German Jaeger and Mountain Divisions

[Wiedrock]

Here an little Errata on the TOEs, Manpower and implications about their current state.
I also have found some earlier TOEs and manpower Numbers (altough not that material available to me as of now). I will add those in another Post in this Thread once worked through.

If you find errors, have further info, ideas and so on, sharing is appreciated.

TOEs:
For now it is mostly about the 1944 reworks of the Divisional TOEs [OB:604, OB:611].
Attached are 2 Pictures, which show the current TOEs of the 44 variants and "correct" them.
Again the issue about SP Flak and Panzerschreck Squads came up.

Regimental AT for MtDiv44:
There are some other TOEs floating around showing the Regimental 2x3xPak40 being exchanged for 2x3xLeIG37. But it is also often mentioned that surplus 5cm or other types could have been kept if still available. As a middleground I guess keeping the initially planned Pak40 is a good idea since they are usually surplus available in game, contrary to IRL (Pak generally die too little but that's another issue). Additionally the LeIG37 in game does not understand that it is supposed to be an AT Gun replacement and it is also rather scarce.
What could be also done is to remove 3xPak40 and add 6xPak38 ("50mm leftover Pak") as another middleground.


Manpower:
Additionally, I added a collage of varying Mapower calculations (the lowest ones (the small quaders) I can not 100% pinpoint to a certain date.). The suggested Manpower values are mentioned in the two TOE pics.
Not yet sure how to handle the whole "mountain use/flat land use" situation. Without proper modding options to terrain and limited elite tags there can't be a perfect solution, other than bloating the unit with support for no actual improvement. The collage also includes order as to which Divisions in which theatres are supposed to be used in which setup.


Squads:
Some notes on the TOE pics. Further see this post.
What stands out is that both line infantry Squads remained 10Men Squads. Opposed to normal Infanry Divisions. Another sign for how to treat Jägers appropriately different to normal Infantry (as suggested in the following section).


Regarding the Jäger Divisions performance:
Currently the Jaeger Divisions initially are simply small IDs in game, even when regular IDs Rifle Squad numbers go down - Jaeger Divisions Squad numbers go down even further. All this without acknowledging their benefits, which they can not rly make use of in game since all Infantry TOEs always have more Support than needed, MPs are the same and there are no terrain bonuses for them. Part of the surplus of support is a large number of Officers, which can be seen in the Manpower Collage. Therefore some kind of "elite" status should be applied to those Divisions, altough for sure not +15NM, maybe we will get some additional Elite Flags, this would be perfect modding solution to this.
But since it is unlikely we will ever get additional Elite Flags, I'd suggest:
Due to their similarity in TOEs, increased officers, Equipment/horses, and differentiation between mountain/flat land use one could make use of this by making them Mountaineers (but maintaining the "L" logo). This serves the purpose to increase their small TOE effect/efficiency by making them at least +5NM and accounts for many more Support/Officers in such Divisions. Additionally some of those Divisions had rather large numbers of Iron Cross recipients, so giving them some Elite Status seems appropriate. Ideally they would only have halve the bonuses fighting in Mountains but also some additional bonus when fighting in Rough (but that's all unfortunately not moddable).

---

Further notes on earlier TOEs (not definitve since lack of information for now).
The Manpower the 10/1943 TOE could about have can be seen in the Collage, dated 08.01.1944 it states 14815Men.
The Manpower for 03/1943 TOE could be about 15872Men - again not a definitive answer, it is a calculation (I assume) of the 100th Jaeger Division in July 1943 - since the 100th its TOE is attached to the calculation. TOE errata will follow in hope to find more information about that. Interestingly it is showing 12x20mm Flak in the AT Battalion already.
But as mentioned initially, there will be a separate Thread about the earlier TOEs at one point in time when my sources allow.

[Denniss]

We have to work with standard squads so if something is missing we'd need to increase or decrease the squad numbers. As we have no 1945 OB for both unit types it may be worth copying the 44 OB as 45 OB and upgrade 43/44 OBs to historic larger version.
For the next update we plan to introduce the following changes to German Mountain/Jäger divs

Code: Select all

0603	43b Jaeger Div	add 12x 20mm Flak
0604	44 Jaeger Div	10/5 SP Flak -> towed 20mm, 36->72 Panzerschreck, 12->16 leIG
0610	43b Mount Div	add 12x 20mm Flak
0611	44 Mount Div	10/5 SP Flak -> towed 20mm, 36->72 Panzerschreck, 12->16 leIG, 333->329 Support

[Wiedrock]

4., 5. and 7. Gebirgs Division strength reports showing supposed strength (left collumn, marked red/yellow) and missing strength (collumn to the right).

[MechFO]

Squads:
Some notes on the TOE pics. Further see this post.
What stands out is that both line infantry Squads remained 10Men Squads. Opposed to normal Infanry Divisions. Another sign for how to treat Jägers appropriately different to normal Infantry (as suggested in the following section).

Since you are on Manpower calculations, also note that the schwere MG42 crews should consist of 5 instead of 4 men.

[Wiedrock]

Squads:
Some notes on the TOE pics. Further see this post.
What stands out is that both line infantry Squads remained 10Men Squads. Opposed to normal Infanry Divisions. Another sign for how to treat Jägers appropriately different to normal Infantry (as suggested in the following section).

Since you are on Manpower calculations, also note that the schwere MG42 crews should consist of 5 instead of 4 men.

I only look into normal squads.

There are many of such "squad/support weapon" squads having "too little" men in their squads. I have never tested if increasing their manpower would actually change their performance, but CV wise it would not change anything. The Devs did some rule on which men to count and which not, I am fine with that and am not planning on changing anything in this regard. In the end we would have some Italian Breda abominations with heinous amounts of men behind an HMG. And the setups also occasionally changed to you'd not get a "perfect" Squad anyways.

The normal "10Men Infantry Squads" (includes cav, pios ...) are the only ones whose CV is calculated according to the men in the Squad (3CV per Element uses 10Men Squad as a base, so a 9Men Squad has 2.7CV and a 12Men Squad has 3.6CV). So changing them gives an easily visible impact. And due to some patch/bugfix notes I am somewhat certain that for this type of ground element the number of men impacts the performance (besides CV), altough never tested this as well.

[Wiedrock]

Today I started working/researching Jäger and Gebirgsjäger. If you have something to provide, it's appreciated.

The larges concern right now is the Manpower, calculations and strength reports for 1944 are pretty clear that Manpower was way higher than currently in game (by factor of x ~150%) - ofc. it also depends on flatland-/mountain use and the specific calculation/Division, but the general issue remains either way.

Gebirgs:
I've already shown strength reports earlier on, showing ~18k in late 43 till early 45.
I've come across a calculation of the 4th Gebirgsjäger Division (BArch RH 2/1297) from 02.12.1943, ofc.it is not using the same "TOE" as in game (it had more Artillery, it is still using the 4Squad per Platoon KSTN and was still calculated with the 50mm Mortars) - and other differences. But in the end it had a total of 20970. The game currently has just 10598Manpower starting from the 10/1943 rework.

Geb_totals.jpg (130.41 KiB) Viewed 562 times

The individual "branches" are calculated individually and then added together. And the calculation only for the Infantry (2Regiments with 3 Batallions each) gives about the number we currently have in game as can be seen in the following.
I am not saying it is related to that but it's still giving an ballpark of numbers we are currently off by (eventually). Even removing randomly 2k for the reduced Squads in game, and additional 4k for being "flatland use", we are still short 4500Men (as said, random numbers chosen).

Geb_Infantry-only_RH_2_1297_0017.jpg (494.44 KiB) Viewed 562 times

1945 "Soll" of weapons also show 12k+ Kar98 needed, so ~2k more rifles needed than the game has men currently ~10500 (ignoring all the other men armed with other weapons...).
1943 7th Geb.Div. in July shows a "Soll" of 14536 Kar98 and "have" of 16k+ - while in game the TOE during that time only has 13250Men. So probably missing 3k+++ Men.
1943 in February the 6.Gebirgsdivision reports 16695 rifles.
1941 you can see in the following, listing 17900Men in April 1941 for the 6.Gebirgsdivision. So the earlier Manpower (which is similar in game as the Jäger's ~13k) seems to also already be off by ~4k Men, again - just to get a sense of scale, no definitive/exact numbers.

6.GebDiv_NARA T314-R528.png (168.55 KiB) Viewed 562 times

Jägers:
Similar situation, Manpower too low.
I've found the ~13k Manpower the earlier TOEs in game use (NARA T314-R1196) in a report from 17.06.1941 of the 97th light Infantry Division (later: 97. Jäger Division). Good chance to compare it to the intended JägD44 TOE rework (~05/1944) regarding firepower. After all, the Squads during the rework in late 43/early 44 went from 4/platoon to 3/platoon while in the same time the manpower seems to have increased by ~1k which seems suspicious/unintuitive when only looking at that change. But the firepower massivley increased, as can be seen when comparing the weapons:

• Mortars massively increased in size while only reducing numbers a little
• Flak was newly added
• small AT handheld increased in capabilities and numbers almost double
• heavy MGs about doubled
• light MGs about x1.5
• Pak went from 41x3,7cm+4x5cm to 16x7,5cm + 1x5cm (numbers down, calibers up)
• IGs: heavy were newly added 4x and light IGs about doubled
• Artillery, leFH x1,3 and sFH x1,5 increases

Jäger TOE 41 vs 44 comparison.png (1.81 MiB) Viewed 562 times

Conclusion (at this point in time):
The decrease of manpower from 10/43-end is not backed by anything I could find (so far), neither by general TOEs calculations nor by strentgh reports (which calculated according to the Divisions intended TOE - which may vary between Divsions).
Jägers: The earlier 4 Jäger TOEs look alright - altough are probably missing ~48Support additional. This would bring them 422→470Support. Then when the JägD44 TOEs with more firepower are introduced 10/43 this should increase to ~510 (from current 334).
Gebirgs: The late manpower is too low, by far - by ~x1,5-2,0. The early Manpower is most likely also off by ~x1,3-1,5.
→ ofc. there's possibility for flatland/mountain use differences in the earlier TOEs - I have no info on that (but even if, not by margins of off'nes as can be seen in game).

[MechFO]

The totals for Flachland and Gebirgseinsatz for both Gebj 44 and Jäger.

https://wwii.germandocsinrussia.org/de/ ... rip/zoom/7

Also has the list of Divisions that had Sondergliederung that differed from Inf Div 44.

https://wwii.germandocsinrussia.org/de/ ... ect/zoom/8

Implementation order for Gebirgs Div 44.



41 comparison

https://wwii.germandocsinrussia.org/de/ ... ect/zoom/8


42 Gebirgsjäger übungsgliederung but no numbers

https://wwii.germandocsinrussia.org/de/ ... ect/zoom/6


Geb Div 45

https://wwii.germandocsinrussia.org/de/ ... ect/zoom/8

[MechFO]

Strength reports for a Jäger and several Infantry Divisions in late 44 shows the soll for a Jäger Div as 13706.

https://wwii.germandocsinrussia.org/de/ ... ect/zoom/7

https://wwii.germandocsinrussia.org/de/ ... ect/zoom/7

https://wwii.germandocsinrussia.org/de/ ... ect/zoom/7

No breakdown and at first glance can't see any obvious changes that might explain the difference.


Seperate note is that 3 Divisions manage to name Sturmgewehrs in 3 different ways, Sturmgewehr, Sturmgewehr 44 and MP44.

[Wiedrock]

Geb Div 45

https://wwii.germandocsinrussia.org/de/ ... ect/zoom/8

This is a nice find, never seen this one before. Wonder if it was ever implemented/ordered to (date is 01. or 07.04.1945).
At first glance:

• Regimental StaffCo: - 8heavy mortars + 4sIG
• Regimental ATCo: - 6Pak(or pak'ish leIG) + 36Panzerschreck
  →Interesting is the KSTN 154c (Regimental AT) from 01.03.45 (and all the other 01.03.45 KSTNs), this isn't even listed in Niehorsters KSTN list. It removes the 3xPak but still increases in manpower (162→186Men ). So I assume they just blew up the Panzerschrecks to be actually regularly used/assigned (and the 54 is not just an "36+18Reserve" depicted the wrong way). But removing the Pak Platoon and adding an additional PzB Platoon gives 166Men, so no clue how the hell they added 20more men additionally?!
• Panzerjäger Battalion: + Begleit (finally )
• Artillery: - 4sFH → reduction in manpower

Seperate note is that 3 Divisions manage to name Sturmgewehrs in 3 different ways, Sturmgewehr, Sturmgewehr 44 and MP44.

Since this isn't Sparta it must be madness!

41 comparison

https://wwii.germandocsinrussia.org/de/ ... ect/zoom/8

Have seen this just yesterday elsewhere, had it cut already but not posted yet. It's numbers as "Anhalt", so no exact figures. But still the "low" Jägers and the "high"(well, seriously high) Gebirgs seems odd - some early Flatland/Mountain use discrepancies without being named?!

The others tuff I have already seen. So now one has to find a way make it all work out (especially regarding flatland/mountain use), we'll see....

[MechFO]

Geb Div 45

https://wwii.germandocsinrussia.org/de/ ... ect/zoom/8

This is a nice find, never seen this one before. Wonder if it was ever implemented/ordered to (date is 01. or 07.04.1945).
At first glance:

• Regimental StaffCo: - 8heavy mortars + 4sIG
• Regimental ATCo: - 6Pak(or pak'ish leIG) + 36Panzerschreck
  →Interesting is the KSTN 154c (Regimental AT) from 01.03.45 (and all the other 01.03.45 KSTNs), this isn't even listed in Niehorsters KSTN list. It removes the 3xPak but still increases in manpower (162→186Men ). So I assume they just blew up the Panzerschrecks to be actually regularly used/assigned (and the 54 is not just an "36+18Reserve" depicted the wrong way). But removing the Pak Platoon and adding an additional PzB Platoon gives 166Men, so no clue how the hell they added 20more men additionally?!
• Panzerjäger Battalion: + Begleit (finally )
• Artillery: - 4sFH → reduction in manpower

What I'm wondering about is if they kept their 10 man Squads which they had even with the 44 organisation (not sure about Jäger, some seem to have 11 men in 44 but would need to compare the KSTN numbers with the lists) and if the above is Gebirgs or Flachland. This btw is wrong for existing TOE which all use the normal Rifle Squads

The Gebirgs KSTN from 1.4.44 which also had 2x81mm had

Gebirge 2-27-198
Flachland 2-24-155

Gebirgs Div 45 has 2-25-183 with 55 Sturmgewehre, 10 ZF Gew 43, 10 lMG

Comparing to Ski Jäger Sturm KSTN from 1.1.45 that has 2-18-136 with 55 Sturmgewehre, 6 ZF Gew 43, 9 lMG

IMO it is standard Sturm org for Gebirge.

41 comparison

https://wwii.germandocsinrussia.org/de/ ... ect/zoom/8

Have seen this just yesterday elsewhere, had it cut already but not posted yet. It's numbers as "Anhalt", so no exact figures. But still the "low" Jägers and the "high"(well, seriously high) Gebirgs seems odd - some early Flatland/Mountain use discrepancies without being named?!

The others tuff I have already seen. So now one has to find a way make it all work out (especially regarding flatland/mountain use), we'll see....

It's not just the numbers of men but LKW, Krad etc. though the numbers in Geb Div 45 for those items are also very high in comparison to what what normal units got.