Determinant Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 Lest we forget. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breakthrough Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 Well written. How very true. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj. Battaglia Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 These links have been posted before (we've actually had a couple of threads about the Indian Army), but they are worth putting up here: Indian Army in the Second World War The Tiger Triumphs: the Story of Three Great Divisions The Fifth Indian Division There is some good reading (and pictures) at all of these sites for those who want to know more about Indian troops in WWII. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiaros Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Good link Determant; provides some infos I didn't know about Indian troops of the Allied forces. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave H Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Two and a half million men from India and Nepal served in WW2? That's an incredible number! I had been aware there were troops from India in the Allied armies, but this is orders of magnitude greater than what I had thought. Thanks to all of you who posted links; this puts a new face on the "average" Allied soldier. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 I wonder if the Indian organization and equipment would differ significantly from a 'standard' Brit unit. Some folks may consider it 'ethocentric' for CMAK to emphasise Caucasian armies in a North African war, but if a 'commonwealth' TO&E can be used then scenario designers should be able to showcase the exploits of whichever group they're interested in, as long as they spell out in the Orders who is doing what where in the scenario. The list of separate nationalities/ethnic groups that fought in the Med theatre is pretty staggering, from South African, to American Asian units, to Brazilian, even Maouri New Zealand units. They didn't call it a 'World War' for nothin'! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 MikeyD, that's "Maori" CW War-Establishments were broadly similar from nation to nation. They were certainly more the same than, say, a US and a UK Div, but there certainly were differences, in some cases quite significant. As a simple example, in a 'normal' UK infantry division in 1944/45 the MG Battalion had three companies of Vickers and a company of 4.2-in. mortars. However, in 2(NZ)Div, the 4.2-in mortars were in batteries in the AT Regt, while the MG Battalion maintained it's early war establishment of 4 companies of Vickers. Also, the Vickers were transported in trucks rather than the usual carrier. Then in early 1945 the MG Bn was re-roled. The Vickers were doled out by platoons to the individual bns, and the MG Bn disappeared altogether. This made the Div even more different to the 'standard'. Also, many these differences 'should' be noticeable at the CMAK scale (i.e. more plentiful & therefore cheaper Vickers, different transport, Vickers pns as standard in the late-war bn org, etc.) Oh, BTW, 28th (Maori) Bn was organised along exactly the same lines as any other inf bn in NZ Div. Regards JonS [ November 17, 2003, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.