Ideas for Land Unit writeups

[Mziln]

The term "Japanese marines" is not quite correct as a description for these naval personnel who were actually ground soldiers.
 
The Imperial Japanese Army also raised amphibious units called Sea Landing Brigades. These 3,500-strong brigades were used to assault and then garrison islands.
 
Therefore I belive the LG stands for Landing Groups. If the game had several division sized units to represent the Army amphibious Brigades this would give the Japanese more mobility than they actualy had.

[trees trees]

thank you Wosung! I always seem to see references to 'tank' this and 'tank' that with Russian forces, specifically 'tank armies' which are the WiF scale counters.

the MECH units are historical, I'm just saying they weren't always named that way. Rommel's division was a 'Panzer' division.

[CBoehm]

ORIGINAL: trees trees

Rommel's division was a 'Panzer' division.

hmmm maybe ...but I seem to remember from Rommels own book that he desribed it as a "light" panzer division ...AND a quick check on Wikipedia shows that:

2nd Light Division
7th Panzer Division Gespenster-Division

The 2nd Light Division (sometimes described as Light Mechanized or Light Panzer to distinguish it from the later Light infantry divisions) was created in November 1938. In 1939 it fought in the Invasion of Poland. Due to shortcomings that the campaign revealed in the organization of the Light divisions it was reorganized as the 7th Panzer Division afterward, in October 1939.

As the 7th Panzer Division it participated in the 1940 Battle of France under the command of the soon-to-be-famous Erwin Rommel, earning its nickname Gespenster-Division ("Ghost Division") when it advanced so rapidly into and beyond the breach in the French front line that higher headquarters lost track of where it was. It then remained in France on occupation duty until early 1941.

...so I guess we are both sort of correct eh?? it was ligth ...but was then reorganized ...newertheless Rommel himself described that it was a bit "light" on tanks ...speaking from memory now: I seem to remember he states in his book that he almost had significantly less Panzer III & IV than the other more "normal" panzer divisions....

[Norden_slith]

At Fall Gelb, the German 1st - 5th & 10th PzDiv had 2 Pz regiments each, the 6th - 9th had only 1 PzReg.
The 6th, 7th and 8th had Tcech tanks 35t and 38t (both weaker than the maintank, Pz-III). On top of that the 7th and 9th had some 30 Pz-I in their ranks (These were also in all 2 Rgt Divisions btw).
Given the numbers and types of tanks alone, the 9th Div is by far the weakest, followed by the 7th.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Norden
At Fall Gelb, the German 1st - 5th & 10th PzDiv had 2 Pz regiments each, the 6th - 9th had only 1 PzReg.
The 6th, 7th and 8th had Tcech tanks 35t and 38t (both weaker than the maintank, Pz-III). On top of that the 7th and 9th had some 30 Pz-I in their ranks (These were also in all 2 Rgt Divisions btw).
Given the numbers and types of tanks alone, the 9th Div is by far the weakest, followed by the 7th.

This task is not easy, partly because we are doing 1 writeup for a unit that will last the entire war. Some comments could be made for the armor units about them receiving new equipement at different points in the war. Though too much of that could get boring very fast.

[hazpak]

ORIGINAL: Mziln

The term "Japanese marines" is not quite correct as a description for these naval personnel who were actually ground soldiers.

The Imperial Japanese Army also raised amphibious units called Sea Landing Brigades. These 3,500-strong brigades were used to assault and then garrison islands.

Therefore I belive the LG stands for Landing Groups. If the game had several division sized units to represent the Army amphibious Brigades this would give the Japanese more mobility than they actualy had.

Yes i can see that might be the case. I'll have a look into these Sea Landing brigades and see what information i can find on them.

Haz

[wosung]

German Panzer-, Light divisions: Generally German mobile and even Infantry divisions had quite different quality, microstruktures and equipment. From pre-war time to 1945 they were formed in 33 mobilization waves ("Wellen"), from standing army units to reinforcement battalions to Landwehr units.

Panzer-, Light- and Motorized divisions formed quite a distinct entity, but every one of this three types in it self was not uniform. Plus their organization changed through the war.

The 6 Panzer Divisions in 1939 (the 10 Panzer Divisions in 1940) consisted each of 1 Panzer Brigade of 2 Panzer regiments of 2 battalions ("Abteilungen") each with altogether theoretically 561 Panzer (servicable average around 320 Pz I, II, 35t, 38t, and a few III and IV) plus 2 motorized Infantry regiments of 2-3 battalions each and other troops.

The 20+ Panzer Divisions in 1941 consisted each of only 1 Panzer regiment (11 with 2 battalions, 9 with 3 batallions) each with around 150 Panzer (altogether 3.671 on Eastern Front in June 1941, same types as before, but now around 1.000 Pz III and 479 Pz IV spread in between all Panzer Divisions) 4-6 battalions of motorized infantry (sometimes the first battalion was armoured, gepanzert, with SdKFZ 251 personnell carriers). Equipment was heterogenuous: In 1941 one of the Panzer Divisions had 96 typs of personnel carriers, , 111 typs of trucks, and 37 different motorcycles, all robbed in all of Western Europe. In October 1942 10 of the Panzer Divisions consisted only of one Panzer battalion plus supporting units. In March 1942 Eastern Front Panzer Divisions consisted of 1.503 Panzer altogether (140!! servicable altogether).

The Panzer Division 1943 theoretically consisted of 1 Panzerregiment of 2 battalions (altogether theoretically around 160 Panzer).

The Panzer Division 1945 theoretically consisted of only 1 Panzerbattalion (Pz. IV, V) plus 1 armoured anti-tank battalion (StuG, Jagdpanzer). In 1944-45 Panzer strenghts were around 4-5.000 at the Eastern Front and perhaps 500-1.000 in France and Italy. In practice most Panzer Divisions had around 20-60 serviceable Panzer.

Motorized Divisions and later on Panzergrenadier Divisions consisted of 1 Panzer or assault gun battallion, and 2 motorized Infantry regiments with altogether 6 battalions. SS Panzer Divisions were organized pretty much on the lines of ordinary Panzer Divisions. Additionally the often had 2 extra Panzer Grenadier battallions, a whole battallion of assault guns, and around 25% more men and equipment.

The 4 light divisions (1.-4.) were formed in 1937-8 as motorized cavalery divisions with varying organization, usually a light tank regiment or battallion, 1-2 cavalry regiments and supporting troops. After the Polish campaign they were upgraded. In October 1939 the 7. Panzer Division was formed from the 3. light division. In February 1940, when Rommel took over, it consisted of 3 Panzer and 6 mot. rifle battalions plus support troops and 218 Panzer (more than 50% 35t., 38 t., the rest Pz. III-IV). In late 1940 4 Infantry Divisions were redesigned as light Divisions (5.-?), although their org first was still basically that of an Infantry division. In 1941/42 the 90. and 164 light (Africa) division was formed from units already in Africa. In March 1943 the Motorized were renamed to Panzergrenadier Divisionen.

Altogether Germany formed 38 Panzerdivisionen (1.-27., 116., Panzer-Lehr, Großdeutschland, Hermann Göring, 1.-3. SS, 5. SS, 9.-10. SS, 12. SS.)
plus 12 rump Panzer Divisions in regimental strength (232.-233., Norwegen, Kurmark, Holstein, Jüterborg, Münchenberg, Clausewitz, Donau, Schlesien, Thüringen, Westfalen),

29 Motorized/Panzergrenadier-Divisonen (2.-3.mot., 10. mot., 13.16. mot., 18.mot. 20. mot., 25. mot., 29. mot., 36. mot., 60. mot., Brandenburg, 1.-5. SS, 9.-12. SS, 16.-18. SS, 23. SS, 34. SS.)
plus 7 Panzer Grenadier Divisionen in regimental strength (26.-28., 32., 38. SS, Führer Grenadier)


A short last note to the Japanese SNLF forces: Some? of them were named after naval stations ("Kobe" Yokosaka...). Some of them had more in common with USMC defense battalions then with Marine divisions.

References:
John Ellis, World war 2: a statistical survey, p. 129-30, 204-6, 230-1.
Andrew Mollow, The armed forces of World War 2, p. 6-12, 107-8, 185-6.
The Oxford companion to the Second World War, p.469-472.
David Fraser, Rommel, p. 160.
Karl Walde, Guderian, p. 178-9, 187-8.
James Lucas, Handbuch der Wehrmacht, p. 91-118.

[jesperpehrson]

ORIGINAL: wosung
-Perhaps I can help with the Chinese Units?

Help is always appreciated, considering the scope of the work ahead of us. PM me and lets discuss it. Tell me how you would like to participate.

[jesperpehrson]

ORIGINAL: hazpak

ORIGINAL: Mziln

The term "Japanese marines" is not quite correct as a description for these naval personnel who were actually ground soldiers.

The Imperial Japanese Army also raised amphibious units called Sea Landing Brigades. These 3,500-strong brigades were used to assault and then garrison islands.

Therefore I belive the LG stands for Landing Groups. If the game had several division sized units to represent the Army amphibious Brigades this would give the Japanese more mobility than they actualy had.

Yes i can see that might be the case. I'll have a look into these Sea Landing brigades and see what information i can find on them.

Haz

Haz,

since our collective brains cannot come up with anything else I think you should just stick with Landing Groups. It ain´t worth dwelling on any more I think.

[HenrytheSecond]

ORIGINAL: trees trees

I also think you may have problems trying to do a counter-by-counter writeup of the Russian units. The MECH and ARM units are just numbered sequentially; the first one to appear in the force pool as a white-print becomes the first one designated a 'Guards' unit. I think in real life those designations were earned in combat for a unit that performed well ... it would keep it's original number with the Guards label appended to it. In WiF there are also no "Shock" armies that became the biggest and best Soviet units by the end of the war. The GBA designations are also simply sequential. The initial black-print INF units (and GARR units, requiring another explanation of the WiF design for this type of unit) do use historical designations, so the 62nd Army that initially held the core of Stalingrad is a WiF counter. Another example is the 23rd Army, which held the front northwest of Leningrad. In WiF that is a 3-1 GARR.

I'm not so sure this is an issue. It's unlikely many units in the game will follow their actual historical path, so the write-ups are only 'thematic detail' to enhance our gaming experience.

As such, the write-up should surely reflect the unit the counter depicts, regardless of it's use in the game?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: HenrytheSecond

I'm not so sure this is an issue. It's unlikely many units in the game will follow their actual historical path, so the write-ups are only 'thematic detail' to enhance our gaming experience.

As such, the write-up should surely reflect the unit the counter depicts, regardless of it's use in the game?

Yes.

The basic premise for each unit can be different though.

HQ units, named after individual commanders, and named naval units, refer to a specific person/ship. Clearly their writeups describe their history. The air units represent 250 to 500 planes and the name given to a unit is the plane type in the majority, since they often are a mixed group of plane types. So, their writeups describe the creation and use of the plane type, with performance characteristics and common weaponry. For the land units, the artillery, AA and AT are similar to the air units, in that the type is described rather than a specific combat unit.

Many of the units in WIF are hypothetical, which gives the players the option of going in a non-historical direction as to production emphasis. Indeed, a fundamental WIF rule is the ability to "build ahead", where a unit type that historically appeared in year Y enters the game in year Y - 1. The neutral countries are other examples of where some units have been added to reflect how the country would have responded if their active participation in the war had gone on longer than it did historically.

And lastly there are generic unit types, such as convoys, amphibious units, submarines, etcetera. There is only so much we can do with those. In some cases we can describe operational characteristics and give historical anecdotes. There are land units that fall into this category: garrison unit #1, #2, #3, ...

In summary, the writeups are not restricted to a rigid style, but rather reflect some facts of historical interest related to the unit. The more spcific the writeup can be to the counter, the better - but the degree of historical detail available varies widely.