Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

[cockney]

Top of my head for operations that used gliders for the CW in WW2 Market Garden & Overlord, my rgt (now called The Rifles, were the Royal Green Jackets, who in turn were the Ox & Bucks Light Infantry that took Pegaus Bridge) and on an historical note, the Ox and Bucks were the old 95th rifles of Shrap fame.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: qgaliana

(brief thread diversion) I'm not an expert and it's very complex, but read a bit a bout it so I'll take a shot (from a friendly outsider perspective)...

Personal opinion is pride was a good part of it - or at least the attempt to salvage what was left. But different Frenchmen salvaged it in different ways. Some by refusing to stop the fight. Others by accepting defeat with some attempt at dignity. Remember the French army was well and truly cooked - they performed the military equivalent of ducking into an uppercut. The homeland was lost, not just some remote colony, so surrender was not unreasonable. In hindsight we see a more monstrous enemy and a long total war, but that wasn't so obvious then (propaganda aside).

In Europe (all countries) there was no shortage of fascists willing to setup puppet governments. In time the Vichy regime became more and more controlled by them under German pressure. But Vichy France was really only nominally in charge - the different military governors pretty much ruled as independent viceroys. The military men generally hated Germans more than they disliked the English. For the most part, those that hadn't gone Free French were hoping to take another crack at the Germans, but needed some favourable conditions especially since taking up the fight again was technically an act of treason. But politics has to be considered. The big names in charge of North Africa or the Near East were not likely to bow their heads to a junior upstart like de Gaulle. Pride.

Churchill didn't exactly help. The same pride that guaranteed they'd rather die than surrender the fleet to the Germans (which is basically what eventually happened), meant they wouldn't quietly accept an English ultimatum (and I may be wrong but I think the French admiral was an anglophobe). I don't think they believed the English would shoot. But once they had, it pretty much guaranteed a cold reception everywhere else. So: Dakar, Madagascar, Syria, operation Torch; at this last, the allies salvaged this mostly by laying some early political groundwork and keeping the British out of sight. Even then the French felt they needed to put a token resistance to save face. More pride.

But strictly speaking, the French never fired at allied units unless they were being attacked by them. Outside of the influence of German guns (i.e. european France), the most the Germans got out of them was overflight rights for planes going to Iraq. Impossible to oppose without going openly free french.

Still, I oversimplify. France along with the colonial empire was badly fragmented into much worse than just free french vs vichy. The politics of Gaullist vs communist vs Petainist vs militarists vs etc. is worthy of PHD discussions. But I don't understand that part very well, and it's hard to get objective material on political matters.

Yes, well said. Pretty much what I thought.

Cheers, Neilster

[mldtchdog]

I'm still in a quandry as how to handle the writeups for the guard banner armies. Here is what I have so found so far.
 
[1 banner ARM]
I could use a)the writeup of the 1st army which was historically the "1st Red Banner Army" and was more infanrty than armor. b) the 1st guards Tank army was awarded the order of the red banner after the war.
 
[2 banner ARM]
a) the 2nd Red Banner army (same conditions as the 1st army)
 
[3 banner MECH]
a) the 3rd red banner army is a post war formation that traces its history from the 3rd shock army
 
[4 banner MOT]
a) nothing
 
[5 banner INF]
a) nothing
 
[6 banner INF]
a) nothing
 
[7 banner INF]
a) the 7th red banner tank army formed in 1946 from the 65th army
 
.T "The Order of the Red Banner given to individuals for fearlessness, devotion and bravery in battle. Also given to military units for the successful outcome of a battle or operation in wartime". First issued in 1918.
.P The Guard Banner Army is a hypothetical unit that reflects the Soviet tendency of reinforcing their successful units with extra manpower and equipment.
[font="times new roman"] [/font]

any suggestions?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: mldtchdog

I'm still in a quandry as how to handle the writeups for the guard banner armies. Here is what I have so found so far.

[1 banner ARM]
I could use a)the writeup of the 1st army which was historically the "1st Red Banner Army" and was more infanrty than armor. b) the 1st guards Tank army was awarded the order of the red banner after the war.

[2 banner ARM]
a) the 2nd Red Banner army (same conditions as the 1st army)

[3 banner MECH]
a) the 3rd red banner army is a post war formation that traces its history from the 3rd shock army

[4 banner MOT]
a) nothing

[5 banner INF]
a) nothing

[6 banner INF]
a) nothing

[7 banner INF]
a) the 7th red banner tank army formed in 1946 from the 65th army

.T "The Order of the Red Banner given to individuals for fearlessness, devotion and bravery in battle. Also given to military units for the successful outcome of a battle or operation in wartime". First issued in 1918.
.P The Guard Banner Army is a hypothetical unit that reflects the Soviet tendency of reinforcing their successful units with extra manpower and equipment.
[font="times new roman"] [/font]

any suggestions?

In WIF, the Guards Banner armies are 'upgrades' of other units. So, I would suggest referring back to the 1st Army writeup rather than repeating it all again. Simply stating what you did here seems right to me. Start with the paragraph you ended with and then add any other tidbits of information you can find (as per the sentences at the top of your post). If there is nothing known, then there is nothing to write, and so be it.[:)]

[trees]

a lot Russian WiF unit designations just simply didn't exist in the real OOB from what I can recall from reading Alexander Werth a long time ago and more general WWII histories of late. All of the MECH Armies for example. The Guards units are in a similar position - the most famous one in history that I can recall is the "5th Guards Tank Army". Unfortunately WiF only goes from 1st to 4th. If I recall correctly, the "Guards" designation was an honorific earned in battle, there weren't parallel series of army numbers for Guards the way WiF is set up. I think we need just a short paragraph introducing these considerations and then only include detailed write-ups of the units that match, which would be most of the numerically designated WiF pieces (most of the black-print units), and only a few of the Guards and GBA units.

I'm working through my book on Cavalry, taking notes. There weren't really any full CAV corps in WWII except for the Russians. Since this book was written by a former Polish cavalry officer, he doesn't cover them very much, but there is lots of details on obscure regimental/divisional level actions by all the other countries.

[trees]

ORIGINAL: qgaliana
Still, I oversimplify. France along with the colonial empire was badly fragmented into much worse than just free french vs vichy. The politics of Gaullist vs communist vs Petainist vs militarists vs etc. is worthy of PHD discussions. But I don't understand that part very well, and it's hard to get objective material on political matters.

that's the truth. I took a "Politics of WWII" course in college and that was the meat of it...internal French politics post-1940. There is quite a bibliography of that stuff if you ever have trouble getting to sleep.

[jesperpehrson]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

While travelling I read through all the land unit writeups (provided by Capitan) and marked them up with editting changes - mostly verb tense, commas, and capitalization. Since I have gotten back to Honolulu, I have made those edits to the file. Here are 4 (from the hundreds that have been written so far) that I found interesting.

Thanks Steve for reviewing the write-ups. It sure is necessary as a non-native speaker my english get enrolled in things that is shouldn´t.

Anyway! It is time to get going again. Any new volounteers? We could use the help!

. Jesper

[mldtchdog]

a lot Russian WiF unit designations just simply didn't exist in the real OOB from what I can recall from reading Alexander Werth a long time ago and more general WWII histories of late. All of the MECH Armies for example. The Guards units are in a similar position - the most famous one in history that I can recall is the "5th Guards Tank Army". Unfortunately WiF only goes from 1st to 4th. If I recall correctly, the "Guards" designation was an honorific earned in battle, there weren't parallel series of army numbers for Guards the way WiF is set up. I think we need just a short paragraph introducing these considerations and then only include detailed write-ups of the units that match, which would be most of the numerically designated WiF pieces (most of the black-print units), and only a few of the Guards and GBA units.

 
It gets more complicated with the duplication of armies. for example 3rd guard Infanty, 3rd guard Motorized, 3rd guard Garrison. I've gone ahead and duplicated the history of the 3rd guard army for these it being hard to arbitarily decide which unit really represents the 3rd guard army.
 
I agree that WiF skips a lot of important units during a period of time. for example the 62nd army. Can you say Stalingrad[:D] We do have the 8th Guards Infantry...which is what the 62nd army became. So, in that write-up I did detail the history of the 62nd and then the 8th Guards.
 
As for the Mech armies...well, I just went ahead and used the Tank armies histories using the same theory as the 3rd guard army. That being that the counters represent different equipment and manning strenght that WE choose to commit to that army.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: mldtchdog

a lot Russian WiF unit designations just simply didn't exist in the real OOB from what I can recall from reading Alexander Werth a long time ago and more general WWII histories of late. All of the MECH Armies for example. The Guards units are in a similar position - the most famous one in history that I can recall is the "5th Guards Tank Army". Unfortunately WiF only goes from 1st to 4th. If I recall correctly, the "Guards" designation was an honorific earned in battle, there weren't parallel series of army numbers for Guards the way WiF is set up. I think we need just a short paragraph introducing these considerations and then only include detailed write-ups of the units that match, which would be most of the numerically designated WiF pieces (most of the black-print units), and only a few of the Guards and GBA units.

It gets more complicated with the duplication of armies. for example 3rd guard Infanty, 3rd guard Motorized, 3rd guard Garrison. I've gone ahead and duplicated the history of the 3rd guard army for these it being hard to arbitarily decide which unit really represents the 3rd guard army.

I agree that WiF skips a lot of important units during a period of time. for example the 62nd army. Can you say Stalingrad[:D] We do have the 8th Guards Infantry...which is what the 62nd army became. So, in that write-up I did detail the history of the 62nd and then the 8th Guards.

As for the Mech armies...well, I just went ahead and used the Tank armies histories using the same theory as the 3rd guard army. That being that the counters represent different equipment and manning strenght that WE choose to commit to that army.

I have no objection to your solution to the disconnect between WIF designations and history. I certainly don't see any alternative. Howevr, you might want to add a short note stating what the writeup actually describes for those that are different from what a reader might naturally assume.

[dale1066]

Just been reading through the naval descriptions and looking at the specs for example max armour thickness some seem to be in metric some imperial and some have both.

To me a trivial thing however others may not think such. Is it a question of what data is avialable, for example I would expect all CW naval descs to be in imperial measures and the rest of the european navies to be metric? what about the US?

Apols if this has been discussed before I did a search for metric and imperial and nothing cropped up

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: dale1066

Just been reading through the naval descriptions and looking at the specs for example max armour thickness some seem to be in metric some imperial and some have both.

To me a trivial thing however others may not think such. Is it a question of what data is avialable, for example I would expect all CW naval descs to be in imperial measures and the rest of the european navies to be metric? what about the US?

Apols if this has been discussed before I did a search for metric and imperial and nothing cropped up

I have standardized on US punctuation for numbers: 12,000 men, 16.2 thickness. But for the metric, I have strongly advised to go with the owning country/country where manufactured, which will make the write ups inconsistent across all unit writeups.

I was unfamiliar with the use of the adjective Imperial for measuring systems. Instead I am use to English versus Metric.

[amwild]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: dale1066

Just been reading through the naval descriptions and looking at the specs for example max armour thickness some seem to be in metric some imperial and some have both.

To me a trivial thing however others may not think such. Is it a question of what data is avialable, for example I would expect all CW naval descs to be in imperial measures and the rest of the european navies to be metric? what about the US?

Apols if this has been discussed before I did a search for metric and imperial and nothing cropped up

I have standardized on US punctuation for numbers: 12,000 men, 16.2 thickness. But for the metric, I have strongly advised to go with the owning country/country where manufactured, which will make the write ups inconsistent across all unit writeups.

I was unfamiliar with the use of the adjective Imperial for measuring systems. Instead I am use to English versus Metric.

Where measurements are included in the unit writeups, why not include both english and metric, e.g.: "Armour Thickness: 1" (2.5 cm)".

Not all of us think in the same sort of units.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: amwild

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: dale1066

Just been reading through the naval descriptions and looking at the specs for example max armour thickness some seem to be in metric some imperial and some have both.

To me a trivial thing however others may not think such. Is it a question of what data is avialable, for example I would expect all CW naval descs to be in imperial measures and the rest of the european navies to be metric? what about the US?

Apols if this has been discussed before I did a search for metric and imperial and nothing cropped up

I have standardized on US punctuation for numbers: 12,000 men, 16.2 thickness. But for the metric, I have strongly advised to go with the owning country/country where manufactured, which will make the write ups inconsistent across all unit writeups.

I was unfamiliar with the use of the adjective Imperial for measuring systems. Instead I am use to English versus Metric.

Where measurements are included in the unit writeups, why not include both english and metric, e.g.: "Armour Thickness: 1" (2.5 cm)".

Not all of us think in the same sort of units.

That would be my preference. The massive US and sizeable British market means that Imperial units probably make sense but it's unfair to inflict only that creaking, archaic system on the rest of us. [:D] Apart from the above, it's used in a handful of banana republics and Burma. Not a good sign I would have thought. [:'(]

Cheers, Neilster

[dale1066]

Where measurements are included in the unit writeups, why not include both english and metric, e.g.: "Armour Thickness: 1" (2.5 cm)".

Sort of agree with that really as I foresee the younger generation being stymied "thickness 1 quote! how much is that? " without the explanation

I have it on good authority that some of the aircraft in todays RAF have equipment fits using the English/Imperial system so it is still in active use not just in Burma [:)]

The other point is it would seem odd to an Englishman reading about how a 381mm shell from the Bismark penetrated the Hoods 76mm main deck armour.

In checking that i see Wikipedia use both as per your example so it would seem the accepted way of presenting the data.

Just for interests sake do historical german sources refer to the Bismark as having 15" guns or 381mm guns? when was the metric system introduced ?

[Neilster]

I have it on good authority that some of the aircraft in todays RAF have equipment fits using the English/Imperial system so it is still in active use not just in Burma

I didn't say otherwise. Re-read my post. I talked about the U.S. and Britain and then said "Apart from the above, it is used in...", hence including the U.S. and Britain in the countries that use Imperial (or Standard, or whatever Americans call it). I did see the smiley BTW and know your post was well intended but I like people to understand my exact meaning. I'm aware of the stuff about the RAF as even in Metric Australia, I worked on Rolls Royce gas turbines that were all Imperial. Our squadron had both Imperial and Metric tools.

The Metric system has been used in the rest of Europe for a looong time. The Germans generally referred to enemy equipment in terms of SI (Metric) units.

Cheers, Neilster

[composer99]

Us Canadians have a rather schizophrenic Metric/Imperial usage.

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

I have it on good authority that some of the aircraft in todays RAF have equipment fits using the English/Imperial system so it is still in active use not just in Burma

I didn't say otherwise. Re-read my post. I talked about the U.S. and Britain and then said "Apart from the above, it is used in...", hence including the U.S. and Britain in the countries that use Imperial (or Standard, or whatever Americans call it). I did see the smiley BTW and know your post was well intended but I like people to understand my exact meaning. I'm aware of the stuff about the RAF as even in Metric Australia, I worked on Rolls Royce gas turbines that were all Imperial. Our squadron had both Imperial and Metric tools.

The Metric system has been used in the rest of Europe for a looong time. The Germans generally referred to enemy equipment in terms of SI (Metric) units.

Cheers, Neilster

Just for interests sake do historical german sources refer to the Bismark as having 15" guns or 381mm guns? when was the metric system introduced ?

Didn't find any Kriegsmarine sources with explicite gun data, but:
Nobody used/uses " in Germany. Just think about the 8,8 Flak (8,8 cm). What would that be in "?

Historical writing in Germany often quotes just "38 cm guns" and operates more with BRT anyway.

For the question metric or english:

Please don't mix it, preferably use both systems for making comparisons easier.

Regards

[Jimm]

ORIGINAL: dale1066

Just for interests sake do historical german sources refer to the Bismark as having 15" guns or 381mm guns? when was the metric system introduced ?

Hi Dale

I believe that the Revolutionary French were responsible...

Brits of my generation now have the bizarre situation of having to be fluent in both systems after it was brought in and taught in schools but stubbornly resisted by the older generations. I work in building development and it becomes a real skill to be able to translate acres into hectares in your head; the private sector still uses square feet for floor areas but measures dimensions in metric. Go figure!

Many of the young generation coming through now have no real idea what most of the Imperial system is and its only a matter of time before inches and miles go the same way as Chains and shillings

By the way I think a relatively significant little former colony out west called the USA still uses much of the Imperial system doesnt it?

[Neilster]

The French even had decimal time and calenders for a while...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_time

Cheers, Neilster

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

The French even had decimal time and calenders for a while...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_time

Cheers, Neilster

The Romans had 10 months in a year until they inserted July and August honoring Julilus and Augustus Caesar. That is why September/Oct/Nov/Dec have the prefixes for 7/8/9/10 though they are the 9/10/11/12 months.