Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units

[Andrew Brown]

As I previously mentioned, I have been trying to do some research on the Australian land OOB, just using online sources (I don't have a reference library). I have come up with the following list of suggested modifications so far. My knowledge of this subject is sketchy at best, so there is probably a lot of mistakes. This list is also tailored for my map, but could be modified for use with the official map.

I would welcome any suggestions/corrections/criticism. This list is from my notes, with no explanations added (yet):

---

Units Removed:
-------------
3rd RAA Coast Art Rgt (Perth)
Adelaide Coast Art Rgt (Adelaide)


Units Changed:
-------------

Unit 3rd Division (Geelong)
Location=Melbourne

Unit Darwin Defense Bde (Darwin)
Name=Darwin CMF Bde

Unit Darwin Cst Art Rgt (Darwin)
Name=Emery Point Battery

Unit 7th RAA Coast Art Rgt (Perth)
Name=Fremantle Fortress

Unit Albany Coast Art Rgt (Albany)
Name=Princess Royal Fortress

Unit Geelong Coast Art Rgt (Geelong)
Name=Fort Queenscliff
Location=Geelong

Unit 2nd RAA Cst Art Rgt (Geelong)
Name=Fort Nepean
Location=Geelong

Unit 6th RAA Cst Art Rgt (Melbourne)
Name=Fort Gellibrand

Unit Hobart Cst Art Rgt (Hobart)
Name=Direction Battery

Unit Pt Kembla Cst Art Rgt (Port Kembla)
Name=Breakwater Battery

Unit 3rd Tank Regiment (Sydney)
Name=3rd Australian Tank Battalion

Unit Fort Largs Cst Art Rgt (Hobart)
Name=Fort Largs
Location=Adelaide

Unit 1 RAA Coast Art Rgt (Sydney)
Name=1st RAA AA Regiment

Unit 5 RAA Coast Art Rgt (Sydney)
Name=North Head Fortress

Unit 2nd Division (Newcastle)
Location=Sydney

Unit Newcastle Cst Art Rgt
Name=Fort Wallace

Unit I Corps (Brisbane)
Name=II Corps

Unit 2nd Tank Regiment (Brisbane)
Name=2nd Armoured Brigade*
Location=Melbourne

Unit 1st Division (Brisbane)
Location=Sydney

Unit 1st Cav Division (Brisbane)
Location=Sydney

Unit 1st Brigade (Brisbane)
Name=1st Motor Brigade

Unit Brisbane Cst Art Rgt (Brisbane)
Name=Fort Bribie

Unit Townsville Cst Art Rgt (Townsville)
Name=Fort Kissing Point


New Units (at start):
--------------------
III Australian Corps - Perth
Middle Head Fortress - Sydney
South Head Fortress - Sydney
1st Armoured Brigade* - Sydney
Fort Scratchley - Newcastle
Cowan Battery - Brisbane
1st Army - Brisbane
29th Brigade - Rockhampton
11th Brigade - Townsville


New Units (reinforcements):
-------------------------
13th Brigade - Sydney
3rd Motor Brigade - Sydney
East Point Battery - Darwin

Removed Units (reinforcements):
-----------------------------
5th Tank Regiment
9th Tank Regiment

* 1st and 2nd Armoured brigades start without any tanks.

---

[Andrew Brown]

Any thought or opinions from other mod contributors on my suggested changes to the Australian OOB? Is it considered by others to be worth adding to the mod?

In any case I am adding these changes to my scenario 115 and I will forward a copy to Don once the work has been completed.

Andrew

[Don Bowen]

The large number of wartime changes to AUstralian Armored Units makes a static OOB very difficult. The switching of motorized units and armored units, units that never filled out their TOE, and units that existed for only a short period are all quite confusing.

I reworked the Armored units with an eye to those AIF units that were actually deployed outside Australia. I also retained 2nd Cavalry Division as a Motorized Infantry Unit instead of switching it to 2nd Armored Division. I ignored all Division level armored units and consolidated the AIF Armor into four brigades. Plus the 3 CMF Tank Battalions.

Here's what I did for Australian Armor:

1st Australian Army Tank Battalion (6 Marmon-Harrington, 36 Matilda II) Arrive 4/42
2nd Australian Army Tank Battalion (no Tanks) at Brisbane
3rd Australian Army Tank Battalion (6 Vickers Mark VI) at Sydney
* The Marmon-Harrington tanks upgrade to Stuarts and the Vickers to Valentines

2/5 AIF Tank Regiment (No Tanks, 16 Bren Carriers) at Sydney
2/6 AIF Tank Regiment (No Tanks, 16 Bren Carriers) at Sydney
2/8 AIF Tank Regiment (No Tanks, 16 Bren Carriers) at Sydney
2/9 AIF Tank Regiment (No Tanks, 16 Bren Carriers) at Sydney

The 1st Armored Division actually had two Brigades and 6 Tank Regiments (2/5 thru 2/10) but it never was fully filled out in this form. The 2nd Armored Division was a redesignation of the 2nd Cavalry Division (having been first redesignated the 2nd Motorized Division). Actual armor TOE varied during the war - at some times pure armor and at others armor plus motorized infantry. I also considered breaking up the 2nd Cavalry into Motorized Brigades but it did not seem worthwhile. Finally I reduced the armor to four regiments and selected those that were deployed.

My Source:

[Iron Duke]

Hi ,

From what i've gathered from my source I'd swap 2/5th with 2/4th as 2/5th did not see combat but 2/4th did in NG

ref = Dust,Sand and Jungle by Paul Handel

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke

Hi ,

From what i've gathered from my source I'd swap 2/5th with 2/4th as 2/5th did not see combat but 2/4th did in NG

ref = Dust,Sand and Jungle by Paul Handel

A good point and I will do it. I had left out 2/4 because it was not one of the original 1st Armored Division units. It was formed in 9/42 by combining three company (Squadron in Australian terminology) sized units that had been armored car or light recon units.

Replacing 2/5 with 2/4 and setting 2/4 for a 9/42 arrival would yield an initial force of 3 AIF Tank regiments. This equals 1 full Brigade of the original 1st Armored - a very good compromise.

Don

[Andrew Brown]

Don, as usual your research and conclusions look first rate to me. I will adjust my Australian OOB changes for my scenario 115 to match them. The infantry and HQ situation seems less confusing (as far as I can tell) than the armour units.

Andrew

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

The infantry and HQ situation seems less confusing (as far as I can tell) than the armour units.

Andrew

The infantry are indeed pretty straight forward but you'll need at least three large beers handy when you follow the cavalry. Light horse to motorized infantry and armored car then to armored and then back to motorized infantry.

[Tanaka]

Hi do you guys plan on finishing the rest of the Chinese and Soviet OOB's???

As they are incomplete in their current form!

See this thread:

tm.asp?m=781370&mpage=1&key=

[Lemurs!]

The Soviet OOB may be worked on for our second release but not for the first release.

The Chinese are probably going to be left alone for now but i feel the best choice is to add some fortress units in the chinese citys that can provide defense but not move.

Mike

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

The Soviet OOB may be worked on for our second release but not for the first release.

The Chinese are probably going to be left alone for now but i feel the best choice is to add some fortress units in the chinese citys that can provide defense but not move.

Mike

Just to let you all know. When using my scenario 115 as the start point for building a scenario - I adjust all of the Soviet units that start in bases (nearly all of them) so thet they, like the Chinese now, have 100% preparation for their own bases. If it is thought that this is a bad idea, then let me know and I can remove this from my modification script.

[Tankerace]

I meant to bring this up earlier, but never did. If possible, can we please rename ALL US units? I have never heard of the Big Red One refer to itself as the 1st United States of American Infantry. It is 1st United States Infantry. What I mean is Can we rename say 1st USA Division to 1st US Division? I know it is a small detail, but it was always one of my pet peeves. Also, how about like I did in War Plan Orange, instead of 2nd USMC Div, rename to 2nd Marine Div or 2nd US Marine Div. It just sounds better IMO, but again I know its a small detail.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I meant to bring this up earlier, but never did. If possible, can we please rename ALL US units? I have never heard of the Big Red One refer to itself as the 1st United States of American Infantry. It is 1st United States Infantry. What I mean is Can we rename say 1st USA Division to 1st US Division? I know it is a small detail, but it was always one of my pet peeves. Also, how about like I did in War Plan Orange, instead of 2nd USMC Div, rename to 2nd Marine Div or 2nd US Marine Div. It just sounds better IMO, but again I know its a small detail.

I could set up something like this in my conversion scripts.

I have already added a routine to them to rename all of the Australian air units to the form "No. XX Sqdrn RAAF".

What is the concesus on how nationalities should be included in the LCU names? I remember a previous discussion about this but I don't remember the outcome.

[ZonkerHarris]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I meant to bring this up earlier, but never did. If possible, can we please rename ALL US units? I have never heard of the Big Red One refer to itself as the 1st United States of American Infantry. It is 1st United States Infantry. What I mean is Can we rename say 1st USA Division to 1st US Division? I know it is a small detail, but it was always one of my pet peeves. Also, how about like I did in War Plan Orange, instead of 2nd USMC Div, rename to 2nd Marine Div or 2nd US Marine Div. It just sounds better IMO, but again I know its a small detail.

"USA" is used in the Army as an abbreviation for United States Army, so I think it's more appropriate in the unit names than, say "1st US Infantry Division". I've heard phrases like "1st US Infantry" used to refer to a regiment (especially in the post-Civil War period, where the distinction was important to tell them from state regiments with the same numbers), but not for divisions.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

Unit . . . . .Days/ Losses . . . . Exp/Mor . . .To US/ to PTO. . . .Commander

91st . . . . .200+/unknown . . .80/70 . . . . . . 9/45 – 12/45 . . . MG Livesay, W.G.

According to Stanton, the 91st ID sustained 8,511 battle casualties. The information given is too schetchy to access the no. of combat days, but 200 is probably about right.

[Lemurs!]

Hi all,

This is basically your last chance to comment on my changes to the size of infantry contingents of divisions/regiments.

US Infantry Division: 395 squads
Rgt: 131

USMC Division: 324 squads
Rgt: 108

Commonwealth Division: 396 squads
Rgt: 132

Mike

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: ZonkerH

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I meant to bring this up earlier, but never did. If possible, can we please rename ALL US units? I have never heard of the Big Red One refer to itself as the 1st United States of American Infantry. It is 1st United States Infantry. What I mean is Can we rename say 1st USA Division to 1st US Division? I know it is a small detail, but it was always one of my pet peeves. Also, how about like I did in War Plan Orange, instead of 2nd USMC Div, rename to 2nd Marine Div or 2nd US Marine Div. It just sounds better IMO, but again I know its a small detail.

"USA" is used in the Army as an abbreviation for United States Army, so I think it's more appropriate in the unit names than, say "1st US Infantry Division". I've heard phrases like "1st US Infantry" used to refer to a regiment (especially in the post-Civil War period, where the distinction was important to tell them from state regiments with the same numbers), but not for divisions.

Yes, but since when does the US Army say Its the 1st US Army Division? The only time I have ever heard something applied to a US division (other than its type - armored, infantry, etc) is USMC. The US Army doesn't apply the US or USA moniker to its divisions, the US is to distinguish it from AUS and UK divisions. By your logic, then we need to use AUSA or RAA for Aussie divs, and RA or UKA for British Divisions, but since we don't, then USA units need to be renamed US to fit in with the nomenclature of other countries divisions.

[Tankerace]

To be more correct is to say 1st Infantry Division. However, since we are distinguishing from say, the British 1st Infantry Division (Known in WitP as the 2nd UK Division), then US is more appropriate than USA, whether it stands for US Army or United States of America.

[ZonkerHarris]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

ORIGINAL: ZonkerH

"USA" is used in the Army as an abbreviation for United States Army, so I think it's more appropriate in the unit names than, say "1st US Infantry Division". I've heard phrases like "1st US Infantry" used to refer to a regiment (especially in the post-Civil War period, where the distinction was important to tell them from state regiments with the same numbers), but not for divisions.

Yes, but since when does the US Army say Its the 1st US Army Division? The only time I have ever heard something applied to a US division (other than its type - armored, infantry, etc) is USMC. The US Army doesn't apply the US or USA moniker to its divisions, the US is to distinguish it from AUS and UK divisions.

While it's not the most common usiage, the Army does refer to its units at times as, for example, "1st Division, United States Army". This style isn't common, but the U.S. Army does use it. I've never heard a unit referred to as "1st US Division" or something along those lines.

By your logic, then we need to use AUSA or RAA for Aussie divs, and RA or UKA for British Divisions, but since we don't, then USA units need to be renamed US to fit in with the nomenclature of other countries divisions.

This is not my logic, so please don't say it is. This is something you came up with, and I agree that what you came up with is nonsense.

For most Allied units, nationality is sufficient to tell you what the unit is. For American units, there needs to be a distinction between Army divisions and Marine divisions. USA for Army units works very well for that purpose.

To be more correct is to say 1st Infantry Division. However, since we are distinguishing from say, the British 1st Infantry Division (Known in WitP as the 2nd UK Division), then US is more appropriate than USA, whether it stands for US Army or United States of America.

This is really getting to a silly level of hair-splitting, but no, US is not "more appropriate" than USA. If that's your personal preference, go ahead and use it, but don't pretend that it's anything other than your personal pereference. USA works whether it's being used as a designation for the nation and for the Army; US refers only to the nation.

[Tankerace]

US refers only to the nation.

That is my whole point. I am not saying that if ONLY United States Divisions are in whether we should use US or USA. If that were the case, I'd say leave it out.

In War in the Pacific, the only reason the US, AUS, UK, etc are in are to distinguish nationality, not branch of service. In this context, US is more appropriaite than USA.

For American units (at least in most sources I've read) the only distinguishment was put on Marine units. I.e., to tell the 1st Infantry Division and the 1st Marine Division appart, is the Army division has a type of unit (infantry, cavalry, armored, etc), whereas the Marine unit is simply a Marine divisison.

I am speaking from the context of nationality (which is why the US, AUS, and UK is used). In that since, US is more approriate than USA.

This is not my logic, so please don't say it is. This is something you came up with, and I agree that what you came up with is nonsense.

The reason I said its your logic, is I brought this issue up as nationality, not service. However, in your post you said nothing about distinguishing US from any other nation, only as branch of service (Army vs Marine, NOT US from British). Thus, my counter to that was to do other nations as such.

If people don't want to do this that is fine. Usually, the only time I have ever heard a US unit called USA is by a translation of a non English language in which they spell out the whole country's name.

EDIT: Oops, I guess I could have made the fact that I was targeting nationality a bit more clear. I guess I assumed that since other nations Divisions had UK, AUS, Chinese, etc it would be plain. Apologies for any confusion.

[Central Blue]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Hi all,

This is basically your last chance to comment on my changes to the size of infantry contingents of divisions/regiments.

US Infantry Division: 395 squads
Rgt: 131

USMC Division: 324 squads
Rgt: 108

Commonwealth Division: 396 squads
Rgt: 132

Mike

Probably past time to comment on this. This TOE makes no sense to me. Looks like nothing I've seen published or modeled. US Army and Marine divisions were triangular. Platoon was 3 sguads. Company 9 squads. Battalion 27 squads. Regiment 81 squads. Division 243 squads. The commonwealth was slightly different with four companies per battalion coming out to 108 rifle squads per regiment and so on. But doesn't everyone know this?

I can only speculate that additional squads mimic smaller crew served weapons like 60mm mortars, .30 cal mg's not to mention flame throwers, bazookas, etc. But just comparing the regiment listed above for the USMC to weapons platoons and companies doesn't look like 108 under any of the TOE's used during WW2 that I have read about. Why is the USA div at 395 and the USMC div at 324? I dunno.

No doubt this was all discussed somewhere in these Matrix threads a long time ago and makes total sense to everyone here. Could someone please explain this just one more time for the newbie? This just doesn't seem to be a game designed for people that can lay their hands on TOE info for 5307th Composite or the Chindits.

I do look forward to playing this scenario and I'll delay hanging my shingle on the opponents wanted thread till this is published.