Sov Naval Inf Brigades

[56ajax]

Have just realised that there are 2 types of Naval Inf Brigades, those with Naval Rifle Squads and those with 'vanilla' Rifle Squads.

Now I assume that the rule whereby they cannot be used to buildup large formations applies to both types, correct?????, so what do players do with those units with vanilla Rifle Squads; disband?

[vlcz]

Mine are hunting reindeers in the Svir south shore [8D]

[Q-Ball]

The ones with Regular Rifle Squads can be used to build larger formations. The only ones that can't are around half-dozen ones with Naval Infantry Squads. They will forever remain a Naval Brigade.

They come in as high-morale units, so you will probably want to keep them through 42 anyway. They can dig and garrison, and you'll probably be on the defensive.

When the Red Army goes over to the strategic offensive, you can probably disband them for Manpower if you need to

[Tarhunnas]

I try to use my naval infantry for landings, just to play in style, but if I understand things correctly, there is no advantage at all in using them for landings compared to other troops. That is a pity IMHO. Even a slight bonus in amphibious operations for the ones with naval rifle squads would be a nice detail.

[marty_01]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

... there is no advantage at all in using them for landings compared to other troops. That is a pity IMHO. Even a slight bonus in amphibious operations for the ones with naval rifle squads would be a nice detail.

It would be a nice little add to the whistles and bells list for the game. Mountain Units fight better in rough and Mt. Hexes. Airborne units can do para-drops.

Maybe regular units employed in beach assaults have their CV halved on the turn of the landing (or whatever). Conversely Naval Infantry units dont suffer any CV hit the turn of a landing (or whatever).

I haven't the foggiest on this last bit, but were Soviet Naval Brigades actually trained in amphibious warfare? I mean do the Naval Brigades actually equate to what Anglo-American folks tend to associate with the mission of Marines -- US Marine Corps -- Royal Marines -- blah blah? Weren't a lot of the Soviet Naval infantry units made up of displaced sailors?

[marty_01]

Than again...there were numerous examples of "non-marine" units being trained in, and conducting amphibious operations during WWII. Ala 1st ID, 4th ID and 29th ID training and eventually dunking at Omaha and Utah. I'm way overthinking some this as it should be relatively trival as it relates to WiTE. But is there any reason to think the the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th Marine Divisions would have done any better at Omaha than the 1st ID or 29th ID?

[Tarhunnas]

Yes, I don't really think the Soviet Naval brigades were all that much better at landings than any Soviet unit, that's why I said "slight" advantage. Maybe like a 10% combat bonus or something?

[Aurelian]

http://www.soviethammer.info/blog/53128 ... -infantry/

[vlcz]

ORIGINAL: marty_01
...were Soviet Naval Brigades actually trained in amphibious warfare? I mean do the Naval Brigades actually equate to what Anglo-American folks tend to associate with the mission of Marines -- US Marine Corps -- Royal Marines -- blah blah? Weren't a lot of the Soviet Naval infantry units made up of displaced sailors?

Even then, being a displaced sailor makes you better acquainted with sea operations than a raw recruit never being less than a pair of thousands miles from the seacoast... surely it has not to be a great bonus, but a cosmetic one should be in order.

ORIGINAL: marty_01
Than again...there were numerous examples of "non-marine" units being trained in, and conducting amphibious operations during WWII. Ala 1st ID, 4th ID and 29th ID training and eventually dunking at Omaha and Utah. I'm way overthinking some this as it should be relatively trival as it relates to WiTE. But is there any reason to think the the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th Marine Divisions would have done any better at Omaha than the 1st ID or 29th ID?

"being trained" is the key, untrained land units making a seaborne invasion are (in real world , and should be in a simulation) of no use.

GI´s IDs in normandy actively trained for D-Day, have much of tha state-of-art amph equipment at the time and had to travel ridicuosly short sea distances (compared to pacific theatre ones crossed by marines).

[lycortas]

The soviet naval inf brigades were just sailors. And i use sailors loosely since the vast majority of Soviet fleet never left docks. Also, the Soviets were about the only country to use a short term drafted Navy, thus they sucked.

Michael

[Farfarer61]

It would be nice to be able to see on the map which ones are "navy" and non-combinable with Army, and which ones are combinable.

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

I try to use my naval infantry for landings, just to play in style, but if I understand things correctly, there is no advantage at all in using them for landings compared to other troops. That is a pity IMHO. Even a slight bonus in amphibious operations for the ones with naval rifle squads would be a nice detail.

From Sep 1941 to Apr 1942 the Soviets raised 250 Rifle Brigades, of which 37 were created from naval personnel. They had army command, control, and organization and equipment, and wore army uniforms from the outset. The only unusual thing about them was the source of their personnel.

Giving them amphibious bonus would be step toward increasing historical inaccuracy in the game because they are not marines they were not even land troops they were just ship’s crew that was given rifle and then hurried to the battle lines to block Germans.