British X Corps TO&E

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

British X Corps TO&E

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] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> British X Corps TO&E

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

British X Corps TO&E - 4/5/2017 4:52:17 PM

cardas

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline

I got a bit curious about the heavy weapons used by the infantry division in the British X Corps. They don't have the standard British heavy weapons, instead being armed with US weapons. The infantry divisions also have an incredible amount of heavy AA guns;

3rd British Div: 80 x 90mm M1A1 AA + 12 x 90mm M2 DP Gun
1st Royal Marine Div: 60 x 90mm M1A1 AA
6th Canadian Div: 80 x 90mm M1A1 AA + 12 x 90mm M2 DP Gun

You get them in the extremely late game (October and November 1945). I've tried to search for the TO&E of these divisions online for this time period without luck. So the question is, were these division (or were they planned to be) equipped like they are in WitP:AE?

Post #: 1

RE: British X Corps TO&E - 4/5/2017 5:09:57 PM

Uhionk

Posts: 32
Joined: 11/19/2015
Status: offline

As part of the agreement to allow commonwealth troops to participate in the invasion of Japan it was agreed that these would use US equipment. Presumably to simplify supply.

(in reply to cardas)

Post #: 2

RE: British X Corps TO&E - 4/5/2017 5:20:10 PM

cardas

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline

That sounds very reasonable and I wondered if something like that was the explanation for it. However they also get the 1st Airborne Div at the same time that's equipped with British heavy weapons. It also still leaves me with the question as to whether they were actually supposed to have such an amazing amount of heavy AA guns.

(in reply to Uhionk)

Post #: 3

RE: British X Corps TO&E - 4/5/2017 5:27:23 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cardas

That sounds very reasonable and I wondered if something like that was the explanation for it. However they also get the 1st Airborne Div at the same time that's equipped with British heavy weapons. It also still leaves me with the question as to whether they were actually supposed to have such an amazing amount of heavy AA guns.

The British did have some logistical support that could explain keeping one of their divisions equipped with their standard equipment.

As for the AA, I think the assumption was that if the Japanese could waste hundreds of kamikaze planes in a 'kikusui' (sp?) attack on ships, they had thousands of others to send against invaders on their sacred ground.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to cardas)

Post #: 4

RE: British X Corps TO&E - 4/5/2017 5:28:16 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

That many guns is more than an Anti aircraft brigade.

_____________________________

(in reply to cardas)

Post #: 5

RE: British X Corps TO&E - 4/5/2017 6:01:42 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

"You get them in the extremely late game (October and November 1945)."

So these formations would be part of the "what if" of the game (like some stuff esp. planes on the IJ side too), it may be possible their outfitting is also "what if"

Could be also part to make these units "safe" against "what if" late war IJ tanks, from which a player can make more than historical ofc (if late war IJ tank units actually can upgrade to these, what I do not know)

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 4/5/2017 6:04:38 PM >

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 6

RE: British X Corps TO&E - 4/5/2017 6:41:59 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

Well 100 90mm guns all all associated equipment we are probably talking about 5000 or more men. So a great increase in size of a Division.

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 7

RE: British X Corps TO&E - 4/5/2017 8:59:06 PM

US87891

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline

According to JWE, this part of the database was a speculative exercise by Andy Mac. It can be safely ignored, deleted, whatever.

(in reply to cardas)

Post #: 8

RE: British X Corps TO&E - 4/6/2017 1:23:11 PM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

According to JWE, this part of the database was a speculative exercise by Andy Mac. It can be safely ignored, deleted, whatever.

Gents,

I can't speak for Andymac, but dismissing these ground units as "speculative" seems harsh. Maybe JWE was a bit grumpy when he typed that.

The late war arriving "British" forces include not only those forming part of the X Commonwealth Corps, but also some formations that were being deployed for Operation Zipper - the landings in Malaya scheduled for "not before" December 1945, to be followed by Operation Mailfist, an overland advance on Singapore.

When Japan toweled it Zipper was brought forward, in reduced form, as an administrative landing, and the RM units landed and took the surrender of Penang, among other things.

Many British/Indian forces earmarked for Zipper/Mailfist were already in theatre, but the Royal Marines (the division was more of an administrative entity) brigades ("commandos") were going to be beefed up, and additionally the 32nd Amoured Bde (previously of Hobart's 79th Div) was allegedly to be shipped out. That brigade would come mounted in Churchill gun tanks, Churchill howitzer tanks, Crocodiles, Petard tanks, flails, AVREs, etc. IIRC the RM division would control an LVT brigade. All the good stuff you want to assault a beach. I have also seen a fresh UK armoured, or army tank, brigade mooted for Mailfist.

The UK 1st Airborne Division was disbanded late in the war, when it was all over bar the shouting. However, the 5th Parachute Brigade of the 6th Div was sent to India to form the nucleus of a para division, which, with the 44th Indian Airborne Division, would form an airborne corps for Zipper/Mailfist. It's inclusion is in no way speculative, although the division designation may have been 6th rather than 1st.

X Corps - which in UK histories is usually described as "British", but mostly wasn't, was the mooted CW follow-on reinforcement for Coronet.

Its order of battle was never finally settled, but would have at least included, according to Polmar and Allen-

3rd British Division.
6th Canadian Division.
10th Australian Division AIF.

Two follow up UK divisions on Y+40 (* but I understand these were dropped along the way.) Non divisional elements likely included a tank brigade (?Canadian), and combat engineering and other elements, along with a British AGRA.

MacArthur didn't want them. Some of the obstacles put in the path of this unit's deployment included:

MacArthur vetoed the original UK proposal that they would provide upwards of 10 (CW) divisions - and see next entry.

MacArthur vetoed any Indian army formations outright. The reasons for doing so are ... unconvincing.

MacArthur then refused the "white" units on the basis they made logistics difficult.

When Blamey pointed out that Australia had an adequately functional sealoc going north, which could easily be extended to a port in Japan and supply all the corps' ordnance needs (food and fuel is food and fuel in anyone's currency), and we've been doing it since 1942 and sorted out the kinks, MacArthur told him there weren't enough ships, and anyway the US sealocs to Honshu were going to run direct from the CONUS and it was unlikely a port could be made available.

When the corps was forced on Mac by his political masters he claimed that they would all have to not only be armed with US hardware, but also be re-organised on US TOEs.

The British agreed that last point.

The Canadian war cabinet agreed on 17th May 1945 to approve that a new 6 Div would use United States Army equipment and, except for uniforms, be reorganized along United States Army lines, be trained in the United States under the over-all supervision of the United States Army Ground Forces, and be supplied as a normal United States Army division and based in accordance with operational plans. (The home defence division of this designation had been disbanded in December 1944.) The US JCS had earlier approved that additionally it might have a supporting armoured element, which on US TOE would indicate one or more attached independent tank/tank destroyer battalions. In my own mod I added the 2nd btn/1st Armoured Regiment (The Royal Canadian Dragoons), and the 2nd armoured regt, Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians). General Crerar, like Blamey, was unhappy with the concept (and criticised it in a conference with General Murchie on 22 May), but was waved off; formation of the division commenced by July 1945, with about 1700 personnel organised into a US division HQ structure and attending courses run by US instructors; they in turn would retrain the division as it formed. According to the Canadian official history, the preference was for this unit to operate directly under US Army command, without the British inserted in the middle.

Blamey remained resistant. Sutherland talked him round, to the point he had agreed by July 45 that the proposed Australian division would use US tanks and artillery, at least. The new 10th division was to be formed as an AIF unit, drawing from the existing three AIF divisions and more recent volunteers, while the rest of the army was reduced to the minimum needed for, in effect, POW camp guard duties in the Solomons and PNG. This unit is not in the standard OOB. I have added this unit to my mod, arriving on the US West Coast, with one of each device. It needs to fill out from US pools, and the only way to get enough squads for it is disband some other unit/s.

The other point is that when the IGS informed everyone else that Sir Charles Keightly would be GOC, it met with resistance in these parts. The suggestion was made - strongly - that while Sir Charles was no doubt a gifted officer and a rising star, his combat command experience, mainly in Italy, was ill suited to what the IJA would have in mind. The Australian government demanded that the post go to Morshead, who not only had been fighting the IJA for 3 years, but worked well within the American command structure while he was at it. This imbroglio was never resolved. If the British had continued to insist on Keightly, there was a prospect that the Canadian & Australian Divisions would have been made available to fight assigned to US corps, and X corps would never have formed - something MacArthur could probably have more easily accepted.

Edit - early proposals included an NZ brigade group. This is not mentioned by Polmar & Allen.

IF you would like to know more, I suggest reading (these are both available free on line):

- pages 513-518, Canadian Official History, 'Six Years of War' Chapter XVI: Pacific Plans and Enterprises, 1943-1945).

- Australia in the War of 1939�1945. Series 1 � Army, Volume VII, chapter 23. (by Gavin Long) which you will find at the AWM website.

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/RCDIG1070206/

< Message edited by Ian R -- 4/6/2017 1:56:24 PM >

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to US87891)

Post #: 9

RE: British X Corps TO&E - 4/6/2017 2:22:23 PM

Revthought

Posts: 523
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uhionk

As part of the agreement to allow commonwealth troops to participate in the invasion of Japan it was agreed that these would use US equipment. Presumably to simplify supply.

This; plus, lend lease meant that there were already British and Commonwealth units equipped with (mostly) American weapons, so it was not really an insurmountable problem to equip forces for the Invasion of Japan with American weapons.

Incidentally, I would say this was 90% of simplification of logistics and 10% about the United States' attitude about being the primary "victor" in the Asian war. In other words, power politics around the legitimacy of peace and sphere's of American influence overlapping former colonial states had a small part--I think--to play with this decision.

Edit

Actually, see Ian's response. That's a pretty thorough answer.

< Message edited by Revthought -- 4/6/2017 2:24:31 PM >

_____________________________

Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.

(in reply to Uhionk)

Post #: 10

RE: British X Corps TO&E - 4/6/2017 4:48:29 PM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

Rev,

There is another more mundane aspect to this which is 'just not sexy' and never receives much attention. In Canada, ongoing participation in Pacific War was a purely voluntary affair.

As at 17 July 1945, 2796 officers and 36,386 other ranks had elected for Pacific service, not enough for the proposed "division slice" when reserves, replacements, and non-divisional supporting formations are included. However, if you in essence man a division and some attached combat battalions which are effectively US Army units, the deficiency of some 835 officers and 20,775 men is at least partly dissipated by the US Army providing the non divisional support/logistics train units.

The Australian army situation is not as strained, because it was intended to hand Borneo over to SEAC control, and by then the bypassed Japanese bases were like self administered POW camps, too busy trying to grow food to indulge in military action. Admiral King, who had been in favour of liberating the refineries (the oil company engineers came in right up the clacker of the assault troops), lost interest when it became apparent it would take many months to rehabilitate them. That meant at least two AIF divisions could be stood down, and the II corps support elements realigned, which was Blamey's preference.

Logistics, Logistics, Logistics. But I think keeping it not only an American campaign, but more importantly one personally identified with him, occupied more than 10% of Mac's thinking.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Revthought)

Post #: 11

RE: British X Corps TO&E - 4/6/2017 9:52:32 PM

US87891

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline

Hello Ian,

I think JWE was referring to all the additional stuff that the OP was asking about. I apparently did not make that sufficiently clear. The proposed and authorized TO&E of the Canadian 6th division is very well known and did not include anything out of the ordinary. For better accuracy, cardas could use the following as starting point.

The 6th division was originally a Home defense division, disbanded in 12/44, reactivated for the Canadian Army Pacific Force. Organized as standard US Infantry division on T/O 7-OS of 24 Jan, �45 (and subordinate), not 1 June, �45, 6th CD had authorized strength of 790 officers and 15058 other ranks. There were 151 officers and 1070 other ranks authorized for Corps echelon, which included a standard US model tank battalion (formed from the Canadian Grenadier Guards) for division support, but administratively assigned to higher.

Manpower and component units came from 1st CD, because it was the senior unit and its components represented almost all areas of Canada. Sub-organization was as regiments. The old 1, 2, 3, brigades were renamed 1st, 2nd, 3rd Canadian Regiments, which remained commanded by brigadiers rather than colonels. Although the battalions were technically numbered, they remained styled by their names (Princes Pat, Seaforths, 48th Highlanders, Edmonton, etc�). Regimental support (cannon companies, and the like) were formed from the Saskatoon L.I. MG Bn. Division command was MG B.M. Hoffmeister, ADC was Br W.P. Gilbride.

Command and staff training was well under way at the Royal Military College and about 1750 instructional cadre were in the US on courses. Of course, it all came to an end on 14 August.

Matt

(in reply to Ian R)

Post #: 12

RE: British X Corps TO&E - 4/7/2017 5:01:37 AM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

quote:

The old 1, 2, 3, brigades were renamed 1st, 2nd, 3rd Canadian Regiments

.

That makes sense if you are using a USArmy TOE.

Is the correct designation of that tank unit "22nd/GG" or "22nd Battalion (GG)"?

Also, I saw a post on some internet forum somewhere about the RM Div that said this:

Royal Marine 'Division' (administrative formation only):
116th & 117th RM Brigades as Beach Groups (NOT Commandos)
34th RM Amphibious Support Regt � 2x batteries with LVT(A)-4, 1x battery with LVT(R), 1x battery with LVT-4(F) Sea Serpent
30th Assault Unit � special forces unit tasked with seizing secret weapons and documents relating to them (Ian Fleming's mob)

I have no idea if that is actually correct, but it prompted some extra reading which suggested that the formation was indeed pretty much intended to collect various beach assault/shore party elements .

There is a near - contemporary appraisal in here:

http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/singleitem/collection/p124201coll1/id/993

< Message edited by Ian R -- 4/7/2017 9:05:46 AM >

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to US87891)

Post #: 13

RE: British X Corps TO&E - 4/7/2017 1:14:23 PM

US87891

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R
Is the correct designation of that tank unit "22nd/GG" or "22nd Battalion (GG)"?

Honestly have no idea, but knowing the dear Army�s penchant for acronym and nomenklatura, I would bet hard money that the US Army�s unit designator was the oh so prosaic 22nd Tank Battalion, Medium (Canadian). The Canadians, of course, would reference it in their own terms as 22nd Canadian Tank Battalion, Canadian Grenadier Guards.

This is based on what happened with the infantry components. The old records from Camp Breckinridge list the designation 1st Battalion, 2nd Infantry (Canadian), which the Canadians assembled and activated at Camp Shilo as 1st Canadian Infantry Battalion, Princess Patricia�s Canadian Light Infantry, 2nd Canadian Infantry Regiment.

I think the Canadians tried to keep kosher with US Army numbering system. Royal Canadians were 1st of the 1st, Princess Pat was 1st of the 2nd, Royal 22e was 1st of the 3rd, Carlton and York was 2nd of the 3rd, and so on. Very likely the officers and troops would refer to them in the old way and to he!! with the Army staff weenies. Your call, but 22nd Tank Bn (CGG) would make sense and be informative.

Matt

(in reply to Ian R)

Post #: 14

RE: British X Corps TO&E - 4/7/2017 2:02:29 PM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

"22nd Tank Bn (CGG)" it is then.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to US87891)

Post #: 15

RE: British X Corps TO&E - 4/10/2017 5:34:03 AM

cardas

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline

Thanks for all the answers, that clears things up. I'm not at all against a bit speculative stuff coming after the historical surrender of Japan, but all those heavy AA guns do seem a bit excessive to me. Either way it's not something I think most people will ever see while playing the game due to the late arrival of these divisions.

(in reply to Ian R)

Post #: 16