War in the West

[Q-Ball]

So....what does everyone think the National Morale should be for the Western Allies?

(Remember, "morale" is really "military efficiency")

My thoughts:

FRANCE 1940: 50, and with deplorable leadership.

BRITISH: I think 65; a little less than the Wehrmacht. I think 65 is good for the entire war; early war they were pretty effective, later-on manpower quality declined but doctrine improved with experience.

US ARMY: Definitely an upward curve; maybe 50 in North Africa, but gaining during the war, finishing at the high-point of about 65. Some US Army formations deserve an extra bump, like the Paras, some of the Veteran Infantry units, and maybe the Artillery

FREE FRENCH: Generally, Free French should move in lock-step with the British/US Army.

CANADIANS: I would give the Canadians a 5-point bump over the British. 70 seems a bit high, but they performed well pound for pound

ALLIED MINORS: Belgium, Dutch should probably be 50 at the most. They fought bravely, but were recently mobilized reservists, not the same caliber as the battle-tested Wehrmacht

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball


ALLIED MINORS: Belgium, Dutch should probably be 50 at the most. They fought bravely, but were recently mobilized reservists, not the same caliber as the battle-tested Wehrmacht

The Belgians fought much better and longer than the Dutch! This is a slander to our national pride. The Belgians must have at least 90! [:D]

I'd give the US 40-45 to start, then move to 70-75. They were very bad in N-Africa but better than the Brits at the end.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: pwieland

ORIGINAL: Captain

I still had or have many of these monster board games, SPI's War in the East, War in the West, War in the Pacific. (unfortunately, Wite and Witw were destroyed in a flood decades ago).

However, all these games were unplayable as board games. I once belonged to a club and we played SPI's "Gettysburg" over a long weekend with opposing teams. We covered July 1st over two days, at the end of which the CSA had conquered most of the map. The game then broke up over a rules squabble.

It is only with computers that these type of games are now playable.

What about the OCS series of games? The logistics model in those games put any computer wargame to shame. The sad part is that it is a fairly mechanical process and something a computer could emulate fairly easily. But instead of having physical stockpiles of supplies needed before an offensive being launched there is an HQ buildup option in WITE. Personally, I think the OCS model is more accurate in terms of realism and modelling deep operations.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I agree with you here. The supply system for OCS is definitely the best I've seen for a board game, but I think WitE does supply very well and much better than a boardgame ever could. Stockpiling can be easily done in the system by not moving the units, and keeping them close to the Rail heads. HQ'ing up is faster no doubt, but with a bit of fore tought you don't really need it most of the time.

On the subject of the Russians and supply issues in the war, I would argue they had supply problems _after_ they advanced for several hundred km. I.e. after an successfull exploitation. Something that we don't see that much in the game AAR's because most games end when the German player gets to that point.
In fact, just like the Germans in 41.

[Great_Ajax]

Thats some good estimates. Almost spot on.

Trey

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

So....what does everyone think the National Morale should be for the Western Allies?

(Remember, "morale" is really "military efficiency")

My thoughts:

FRANCE 1940: 50, and with deplorable leadership.

BRITISH: I think 65; a little less than the Wehrmacht. I think 65 is good for the entire war; early war they were pretty effective, later-on manpower quality declined but doctrine improved with experience.

US ARMY: Definitely an upward curve; maybe 50 in North Africa, but gaining during the war, finishing at the high-point of about 65. Some US Army formations deserve an extra bump, like the Paras, some of the Veteran Infantry units, and maybe the Artillery

FREE FRENCH: Generally, Free French should move in lock-step with the British/US Army.

CANADIANS: I would give the Canadians a 5-point bump over the British. 70 seems a bit high, but they performed well pound for pound

ALLIED MINORS: Belgium, Dutch should probably be 50 at the most. They fought bravely, but were recently mobilized reservists, not the same caliber as the battle-tested Wehrmacht

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball


ALLIED MINORS: Belgium, Dutch should probably be 50 at the most. They fought bravely, but were recently mobilized reservists, not the same caliber as the battle-tested Wehrmacht

The Belgians fought much better and longer than the Dutch! This is a slander to our national pride. The Belgians must have at least 90! [:D]

I'd give the US 40-45 to start, then move to 70-75. They were very bad in N-Africa but better than the Brits at the end.

Well, I assume 90 is a joke, but I think 50 is realistic. National Morale really isn't "courage" at all, more military efficiency. I'm not that familiar with the Belgian Army, but I think most of it was mobilized in 39/40, and lacked a deep officer and NCO corps. Of course, no one had battle experience, unless they fought in WWI, but that kind of experience probably hurt the French Army more than it helped it.

I think 75 is a little high for the US Army; I think in terms of Manpower, efficiency, doctrine, and experience, the Wehrmacht was the top dog in WWII, and especially the 1940-1941 version. I assumed, then, that 75 is the TOP for anyone nationally, so the Western Allies have to line-up behind that number.

I think the US Army did perform better than the British at the end, not sure how much of that was better tactics, or the fact that the British Army was really exhausted from a Manpower perspective. It could also be the fact that the US Army had ridiculous amounts of stuff.

The US Army is probably the only major WWII combattant that didn't have a serious Manpower problem.

The structure of the US Army in WITW will also be interesting. Just about every Infantry Division had attached Armor, and the US also had pretty generous amounts of Artillery at the Corps level. I imagine players with the US Army will have lots of good SUs to work with.

[Steelers708]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
The US Army is probably the only major WWII combattant that didn't have a serious Manpower problem.

I'd have to check the actual sources but I remember reading many a time about US manpower problems from late 1944 onwards, especially amongst the actual infantry units.

[JocMeister]

I´m not very well read on the subject but wasn´t the canadian performace a disaster during most of aftermath of D-Day? Mostly because of very poor leadership?

I know for a fact that atleast Panzer Meyer thought very little of the canadians.

[Commanderski]

I will have to speak up on behalf of my Polish brethern ( ignore my avatar for this purpose, I can't change it...[:)]). The morale for the Poles should be a little higher than that of some of the other minor allies. Especially the Air Corps in the Battle of Britain. They comprised up to 17% of the RAF and the 303 Squadron was the highest scoring squadron of the Battle of Britian and the 315th was the second highest. Even Luftwaffe General Adolf Galland respected the Polish Air force.

The Poles were also the only nation to fight the Germans from Lenningrad, Arnem, Tobruk and Normandy. Even after the Warsaw uprising when they Poles finally surrendered the Germans saluted them and recognized the fighters as soldiers and not partisans. They were sent to POW camps not concentration camps

There is a lot of misinformation about the Poles in WWII because history is written by the winners and after the war Poland was again swallowed up by the Soviet Union. It's just in recent years that information is coming out about how big a contibution the Poles made and how they actually performed in WWII.

[Great_Ajax]

The US Army was disbanding AAA and other support units to make replacements for the infantry in late 44 and into 45.

Trey

ORIGINAL: Steelers708

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
The US Army is probably the only major WWII combattant that didn't have a serious Manpower problem.

I'd have to check the actual sources but I remember reading many a time about US manpower problems from late 1944 onwards, especially amongst the actual infantry units.

[Captain]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

I´m not very well read on the subject but wasn´t the canadian performace a disaster during most of aftermath of D-Day? Mostly because of very poor leadership?

I know for a fact that atleast Panzer Meyer thought very little of the canadians.

That was more the traditional view perpetrated by postwar historians. More recent studies like Copp's "Fields of Fire"and "Cinderella Army" shows that the performance of the Canadians was on par with that of American and British troops. Don't forget Canadians faced off against elements of 5 SS divisions in Normandy.

The 12th SS scored an initial success on june 7th when they caught a Canadian regiment on the march, but all further attacks were stopped cold by Canadian troops.

[Flaviusx]

The US didn't have an actual manpower problem -- it had an allocation problem. The bodies were there, but not efficiently organized. The infantry in particular was given too small a slice, and of the lowest caliber.

All the other combatants had actual shortages that no amount of organization could fix.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The US didn't have an actual manpower problem -- it had an allocation problem. The bodies were there, but not efficiently organized. The infantry in particular was given too small a slice, and of the lowest caliber.

All the other combatants had actual shortages that no amount of organization could fix.

Hey, Flaviusx! I resent that lowest caliber crack. My father was in the 80th Infantry Division.

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

ALLIED MINORS: Belgium, Dutch should probably be 50 at the most. They fought bravely, but were recently mobilized reservists, not the same caliber as the battle-tested Wehrmacht

50 might be a bit high.. What the dutch really lacked was equipment, good entrenchments, fields of fire (the army was not allowed to cut trees and clear the fields of fire in many areas) and depth.. Holland and belgium are really small countries..

Dutch actually did quite well at some points, especially fighting german paratroopers and at the Grebbe. Terror bombing Rotterdam and the 9th panzer division closing in on Rotterdam persuaded the commanding general to surrender.. Keeping up the fight might have delayed parts of the german army but there was no real chance to stop them...

[Q-Ball]

The US Army depot and replacement system was flawed; it consistenly put strangers into existing infantry units. It was sensible on paper, but managed Manpower like a warehouse full of inventory.

Sure they disbanded the AA units, but that wasn't because of a serious replacement shortage, I think more because of lack of need

The US Army was still raising, training, and sending new Infantry Divisions when the war ended; the British were disbanding units, and cannibalizing for replacements. I also can't think of too many instances where a US Army Division was below TOE for more than a month or two.

Back in the states, the US Army was far pickier than any combattants; fathers were generally excluded from conscription, and numerous exemptions made for 4-H. Age limits were strictly enforced. The US Army never scraped the bottom of the barrel, like everyone else did.

In game terms, the US Army Manpower Production should be "ample". Probably armaments production should be limited only by TOEs. Generally, if you lost a truck or artillery piece or tank, you requisitioned a new one. Many US units were routinely over TOE, in fact, by accumulating extra stuff.

The US Army was nothing special tactically; it was all about production and logistics, where the US was unmatched.

The US Army in WWII didn't solve it's problems; it overwhelmed them

[paullus99]

"Overlord" by Max Hastings goes into great detail regarding the manpower (infantry) shortages in both the British/Allied & US Armies. In particular, the US diverted too much high-quality manpower into the USAAF, Marines & specialized infantry formations (Paratroopers & Rangers) instead of spreading those troops out among the regular infantry divisions.

The US Army was also designed to fight a different kind of war than what they actually found in Normandy (too many AA & Tank Destroyer units) - and it never really got fixed until well after the war was over.

[janh]

Q-ball probably is close -- from the historic literature (I read), it never appeared to be the case that the US formations were at any point critically short of manpower.  Maybe distribution was an issue, I read and heard that several times now, but that appears more to be an assignment/training/logistic detail rather than meaning that any US formation would at any point have be close to being disbanded, or unable to be committed to combat for a really prolonged time since replacements were truly not available. 

But I'd like to squeeze in the question to the G&G or Matrix guys whether they can already release any more hints on the War in the West, how it will be different from WitE or what it will in fact cover now?  Has it reached the stage that something is set in stone already?

[gradenko2k]

I think someone once described the US as having manpower to have twice as many divisions as they had, they just didn't go through with it, and that they reinforced their formations differently by rotating them in and out of the front lines instead of just sending replacements to the same divisions that were already at the front.

[Montbrun]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

The US Army depot and replacement system was flawed; it consistenly put strangers into existing infantry units. It was sensible on paper, but managed Manpower like a warehouse full of inventory.

Sure they disbanded the AA units, but that wasn't because of a serious replacement shortage, I think more because of lack of need

The US Army was still raising, training, and sending new Infantry Divisions when the war ended; the British were disbanding units, and cannibalizing for replacements. I also can't think of too many instances where a US Army Division was below TOE for more than a month or two.

Back in the states, the US Army was far pickier than any combattants; fathers were generally excluded from conscription, and numerous exemptions made for 4-H. Age limits were strictly enforced. The US Army never scraped the bottom of the barrel, like everyone else did.

In game terms, the US Army Manpower Production should be "ample". Probably armaments production should be limited only by TOEs. Generally, if you lost a truck or artillery piece or tank, you requisitioned a new one. Many US units were routinely over TOE, in fact, by accumulating extra stuff.

The US Army was nothing special tactically; it was all about production and logistics, where the US was unmatched.

The US Army in WWII didn't solve it's problems; it overwhelmed them

After initial contact, the US and British divisions were habitually below strength. I agree that, for the US, it was a "bottleneck" issue, but for the British, it was a true manpower shortage. For some of the Commonwealth units, it was even worse, and this was a result of having to ship replacements half way around the world. I recently read a report on US 3rd Army for September, 1944 - the Army was short by the equivalent of 90 front-line Rifle Companies at the time.

[Pipewrench]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscripti ... is_of_1944

Canada's manpower in world war 2 . (excerpts)

In June 1940 the government adopted conscription for home service in the National Resources Mobilization Act (NRMA), which allowed the government to register men and women and move them into jobs considered necessary for wartime production, but did not allow them to be conscripted for overseas service.
By the late summer of 1944, the numbers of new recruits were insufficient to replace war casualties in Europe, particularly among the infantry.
Few conscripts saw combat in Europe: only 2463 men reached units on the front lines. Out of these, 79 lost their lives.

[Michael T]

There were no Australian conscripts in Europe during WWII (or WWI for that matter). They were all volunteers.