicles again.

Regarding the Guard fluff, though, you can have combined arms battlegroups that will be created when required from whatever Regiments are around. Individual Regiments, however, tend to be monocultures, either all infantry or all tanks, or all artillery. As Harriticus indicated this is to prevent a single regimental formation being able to easily go rogue. An armoured regiment will likely have a small number of infantry, transports and support units to provide logistics, etc, that could be fielded as line infantry in a pinch, but they're not supposed to be like modern mechanised infantry regiments.