Question about scenario making BFTB

[Huib]

Just recently I bought COTA, to get to know this game better in anticipation of upcoming BFTB. It's the looks of the maps that did it for me.
With BFTB would I be able to make scenarios anywhere in NW Europe 1944-45?
I have a large collection of WW2 era topo maps and already played around a bit with the map maker in COTA. The BMP underlay functionality is fantastic and works perfectly.
Would I be able to make maps in COTA already, that I can use later for scenario making in BFTB or will those not be compatible?
Really looking forward to this game.

Huib

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: Huib
With BFTB would I be able to make scenarios anywhere in NW Europe 1944-45?

The only limitation will be that you'll be restricted to the unit-types available in the BFTB OOB - the estab. There are plenty of unit-types in there but the more exotic ones like SS Gebirgsjägers or such aren't (yet)

That said, if you're serious about scenario creation and need a specific unit-type to make it absolutely historically correct, the Panther Boys have been known to add the type(s) especially for you.

ORIGINAL: Huib
I have a large collection of WW2 era topo maps and already played around a bit with the map maker in COTA. The BMP underlay functionality is fantastic and works perfectly.
Would I be able to make maps in COTA already, that I can use later for scenario making in BFTB or will those not be compatible?
Really looking forward to this game.

AFAIK the BFTB mapmakers use(d) the COTA mapmaker tool to create the maps.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Huib]

Thanks Eddy

I won't need any exotic unit types (apart from some captured units perhaps).

Looks like I will be making some serious scenarios once BFTB is released. Possibilities seem unlimited.

Good to know I can start making maps already in COTA.

Huib

[Prince of Eckmühl]

I sure hope that the Bulge game includes one of these:

[final_drive]

The German infantry divisions in the Ardennes were all Volksgrenadier-divisions (VGD). These feature in many of the BftB scenario's.
 
The VGD had a TOE which was a further development from the ID 44 with, in short, less personnel, but more automatic firepower. Of all VGDs in the Ardennes, only 12. VGD had retained its ID 44 structure, albeit with some small updates. 
 
BTW, the third Grenadier-Regiment is missing in the graph.[;)]

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: final_drive

12. VGD had retained its ID 44 structure, albeit with some small updates.

Well, that'd be a place to start.

BTW, the third Grenadier-Regiment is missing in the graph.[;)]

Check out Nafziger's OOB labeled 944GXAP.

[simovitch]

24th Welle, that is an odd one! Most of the Bulge VGD's were 32nd Welle from August, 1944.

[GoodGuy]

A common structure was (late '43 - mid 1944, can't remember what "Welle")...

3 Grenadier-Regiments
1 Arty Rgt
1 Engineer Bn
1 Field replacement Bn
1 ID-"Nachschubführer" ("logistics leader" = supply HQ + baggage), the structure was then changed to incorporate a "Divisions-Versorgungs-Regiment" = Divisional supply Regiment, in mid or late 1944 IIRC)
1 "Füsilier-Batallion"
1 Panzerjäger-Abteilung.

If I am not mistaken, Füsilier-Regiments or Bns were, besides them being units that picked up the coats of arms from WWI units, lightly armed infantry units (in contrast to the Grenadier-Regiments).

In practice, some Infantry Divisions in 1944 (some since 1943, some as late as 1945) had the following layout:

1 Füsilier-Regiment
2 Grenadier-Regiments
1 Füsilier-Bn
1 Arty Regiment
1 Panzerjäger-Abtlg.
1 Field replacement Bn

... note: no Engineer Bn

eg. the 26th Infantry Division (since 1943).

Since 1943, the 6th Infantry Division had the following structure (until the unit was annihilated in a pocket at Bobruisk in June 1944):

Grenadier-Regiment 18
Grenadier-Regiment 37
Grenadier-Regiment 58
Artillerie-Regiment 6
Artillerie-Regiment 42 (I.)
Füsilier-Bataillon 6
Panzerjäger-Abteilung 6 (AT)
Pionier-Bataillon 6 (engineers)
Feldersatz-Bataillon 6 (replacement Bn)
Infanterie-Divisions-Nachrichten-Abteilung 6 (Signals Bn)
Kommandeur der Infanterie-Divisions-Nachschubtruppen 6 (supply HQ + baggage).

Note: 2 Arty regiments.

So, some Wehrmacht units had differing structures.
That said, the image above seems to display either an oversight by Nafziger or some odd structure (for the time frame). I don't think he's referring to a particular unit/battle, since it says "1944 Infantry Division". I can't access my KStNe right now (laptop), but even if that was a planned or proposed layout, units did not have such layout in practice, in the main. At least no such 1944 unit would come to my mind.

[GoodGuy]

Hm, it seems some units in Italy had the layout of the 25. Welle....

eg. the 92. Infantry Division:

Grenadier-Regiment 1059
Grenadier-Regiment 1060
Artillerie-Regiment 192
Pionier-Bataillon 192
Feldersatz-Bataillon 192
Panzerjäger-Abteilung 192
Divisions-Füsilier-Bataillon 192
Divisions-Nachrichten-Abteilung 192
Divisions-Versorgungs-Regiment 192,

established in January 1944. The unit was established and deployed in Italy, used "z.b.V.", probably as reserve unit of Army Group C or as one of its fire brigades from April - May '44, then put under the command of the 1st Fallschirm Army in June.
The unit was disbanded at end of June and its troops used to replenish the 362nd Infantry Division.

I found a unit that was designated and planned to be a LL-unit (Luftlande), the 91.(LL)Infantry Division, established in January 1944 and deployed to Reims, France in May '44:

Grenadier-Regiment 1057
Grenadier-Regiment 1058
Artillerie-Regiment 191 (this unit was turned into a mountain arty regiment)
Pionier-Bataillon 191
Panzerjäger-Kompanie 191
Fla-Kompanie 191
Divisions-Nachrichten-Abteilung 191
Divisions-Nachschubführer 191.

Additionally, the Fallschirm-Regiment 6 was put under this division's command, to protect areas on the Cotentin peninsula. The 91st ID was destroyed in Cherbourg, some 60 troops of the Fallschirm-Regiment managed to get back to Caen, and were subsequently assigned to Heydte's KG for the last German jump during the Ardennes offensive.

There may be more such rather odd units, but this structure was usually not used in 1944.

[final_drive]

Prince of Eckmühl wrote

Check out Nafziger's OOB labeled 944GXAP.

Prince,
 
The Nafziger example you gave is, like Richard pointed out, the model for the 24th 'wave' ('Welle') of infantry divisions, with a reduced ID44 establishment: only two instead of three Grenadier Regiments. The 24th Wave consisted of 68, 72, 214, 331, 389. IDs. They were formed in early 1944 from the frameworks of training divisions, stationed at major training grounds. Also the later formed 25th wave (77., 84., 85., 89., 91., 92. ID, some already mentioned by Goodguy), 26th wave (34., 65., 198., 715.) and 28th wave (19., 94., 543., 544.) had the structure with two instead of three regiments. None of these divisions was present in the Ardennes.
 
The VGDs in the Ardennes were indeed mostly 32. Welle, with the very typical standard OOB for the VGD. However, the 12. VGD and 560. VGD, both later committed in the Ardennes, formed part of the 30. Welle at their time of establishment. Originally raised as Grenadier-Divisions (like the 29. Welle) the divisions of this Welle were later restructured and renamed Volksgrenadier-Division to come on a par with the 32. Welle, as were those of the earlier 29. Welle.
 
Whereas 560. VGD in Norway had the time to adapt it's structure to the standard of a VGD of the 32. Welle, the 12. did not: it was built around the remnants of the 12. ID, destroyed in July, and already in September it was committed in the fighting for the Westwall and Aachen. The remnants of the original 12. ID proved to be stronger than originally thought by the OKH/Org.Abt, and for a while the name 12. Infanterie-Division was reinstalled. Likewise, major restructuring according to the basic TOE of the VGD didn't happen. The minor adaptions, already mentioned before, can rather be considered updates to the ID 44-model: the logistic units were concentrated under a 'Divisions-Versorgungs-Regiment', which was, as Goodguy wrote, indeed a mid '44 adaption to the standard ID 44. Another such change was the scrapping of the 7,5cm PaK from the Panzerjäger-Kp within the infantry regiments, and replacing them with 7,5cm le.IG37. This weapon was thought to possess both IG and AT capacities, and was introduced in order to save the 7,5cm PaK production for other usage. The name change into 12. Volks-Grenadier-Division was however finally decided on 9th of October 1944.
 
Let there be no doubt that both the 'Grundgliederung' (standard TOE) for the 'Infanterie-Division 44' and for the 'Volksgrenadier-Division 32. Welle' had three infantry regiments of two infantry battalions each.
 
Goodguy wrote:

If I am not mistaken, Füsilier-Regiments or Bns were, besides them being units that picked up the coats of arms from WWI units, lightly armed infantry units (in contrast to the Grenadier-Regiments).

 
Hopefully this can end the confusion: in late WWII there were two main usages of the terminology 'Füsilier'.
 
1. In Autumn 1943 the Grundgliederung 'Infanterie-Division n.A ('neuer Art', new model)', the direct predecessor to the Grundgliederung 'Infanterie-Division 44', was established. It was to form the basis for the uniform restructuring of all then existing infantry divisions. Within it, the third infantry battalion was scrapped from all Grenadier-Regiments. Likewise, the divisional 'Aufklärungs-Abteilung' (A.A., recon bn) was scrapped. To make up in some way for the loss of four battalions, a divisional 'Füsilier-Bataillon' was added to the base OOB. Its troops depended from the infantry branch (not from the 'Schnelle Truppen'-branch as had been the case for the original A.A.). The terminology 'Füsilier' was here used in opposition to 'Grenadier', just to make the distinction in operational/tactical employment: the battalion was either to be used as a divisional reserve or recon unit: in the ID nA / ID 44 it was thus equipped partly with bicycles and partly with trucks, but otherwise it was structured as a rifle bn within a Grenadier-Regiment. Its leaders and men were however meant to be the more 'assertive' and experienced of the division.
 
For the Volksgrenadier-division's establishment (32. Welle), this Div.Füs.Btl. was reduced to a bicycle-equipped company: the Div.Füs.Kp. However, some VGDs had the manpower available to expand this once again into a Div.Füs.Btl (bicycle-borne) on their own initiative ('auf dem Kommandowege'; later to be 'Etatisiert' of officialised by OKH). This was the case in the Ardennes for e.g. Div.Füs.Btl. 26, forming the core of KG Kunkel.
 
2. To boost overall morale, in Autumn 1942 most Infanterie-Regimenter were renamed into Grenadier-Regimenter. To distinguish some infantry regiments with outstanding historical combat records, they were awarded the name 'Füsilier-Regiment' instead of the mere 'Grenadier-Regiment'. In such cases it did not mean any difference in employment doctrine, organisation nor equipment, but was a mere honorific: examples in the Ardennes were the 39. Füsilier-Regiment of the 26. VGD and 27. Füsilier-Regiment of the 12. VGD.

[GoodGuy]

Hopefully this can end the confusion: in late WWII there were two main usages of the terminology 'Füsilier'.

Well, I am digging in some WW1 books atm, so I indeed confused aspects of the Füsiliere of WW1 (who were indeed light infantry units) with WW2 Füsiliere, and I was not focused right before I went to bed at ~7:45 a.m. [:)], so for some reason I thought that the Füsiliere-Btl. had less heavy equipment. [:)]
Thanks for your post.

The terminology 'Füsilier' was here used in opposition to 'Grenadier', just to make the distinction in operational/tactical employment: the battalion was either to be used as a divisional reserve or recon unit: in the ID nA / ID 44 it was thus equipped partly with bicycles and partly with trucks, but otherwise it was structured as a rifle bn within a Grenadier-Regiment.

I agree, some Bns were equipped with bicycles through-out, though.

For the Volksgrenadier-division's establishment (32. Welle), this Div.Füs.Btl. was reduced to a bicycle-equipped company: the Div.Füs.Kp. However, some VGDs had the manpower available to expand this once again into a Div.Füs.Btl (bicycle-borne) on their own initiative...

Usually the 1st Kp. was equipped with bikes, only. Like I said above, some Bns's had all their Coys equipped with bikes. Also, most of the VGDs received a Füsilier-Btl., not just "some" afaik.

to expand this once again into a Div.Füs.Btl. .....

.... 2. To boost overall morale, in Autumn 1942 most Infanterie-Regimenter were renamed into Grenadier-Regimenter. To distinguish some infantry regiments with outstanding historical combat records, they were awarded the name 'Füsilier-Regiment' instead of the mere 'Grenadier-Regiment'.[/b]

....In such cases it did not mean any difference in employment doctrine, organisation nor equipment.....

Yup, your statement that there was no "difference in organization" or "equipment" is valid for both, the Füsilier-Btl. and the Füsilier-Regiments. You're also correct regarding the reason for renaming these div. Bns to Füsilier-Bns.

Whatsoever, I beg to differ regarding the Füsilier-Regiments:
The vast majority of the Regiments that had been renamed to Füsilier-Regiments had already carried Regiment-numbers that were originally used by Füsilier-Regiments of the German Imperial Army, so the renaming of such units purely happened in order to emphasize their particular cultivation of traditions.
So while the renaming in late 1942 was introduced to reestablish these traditions more clearly, which were then officially sanctioned - later on, as you stated, propaganda reasons were also another trigger-element.
I would not totally deny that one or another unit may also have experienced the renaming as some kind of distinction (like the "Feldherrnhalle" and the "Großdeutschland" regiments), but most of these units had received that designation because they had either picked up or long since cultivated traditions and insignia/coat of arms from Imperial Army units.

Füsilier-regiments:
Füs.-Reg. 22
Füs.-Reg. 26
Füs.-Reg. 27
Füs.-Reg. 34
Füs.-Reg. 39
Füs.-Reg. 68
Füs.-Reg. 202
Füs.-Reg. 230
Füs.-Reg. 334
Füsilier-Regiment Feldherrnhalle
Füsilier-Regiment Großdeutschland.

Of course, you're right, these Regiments were also equipped and structured like "normal" Infantry-Regiments or motorized Infantry-Regiments.

[wodin]

Huib...I really hope you can pull it of and create new scenarios for the Bulge game...thats what COtA lacked new user made scenarios...may the scenario force be with you

[final_drive]

The vast majority of the Regiments that had been renamed to Füsilier-Regiments had already carried Regiment-numbers that were originally used by Füsilier-Regiments of the German Imperial Army, so the renaming of such units purely happened in order to emphasize their particular cultivation of traditions.

Thank you for expanding on the link with the Imperial Army. However, with only nine numbered Füs.Rgter in WWII, it's hard to speak of a 'vast majority'. It would be interesting to make a comparison to the amount of Füs.Rgter in the Imperial Army and their numbers (which I don't have any idea about), and to see why and how tradition was indeed passed on in these few particular cases.
 

some Bns's had all their Coys equipped with bikes. Also, most of the VGDs received a Füsilier-Btl., not just "some" afaik.

The bicycles that were used for the expansion of the Div.Füs.Kp. into a Div.Füs.Blt. were on the VGD's division's original establishment: according to the Gliederung of the 32. Welle, one of the division's six Grenadier-Bataillone was to be bicycle-borne ('Radfahr-Bataillon'). But if the divisional manpower situation allowed for it, some divisional staffs, on their own initiative, decided to expand the Div.Füs.Kp. into a battalion instead, with the use of these bicycles. The sixth Grenadier-Bataillon then remained footsloggers, like the five others within the division.
In December 1944 a new model organisation for the Infanterie-Division was established, 'Infanterie-Division 45', according to which all infantry-divisions were once again to reorganise by February 1945. This model was based on the organisation of the "Volksgrenadier-Division (32. Welle)" - one could consider it a generalisation of this organisational model, albeit with some expansions. One such expansion being the presence of a full bicycle-borne Div.Füs.Btl. However, this order for reorganisation was not applicable to the VGDs: the September 1944 model of the 32. Welle remained their 'Grundgliederung'. Those VGDs that did already have a Div.Füs.Btl. by that time, had all organised it on their own initiative, with the approval of the OKH.
 
To stay really on topic, let's have a look at the VGDs present in the Ardennes with 6.Pz., 5.Pz. and 7. Armee, and whether they had either a Div.Füs.Kp or Div.Füs.Btl at their disposal at that time:
 
9. VGD: Kp (expanded at some point)
12. VGD: Btl (logic, since the entire division was exceptionally organised as an Infanterie-Division 44, see above post)
18. VGD: Kp
26. VGD: Btl
62. VGD: Kp
79. VGD: Kp
167. VGD: Btl (however, only three Kp, no schw. Kp)
212. VGD: Btl
272. VGD: Kp
276. VGD: Kp
277. VGD: Kp
326. VGD: Kp
340. VGD: Btl (however, only three Kp, including a schw. Kp)
352. VGD: Kp
560. VGD: Kp
 
I have not researched this matter for the other VGDs not in the Ardennes at the time, nor have I done so for the above divisions for the period after the Ardennes offensive.

[simovitch]

ORIGINAL: final_drive

To stay really on topic, let's have a look at the VGDs present in the Ardennes with 6.Pz., 5.Pz. and 7. Armee, and whether they had either a Div.Füs.Kp or Div.Füs.Btl at their disposal at that time:

9. VGD: Kp (expanded at some point)
12. VGD: Btl (logic, since the entire division was exceptionally organised as an Infanterie-Division 44, see above post)
18. VGD: Kp
26. VGD: Btl
62. VGD: Kp
79. VGD: Kp
167. VGD: Btl (however, only three Kp, no schw. Kp)
212. VGD: Btl
272. VGD: Kp
276. VGD: Kp
277. VGD: Kp
326. VGD: Kp
340. VGD: Btl (however, only three Kp, including a schw. Kp)
352. VGD: Kp
560. VGD: Kp

I have not researched this matter for the other VGDs not in the Ardennes at the time, nor have I done so for the above divisions for the period after the Ardennes offensive.

Andries, I have the 212th and 26th Füs Btl agree, and the 276th forming a Füs Btl on 18.12.44, but I don't have a source for 167th and 340th VGD. ?

[GoodGuy]

Well, I read somewhere that most were rather Btl than Kp.

Now this really made me curious, so here's a complete list of ALL VGDs ever established or projected, and I'll add a Btl- or Kp-indicator, according to what I've found so far in the Lexikon der Wehrmacht. Some unit-pages in the Lexikon look a bit sparse, and the Lexikon may not cover all Füsilier-units, and not all cases where and if a Kp had been expanded to a Füsilier-Btl in late '44:

6:Btl
9:none (This was the 9th Infantry Division, which was destroyed in the Southern Ukraine in August 1944. The unit was dissolved, and the [few] remaining troops used to form the 9th VGD. While the 9th Infantry Division HAD a Füsilier-Btl [until August 1944], the 9th VGD didn't, well - according to the Lexikon. Feldgrau indicates the same. I'll check Scherzers for this unit, I ordered the 9th VGD Gliederung, just out of curiosity.
12:Btl
16:Btl
18/?
19:none/?
22:none (doesn't count, as this was the 22. (LL) Inf Div. that had been renamed to 22. VGD in March 1945). This unit's Aufklärungs-Abteilung was also kept and renamed to "Panzer-Aufklärungs-Abteilung 22", which then had 1 Panzerspäh-Kp., 2 Krad-Kp., a Volkswagen-Kp. (whatever that means) and a schwere Kompanie.
26:Kp
31:Kp
36:Btl
45:Btl
46:Btl
47:Kp
61:Btl
62:none
78:Btl
79:none
98:Btl
167:Kp
183:none
211:Btl
212:Kp
246:none/?
256:none/?
257:none/?
271:Kp
272:Kp
276:Kp
277:Kp
278:Btl
320:Kp
326:none
334:Btl
337:Btl
340:Kp
347:Btl
349:Btl (Btl established in Oct. '43, but then destroyed in the Northern Ukraine - July 44, re-established as Kp. in Nov. 44)
352:Btl
361:Btl
363:Kp
462:Kp
541:Kp
542:Kp
544:Kp
545:Btl
547:Kp
548:Kp
549:Kp
551:Kp
553:Kp
558:Kp
559:none
560:Btl
561:none
562:Kp
563:none then Btl (this Division's Grenadier-Regiment 1147 was dissolved and all of its troops used to form the Füsilier-Bataillon 1147)
-------

All of the following VGD-units in the 500-range were projected to be established (and in the process of forming), but were then renamed or used to form other units:

564:none (renamed to 183. VGD on 15th September 1944)
565:none (renamed to 246. VGD on 15th)
566:none (renamed to 363. VGD on 17th of September, which then received a Kp.)
567: establishing canceled on 2nd September, troops used to establish the 349. VGD [listed above] instead, as replacement for the destroyed 349. Infantry Division)
568:none (established on 25th of August '44, renamed to 256. VGD on 17th of September)
569:Btl (renamed to 361. VGD - 17th Sept. '44)
570:Btl (renamed to 337. VGD - 15th Sept. '44)
571:none (renamed to 18. VGD - 2nd September 44)
572:none (renamed to 340. VGD - 4th September '44, which then received a Kp)
573:none (renamed to 708. VGD - 4th Sept '44, which then rec. a Btl)
574:none (renamed to 277. VGD - 4th Sept. '44, which then just rec. a Kp)
575:none (renamed to 272. VGD - on 4th, Kp)
575:none (ren. to 271. VGD - 17th, Kp)
577:none (-> 47. VGD - 17th, Kp)
578:none (-> 212. VGD - 17th, Kp)
579:none (-> 326. VGD - 17th, none)
580:none (-> 276. VGD - 17th, Kp)
581:none (-> 352. VGD - 21th Sept '44, Btl)
582:none (-> 26. VGD - 17th, Kp)
583:none (-> 62. VGD - 22nd, none)
584:none (-> 9. VGD - 13th October '44, none)
585:none (-> 167. VGD - late October, Kp)
586:none (-> 79. VGD - 27th October, none)
587:none (-> 257. VGD - 13th October, none)
588:unknown (-> 320. VGD - 27th October, Kp)

708:Btl

Ok, we've got 21 VGD that had a Füsilier-Btl. and 23 VGD (if I did my math right) that had a Füsilier-Kp only. Chances are that there were more Btl, though, as the Lexikon doesn't seem to cover (all) cases where Kp. had been expanded on the "Kommandeweg". Still, that's not "most", so the bit I've read somewhere seems to be off. All right, it's nice to learn something new. [:)]

ORIGINAL: final_drive

.... However, with only nine numbered Füs.Rgter in WWII, it's hard to speak of a 'vast majority'.

Ok, how many unnumbered Füsilier-Regiments were established in WW2?
Answer: 4

Korps-Füsilier-Regiment Großdeutschland

(2 Bns, the first 3 [of 5] Kp of each Bn were bicycle-Coys. While being subordinated to the Panzerkorps Großdeutschland initially, it was committed as subordinate of the Panzer-Grenadier-Division Großdeutschland)

Panzer-Füsilier-Regiment 79

(subordinated to the XXIV. Panzer-Korps as Korps-troop)

Füsilier-Regiment Feldherrnhalle
Füsilier-Regiment Großdeutschland

So, if you have 9 numbered Regiments and 4 unnumbered Regiments, then it's safe to say that the "vast majority" (ie. 70%) was numbered.
In other words, if in a national plebiscite 70% of the people vote for Matrix to be the only source for wargames, then Matrix could indeed say that the vast majority had voted for them. If a politician would get 70% of the votes, then you'd prolly need a surgeon to get the smile out of his face. Agree? [:)]

[wodin]

This thread is pure grog....I take my hat off to your knowledge...superb

[final_drive]

Andries, I have the 212th and 26th Füs Btl agree, and the 276th forming a Füs Btl on 18.12.44, but I don't have a source for 167th and 340th VGD. ?

Richard,
 
I take it the quote you posted is from Scherzers? In the list I put above, most data is backed directly by Gliederungen I got from BA-MA (mostly 1.1.45). This is also the case for the 167. and 340. For 62. and 79. VGD I had to refer to their divisional histories, and for 9. VGD and 18. VGD to Scherzers.
 
I checked and in the 276. VGD Gliederung I have for 3.1.45, it still shows a Kompanie, no sign of any expansion there. So what might have happened? Either Scherzers made some mistake in transcribing (with no direct reference to that statement in his work it's hard to check), or some clerk in OKH made a mistake while drawing up the document containing the 'Etatisierung' (which I would suspect Scherzers to have quoted from), or, third option, the Gliederung is wrong (but then why would the clerk who drew up the Gliederung have neglected to update this graphic, some 16 days after the confirmation of the supposed expansion by OKH, i.e. even longer since its supposed initiating?) Personally, I'd still go with the Gliederung, but extra data would be welcomed to either confirm or correct.
 

Ok, how many unnumbered Füsilier-Regiments were established in WW2?
Answer: 4

Sorry Goodguy,
 
I must have misread your original "The vast majority of the Regiments that had been renamed to Füsilier-Regiments had already carried Regiment-numbers that were originally used by Füsilier-Regiments of the German Imperial Army", as a 'vast majority' among those nine numbered Füsilier-Regiments, and not as a vast majority of numbered regiments as opposed to those four (actually three) non-numbered named units listed above, which of course had no obvious numbered tie with any previous Imperial regiments. What I'm interested in, is whether there is a direct link between the WWII Füs.Rgter and their regimental number on the one hand, and the Imperial Regiment they carried the traditions of on the other. Are there any 'vast majorities' in there, or did some also carry WWII numbers that were different than the Imperial Regiment they carried the traditions of?
 

[simovitch]

ORIGINAL: final_drive

I take it the quote you posted is from Scherzers? In the list I put above, most data is backed directly by Gliederungen I got from BA-MA (mostly 1.1.45). This is also the case for the 167. and 340. For 62. and 79. VGD I had to refer to their divisional histories, and for 9. VGD and 18. VGD to Scherzers.

Yes, Scherzers for 32 Welle Volksgrenadiers, August 1944.

I tend to believe that what was written on paper by staff during the December fighting was probably not the actual case in the field.
For all we know the Füsilier Kp was thrown together with some of the FEB and there is your Btn formed on the "Kommandeweg" which shows up (or disappears) on the 1.1.45 Gliederungen accordingly.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: final_drive

So what might have happened? Either Scherzers made some mistake in transcribing (with no direct reference to that statement in his work it's hard to check), or some clerk in OKH made a mistake while drawing up the document containing the 'Etatisierung' (which I would suspect Scherzers to have quoted from), or, third option, the Gliederung is wrong (but then why would the clerk who drew up the Gliederung have neglected to update this graphic, some 16 days after the confirmation of the supposed expansion by OKH, i.e. even longer since its supposed initiating?) Personally, I'd still go with the Gliederung, but extra data would be welcomed to either confirm or correct.

Sorry for disturbing your guys' communication [:)], but Scherzer points out that in some cases - for his staffing charts - he had to fall back to works of the WASt (Wehrmacht inquiry office for casualties and POWs), or - if even the WASt did not have sufficient material - to unit histories published after the war, for cases where unit war diaries were not available. Some of the unit war diaries are missing. Also, there seem to be no staffing records - or no sufficient records - (here, I'm not totally sure what he means) going any further than the end of the year 1943.

I could imagine that it is a similar tough job to gather infos about some sub-details (like the Füsilier-Btl/Kp info) for some units, even though there is more material regarding IST-reports at BA-MA and NARA regarding the Gliederungen than say about staffing, as he, along with other authors, points out that - in general - the Soll and IST states initiated/registered at the OKH-level (in late 1944) do not necessarily correlate with the actual IST-level and Gliederung of a given unit.

EDIT: Actually Rundstedt and Model were the ones who complained about the OKH/OKW working with inflated IST-levels, as they questioned numbers or even voted for the disbandment of some of the units on the OKW list, purely because these units were depleted or because they suffered of ominous understrength (according to the official Army History).

Now back to bed. [:D]

What I'm interested in, is whether there is a direct link between the WWII Füs.Rgter and their regimental number on the one hand, and the Imperial Regiment they carried the traditions of on the other. Are there any 'vast majorities' in there, or did some also carry WWII numbers that were different than the Imperial Regiment they carried the traditions of?

WWI usually isn't my field of interest. I might have read the bit in Tessin's work and some similar bits somewhere else (Forum of the Lexikon I think), I can't recite details off the top of my head, but I'll see if I can find the particular part of the source explaining/detailing the link.

[final_drive]

Now back to bed.

Goodguy,

I'm relieved to read you're taking care of yourself again; I would have almost believed you had actually moved to some distant time zone. [:)]

Cheers!