RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units

RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design

Message

Andrew Brown -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units (1/30/2005 2:09:12 PM)
As I previously mentioned, I have been trying to do some research on the Australian land OOB, just using online sources (I don't have a reference library). I have come up with the following list of suggested modifications so far. My knowledge of this subject is sketchy at best, so there is probably a lot of mistakes. This list is also tailored for my map, but could be modified for use with the official map. I would welcome any suggestions/corrections/criticism. This list is from my notes, with no explanations added (yet): Units Removed: ------------- 3rd RAA Coast Art Rgt (Perth) Adelaide Coast Art Rgt (Adelaide) Units Changed: ------------- Unit 3rd Division (Geelong) Location=Melbourne Unit Darwin Defense Bde (Darwin) Name=Darwin CMF Bde Unit Darwin Cst Art Rgt (Darwin) Name=Emery Point Battery Unit 7th RAA Coast Art Rgt (Perth) Name=Fremantle Fortress Unit Albany Coast Art Rgt (Albany) Name=Princess Royal Fortress Unit Geelong Coast Art Rgt (Geelong) Name=Fort Queenscliff Location=Geelong Unit 2nd RAA Cst Art Rgt (Geelong) Name=Fort Nepean Location=Geelong Unit 6th RAA Cst Art Rgt (Melbourne) Name=Fort Gellibrand Unit Hobart Cst Art Rgt (Hobart) Name=Direction Battery Unit Pt Kembla Cst Art Rgt (Port Kembla) Name=Breakwater Battery Unit 3rd Tank Regiment (Sydney) Name=3rd Australian Tank Battalion Unit Fort Largs Cst Art Rgt (Hobart) Name=Fort Largs Location=Adelaide Unit 1 RAA Coast Art Rgt (Sydney) Name=1st RAA AA Regiment Unit 5 RAA Coast Art Rgt (Sydney) Name=North Head Fortress Unit 2nd Division (Newcastle) Location=Sydney Unit Newcastle Cst Art Rgt Name=Fort Wallace Unit I Corps (Brisbane) Name=II Corps Unit 2nd Tank Regiment (Brisbane) Name=2nd Armoured Brigade* Location=Melbourne Unit 1st Division (Brisbane) Location=Sydney Unit 1st Cav Division (Brisbane) Location=Sydney Unit 1st Brigade (Brisbane) Name=1st Motor Brigade Unit Brisbane Cst Art Rgt (Brisbane) Name=Fort Bribie Unit Townsville Cst Art Rgt (Townsville) Name=Fort Kissing Point New Units (at start): -------------------- III Australian Corps - Perth Middle Head Fortress - Sydney South Head Fortress - Sydney 1st Armoured Brigade* - Sydney Fort Scratchley - Newcastle Cowan Battery - Brisbane 1st Army - Brisbane 29th Brigade - Rockhampton 11th Brigade - Townsville New Units (reinforcements): ------------------------- 13th Brigade - Sydney 3rd Motor Brigade - Sydney East Point Battery - Darwin Removed Units (reinforcements): ----------------------------- 5th Tank Regiment 9th Tank Regiment * 1st and 2nd Armoured brigades start without any tanks.

Andrew Brown -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units (2/1/2005 1:52:01 PM)
Any thought or opinions from other mod contributors on my suggested changes to the Australian OOB? Is it considered by others to be worth adding to the mod? In any case I am adding these changes to my scenario 115 and I will forward a copy to Don once the work has been completed. Andrew

Don Bowen -> Australian Armor (2/1/2005 4:38:17 PM)
The large number of wartime changes to AUstralian Armored Units makes a static OOB very difficult. The switching of motorized units and armored units, units that never filled out their TOE, and units that existed for only a short period are all quite confusing. I reworked the Armored units with an eye to those AIF units that were actually deployed outside Australia. I also retained 2nd Cavalry Division as a Motorized Infantry Unit instead of switching it to 2nd Armored Division. I ignored all Division level armored units and consolidated the AIF Armor into four brigades. Plus the 3 CMF Tank Battalions. Here's what I did for Australian Armor: 1st Australian Army Tank Battalion (6 Marmon-Harrington, 36 Matilda II) Arrive 4/42 2nd Australian Army Tank Battalion (no Tanks) at Brisbane 3rd Australian Army Tank Battalion (6 Vickers Mark VI) at Sydney * The Marmon-Harrington tanks upgrade to Stuarts and the Vickers to Valentines 2/5 AIF Tank Regiment (No Tanks, 16 Bren Carriers) at Sydney 2/6 AIF Tank Regiment (No Tanks, 16 Bren Carriers) at Sydney 2/8 AIF Tank Regiment (No Tanks, 16 Bren Carriers) at Sydney 2/9 AIF Tank Regiment (No Tanks, 16 Bren Carriers) at Sydney The 1st Armored Division actually had two Brigades and 6 Tank Regiments (2/5 thru 2/10) but it never was fully filled out in this form. The 2nd Armored Division was a redesignation of the 2nd Cavalry Division (having been first redesignated the 2nd Motorized Division). Actual armor TOE varied during the war - at some times pure armor and at others armor plus motorized infantry. I also considered breaking up the 2nd Cavalry into Motorized Brigades but it did not seem worthwhile. Finally I reduced the armor to four regiments and selected those that were deployed. My Source: [image]local://upfiles/757/Ki198799115.jpg[/image]

Iron Duke -> RE: Australian Armor (2/1/2005 5:33:29 PM)
Hi , From what i've gathered from my source I'd swap 2/5th with 2/4th as 2/5th did not see combat but 2/4th did in NG ref = Dust,Sand and Jungle by Paul Handel

Don Bowen -> RE: Australian Armor (2/1/2005 6:04:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iron Duke Hi , From what i've gathered from my source I'd swap 2/5th with 2/4th as 2/5th did not see combat but 2/4th did in NG ref = Dust,Sand and Jungle by Paul Handel A good point and I will do it. I had left out 2/4 because it was not one of the original 1st Armored Division units. It was formed in 9/42 by combining three company (Squadron in Australian terminology) sized units that had been armored car or light recon units. Replacing 2/5 with 2/4 and setting 2/4 for a 9/42 arrival would yield an initial force of 3 AIF Tank regiments. This equals 1 full Brigade of the original 1st Armored - a very good compromise. Don

Andrew Brown -> RE: Australian Armor (2/3/2005 2:37:57 PM)
Don, as usual your research and conclusions look first rate to me. I will adjust my Australian OOB changes for my scenario 115 to match them. The infantry and HQ situation seems less confusing (as far as I can tell) than the armour units. Andrew

Don Bowen -> RE: Australian Armor (2/3/2005 3:37:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown The infantry and HQ situation seems less confusing (as far as I can tell) than the armour units. Andrew The infantry are indeed pretty straight forward but you'll need at least three large beers handy when you follow the cavalry. Light horse to motorized infantry and armored car then to armored and then back to motorized infantry.

Tanaka -> RE: Australian Armor (2/4/2005 12:50:50 AM)
Hi do you guys plan on finishing the rest of the Chinese and Soviet OOB's??? As they are incomplete in their current form! See this thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=781370&mpage=1&key=

Lemurs! -> RE: Australian Armor (2/4/2005 3:29:34 AM)
The Soviet OOB may be worked on for our second release but not for the first release. The Chinese are probably going to be left alone for now but i feel the best choice is to add some fortress units in the chinese citys that can provide defense but not move. Mike

Andrew Brown -> RE: Australian Armor (2/4/2005 5:32:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lemurs! The Soviet OOB may be worked on for our second release but not for the first release. The Chinese are probably going to be left alone for now but i feel the best choice is to add some fortress units in the chinese citys that can provide defense but not move. Mike Just to let you all know. When using my scenario 115 as the start point for building a scenario - I adjust all of the Soviet units that start in bases (nearly all of them) so thet they, like the Chinese now, have 100% preparation for their own bases. If it is thought that this is a bad idea, then let me know and I can remove this from my modification script.

Tankerace -> US Land Units (2/4/2005 6:44:47 AM)
I meant to bring this up earlier, but never did. If possible, can we please rename ALL US units? I have never heard of the Big Red One refer to itself as the 1st United States of American Infantry. It is 1st United States Infantry. What I mean is Can we rename say 1st USA Division to 1st US Division? I know it is a small detail, but it was always one of my pet peeves. Also, how about like I did in War Plan Orange, instead of 2nd USMC Div, rename to 2nd Marine Div or 2nd US Marine Div. It just sounds better IMO, but again I know its a small detail.

Andrew Brown -> RE: US Land Units (2/5/2005 12:32:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace I meant to bring this up earlier, but never did. If possible, can we please rename ALL US units? I have never heard of the Big Red One refer to itself as the 1st United States of American Infantry. It is 1st United States Infantry. What I mean is Can we rename say 1st USA Division to 1st US Division? I know it is a small detail, but it was always one of my pet peeves. Also, how about like I did in War Plan Orange, instead of 2nd USMC Div, rename to 2nd Marine Div or 2nd US Marine Div. It just sounds better IMO, but again I know its a small detail. I could set up something like this in my conversion scripts. I have already added a routine to them to rename all of the Australian air units to the form "No. XX Sqdrn RAAF". What is the concesus on how nationalities should be included in the LCU names? I remember a previous discussion about this but I don't remember the outcome.

ZonkerHarris -> RE: US Land Units (2/5/2005 2:53:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace I meant to bring this up earlier, but never did. If possible, can we please rename ALL US units? I have never heard of the Big Red One refer to itself as the 1st United States of American Infantry. It is 1st United States Infantry. What I mean is Can we rename say 1st USA Division to 1st US Division? I know it is a small detail, but it was always one of my pet peeves. Also, how about like I did in War Plan Orange, instead of 2nd USMC Div, rename to 2nd Marine Div or 2nd US Marine Div. It just sounds better IMO, but again I know its a small detail. "USA" is used in the Army as an abbreviation for United States Army, so I think it's more appropriate in the unit names than, say "1st US Infantry Division". I've heard phrases like "1st US Infantry" used to refer to a regiment (especially in the post-Civil War period, where the distinction was important to tell them from state regiments with the same numbers), but not for divisions.

timtom -> RE: OOB for US ETO Reinforcements (2/11/2005 9:32:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blackhorse Unit . . . . .Days/ Losses . . . . Exp/Mor . . .To US/ to PTO. . . .Commander 91st . . . . .200+/unknown . . .80/70 . . . . . . 9/45 � 12/45 . . . MG Livesay, W.G. According to Stanton, the 91st ID sustained 8,511 battle casualties. The information given is too schetchy to access the no. of combat days, but 200 is probably about right.

Lemurs! -> RE: OOB for US ETO Reinforcements (2/18/2005 1:59:16 AM)
Hi all, This is basically your last chance to comment on my changes to the size of infantry contingents of divisions/regiments. US Infantry Division: 395 squads Rgt: 131 USMC Division: 324 squads Rgt: 108 Commonwealth Division: 396 squads Rgt: 132 Mike

Tankerace -> RE: US Land Units (2/18/2005 4:40:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ZonkerH quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace I meant to bring this up earlier, but never did. If possible, can we please rename ALL US units? I have never heard of the Big Red One refer to itself as the 1st United States of American Infantry. It is 1st United States Infantry. What I mean is Can we rename say 1st USA Division to 1st US Division? I know it is a small detail, but it was always one of my pet peeves. Also, how about like I did in War Plan Orange, instead of 2nd USMC Div, rename to 2nd Marine Div or 2nd US Marine Div. It just sounds better IMO, but again I know its a small detail. "USA" is used in the Army as an abbreviation for United States Army, so I think it's more appropriate in the unit names than, say "1st US Infantry Division". I've heard phrases like "1st US Infantry" used to refer to a regiment (especially in the post-Civil War period, where the distinction was important to tell them from state regiments with the same numbers), but not for divisions. Yes, but since when does the US Army say Its the 1st US Army Division? The only time I have ever heard something applied to a US division (other than its type - armored, infantry, etc) is USMC. The US Army doesn't apply the US or USA moniker to its divisions, the US is to distinguish it from AUS and UK divisions. By your logic, then we need to use AUSA or RAA for Aussie divs, and RA or UKA for British Divisions, but since we don't, then USA units need to be renamed US to fit in with the nomenclature of other countries divisions.

Tankerace -> RE: US Land Units (2/18/2005 4:42:56 AM)
To be more correct is to say 1st Infantry Division. However, since we are distinguishing from say, the British 1st Infantry Division (Known in WitP as the 2nd UK Division), then US is more appropriate than USA, whether it stands for US Army or United States of America.

ZonkerHarris -> RE: US Land Units (2/20/2005 3:34:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace quote: ORIGINAL: ZonkerH "USA" is used in the Army as an abbreviation for United States Army, so I think it's more appropriate in the unit names than, say "1st US Infantry Division". I've heard phrases like "1st US Infantry" used to refer to a regiment (especially in the post-Civil War period, where the distinction was important to tell them from state regiments with the same numbers), but not for divisions. Yes, but since when does the US Army say Its the 1st US Army Division? The only time I have ever heard something applied to a US division (other than its type - armored, infantry, etc) is USMC. The US Army doesn't apply the US or USA moniker to its divisions, the US is to distinguish it from AUS and UK divisions. While it's not the most common usiage, the Army does refer to its units at times as, for example, "1st Division, United States Army". This style isn't common, but the U.S. Army does use it. I've never heard a unit referred to as "1st US Division" or something along those lines. quote: By your logic, then we need to use AUSA or RAA for Aussie divs, and RA or UKA for British Divisions, but since we don't, then USA units need to be renamed US to fit in with the nomenclature of other countries divisions. This is not my logic, so please don't say it is. This is something you came up with, and I agree that what you came up with is nonsense. For most Allied units, nationality is sufficient to tell you what the unit is. For American units, there needs to be a distinction between Army divisions and Marine divisions. USA for Army units works very well for that purpose. quote: To be more correct is to say 1st Infantry Division. However, since we are distinguishing from say, the British 1st Infantry Division (Known in WitP as the 2nd UK Division), then US is more appropriate than USA, whether it stands for US Army or United States of America. This is really getting to a silly level of hair-splitting, but no, US is not "more appropriate" than USA. If that's your personal preference, go ahead and use it, but don't pretend that it's anything other than your personal pereference. USA works whether it's being used as a designation for the nation and for the Army; US refers only to the nation.

Tankerace -> RE: US Land Units (2/20/2005 7:30:56 PM)
quote: US refers only to the nation. That is my whole point. I am not saying that if ONLY United States Divisions are in whether we should use US or USA. If that were the case, I'd say leave it out. In War in the Pacific, the only reason the US, AUS, UK, etc are in are to distinguish nationality, not branch of service. In this context, US is more appropriaite than USA. For American units (at least in most sources I've read) the only distinguishment was put on Marine units. I.e., to tell the 1st Infantry Division and the 1st Marine Division appart, is the Army division has a type of unit (infantry, cavalry, armored, etc), whereas the Marine unit is simply a Marine divisison. I am speaking from the context of nationality (which is why the US, AUS, and UK is used). In that since, US is more approriate than USA. quote: This is not my logic, so please don't say it is. This is something you came up with, and I agree that what you came up with is nonsense. The reason I said its your logic, is I brought this issue up as nationality, not service. However, in your post you said nothing about distinguishing US from any other nation, only as branch of service (Army vs Marine, NOT US from British). Thus, my counter to that was to do other nations as such. If people don't want to do this that is fine. Usually, the only time I have ever heard a US unit called USA is by a translation of a non English language in which they spell out the whole country's name. EDIT: Oops, I guess I could have made the fact that I was targeting nationality a bit more clear. I guess I assumed that since other nations Divisions had UK, AUS, Chinese, etc it would be plain. Apologies for any confusion.

Central Blue -> RE: OOB for US ETO Reinforcements (3/3/2005 2:55:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lemurs! Hi all, This is basically your last chance to comment on my changes to the size of infantry contingents of divisions/regiments. US Infantry Division: 395 squads Rgt: 131 USMC Division: 324 squads Rgt: 108 Commonwealth Division: 396 squads Rgt: 132 Mike Probably past time to comment on this. This TOE makes no sense to me. Looks like nothing I've seen published or modeled. US Army and Marine divisions were triangular. Platoon was 3 sguads. Company 9 squads. Battalion 27 squads. Regiment 81 squads. Division 243 squads. The commonwealth was slightly different with four companies per battalion coming out to 108 rifle squads per regiment and so on. But doesn't everyone know this? I can only speculate that additional squads mimic smaller crew served weapons like 60mm mortars, .30 cal mg's not to mention flame throwers, bazookas, etc. But just comparing the regiment listed above for the USMC to weapons platoons and companies doesn't look like 108 under any of the TOE's used during WW2 that I have read about. Why is the USA div at 395 and the USMC div at 324? I dunno. No doubt this was all discussed somewhere in these Matrix threads a long time ago and makes total sense to everyone here. Could someone please explain this just one more time for the newbie? This just doesn't seem to be a game designed for people that can lay their hands on TOE info for 5307th Composite or the Chindits. I do look forward to playing this scenario and I'll delay hanging my shingle on the opponents wanted thread till this is published.

Central Blue -> silence gives consent (3/11/2005 7:31:59 AM)
ok... I didn't bring anything useful to the conversation but lots of kibbitz and bitz... On the other hand AlaskanWarrior did. I hope he got some credit from somebody somewhere for his legitimate contribution to understanding the US Army's actual TOE, rather than whatever is being depicted in this game. quote: Here are some modifications for the US Infantry Divisions I would like to submit: WWII Infantry Divisions and Regimental Combat Teams: Several things need to be included in the US Army formations. First, several new unit types need to be added (). Second, there were no 75 or 76 mm ATG organic to the division. Third, the 4.2 inch mortar was not organic to the Division. Create separate Chemical Mortar BN�s instead. Make another entry for the 57mm with no upgrade path. Looking at the TOE in game terms for the platoon level up as follows: Platoon: 3 x USA Rifle Squads Company: 3 x Platoons 2 x Weapons Squads 3x 60mm Mortars* Battalion: 3 x Companies 1 AT Platoon 3 x 37mm ATG (1941) 3 x 57mm ATG (November 1942) 6 x 81mm Mortars 1 USA Engineer Squad Regiment: 3 Battalions 1 Cannon Co 6 x 75mm How (1941) 6 x 105 How (7/42) 1 AT Company 12 x 37mm ATG 12 x 57mm ATG Division: Self Defense Platoon 3 x USA Rifle Squad 3 x Regiments 1 x Engineer BN 27x USA Engineer 6 x Engineer Vehicle 1 x Recon Troop 9 x M8 Armored Car 3 x USA Rifle Squad 1 x 81mm Mortar 3 x 105 How Battalions 12 x 105 How 1 x 155 How BN 12 x 155mm How Div Totals: 249 USA Rifle Squads � Upgrade path okay 54 USA Weapons Squads � No upgrade path 36 USA Engineer Squads � Upgrade path okay 72 0.50 Browning AAMG 90 60mm Mortars 55 81mm Mortars 63 ATG (37mm then upgrade to 57mm - although Forty mentions that the 37mm was in service in for much of the war in the Pacific) 18 75mm GMC Halftrack (until early 1943) 36 + 18 105mm Howitzer (July 1942 add 18 regimental pieces) 12 155mm Howitzer 9 M8 Armored Cars 650 Support Regimental Combat Team: 82 USA Rifle Squads 18 USA Weapons Squads 12 USA Engineer Squads 24 0.050 Browning AAMG 27 60mm Mortars 18 81mm Mortars 21 37mm ATG � Upgrades to 57mm ATG 6 75mm GMC Halftrack � Upgrades to 105mm Howitzer 12 105mm howitzer 3 M8 200 Support * No 155mm Howitzers ** No 4.2 inch Mortars Unit Specs: Name: 60mm Mortar USA Weapon Squad M8 Armored Car Type: 19-Army Weapon 23-Squad 22-AFV Range: 2 0 1 Accuracy: 8 0 9 Effect: 3 0 2 Ceiling: 0 0 0 Armor 0 0 20 Penetration: 5 0 70 Dud Rate: 0 0 0 Anti-Armor: 10 25 78 Anti-Soft: 10 40 28 Load Cost: 2 9 10 Available: 4112 4112 4112 Upgrade: Same Same Same Build rate: 20 25 30 . 50 cal Browning - The Division had over 236 of these weapons authorized, many of them mounted on AA rings on trucks. The 60mm mortar is a crucial firepower unit of the Company. The USA Weapon Squad represents the organic 0.50 M2 MG and the 0.30 M1919 MG found in the weapons platoon of the company. The M8 was the standard US armored car. Sources include: Forty, George 1996 US Army Handbook 1939-1940. US Army 1944 Catalogue of Standard Ordinance Items, Vols. I-III. US Army Ordinance Technical Division Wilson, John B. 1998 Maneuver and Firepower: The Evolution of Divisions and Separate Brigades, Army Lineage Series Arguments about naming conventions and OOB seem way more important here than accurate depictions of land weapons and TOE. I kind of wonder how the land combat model would behave if TOE's and land weapons were actually accurately edited in. When the Japanese had their early dustup with the Soviets at Nomonhan they learned that Soviet artillery could throw as much lead in a day as they could throw in a week. TOAW doesn't seem popular on this board, but you would think there are enough Steel Panthers types around to help out.

Lemurs! -> RE: silence gives consent (3/11/2005 3:51:38 PM)
Central Blue, I know the actual TO&E of most WW2 armies as well as anyone but this is a strategic game, we are not moddeling 60mm mortars, .30 MGs, or whether a squad had 6.5mm or 7.7mm rifles. The TO&E i came up with is my attempt to include all of the divisional odds and ends. It is probably inaccurate, but i did the best i could. Maybe Matrix already included the odds and ends in their TO&E but it just seemed to me that divisions were not represented properly vis a vis battalions and regiments in the game. So i did the best i could, and i hope it works out. Matrix origionaly shows the USA infantry division with 364 sqds, i changed it to 395. I feel mine will give a better result but it may not. Mike

Central Blue -> stirring the pot (3/12/2005 3:14:13 AM)
thanks for responding. I realize game is different scale but it still includes divisions and regiments. And it still depicts number of combat squads, support squads, and heavy weapons. But why have incorrect counts of combat squads, tanks, heavy mortars, heavy machine guns, wrong caliber AT guns, and artillery which are part of what is counted in Matrix TOE? Seems to me that odds and ends (anyone not in a combat squad or on a crew served weapon) would be included in support squads. What I'm trying to figure out is if all those numbers in the TOE are meaningless. Are they just sort of window dressing on the way to some sort of abstracted combat strength/movement point number like an old Avalon Hill cardboard counter? I realize you are probably to far along to want to redo your own efforts. I'm trying to figure out if it would be completely pointless to actually work out historically correct numbers of tooth to tale for units depicted in the game. Is there some known reason from Matrix that says accurate numbers of combat and support squads -- not to mention correct numbers and calibers of howitzers -- would break the game? THis was the point of my first question in this thread, which did not get a response. Would accurate numbers break the game? BTW, while the game doesn't model individual firearms, it seems to make certain assumptions about something when it goes to determine the firepower of various squads. From a brief once-over US Army squads consistently have more firepower than USMC squads despite army squads topping out at 10 men, 2 BAR, and USMC squads evolving to 12 men 3 BAR. How does Japanese artillery stack up in game terms to Soviets? Does it really track what we know from history? Could more accurate TOE's actually have an impact on ahistorical Japanese success against Soviets in WITP? Anyway, so long as it wouldn't break the game for any known reason... I would be willing to work on this for my own amusement, and I would be willing to share my efforts (starting with USMC, Soviets, and Japanese in Manchuria) with anyone that is interested. Given the amount of work you guys are doing on the other details, any additional work I would want to do would neccesarrily want to build on your own efforts. But I don't want to plagiarize or butt in if people would get upset about it.

Andrew Brown -> RE: stirring the pot (3/13/2005 12:13:32 PM)
quote: Anyway, so long as it wouldn't break the game for any known reason... I would be willing to work on this for my own amusement, and I would be willing to share my efforts (starting with USMC, Soviets, and Japanese in Manchuria) with anyone that is interested. Given the amount of work you guys are doing on the other details, any additional work I would want to do would neccesarrily want to build on your own efforts. But I don't want to plagiarize or butt in if people would get upset about it. I, for one, am not going to get upset about anyone willing to make contributions and/or suggestions. As to whether they would be included in the combined mod or not depends on others who are much more knowledgeable about TOE than I am - which would be just about anybody - and on whether Don Bowen, who is doing the lion's share of the coordination for the mod thinks it is a good idea to include it. Andrew

Central Blue -> RE: stirring the pot (3/14/2005 4:37:45 AM)
Fair enough Andrew. There's a lot of water under the bridge on your project already. And I have no research track record with anyone here. Apparently there's no real game mechanics reason that Matrix TOE's seldom match reality. And that's what I wanted to know. I've just now ordered a copy of Red Army Handbook. I'll probably work on USMC and USA while I wait since I already have stuff on that. As I slog through this I'll post articles in this forum under separate threads appropriate to the force. We'll see how far I get.

Tomo -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units (3/22/2005 10:34:06 AM)
IJA, there were 355 infantry divisions, 4 tank divisions, 4 anti air divisions and 13 air divisions. Some are home defend divisions. Some are Manchuria defend divisions Some of them existed only onpaper. I hope such minor divisions see the light in this scenario.

Don Bowen -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units (3/22/2005 4:17:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tomo IJA, there were 355 infantry divisions, 4 tank divisions, 4 anti air divisions and 13 air divisions. Some are home defend divisions. Some are Manchuria defend divisions Some of them existed only onpaper. I hope such minor divisions see the light in this scenario. Send me your data please.

Herrbear -> RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units (3/24/2005 6:43:31 AM)
Copied this from Wish List. Didn't know if you had seen it. It is from Tomo. Scenario 15. Leader names IJA division leader, 61st & 63rd are same person. Correct leader of 61st division is Tanaka T.(Tsutomu Tanaka) and 63rd division is Nozoe M.(Masanori Nozoe). Leader of 119th division is Shiozawa K.--Kiyonobu Shiozawa Leader of 125th division is Imari T.--Tatsuo Imari(or Imatoshi sorry I cannot read his correct family name. Kanji letter is always big problem to read person's name). Leader of 123rd division is Kitazawa, S.--Sadajirou(or Teijirou) Kitazawa. Leader of 128th division is Mizuhara Y.--Yoshishige Mizuhara. ...and more. My source is Japanese book, of course written in Japanese. http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/ASIN/4404028830/qid=1111611680/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_10_7/250-7957800-6977804 This book is awesome. Excellent description of ALL IJA divisions. and http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/ASIN/4404029454/qid=1111611746/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_10_1/250-7957800-6977804 This book is also great. Encyclopedia of all IJA AIR SENTAI and IJN AIR KOKUTAI. < Message edited by Tomo -- 3/23/2005 1:26:52 PM >

Don Bowen -> African Brigades and Divisions (4/27/2005 12:25:08 AM)
Based on recent research I am going to adjust the following African Units: 1. 81st W. African Division: Historically one of this unit's Brigades (3rd W. African) was detached to the Chindits. The 3rd W. African Brigade is in the OOB so the 81st W. African Division should not arrive at full strength. There are also two additional East African Brigades in 15 Corps that are not in the OOB (22nd and 28th East African). The 81st W. African Division will arrive at 2/3 strength with a Divisional TOE that allows it to grow to full strength. The 28th E. African Brigade will be excluded from the OOB as a "trade off" for this growth. 2. 22nd East African Brigade: added as a new unit, arrives 7/22/44 at Ceylon. Ceylon is the arrival point listed in the history for this unit and is used instead of Middle East due to probable shipment around the southern tip of Africa. These changes will be added to the accumulated changes for post V1.5.

Don Bowen -> Indian Army in CHS (4/27/2005 3:55:51 AM)
Indian Army in CHS 1. 3rd Indian Division and Chindits. The 3rd Indian Division became a cover formation for Chindit units. I believe it officially was assigned the 23rd, 77th, and 111th Brigades. There were six Chindit brigades, one of which was subsequently withdrawn and used as a standard brigade: 3rd West African Brigade - already in OOB 14th British Air Landing Brigade - already in OOB (also see 44th Airborne Division) 16th British Brigade - already in OOB 23rd British Brigade - already in OOB, historically withdrawn from Chindits and used for defense 77th Indian Brigade - not currently in OOB (also see 44th Airborne Division) 111th Indian Brigade - not currently in OOB Recommendation: Remove 3rd Indian Division Reclassify 23rd Chindit Brigade as 23rd British Brigade Add 77th Indian Brigade Add 111th Indian Brigade 2. 44th Indian Division. A 44th Indian Division is in the OOB, without type specification. There were two 44th Divisions: 44th Armored Division 255th Tank Brigade (currently in OOB) 268th Lorried Infantry Brigade (currently in OOB) 44th Airborne Division 14th Airlanding Brigade (currently in OOB as Chindits) 50th Indian Parachute Brigade (currently in OOB) 77th Indian Brigade (not currently in OOB, see Chindits). Recommendation: The 44th Division is redundant and should be removed. The 77th Brigade is covered in the Chindit recommendation. Other Armored Formations. I have only minimal information on these tank units and would appreciate any additional information or advice: 50th Indian Tank Brigade - apparently existed with same number as 50th Indian Parachute Brigade - not currently in OOB 146th Regt Royal Armoured Corps - not currently in OOB 19th Sqn K.G.V. O Lancers - not currently in OOB 45th. Cavalry Regt - not currently in OOB 2nd. Btn 4th Bombay Grenadiers - not currently in OOB 251st Indian Tank Brigade - not currently in OOB but an erroneous 251st UK Brigade is in the OOB 9th RDH Cavalry Tank Regiment - currently in OOB, not allocated to a Brigade (later part of 255th Tank Brigade) 3rd Carabineers Regiment - currently in OOB, not allocated to a Brigade (apparently was originally in 251st Tank Brigade and later partially integrated into 254th Tank Brigade. 116th RAC Tank Regiment - currently in OOB, not allocated to a Brigade (was part of short lived 267th Tank Brigade. 25th Dragoons Tank Regiment - currently in OOB, not allocated to a Brigade 17th and Burma Divisions. I am confused on the 17th Indian Division and the Brigades in Burma. At various times the 17th included the 16th, 44th, 45th, 46th, 48th (Gurkha), 63rd and 99th Brigades. The 16th Brigade was also part of the Burma Division (along with 1st and 2nd Burma). 17th Division, 16th, 44th and 45th are in the OOB, as are the 1st and 2nd Burma. 16th, 1st Burma and 2nd Burma became the 39th Training Division (which is properly left out). Subtracting the 44th and 45th leaves three Brigades for the 17th Division (48th, 63rd, 99th) and the inclusion of the 17th Division seems rational. However, I can not find any formation data for the three Brigades, except that the 48th was part of the 17th Division in March, 1942. Should the Division exist 12/41 or arrive at some later date? I have also seen a reference to a 115th Indian Brigade and would appreciate any information about it or any other formations. If I was rich I'd just buy the three volumes of "Loyalty and Honour" and answer all these questions myself - but I ain't rich!

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.625