OOB & TO&E Database

[Mr. Smith]

Hello!
As a long time fan of the TOAW series, I was thrilled when I saw that Matrix updating the program. Thank you and good job to everyone concerned![:)]

Like many others, I have attempted to create a few of my own scenarios, but I usually get stumped in trying to reconstruct the Operational Order of Battle (OOB) for the opposing sides and their conresponding Tables of Organization and Equipement (TO&E).

Moreover, TOAW models many things well, but sometimes there are a few things that are difficult to model. For instance, in the European Theater in World War II, American Armies and Corps had Quartermaster truck companies assigned to them. They would often temporarily attach these to infantry divisions for transport purposes, effectively turning a standard Infantry unit into a motorized unit. In large campaigns, such as Patton's dash across France or the Battle of the Bulge how does TOAW reflect this unique American ability?

I ask this question as a lead in to a suggestion I have for this forum: Would anyone else be interested in starting an ongoing thread for the purpose of posting TOAW versions of military units? The goal would be to develop models for designer's to use and thus save themselves time in researching. Example, a designer needs to know what was the TOAW version of an American tank battalion in Normandy or a Polish infantry regiment in 1939. The designer would refrence the correct thread, find the appropriate TO&E, and plug it in to the scenario![:D]

Anyone interested?

Smith

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Mr. Smith

Moreover, TOAW models many things well, but sometimes there are a few things that are difficult to model. For instance, in the European Theater in World War II, American Armies and Corps had Quartermaster truck companies assigned to them. They would often temporarily attach these to infantry divisions for transport purposes, effectively turning a standard Infantry unit into a motorized unit. In large campaigns, such as Patton's dash across France or the Battle of the Bulge how does TOAW reflect this unique American ability?

The American army was so swimming in trucks that I'd be inclined just to motorise everyone.

I ask this question as a lead in to a suggestion I have for this forum: Would anyone else be interested in starting an ongoing thread for the purpose of posting TOAW versions of military units? The goal would be to develop models for designer's to use and thus save themselves time in researching. Example, a designer needs to know what was the TOAW version of an American tank battalion in Normandy or a Polish infantry regiment in 1939. The designer would refrence the correct thread, find the appropriate TO&E, and plug it in to the scenario![:D]

The trouble is that even a TO&E can be situation dependent. I'd frankly prefer it if the raw data was posted and designers left to make up their own minds. Of course there's nothing to stop someone putting their own interpretation alongside said information.

To take one of your examples, let's look at the Polish infantry of 1939- but a platoon rather than a regiment for simplicity's sake. Each had an HQ (with AT Rifle), a mortar section and three rifle squads, each with a BAR. So we come up with the simple TO&E:
3 Rifle Squads
1 AT Rifle
1 46mm Mortar

However, let's take a closer look at the platoon. Each squad, it turns out has eighteen rifles, and there are a further seven rifles in the mortar platoon. Even with a generous definition of "rifle squad" and the number of men necessary to man a single 46mm mortar, we're left with 15-20 spare rifles (and there are a further 19 rifles at company HQ). My inclination is to set out each rifle platoon as:
3 Rifle Squads
2 Light Rifle Squads
1 AT Rifle
1 46mm Mortar

On top of that there is some concern that the BAR isn't really up to scratch as a squad heavy weapon. So one could go for two rifle squads and three light rifle, one and four, or even all light rifle. It depends on the designer's choice.

Anyway, www.tdg.nu 's resources page has a number of OOBs and TO&Es which may interest you, and there are a wealth of other sources out there, on the internet or in print.

[hueglin]

ORIGINAL: Mr. Smith

Hello!
As a long time fan of the TOAW series, I was thrilled when I saw that Matrix updating the program. Thank you and good job to everyone concerned![:)]

Like many others, I have attempted to create a few of my own scenarios, but I usually get stumped in trying to reconstruct the Operational Order of Battle (OOB) for the opposing sides and their conresponding Tables of Organization and Equipement (TO&E).

Moreover, TOAW models many things well, but sometimes there are a few things that are difficult to model. For instance, in the European Theater in World War II, American Armies and Corps had Quartermaster truck companies assigned to them. They would often temporarily attach these to infantry divisions for transport purposes, effectively turning a standard Infantry unit into a motorized unit. In large campaigns, such as Patton's dash across France or the Battle of the Bulge how does TOAW reflect this unique American ability?

I ask this question as a lead in to a suggestion I have for this forum: Would anyone else be interested in starting an ongoing thread for the purpose of posting TOAW versions of military units? The goal would be to develop models for designer's to use and thus save themselves time in researching. Example, a designer needs to know what was the TOAW version of an American tank battalion in Normandy or a Polish infantry regiment in 1939. The designer would refrence the correct thread, find the appropriate TO&E, and plug it in to the scenario![:D]

Anyone interested?

Smith

It's an interesting idea, although maybe a better way to do it would be to save the units within a scenario, calling the scenario by the name of the army and time period. Then the scenario file could be loaded and viewed and any units wanted exracted as needed. That way you could would lessen the number of files you were dealing with on the thread.

Golden Delicious makes a good point about orbat interpretations. There is lots of variation in how you decide to allocate resources to units. For example, do you model every single truck in an organization - a motorized bn can have 100s of vehicles. Even with armoured vehicles, when you look at the detailed TOEs of modern units there are all sorts of general purpose armoured vehicles that would not really be involved in combat (forward supply, ambulance, liaison). I try only to model eqpt that would likely become engaged. On the infantry side of things, I try only to model squads that are actually trained as infantry squads. There are lots of soldiers who have rifles, but would not be effective infantry because they have not have not had enough training in section, platoon and company tactics (besides, they have there own jobs to do).

I think its a worthwhile topic to continue discussing.

Dave

[*Lava*]

Hi!

You can divide units.

Why not be able to combine them as well?

Being able to combine units would be very kewl, allowing the player to customize his forces and would open a whole new way of designing scenarios.

Ray (alias Lava)

[geozero]

Nothing beats the Nafziger data collection.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: hueglin

Golden Delicious makes a good point about orbat interpretations. There is lots of variation in how you decide to allocate resources to units. For example, do you model every single truck in an organization

This is an easy one: no, never. Just put in trucks until you get the desired move rate.

There are lots of soldiers who have rifles, but would not be effective infantry because they have not have not had enough training in section, platoon and company tactics (besides, they have there own jobs to do).

It depends on the situation. So to return to our example of Poland, 99% of the time these men in the German infantry regiment will be doing their assigned tasks- Jarek Flis always talks about "cooks and clerks". But for 1945, you'll find these men getting into action in practically every engagement, so obviously they need to be modelled. Stick in a few light rifle squads.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: geozero

Nothing beats the Nafziger data collection.

Except on price.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lava

Hi!

You can divide units.

Why not be able to combine them as well?

Being able to combine units would be very kewl, allowing the player to customize his forces and would open a whole new way of designing scenarios.

Some degree of flexibility here would be good: the ability to form ad-hoc Kampfgruppes for specific tasks would make the game that much more interesting. I think flexible formations would be more the issue than flexible units.

However, this ability would have to be strictly limited. I wouldn't want our 1940 French player forming combined arms brigades on the spur of the moment, for example. Nor would I want any player to be able to stick three divisions together and come up with the ultimate Retreat-Before-Combat machine.

[geozero]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: geozero

Nothing beats the Nafziger data collection.

Except on price.

You are right. But the stuff out there is not usually that good. If you are a serious historian, you'll invest.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: geozero

You are right. But the stuff out there is not usually that good. If you are a serious historian, you'll invest.

What if I'm a serious historian with no income who has found a wealth of free information which I find perfectly satisfactory?

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Some degree of flexibility here would be good: the ability to form ad-hoc Kampfgruppes for specific tasks would make the game that much more interesting. I think flexible formations would be more the issue than flexible units.

However, this ability would have to be strictly limited. I wouldn't want our 1940 French player forming combined arms brigades on the spur of the moment, for example. Nor would I want any player to be able to stick three divisions together and come up with the ultimate Retreat-Before-Combat machine.

Indeed.

Good points, the kampfgruppe and the American western front are perfect examples.

Don't see why some sort of limitation on combining could not be put into effect, the major problem being what symbol would be display. The most realistic way, I think, would be to have a major combat arm unit (inf, tank, mech, KG) as the foundation which non-major units (art, eng, AAA, etc) could me combined into. Thus the major unit maintains its normal symbol, but brings into its organization addition capabilities. Probably too hard to do though.

But it would make for some very interesting scenarios in which the player determined how to put his army organization together.

Ray (alias Lava)

[geozero]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: geozero

You are right. But the stuff out there is not usually that good. If you are a serious historian, you'll invest.

What if I'm a serious historian with no income who has found a wealth of free information which I find perfectly satisfactory?

Then I salute you.

I still believe Nafziger is the leading authority on this - hands down.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lava

The most realistic way, I think, would be to have a major combat arm unit (inf, tank, mech, KG) as the foundation which non-major units (art, eng, AAA, etc) could me combined into.

I suppose this could work off the unit size icon- there could be a formula for how many units of certain sizes could be attached. So a division could have, say, up to four battalions attached, or one one regiment and a battalion, and so on. The KG and BG iconed units could be allowed double the normal capacity, but have very little organic equipment. They would be great for sticking together the remains of units which have divided and lost one or two of the sub-units.

[panzerpelle]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Lava

The most realistic way, I think, would be to have a major combat arm unit (inf, tank, mech, KG) as the foundation which non-major units (art, eng, AAA, etc) could me combined into.

I suppose this could work off the unit size icon- there could be a formula for how many units of certain sizes could be attached. So a division could have, say, up to four battalions attached, or one one regiment and a battalion, and so on. The KG and BG iconed units could be allowed double the normal capacity, but have very little organic equipment. They would be great for sticking together the remains of units which have divided and lost one or two of the sub-units.

I believe Jrek had an idea that the amount of command groups in the parent unit could decide how many units can be attached...IIRC.

[Montbrun]

Sources for OoBs and ToEs are out there. You just have to dig them up. There are a couple of excellent websites, but I primarily rely on printed sources:

T/O & E 17-25 - Tank Battalion
9/15/43, with changes to 2/12/44

HH Company, 3 x Medium Tank Companies, Light Tank Company, Service Company

Aggregate (TOAW Terms): Tank Battalion - 54 x M4 Medium Tank, 18 x M5 Light Tank, 6 x M4 105mm Medium Tank, 3 x M21 81mm Mortar H/T, (5 x 81mm Mortar)

SOURCE: Hays, J.J., “United States Army Ground Forces – Tables of Organization and Equipment – World War II – The Armored Division 1942-1945, Volume 2/I,” The Military Press, London, 2003.

The inclusion, or exclusion, of certain equipment is up to the scenario designer. With the above example, I would probably not include the 5 x 81mm Mortars, because these were primarily attached for the employment of smoke.

I highly recommend the following sites:

http://home.fuse.net/nafziger/ - George Nafziger's site - excellent books, ToEs, and OoBs for sale.

http://www.orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/index.htm - Leo Niehorster's site, where you can find the organizations of the various Polish infantry regiments here:

http://www.orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/029_poland/organizations/div-inf.html

I have, literally, 1000s of books with ToE and OoB information. You can generally find what you want, if you look hard enough. There are also several message boards out there with knowledgable people:

http://forum.axishistory.com/index.php?sid=bba320776af5345d144ceef946f7b645

http://www.feldgrau.com/

....and in Yahoo Groups, check out the "France 1940," "Italianisti," and "TOandEs" groups.

Hope this helps,

Brad

[Dr. Foo]

I have a great book:
 
Korean War Order of Battle: United States, United Nations, and Communist Ground, Naval, and Air Forces, 1950-1953
 
The book has everything even TO&E if anyone would like any info from this book just PM me.
 
 

[hueglin]

The US Army Centre for Military History (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/default.htm)and the Combined Arms Research Library (http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/) both have extensive collections of material in PDF format (some in HTML). In particular the Handbook on the German Armed Forces is a US intelligence publication from 1945 that details the TOE`s of a great number of German units. There is another publication that details the entire Japanese Orbat (not TOE) at the time of surrender. The French Army currently has all of its TOEs and Tactical manuals available for download from their website (in French of course), as does the Canadian Army.

As presviously mentioned, lots of info is out there for those who want to dig. For me, that is part of the fun.

[Mr. Smith]

This thread is proceeding just as I had hoped.[:)]
I would suggest that as we move forward we create new threads dealing with specific time periods or better yet conflicts. Such as a "World War II TO&E" thread or a "Eastern Front 1941 To&E" thread.
 
Brad, thanks for the suggested U.S. tank battalion! Interesting idea on the 81mm mortars. . .
 
Please keep the links coming and if you have printed reference material like Dr. Foo let the community know if you are willing to provide data.
 
Many interesting issues have already been raised. I would like to hear more on how the non-combant personel of a unit are modeled. I have considered using irregular squads to reflect those soldiers who are armed, but do not function as trained combat team. So, a signal company might have 9 to 12 irregular squads for example. I prefer these over the light squad designation since light squads model an infantry unit with offensive and defensive abilities whereas support troops have purely defensive cabilities and are limited at that.
 
This raises an obvious question: Should a TOAW unit include only the combat elements or all components? As a game designed to model the "operational" realm of warfare as opposed to merely the "tactical", the "tail" of unit becomes as important as the "teeth". However, the desire to keep the game manageable means that support units are specifically limited to supply and repair functions with some defensive ability. I agree with this approach. Can anyone imagine how tedious the game would be if you had to employ units to establish communication networks for example? Select "Lay Phone lines" under the Unit Orders Menu . . .
 
Accordingly, I tend to group all those units not organic to the combat formations respective of scale in the HQ unit as irregular squads if not specifically support, MP or engineering. For example, a 1944-45 U.S. Infantry division as a TOAW formation would consist of a HQ unit, 3 Infantry regiments, a Recon troop, an engineering battalion, 3 light artillery battalions and 1 medium artillery battalion (or just a divisional artillery unit). I would use this setup in a scenario where the player is in the role of the Army or Corps commander.
 
BTW,
After five years of working as a historian, I didn't know it was actually possible to have an income! [:D]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Mr. Smith

I would like to hear more on how the non-combant personel of a unit are modeled. I have considered using irregular squads to reflect those soldiers who are armed, but do not function as trained combat team. So, a signal company might have 9 to 12 irregular squads for example. I prefer these over the light squad designation since light squads model an infantry unit with offensive and defensive abilities whereas support troops have purely defensive cabilities and are limited at that.

Irregular squads and support squads both have an AP factor. More to the point, AP and defence strengths of equipment are both used in both attack and defence at the level of the whole unit: the AP is the chance to kill soft equipment and the defence is the survivability against such attacks (and additionally the ability to hold ground in the case of active defenders).

Accordingly, I tend to group all those units not organic to the combat formations respective of scale in the HQ unit as irregular squads if not specifically support, MP or engineering.

Yeah, I do that in some cases. But you have to be careful not to turn the HQ unit into something which the casual player will regularly use as a lineholder.

After five years of working as a historian, I didn't know it was actually possible to have an income! [:D]

Tell me about it. I graduated with my BA in War Studies nearly a year ago. Now doing a bloody computer course.

[Mr. Smith]

After a BA and MA in History, I'm now working in the Insurance/Investing field![:D]
 
Golden D., good points regarding the AP strengths. Unfortunately, that seems unadvoidable as there are no units with a zero AP other than the "Porter" or "Civilian Group". Even so, irregular squads seem to be a pretty good match for non-supply support units as they do have a limited firepower in the same type that a loosely organized guerilla unit does. I [font="times new roman"]envision [/font]them as "Bunch of guys with rifles".
 
Smith