Matrix Games Forums

Buzz Aldrins Space Program Manager is now available!Space Program Manager gets mini-site and Twitch SessionBuzz Aldrin: Ask Me Anything (AMA) on redditDeal of the week Fantasy Kommander: Eukarion WarsSpace Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Allied TOE's and OOB's

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> Allied TOE's and OOB's Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Allied TOE's and OOB's - 6/16/2005 9:25:36 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1775
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
Starting another thread, this time (ostensibly) about Allied TOE and OOB matters. Comments or corrections of the stuff are always appreciated.
I'll begin with US organizations. Maybe some kind of sacrilege because I'm not even from the same continent...

Because there is no possibility to change unit TOE's in the game, it was necessary to choose just one TOE for every kind of unit. My choice fell to US Army TOE's as of September 1943. Of course did US units in 1941 not have the same strength as in 1943, but I think the differences lay mainly in the firepower of squads, as represented in the game. I deliberately omitted light mortars (60mm M2) and the BAR's present in rifle squads because I think that this kind of weapons should be included in the strength of rifle squads. I further think that this should be the case with the 0.30 Browning LMG's. But this would it necessary to rework the strengths of rifle squads for all nations represented in the game.

US Army Infantry Division (1943-45)

Divisional HQ
3x 57mm M1 Anti-Tank Gun, 3x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG

Light Field Artillery Battalion (3)
12x 105mm M1 Howitzer, 20x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG

Heavy Field Artillery Battalion
12x 155mm M1 Howitzer, 22x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG

Mechanized Reconnaissance Troop
13x M8 Greyhound Armored Car, 5x M3A1 Halftrack, 2x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG, 8x 0.30cal M1919A4 Browning LMG

Combat Engineer Battalion
27x Engineer Squad, 18x 0.30cal M1919A4 Browning LMG, 12x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG

Infantry Regiment (3)
81x Rifle Squad, 9x Engineer Squad, 6x 105mm M3 Howitzer, 18x 57mm M1 Anti-Tank Gun, 18x 81mm M1 Mortar, 35x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG, 42x 0.30cal LMG

Aggregate:
243x Rifle Squad, 54x Engineer Squad, 12x 155mm M1 Howitzer, 36x 105mm M1 Howitzer, 18x 105mm M3 Howitzer, 54x 57mm M1 Anti-Tank Gun, 54x 81mm M1 Mortar, 204x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG, 72x 0.30cal M1917A1 Browning HMG, 80x 0.30cal M1919A4 Browning LMG , 13x M8 Greyhound Armored Car, 5x M3A1 Halftrack


US Army Infantry Regiment (1943-45)

HQ Company
2x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG

Infantry Cannon Company
6x 105mm M3 Howitzer, 3x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG

Infantry Ant-Tank Company
9x 57mm ATG, 3x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG

Service Company
9x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG

Infantry Battalion (3)
27x Rifle Squad, 3x Engineer Squad, 3x 57mm M1 Anti-Tank Gun, 6x 81mm M1 Mortar, 6x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG, 14x 0.30cal LMG

Aggregate:
81x Rifle Squad, 9x Engineer Squad, 6x 105mm Howitzer, 18x 57mm M1 Anti-Tank Gun, 18x 81mm M1 Mortar, 35x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG, 24x 0.30cal M1917A1 Browning HMG, 18x 0.30cal M1919A4 Browning LMG


US-Army Infantry Battalion (1943-45)

A& P Platoon
3x Engineer Squad, 1x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG

AT Platoon
3x 57mm M1 Anti-Tank Gun, 1x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG

Heavy Weapons Company
6x 81mm M1 Mortar, 1x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG, 8x 0.30cal M1917A1 Browning HMG

Rifle Company (3)
9x Rifle Squad, 1x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG, 2x 0.30cal M1919A4 Browning LMG

Aggregate:
27x Rifle Squad, 3x Engineer Squad, 3x 57mm M1 Anti-Tank Gun, 6x 81mm M1 Mortar, 6x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG, 8x 0.30cal M1917A1 Browning HMG, 6x 0.30cal M1919A4 Browning LMG


US Army Tank Battalion (1943-45)

HQ Company
2x M4 Medium Tank, 3x Medium Tank (105mm Howitzer), 3x M21 Halftrack/81mm Mortar, 8x M3A1 Halftrack

Medium Tank Company (3)
17x M4 Medium Tank, 1x Medium Tank (105mm Howitzer), 1x M3A1 Halftrack

Light Tank Company
17x M5 Light Tank, 1x M3A1 Halftrack, 1x M32 ARV/81mm Mortar

Service Company
2x M32 ARV/81mm Mortar

Aggregate:
53x M4 Medium Tank, 6x Medium Tank (105mm Howitzer), 17x M5 Light Tank, 3x M21 Halftrack/81mm Mortar, 12x M3A1 Halftrack, (3x M32 ARV/81mm Mortar)


< Message edited by Kereguelen -- 6/16/2005 11:31:27 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Allied TOE's and OOB's - 6/16/2005 10:26:38 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10261
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline
Another option I was thinking about was to have maybe 2 types of US Infantry Divisions and 2 types of USMC divisions ... call it "early war" and "late war" ... not sure why we couldn't do this ... the main difference I was trying to capture with this was Artillery ... the small arms differences can be reflected the the "squad" data ( and upgrades there to ) correct ?

Of course the "early war" divisions should be able to upgrade during the war, but as you say, this is not possible ... so the choice comes down to giving the early war divisions more powerful guns ( 105 versus 75 and pre-war 155 HOW versus WWII 155 HOW ) too early ... or making them keep less powerful guns too long .. if we really have ot make this choice ... I'd vote for the later option .. I've seen photos of 75s and pre-war 155 in action in 1943 in the Solomons and might be able to find them soldiering on even longer ... so the period were the early war divisions have less powerful artillery might be more like 1944+ when they probably don't really need it as separate artillery units might be providing most of the firepower to be dealing with fortified Japanese.



_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 2
RE: Allied TOE's and OOB's - 6/16/2005 11:43:31 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1775
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Another option I was thinking about was to have maybe 2 types of US Infantry Divisions and 2 types of USMC divisions ... call it "early war" and "late war" ... not sure why we couldn't do this ... the main difference I was trying to capture with this was Artillery ... the small arms differences can be reflected the the "squad" data ( and upgrades there to ) correct ?

Of course the "early war" divisions should be able to upgrade during the war, but as you say, this is not possible ... so the choice comes down to giving the early war divisions more powerful guns ( 105 versus 75 and pre-war 155 HOW versus WWII 155 HOW ) too early ... or making them keep less powerful guns too long .. if we really have ot make this choice ... I'd vote for the later option .. I've seen photos of 75s and pre-war 155 in action in 1943 in the Solomons and might be able to find them soldiering on even longer ... so the period were the early war divisions have less powerful artillery might be more like 1944+ when they probably don't really need it as separate artillery units might be providing most of the firepower to be dealing with fortified Japanese.




US Divisions in 1941/42 would still arrive in the game with 75mm M1 Pack Howitzers instead of 105mm M3 Howitzers, 37mm Anti-Tank Guns instead of 57mm Anti-Tank Guns. They would automatically (as it is in the game now) upgrade to more advanced weapons within their upgrade paths.


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 3
RE: Allied TOE's and OOB's - 6/17/2005 12:06:13 AM   
Brad Hunter


Posts: 1393
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

Starting another thread, this time (ostensibly) about Allied TOE and OOB matters. Comments or corrections of the stuff are always appreciated.
I'll begin with US organizations. Maybe some kind of sacrilege because I'm not even from the same continent...

Because there is no possibility to change unit TOE's in the game, it was necessary to choose just one TOE for every kind of unit. My choice fell to US Army TOE's as of September 1943. Of course did US units in 1941 not have the same strength as in 1943, but I think the differences lay mainly in the firepower of squads, as represented in the game. I deliberately omitted light mortars (60mm M2) and the BAR's present in rifle squads because I think that this kind of weapons should be included in the strength of rifle squads. I further think that this should be the case with the 0.30 Browning LMG's. But this would it necessary to rework the strengths of rifle squads for all nations represented in the game.

US Army Infantry Division (1943-45)

Divisional HQ
3x 57mm M1 Anti-Tank Gun, 3x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG

Light Field Artillery Battalion (3)
12x 105mm M1 Howitzer, 20x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG

Heavy Field Artillery Battalion
12x 155mm M1 Howitzer, 22x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG

Mechanized Reconnaissance Troop
13x M8 Greyhound Armored Car, 5x M3A1 Halftrack, 2x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG, 8x 0.30cal M1919A4 Browning LMG

Combat Engineer Battalion
27x Engineer Squad, 18x 0.30cal M1919A4 Browning LMG, 12x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG

Infantry Regiment (3)
81x Rifle Squad, 9x Engineer Squad, 6x 105mm M3 Howitzer, 18x 57mm M1 Anti-Tank Gun, 18x 81mm M1 Mortar, 35x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG, 42x 0.30cal LMG

Aggregate:
243x Rifle Squad, 54x Engineer Squad, 12x 155mm M1 Howitzer, 36x 105mm M1 Howitzer, 18x 105mm M3 Howitzer, 54x 57mm M1 Anti-Tank Gun, 54x 81mm M1 Mortar, 204x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG, 72x 0.30cal M1917A1 Browning HMG, 80x 0.30cal M1919A4 Browning LMG , 13x M8 Greyhound Armored Car, 5x M3A1 Halftrack


US Army Infantry Regiment (1943-45)

HQ Company
2x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG

Infantry Cannon Company
6x 105mm M3 Howitzer, 3x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG

Infantry Ant-Tank Company
9x 57mm ATG, 3x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG

Service Company
9x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG

Infantry Battalion (3)
27x Rifle Squad, 3x Engineer Squad, 3x 57mm M1 Anti-Tank Gun, 6x 81mm M1 Mortar, 6x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG, 14x 0.30cal LMG

Aggregate:
81x Rifle Squad, 9x Engineer Squad, 6x 105mm Howitzer, 18x 57mm M1 Anti-Tank Gun, 18x 81mm M1 Mortar, 35x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG, 24x 0.30cal M1917A1 Browning HMG, 18x 0.30cal M1919A4 Browning LMG


US-Army Infantry Battalion (1943-45)

A& P Platoon
3x Engineer Squad, 1x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG

AT Platoon
3x 57mm M1 Anti-Tank Gun, 1x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG

Heavy Weapons Company
6x 81mm M1 Mortar, 1x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG, 8x 0.30cal M1917A1 Browning HMG

Rifle Company (3)
9x Rifle Squad, 1x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG, 2x 0.30cal M1919A4 Browning LMG

Aggregate:
27x Rifle Squad, 3x Engineer Squad, 3x 57mm M1 Anti-Tank Gun, 6x 81mm M1 Mortar, 6x 0.50cal M2HB Browning HMG, 8x 0.30cal M1917A1 Browning HMG, 6x 0.30cal M1919A4 Browning LMG


US Army Tank Battalion (1943-45)

HQ Company
2x M4 Medium Tank, 3x Medium Tank (105mm Howitzer), 3x M21 Halftrack/81mm Mortar, 8x M3A1 Halftrack

Medium Tank Company (3)
17x M4 Medium Tank, 1x Medium Tank (105mm Howitzer), 1x M3A1 Halftrack

Light Tank Company
17x M5 Light Tank, 1x M3A1 Halftrack, 1x M32 ARV/81mm Mortar

Service Company
2x M32 ARV/81mm Mortar

Aggregate:
53x M4 Medium Tank, 6x Medium Tank (105mm Howitzer), 17x M5 Light Tank, 3x M21 Halftrack/81mm Mortar, 12x M3A1 Halftrack, (3x M32 ARV/81mm Mortar)



Kereguelen,

Your efforts are noble, but Don Bowen and I flogged this topic to death early on. It is obvious that the ToEs were "tweaked" to make the land combat system work, instead of the other way around. I'm afraid that any attempt to create units with a historical ToE will disrupt not only the combat system, but also shipping loads required to transport these units. Like you, I started to create historical ToEs for these units, but came to this realization. I have accumulated a library with 30 years worth of documentation, and started to put this information together. The most glaring error, in my opinion, is the deletion of the Marine Division's Tank Battalions. If these are included, it appears to make these units very powerful, and a pain to transport by sea, because of the system.

Also, please cite your sources. I, like many others, immediately disregard ToE and OoB posts with no refrences.

For the US Army Forces, I recommend "UNITED STATES ARMY GROUND FORCES, TABLES OF ORGANIZATION AND EQUIPMENT, WORLD WAR II" by J.J. Hays, available from the Military Press.
http://www.militarypress.co.uk

Thanks,

Brad

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 4
RE: Allied TOE's and OOB's - 6/17/2005 12:20:12 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8148
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter
Your efforts are noble, but Don Bowen and I flogged this topic to death early on. It is obvious that the ToEs were "tweaked" to make the land combat system work, instead of the other way around. I'm afraid that any attempt to create units with a historical ToE will disrupt not only the combat system, but also shipping loads required to transport these units. Like you, I started to create historical ToEs for these units, but came to this realization. I have accumulated a library with 30 years worth of documentation, and started to put this information together. The most glaring error, in my opinion, is the deletion of the Marine Division's Tank Battalions. If these are included, it appears to make these units very powerful, and a pain to transport by sea, because of the system.
Also, please cite your sources. I, like many others, immediately disregard ToE and OoB posts with no refrences.

For the US Army Forces, I recommend "UNITED STATES ARMY GROUND FORCES, TABLES OF ORGANIZATION AND EQUIPMENT, WORLD WAR II" by J.J. Hays, available from the Military Press.
http://www.militarypress.co.uk

Thanks,

Brad



Brad

The Marine Tank Battalions were debated back and forth and back again. They did finally end up in the CHS TOEs to the Marine Division.

I also have (some of) J.J.Hays works and I also highly recommend them. I only have a few (those that were released before I retired - much too expensive for me now) but I value them greatly.

Don

(in reply to Brad Hunter)
Post #: 5
RE: Allied TOE's and OOB's - 6/17/2005 12:47:00 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10261
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter
Your efforts are noble, but Don Bowen and I flogged this topic to death early on. It is obvious that the ToEs were "tweaked" to make the land combat system work, instead of the other way around. I'm afraid that any attempt to create units with a historical ToE will disrupt not only the combat system, but also shipping loads required to transport these units. Like you, I started to create historical ToEs for these units, but came to this realization. I have accumulated a library with 30 years worth of documentation, and started to put this information together. The most glaring error, in my opinion, is the deletion of the Marine Division's Tank Battalions. If these are included, it appears to make these units very powerful, and a pain to transport by sea, because of the system.
Also, please cite your sources. I, like many others, immediately disregard ToE and OoB posts with no refrences.

For the US Army Forces, I recommend "UNITED STATES ARMY GROUND FORCES, TABLES OF ORGANIZATION AND EQUIPMENT, WORLD WAR II" by J.J. Hays, available from the Military Press.
http://www.militarypress.co.uk

Thanks,

Brad



Brad

The Marine Tank Battalions were debated back and forth and back again. They did finally end up in the CHS TOEs to the Marine Division.

I also have (some of) J.J.Hays works and I also highly recommend them. I only have a few (those that were released before I retired - much too expensive for me now) but I value them greatly.

Don




Don, we've "tweaked" all the other TOEs and rolled the dice with possible effects ... why was it decided to treat the US special and not "tweak" them ??

I agree, Hays, Hays, Hays !!!




_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 6
RE: Allied TOE's and OOB's - 6/17/2005 12:57:59 AM   
Brad Hunter


Posts: 1393
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter
Your efforts are noble, but Don Bowen and I flogged this topic to death early on. It is obvious that the ToEs were "tweaked" to make the land combat system work, instead of the other way around. I'm afraid that any attempt to create units with a historical ToE will disrupt not only the combat system, but also shipping loads required to transport these units. Like you, I started to create historical ToEs for these units, but came to this realization. I have accumulated a library with 30 years worth of documentation, and started to put this information together. The most glaring error, in my opinion, is the deletion of the Marine Division's Tank Battalions. If these are included, it appears to make these units very powerful, and a pain to transport by sea, because of the system.
Also, please cite your sources. I, like many others, immediately disregard ToE and OoB posts with no refrences.

For the US Army Forces, I recommend "UNITED STATES ARMY GROUND FORCES, TABLES OF ORGANIZATION AND EQUIPMENT, WORLD WAR II" by J.J. Hays, available from the Military Press.
http://www.militarypress.co.uk

Thanks,

Brad



Brad

The Marine Tank Battalions were debated back and forth and back again. They did finally end up in the CHS TOEs to the Marine Division.

I also have (some of) J.J.Hays works and I also highly recommend them. I only have a few (those that were released before I retired - much too expensive for me now) but I value them greatly.

Don



Kudos guys! The CHS Mod looks awesome!

Brad

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 7
RE: Allied TOE's and OOB's - 6/17/2005 1:37:16 AM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1775
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
@ Brad Hunter

Hi,

actually I think that the TOE's used by Matrix for US forces are quite convincing. I started with this TOE stuff mainly because I think that the TOE's for Japanese and British/Commonwealth forces are not as accurate as they should be. But when changing them, I think that one should bother with the others as well.

While I'm personally (obviously) interested in WW2 military organizations, I'm advocating this changes mainly because I hope to improve some aspects of land combat in the game when using TOE's and OOB's that are (or are at least close to, due to certain limits presented by the game system) historical. For example, Japanese artillery strengths seem to be much too high. And because artillery seems to have a large impact on land combat results, its seems adequate to reduce the number of guns to more historical number hoping to slow down land combat somewhat. If there were any deliberate tweaks by the designers, they don't seem to work properly. But I doubt that there were any such tweaks as far as it comes to land OOB's and TOE's.

Shipping loads: Have done some tests with this and not discovered any problems coming with this (and as you may know, Pry designed new scenarios with halved shipping capacities without any problems).

Marine Tank Battalions: Don't understand why they were deleted (especially because they've been included in UV). Should be included as seperate units.

Sources: I'm currently not at home (mostly writing from office with stuffs compiled in word-docs written at home and transferred by email to my notebook). From memory: Include the various Army Handbooks (Zalonga, Forty etc.), some books published by Miltary Press (Kempton, Bellis; but I don't have Hays' publication), some documents and essays found in the net (Niehorster, Kennedy; the army-mil/cmh page) and the Nafziger OOB's. Essentially the TOE's presented here are what I've dug out and compiled in the last ten years. And if you read the thread about IJA TOE's/OOB's you'll see that I make it clear when I think that my sources are somewhat dubious.

K

(in reply to Brad Hunter)
Post #: 8
RE: Allied TOE's and OOB's - 6/17/2005 2:00:41 AM   
timtom


Posts: 2357
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
US Army ID TOE looks good to me, and as the 1943 incarnation is usually treated as the "standard" format, the obvious choice.

I'm might interject that I'm under the impressing that US ID's retained their 37mm AT guns, partly because they didn't need the extra penetration offered by the 57mm, but primarily because the 37mm was manportable and thus of greater value in the roadless Pacific.

The M2HB was intended as a AAA weapon, although naturally effective against ground targets also. However its great weight obviously limited its usefulness on the attack.

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 9
RE: Allied TOE's and OOB's - 6/17/2005 2:00:41 PM   
Brad Hunter


Posts: 1393
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: online
The USMC did, in fact, retain their 37mm ATGs until the end of the war. The US Army units were supposed to uprade to 57mm ATG, but the Pacific Theater was low on the priority list. Most units retained at least some 37mm ATGs...

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 10
RE: Allied TOE's and OOB's - 6/17/2005 2:44:09 PM   
Brad Hunter


Posts: 1393
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: online
Here are the USMC ToEs for the Pacific Theater during WWII:



Attachment (1)

(in reply to Brad Hunter)
Post #: 11
RE: Allied TOE's and OOB's - 6/17/2005 2:44:55 PM   
Brad Hunter


Posts: 1393
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: online
and here:



Attachment (1)

(in reply to Brad Hunter)
Post #: 12
RE: Allied TOE's and OOB's - 6/17/2005 2:45:45 PM   
Brad Hunter


Posts: 1393
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: online
These look much better in MSWord .DOC format.....LOL

(in reply to Brad Hunter)
Post #: 13
RE: Allied TOE's and OOB's - 6/18/2005 5:47:00 PM   
AlaskanWarrior


Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

US Army ID TOE looks good to me, and as the 1943 incarnation is usually treated as the "standard" format, the obvious choice.

I'm might interject that I'm under the impressing that US ID's retained their 37mm AT guns, partly because they didn't need the extra penetration offered by the 57mm, but primarily because the 37mm was manportable and thus of greater value in the roadless Pacific.

The M2HB was intended as a AAA weapon, although naturally effective against ground targets also. However its great weight obviously limited its usefulness on the attack.


I too agree that the TO&E looks about right. What I especially concour with is the elimination of the 4.2" mortars, finally someone else agrees with me on this. For a good source and and overall review of the evolution of the US Inf, Cav, and Arm divisions check out the following (also available in most libraries):

http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/Lineage/M-F/index.htm



_____________________________



(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> Allied TOE's and OOB's Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.090