RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/7/2007 6:28:21 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

Air Landing ?
I don't see it in the MWiF countermix. From which year ? Which country ?

(in reply to jesperpehrson)

Post #: 271

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/7/2007 6:51:13 PM

jesperpehrson

Posts: 1052
Joined: 7/29/2006
Status: offline

Hmm I was not actually looking at the countermix but at the unit-list that I work with (#2510). It is German and I do not see the year on the list.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 272

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/7/2007 8:01:09 PM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

Isn't the "air landing" unit the mountain division that can paradrop if it goes along for the ride with a paratrooper corps or division? Germany and the CW have them.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to jesperpehrson)

Post #: 273

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/7/2007 8:32:10 PM

Jimm

Posts: 607
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: York, UK
Status: offline

It is an interesting omission from the game in general, given that such a large proportion of airborne forces in the war were actually glider-borne. Would potentially just be a cheap, 1-use air unit which would have to be used with a towing LND.

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 274

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/7/2007 9:34:46 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Isn't the "air landing" unit the mountain�division that can paradrop if it goes along for the ride with a paratrooper corps or division? Germany and the CW have them.

Yes, this must be it.

quote:

It is an interesting omission from the game in general, given that such a large proportion of airborne forces in the war were actually glider-borne. Would potentially just be a cheap, 1-use air unit which would have to be used with a towing LND.

Indeed, they are in the game, they are precisely this unit that Capitan talked about.
They need to have a PARA that goes along them for the ride and cannot be dropped alone.

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 275

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/7/2007 9:46:30 PM

jesperpehrson

Posts: 1052
Joined: 7/29/2006
Status: offline

Ok good. So I will look at any operations that used gliders instead of just ordinary paratroopers? (like Eben Emael)

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 276

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/8/2007 1:16:52 AM

jesperpehrson

Posts: 1052
Joined: 7/29/2006
Status: offline

Two more writeups coming up. The first one is one of Jimms fine works

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jesperpehrson)

Post #: 277

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/8/2007 1:17:29 AM

jesperpehrson

Posts: 1052
Joined: 7/29/2006
Status: offline

Next is a German CAV from yours truly

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jesperpehrson)

Post #: 278

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/8/2007 4:35:54 AM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

Air Landing refers to glider borne AFAIK.

(in reply to jesperpehrson)

Post #: 279

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/8/2007 5:27:28 PM

iamspamus

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline

I think that air landing were used in Norway. Basically the paras drop in and take an airfield. Then the transport planes fly in dropping off the airlanding units who are more robust and they expand the control zone allowing other types of troop and such in.

That's as far as I can remember.

Jason

edit - It could have been gliders.

quote:

ORIGINAL: capitan

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

they also dropped in aalborg and in norway .....

Noted.

I changed the text per Iamspamus suggestion with "large scale drops"

There is one unit called "Air landing". Does anyone know what the real-life equivalent would be? I would have guessed the "Hermann G�rings Paradropping Panzers" (TM ;-) ) but there is one of those already as an ARM Div (even if in the original 1995 version of the game that division was ARM with paradropping capabilities or somesuch). Advise welcomed.

< Message edited by iamspamus -- 5/8/2007 5:31:46 PM >

(in reply to jesperpehrson)

Post #: 280

Mussolini corps - 5/8/2007 5:30:13 PM

qgaliana

Posts: 311
Joined: 4/27/2005
Status: offline

Would it be better to speak of a "hypothetical" corps instead of a "fictional" one in the description?

Sorry to split hairs, but fictional makes it sound like Sgt Rock and Easy co. were added to the game.

(in reply to jesperpehrson)

Post #: 281

RE: Mussolini corps - 5/8/2007 6:19:10 PM

trees

Posts: 175
Joined: 5/28/2006
Status: offline

The German calvary divisions were re-formed mid-war and used extensively against Partisans on the Eastern Front. At some point, the evacuation of the Crimea I think, one of them did have to slaughter it's horses. I'll try and re-read the relevant parts of the book "Calvary in WWII" that I have somewhere in another two weeks when my 80 hour weeks finally end.... hopefully I could help you with any Calvary questions that arise for any Major Power or even minor country. That book is quite thorough...

(in reply to qgaliana)

Post #: 282

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/8/2007 7:04:15 PM

Mziln

Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Isn't the "air landing" unit the mountain�division that can paradrop if it goes along for the ride with a paratrooper corps or division? Germany and the CW have them.

AsA/MiF/PoliF option 2: The Commonwealth 51st air-landing and German 5th mountain divisions can also paradrop if accompanying a PARA (see 22.4.1).

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 283

RE: Mussolini corps - 5/8/2007 9:03:33 PM

jesperpehrson

Posts: 1052
Joined: 7/29/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: trees

The German calvary divisions were re-formed mid-war and used extensively against Partisans on the Eastern Front. At some point, the evacuation of the Crimea I think, one of them did have to slaughter it's horses. I'll try and re-read the relevant parts of the book "Calvary in WWII" that I have somewhere in another two weeks when my 80 hour weeks finally end.... hopefully I could help you with any Calvary questions that arise for any Major Power or even minor country. That book is quite thorough...

Great! I have had trouble finding too much information to be honest. Please let me know. Maybe you would be interested in making write-ups for cavalry for various countries? ;-)

(in reply to trees)

Post #: 284

RE: Mussolini corps - 5/8/2007 11:40:16 PM

jesperpehrson

Posts: 1052
Joined: 7/29/2006
Status: offline

Question: The "Vlassov" Cavalry in WIF, should it represent the Russian Liberation Army or Cossack Cavalryunits? The former is actually connected to Vlassov but the latter is a Russian cavalry unit that fought for the Germans.

(in reply to jesperpehrson)

Post #: 285

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/9/2007 12:13:42 AM

Plainian

Posts: 212
Joined: 9/22/2006
From: Dundee in Scotland
Status: offline

Actually the part which starts "When the Wehrmacht turned east....." is not quite true.

1st Cavalry Division (upgraded from a Brigade after French campaign) took part in Barbarossa as part of Army Group Centre. It fought with distinction as part of XXIV Panzer Corps at Starry Bychov (sp?) holding off fierce Soviet counter attacks while Guderian pressed on to Smolensk with his other two Corps.

Probably as a reward for this the unit was returned to France in winter 41 and reformed as a Panzer Division. (24th Panzer) The men in the unit were allowed to retain their yellow epaulettes instead of wearing white?/pink? that was normally worn by panzer troops. (every book I've read makes a big deal about this?)

As far as mounted forces on the eastern front I agree that the Germans did probably use a lot of small mounted units behind the lines if not also for reconaisance.

However the only 'large scale' mounted unit I can find is the XV Cossack Corps? This was formed in early 45 when the Reich was scrapping the barrel and just stumbling along. I think it was made up of two Russian Cossack Divisions and commanded by the colourfully named Lt Gen Pannwitz.

However the 1st cavalry Corps in WIF clearly doesn't represent that unit.

(in reply to jesperpehrson)

Post #: 286

RE: Mussolini corps - 5/9/2007 12:18:18 AM

Jimm

Posts: 607
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: York, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: qgaliana

Would it be better to speak of a "hypothetical" corps instead of a "fictional" one in the description?

Sorry to split hairs, but fictional makes it sound like Sgt Rock and Easy co. were added to the game.

On reflection, probably "ficticious" is more appropriate than "fictional" which probably infers that the unit is referred to in fiction... (which to my knowledge, it is not!- I await a barrage of posts from Italian readers on this forum)

"Hypothetical" might be even better, but given the number of fantasy Italian units I think I'll reserve the right to use "ficticious" as a synonym for it in this case!

Jimm

(in reply to qgaliana)

Post #: 287

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/9/2007 12:41:07 AM

jesperpehrson

Posts: 1052
Joined: 7/29/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Plain Ian

Actually the part which starts "When the Wehrmacht turned east....." is not quite true.

1st Cavalry Division (upgraded from a Brigade after French campaign) took part in Barbarossa as part of Army Group Centre. It fought with distinction as part of XXIV Panzer Corps at Starry Bychov (sp?) holding off fierce Soviet counter attacks while Guderian pressed on to Smolensk with his other two Corps.

Probably as a reward for this the unit was returned to France in winter 41 and reformed as a Panzer Division. (24th Panzer) The men in the unit were allowed to retain their yellow epaulettes instead of wearing white?/pink? that was normally worn by panzer troops. (every book I've read makes a big deal about this?)

As far as mounted forces on the eastern front I agree that the Germans did probably use a lot of small mounted units behind the lines if not also for reconaisance.

However the only 'large scale' mounted unit I can find is the XV Cossack Corps? This was formed in early 45 when the Reich was scrapping the barrel and just stumbling along. I think it was made up of two Russian Cossack Divisions and commanded by the colourfully named Lt Gen Pannwitz.

However the 1st cavalry Corps in WIF clearly doesn't represent that unit.

I just read another source on this and found more or less what you have found but it did mention the transition that the Eastern front meant for cavalry formations. No aircover nor artillerysupport for their actions meant less efficiency. This in the end meant the end of cavarly brigades until late 1943.

As far as I know there was no cavalry corps, except on paper. The Cossacks is a whole different story. I have made a compromise but I will use this new knowledge and make it better.

(in reply to Plainian)

Post #: 288

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/9/2007 7:44:15 PM

mldtchdog

Posts: 61
Joined: 7/23/2006
Status: offline

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Plain Ian

Actually the part which starts "When the Wehrmacht turned east....." is not quite true.

1st Cavalry Division (upgraded from a Brigade after French campaign) took part in Barbarossa as part of Army Group Centre. It fought with distinction as part of XXIV Panzer Corps at Starry Bychov (sp?) holding off fierce Soviet counter attacks while Guderian pressed on to Smolensk with his other two Corps.

Probably as a reward for this the unit was returned to France in winter 41 and reformed as a Panzer Division. (24th Panzer) The men in the unit were allowed to retain their yellow epaulettes instead of wearing white?/pink? that was normally worn by panzer troops. (every book I've read makes a big deal about this?)

As far as mounted forces on the eastern front I agree that the Germans did probably use a lot of small mounted units behind the lines if not also for reconaisance.

However the only 'large scale' mounted unit I can find is the XV Cossack Corps? This was formed in early 45 when the Reich was scrapping the barrel and just stumbling along. I think it was made up of two Russian Cossack Divisions and commanded by the colourfully named Lt Gen Pannwitz.

However the 1st cavalry Corps in WIF clearly doesn't represent that unit.

I just read another source on this and found more or less what you have found but it did mention the transition that the Eastern front meant for cavalry formations. No aircover nor artillerysupport for their actions meant less efficiency. This in the end meant the end of cavarly brigades until late 1943.

As far as I know there was no cavalry corps, except on paper. The Cossacks is a whole different story. I have made a compromise but I will use this new knowledge and make it better.

from "Slaughterhouse: handbook of the eastern front"

1 Cavalry Corps : Summer 1944 - southern sector
                       Nov 44          - East Prussia
                       Jan 45          - Hungary
                       May 45         - Austria
XV (Cossack) SS-cavalry corps
                       Feb-MAy 45

8th ss-cavalry division florian geyer : jun42 - feb 45 (mostly anti-partisan thru 44)
22d ss-volunteer cavalry division maria thersia : may 44-feb 45
37th ss-volunteer cavalry division Lutzow : feb -may 45

_____________________________

(in reply to jesperpehrson)

Post #: 289

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/9/2007 7:58:25 PM

jesperpehrson

Posts: 1052
Joined: 7/29/2006
Status: offline

Excellent thanks Adam. From what I understand though, is that 1st Cavalrycorps never operated as a centralised unit but the divisons and brigades where quite independant from each other. This needs to be researched further. All write-ups should be considered work in progress!

I have yet to start with the ss-units but they will be a hoot to write about

(in reply to mldtchdog)

Post #: 290

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/9/2007 8:27:07 PM

mldtchdog

Posts: 61
Joined: 7/23/2006
Status: offline

Unfortuantly that is all there is on the 1st cav in this book. The SS are better. Especially compared to russian cavalry

which are detailed with one very short sentance

(in reply to jesperpehrson)

Post #: 291

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/9/2007 8:34:28 PM

mldtchdog

Posts: 61
Joined: 7/23/2006
Status: offline

quote:

The German calvary divisions were re-formed mid-war and used extensively against Partisans on the Eastern Front. At some point, the evacuation of the Crimea I think, one of them did have to slaughter it's horses. I'll try and re-read the relevant parts of the book "Calvary in WWII" that I have somewhere in another two weeks when my 80 hour weeks finally end.... hopefully I could help you with any Calvary questions that arise for any Major Power or even minor country. That book is quite thorough...

That would be great. If you could look at the Russian cav

. When they started forming the cav-mechanized groups most scources do not identify which cavalry are involved.

(in reply to mldtchdog)

Post #: 292

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/10/2007 5:42:50 AM

trees

Posts: 175
Joined: 5/28/2006
Status: offline

I'll find the book in another few weeks. It is not a super detailed Order of Battle type book, it generalizes what each nation did with Calvary, occasionally summarizing by unit history, but not always. I can't recall what it did for the Russians. But I would be glad to help work on each country's Calvary unit.

In general I think the Russian OOB is so tangled that Harry/ADG simply number most of their units sequentially, except for the black print INF and GARR, and unfortunately didn't name any of them 'Shock Armies'.

(in reply to mldtchdog)

Post #: 293

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/31/2007 4:06:52 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

While travelling I read through all the land unit writeups (provided by Capitan) and marked them up with editting changes - mostly verb tense, commas, and capitalization. Since I have gotten back to Honolulu, I have made those edits to the file. Here are 4 (from the hundreds that have been written so far) that I found interesting.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to trees)

Post #: 294

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/31/2007 4:08:36 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

One of the Italian units.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 295

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/31/2007 4:10:34 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

I had already edited all the air and naval unit writeups (received so far) so this just brings me up to date with reveiwing all the writeups.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 296

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/31/2007 4:12:14 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

This is one of the longer writeups and I have had to spread it out over two posts.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 297

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/31/2007 4:14:00 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

5th and last post in this series.

If you would like to write some of these, send a PM to Capitan. He is always looking for more help.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 298

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/31/2007 6:42:29 AM

Neilster

Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

Patrice, (or anyone else in the know), what is the current French attitude to the Vichy Regime? I abhor the recent US fashion of French-bashing (which started off as "How dare they question us?" and turned into "How dare they be so correct!"

) but I do find it fairly perplexing that so many French troops were fighting the Allies, who were actually trying to utterly defeat the evil dudes who were occupying a huge chunk of France.

Yes, yes...I know the British blew up some battleships at Mers-el-K�bir and lots of French sailors were killed but IMHO the French commander was given ample time to de-militarise his ships and refused. What choice did the British have? They couldn't possibly risk such powerful naval assets falling into Axis hands when they were already fighting the war single-handed against both Italy and Germany. Britain had offered an unprecedented political union with France during the German invasion which was unbelievably refused.

I can't help feeling many an Allied soldier died, (including some of my countrymen in Syria and elsewhere) as a result of a fit of Gallic pique. What on earth were they thinking? The Free French fought bravely and well. They actually helped to defeat Germany, which I would have thought was the general idea. Vichy France helped the occupier.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 299

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 5/31/2007 10:30:41 PM

qgaliana

Posts: 311
Joined: 4/27/2005
Status: offline

(brief thread diversion) I'm not an expert and it's very complex, but read a bit a bout it so I'll take a shot (from a friendly outsider perspective)...

Personal opinion is pride was a good part of it - or at least the attempt to salvage what was left. But different Frenchmen salvaged it in different ways. Some by refusing to stop the fight. Others by accepting defeat with some attempt at dignity. Remember the French army was well and truly cooked - they performed the military equivalent of ducking into an uppercut. The homeland was lost, not just some remote colony, so surrender was not unreasonable. In hindsight we see a more monstrous enemy and a long total war, but that wasn't so obvious then (propaganda aside).

In Europe (all countries) there was no shortage of fascists willing to setup puppet governments. In time the Vichy regime became more and more controlled by them under German pressure. But Vichy France was really only nominally in charge - the different military governors pretty much ruled as independent viceroys. The military men generally hated Germans more than they disliked the English. For the most part, those that hadn't gone Free French were hoping to take another crack at the Germans, but needed some favourable conditions especially since taking up the fight again was technically an act of treason. But politics has to be considered. The big names in charge of North Africa or the Near East were not likely to bow their heads to a junior upstart like de Gaulle. Pride.

Churchill didn't exactly help. The same pride that guaranteed they'd rather die than surrender the fleet to the Germans (which is basically what eventually happened), meant they wouldn't quietly accept an English ultimatum (and I may be wrong but I think the French admiral was an anglophobe). I don't think they believed the English would shoot. But once they had, it pretty much guaranteed a cold reception everywhere else. So: Dakar, Madagascar, Syria, operation Torch; at this last, the allies salvaged this mostly by laying some early political groundwork and keeping the British out of sight. Even then the French felt they needed to put a token resistance to save face. More pride.

But strictly speaking, the French never fired at allied units unless they were being attacked by them. Outside of the influence of German guns (i.e. european France), the most the Germans got out of them was overflight rights for planes going to Iraq. Impossible to oppose without going openly free french.

Still, I oversimplify. France along with the colonial empire was badly fragmented into much worse than just free french vs vichy. The politics of Gaullist vs communist vs Petainist vs militarists vs etc. is worthy of PHD discussions. But I don't understand that part very well, and it's hard to get objective material on political matters.

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 300