Page 5 of 8
silence gives consent
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:31 am
by Central Blue
ok... I didn't bring anything useful to the conversation but lots of kibbitz and bitz...
On the other hand AlaskanWarrior did. I hope he got some credit from somebody somewhere for his legitimate contribution to understanding the US Army's actual TOE, rather than whatever is being depicted in this game.
Here are some modifications for the US Infantry Divisions I would like to submit:
WWII Infantry Divisions and Regimental Combat Teams:
Several things need to be included in the US Army formations. First, several new unit types need to be added (*). Second, there were no 75 or 76 mm ATG organic to the division. Third, the 4.2 inch mortar was not organic to the Division. Create separate Chemical Mortar BN’s instead. Make another entry for the 57mm with no upgrade path. Looking at the TOE in game terms for the platoon level up as follows:
Platoon:
3 x USA Rifle Squads
Company:
3 x Platoons
2 x Weapons Squads*
3x 60mm Mortars*
Battalion:
3 x Companies
1 AT Platoon
3 x 37mm ATG (1941)
3 x 57mm ATG (November 1942)
6 x 81mm Mortars
1 USA Engineer Squad
Regiment:
3 Battalions
1 Cannon Co
6 x 75mm How (1941)
6 x 105 How (7/42)
1 AT Company
12 x 37mm ATG
12 x 57mm ATG
Division:
Self Defense Platoon
3 x USA Rifle Squad
3 x Regiments
1 x Engineer BN
27x USA Engineer
6 x Engineer Vehicle
1 x Recon Troop
9 x M8 Armored Car
3 x USA Rifle Squad
1 x 81mm Mortar
3 x 105 How Battalions
12 x 105 How
1 x 155 How BN
12 x 155mm How
Div Totals:
249 USA Rifle Squads – Upgrade path okay
54 USA Weapons Squads – No upgrade path
36 USA Engineer Squads – Upgrade path okay
72 0.50 Browning AAMG
90 60mm Mortars
55 81mm Mortars
63 ATG (37mm then upgrade to 57mm - although Forty mentions that the 37mm was in service in for much of the war in the Pacific)
18 75mm GMC Halftrack (until early 1943)
36 + 18 105mm Howitzer (July 1942 add 18 regimental pieces)
12 155mm Howitzer
9 M8 Armored Cars
650 Support
Regimental Combat Team:
82 USA Rifle Squads
18 USA Weapons Squads
12 USA Engineer Squads
24 0.050 Browning AAMG
27 60mm Mortars
18 81mm Mortars
21 37mm ATG – Upgrades to 57mm ATG
6 75mm GMC Halftrack – Upgrades to 105mm Howitzer
12 105mm howitzer
3 M8
200 Support
* No 155mm Howitzers
** No 4.2 inch Mortars
Unit Specs:
Name: 60mm Mortar USA Weapon Squad M8 Armored Car
Type: 19-Army Weapon 23-Squad 22-AFV
Range: 2 0 1
Accuracy: 8 0 9
Effect: 3 0 2
Ceiling: 0 0 0
Armor 0 0 20
Penetration: 5 0 70
Dud Rate: 0 0 0
Anti-Armor: 10 25 78
Anti-Soft: 10 40 28
Load Cost: 2 9 10
Available: 4112 4112 4112
Upgrade: Same Same Same
Build rate: 20 25 30
. 50 cal Browning - The Division had over 236 of these weapons authorized, many of them mounted on AA rings on trucks.
The 60mm mortar is a crucial firepower unit of the Company.
The USA Weapon Squad represents the organic 0.50 M2 MG and the 0.30 M1919 MG found in the weapons platoon of the company.
The M8 was the standard US armored car.
Sources include:
Forty, George
1996 US Army Handbook 1939-1940.
US Army
1944 Catalogue of Standard Ordinance Items, Vols. I-III. US Army Ordinance Technical Division
Wilson, John B.
1998 Maneuver and Firepower: The Evolution of Divisions and Separate Brigades, Army Lineage Series
Arguments about naming conventions and OOB seem way more important here than accurate depictions of land weapons and TOE.
I kind of wonder how the land combat model would behave if TOE's and land weapons were actually accurately edited in. When the Japanese had their early dustup with the Soviets at Nomonhan they learned that Soviet artillery could throw as much lead in a day as they could throw in a week.
TOAW doesn't seem popular on this board, but you would think there are enough Steel Panthers types around to help out.
RE: silence gives consent
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:51 pm
by Lemurs!
Central Blue,
I know the actual TO&E of most WW2 armies as well as anyone but this is a strategic game, we are not moddeling 60mm mortars, .30 MGs, or whether a squad had 6.5mm or 7.7mm rifles.
The TO&E i came up with is my attempt to include all of the divisional odds and ends. It is probably inaccurate, but i did the best i could.
Maybe Matrix already included the odds and ends in their TO&E but it just seemed to me that divisions were not represented properly vis a vis battalions and regiments in the game.
So i did the best i could, and i hope it works out.
Matrix origionaly shows the USA infantry division with 364 sqds, i changed it to 395.
I feel mine will give a better result but it may not.
Mike
stirring the pot
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 1:14 am
by Central Blue
thanks for responding.
I realize game is different scale but it still includes divisions and regiments. And it still depicts number of combat squads, support squads, and heavy weapons. But why have incorrect counts of combat squads, tanks, heavy mortars, heavy machine guns, wrong caliber AT guns, and artillery which are part of what is counted in Matrix TOE?
Seems to me that odds and ends (anyone not in a combat squad or on a crew served weapon) would be included in support squads.
What I'm trying to figure out is if all those numbers in the TOE are meaningless. Are they just sort of window dressing on the way to some sort of abstracted combat strength/movement point number like an old Avalon Hill cardboard counter?
I realize you are probably to far along to want to redo your own efforts. I'm trying to figure out if it would be completely pointless to actually work out historically correct numbers of tooth to tale for units depicted in the game. Is there some known reason from Matrix that says accurate numbers of combat and support squads -- not to mention correct numbers and calibers of howitzers -- would break the game?
THis was the point of my first question in this thread, which did not get a response. Would accurate numbers break the game?
BTW, while the game doesn't model individual firearms, it seems to make certain assumptions about something when it goes to determine the firepower of various squads. From a brief once-over US Army squads consistently have more firepower than USMC squads despite army squads topping out at 10 men, 2 BAR, and USMC squads evolving to 12 men 3 BAR.
How does Japanese artillery stack up in game terms to Soviets? Does it really track what we know from history?
Could more accurate TOE's actually have an impact on ahistorical Japanese success against Soviets in WITP?
Anyway, so long as it wouldn't break the game for any known reason... I would be willing to work on this for my own amusement, and I would be willing to share my efforts (starting with USMC, Soviets, and Japanese in Manchuria) with anyone that is interested. Given the amount of work you guys are doing on the other details, any additional work I would want to do would neccesarrily want to build on your own efforts. But I don't want to plagiarize or butt in if people would get upset about it.
RE: stirring the pot
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:13 am
by Andrew Brown
Anyway, so long as it wouldn't break the game for any known reason... I would be willing to work on this for my own amusement, and I would be willing to share my efforts (starting with USMC, Soviets, and Japanese in Manchuria) with anyone that is interested. Given the amount of work you guys are doing on the other details, any additional work I would want to do would neccesarrily want to build on your own efforts. But I don't want to plagiarize or butt in if people would get upset about it.
I, for one, am not going to get upset about anyone willing to make contributions and/or suggestions. As to whether they would be included in the combined mod or not depends on others who are much more knowledgeable about TOE than I am - which would be just about anybody - and on whether Don Bowen, who is doing the lion's share of the coordination for the mod thinks it is a good idea to include it.
Andrew
RE: stirring the pot
Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:37 am
by Central Blue
Fair enough Andrew. There's a lot of water under the bridge on your project already. And I have no research track record with anyone here.
Apparently there's no real game mechanics reason that Matrix TOE's seldom match reality. And that's what I wanted to know.
I've just now ordered a copy of Red Army Handbook. I'll probably work on USMC and USA while I wait since I already have stuff on that. As I slog through this I'll post articles in this forum under separate threads appropriate to the force. We'll see how far I get.
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:34 am
by Tomo
IJA, there were 355 infantry divisions, 4 tank divisions, 4 anti air divisions and 13 air divisions.
Some are home defend divisions.
Some are Manchuria defend divisions
Some of them existed only onpaper.
I hope such minor divisions see the light in this scenario.
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 2:17 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Tomo
IJA, there were 355 infantry divisions, 4 tank divisions, 4 anti air divisions and 13 air divisions.
Some are home defend divisions.
Some are Manchuria defend divisions
Some of them existed only onpaper.
I hope such minor divisions see the light in this scenario.
Send me your data please.
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units
Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:43 am
by Herrbear
Copied this from Wish List. Didn't know if you had seen it. It is from Tomo.
Scenario 15. Leader names
IJA division leader, 61st & 63rd are same person.
Correct leader of 61st division is Tanaka T.(Tsutomu Tanaka) and 63rd division is Nozoe M.(Masanori Nozoe).
Leader of 119th division is Shiozawa K.--Kiyonobu Shiozawa
Leader of 125th division is Imari T.--Tatsuo Imari(or Imatoshi sorry I cannot read his correct family name. Kanji letter is always big problem to read person's name).
Leader of 123rd division is Kitazawa, S.--Sadajirou(or Teijirou) Kitazawa.
Leader of 128th division is Mizuhara Y.--Yoshishige Mizuhara.
...and more.
My source is Japanese book, of course written in Japanese.
http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/ASI ... 00-6977804
This book is awesome. Excellent description of ALL IJA divisions.
and
http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/ASI ... 00-6977804
This book is also great. Encyclopedia of all IJA AIR SENTAI and IJN AIR KOKUTAI.
< Message edited by Tomo -- 3/23/2005 1:26:52 PM >
African Brigades and Divisions
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 9:25 pm
by Don Bowen
Based on recent research I am going to adjust the following African Units:
1. 81st W. African Division: Historically one of this unit's Brigades (3rd W. African) was detached to the Chindits. The 3rd W. African Brigade is in the OOB so the 81st W. African Division should not arrive at full strength. There are also two additional East African Brigades in 15 Corps that are not in the OOB (22nd and 28th East African). The 81st W. African Division will arrive at 2/3 strength with a Divisional TOE that allows it to grow to full strength. The 28th E. African Brigade will be excluded from the OOB as a "trade off" for this growth.
2. 22nd East African Brigade: added as a new unit, arrives 7/22/44 at Ceylon. Ceylon is the arrival point listed in the history for this unit and is used instead of Middle East due to probable shipment around the southern tip of Africa.
These changes will be added to the accumulated changes for post V1.5.
Indian Army in CHS
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:55 am
by Don Bowen
Indian Army in CHS
1. 3rd Indian Division and Chindits. The 3rd Indian Division became a cover formation for Chindit units. I believe it officially was assigned the 23rd, 77th, and 111th Brigades. There were six Chindit brigades, one of which was subsequently withdrawn and used as a standard brigade:
[ol]
[*] 3rd West African Brigade - already in OOB
[*] 14th British Air Landing Brigade - already in OOB (also see 44th Airborne Division)
[*] 16th British Brigade - already in OOB
[*] 23rd British Brigade - already in OOB, historically withdrawn from Chindits and used for defense
[*] 77th Indian Brigade - not currently in OOB (also see 44th Airborne Division)
[*] 111th Indian Brigade - not currently in OOB
[/ol]
Recommendation:
[ol]
[*] Remove 3rd Indian Division
[*] Reclassify 23rd Chindit Brigade as 23rd British Brigade
[*] Add 77th Indian Brigade
[*] Add 111th Indian Brigade
[/ol][/b]
2. 44th Indian Division. A 44th Indian Division is in the OOB, without type specification. There were two 44th Divisions:
[ol]
[*] 44th Armored Division
- 255th Tank Brigade (currently in OOB)
- 268th Lorried Infantry Brigade (currently in OOB)
[*] 44th Airborne Division
- 14th Airlanding Brigade (currently in OOB as Chindits)
- 50th Indian Parachute Brigade (currently in OOB)
- 77th Indian Brigade (not currently in OOB, see Chindits).
[/ol]
Recommendation: The 44th Division is redundant and should be removed. The 77th Brigade is covered in the Chindit recommendation.
Other Armored Formations. I have only minimal information on these tank units and would appreciate any additional information or advice:
- 50th Indian Tank Brigade - apparently existed with same number as 50th Indian Parachute Brigade - not currently in OOB
[ol]
- 146th Regt Royal Armoured Corps - not currently in OOB
- 19th Sqn K.G.V. O Lancers - not currently in OOB
- 45th. Cavalry Regt - not currently in OOB
- 2nd. Btn 4th Bombay Grenadiers - not currently in OOB
[/ol]
- 251st Indian Tank Brigade - not currently in OOB but an erroneous 251st UK Brigade is in the OOB
- 9th RDH Cavalry Tank Regiment - currently in OOB, not allocated to a Brigade (later part of 255th Tank Brigade)
- 3rd Carabineers Regiment - currently in OOB, not allocated to a Brigade (apparently was originally in 251st Tank Brigade and later partially integrated into 254th Tank Brigade.
- 116th RAC Tank Regiment - currently in OOB, not allocated to a Brigade (was part of short lived 267th Tank Brigade.
- 25th Dragoons Tank Regiment - currently in OOB, not allocated to a Brigade
17th and Burma Divisions. I am confused on the 17th Indian Division and the Brigades in Burma. At various times the 17th included the 16th, 44th, 45th, 46th, 48th (Gurkha), 63rd and 99th Brigades. The 16th Brigade was also part of the Burma Division (along with 1st and 2nd Burma). 17th Division, 16th, 44th and 45th are in the OOB, as are the 1st and 2nd Burma. 16th, 1st Burma and 2nd Burma became the 39th Training Division (which is properly left out). Subtracting the 44th and 45th leaves three Brigades for the 17th Division (48th, 63rd, 99th) and the inclusion of the 17th Division seems rational. However, I can not find any formation data for the three Brigades, except that the 48th was part of the 17th Division in March, 1942. Should the Division exist 12/41 or arrive at some later date?
I have also seen a reference to a 115th Indian Brigade and would appreciate any information about it or any other formations.
If I was rich I'd just buy the three volumes of "Loyalty and Honour" and answer all these questions myself - but I ain't rich!
RE: US Land Units
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 6:36 am
by Tristanjohn
ORIGINAL: 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.
Your points are well taken. Naming U.S.A. infantry divisions simply 1st Division, 32nd Division and so, and 1st Marine and such for USMC units works fine. For my part, I'd drop the "US" sticker altogether, but then someone from the UK or Australia might say that shows design bias. [8D]
Anyway, for sure "USA" is redundant and mistaken nomenclature for U.S.A. divisions. Independent RCTs should care for themselves namewise without a "US" sticker, too. Why have more information than is necessary?
RE: stirring the pot
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 6:49 am
by Tristanjohn
ORIGINAL: Central Blue
thanks for responding.
I realize game is different scale but it still includes divisions and regiments. And it still depicts number of combat squads, support squads, and heavy weapons. But why have incorrect counts of combat squads, tanks, heavy mortars, heavy machine guns, wrong caliber AT guns, and artillery which are part of what is counted in Matrix TOE?
Seems to me that odds and ends (anyone not in a combat squad or on a crew served weapon) would be included in support squads.
What I'm trying to figure out is if all those numbers in the TOE are meaningless. Are they just sort of window dressing on the way to some sort of abstracted combat strength/movement point number like an old Avalon Hill cardboard counter?
I realize you are probably to far along to want to redo your own efforts. I'm trying to figure out if it would be completely pointless to actually work out historically correct numbers of tooth to tale for units depicted in the game. Is there some known reason from Matrix that says accurate numbers of combat and support squads -- not to mention correct numbers and calibers of howitzers -- would break the game?
THis was the point of my first question in this thread, which did not get a response. Would accurate numbers break the game?
BTW, while the game doesn't model individual firearms, it seems to make certain assumptions about something when it goes to determine the firepower of various squads. From a brief once-over US Army squads consistently have more firepower than USMC squads despite army squads topping out at 10 men, 2 BAR, and USMC squads evolving to 12 men 3 BAR.
How does Japanese artillery stack up in game terms to Soviets? Does it really track what we know from history?
Could more accurate TOE's actually have an impact on ahistorical Japanese success against Soviets in WITP?
Anyway, so long as it wouldn't break the game for any known reason... I would be willing to work on this for my own amusement, and I would be willing to share my efforts (starting with USMC, Soviets, and Japanese in Manchuria) with anyone that is interested. Given the amount of work you guys are doing on the other details, any additional work I would want to do would neccesarrily want to build on your own efforts. But I don't want to plagiarize or butt in if people would get upset about it.
Nothing can "break" this game as it's already broken. [8D]
I'd love to see you go for it re TOEs. Especially the land-cambat model could use help with re to the use of artillery. As it stands artillery is impotent. That has to be as far off as anything else in the game, which is a mouthful. Not sure if that can be fixed with a more accurate TOE, but why not give it a try?
Welcome aboard!
RE: Indian Army in CHS
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 9:03 am
by Iron Duke
Hi
from Loyalty&Honour vol2
115th Indian Inf. Bde [training]
formed sept 1943 as Gurka training Bde under 39th Indian training Div.
disbanded 31st march 1946
14th Gurkha Rifles
38th Gurkha Rifles
56th Gurkha Rifles
710th Gurkha Rifles
NB These units were joint training units ie 1st & 4th Gurkha Rifles , 7th & 10th Gurkha Rifles etc.
Armoured Units
As with all British and Indian Bde's and Div's they changed there composition on a regular basis and its very difficult to to come up with a spot on OOB .
At present I've identified 16 Armoured Regt's that served in India/Burma
In the game there are 2 Arm. Bde's 255,254 and 3 Regts[?] that accounts for 9 of the Regts
should be in the game 50 Ind. Tk. Bde acounts for another 3 Regts
'I think' should be in the game 251 Tk Bde accounts for another 3 Regts
this leaves 1 Arm Regt outstanding which could be 11th Pavo [Prince Albert Victor's Own[11th Frontier Force]
Total Arm Regt's = 16
All the 16 Arm/Cavalry Regt's served in at least two if not all the Arm/Tank Bde's at some point.
17th Indian Div.
from L & H
48th Bde appears to be with 17 Div from 1942 to 1947
63rd Bde march 42 to 1947
99th Bde oct 44 to 1946
note: May 1942 17th Div was reorganized and equiped as a Light Division with 48th and 63rd Bde's
jan 1945 reorganised to consist of 2 Motorized Bde's [48th and 63rd] and one air transportable[99th]
For my money I'd remove 17th Div and replace with it's Bde's .[iN my small mod thats what i've done]
Also means you can have a Gurkha Bde [48th] [somewhere to put those Gurkha squads]
Don if you have any more questions I can dig the info out for you [have all three vols of L & H ]
RE: Indian Army in CHS
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:28 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Iron Duke
Hi
from Loyalty&Honour vol2
115th Indian Inf. Bde [training]
formed sept 1943 as Gurka training Bde under 39th Indian training Div.
disbanded 31st march 1946
14th Gurkha Rifles
38th Gurkha Rifles
56th Gurkha Rifles
710th Gurkha Rifles
NB These units were joint training units ie 1st & 4th Gurkha Rifles , 7th & 10th Gurkha Rifles etc.
Armoured Units
As with all British and Indian Bde's and Div's they changed there composition on a regular basis and its very difficult to to come up with a spot on OOB .
At present I've identified 16 Armoured Regt's that served in India/Burma
In the game there are 2 Arm. Bde's 255,254 and 3 Regts[?] that accounts for 9 of the Regts
should be in the game 50 Ind. Tk. Bde acounts for another 3 Regts
'I think' should be in the game 251 Tk Bde accounts for another 3 Regts
this leaves 1 Arm Regt outstanding which could be 11th Pavo [Prince Albert Victor's Own[11th Frontier Force]
Total Arm Regt's = 16
All the 16 Arm/Cavalry Regt's served in at least two if not all the Arm/Tank Bde's at some point.
17th Indian Div.
from L & H
48th Bde appears to be with 17 Div from 1942 to 1947
63rd Bde march 42 to 1947
99th Bde oct 44 to 1946
note: May 1942 17th Div was reorganized and equiped as a Light Division with 48th and 63rd Bde's
jan 1945 reorganised to consist of 2 Motorized Bde's [48th and 63rd] and one air transportable[99th]
For my money I'd remove 17th Div and replace with it's Bde's .[iN my small mod thats what i've done]
Also means you can have a Gurkha Bde [48th] [somewhere to put those Gurkha squads]
Don if you have any more questions I can dig the info out for you [have all three vols of L & H ]
I do have many questions indeed.
First, I like the idea of splitting up the 17th Division and also adding the 115th Brigade. This would give two Gurkha Brigades and address (as you say) the issue with usage of Gurkha squads.
The armored data seems good. Are all these Tank units - I have seen one or two references to Armored Cars?? There is also the British 7th Armoured of course, did any of the units move in and out of it??
I understand that the Nepalese army was under British (Indian?) control during World War II - any data??
Were there any meaningful regular army formations that are omitted from the current OOB?? Excluding security units and border guards - something like regular brigades posted on the other frontiers????
And, lastly, Engineers. I've seen reference to significant engineering resources at Corps level. This also raises a question: HQ units (Corps in this point) have only support. Could they also have engineers???
Thanks
P.S. If you go back to Military Press for Dr. Niehorster's two volumes when they come out this summer, let me know what you think of them. Even at 16 pounds the weak dollar makes them expensive for a poor retired Yankee, but Dr. Niehorster!
Don
RE: Indian Army in CHS
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 2:48 pm
by Iron Duke
Hi
Re Armoured/Cavalry units
The 11th PAVO Regt was equipped with Armoured cars , the Light Cavalry Regt's were mostly Stuarts,
the Armoured Regt's were Valentine's, Lee's and Sherman depending what year it was but I have no rock solid info just mainly looking a pictures and their captions . L & H does not give any TOE's
Napalese Army
Consisted of two seperate Bde's , employed mainly on Internal Sec. , rail protection , NW Frontier and the Assam L of C
Two notable exceptions were Mahindra Dal Regt fought with 268th Bde
and Kalibahadur Regt was IV Corps Troops
others
Shri Nath Regt - POW Guards [feb-jul 42] --- Assam Lof C [JUL42-AUG45]
Shamsher Dal Regt - Nw Frontier
Shere Regt - IV Corps troops[sept42 - mar44] -- XXXIII Corps troops[apr44-jul44]- L of C [JUL44-AUG45]
Purnao Gorakh Regt - NW Frontier
Bairab Nath Regt - NW Frontier
2nd Nepalese Inf Rifle Regt - railway protection + I.S [feb 42-aug45]
Another Gurkha unit .
25th Gurkha Rifles - 14th Army troops [oct43-mar45]
Independant Bde
Lushai Bde formed 28 mar 44 as a semi guerilla force under 14th Army
34th Indian Inf. Division
formed oct 41 --- disbanded june 43
moved to Ceylon jan 42 based at Trincomalee as garrison and airfield defence untill disbandment
units= 99th Indian Bde [oct 41 - jun 43]
100th Indian Bde [oct 41 - jun 43]
Engineers
Sadly Loyalty and Honour does not cover Engineer units other than those that are part of Divisions/Bde's
Other Frontiers
3rd Ind. Inf. Bde. Waziristan District 1942-46
75th Ind. Inf. Bde[Independant] formed apr 42 NW Frontier [redesignated Gardai Bde oct 44]
84th Ind Inf Bde formed may 42 to fight the Hur tribe in the deserts north of Hyderabad - disbanded oct 43
150th Ind Inf Bde [training] formed mar 44 moved to Hong Kong jan 46
155th Ind Inf Bde [training] formed mar 44 disbanded dec 45
Frontier Brigades
Landikotal Bde---- Peshawar Dist.
Peshawar Bde ---- Peshawar Dist.
Nowshera Bde ---- Peshawar Dist.
Kohat Bde ---- Kohat Dist.
Razmak Bde ---- Waziristan Dist.
Bannu Bde ---- Waziristan Dist
Wana Bde ---- Waziristan Dist
Gardai Bde[see 75th ind inf bde above]-- Waziristan Dist.
Khojak Bde ---- Baluchistan Dist.
Zhob Bde ---- Baluchistan Dist.
RE: Indian Army in CHS
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 2:57 pm
by Iron Duke
Hi Don,
When your happy with India , I've got a copy of Rays Of The Rising Sun - Armed Forces of Japan's Asian Allies 1931-1945 Vol 1 China and Manchukuo - how about putting an extra 600,000 chinese troops under japanese command [X(][:D]
Cheers
RE: Indian Army in CHS
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 3:14 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Iron Duke
Hi Don,
When your happy with India , I've got a copy of Rays Of The Rising Sun - Armed Forces of Japan's Asian Allies 1931-1945 Vol 1 China and Manchukuo - how about putting an extra 600,000 chinese troops under japanese command [X(][:D]
Cheers
Yes Please!
RE: Indian Army in CHS
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 3:45 pm
by Kereguelen
Hi Don,
I've recently posted something about the Indian Army in the OOB thread that may be somewhat useful for CHS. Take a look if you want!
K
RE: Indian Army in CHS
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:29 pm
by Lemurs!
The Chinese army controlled by Japan will not be included as it is assumed to be helping with internal security and crop harvesting while the Manchukuo army is fairly represented.
Mike
Indian Army
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:45 pm
by Don Bowen
Thanks all
I've received a wonderful amount of data - now I need to go through it.
Kereguelen - I don't think we will be making quite this sweeping a change. We agree on "disbanding" some of the divisions but my preliminary leaning is to keep some of the other one's in your suggestions. Might add a few artillery units too but we just don't have the OOB room for a wholesale reduction to regimental size. I'll let Lemurs comment on the TOE changes.
Iron Duke - I'd forgotten about the 99th Brigade on Ceylon. That's an old PacWar formation! I think the 100th is accounted for in the 20th Division but a couple of the other brigades look good. Probably will add the 50th Tank and also the 251st - but the later as a very low experience to indicate it's training status. Maybe the 1 armoured car regiment as well.
If possible I'd like to include the garrison battalions in their respective Base Forces - will check all this out. I do want to add a couple of the "other frontier" brigades to give India some possible instant reinforcement if invaded. I guess the Nepalese army is out - garrison and LOC troops or else incorporated into units that are already in the OOB.
Anything else??
Thanks again!
P.S. Haven't really got to the British yet but it's beginning to look like the 36th British Division might need to be put (back??) in. Sometimes training unit with 26th and 72nd British Brigades but saw combat and later had 26th Indian Brigade added. Right now we only have the 72nd British Brigade. Looks like we need to add 26th British and 26th Indian Brigades OR remove 72nd British Brigade and add 36th British Division. Thoughts??