Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

[warspite1]

Would someone mind sending me a copy of the latest Master files for the Naval and land units (from the most recent version) as I have a number of updates I would like to make?

If you are able to assist please let me know and I will pm my e-mail address.

Many thanks.

[warspite1]

or maybe not...

Anyway, I will use what I have and work from that. Here is the first example of the sort of changes being envisaged.

This is the write-up for the three Soviet aircraft carriers.

World In Flames allows the Soviet player to build up to three aircraft carriers. In reality
the Soviet Navy had no aircraft carriers during World War II, although they did
consider building such vessels during the inter-war years. During the period of the First
Five-Year Plan (1928-32) consideration was given to completing the unfinished battlecruiser -
Izmail - and/or a training ship - Komsomolets - as aircraft carriers. However opinion was divided
on the need for such ships and ultimately the Soviets were more concerned with re-building
their existing fleet.

In the mid-thirties the topic came up for discussion once more, and Projekt 71 was subsequently born.
During the Third Five-Year Plan (1938-41) two variants of Projekt 71 were outlined - 71A, a
vessel of around 10,600 tons and 71B, a substantially larger ship more than double the size of the first.
Neither design ever saw the light of day and neither ship was laid down. Design details are
therefore sketchy. There is of course no guarantee that, even had the Soviet Union followed
through with construction of one or more aircraft carrier, the Projekt 71A or 71B designs would have been
used.

However, for the purposes of World In Flames it is likely that ADG has used these outline
plans for the first two of the "what if" ships available. The ships were never anywhere near the
naming stage and so ADG has "named" each vessel.

The aircraft carriers available are:

• Lenin - a small aircraft carrier named after the Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Russian
Communist Party and revolutionary.
• Engine(s) output: 126,500hp
• Top Speed: 33.75 knots
• Main armament: 16 x 3.9-inch (100mm), 8 x 1.4-inch (37mm)
• Aircraft: 30
• Displacement (standard): 10,600 tons
• Armour: Unknown

• Stalin - a larger fleet carrier type vessel, named after Josef Stalin, the leader of the Soviet
Union during the Second World War.
• Engine(s) output: 154,000hp
• Top Speed: 32.3 knots
• Main armament: 16 x 5.1-inch (130mm), 32 x 1.4-inch (37mm)
• Aircraft: 70
• Displacement (standard): 24,000 tons
• Armour: unknown

• Internationale - another, larger, fleet carrier, named after the piece of music adopted by
the Communist Party as their official song.
• No technical details available.

It is not known whether work into the modification of existing aircraft (or design of new, purpose-built
carrier-borne aircraft) was begun. But should the Soviet player decide to build one or more of
these vessels (1942 is the earliest arrival date) the carriers will operate US-built carrier aircraft
such as the Dauntless and, later, the Hellcat.

Bibliography:
Stalin's Ocean-Going Fleet (Rohwer and Monakov)

[Jagdtiger14]

Hmmm...if Germany goes for a sitz...Pacific might be an interesting location for these[X(]

[Neilster]

Warspite, I noticed you misspelled Northrop the second time you used it in the Go 229 write up.

Cheers, Neilster

[Jagdtiger14]

Wow Neilster! You feeling ok? Besides, the best spelling of NorthrOp is: NOC

Get some rest, I'm worried about you.

Cheers!

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Here is the 2nd Australian Infantry Corps

[2001] [Australian 2nd Infantry - by Robert Jenkins]
.P This counter represents the infantry divisions of the 2nd Australian Imperial Force (AIF).
.P The AIF was an all-volunteer force, raised at the time of the Australian declaration of war on Germany in September 1939. It was designed to create an army to fight overseas and was commanded by Lieutenant-General Thomas Blamey.
.P The units that would contain the 6th and 7th Infantry Divisions were sent to the Middle East to begin forming in early 1940 and the 6th Division was ready, although lacking some elements, by mid-December. At this time the 6th Division was commanded by Lieutenant-General Iven Mackay.
.P That month the British launched Operation Compass, an attack on the Italian forces that had crossed over the Libyan border into Egypt the previous September. The Australians joined the attack three days into the operation, replacing the 4th Indian Division, and units of the 6th Division were key in taking the Italian strongholds of Bardia and Tobruk. Thereafter the division kept up its harassment along the coast of the retreating Italians while British armour raced across the desert to cut the enemy off. Operation Compass was a stunning victory for the Commonwealth forces.
.P Having almost pushed the Italians out of North Africa, the British then decided that it would be more important to assist the Greeks in their struggle with the Italians than finish the job in Libya. A woefully inadequate force was sent to Greece in March 1941, consisting of the 6th Division, the 2nd New Zealand Division, 1st British Armoured Brigade and support units. The following month the Germans launched their own invasion of Greece and the small Commonwealth force was quickly pushed back; evacuation became the only option.
.P While most of the 6th Division was evacuated to Egypt, the 19th Brigade plus parts of units from the rest of the division, was evacuated to the island of Crete. However, in May the Germans launched an audacious airborne assault on the island and, having taken key airfields, were able to reinforce their paratroopers. Another Allied evacuation soon began.
.P Whilst this was taking place, the Germans had taken advantage of British weakness in the desert. Lieutenant-General Erwin Rommel and a small, but powerful force was landed at Tripoli and in March 1941 began an offensive to push the British out of Libya. This attack almost succeeded, but the 9th Division together with the 18th Brigade from 7th Division along with British Armour & Artillery units were pushed back to the port of Tobruk to delay the German advance. And they did.....
.P What was supposed to be a delaying action turned into an epic siege that lasted until November 1941 when the siege was lifted following the British Operation Crusader offensive. By then it the Australians had been evacuated by sea back to Egypt and replaced with the British 70th Division and Polish formations. The 2/13th Infantry Battalion had been left at Tobruk due to shipping losses and served throughout the siege. The Australians, commanded by Lieutenant-General Leslie Morshead, had withstood numerous attacks during the siege but stubbornly refused to yield to the Axis forces. Australia's first Victoria Cross of the war (the highest award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be won by men and women of the British and Commonwealth armed forces) was won during this siege - Corporal John Edmonson winning the award posthumously for bravery exhibited during a German attack in April.
.P With the 7th Division's 18th Brigade performing heroics in Tobruk, the rest of the division was ordered to Syria in June. The Vichy authorities allowed Axis aircraft to refuel in Syria to assist their support of the Iraqi rebels fighting the British. The Commonwealth forces, including two Free French brigades, took just over a month to quell the Vichy forces and bring them to the peace table. During this operation, the 7th Division, commanded by Major-General Arthur Allen, won its first Victoria Cross of the war; Lieutenant Roden Cutler was the recipient for his bravery at the Battle of Merdjayoun. His award was followed by a similar medal for Private Jim Gordon the following month. As units of the 6th Division recovered from their Greek & Cretan campaigns they were added to the Allied force in Syria & Lebanon.
.P With the Japanese entering the war in December 1941 it was decided to return the 6th and 7th Divisions to Australia for the defence of the home country. It was agreed that the 9th Division would remain in the Middle East and the Americans would send a second Division to Australia. Two brigades of the 6th Division were sent to Ceylon until July 1942 but the remainder of the divisions returned to Australia for rest and refit.
.P By the time these units had returned to Australia, the fourth division of the original 2nd AIF had already been destroyed. Two brigades of the 8th Division, commanded by Lieutenant-General Gordon Bennett, were sent to Malaya, while the battalions of the third brigade were deployed in defence of the islands of Ambon, Timor and at Rabaul on New Britain.
.P The fall of Malaya and Singapore in February 1941 was one of the most painful episodes in the history of the British Army. Despite the bravery of men such as 8th Division's Charles Anderson, who won the Victoria Cross during the Battle of Muar, the loss of Malaya and Singapore could not be stopped. Following their victory, the Japanese steamroller swept through the Dutch East Indies and a host of Pacific islands. The small Australian forces at Ambon, Timor and Rabaul were amongst the casualties of this seemingly unstoppable force.
.P Back in the North African desert, the 9th Division recovered from its defence of Tobruk and was stationed in Syria briefly before being brought back into the fronttline following Rommel's great victory at Gazala, a victory that had seen the Axis forces finally take Tobruk and push the British back to the Egyptian border.
.P A series of battles were fought between July and October; the First Battle of El-Alamein and Alam Halfa were attempts by Rommel to finally break through to the Suez Canal and eject the British from Egypt. However, both of these attacks were repulsed, with the 9th Division in the forefront of these battles. During the First El-Alamein, Private Arthur Gurney won the VC at Tel-el-Tisa on the 22nd July.
.P These two battles had blunted Rommel's Panzer spearhead and his dream of entering Cairo was effectively gone. However, the 8th Army still had to beat Rommel and eject the Axis forces from Egypt and then North Africa. The first of these goals was achieved thanks to the 2nd Battle of El-Alamein in October 1942. Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery's Australian, British, Indian, New Zealand and South African forces (together with two Free French Brigades and a Greek Brigade) began the battle on the 23rd October. Once again the dependable Australians were given a key role in the battle, occupying the most northerly of the 8th Army's positions; it was in the north that Montgomery concentrated his attack. Two more Victoria Crosses were won by the Australians in this battle - Private Percy Gratwick was killed on the 26th October during an attack on Miteiriya Ridge and Sergeant William Kibby won his award, also posthumously, a week later. Kibby's award recognised his actions that entire week, during which he exhibited the utmost bravery.
.P Before the battle was won and the Axis forces sent into headlong retreat, there were two more Victoria Crosses for the 9th Division, evidencing once more their bravery and commitment to the battle.
.P In early 1943 the 9th Division was transferred to the Pacific. There is no suitable write-up for the "what-if" 1st Motorised Corps Counter and so the story of the 6th, 7th and 9th Divisions in the Pacific is continued on that counter, numbered 2007.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Warspite, I noticed you misspelled Northrop the second time you used it in the Go 229 write up.

Cheers, Neilster

warspite1

I have not written any of the aircraft write-ups nor had any input into them.

[Neilster]

Ah...righto. Sorry.

Cheers, Neilster

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Hmmm...if Germany goes for a sitz...Pacific might be an interesting location for these[X(]

warspite1

In real life the 'plan' was to have carriers with the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet.

I'd like to be in a position to build at least one of these one day [:)]

[Jagdtiger14]

It amazes me how the Anzacs were used the way they were.

[warspite1]

This isn't going to be another Gallipoli 'thing' is it? We've done that. It's cobblers.

tm.asp?m=3848610&mpage=1&key=Gallipoli&#3857888

What are you amazed at re World War II? If its the fact that ANZAC troops were sent to fight a pointless war in Greece then the argument is no different for the British troops that were sent there too and the officers and men of the Royal Navy (and their Dominion and other Allies) who were lost trying to rescue the poor buggers.

[Jagdtiger14]

What is cobblers?...is that like Peach or Apple cobbler pie?

I never really looked at the historical national make up of units involved in the initial CW push into Libya in 1940...and also for the CW commitment into Greece until now (I knew there were troops from all over...but not to what degree and numbers). I'm looking at how they were committed into particular battles. 6th division in Greece for example, and the holding of Tobruk. Canadians in Dieppe come to mind as well. My question is why was it the Anzacs seemed to be doing the heavy lifting? 6th division in Greece was heavily abused. Was it that they were that much better than the rest?...I read somewhere the Germans thought they were.

After the "stunning" victory of Compass, the CW blundered in not finishing off the Italians, and then blundered again in even going into Greece (Greece gave CW an out when they initially rejected CW help).

[paulderynck]

Canadians and Australians had a well deserved reputation from WWI as being the CW "shock troops" and led the way during the Hundred Days battles that culminated in the collapse of the German Army in 1918. But the various fiascos you refer to quickly disabused the Germans of believing they were super soldiers in WWII.

[warspite1]

What is cobblers? The statement you made that started the Gallipoli debate was a prime example – aka, total balls (although at least you had the good grace to admit it later).

But the “Mel Gibson school of history” has now raised its ugly head in WWII too it seems.

I never really looked at the historical national make up of units involved in the initial CW push into Libya in 1940...and also for the CW commitment into Greece until now (I knew there were troops from all over...but not to what degree and numbers). I'm looking at how they were committed into particular battles. 6th division in Greece for example, and the holding of Tobruk. Canadians in Dieppe come to mind as well. My question is why was it the Anzacs seemed to be doing the heavy lifting? 6th division in Greece was heavily abused. Was it that they were that much better than the rest?...I read somewhere the Germans thought they were.

Well there are a few points here:

1. For the avoidance of doubt, Canadians are not ANZACs.

2. You mentioned Greece, Compass and Dieppe as examples of ANZACs doing all the heavy lifting. You appear to have forgotten:
a) Norway – ANZACs? No just a bunch of largely ill-trained and ill-equipped British territorials b) France? Nope c) Libya – no British? Really? d) Greece? Ditto e) East Africa? mostly Indians and British f) Singapore/Malaya? Australians, British and Indians g) Hong Kong? Canadians and British h) Tobruk? All Aussies? Well no, at various times there was also British, Poles and South Africans i) Other Western Desert? All ANZACS? Er no again, a truly Commonwealth army - British, Indians, South Africans as well as the ANZACs j) Burma? mostly British, Indian and Africans. Once the Japanese joined the party the Aussies understandably wanted troops sent back to defend the homeland. So in Italy we had Kiwis, Canadians, Poles and British, then Northwest Europe we have the same (less the Kiwis). Then there is the naval element. All heavy lifting done by the ANZACs there? No - plenty of contribution but necessarily in a largely junior role (because of the size of the Dominion (and Indian) navies). Airforce? three guesses. Bomber Command was mostly British and Canadian (although a good number from all over the Commonwealth too).

3. As with the mistake you made with Gallipoli, you seem to like coming at this question from the angle that the United Kingdom owns the Dominions like they were colonies and they were not only free to use these colonials like cannonfodder, but the inference (as per the original Gallipoli question) is that the British like to wipe their upper-class bottoms with filthy little colonials. You need to read more Jagd. Read about Canadian and South African conditions for entering the war imposed by their own parliaments. These are big, all growded-up countries you know. Surely you understand that World War II for the Commonwealth countries was not just about fighting for the UK – there is the sheer evil of the enemy being faced, there is self-interest for these Dominions too. God, Roosevelt got it all those years ago.....

4. As to quality – you generalise too much Jagd. I have heard a quote that the Kiwis were Monty’s favourite troops (don't know if its true but the 2nd New Zealanders were given special "corps de chasse" status [&o]). The Australians were, at their best, formidable soldiers – as good as anything the Axis had to offer. There was also their performance in Singapore..... Hastings has made the point - it was not easy for the democracies to gear up for war and to hone their forces during it. When well led by serious generals, for serious operations, the Commonwealth forces generally performed well. That they performed poorly in Norway, France, Greece and Singapore is not the fault of the poor buggers sent to do an impossible job by people unfit to command. Thus it is too simplistic to say, for example, that the Aussies were good or the British were bad. Do you want all US troops measured by the performance at Kasserine?

And as for

blundered in not finishing off the Italians, and then blundered again in even going into Greece

no again. The deliberations over whether to take Tripoli was ended (even if the will was ever there) by going into Greece. How many infantry divisions do you think we had out there?

*and no, the above only relates to the Commonwealth (and Poles). This does not neglect the French contribution in Norway or France, or the small but important contributions of the Dutch, Belgians, Free French, Norwegians, Czechs et al, that fought with and within the British Armed Forces.

[Extraneous]

French, Italian and Russian Carriers

Soviet Aircraft Carrier Projects

Project 72 (Russian: ïðîåêòîâ 72)

[JeffroK]

Its nice of an American whose troops took 12 mths to see service against the Germans, and then get smashed by Rommel etc at Sidi bou Zid, to pick on the Poms.

The Brits did have an excuse, there was a reasonable German Army about 20 miles from Dover keeping their attention and while WE KNOW an invasion was almost impossible, the Brits couldnt guarantee this. After all, Hitler had already done some"impossible" campaigning.

Where Warspite gets into the Aussies a bit, they performed no worse that the Enzeds in Greece and Crete (I;ll pick on the NZ Div later)and the almost untrained Reinforcements who misbehaved at Singapore were just like the Indian & British troops in the same position.
While Monty included 2 NZ in the "Corps d chasse" after Alamein he also gets bagged for failing to bag Rommel, how good where they?. I believe one of the better bios of Monty (by N Hamilyon?)includes the comment that he wishes he had 9 Aussie Div on DDay, they would have taken Caen.

While there may be disquiet at the number of non-British Infantry at battles such as 2nd Alamein (5 of 8 Inf Divs includng Gk & FF as a Div Equiv) it is also accepted that ALL of the Armour, most of the Artillery, Supply etc etc was supplied by the UK.

PS Norway was too cold, plus our equally untrained and ill equipped volunteers with minimal experience would have suffered under the conditions.

Dugout Douglas Macarthur also used Australian troops early in the Pacific war, Milne Bay, Kokoda, Gona/Buna while American units were getting badly needed training. His use of 32 Div in New Guinea was amatuerish.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Its nice of an American whose troops took 12 mths to see service against the Germans, and then get smashed by Rommel etc at Sidi bou Zid, to pick on the Poms.

The Brits did have an excuse, there was a reasonable German Army about 20 miles from Dover keeping their attention and while WE KNOW an invasion was almost impossible, the Brits couldnt guarantee this. After all, Hitler had already done some"impossible" campaigning.

Where Warspite gets into the Aussies a bit, they performed no worse that the Enzeds in Greece and Crete (I;ll pick on the NZ Div later)and the almost untrained Reinforcements who misbehaved at Singapore were just like the Indian & British troops in the same position.
While Monty included 2 NZ in the "Corps d chasse" after Alamein he also gets bagged for failing to bag Rommel, how good where they?. I believe one of the better bios of Monty (by N Hamilyon?)includes the comment that he wishes he had 9 Aussie Div on DDay, they would have taken Caen.

While there may be disquiet at the number of non-British Infantry at battles such as 2nd Alamein (5 of 8 Inf Divs includng Gk & FF as a Div Equiv) it is also accepted that ALL of the Armour, most of the Artillery, Supply etc etc was supplied by the UK.

PS Norway was too cold, plus our equally untrained and ill equipped volunteers with minimal experience would have suffered under the conditions.

Dugout Douglas Macarthur also used Australian troops early in the Pacific war, Milne Bay, Kokoda, Gona/Buna while American units were getting badly needed training. His use of 32 Div in New Guinea was amatuerish.

warspite1

Before I respond can you clarify what you mean by "gets into a bit" please?

Edit:

I don't think I could be any clearer:

The Australians were, at their best, formidable soldiers – as good as anything the Axis had to offer.

That they [Commonwealth soldiers] performed poorly in Norway, France, Greece and Singapore is not the fault of the poor buggers sent to do an impossible job by people unfit to command.

[Jagdtiger14]

Warspite: You're throwing all this British lingo at me and I have no clue what it is, but I am curious...cobbler, total balls...

I like debating you and as Hotschi mentions over in the F1 thread you do like to throw a lot of straw men out there...actually I think its kind of fun and funny.

I will admit that when it comes to WWII history I have a lot to learn. There is a lot for everyone to learn. For anyone to think they know it all is just crazy. In addition, I admit one of my weakest points in WWII is anything about the CW (Germany. Japan, US, USSR are typically the most interesting to read about). So when I make a 12 word one sentence comment at post #2410, its because I notice again a pattern, a personal observation...perhaps out of ignorance. In post #2412 I am asking a question. One straw man you put up and easily knock over is that I am now presenting a school of history...the "Mel Gibson" school of history what ever that means.

Your points:

1. Come now Waspite, don't tell me you thought I was referring to the Canadians as ANZAC. Good grief.
2. No, I mentioned Dieppe as another example of non-UK Brits doing the heavy lifting. Once again your "a" through "j" are straw men you so easily knock over. I never said in any post that the UK British NEVER did any heavy lifting, or that there were none present or that everything was ANZAC...wow Warspite. I'm just noticing/perceiving that the British seem to use their CW allies in a reckless way. Perhaps you can educate me on a few points: 1. What was the percentage of UK British troops landing on the beach at Dieppe? 2. I honestly do not know, so maybe you can inform...what was the percentage of UK British troops in Operation Compass, left at Tobruk when Rommel encircled it the first time, Operation Crusader, and then when Rommel took it after that? What were the UK British troop percentages in Greece (pre Crete) and not including Greeks of course?
3. I made a mistake about Gallipoli? Could you link me the exact mistake(s???) (not the whole thread)?...I love to be reminded of such rare events[8|] About these "Dominions" being independent countries...yes, they were independent and had their own governments, but not completely independent like say the US is independent (a republic). The British Parliament still had its claws in them legislatively...and something about the monarchy. They were not independent republics until much later. And yes, it is my perception that the British like to "wipe their upper-class bottoms with filthy little colonials"...I wonder where an American would ever get that perspective from??? Perhaps we disabused the British of that back in 1781?...no, we had to teach it all over again in 1814. The British just turned their attention eastwards. Other than the dominion relationship Australia had with Britain, I don't see why they would be interested in another European war...the Japanese threat I understand...and maybe under that over-all umbrella of assistance the European involvement could be better understood? Roosevelt, yeah...probably the Brits favorite president, but not here.
4. Monty. Hmmm...not sure if I should veer the car further off the road, through the ditch and into the field with mention of him, but I will say he is a point of humor at our WiF board game group...but we pick on others as well...probably #1 is Clark, then there is also Mac, Rommel, etc... Another straw man Warspite?...I only mentioned what the GERMANS had thought of the Australians (tall, strong, good fighters)...I can try to find more about this if you desire. Perhaps its the Germans who were simplistic?...and yes, they also measured the Americans in a negative way from results at Kasserine...and I'm comfortable with that in light of subsequent combat events.

Concerning Tripoli...perhaps I miscommunicated...I meant BEFORE they decided to go into Greece. I can see the value in keeping Crete, but the Brits should have seen the uselessness of going into Greece proper. That's why I mentioned the political out Greece gave them when they first rejected the British offer (Greece didn't want to invite a German invasion with a British presence). Tripoli: I'm not sure how far Operation Compass got in Libya prior to Britain deciding on Greece. And if they had not gone into Greece, would it have been possible to take Tripoli before the DAK was constituted there (beginning March '41)?

[Jagdtiger14]

JeffK: Now "Poms"...cobbler, total balls...what the...? I was called an "old geezer" by some Brit kids here on Spring Break the other day...that cant be good with the word old in it?

Yes, 9 more divisions might have done it for Monty at Caen.

[Centuur]

I think one must say that Mr. Churchill made a grave error where Greece was concerned. He created a second Gallipoli IMHO, by again wanting to have British troops on the continent.

Another thing we have to acknowledge is that the UK didn't have a well equipped army for about a year after Dunkirk. Sure, they saved the men at Dunkirk, but lost all heavy weapons (and the same thing happened in Greece).

And the troop ships had to go around the Cape to get British troops to Egypt. India, South Africa and even Australia and New Zealand are closer to Egypt and Greece.

However, it amazes me to, if one see at how often the troops of the Dominions had to take losses as compared to British units, especially during the Africa, Greek and the campaigns in Malaya and Burma. If one puts in the horrendous losses in France, one can conclude that the British army was almost destroyed, forcing the CW to use the troops of the Dominions instead.