TOE Issues

[KNac007]

I was reading something and some TOEs were included, I was curious I crosschecked with the HTTR TOEs in the scenario edit, just to find that they weren't the same.

Just to keep things clear I will say my sources (though can be found in various books, in fact I was reading them in a book), are copies of the US National Archives microfilms that owe to the original OKW documents. I don't know which roll exactly, but I can give you the numbers of various rolls if you are interested o_0 Ok, So far have only checked this TOEs:

Schützen (Rifle/Infantry) Company (1 May 44, the next one is November 44, which list a total of 19 men) list a total of 142 men, I can go dowt to squad if you want, with each weapon, but I will list the sum of all weapons, which are: 88 rifles, 28 SMG, 22 LMG, 2 HMG. HTTR has 175 men listed. Don't have numbers of AT weapons (as they were not fixed many times). I have included company staff (which is not very big anyway, and include radio operator etc, but these usually were in combat too) and field train.

(Mot) Panzer Grenadier Company (1 April 44): 147 men total, 105 rifles, 23 SMG, 18 LMG, 4 HMG. For vechicles, there are various but will only include trucks wich are 13 2-ton trucks (there are a number of volswagen cars and motorcycles).

(Mech) Panzer Grenadier Company (1 July 1944) list 190 men (which is very similar to the HTTR 183): 10 Sdkfz 251/1, 2 251/2, 2 251/3, 7 251/17 (no 251/9, as I see it I think in HTTR is included from the SPIG Coy, and no 251/10, but that's proabbly a transcription error, as far as I know one 251/10 was included for each Platoon HQ), 3 HMG, 18 LMG (w/o counting APC lmg, which would raise the number to 30), 85 rifles, 20 SMG (w/o counting these included in APC for self defence. which would give a total of 41, and if we include these of the 251/9 and 251/10, 47)

[Arjuna]

I'll let Golf33 respond to the specifics. Suffice to say that we take the best TOE data we can source and then modify this according to a number of "adjustments" we make to reflect actual operational practice and our game engine features. For instance we strip out second echelon ( log and admin ) troops and put these into the next highest Base unit. We add in extra pers and equipment to reflect the usual allocation of heavy wepaon support elements - eg. Most Inf Bns had a Support Coy, comprising HMG and AT wpns. We do not simulate this as a separate entity because in practice they were parceled out to the line companies. So most line companies will have additional HMG and AT wpns and extra personnel to man them. Hence the inconsistencies.

[Golf33]

As Dave said, generally we take the HMG platoons from the Heavy Coy and split them up into the Rifle Coys as was standard practice in the field. The Mor Pl we leave as a single entity, again reflecting standard practice. I can't always provide exact sources for these, since most of the HTTR estabs were in place before I arrived; I've already changed any of them in the patches that I found significant contradictions for.

The OKW stuff does need to be used with a bit of caution as very few units were actually arranged along KStN lines - also there are differences between Soll and Ist establishments, so it depends on which of these you look at, and in any case units often did not conform to either. What was the title and author of the book you found these in?

Regards
33

[KNac007]

Yes, that's right.The book is by "Matthew Gajkowski", is not a known writer as far as I know, and it's a translation of a squad level tactics manual for german army with some extra annexs included by the author (in which you can find these TOEs), the book name is "German Squad Tactics In WWII". You can find it in the Nafzinger site.

However, I have the copies itself (apart of the book),you can get it yourself if you go to US National Archive or order the microcopies or buy them separatly from any site that sells them (like Nafzinger) and can check it anyway.

Now comenting your posts. About the 2 extra HMG, yes I haven't thought about it, you can take them from the Bn Heavy Company (I'm an ass). And for gaming purpouses (and because they were used that way most of the times instead in a concentrated manner) it's the way to go (like the SPW 251/9 from the Bn Coy). It's always good to be cautious, you check and you decide. Anyway I posted this mostly because the infatry companies are lower in men than the HTTR ones, if they were higher I could have thought you ripped the satffs/field trains (that anyway in line companies are considered combat elements too and actually are in combat) even if you add the the correspondant sections/platoons of the bn support companies, that's the only reason, I found it strange.

However, what does this means "also there are differences between Soll and Ist establishments"? Sorry, my english sucks some times.

[Lovat]

I've just finished re-reading "Remember Arnhem" by John Fairley - the story of the 1st Abn Recce Sqn at Arnhem and it's prompted a query on a TOE issues thread (though it may be better as part of the Wish list)

Recce assets in HTTR are generally regarded as line units - 1st Abn Recce Sqn, Household Cavalry Sqns etc. I appreciate the desire to avoid micromanagement of platoon and troop sized units but this then detracts from their recce function. Other threads suggest this recce role is then performed (in game terms) by Div assets (LAA, AT etc.)

How much more valuable (and historical) would the 1st Abn Recce Sqn (HTTR 181 Men 38 jeeps) be as a unit split into 3 troops and a HQ/Support troop leading the parachute bns into Arnhem and fulfilling its recce role? - or HC Armd car troops available to reconoitre routes around Eindhoven or across the 'Island'.

I haven't started using the scenario editor yet - presumably amending TOE's and splitting units could be a option there.

[KNac007]

You can't manipulate TOE in the scenario editor or split units. It doesn't work that way. But any of the members of the Panther games can expline you how it does.

However, as far as I know recon units most times operated in company strength. What would be usefull is to change the frontage of these single companies (but that can't be done). But the airborne division only ahs one recce coy and not a full bn, so maybe they used them in platoons, but don't know if it's worth it. Platoons die too fast and it wouldn't be much usefull.

[Golf33]

KNac,

As I understand it, Soll (German for "should") refers to the theoretical strength of a type of unit, for example an infantry division. Ist (German for "is") refers to the actual authorised strength and structure of a specific unit of that type. For example, infantry divisions might have a Soll-gliederung ("should-membership") that includes a full reconnaissance battalion, but a particular division after taking heavy losses would often be converted over to an Ist-gliederung ("is-membership") of a single fusilier or recon company, in recognition that the unit was never going to get back up to a full battalion. In the field, a unit would also usually be short of the ist so the authorised fusilier company might only be a couple of understrength platoons. Anyone who can provide more or better info is welcome to add it here.

Cheers
Steve

[KNac007]

Ah, ok. Now I understand it. Free Gliederung is the same as Ist Gliederung? (I knew the concepts of Free Gliederung but not the ones you stated).

What I was posting was the theorical strength for the infantry, mot and mech infantry companies, so Soll establishments. While I agree that at major levels (divisional for example, as the example you gave) many times organization difered (there are many OOBs books that work on this, stating the organization along the war of the various divisions). The organization of the basic combat units (companies) rarely changed, they would be udnerstregth off course, but you just tweak that changing the % of the estab in a given unit.

Anyway what I posted was in general to be compared again the estabs of HTTR, not for individual units. As I understand it, "MG - WF - 44PzD - Mot PG" should have the the TOE of the original Soll establishment, so the ones I gave IN CASE THEY ARE CORRECT (off course). For example PzGren Mech Coy was very similar (with the differences being the inclussion of the correspondant section of the Bn heavy/support coy(s)), but the other two are substantially different.

However, I will do some investigation and will come with the conclussions. Thanks for taking the time to anwer anyway.