Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

You could say that all British Cavalry units were gradually mechanised over the course of the Second World War, but the unit is included because this need not have been so.

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:RlZVUSvxFxYJ:www.wwiireenacting.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php%3Fp%3D404310+%22British+Cavalry%22+WWII&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=uk says that the last British cavalry was used in Syria in 1941, and that Indian cavalry was used in Burma.

Guys - thanks for the suggestions. I have taken these on board and for units where the designation may be wrong in WIF but the unit type existed e.g. 3rd Cavalry Division and 51st Airlanding Divison I have written up the history of the correct unit with an appropriate explanation. Equally where the unit did not exist, I have written up as appropriate e.g. WIf has 4 Canadian Corps. In actual fact there were only two Canadian Corps in WWII. No problem - I guess there is a degree of game balance requirement as the need for the additional units and an appropriate write up is easy to do.

BUT what I don`t understand is the reason for the one Canadian Corps being Motorised and one Mechanised. The Canadians only had Infantry and Armoured Divisions. Does anyone know the thinking behind Motorised and Mechanised units being introduced to WIF (for those countries that did not have them). I thought it might be to do with the increasingly mobility of units - especially aided by materiel provided by the US as the war progressed. However the Canadian 1st Corps is motorised and available in 1939 and a British Mechanised unit is available in 1937? Don`t get me wrong - this is clearly not a problem from a game perspective - but I would like to understand ADG`s reasoning so my write up is sensible. If anyone can shed light on this I would be grateful.

[Jimm]

Far be it for me to misrepresent the noble Harry, but from my experience in writing up the Italians I infer that there is not a huge amount of historical accuracy; unit nomenclature is little more than flavour for what is nonetheless a great, well balanced game.

While there is an attraction to rationalise Mech units as a homogenous whole, like a corps of panzer grenadiers and tanks, I see a mech corps as really a just a general mix of infantry and armour, which was in the end a relatively common prewar formation albeit that the earlier concept (at least outside Germany) was tanks supporting infantry formations whereas the idea of grenadiers supporting armour was the later and more successful incarnation.

On the other hand I believe complete motorisation of infantry corps was rare before the war started

Thats just my take on it.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

You could say that all British Cavalry units were gradually mechanised over the course of the Second World War, but the unit is included because this need not have been so.

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:RlZVUSvxFxYJ:www.wwiireenacting.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php%3Fp%3D404310+%22British+Cavalry%22+WWII&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=uk says that the last British cavalry was used in Syria in 1941, and that Indian cavalry was used in Burma.

Guys - thanks for the suggestions. I have taken these on board and for units where the designation may be wrong in WIF but the unit type existed e.g. 3rd Cavalry Division and 51st Airlanding Divison I have written up the history of the correct unit with an appropriate explanation. Equally where the unit did not exist, I have written up as appropriate e.g. WIf has 4 Canadian Corps. In actual fact there were only two Canadian Corps in WWII. No problem - I guess there is a degree of game balance requirement as the need for the additional units and an appropriate write up is easy to do.

BUT what I don`t understand is the reason for the one Canadian Corps being Motorised and one Mechanised. The Canadians only had Infantry and Armoured Divisions. Does anyone know the thinking behind Motorised and Mechanised units being introduced to WIF (for those countries that did not have them). I thought it might be to do with the increasingly mobility of units - especially aided by materiel provided by the US as the war progressed. However the Canadian 1st Corps is motorised and available in 1939 and a British Mechanised unit is available in 1937? Don`t get me wrong - this is clearly not a problem from a game perspective - but I would like to understand ADG`s reasoning so my write up is sensible. If anyone can shed light on this I would be grateful.

Some of what you are going to encounter are possible units. That is, units which could have been formed had the major power chosen to do so. For instance, there are many more naval and air units available that there were historically. This leaves open the opportunity for the player to go in a different direction than was taken historically.

[brian brian]

the most insightful comment I've seen lately on this forum is the observation is that WiF is essentially a beer-n-pretzels game. Granted, I feel that it is a Bell's Two-Hearted Ale with a fresh-baked Philly sourdough pretzel with sea salt crystals, but I think that observation is key to keep in mind. So, as Jimm said, details are glossed over in places, and I hope everyone working on the appendices to MWiF remembers this. I think where the game system began to deceive people that it is actually a highly researched technical simulation was when Planes in Flames and Ships in Flames came out and Spitfires could intercept Stukas and the Kaga could sink the Arizona, rather than generic units doing all the fighting. There is a great deal of historical correlation, but the focus of WiF has always been to keep the game & the war going. This hardly seems intuitive when you are flipping through the rulebook trying to figure out if SUBs count as targets during a Frogman attack though.

[warspite1]

brian brian I am in full agreement with everything you said (although being an Englishman can only guess at what a Bell`s Two-Hearted Ale is exactly!) - yes there is a bit of an anomaly when you look at the exquisite detail in Ships in Flames compared to the land units - which definately makes a write up of a real ship unit more interesting than a land unit that perhaps a) did not exist at all or b) did and the combat/movement values or even actual unit type are wrong.  For all that, this does not detract at all from the excellence of the game itself.  I do not care if it is not a "highly researched technical simulation" so long as it plays well (yes), looks good (oh yes) and has sufficient realistic historical feel about it (yes yes yes). 
 
Therefore in the write ups of Motorised and Mechanised Commonwealth units I shall ignore the fact that they may be Motorised/Mechanised counters and write up a brief WWII history for a given unit designation. E.g. I will write an outline WWII history for Canadian 1st Corps (Historical) not Canadian 1st Motorised Corps (Counter). 
 
   

[Norman42]

Sadly ADG never did a proper "Armies In Flames" to bring the game's land forces up to the detailed standard and historical accuracy as Ships/Planes in Flames added.

Mech In Flames doesnt count....the original land forces in that kit were even less historical.

[marcuswatney]

Since the divisions making up a corps could be switched from corps to corps quite easily, it made no sense to designate a corps (as opposed to a division) as having a particular level of mobility.  I don't recall a single British corps that had such a designation in WW2.  Thus XXX Corps was made up of Guards Armoured Division, 43rd (Wessex) Infantry Division, etc. but it was still just plain XXX Corps.
 
I have always understood that the difference between motorised and mechanised is whether the troops are lorried or transported in APCs (or in WW2, half-tracks).  So infantry/motorised/mechanised = leg/wheel/track.
 
Yes, we certainly do need Armies-in-Flames.

[warspite1]

We are all agreed - Armies-in-Flames - definately something for MWIF2 then!! 

[jesperpehrson]

Update!

Klaus finished 10 of the German ART and they are splendid! I will try and post one or two tomorrow!

Jeff volounteered to do the remaining South American countries and I am taking him through the initial stages as we speak.

Rob has started in a great fashion and finished 10ish UK writeups and 4 Canadian ones. He has also claimed India for himself! Good man!

We are closing in on 60 percent done and we will surely finish in time. It will be some fascinating reads for everyone who buys the game and for those long hours of waiting for a turn to get sent you will all have something interesting to read! [:)]

[Fishbed]

Maybe one could mention too in the end of the historical note that a sizable part of these territorial troops fled to the jungle the night before the Japanese coup in Indochina, and went to Nationalist China to link-up with American forces while being chased by the Japanese forces. More details on wiki here about the Alessandri Column:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fre ... a_Campaign

[:)]

[jesperpehrson]

Thanks for the info Fishbed! I will read the wiki!

[Fishbed]

You're welcome Capitain [:)] Thanks for your great work!
There's not much on the wiki, just a peek at the numbers (around 5,700 troops) and the circumstances. I just mentioned it because my French grand-father and grand-uncle took part, I though it would be a nice touch, as this one was the French indochina forces' finest hour...

Just a remark about the Madagascar info: actually I find strange that you would talk about "quick surrender" while the campaign ran from early May to late November. [:D] I'd say it is especially because French forces were rather small & underequipped, and the island awfully big, that the campaign lasted disproportionately nearly 7 months, the Vichy forces remnants taking refuge in the jungle and trying the resist the CW forces there with little or none success. But still, they managed to be an unwelcomed nuisance for a lot of time considering both their numbers and their equipment... I'd say in the end Ironclad proved to be quite a nuisance task for the British forces as, despite their overwhelming superiority and their careful planning, they had to keep looking for Vichy soldiers for months because of the topological characteristics of the Island, which terribly advantaged the small defender.

[marcuswatney]

"Facts about Indo-China (today known as Vietnam)"

Well, actually Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

"In spite of the Vichy French agreeing, the attack was launched". Sounds wrong. Petain may have agreed, but the men on the ground didn't, hence the fighting. I think you should mention Catroux, who so very nearly succeeded in handing the colony over to the Free French. One of history's great What-Ifs.  A gallant and brave man in an impossible position.

[jesperpehrson]

I have not gone to great depths in my research for Indo-China so this was news to me. I will look into it Marcus. Having to write (although not by myself) 1000+ writeups means skimming over sometimes and then going back to them when good people like yourself call attention to it! Keep comments coming as you spot anomalies!

[jesperpehrson]

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

You're welcome Capitain [:)] Thanks for your great work!
There's not much on the wiki, just a peek at the numbers (around 5,700 troops) and the circumstances. I just mentioned it because my French grand-father and grand-uncle took part, I though it would be a nice touch, as this one was the French indochina forces' finest hour...

Just a remark about the Madagascar info: actually I find strange that you would talk about "quick surrender" while the campaign ran from early May to late November. [:D] I'd say it is especially because French forces were rather small & underequipped, and the island awfully big, that the campaign lasted disproportionately nearly 7 months, the Vichy forces remnants taking refuge in the jungle and trying the resist the CW forces there with little or none success. But still, they managed to be an unwelcomed nuisance for a lot of time considering both their numbers and their equipment... I'd say in the end Ironclad proved to be quite a nuisance task for the British forces as, despite their overwhelming superiority and their careful planning, they had to keep looking for Vichy soldiers for months because of the topological characteristics of the Island, which terribly advantaged the small defender.

If I recall correctly this was discussed earlier in this thread. I argued that the actual battle was rather quick but the clearing the area took a long time. I will revisit that write-up and consider your thoughts.

[Fishbed]

Ho ok then [:)]
yes the actual battle was quick, that's a fact [:D]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: capitan

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

You're welcome Capitain [:)] Thanks for your great work!
There's not much on the wiki, just a peek at the numbers (around 5,700 troops) and the circumstances. I just mentioned it because my French grand-father and grand-uncle took part, I though it would be a nice touch, as this one was the French indochina forces' finest hour...

Just a remark about the Madagascar info: actually I find strange that you would talk about "quick surrender" while the campaign ran from early May to late November. [:D] I'd say it is especially because French forces were rather small & underequipped, and the island awfully big, that the campaign lasted disproportionately nearly 7 months, the Vichy forces remnants taking refuge in the jungle and trying the resist the CW forces there with little or none success. But still, they managed to be an unwelcomed nuisance for a lot of time considering both their numbers and their equipment... I'd say in the end Ironclad proved to be quite a nuisance task for the British forces as, despite their overwhelming superiority and their careful planning, they had to keep looking for Vichy soldiers for months because of the topological characteristics of the Island, which terribly advantaged the small defender.

If I recall correctly this was discussed earlier in this thread. I argued that the actual battle was rather quick but the clearing the area took a long time. I will revisit that write-up and consider your thoughts.

Capitan,

Keep in mind that these writeups are teases, not definitive histories. It is pretty hopeless to attempt to present a thorough description of even a small side action of World War II using only a few paragraphs, as shown in these discussions about Madagascar and French-Indochina. If you can avoid factual errors, and hit most of the highlights, that would be great. Don't agonized over leaving something out, since [sadly] that is virtually a given.

[Fishbed]

Yes Capitan, you're doing a fantastic job already [:)]

[jesperpehrson]

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

Yes Capitan, you're doing a fantastic job already [:)]

Thank you very much! Fortunatly the credit is not all mine, there are a whole bunch of people who has contributed in the past who all given this part of the project the drive it needed. Nowadays I am making as many writeups I can but I spend at least as much time reading the writeups of others. Kudos to everyone who helps out, be it with writeups or something else, this will be the best game ever (in fact it already is...)

[jesperpehrson]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Capitan,

Keep in mind that these writeups are teases, not definitive histories. It is pretty hopeless to attempt to present a thorough description of even a small side action of World War II using only a few paragraphs, as shown in these discussions about Madagascar and French-Indochina. If you can avoid factual errors, and hit most of the highlights, that would be great. Don't agonized over leaving something out, since [sadly] that is virtually a given.

I know Steve but I am in awe of the collected knowledge of the forumWIFers. If we can make the write-ups more interesting and/or more accurate that is just fantastic. Also I am humbled by the task and I am willing to discuss any fact written as I might have gotten it wrong (near perfect is not good enough [:D])