Sort of OT: National Morale of Western Allies

[Q-Ball]

I was wondering, if WITE were expanded, what National Morale would we assign to the Western Allies?

Even late in the war, the Wehrmacht was slightly more efficient pound for pound than the Western Allies, so keeping the current WITE ratings in mind.

I'll take a stab......

FRANCE: 40
The Third Republic was in a sorry state politically, reflected in the malaise of it's poliu. The leaders stink too. Would make the French Army not so hot despite piles of tanks and quite a bit of firepower. As it should.
Free-French are different, they would share ratings with UK/US

BRITAIN: 65
I would keep the Brits the same througout the whole war. Not sure morale or combat efficiency really changed, other than the tools they worked with. Their Manpower production would really drop off in a game.

CANADA: 70
All-volunteer force performed very well, and were tough opponents

ANZACS: 70
Same comment as Canada

INDIAN ARMY: 60
Performed well in Desert and Italy

UNITED STATES:
1942: 50
1943: 60
1944: 65
1945: 65
The US Army started out slow, but gradually grew into it's combat power, and ended the war fairly efficient. I'm not sure the US Army really became a high-efficiency force, but became a killing machine mostly because of it's mobility, artillery firepower, and piles and piles of tanks. And logistics.

As a side note, it would be a tough call on what to do with the US Infantry Divisions. They really were more mobile than standard foot infantry, but weren't "Motorized" per se. It seems a bit unfair to just allow them to Temp Motorize, but not use that for Combat exploits. Certainly, the US Army would have a bottomless vehicle pool.

BELGIUM: 40
A bit unfair maybe, but you have to lump them with the French

NETHERLANDS: 50
They showed some pluck in a short-fight, but the Dutch Army just didn't have the firepower to compete.

GREECE: 45
They were great in comparison with the Italians.

[delatbabel]

I'd rate the US a bit lower, but with high morale leaders that could rally routed troops quickly.  The US troops (most of them) earned a reputation during the war of breaking and running at the first sign of trouble, but being able to rally quickly and start returning fire from covered positions, especially once they had artillery backup (which they usually did).  This is in comparison to German and Soviet troops who would greet incoming fire by returning fire from the spot.

It's a different war when you're fighting for someone else's homeland.

[Josh]

NETHERLANDS: 50
They showed some pluck in a short-fight, but the Dutch Army just didn't have the firepower to compete.

I'd say fair enough.
Years and years of finance cutbacks after WWI made the militairy very inefficient. I mean they had to get artillery pieces from the museums to fight the Germans in '40...
There was however a wellknown brigade that did well: The Princess Irene Brigade. 
http://www.prinsesirenebrigade.nl/
 
WitW... at least another six months?

[Q-Ball]

I can see the point on poor morale, bucked-up by good leaders and artillery.

US Army Artillery in WWII was second to none, and that's not just because my Gramps was a WWII Artilleryman.

The US Army had first-rate communications equipment and doctrine (easily the best), superior mobility for it's artillery, and more shells. The Artillery attracted many of the brightest officers (My Gramps was #2 in his ROTC class at Illinois), and the training was quite good. There was a strong Espirit d' Corps in the Artillery, as least from what I can tell.

The US Army is kind of a unique WWII animal in many ways

[paullus99]

The Canadians & ANZACs will be hampered by very low manpower pools - they never had the number of replacements they needed & were notoriously understrength, especially in Normandy & northern Europe.

[Q-Ball]

...and the British later on. Only the US Army had adequate replacements.

IIRC, the Australians were all transferred to the Pacific before it became critical. As far as the Canadians, I didn't know their replacements became critical.

Certainly it was for the British, as they started disbanding divisions later in the war to create replacements

Only the US Army had good manpower reserves

[dazoline II]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

...and the British later on. Only the US Army had adequate replacements.

IIRC, the Australians were all transferred to the Pacific before it became critical. As far as the Canadians, I didn't know their replacements became critical.

Certainly it was for the British, as they started disbanding divisions later in the war to create replacements

Only the US Army had good manpower reserves

The only reason that Canadian frontline manpower was critical was due to the voluntary nature of serving overseas. Canada did have conscription but only for home defence, i.e. North America. Conscripted Canadians did help with the landings in the Aleutians.

[anarchyintheuk]

Nationally they had good manpower reserves but as an institution the USArmy underestimated riflemen and tank crew losses in the eto. It led to using a lot of un/undertrained replacements after the losses sustained during Normandy and Huertgen et al. Iirc some aa and at units were cannibilized after Huertgen to provide infantry replacements.

[paullus99]

Barely adequate replacements, when they were available. The US Military severely underestimated the need for infantry divisions & allowed the majority of the quality manpower to be siphoned off to the Airborne Divisions, Rangers & the other services (USAAF & Navy). Although the US didn't need to break up existing divisions like the British did, they never had enough infantry replacements.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

...and the British later on. Only the US Army had adequate replacements.

IIRC, the Australians were all transferred to the Pacific before it became critical. As far as the Canadians, I didn't know their replacements became critical.

Certainly it was for the British, as they started disbanding divisions later in the war to create replacements

Only the US Army had good manpower reserves

Actually the US Army replacement "process" was a disaster. The original staff numbers (actually algorithms based upon stance, type of combat, etc) for infantry losses were off by a factor of three to ten depending upon source. This first became noticeable in Italy but the significance was not recognized in Washington because of the relatively small number of infantry engaged (McNair and the infantry branch staff considered the winter of 43-44 in Italy an anomaly). After the D-Day landings the replacement pool began to deplete at an alarming rate in spite of the fact that less than half of the infantry force was engaged with an enemy ( and the Pacific Army casualties were extremely light, at least by Eastern Front standards). The Breakout saw a substantial reduction in infantry casualty rate allowing the pools to build back up slightly but then the late Fall battles on the Frontier reduced them substantially again and the Bulge totally depleted them. By January 44, Air Corps cadets were being transferred to the Infantry as were many (white) Service Force personnel. By Fall 45 things would have improved since virtually all of the 45 draftees were being sent to the infantry.

However, this only applied to the infantry and in fact that was a root cause of the problem: far too many inductees were sent to the non-infantry branches based upon those flawed casualty algorithms ( per Ellis- The Sharp End, the replacement flow to the various branches was roughly proportional to their total headcount while over 90% of the casualties were infantry). Armor and artillery replacements were always adequate in spite of heavy tank losses

Also in Game terms, the experience level for late 44- early 45 replacements would be substantially less than earlier since the replacements were transfers from other branches and had received only minimal infantry training.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Nationally they had good manpower reserves but as an institution the USArmy underestimated riflemen and tank crew losses in the eto. It led to using a lot of un/undertrained replacements after the losses sustained during Normandy and Huertgen et al. Iirc some aa and at units were cannibilized after Huertgen to provide infantry replacements.

I know they did do this to alot of the AA units, also because they didn't really have a mission.

US Infantry Divisions, though, were at TOE after rest, or became so fairly quickly after combat. Many were even above TOE at certain points from extra requisitions here and there, and attached armor units became fairly standard.

In game terms, the US Army probably would have, if not ample, pretty solid replacements. There would be lots of Tank and TD Bns, probably 1 or 2 organically attached to every division, along with Corps AFV and artillery assets. Not to mention Cav Regts and other support units. This in addition to the arrival almost every turn in 44-45 of additional units.

Part of the replacement training problem for the US Army was the system itself (Individual Replacement System, IIRC?) that trained a guy, then sent him to a series of depots with transient commanders and comrades, so whatever training he received lost its edge from sitting around the depots.

My Grandfather went through this in New Guinea, at a depot at Milne Bay, which was boring and useless. And he was a pilot, so spent less time practicing pistol shooting than everyone else.

Like I said the US Army was a unique animal that despite it's issues got the job done, in probably a way that only the US could do....

[Remmes]

ORIGINAL: Josh

http://www.prinsesirenebrigade.nl/

I took a look at the site; I enjoyed the part about 'Tilburg' very much. It is about 500 metres from where I live. In fact I took the dog out for a walk along the small river on the map about 30 minutes ago. No traces whatsoever remain.

[castlebravo]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
UNITED STATES:
1942: 50
1943: 60
1944: 65
1945: 65
The US Army started out slow, but gradually grew into it's combat power, and ended the war fairly efficient. I'm not sure the US Army really became a high-efficiency force, but became a killing machine mostly because of it's mobility, artillery firepower, and piles and piles of tanks. And logistics.

I disagree . You are basically saying the US in 1942 is about as efficient as the Russians were in 1941. If you take the 1941 Wehrmacht as being 70 (average) and elite German units being 80+, then the average American unit would be at least 60 in 1942.

There are lots of battles, from the get go (ie, Operation Torch in Tunisia) where the Americans had neither superior equipment, nor overwhelming numbers, nor air superiority, where their performance isn't as embarrassing as a 15-20 point differential in morale will actually result in game mechanics.

[Steelers708]

ORIGINAL: castlebravo


There are lots of battles, from the get go (ie, Operation Torch in Tunisia) where the Americans had neither superior equipment, nor overwhelming numbers, nor air superiority,

Nor were they facing hardened troops, no disrespect meant, but the Vichy French troops encountered were hardly the toughened grisly veterans of the Afrika Korps and PanzerArmee Afrika, that hit the Americans so hard at Kasserine.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I was wondering, if WITE were expanded, what National Morale would we assign to the Western Allies?

I don't think they said WITW would include 1940 scenarios and I doubt it will, let alone scenarios with Greece etc, but for what it's worth I think your post is interesting chalenge so I will assign what I see as better morale values:

France in 1940: 50

UK: 55 (no more than 60 in any case)

Canada: like UK, don't forget they had French Canadians that from what I've read were not at all keen on going to war

ANZAC: 70 (they had by far the best morale of all anglo dudes)

India: 50

US: going from 50 to 70 over the years is good idea

Belgium: 50

Netherlands: 50

Greece: 70 I don't know how you came up with 45 as their morale when fighting Italians was sky high. When Germans stepped in it was another story, but they were overwhelmed by numbers and equipment, not really morale

Lets not forget that Soviets for most of war are rated 50, and they are extremely tenacious, hardened fighters. They should probably have higher morale values BTW. There is no way I can agree that regular Brits should have significantly higher morale than Sovs! No way. The idea that Indians in Brit service fighting in Italy have visibly higher morale than Sovs fighting for their families and motherland is a bad joke.

Also, I cannot agree in any way that Canadians should be rated as high as ANZAC. 60 is really far too generous for everyone on the list except late war Americans and ANZAC.

[Steelers708]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

As a side note, it would be a tough call on what to do with the US Infantry Divisions. They really were more mobile than standard foot infantry, but weren't "Motorized" per se. It seems a bit unfair to just allow them to Temp Motorize, but not use that for Combat exploits. Certainly, the US Army would have a bottomless vehicle pool.

I don't think the Americans should have or indeed did have a 'bottomless supply' of trucks. I've read many accounts, including in the book i've just finished reading, "In Final defense of the Reich: The Destruction of the 6th SS Mountain Division 'Nord' " where battalions/regiments had to walk to assembly areas etc due to there being insufficient motorized transport available to move the whole unit/s.

[castlebravo]

ORIGINAL: Steelers708

ORIGINAL: castlebravo


There are lots of battles, from the get go (ie, Operation Torch in Tunisia) where the Americans had neither superior equipment, nor overwhelming numbers, nor air superiority,

Nor were they facing hardened troops, no disrespect meant, but the Vichy French troops encountered were hardly the toughened grisly veterans of the Afrika Korps and PanzerArmee Afrika, that hit the Americans so hard at Kasserine.

True, but at Kasserine pass, you are talking about, as you said, toughened grisly veterans (aka elite, aka 80+ morale) of the Afrika Korps. Also, the Germans had total air superiority.

And, according to Wiki:

Significant as the first large-scale meeting of American and German forces in World War II, the untested and poorly-led American troops suffered heavy casualties and were pushed back over fifty miles (80 km) from their positions west of Faid Pass in a rout. In the aftermath, the U.S. Army instituted sweeping changes from unit-level organization to the replacing of commanders. When they next met, in some cases only weeks later, the U.S. forces were considerably more effective.

That is, in game terms, poor US leaders failed their command rolls .

[castlebravo]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Lets not forget that Soviets for most of war are rated 50, and they are extremely tenacious, hardened fighters. They should probably have higher morale values BTW. There is no way I can agree that regular Brits should have significantly higher morale than Sovs! No way. The idea that Indians in Brit service fighting in Italy have visibly higher morale than Sovs fighting for their families and motherland is a bad joke.

Just curious, but if Soviet morale was so high, why did the NKVD put machine guns in back of the combat units? [;)]

Further clarification. Since experience and morale are closely tied in WiTE, and furthermore, experience cannot be trained higher than morale, in effect you are saying that the average British unit was on par with the average Soviet unit in 1941. I don't know that the literature anywhere supports that argument.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: castlebravo

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Lets not forget that Soviets for most of war are rated 50, and they are extremely tenacious, hardened fighters. They should probably have higher morale values BTW. There is no way I can agree that regular Brits should have significantly higher morale than Sovs! No way. The idea that Indians in Brit service fighting in Italy have visibly higher morale than Sovs fighting for their families and motherland is a bad joke.

Just curious, but if Soviet morale was so high, why did the NKVD put machine guns in back of the combat units? [;)]

Because it was a totalitarian regime run by a psychopath? [;)] The NKVD thing is largely a myth anyway, high combat morale is undeniable in cases that had nothing to do with NKVD "encouragement".

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: castlebravo
Further clarification. Since experience and morale are closely tied in WiTE, and furthermore, experience cannot be trained higher than morale, in effect you are saying that the average British unit was on par with the average Soviet unit in 1941. I don't know that the literature anywhere supports that argument.

That's wrong way to look at the problem. The correct way would be to ask why is experience closely tied to morale? I see no real reason why it should be. Greek units vs Italians are probably a good example of extremely high morale, probably only low to medium training (and of course obsolete equipment). I'd give Greeks morale 70 with no problem, but of course if that means they would train to EXP 70 too easy that's probably not really desired outcome. If that's the case, what is currently called morale should probably be called something else, like "proficiency" in TOAW.

British units I am sorry but I have pretty low opinion about. I mean pure British. There is probably good reason why they constantly put ANZAC in the thick of the action, and used dominion troops to fill in the line (Indian, South African, Canadian etc).