Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

[trees trees]

[ re: Zeppelins - DO NOT go see the movie "Flyboys" just so you can see a nice CGI version of a WWI dogfight between French bi-planes, German tri-planes, and one Zeppelin, as cool as the trailer looked. That was one of the worst clichéd, stereotypical, hackneyed, crappiest movies I've ever seen. "The Great Waldo Pepper" was far superior and wasn't even set during the Great War. But five years from now when you can buy the DVD for spare change at a rummage sale, the Zeppelin fight is kinda cool. But not worth $8. ]

and on the MIL units, they do not always represent 'Volksturm' or other emergency draftees, or even most of the time. Perhaps at times they do, like when the Leningrad MIL re-appears time and again inside a surrounded Leningrad. A lot of the time they represent units that aren't even depicted on a WiF counter - of which there are many, obviously WiF is not geared towards recreating the complete corps/army level WWII OOB of each participant. But in general they represent the training and replacement systems of every army. So when a fresh class of recruits from the Breslau area were ready for duty and they were sent off to garrison Yugoslavia or something, they were part of an Army Group, Army, Corps (probably but not defintely?), and Division which isn't necessarily a WiF counter. In WiF you just rail or walk the Breslau MIL to where you want more infantry. Perhaps you rail it on top of an historical corps that was just retreated in an enemy blitz combat...in real life it took heavy casualties and needed to draw on it's depots back home...in WiF an INF was flipped over while another corps it was stacked with was selected as a loss...back in real life both corps still exist and the recruits railing in from home are used to replenish the units...but in WiF the MIL counter remains on the board until selected as a loss in the future... (Though in reality each country handled this natural functioning of an army at war completely differently, that topic is beyond the scale of WiF).

The MIL from the capital cities are the best because generally each army would have their best officers and units stationed at the barracks near their capital, that was the prestige posting. I think a lot of time and effort could be saved by covering such units with a standard explanation of this design element of WiF. There is no way to relate which campaigns such a MIL unit participated in, because there were no such units. Perhaps with a very few of these (Sydney MIL maybe?) such a synopsis would be possible but this would be the exception.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: capitan
[2527] [Berlin Militia]
.T This unit symbolises all the different Militia, Landwehr and Volksturm troops that helped in the defense of Berlin.
.P Berlin was captured on the 2nd of May 1945 by the Russians and most of the different surviving formations in this corps probably surrendered with the fall of the city.
.H
.B Campaigns: Berlin (1945)
.H
.P **MIL are generic units representing regular infantry formations rushed into combat with only basic training and less inherent support weapons and motor transport**


-----

Steve could you process it and let us see what it looks like?

I will upload version 3.00 today so you and Terje can generate screen shots of the land and naval unit writeups to your hearts' content.

For doing that I use HyperSnap 6 to take the screen shots. It works like a charm. You might have trouble with a limit of 200KB on file size - just avoid full screen pictures. As moderator of the forum I have a max of 500KB which I have pushed close to at times.

<Ctrl> U brings up the Units Review Form. To get the background colors to match I run Barbarossa for USSR and German units, Guadalcanal for CW and Japanese units, and Global War for all the rest. I actually set up the units each time and progress to the next country to be set up in order to get the backgrounds to match. Though I guess game save and restore might be faster.

[jesperpehrson]

ORIGINAL: trees trees

[ re: Zeppelins - DO NOT go see the movie "Flyboys" just so you can see a nice CGI version of a WWI dogfight between French bi-planes, German tri-planes, and one Zeppelin, as cool as the trailer looked. That was one of the worst clichéd, stereotypical, hackneyed, crappiest movies I've ever seen. "The Great Waldo Pepper" was far superior and wasn't even set during the Great War. But five years from now when you can buy the DVD for spare change at a rummage sale, the Zeppelin fight is kinda cool. But not worth $8. ]

and on the MIL units, they do not always represent 'Volksturm' or other emergency draftees, or even most of the time. Perhaps at times they do, like when the Leningrad MIL re-appears time and again inside a surrounded Leningrad. A lot of the time they represent units that aren't even depicted on a WiF counter - of which there are many, obviously WiF is not geared towards recreating the complete corps/army level WWII OOB of each participant. But in general they represent the training and replacement systems of every army. So when a fresh class of recruits from the Breslau area were ready for duty and they were sent off to garrison Yugoslavia or something, they were part of an Army Group, Army, Corps (probably but not defintely?), and Division which isn't necessarily a WiF counter. In WiF you just rail or walk the Breslau MIL to where you want more infantry. Perhaps you rail it on top of an historical corps that was just retreated in an enemy blitz combat...in real life it took heavy casualties and needed to draw on it's depots back home...in WiF an INF was flipped over while another corps it was stacked with was selected as a loss...back in real life both corps still exist and the recruits railing in from home are used to replenish the units...but in WiF the MIL counter remains on the board until selected as a loss in the future... (Though in reality each country handled this natural functioning of an army at war completely differently, that topic is beyond the scale of WiF).

The MIL from the capital cities are the best because generally each army would have their best officers and units stationed at the barracks near their capital, that was the prestige posting. I think a lot of time and effort could be saved by covering such units with a standard explanation of this design element of WiF. There is no way to relate which campaigns such a MIL unit participated in, because there were no such units. Perhaps with a very few of these (Sydney MIL maybe?) such a synopsis would be possible but this would be the exception.

So I take it you agree with the latest revision of Militia writeups? [:D]

[jesperpehrson]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: capitan
Steve could you process it and let us see what it looks like?

I will upload version 3.00 today so you and Terje can generate screen shots of the land and naval unit writeups to your hearts' content.

Oh good!

[jesperpehrson]

My very first screenshots! The Liberian Frontier Force!! Beware Evildoers!

[jesperpehrson]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
<Ctrl> U brings up the Units Review Form. To get the background colors to match I run Barbarossa for USSR and German units, Guadalcanal for CW and Japanese units, and Global War for all the rest. I actually set up the units each time and progress to the next country to be set up in order to get the backgrounds to match. Though I guess game save and restore might be faster.

What backgrounds do we use for neutral countries?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: capitan

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
<Ctrl> U brings up the Units Review Form. To get the background colors to match I run Barbarossa for USSR and German units, Guadalcanal for CW and Japanese units, and Global War for all the rest. I actually set up the units each time and progress to the next country to be set up in order to get the backgrounds to match. Though I guess game save and restore might be faster.

What backgrounds do we use for neutral countries?

There is nothing specific about backgrounds. It is merely cosmetic for the post. Since some of the scenarios remove a lot of countries from the game (e.g., Barbarossa), using Global war is a good idea since it will show every country in the game. If you are being picky about this, then I suggest the USSR background because (1) it is a 'neutral' color, and (2) it is the 2nd country to be set up and easy to get to - you just set up the USA.

[Jimm]

ORIGINAL: trees trees


and on the MIL units, they do not always represent 'Volksturm' or other emergency draftees, or even most of the time. Perhaps at times they do, like when the Leningrad MIL re-appears time and again inside a surrounded Leningrad. A lot of the time they represent units that aren't even depicted on a WiF counter - of which there are many, obviously WiF is not geared towards recreating the complete corps/army level WWII OOB of each participant. But in general they represent the training and replacement systems of every army. So when a fresh class of recruits from the Breslau area were ready for duty and they were sent off to garrison Yugoslavia or something, they were part of an Army Group, Army, Corps (probably but not defintely?), and Division which isn't necessarily a WiF counter. In WiF you just rail or walk the Breslau MIL to where you want more infantry. Perhaps you rail it on top of an historical corps that was just retreated in an enemy blitz combat...in real life it took heavy casualties and needed to draw on it's depots back home...in WiF an INF was flipped over while another corps it was stacked with was selected as a loss...back in real life both corps still exist and the recruits railing in from home are used to replenish the units...but in WiF the MIL counter remains on the board until selected as a loss in the future... (Though in reality each country handled this natural functioning of an army at war completely differently, that topic is beyond the scale of WiF).

This is a really good rationalisation of unit losses in WiF, which I may just have to steal.
You might also add to the description of MILs that they could be reservists like TA (Territorial Army -UK) or equivalent, especially when found in a nation's Reserve Pool.

[trees trees]

yeah I was re-reading my post today. I forgot to mention the words 'Reserves' and 'Mobilisation'. MIL represent a lot of things actually. In the USA the MIL would probably be National Guard troops, but I think the National Guard was used at division level (as far as complete units) only in WWII???

[Jimm]

ORIGINAL: trees trees

yeah I was re-reading my post today. I forgot to mention the words 'Reserves' and 'Mobilisation'. MIL represent a lot of things actually. In the USA the MIL would probably be National Guard troops, but I think the National Guard was used at division level (as far as complete units) only in WWII???

Yep I was going to suggest National Guard but wasnt sure of their history going back to WWII. Did they see much active service as individual units?

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: Jimm

ORIGINAL: trees trees

yeah I was re-reading my post today. I forgot to mention the words 'Reserves' and 'Mobilisation'. MIL represent a lot of things actually. In the USA the MIL would probably be National Guard troops, but I think the National Guard was used at division level (as far as complete units) only in WWII???

Yep I was going to suggest National Guard but wasnt sure of their history going back to WWII. Did they see much active service as individual units?

AFAIK there were 5,3 National Guard divisions in the South (West) Pacific, as the first American ground troops there:

32nd, Maj-General Edwin Harding, replaced by Lt-General Robert L. Eichelberger, Wisconsin and Michigan Nat.Guard (from Sept 1942, Battle of Buna, Summer 1943 Salamaua, Oct-Nov 1944 Leyte, Jan - June 1945 Luzon, one of the battalion commanders was Archie Roosevelt, one son of the president). In 1942/43 32nd and 41st National Guard divisions administratively formed a corps under Eichelberger

37th Ohio National Guard, Maj-General Robert Beightler, (December 1942 Gudalcanal, Nov. 43-May 44 Bougainville, Jan - June 1945 Luzon),

41st (as garrison in Australia, from Jan. 1943 in New Guinea, May to June 1944 Biak, March-Aug 1945 Zamboanga),

43d New England (one of its regiments was on the transport, which was sunk by an American mine in Espirito Santo in 1942/43, June to Aug 1943 Munda/Solomons, April to August 1944 Aitape, from Aug. 1944 New Guinea, Jan - June 1945 Luzon),

Americal division Maj-General Patch. It was formed from three independant regiments: 132d (Illionois Nat.Guard) , 164th (North Dakota Nat.Guard, swedish ancestry) and 182d (Massachusetts Nat.Guard). They were left over from switching infantry divisions from square to triangular organization: One regiment was subtracted. Americal Division was formed in May 1942, fought on Guadalcanal, Bougainville and on Philippines,

147th regiment Ohio National Guard: It was an independent regiment, leftover from triangularization. It served on Guadalcanal and afterwards as garrison.

All the National Guard units in the South (West) Pacific first were badly equipped and before the war hadn't trained for jungle warfare but for an European war of maneuvre. But they were the first American ground forces down under.

Sources:
Eric Bergerud, Touched with fire: The land war in the South Pacific, p. 180ff.
John Elliss, WWII: A statistical survey, p.192-196.

[jesperpehrson]

I am thinking that I will focus more on the city in MIL descriptions for the Germans. About the battles there, the bombings or other intersting facts about the city during the war. Here is an example.

[jesperpehrson]

I now have removed the campaign-tag from the MIL as it makes no sense, considering the nature of the unit.

Does it look, without the campaign-tag, like an ok compromise? If so then we could probably streamline the write-ups for most MIL in the game (at least for the major powers, with exceptions)

[siRkid]

OMG this is not just a game it's an historical archive. My interest in the game has just gone up.

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: capitan

I now have removed the campaign-tag from the MIL as it makes no sense, considering the nature of the unit.

Does it look, without the campaign-tag, like an ok compromise? If so then we could probably streamline the write-ups for most MIL in the game (at least for the major powers, with exceptions)

Excellent. [&o]

I'd change the tag "These units fought on all fronts at all times and not just in defense of their home city".

These units didn't fight on all fronts at all times. That statement seems to overreach.

Instead they were occasionaly quickly mustered units called to the front (reflects the build time), which participated in occupation duties, or as local defense forces.

[jesperpehrson]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

ORIGINAL: capitan

I now have removed the campaign-tag from the MIL as it makes no sense, considering the nature of the unit.

Does it look, without the campaign-tag, like an ok compromise? If so then we could probably streamline the write-ups for most MIL in the game (at least for the major powers, with exceptions)

Excellent. [&o]

I'd change the tag "These units fought on all fronts at all times and not just in defense of their home city".

These units didn't fight on all fronts at all times. That statement seems to overreach.

Instead they were occasionaly quickly mustered units called to the front (reflects the build time), which participated in occupation duties, or as local defense forces.

It does overreach but this was rather the thought considering the nature of the unit. I will give it a think though and see if I can formulate it in a better way.

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: capitan

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

ORIGINAL: capitan

I now have removed the campaign-tag from the MIL as it makes no sense, considering the nature of the unit.

Does it look, without the campaign-tag, like an ok compromise? If so then we could probably streamline the write-ups for most MIL in the game (at least for the major powers, with exceptions)

Excellent. [&o]

I'd change the tag "These units fought on all fronts at all times and not just in defense of their home city".

These units didn't fight on all fronts at all times. That statement seems to overreach.

Instead they were occasionaly quickly mustered units called to the front (reflects the build time), which participated in occupation duties, or as local defense forces.

It does overreach but this was rather the thought considering the nature of the unit. I will give it a think though and see if I can formulate it in a better way.

What about linking the MIL counters (principally, not individually) to local non-field army units?

-The Replacement Regiments (Ersatzregimenter). There were a number of them in each Wehrkreis. They were linked to certain front divisions. And they were part of the Ersatzheer (Replacement Army) under General Friedrich Fromm, later Heinrich Himmler.

In praxis, the recuits after "Hitlerjugend" went through basic military training in the nearest Replacement Regiment. Then they were formed into marching batallions/companies (Marschbatallione/kompanien) and delivered to their regional based front divisions. Finally there they completed their military training in divisional replacement batallions.

Plus the Ersatzheer had various inspectorates for different arms and services (panzer, infantry, artillery, engineers, signals, medical services). In Febr. 1943 General Heinz Guderian was appointed even as Inspector-General of armoured troops. This meant, this special inspectorate served directly under the CiC Hitler, not under the Ersatzheer. The Inspectorates were responsible mainly for special field regulations, special training schools. But they also participated in weapon development and testing, together with the Heereswaffenamt (Ordnance) and Albert Speer's Rüstungsministerium (Ministry of war production).

The most famuous Inspectorate unit was the Panzerlehrdivision (Training division for armoured warfare). It was formed in Nov. 1943 out of the various Panzertruppenschulen (Panzer, Anti-tank, Panzerartillery and so on).

-The Volkssturm: It was formed on Sept. 25th 1944 by Hitler and symbolically promulgated on Oct. 13th 1944 (the victorious battle of Leipzig against Napoleon 1913). It was organized and politically led by the Nazi party (Hitler's private secretary Martin Bormann and the regional Gauleiter), but commanded by the CiC of Ersatzheer: in 1944 Heinrich Himmler. By this doubled responsebility Volkssturm represented Nazi polycratical power structure.

Regards

[jesperpehrson]

Wosung,

I think that would be an excellent idea but from what I understand the MIL are representing all those and more, so it would be missguiding to do that. We will have to accept that some units are generic and use information from units like those you mention for anecodotial material. I think I will fill out the MIL-units with more stories as I find them but I am content with form I am using for now. Maybe later on, with more research done, I can revisit the MIL.

What I am really worried about now are the Russians. Since the Russian Army had no corps after the winterwar (source: Anthony Beevors Stalingrad) but only Armies and Divisions that will be a great hurdle for the writeups. I could really use a volounteer for the Russians that would do write-ups. That way I can continue with the others and aid that person with research.

[wosung]

Yep, I also fear ze Russians

(but only for WIF write-ups. This is not to be meant IRL).

Problem is, there's not so much info about Russian Armies and tank/mech corps. Perhaps, best would be just to collect the few available infos right here on the forum in a collective effort.

For German Mil: What else do they represent? (non-ironic question)

[jesperpehrson]

ORIGINAL: wosung
For German Mil: What else do they represent? (non-ironic question)

The thing is that the MIL represents everything not in a normal corps or division as I have understood it. So tying it to one type (like for instance the Volksturm) misguides the reader in what the MIL really represents. As I see it we can only make a sweeping write-up about the generic units, with some anecdots where possible.