I've always liked Steven's methodology, which is technically counter to the US Army's Battle Staff nomenclature that I grew up with as a cadet and young officer but darn it, it looks so cool on the table!
|Soviet platoon moving up with my Crossfire stands during a game of "Iron Cross" with Dave|
|German gamble assaulting a KV-1 during the same game. Note the Crossfire unit marking which I really like.|
So, what are the primary differences? Well, for starters, the US Army starts with Company letters (vice numbers) and the use of a dash or a slash is indicative of whether or not the unit's command & control is organic to the highest echelon. So, for instance, Battery A, 5th Battalion, 3rd Field Artillery would look like this:
The slash denotes that Battery A is a child unit of the 5th Battalion. The Regimental numbering is part of the US Army's Regimental lineage system and is NOT an element for Command and Control so there is a hyphen vice a slash. 2nd Platoon, Battery A, 5th Battalion, 3rd Field Artillery would look like this:
Steven T's nomenclature (which I have adopted) has the Battalion designation first, then the Company, then the platoon number. So G-1-1 would be the Grenadier Battalion, 1st Company, 1st Platoon.
What I like about Steven's method is that it's much cleaner and gives me much more flexibility in my unit choice. So for example, the GrossDeutschland fought in the southern pincer at Kursk, so making a GD based and labeled unit would feel out of place for me with my OCD. However, a more generic Grenadier Battalion would not, hence the reason I adopted the "Balagan Method."
If anyone is interested, I've posted a picture and link to my labels which would give you a good place to start in using these:
If you'd like to download these and change them for yourself (I made these when starting my second German and Soviet companies) here is a link for you to do so
I made enough for a German, Russian, Afrika Korps, 8th Army Desert British, and NW Europe British but you can alter them however you see fit.