Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
A couple of clarifying questions:

Did the first ten squadrons of No. 5 Group include the No. 9 and No. 917 Squadrons, or were they in addition to them?

Did the book identify which British ground units composed SHIELD and VACUUM force?

The original "Tiger Force" plan called for all the involved squadrons to use the Lancaster/Lincoln bomber. Your source mentioned Mosquitos. Did it mention how many?

The original "Tiger Force" plan was for three commands, each with 22 squadrons. One command was going to consist solely of RCAF squadrons. The Canadians had started squadron conversions / Lancaster training when the war ended. Does Probert mention anything about the Canadian role?

Blackhorse,

Sorry but this is a slight 'holding pattern' message.

At this stage I have teased out all there is in the Probert book - I included all hard numbers (such as they were) that were there. My copy of Ehrman (1956) Grand Strategy VI (pp233-234) talks about the original TIGER FORCE being composed of three Groups:

...each consisting of twelve squadrons of heavy bombers and six squadrons of long-range fighters, one from Britain (including one Canadian fighter and two Canadian bomber squadrons), one from Canada and one from South-East Asia.

The Canadians were asked to provide 5,000 to 6,000 engineers in March 1945, but according to Ehrman (p234), ' but the situation was still too fluid for the Canadian Government to take an immediate decision'. I take this as being coded speak for no! But assuming it was reversed, then you could add these Canadians to the OOB.

The Probert account is based almost solely on Lloyd's despatch, so I need to look at that in the National Archive/Public Record Office...and I will go there tomorrow to do so (it's near me in London, so no big deal). As I don't know what's in it, I can't say for certain if it will give the details needed, but we can hope. There is also the six volume Narrative on the RAF in the Far East, based on operational records and complied in the late 1940s - I'll see what's in that as well.

So, wait on and I'll have a look tomorrow and see what I can come up with, or at least develop leads as to where to go next.

By the way, in addition to the heavy bomber forces, the Commonwealth planned to send tactical air squadrons. The Australians had earmarked three squadrons (no details on this), and the British planned to use P-51 squadrons as well (again no more info yet) - all details from Ehrman.

Regards,

Philip Bass

PS Now you have me interested in this. I never thought I'd say that about the RAF.

PPS I'll post replies on this in the Air Units thread from now on as it seems more appropriate.

ORIGINAL: Philbass
The Canadians were asked to provide 5,000 to 6,000 engineers in March 1945, but according to Ehrman (p234), ' but the situation was still too fluid for the Canadian Government to take an immediate decision'. I take this as being coded speak for no! But assuming it was reversed, then you could add these Canadians to the OOB.

I have added a generic Canadian RCAF base force in my map mod for use with rear area Canadian bases. Perhaps this is all that is required - it could be redeployed if the player wants to use it in this type of role.

I have a question about LCU nomenclature:

When did the USA use the term "Regiment" and when did they use the term "RCT"? Are they interchangeable or are they distinctly different terms? Did the terms change with time, or were they used for particular units or situations?

Also a general question - many LCUs have names that include their nationality, including US units, but many do not. I think the names should be consistent, so what do people think is the best way to use unit names to identify units? Include a national designation (like USA or US)? OR leave it out (like ships)? I lean towards the former.

Andrew

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

I have a question about LCU nomenclature:

When did the USA use the term "Regiment" and when did they use the term "RCT"? Are they interchangeable or are they distinctly different terms? Did the terms change with time, or were they used for particular units or situations?

If you are familiar with British/Commonwealth notation:

A regiment is a Brigade
A Regimental Combat Team is a Brigade Group

If not:
An Infantry regiment is a single branch unit with only light support. Mortars, MGs, and a few light or SP guns. A RCT is a regiment reinforced with a share of the division's additional assets: medium and heavy artillery, engineers, AA, maybe some armor. The artillery allotment of a U.S. Infantry Division has such a split in mind, with 1 medium FA battalion for each infantry regiment (and one heavy FA battalion for support).

Also, to thoroughly complicate matters, the U.S. and British/Commonwealth forces use a confusingly different nomenclature for armour, cavalry, and recon units.

In the following list the first item is the generally understood term, the second the U.S. term, and the third the British/Commonwealth term:

Platoon = Platoon = Troop
Company = Company or Troop = Squadron
Battalion = Squadron = Regiment
Regiment = Regiment = (not used)

This only affects WITP at the Battalion level. Some British Regiments are 3-company units, equal to a U.S. Battalion.

Also a general question - many LCUs have names that include their nationality, including US units, but many do not. I think the names should be consistent, so what do people think is the best way to use unit names to identify units? Include a national designation (like USA or US)? OR leave it out (like ships)? I lean towards the former.

Andrew

I personally omit nationality from many land unit names as I am very familiar with them. I use historical nomenclature as much as possible.

USMC regiment will be: 1st Marines, 5th Marines, etc.
USMC Division will be: 1st Marine Div, 2nd Marine Div
US Army Units are designated by branch with US assumed: 24th Infantry Div, 147th Infantry Reg, 148th FA Reg, 46th Engineer Reg
British/Australian/Indian/New Zealand Units are designated WITH nationality due to identical naming structure: 2nd British Division, 2nd Aus Div, 3rd NZ Div, etc.. Those units with obviously unique names omit the nationality (2/1 Independent Co, 2/15 Punjab)
Dutch Units are designated KNIL
Philippine Units are designated as "Regular" or "Reserve": 1st Regular Division, 21st Reserve Division
Chinese and Russian are unchanged because I know better than to get involved in a land war in Asia.
Japanese units are unchanged because they are just targets to me.

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
I personally omit nationality from many land unit names as I am very familiar with them. I use historical nomenclature as much as possible.

USMC regiment will be: 1st Marines, 5th Marines, etc.
USMC Division will be: 1st Marine Div, 2nd Marine Div
US Army Units are designated by branch with US assumed: 24th Infantry Div, 147th Infantry Reg, 148th FA Reg, 46th Engineer Reg
British/Australian/Indian/New Zealand Units are designated WITH nationality due to identical naming structure: 2nd British Division, 2nd Aus Div, 3rd NZ Div, etc.. Those units with obviously unique names omit the nationality (1st Independent Co, 2/15 Punjap)
Dutch Units are designated KNIL
Philippine Units are designated as "Regular" or "Reserve": 1st Regular Division, 21st Reserve Division
Chinese and Russian are unchanged because I know better than to get involved in a land war in Asia.
Japanese units are unchanged because they are just targets to me.

Don, it sounds like you have already given thought to this even more than I have. I was only thinking in general terms at this stage. My thoughts almost exactly match yours by the way.

I think national differentiation is mostly required for the Allied countries that share the same icon colours (i.e. USA, Aust, NZ, British, Dutch, Indian etc.). The Soviets do not have national ID in their unit names at the moment, nor do they need them. The Chinese do, and I think these could be removed. The Japanese are fine, no need to change them.

If help is needed to redo the unit names I am happy to assist. I can adapt my scenario conversion script to make it easier.

Andrew

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
An Infantry regiment is a single branch unit with only light support. Mortars, MGs, and a few light or SP guns. A RCT is a regiment reinforced with a share of the division's additional assets: medium and heavy artillery, engineers, AA, maybe some armor. The artillery allotment of a U.S. Infantry Division has such a split in mind, with 1 medium FA battalion for each infantry regiment (and one heavy FA battalion for support).

So just to confirm, does this mean that all independently operating US regiment sized units in the game should be designated as RCT? I think that they are already, except for Para, glider and Cavalry formations.

Now to see if we can have 3 Commando Brigade, a Gurkha parachute battalion, Ramree Island and a worn-out/ramshackle British Pacific Fleet train added!

I have just done a bit of reading about Ramree island. An airstrip was built there by the Japanese, and the Allies took it in a division sized assault in early 1945. I am inclined to add in a base for Ramree Island, perhaps something like a 1(0) port and 0(1) airfield rating.

Any thoughts for/against?

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Now to see if we can have 3 Commando Brigade, a Gurkha parachute battalion, Ramree Island and a worn-out/ramshackle British Pacific Fleet train added!

I have just done a bit of reading about Ramree island. An airstrip was built there by the Japanese, and the Allies took it in a division sized assault in early 1945. I am inclined to add in a base for Ramree Island, perhaps something like a 1(0) port and 0(1) airfield rating.



Any thoughts for/against?

There is also Christmas Is (yep, there were two) SW of Java which Japan occupied early in 1942.

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
An Infantry regiment is a single branch unit with only light support. Mortars, MGs, and a few light or SP guns. A RCT is a regiment reinforced with a share of the division's additional assets: medium and heavy artillery, engineers, AA, maybe some armor. The artillery allotment of a U.S. Infantry Division has such a split in mind, with 1 medium FA battalion for each infantry regiment (and one heavy FA battalion for support).

So just to confirm, does this mean that all independently operating US regiment sized units in the game should be designated as RCT? I think that they are already, except for Para, glider and Cavalry formations.

For the US in the Pacific In WW2, I don't believe that any Army Regiments served. To clarify, no unattached Army Regiments served. The Main types of units in the Pacific Were the Division (USA and USMC), the Regimental Combat Team (USA Only), and then the Regiment, which is USMC and USA Cav. only. Thus, I do believe that all indepedent USA Regiments (except those in the PI at the start) should be RCTs.

I believe that the USA RCT in the PI at the beginning of the war (the 31st), and all of the PS RCTs should in fact be relabeled regiments. I don't think the Regimental Combat Team (although I could be wrong) evolved until 1942-1943.

I know in the 20s and 30s (War Plan Orange era), the standard US Land unit organization was the Regiment of 3-4 battalions, the Brigade of 2 Regiments, and the Division of 2 Brigades. The Regimental Combat team has around 3/4 the strength of a Brigade, or roughly 1 and a half regiments. A Regimental Combat Team and a Regiment are NOT the same thing. RCTs also sometimes have tank units attached and inherent, of which an Infantry Regiment does not.

What about all the additional US AA and enginers? Not to mention about 16 battalions of LVT's arriving from Nov 43 onward.

ORIGINAL: Tankerace
For the US in the Pacific In WW2, I don't believe that any Army Regiments served. To clarify, no unattached Army Regiments served. The Main types of units in the Pacific Were the Division (USA and USMC), the Regimental Combat Team (USA Only), and then the Regiment, which is USMC and USA Cav. only. Thus, I do believe that all indepedent USA Regiments (except those in the PI at the start) should be RCTs.

I believe that the USA RCT in the PI at the beginning of the war (the 31st), and all of the PS RCTs should in fact be relabeled regiments. I don't think the Regimental Combat Team (although I could be wrong) evolved until 1942-1943.

Thanks for the information Tankerace.

My question was actually prompted by the fact that the at-start land combat forces in Alaska are called RCT in the game, and I was not sure if that was correct or not (i.e should be regiment instead).

I may be wrong, but I believe that they should be Regiments.

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I may be wrong, but I believe that they should be Regiments.

Blackhorse also calls them Regiments, which is what got me wondering in the first place. I think I will contact him and ask him (unless he reads this message and replies first).

It gets tricky if they start the war as Regiments and later convert to RCT or get redesignated, but I have no idea of that is the case.

Seems like a lot of time spent on something as obsure as unit name RCT vs Regiment, doesn't it? [8|]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

For the US in the Pacific In WW2, I don't believe that any Army Regiments served. To clarify, no unattached Army Regiments served. The Main types of units in the Pacific Were the Division (USA and USMC), the Regimental Combat Team (USA Only), and then the Regiment, which is USMC and USA Cav. only. Thus, I do believe that all indepedent USA Regiments (except those in the PI at the start) should be RCTs.

I believe that the USA RCT in the PI at the beginning of the war (the 31st), and all of the PS RCTs should in fact be relabeled regiments. I don't think the Regimental Combat Team (although I could be wrong) evolved until 1942-1943.

I know in the 20s and 30s (War Plan Orange era), the standard US Land unit organization was the Regiment of 3-4 battalions, the Brigade of 2 Regiments, and the Division of 2 Brigades. The Regimental Combat team has around 3/4 the strength of a Brigade, or roughly 1 and a half regiments. A Regimental Combat Team and a Regiment are NOT the same thing. RCTs also sometimes have tank units attached and inherent, of which an Infantry Regiment does not.

I believe there were a number of independent U.S. Army Regiments that operated in the Pacific Theatre. In this context, I mean regiments that were not associated with any division and did not have any divisional assets assigned. I am away from my library but I can think of several off the top of my head:

The 24th Infantry, long independent, was sent to Efate in early 1942. The 24th was one of the four long-standing "colored" (to use the term of the day) regiments in the U.S. Army and was full of long-serving professional soldiers.

The 147th Infantry was detached from the 37th Division while enroute to Fiji. The 147th was used to garrison Tonga (at least 2 of it's battalions) and another regiment replaced it in the 37th Division. The 147th fought as an independent regiment throughout the war (although I believe it was temporarily attached to various local commands from time to time).

The 159th Infantry was detached from it's parent division (don't remember which one) and eventually served in Alaska - still independent.

There were at least two other independent regiments in Alaska. True these were integrated into local defense commands but they had no parent division and no directly allocated divisional assets.

The 102nd Infantry (independent) was also used in the Pacific but was split into battalions for garrisons on Christmas Island, Canton Island, and Bora Bora.

There was also one of the Hawaiian National Guard Regiments. The 298th and 299th regiments of the Hawaiian National Guard were the third regiments of the 24th and 25th divisions in Hawaii. The 24th and 25th Divisions were formed by splitting the old square "Hawaiian" division and forming a new division by adding a Hawaii NG regiment to each of the original brigades. Both the 298th and 299th Regiments had a large percentage of Japanase-Americans. After Pearl Harbor they were detached from the 24th and 25th (replaced by 34th and 161st but I don't remember which to which). All the Japanese personel were pulled out and assigned to an separate battalion that eventually became the 100th Independent Battalion. The 298th and 299th were compacted into a single independent regiment that was then used as garrison in Hawaii (especially the outer islands).

The general concept of a RCT is integral to the U.S. Army and goes all the way back to the Revolution. At that time the term was (I believe) Legion - a combined arms force of infantry, artillery, and cavalry. Mad Anthony Wayne was, if the the instegator of the organization, one of it's main proponents.

The organization of a square division includes pre-designated artillery support for each regiment (and brigade). The Division included two infantry brigades and one artillery brigade. The Artillery brigade included two medium and one heavy artillery regiments (each of two battalions). The artillery was "pencil" allotted as one medium regiment and one heavy battalion to each infantry brigade and further as one medium battalion to each infantry regiment. This is effectively an RCT.

Except for the occasional remote garrison, the independent infantry regiment was unusual in U.S. Army history until the square divisions began to transition to triangular. The fourth regiment of each division was then detached and became independent. The intention was to use these regiments to form new divisions but many were swept up in the rapid need for garrisons and reinforcements and remained independent.

Any intention to increase the support ratio?

ORIGINAL: DoomedMantis

Any intention to increase the support ratio?

In what way? As in across the board? I have been trying to get a handle on figuring out what support a Japanese Div should have in it.

US divisions should almost be good to go. Mid war anyway.

Probably more in terms of the stand alone units more than anything else, IMO they should be able to support themselves. Ass for the rest, I wouldnt complain if they had more support, but it doesnt worry me so much

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Blackhorse also calls them Regiments, which is what got me wondering in the first place. I think I will contact him and ask him (unless he reads this message and replies first).

It gets tricky if they start the war as Regiments and later convert to RCT or get redesignated, but I have no idea of that is the case.

Seems like a lot of time spent on something as obsure as unit name RCT vs Regiment, doesn't it? [8|]

Sorry for the long delay in responding . . . Real Life intruded. I confess that I do not know the genesis (or TO&E) for RCT's. But I am confident that the Regiments in Alaska in December, 1941, were Regiments and *not* Regimental Combat Teams. To the best of my knowledge they never converted / had their name changed to RCT.

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
Sorry for the long delay in responding . . . Real Life intruded. I confess that I do not know the genesis (or TO&E) for RCT's. But I am confident that the Regiments in Alaska in December, 1941, were Regiments and *not* Regimental Combat Teams. To the best of my knowledge they never converted / had their name changed to RCT.

Thanks! I had almost forgotten about this. I will change the names of these units to Regiments in my next version of scen 115. Hopefully they can be changed in the combined mod as well. I wonder if there are other US RCTs that should be Regiments?

Also, on a completely different subject, I am looking at the Australian OOB, mainly the forces they have in Dec 41. I am no expert, and I am relying on online sources only (I don't have a decent collection of source material). So far the official OOB looks to be fairly good, but I think there should be a few changes. Some of the units are in the wrong place, and there are a few other minor changes so far.

When I have some more complete information I will post my conclusions here.

Andrew

Didn't happen to see where this might have been asked of the scenario or not but I think I've seen somewhere here where someone had done the work for it but will the divisions be broken down by HQ/RCT unit like in UV or will it be like it is currently in WITP where the entire division is able to be divided? I ask this because in WITP just about all divisions come in whole but the exception seems to be the NoPac units which come in as RCT, granted the NoPac isn't that active a front.