Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summaries

 
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] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summaries Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/3/2009 3:08:47 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

By the summer of 1941, no two German infantry divisions had the same organization. Even if there was an "ideal" TOE for 4th-Wave divisions in 1939, by the summer of 1941 none of those divisions matched that TOE.


You'll notice if you go to Niehorsters page, he describes the deviations from standard TO&E for each division.

Your philosophy seems to be that because we can't fix everything, we should fix nothing. So what's the point in designing units at all? My argument would be that we should take advantage of quick wins: we know how these divisions were organised, so lets get them set up properly so as much as possible is correct.

quote:

Agreed that the LMG thing was a coincidence. However, that 378 rifle squads seems to pass the smell test and some reality checks. As of today, I would build the 269th Division around a base of 378 rifle squads (minus the antitank rifles and 50mm mortars, which are converted to riflemen).


I'd go for something in between. My guess is those AT rifles weren't actually scrapped. The Germans seem to have continued to use AT rifles to some extent at least into 1942.

quote:

Regarding engineers. The pionier battalion had ~800 men in it. That is a large battalion! When you also consider the engineers floating around the division as parts of other units (e.g., each infantry regiment had some engineers organic to it), you are starting to look at a lot of engineers. How many engineer squads should be depicted in the division?


Three companies of three platoons each in the battalion, three platoons in each regiment. Three squads per platoon. So that would make 36 squads. Thing about engineers is that they use a lot of auxiliary equipment which doesn't show up in a TOAW unit. That's probably what all those 800 men are doing.

quote:

Regarding military police. From what I can tell, the 269th had one platoon of MPs (I'm not sure how many TOAW MP squads that translates into). Including the division's MPs or not might not matter, but considering the traffic jam penalties in TOAW, then the scenario designer had better be aware of how big a traffic nightmare he wants to make if he doesn't at least recognize that the 269th had an organic MP presence.


I would think that would be factored into the units' proficiency etc.

quote:

Regarding rifle 'replacements', I prefer to represent these using the Replacements Editor.


Agree. That's what I was getting at.


You raise an interesting viewpoint regarding "historical" vs "generic" TOEs. This is one reason that more and more I am starting to prefer the hypothetical scenarios like Europa 1947.

Yes. The PbR39 antitank rifle was converted in many cases to the GbR39 antitank grenade launcher, which did have a better AT performance. However, riflemen were far more valuable and generally useful. If I was the divisional commander, I'd order my quartermaster to stockpile those GbR39s, just in case, and then boost my rifle companies with some extra riflemen. I personally think that this is exactly what happened historically in the majority of cases. In TOAW terms, the antitank rifle teams really are pretty worthless. Actually, they are a hindrance--they take up space and contribute next to nothing. I'll take extra rifle squads every time--just like what happened historically.

The engineer TOEs I know of say four squads per platoon in 1941, which yields a divisional total of 48 instead of 36 engineer squads for the division. I don't know which way to go here. 36 seems like too few engineers given a division of 17,000 men. 48 might be closer to "historical", but it might also give the division too great an engineering potential in TOAW terms. I'm undecided about this right now.

Here is another factor to consider that has been addressed by some of the divisional TOEs shown earlier in the thread for the 269th--the antitank assets were in the process of being reorganized in 1941. The 37mm AT gun was known to be mediocre (at best) and the 50mm AT gun was entering service. Also, the antitank battalion itself was undergoing organizational changes, too. This needs to be dealt with.

_____________________________


(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 31
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/3/2009 12:33:30 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4756
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

You raise an interesting viewpoint regarding "historical" vs "generic" TOEs. This is one reason that more and more I am starting to prefer the hypothetical scenarios like Europa 1947.


They're certainly easier to design as one can fudge certain aspects. However one still has to pay some attention to reality when designing a hypothetical scenario. A lot of the hypotheticals out there are not very well thought-out.

quote:

In TOAW terms, the antitank rifle teams really are pretty worthless. Actually, they are a hindrance--they take up space and contribute next to nothing.


They certainly are pretty worthless- though don't take up much space. They're passive defenders and have 0 weight, so the only thing they use up is transport.

quote:

The engineer TOEs I know of say four squads per platoon in 1941, which yields a divisional total of 48 instead of 36 engineer squads for the division. I don't know which way to go here. 36 seems like too few engineers given a division of 17,000 men. 48 might be closer to "historical", but it might also give the division too great an engineering potential in TOAW terms. I'm undecided about this right now.


You proposed the solution yourself above. The platoons in the regiments could be assumed to be assault engineers with no real engineering cabability, and could be represented as Heavy Rifle Squads or similar.

quote:

Here is another factor to consider that has been addressed by some of the divisional TOEs shown earlier in the thread for the 269th--the antitank assets were in the process of being reorganized in 1941. The 37mm AT gun was known to be mediocre (at best) and the 50mm AT gun was entering service. Also, the antitank battalion itself was undergoing organizational changes, too. This needs to be dealt with.


Yeah. You'd want a transition type TO&E. This would look roughly as follows (using 1. Welle organisation as an example);

66/3 37mm AT Guns (one would want to analyse how many guns were left in divisions at the end of the scenario)
6/48 50mm AT Guns

As replacements become available, the division will gain more and more 50mm AT guns, whilst the 37mm AT guns will not be replaced. There are two problems with this;
a) If the division takes heavy losses early in the scenario, or worse still evaporates, it could end up with a total AT strength of only a handful of guns as few 50mm AT Guns are available
b) Conversely, if the division survives unscathed to the latter part of the scenario, it could end up with a complement of over 100 AT Guns. This isn't as bad as the above, however, as the 37mm AT gun will presumably be virtually worthless at this point. In any case, even simply moving across the map will cause a few guns to be lost to replacements.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 32
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/3/2009 5:03:53 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
Based on everything posted in this thread, the screenshot below shows my depiction of the 269th Infantry Division, summer/autumn 1941.



Notes:
1 – The movement rate of 15 (based on 25km hexes and 1-week turns) is deliberate. I prefer using odd numbers for large formations and I reserve even numbers for smaller (and/or faster) formations. For example, the maximum movement rating at this scale is 26. So, I would rate panzer divisions at 25 and smaller, faster formations (like panzer recon battalions) at 26. The reason odd numbers is chosen for the larger and/or slower formations is to reward rear-area movement along roads (where the infantry division would get to move all 15 hexes), but only allow 7 hexes of movement (in good weather and open terrain) into enemy territory. The 180 horse teams and 80 trucks accomplish this.

2 – The division gets a base of 378 rifle squads (324 for the inherent rifle squads in the rifle companies + 54 for converting the 50mm mortars and the ATRs into riflemen). [I can show you the math if you really want to see all that number crunching.] That 378 is modified as follows:
a) Since the MG34 LMG is ~10% more lethal than standard LMGs, then the 378 rifle squads is reduced by 36 (which is ~10% of 378) and those 36 become heavy rifle squads to account for the increased lethality of the MG34 LMGs.
b) Further, the front-line combat NCOs tended to use SMGs, so an additional 12 rifle squads are converted to heavy rifle squads to account for the increased firepower (representing a ~3.4% increase in firepower) of those SMGs. [My .eqp database ratings spreadsheet yields no significant difference in firepower between “SMG” and “Heavy Rifle”. The two are basically interchangeable in my database. Hence, I don’t need to call those SMGs “SMG squads” and can keep things simple by just incorporating the extra firepower and calling those squads “Heavy Rifle”. They are functionally identical in my .eqp database.]

3 – Therefore, 330 rifle squads + 48 heavy rifle squads = the base 378 rifle squads (modified as above).

4 – The 116 MG34 heavy MGs are taken directly from the Handbook on German Military Forces.

5 – The 36 105mm howitzers and 12 150mm howitzers are taken directly from the Handbook on German Military Forces and is based on the fact that the 105mm guns (originally used as the counterbattery component of the artillery regiment) were gradually replaced by 150mm howitzers. Exactly when this occurred, I have no idea, but it definitely happened, and probably during 1941. Since this is guesswork done in order to keep things generically simple, the “textbook” TOE for the artillery regiment would be: 4 105mm guns, 36 105mm howitzers, 8 150mm howitzers. However, since TOAW doesn’t always translate “textbook” data perfectly, I think that the extra range provided by the 105mm guns is not as valuable as the extra hitting power of the 150mm howitzers (and evidently my historical counterparts agreed since those 105mm guns were in fact replaced by 150mm howitzers at some point in the war). So, to keep things simple, I just replaced those 4 105mm guns with 4 150mm howitzers from the start of Operation Barbarossa.

6 – The 36 recon rifle squads is a simplification. I didn’t want to mess with all the complications of motorcycle squads, cavalry squads, etc. I just lumped them all into the recon rifle squads. They are all functionally equivalent in TOAW terms anyway, especially when they are not separate formations and are part of the same division at the divisional scale. Indeed, since the cavalry component of the divisions was done away with in the summer/autumn 1941 anyway (since horses were dying faster than they could be replaced), and since the motorcycle component of the infantry division is problematic to say the least, then this is not a silly or frivolous simplification. So, I think that 36 recon rifle squads is a good overall depiction of the recon capabilities of the division at this scale.

7 – the 3 SdKfz 221 armored cars are taken directly from the Handbook on German Military Forces.

8 – The 42 engineer squads are based on a compromise between 36 and 48 in addition to the comments and suggestions given elsewhere in this thread. I think that 48 squads need to be accounted for (since the TOE data is strong that 48 “engineer” squads should be part of the division), and those remaining 6 squads are going to be accounted for in the assault component of the division.

9 – The 30 assault AT- squads are derived from a number of places. 20 of those squads are taken directly from the Handbook on German Military Forces (since the 20 divisional flamethrowers need to be accounted for). 6 squads are accounted for from the “engineer” assets of the division that weren’t accounted for as engineer squads. The remaining 4 squads are accounted for on the basis that each regiment always had some exceptionally brave/skilled men who could be given “assault gear” (satchel charges, antitank mines, etc.) and be relied on to carry out assaults.

10 – The 54 81mm mortars are taken directly from the Handbook on German Military Forces.

11 – The 20 75mm infantry howitzers and 6 150mm infantry howitzers are taken directly from the Handbook on German Military Forces.

12 – The antitank/antiaircraft assets of the division are in transition in the summer/autumn 1941. Both the quantities of equipment and the organization of the antitank battalion are changing at this time (and will change even more as the war goes on). The quantities depicted here are taken directly from the Handbook on German Military Forces as well as from comments/suggestions from people in this thread.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by vahauser -- 5/3/2009 5:10:36 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 33
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/3/2009 7:05:20 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4756
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

1 – The movement rate of 15 (based on 25km hexes and 1-week turns) is deliberate.


375km per week or 53.5km per day. My understanding is that decent infantry put out about 40km per day in ideal conditions. I'd be inclined to go with a movement rate of 13, which I believe is the standard for leg infantry in TOAW anyway. I wouldn't bother with any trucks at all, regardless of their actual presence in the division.

quote:

5 – The 36 105mm howitzers and 12 150mm howitzers are taken directly from the Handbook on German Military Forces and is based on the fact that the 105mm guns (originally used as the counterbattery component of the artillery regiment) were gradually replaced by 150mm howitzers.


I believe the German 105mm "howitzer" had the range of the TOAW 105mm Gun. Same for the 150mm Howitzer/Gun. Otherwise, this seems to have been the organisation of the German artillery regiment for the entire early war period.

quote:

6 – The 36 recon rifle squads is a simplification. I didn’t want to mess with all the complications of motorcycle squads, cavalry squads, etc. I just lumped them all into the recon rifle squads.


Problem with recon rifle squads is that they have an AP value of just 1. There seem to have bee two companies with 9 LMGs each in the recon battalion, with one (cavalry?) platoon in each regiment. My inclination would be 18 Assault recon teams (lovingly renamed bicycle rifle squads in a modified .exe) and 9-18 rifle recon teams to reflect the balance, given your remark about recon cavalry.

quote:

9 – The 30 assault AT- squads are derived from a number of places. 20 of those squads are taken directly from the Handbook on German Military Forces (since the 20 divisional flamethrowers need to be accounted for). 6 squads are accounted for from the “engineer” assets of the division that weren’t accounted for as engineer squads. The remaining 4 squads are accounted for on the basis that each regiment always had some exceptionally brave/skilled men who could be given “assault gear” (satchel charges, antitank mines, etc.) and be relied on to carry out assaults.


You seem to be double counting some manpower here. If you're going to have assault teams, these should come out of the number of engineer squads, and I don't think it's necessarily appropriate to treat each flamethrower as a single assault team. Perhaps 12 Assault squads and 36 engineer squads.

quote:

12 – The antitank/antiaircraft assets of the division are in transition in the summer/autumn 1941. Both the quantities of equipment and the organization of the antitank battalion are changing at this time (and will change even more as the war goes on). The quantities depicted here are taken directly from the Handbook on German Military Forces as well as from comments/suggestions from people in this thread.


Note that in June 1941, the division seems to have had 47mm AT(e) guns rather than 50mm AT guns. To cover the entire campaign, I suppose it might be simpler to use 50mm AT guns for both weapons.

Regarding the re-equipping with 50mm AT guns, up to the end of 1941 I understand that there were a total of 2462 50mm AT guns produced. Between 120 divisions (give or take), that's only 20 guns per division. A few hundred 47mm Guns might raise this to 24. So I'd suggest the following organisation instead of what I recommended above;

6/24 50mm AT Guns
63/36 37mm AT Guns

On the assumption that as long as there were not enough 50mm guns to equip the entire division, some 37mm guns would remain, especially in the regiments.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 5/3/2009 7:06:29 PM >


_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 34
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/4/2009 1:51:03 AM   
Scout_Pilot

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 2/11/2007
Status: offline
GD,

You make an excellent point about the pioneer assets, especially in German battalions and regiments. In the article at the following link, it is noted that engineers organic to combat units belonged to the branch of the parent unit (i.e. the men in an infantry regiment's engineer platoon/company would belong to the infantry branch, not the engineer branch). As such, they typically served as assault troops, and had limited "engineering" training (and capability). How this can best be represented in TOAW unit organizations is probably by use of generic Assault Squads.

http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/tme30/ch2sec6sub11.html

OTOH, the divisional pioneer battalion had the more traditional engineering mission. This was true at the beginning of WWII; however in 1943, the German divisional pioneer battalion mission began to evolve more toward the infantry pioneer role. At this time, the TOE of the divisional pioneer battalion in panzer and panzer-grenadier divisions became very similar to that of the infantry battalion by addition of a weapons company with heavy mount MG-42's and 81mm mortars.

The following is also from the lonesenty website. It is from a WWII, US Army publication (Military Intelligence Service, Information Bulletin No. 18, June 15, 1942), titled "The German Armored Division". What's not mentioned is that the pioneer battalion had flamethrower teams assigned, almost certainly for assaulting prepared defensive positions.


Section V: ARMORED ENGINEER BATTALION

The armored engineer battalion consists of headquarters, 3 light motorized companies (possibly only 2 in some cases), 1 motorized heavy bridge column, and 1 supply park. The motorized companies have 4 officers and 183 enlisted men each, and are armed with 9 light machine guns, 153 rifles, and 34 pistols. The heavy bridge column comprises all the equipment and personnel necessary for construction of a bridge of 28-ton capacity. It has 6 officers, 184 enlisted men, and is armed with 1 light machine gun, 153 rifles, and 36 pistols. The supply park has 2 officers and 48 enlisted men, and is armed with 1 light machine gun, 36 rifles, and 14 pistols. The personnel and engineer equipment is moved in passenger cars, trucks, tractor trailers, and motorcycles.

45. The armored engineer battalion is able to follow tanks everywhere on the battlefield. In cases where not all the battalion vehicles are armored or capable of moving across country, only the armored engineer company of the battalion can be used in direct support of the tank brigade.

46. The task of the armored engineers is to provide the armored division on the march and in battle with the necessary facilities for movement. These include:

a. Seeking out and removing obstacles in the line of advance;

b. Clearing lanes through mine fields;

c. Marking mined areas;

d. Constructing crossings and bridges with improvised or standard equipment capable of carrying all vehicles of the armored division.

In addition, armored engineers cooperate especially in the attack against permanent defenses.



_____________________________

"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week."
George S. Patton

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 35
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/4/2009 2:47:09 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

1 – The movement rate of 15 (based on 25km hexes and 1-week turns) is deliberate.


375km per week or 53.5km per day. My understanding is that decent infantry put out about 40km per day in ideal conditions. I'd be inclined to go with a movement rate of 13, which I believe is the standard for leg infantry in TOAW anyway. I wouldn't bother with any trucks at all, regardless of their actual presence in the division.

quote:

5 – The 36 105mm howitzers and 12 150mm howitzers are taken directly from the Handbook on German Military Forces and is based on the fact that the 105mm guns (originally used as the counterbattery component of the artillery regiment) were gradually replaced by 150mm howitzers.


I believe the German 105mm "howitzer" had the range of the TOAW 105mm Gun. Same for the 150mm Howitzer/Gun. Otherwise, this seems to have been the organisation of the German artillery regiment for the entire early war period.

quote:

6 – The 36 recon rifle squads is a simplification. I didn’t want to mess with all the complications of motorcycle squads, cavalry squads, etc. I just lumped them all into the recon rifle squads.


Problem with recon rifle squads is that they have an AP value of just 1. There seem to have bee two companies with 9 LMGs each in the recon battalion, with one (cavalry?) platoon in each regiment. My inclination would be 18 Assault recon teams (lovingly renamed bicycle rifle squads in a modified .exe) and 9-18 rifle recon teams to reflect the balance, given your remark about recon cavalry.

quote:

9 – The 30 assault AT- squads are derived from a number of places. 20 of those squads are taken directly from the Handbook on German Military Forces (since the 20 divisional flamethrowers need to be accounted for). 6 squads are accounted for from the “engineer” assets of the division that weren’t accounted for as engineer squads. The remaining 4 squads are accounted for on the basis that each regiment always had some exceptionally brave/skilled men who could be given “assault gear” (satchel charges, antitank mines, etc.) and be relied on to carry out assaults.


You seem to be double counting some manpower here. If you're going to have assault teams, these should come out of the number of engineer squads, and I don't think it's necessarily appropriate to treat each flamethrower as a single assault team. Perhaps 12 Assault squads and 36 engineer squads.

quote:

12 – The antitank/antiaircraft assets of the division are in transition in the summer/autumn 1941. Both the quantities of equipment and the organization of the antitank battalion are changing at this time (and will change even more as the war goes on). The quantities depicted here are taken directly from the Handbook on German Military Forces as well as from comments/suggestions from people in this thread.


Note that in June 1941, the division seems to have had 47mm AT(e) guns rather than 50mm AT guns. To cover the entire campaign, I suppose it might be simpler to use 50mm AT guns for both weapons.

Regarding the re-equipping with 50mm AT guns, up to the end of 1941 I understand that there were a total of 2462 50mm AT guns produced. Between 120 divisions (give or take), that's only 20 guns per division. A few hundred 47mm Guns might raise this to 24. So I'd suggest the following organisation instead of what I recommended above;

6/24 50mm AT Guns
63/36 37mm AT Guns

On the assumption that as long as there were not enough 50mm guns to equip the entire division, some 37mm guns would remain, especially in the regiments.


Good point. 13 is a better movement rating for standard German infantry divisions. EDIT: However, I'm happy with the total transport (trucks + wagons) of ~270. I think that 240 horse teams + 30 trucks yields a movement rating of 13 for the 269th as I've depicted it (compared with the previous 180 horse teams + 80 trucks that yielded a movement rating of 15).

My modified WW2.eqp file does not have 'recon rifle teams'. Instead, I've made them 'recon rifle squads', with the same basic characteristics as other rifle squads except that they are recon capable. I also have 'recon SMG squads' and 'recon assault squads' (which are reserved for special forces/commandos). So, at the divisional scale, all I'm really concerned about is getting the "recon" value for the division correct. 36 recon squads (of whatever flavor) seems to be about right.

Regarding assault squads. I'm pretty happy with 30 assault squads as a divisional total for a veteran 'early-wave' division. Precisely where those squads are coming from is not absolutely crucial, and here's why. The bayonetstrength(dot)com website indicates 388 base rifle squads for an 'early-wave' division. I accounted for 378 base rifle squads in my depiction of the 269th. Thus, there is a little 'wiggle room' for exactly this sort of thing (i.e., this issue regarding the number of divisonal assault squads). And therefore, I'm not really 'double counting' anything. My point is that a highly skilled/proficient combat-veteran division like the 269th in the summer/autumn 1941 would definitely have a substantial pool of skilled/brave men capable of performing dangerous assault-type missions (and not just assaults against prepared defenses--I'm equally interested in the tank-assault aspects of these men; those 'infantry assault' and 'tank assault' badges did not just get awarded to combat engineers, you know). I would be more inclined to reduce the number of assault squads (or perhaps do away with them altogether) in less skilled, less veteran divisions (for example, I would be inclined to not assign any assault squads at all to security divisions, or Luftwaffe field divisions).

Your suggestions/comments regarding the antitank assets of the division (for the summer/autumn 1941) are reasonable. My only (trivial) change to your suggestion would be:
6/24 50mm AT guns
66/36 37mm AT guns

I'm comfortable leaving the divisional artillery at 36 105mm howitzers and 12 150mm howitzers. I'm not sure if you were suggesting otherwise.



< Message edited by vahauser -- 5/4/2009 2:50:47 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 36
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/5/2009 2:46:38 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11483
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

The fact is scenario design is subjective. You will never reduce it to a science. If it were possible to do so, we would not still have an active scenario design forum for TOAW some eleven years after the game was released.


And I'd say what he ended up with was pretty subjective.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 37
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/5/2009 2:57:10 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11483
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Regarding the re-equipping with 50mm AT guns, up to the end of 1941 I understand that there were a total of 2462 50mm AT guns produced. Between 120 divisions (give or take), that's only 20 guns per division. A few hundred 47mm Guns might raise this to 24. So I'd suggest the following organisation instead of what I recommended above;

6/24 50mm AT Guns
63/36 37mm AT Guns

On the assumption that as long as there were not enough 50mm guns to equip the entire division, some 37mm guns would remain, especially in the regiments.


Starting to get pretty close to where I ended up. If you factor in that TOAW doesn't do equipment transitions very well, you can then jump to skipping that too. For example, the above will be down to 36 37mm very quickly, just due to stragglers. Even combat will send most to the "on hand" column rather than true kills. Since there's no room for them, they won't be coming back.

The transient condition of the division at the start of the scenario is what I call "minutia". It's more chrome than game changer - unless it's really understrength (like the SS Nord Division). What's important is the total force mix.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 38
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/5/2009 3:04:01 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11483
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

375km per week or 53.5km per day. My understanding is that decent infantry put out about 40km per day in ideal conditions. I'd be inclined to go with a movement rate of 13, which I believe is the standard for leg infantry in TOAW anyway. I wouldn't bother with any trucks at all, regardless of their actual presence in the division.


Soviet Union 1941 has German infantry MPs of 6 (@50km/hex; 1-week turns). 'So that would be 12 @ 25km/hex. I penalized the German movement allowance 10% due to their poor intel on Soviet road systems. Ditto on the trucks - they were for logistics.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 5/5/2009 3:05:09 PM >

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 39
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/5/2009 7:12:48 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4756
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

EDIT: However, I'm happy with the total transport (trucks + wagons) of ~270. I think that 240 horse teams + 30 trucks yields a movement rating of 13 for the 269th as I've depicted it (compared with the previous 180 horse teams + 80 trucks that yielded a movement rating of 15).


Why all this transport? I suppose it serves to create traffic penalties, but it will also increase transport asset sharing when the division is stationary, meaning a static line at Leningrad will improve supply to troops cross the Dnepr.

quote:

My modified WW2.eqp file does not have 'recon rifle teams'. Instead, I've made them 'recon rifle squads', with the same basic characteristics as other rifle squads except that they are recon capable.


Fair enough.

quote:

My point is that a highly skilled/proficient combat-veteran division like the 269th in the summer/autumn 1941


Well, I'm sure it's well trained, having been in being for nearly two years, but I have to point out that 269. Infanterie did not see significant action until Summer 1941. So it's not combat-veteran.

quote:

I'm comfortable leaving the divisional artillery at 36 105mm howitzers and 12 150mm howitzers. I'm not sure if you were suggesting otherwise.


I would suggest 105mm Gun and 150mm Gun to reflect the real ranges of the weapons that were in the division.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 40
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/5/2009 7:14:02 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4756
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The transient condition of the division at the start of the scenario is what I call "minutia". It's more chrome than game changer - unless it's really understrength (like the SS Nord Division). What's important is the total force mix.


If we can get it right, why get it wrong?

The real minutiae is stuff that takes ages to research and results in a minimal improvement. Well, we already know the German divisions had more than 36 37mm AT Guns, so there's no work. Just bung them into the OOB and move on.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 41
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/5/2009 7:18:50 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4756
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Soviet Union 1941 has German infantry MPs of 6 (@50km/hex; 1-week turns).


Probably the best figure given the unavoidable rounding problems at that scale.

quote:

I penalized the German movement allowance 10% due to their poor intel on Soviet road systems.


Mm. I appreciate that this is a significant factor in the campaign, but somehow it doesn't sit right to think of the Germans moving more slowly than their Soviet counterparts, especially as this problem would only occur as the Germans advance, and would have no effect in rear areas. A temporary effect might be preferable if you could figure one out. I suppose you've got no events for refugees?

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 42
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/6/2009 3:24:53 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11483
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

If we can get it right, why get it wrong?


Because, as I said, it's transient, and TOAW doesn't do equipment transitions well.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 43
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/6/2009 3:34:43 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11483
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Probably the best figure given the unavoidable rounding problems at that scale.


It's just what resulted from the 10% penalty. Note that the impact of that penalty will be 10%, even as the unit's health changes - molifiying any rounding effects. In other words, the true MA is only being rounded to 6, it's actually fractionally different.

quote:

quote:

I penalized the German movement allowance 10% due to their poor intel on Soviet road systems.


Mm. I appreciate that this is a significant factor in the campaign, but somehow it doesn't sit right to think of the Germans moving more slowly than their Soviet counterparts, especially as this problem would only occur as the Germans advance, and would have no effect in rear areas. A temporary effect might be preferable if you could figure one out. I suppose you've got no events for refugees?


But, advancing is what they're mostly doing. It sits right if you consider their maps had roads marked on them that didn't exist. They had to backtrack over and over. And the pace of advance turned out to be pretty historical in tests.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 44
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/6/2009 3:44:53 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11483
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

This is taken from the Handbook on German Military Forces (a generic, "standard" German infantry division):







My copy of the Handbook doesn't exactly agree with this. In my book (page 92, figure 8), the artillery regiment has 36 105mm Gun/Howitzers, 4 105mm Guns, and 8 150mm Howitzers.

In my division, I combined the two types of 105mm pieces, since there is no difference at 50km/hex.

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 45
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/6/2009 5:22:49 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

My copy of the Handbook doesn't exactly agree with this. In my book (page 92, figure 8), the artillery regiment has 36 105mm Gun/Howitzers, 4 105mm Guns, and 8 150mm Howitzers.

In my division, I combined the two types of 105mm pieces, since there is no difference at 50km/hex.



This is why any "historical" OOB is problematic. My 'copy' of the Handbook is taken directly from the LoneSentry website. Further, Niehorster shows 12 150mm Howitzers and 36 105mm howitzers for all 'early (1939) wave' (waves 1, 2, 3, and 4) divisions in 1941.

P.S. More and more I'm starting to favor hypothetical scenarios in order to avoid this sort of "historical" nitpicking. Ugh.

_____________________________


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 46
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/6/2009 5:42:44 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

EDIT: However, I'm happy with the total transport (trucks + wagons) of ~270. I think that 240 horse teams + 30 trucks yields a movement rating of 13 for the 269th as I've depicted it (compared with the previous 180 horse teams + 80 trucks that yielded a movement rating of 15).


Why all this transport? I suppose it serves to create traffic penalties, but it will also increase transport asset sharing when the division is stationary, meaning a static line at Leningrad will improve supply to troops cross the Dnepr.

quote:

My modified WW2.eqp file does not have 'recon rifle teams'. Instead, I've made them 'recon rifle squads', with the same basic characteristics as other rifle squads except that they are recon capable.


Fair enough.

quote:

My point is that a highly skilled/proficient combat-veteran division like the 269th in the summer/autumn 1941


Well, I'm sure it's well trained, having been in being for nearly two years, but I have to point out that 269. Infanterie did not see significant action until Summer 1941. So it's not combat-veteran.

quote:

I'm comfortable leaving the divisional artillery at 36 105mm howitzers and 12 150mm howitzers. I'm not sure if you were suggesting otherwise.


I would suggest 105mm Gun and 150mm Gun to reflect the real ranges of the weapons that were in the division.


Well, in post #33 you suggested doing away with motor transport altogether. That would mean even more transport (than the 240 wagons + 30 trucks) if I went with all wagons in order to achieve a movement rating of 13 (and 13 is the correct movement rating for this scale as you correctly pointed out). I'm actually reducing the total transport by including a few trucks. If I went with all horse transport (as you suggested in post #33), then the total transport would greatly exceed 270. This is a compromise based entirely on your earlier suggestions in post #33. You can't have it both ways. 240 horse teams + 30 trucks is the most efficient way to meet your suggestions in post #33.

Even if the 269th is not the most veteran infantry division in the Wehrmacht, I still think it deserves an 80% proficiency. Even if I dropped the 269th to 75% proficiency (which is what I rate the 1st SS, 2nd SS, and 5th SS divisions [while the 3rd SS and 4th SS rate a 70%]), that still wouldn't drop the number of assault squads. I'm guessing that at 70% i'd assign 24, 65% 12, and 60% or lower would get none (this is purely speculative at this point).

In general, I'm not against assigning the divisional artillery guns instead of howitzers, although I'm not completely sold on this idea yet.

_____________________________


(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 47
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/6/2009 6:40:14 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4756
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Because, as I said, it's transient, and TOAW doesn't do equipment transitions well.


In your post, you stated that the extra 37mm AT guns would be lost quickly anyway. So the risk of having too many guns in the division is pretty minimal.

However, the Germans do have to deal with large quantities of light armour in the opening phase of the scenario. So why unfairly reduce their AT capabilities?


_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 48
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/6/2009 6:41:52 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4756
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

But, advancing is what they're mostly doing. It sits right if you consider their maps had roads marked on them that didn't exist. They had to backtrack over and over. And the pace of advance turned out to be pretty historical in tests.


I suppose given the tools available there's not much else to be done. If TOAW permitted it, you could lift the penalty late in the scenario so that troops moving to react to Russian counterattacks aren't affected by the penalty.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 49
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/6/2009 6:45:45 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4756
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

This is why any "historical" OOB is problematic. My 'copy' of the Handbook is taken directly from the LoneSentry website. Further, Niehorster shows 12 150mm Howitzers and 36 105mm howitzers for all 'early (1939) wave' (waves 1, 2, 3, and 4) divisions in 1941.

P.S. More and more I'm starting to favor hypothetical scenarios in order to avoid this sort of "historical" nitpicking. Ugh.


Combined AP strength of the 12/36 organisation = 972
Combined AP strength of the 8/40 organisation = 957

The difference is 1.5% of the artillery strength of the division. Since this is going to be the most common peice on the German side, that's a significant difference.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 50
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/6/2009 6:51:17 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4756
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Well, in post #33 you suggested doing away with motor transport altogether. That would mean even more transport (than the 240 wagons + 30 trucks) if I went with all wagons in order to achieve a movement rating of 13 (and 13 is the correct movement rating for this scale as you correctly pointed out).


I was assuming 13 was the default infantry rate, which would mean no transport is required. This is the default for a lot of the common scale combinations but not, it seems, for this one. So go either with 11 move or stick with the transport you've outlined.

quote:

Even if the 269th is not the most veteran infantry division in the Wehrmacht, I still think it deserves an 80% proficiency. Even if I dropped the 269th to 75% proficiency (which is what I rate the 1st SS, 2nd SS, and 5th SS divisions [while the 3rd SS and 4th SS rate a 70%]), that still wouldn't drop the number of assault squads. I'm guessing that at 70% i'd assign 24, 65% 12, and 60% or lower would get none (this is purely speculative at this point).


I'm not sure I understand what you're basing the number of assault squads on.

Anyway, 1. and 2. SS Divisions were based around formations which had fought in three campaigns, so I would tend to think these units would be rated as high as reserve infantry formations which had not fought at all, with their experience compensating quite easily for the comparatively poor doctrine and organisation.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 51
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/6/2009 10:58:27 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Well, in post #33 you suggested doing away with motor transport altogether. That would mean even more transport (than the 240 wagons + 30 trucks) if I went with all wagons in order to achieve a movement rating of 13 (and 13 is the correct movement rating for this scale as you correctly pointed out).


I was assuming 13 was the default infantry rate, which would mean no transport is required. This is the default for a lot of the common scale combinations but not, it seems, for this one. So go either with 11 move or stick with the transport you've outlined.

quote:

Even if the 269th is not the most veteran infantry division in the Wehrmacht, I still think it deserves an 80% proficiency. Even if I dropped the 269th to 75% proficiency (which is what I rate the 1st SS, 2nd SS, and 5th SS divisions [while the 3rd SS and 4th SS rate a 70%]), that still wouldn't drop the number of assault squads. I'm guessing that at 70% i'd assign 24, 65% 12, and 60% or lower would get none (this is purely speculative at this point).


I'm not sure I understand what you're basing the number of assault squads on.

Anyway, 1. and 2. SS Divisions were based around formations which had fought in three campaigns, so I would tend to think these units would be rated as high as reserve infantry formations which had not fought at all, with their experience compensating quite easily for the comparatively poor doctrine and organisation.


Sorry, you were correct the first time. No backpedaling allowed now. The correct movement rate for 25km hexes and 1-week turns is 13 for good infantry (which the 'early wave' divisions definitely are). That's your story and I'm sticking to it.

Regarding the 269th vs. the SS. This could open a whole can of worms and take the thread off topic. I don't want to do that. However, the assignment of assault/antitank squads at the divisional scale is subjective. I admit that I took inspiration for the concept from (and I'm giving credit to) the Directive 21 scenario. In my opinion, this is the most subjective aspect of everything I've done in this thread regarding the 269th (and divisions in general). The concept is that every division has some infantry assault/antitank capability (do not overlook the antitank aspect of this--it is crucial). The correlation between proficiency rating and assault/antitank capability is my basic rule of thumb. I haven't produced an algorithm for this because I intended this thread to be about building a single divisional TOE to provide prospective scenario designers with some food for thought. I could probably come up with a workable algorithm for a whole order of battle in a few days if needed. [As an aside, I might be inclined to give those fanatic SS divisions a higher number of assault squads even at a lower proficiency. Have to think about it some, but that's my initial thought.] Another facet of this is that it is a bonus. It is extra. Not every division gets it, and not every division gets the same amount. It is mostly above and beyond the base number of squads that normal accounting will derive. We are only talking a few hundred men (at most), and normal accounting will account for most of it. But what about the handful of squads that accounting does not account for? In many respects, this concept is the exact opposite of what Curtis Lemay did with his Soviet Union 1941 scenario. In that scenario, Curtis tried to account for all the rear-area specialists that normally never fired their rifles. Hundreds of extraneous (and, in my opinion, deliterious) squads were thus added to his divisions. This assault/antitank concept is the exact opposite--it is an estimate of those combat personnel (not rear-area) who are operating at a level above the base proficiency of the division. This is another reason why "counting rifles" is not the whole story in this case.

Niehorster says 36 105mm howitzers and 12 150mm howitzers for the early-wave divisions in 1941. The LoneSentry website version of the Handbook on German Military Forces says 36 105mm howitzers and 12 150mm howitzers for the early-wave divisions. I'm sticking with 36 105mm howitzers and 12 150mm howitzers (or guns, whatever) unless I see definitive and conclusive evidence to the contrary.

Regarding the 'reserve' status of the 269th. Compare the 269th with the way the US Army handled its Regular Army and National Guard divisions. Some of the US Army National Guard divisions performed extremely well (like the 88th). The situation with the German divisions is roughly analogous during 1939-42 (after which things get muddier). In general, Regular Army divisions performed slightly better on average, but after a brutal campaign where the replacements are of uneven quality, the distinction between Regular Army and Reserve became more and more blurred. Admittedly, in the summer of 1941 this hadn't happened yet, but I don't want to dismiss the 269th out of hand just because it was a 'reserve' division. Also, trying to track each and every divisional history in an attempt to glean some tidbit of minutiae regarding the division's combat performance is a waste of time. Once again, the generic solution is preferable.


_____________________________


(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 52
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/7/2009 4:17:16 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11483
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

In your post, you stated that the extra 37mm AT guns would be lost quickly anyway. So the risk of having too many guns in the division is pretty minimal.


Which means that the risk of their having too few guns is pretty maximal. They're starting with 63 out of 36. They'll be down to just 36 quickly - not due to having 27 guns destroyed in combat, but due to having 27 guns straggling into the "on hand" pile - and then can't be received back as replacements.

The alterative is to authorize all 63 plus a suite of 50mm too - but then they will tend to end up too strong. As I said, TOAW doesn't have a satisfactory equipment transition system yet. So I'd just as soon skip it - and give them mid-campaign TO&E (provided it's a minor factor).

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 53
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/8/2009 7:35:52 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4756
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

[As an aside, I might be inclined to give those fanatic SS divisions a higher number of assault squads even at a lower proficiency. Have to think about it some, but that's my initial thought.]


I'd be inclined to do the reverse: reduce the combat power of the equipment but increase proficiency. The division will hold ground and continue attacks in the face of appalling losses- but otherwise is not especially effective.

quote:

Regarding the 'reserve' status of the 269th. Compare the 269th with the way the US Army handled its Regular Army and National Guard divisions. Some of the US Army National Guard divisions performed extremely well (like the 88th).


There's much less distinction in the US Army. The National Guard divisions didn't go into action all that much later than the regular army. The Germans by contrast fought two very fast-paced campaigns in 1939-40 and the regular divisions did the vast majority of the fighting.

quote:

In general, Regular Army divisions performed slightly better on average, but after a brutal campaign where the replacements are of uneven quality, the distinction between Regular Army and Reserve became more and more blurred.


Quite. And I'm sure by the end of the scenario the same will have happened here. But we're not dealing with the end of the scenario.

Anyway, regarding your special assault squads, I've a solution. Give all the German infantry divisions the same authorised strength, but put the reserve divisions understrength (and presumably leave replacement rates low) with the regulars overstrength. That way the regulars are better at the start but it averages out as units take losses.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 54
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/8/2009 7:38:44 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4756
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Which means that the risk of their having too few guns is pretty maximal. They're starting with 63 out of 36. They'll be down to just 36 quickly - not due to having 27 guns destroyed in combat, but due to having 27 guns straggling into the "on hand" pile - and then can't be received back as replacements.

The alterative is to authorize all 63 plus a suite of 50mm too - but then they will tend to end up too strong. As I said, TOAW doesn't have a satisfactory equipment transition system yet. So I'd just as soon skip it - and give them mid-campaign TO&E (provided it's a minor factor).


Christ. The problem will creep in at some point- so why not build the problem in at the start?

No. Get it as right as possible. It's not a minor factor: the Germans had trouble with Russian armour, and they have 10,000 Soviet tanks to get through. In most situations, they are going to have to make do with the guns that are in the division, especially as TOAW gives no provision for the use of 105 and 150mm guns in an anti-tank role.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 55
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/8/2009 8:23:16 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
golden delicious,

Ugh.  Somehow my TOAW folder got partially corrupted.  I have to do a complete uninstall and reinstall (with all the hassles of getting the $#%@^!@ BioEd working again).  Anyway, this means that no TOAW screenshots for the next few days (until I get enough free time to do the uninstall and reinstall--getting the ^$%#^ BioEd working is the most time-consuming part).

But, in the meantime this will have to suffice:

269th Infantry Division, 22 June 1941
75% Proficiency [dropped from 80%, but the division should improve over the course of the summer]
13 Movement Rate [EDIT: based on 25km hexes and 1-week turns]

330/330 Rifle Squads
48/48 Heavy Rifle Squads
42/42 Engineer Squads
24/30 Assault AT- Squads [per your suggestion] (does not exist in standard TOAW--this is a new equipment in my ww2.eqp file)
36/36 Recon Rifle Squads  (does not exist in standard TOAW--this is a new equipment in my ww2.eqp file)
54/54 81mm Mortars
116/116 MG34 Heavy MGs (does not exist in standard TOAW--this is a new equipment in my ww2.eqp file)
36/36 105mm Howitzers (or guns, whatever)
12/12 150mm Howitzers (or guns, whatever)
66/36 37mm AT Guns [per your suggestion]
6/24 50mm AT Guns [per your suggestion]
20/20 75mm Inf Howitzers (does not exist in standard TOAW--this is a new equipment in my ww2.eqp file)
6/6 150mm Inf Howitzers (does not exist in standard TOAW--this is a new equipment in my ww2.eqp file)
11/12 20mm AA Guns
3/3 SdKfz 221 Armored Cars
240/240 Horse Teams
30/30 Trucks


EDIT2: The reason for the separate and distinct line item for the Assault AT- Squads is twofold: 1) it is the best way of showing the skill and bravery (in addition to the shaped-charge antitank mines, flamethrowers, satchel charges, etc.) of a small number of men in the division; and 2) by having a separate line item, these squads can be given a lower replacement rate.


< Message edited by vahauser -- 5/8/2009 8:28:46 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 56
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/9/2009 3:29:32 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11483
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

... especially as TOAW gives no provision for the use of 105 and 150mm guns in an anti-tank role.


?? Yes it does. See my post #7 in this thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2078034

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 57
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/14/2009 1:01:25 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11483
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

This is taken from the Handbook on German Military Forces (a generic, "standard" German infantry division):







My copy of the Handbook doesn't exactly agree with this. In my book (page 92, figure 8), the artillery regiment has 36 105mm Gun/Howitzers, 4 105mm Guns, and 8 150mm Howitzers.

In my division, I combined the two types of 105mm pieces, since there is no difference at 50km/hex.


I just got a "All-in-One" printer and I've been playing with the scanner. I thought I'd go ahead and post the scan of this figure from my handbook.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 58
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/15/2009 4:27:32 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
Curtis,

I guess this is just going to be one of those subjective judgments.  I think that 36 and 12 is a better TOAW depiction than 40 and 8.  Also, some people would argue that Niehorster is a better source than the Handbook (whatever version).  Niehorster gives 36 and 12 for the 1941 divisions.  I'm sticking with 36 and 12 unless I see absolutely definitive and conclusive evidence otherwise for the 1941 divisions.  

Until then, it won't be the first time that my conclusion/interpretation differs from yours.  Oh well.

< Message edited by vahauser -- 5/15/2009 4:35:17 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 59
RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summ... - 5/16/2009 4:00:06 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11483
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Curtis,

I guess this is just going to be one of those subjective judgments.  I think that 36 and 12 is a better TOAW depiction than 40 and 8.  Also, some people would argue that Niehorster is a better source than the Handbook (whatever version).  Niehorster gives 36 and 12 for the 1941 divisions.  I'm sticking with 36 and 12 unless I see absolutely definitive and conclusive evidence otherwise for the 1941 divisions.  

Until then, it won't be the first time that my conclusion/interpretation differs from yours.  Oh well.


I don’t know which one is correct either. Note that there is another difference in that the AT guns are shown as 75mm, not 37mm. The Handbook was directed at a 1945 audience, so it may have been describing the last version of the “Old Type” division. But the issue is that, if you use multiple sources (and you should), then there will be conflicts between them that you will have to resolve. (Another issue, of course, is to use caution with web sources – clearly, they had edited that figure.)

Plus, since this was a 17,000-man unit, only a fraction of which was assigned to the front lines, there will naturally be multiple philosophies on how to model its manpower. The whole premise of this thread – that there should be one “correct” version of the 1941 division – was absurd. There are too many subjective factors.

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Scenario Design Questions Regarding Divisional Summaries Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
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

0.180