historical proportions of troop quality levels...

[Renaud]

Hi all,

I was musing a few days ago about what the historical proportions of troop quality as defined in CM might have been, circa June 44.

Here's my shot at it:

German~~~~~~~~~~~~

Conscript: 20%

Green: 25%

Regular: 30%

Veteran: 20%

Crack: 4%

Elite: lte 1%

Allied~~~~~~~~~~~~

Conscript: lte 1%

Green: 30%

Regular: 60%

Veteran: 10%

Crack: lte 1%

Elite: lte 1%

I figure conscript indicates a few days of field training in a front-line replacement depot at most, which became commonplace for the Germans as things got more desperate. I don't know of anything equivalent to this in Allied armies, though there must have been the odd Free French volunteer, former partisans integrated into regular units, etc.

Over time proportions would have changed. I imagine the germans would get more conscripts and greens and less regulars as the months passed, amounting to 2/3 of their total force by war's end (?!). Perhaps the proportion of veterans and above would remain constant. The Allied armies would have a static % of veterans. Maybe this could be due to the practice of rotating wounded vets home and replacing them with combed REMFs and green replacements from the home front.

Fun to think about but not particularly useful except maybe if you are making some kind of campaign game, or you want to avoid the kamakaze super-troop syndrome in your games generally.

Does anyone else have their proportions with associated justifications/rationalizations?

Renaud

[Michael Dorosh]

Your numbers for the Allies don't make sense - raw American formations were still being fed into the line long after "new" British and Canadian forces were committed to battle.

There were no Canadian conscripts until February of 1945; Canadian law forbade their employment until the plebiscite in the autumn of 1944 that released the government from its pledge not to send draftees overseas. A few thousand eventually made their way to Europe - as individuals, not formed units. Some saw action, a few were killed.

On the other hand, many Canadian "volunteers" were actually remusters from the artillery and service trades, and even infantry-trained recruits were arriving in theatre never having fired a Bren gun or thrown a hand grenade. In game terms, they would be "conscripts" using your definition. But again, they were sent to the front as individual reinforcements, not as formed units.

The British were disbanding units and decreasing the size of divisions from Normandy on; 59th Staffordshire Division as a whole got the axe at the end of the Normandy campaign. So again, new formations did not arrive in theatre as formed units.

On the other hand, entire Divisions of US troops were being committed to battle as late as December 1944, IIRC.

So I would definitely divide the discussion of "Allied" troops along US and Commonwealth lines.

[Michael Dorosh]

I figure conscript indicates a few days of field training in a front-line replacement depot at most, which became commonplace for the Germans as things got more desperate. I don't know of anything equivalent to this in Allied armies, though there must have been the odd Free French volunteer, former partisans integrated into regular units, etc.

I would not consider this as having to do with "conscript" troops necessarily; part of the standard German infantry training programme was to train at an Ersatz and Ausbildungs Battalion (Training and Replacment), then to take advanced training, culminating in transfer to a forward replacement unit, where they received yet more training, including partisan hunts and rear-area security type missions. From there, they joined their field units.

British and Canadian units did have divisional "battle schools", and individual regiments also ran these. The thing many people don't realize is that units in combat never stop training. When the shooting stops, they may move out of the forward areas, but they are never idle - they must always train and practice to "absorb" replacements and get them working as part of the team. The Commonwealth battle schools were different than the German ones described as they were not usually (AFAIK) conducted in the front line or in dangerous areas, though they may well have involved actual patrolling.

Many Canadian regimental histories talk about battle-hardened NCOs, espeically during the winter stalemate in November 1944, having to teach all the basics all over again to fresh replacements.

The cycle would have repeated itself throughout the NW European campaign for all the armied involved.

As such, most battalions of infantry were a mix of conscripts and veterans alike - I would be hard pressed to assign percentages to each.

As formations go, however, you can point to indivudal battalions and very generally indicate whether they are veteran, conscript, etc., and as indicated, the Americans had many more of these than the Commonwealth, after say August 1944 (by which time all Canadian and most "new" British formations were ashore, yet many US divisions (ie 9th Armored, 106th Infantry) were yet to arrive in theatre.)

[Renaud]

Thanks Michael...somehow I figured you would bite on this one...however will you grace us with your proportions? I believe that is the data we are all waiting at our monitors for. Feel free to give seperate proportions for Commonwealth and Americans. We know you can't resist... Looking forward to it!

[K_Tiger]

Dont forget, the western allies mostly send theyr troops back if wounded put a purple whatever on the jacket an send them with best wishes at home...

Germans hadnt the luxury to do this and the most guys on the front were allready wounded in the past or hade some other drawbacks like psychic breakdowns ect.

I saw a really good diskussion with some german vets on the TV, they telled, after two weeks of non-stop fighting 24 hours a day mostly, they got a psychic breakdown and were sended back to home to regain her mental power.

So hwo will decide, if a wounded Vet is better then a fresh rookie??

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

[QB]Dont forget, the western allies mostly send theyr troops back if wounded put a purple whatever on the jacket an send them with best wishes at home...

Which Western Allies was that? The Canadian Army only let you go home if you were wounded quote "otherwise than trivially" three times unquote. Few qualified for home leave under this - the "Triwound Scheme", and it was only a month of leave at home, after which you had to go back to your unit.

I saw a really good diskussion with some german vets on the TV, they telled, after two weeks of non-stop fighting 24 hours a day mostly, they got a psychic breakdown and were sended back to home to regain her mental power.

Psychiatry in the German military was non-existent. Freud and his theories were seen as "too Jewish" (whatever that means) and mental collapse was not recognized as a legitimate ailment, as it was in the Allied armies (Patton notwithstanding).

I would really love to see JasonC or some of the others weigh in on this one - it is an interesting topic and I've blathered on long enough.

[K_Tiger]

What do you mean with trivial wounded?? a flesh wound or lost a eye...or what?? You will agree with me, that you couldn compare the "low on Soldier" problem the germans hade.

I mean mostly the US guys...did the Cannucks fight in WWII??...sorry only joking...

I know they were no Psychatric clinics at this time, if you dont count the Hospitals for mongoloids or other concentration camps. Its sure you will not find any official release from the side of the wehrmacht about psychical breakdowns due to the fact the germans r the übermenschen... :cool:

He dont telled what he did or were he was, may he made hollydays at home..I belive there were alot who get shocked due to the fighting and incapable to stay any longer at the front.

[Le Tondu]

Let's not miss the essence of what Renaud is saying. They weren't JUST a mix of Regulars and Veterans on the WW II battlefield. OR just Green and Conscripts. -OR just Crack and Elites.

Historically speaking, there was a wide range of Troop Quality on any battlefield. Since there has been (and is) such an overwhelming effort to model historical correctness in CMBO and CMBB, this should be in CMBB as well.

I'd like to have that lone elite tank commander with a tank platoon of conscripts or regulars with him in Quick Battles. I'd like to have QBs that correctly model what really happened.

Has anyone heard if this will be done in CMBB?

Thanks.

[Le Tondu]

Surely someone knows.........

[Renaud]

Hmmm...this is something i'd like to know as well, why not allow a greater spread of experience levels in quick battles? I only play against the computer (one of these days i'll have to do a tcp/ip battle), so this is of great interest to me.

This wasn't the original intent of the topic, which was just to get everyone's ideas of what the troop proportions were historically june 1944, but it's a worthy question.

Incidentally, no one has posted any percentages, alas. Guess no one cares about my dumb old topic. *sniff* Maybe i'm just a used up old cm-player with nothing useful to say. Next thing you know i'll be posting to a Peng thread or using more of these face-thingies, God forbid.

Renaud

[Skipper]

These ratios changed tremendously during 1944, and varied from unit to unit very much.

Remionds me of a joke: "20 people with high fever and 1 person in the morgue freezer. Average temperature for the hospital is normal".

[Michael Dorosh]

Skipper may have hit the nail on the head.

On 1 June 1944, average quality of Allied troops in France was....well, 0.

On 6 June 1944, you had 1 experienced infantry division - 1st US - plus some green ones - 29th US, 4th US, 3rd Canadian - plus 50th and 3rd British (how experienced they were can be discussed by someone who knows better), plus element of 2 green airborne divisions - 101st US and 6th British - as well as 1 experienced US airborne div 82nd.

On 15 June 1944 you had even more formations ashore, which would have altered your percentages even more.

One average for the month of June doesn't seem like a worthwhile proposition. Did 3rd Canadian Division count as a "veteran" division by June 30 - and if so, why?

What would your definition of "veteran" be? 14 days in the line? 14 days in the theatre (but not necessarily the line)? 15 days? 30?

I think it is a question that most knowledgeable posters would tend to avoid, as it is very subjective. I couldn't even tell you how many divisions were ashore on 30 June, much less what their level of experience or training was.

[CombinedArms]

CM allows great variation in troop quality (at least from squad to squad or team to team) but QBs recognize this variation to only a limited degree (I wonder how hard it would be to program greater variety?) and scenario designers probably understate this variation--in part, I think, because we players would complain about too many green / conscript troops if designers were more realistic. In short, I think the lower end of the spectrum of fighting men in CM is probably underrepresented for the simple reason that these guys are less fun to play with--and this is, after all, a game.

Viewed historically, OTOH, the Germans in Normandy had a pretty large number of troops that can only be described as "conscripts". These included captured Russians and eastern Europeans who had been offered a choice between fighting for the Germans or death. Such soldiers would gladly shoot their NCOs and surrender to the Allies when they got the chance--as many of them did and also physically unfit specimens consigned to so-called static division. All but one of the divisions in the immediate vinicity of the beachhead was of the static variety, which helps explain the success of the invasion.

Later in the war the Germans had some raw and/or unfit troops in some of the scraped together units manning the Siegfried Line. These raw units were of course mixed together with many excellent ones--there were no more-veteran soldiers than the Axis guys who'd started fighting in '39 and the general standard of training in the German army was high. But my guess is that on the whole the worst Axis troops were probably inferior to the worst Allied troops, if only because the Allies weren't trying to man their lines with captured enemies or with the elderly, the pre-adolescent or the physically unfit. CM's "Conscript" seems to adequately represent this level of soldier--and often these would be whole units, not just individual soldiers or squads.

On the other hand, most of the US divisions fed into the line from June 6 on started out quite raw. My reading of the data suggests that many of these units moved toward veteran staus pretty quickly in the three months of intense fighting that lead to the breakout. Divisions like the 30th and 90th, green when they arrived, found their feet fighting in the bocage and eventually became very, very tough. Yet losses were high and green replacements kept coming in, usually not as whole squads, but as individuals. One way to represent this diversity in a US infantry platoon after a couple of months fighting would be to class one squad as veteran, one as regular, and one as green. On the other hand, in its first day of battle, a US unit should probably be all green (though well enough trained and motivated not to be ranked conscript, even if drafted.) A green US infantry company behind Utah beach fighting a conscript company of gun-point "volunteers" in an Ost-batallion would be historically accurate, but I haven't encountered too many of those scenarios.

BTW, one way to assess the difference between a green US division and an experienced one is to compare the performance at the opening of the Battle of the Bulge of the US 2nd division, a veteran outfit, and the US 106 division, a raw unit. The 106th was chopped to pieces while the 2nd pulled out of a successful attack it was pursuing to the north, moved south into improvised defensive positions before the Elsenborn Ridge, raked in shattered units of the raw 99th division--then in disorganized retreat-- and together with that re-energized division held off the better part of an German panzer army until reinforcements arrived. This spectacular performance through off the whole German offensive and shifted its center of gravity well to the south. The moral of the story: Veterans really are better.

[ March 15, 2002, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[Steve McClaire]

While I don't feel qualified to give exact percentages, I think most units can be classified in CM experience terms pretty easily, based mostly on their combat experience and their historical performance in whatever battle you're simulating.

Taking a shot at Normandy for the US Army, I'd say US 82nd Airborne and US 1st Infantry were probably the only 'veteran' US formations. The 82nd might have some 'Crack' units. US 9th Infantry had also seen combat, and would probably be 'Regular' with some 'Veteran' units. All other US units would be 'Regular', IMO (101st Airborne, 4th Infantry, 29th Infantry) possibly with some sub-units 'Green'. US 90th Infantry would be all 'Green'.

Experience levels have to be taken in context, though. I make the above suggestions based on most of the German Infantry units in Normandy being 'Regular' or 'Green'.

[YankeeDog]

I don't have enough knowledge to even make a wild stab at overall proportions at any given time, but it is interesting to note that different nations, and even different types of divisions within some nations' armies, had different policies regarding replacements and returning wounded soldiers to action.

US Airborne Divisions (i.e. the 82nd, 101st, and 17th) generally sent soldiers who had been wounded, but recovered, back to the same unit they had previously served with. It is my understanding that wounded soldiers who had recovered from regular infantry units were put into a general replacement pool and assigned to the first unit that needed them.

I would suspect that this resulted in US airborne divisions gaining "experience" much faster than regular infantry divisions. If nothing else, unit cohesion would be much higher.

[gunnergoz]

I think that there is too much emphasis being given to the presumed combat exposure level of the line grunts, and not enough credit being given to unit leadership and command ability (which would include the combat experience of the company/battalion and higer commanders.

I've come to think that units with more competent leadership at the company and higher level, whatever the level of experience of the line troops, had a better chance of successful conversion from "green" to "veteran" or better.

By the time of Overlord, most US Army units had been trained to exhaustion and were quite ready to fight. Some units did much better than others when they did finally enter combat...why?...because the commanders were generally not up to snuff and had to be relieved for cause.

Given that unexperienced troops can be shakey at best in their first few days, the quality of leadership they get (or that they perceive they are getting) is critical in developing self confidence and staying power that marks veteran units. Add sufficient aggressiveness and elan and you reach crack and elite status over time.

I think that the labeling of a squad as green, etc has utility, of course, but the squad is part of a platoon and that platoon's leadership qualities should be a key factor in how the squads react. CMBO models this to some extent, and I hope that this factor is further evolved towards more sophistication in the re-write.

In my ideal model, the quality of platoon/company/battalion leaders will to a great extent determine the "flavor" of the unit, and the experience/training level of the line troops will reflect this in their resilience and flexibility.

[Cribtop Gamer]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

On 6 June 1944, you had 1 experienced infantry division - 1st US - plus some green ones - 29th US, 4th US, 3rd Canadian - plus 50th and 3rd British (how experienced they were can be discussed by someone who knows better), plus element of 2 green airborne divisions - 101st US and 6th British - as well as 1 experienced US airborne div 82nd.

What would your definition of "veteran" be? 14 days in the line? 14 days in the theatre (but not necessarily the line)? 15 days? 30?

[/QB]

To partially echo what gunnergoz said, I think it's even more complicated than Michael's analysis above. This is because I'm not sure that all units were "green" on day 1 of fighting (or "conscript" on day 1 for Axis static divisions), and then on day 7 were suddenly "regular." What I mean is that I don't think time in combat is the sole factor in rating a unit.

For example, the 101st Airborn had seen 0 days of combat before June 6, 1944, but then on D-day plus one, I think, you have the assault on the battery of guns detailed in HBO's Band of Brothers series. Kind of hard to rate Dog and Easy companies in that battle as merely "Regular," IMHO.

I think gunnergoz's point is thus well-taken - you have to look at unit training, motivation, leadership (particularly company and battalion leadership), and maybe even other factors such as supply state and (as CMBB plans to) fitness in order to decide what a unit's "quality" is for a given battle.

I think the second great point is that quality will vary from squad to squad, and that while CMBO allows this variation in scenarios and ops, it does not do so as well in QBs.

Finally, as someone said, we probably all use an ahistorically high percentage of the "good stuff" because it's fun. I bet playing with crappy troops is its own kind of fun, but it's a great way to lose a QB, so we don't see those kinds of games as often.

[ March 16, 2002, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Cribtop Gamer ]

[JasonC]

There are many different factors that go into unit quality. Time in combat is only one of them, and even it can work both ways, depending on the loss rate experienced. Divisions are organizational entities, not human individuals (let alone role playing characters garnering experience points), and they "churn" their component manpower as they take losses.

To attain high levels of experience in the surviving troops, a formation needs to *succeed* in significant combat, without high casualties. This is a lot easier to do when you are winning. Otherwise you face the catch 22 - either the men haven't seen much action, or they have taken such high losses the ranks are filled with replacements.

That keeps the average unit pegged around "regular" quality, even after extended actions, from the blend of veteran cadre and green replacements. Since most armies are composed of units of this description or recently rebuilt units being thrown into serious action for the first time, the average quality of most armies is mixed green and regular.

Small formations (KGs) at the tail end of campaigns may have "graduated" to veteran status, but will typically be diluted again to regular as soon as they are rebuilt. Only highly successful formations that see serious action for extended periods without high losses will improve by combat experience alone, to veteran status.

But there are other things that improve unit quality. Some units are made from specially picked men, men who would be NCOs in other units. Some receive far more extensive training than standard units, and do not have to wait to learn everything on the job. Indeed, at keast half the point of training in the first place is that it improves quality without the losses of combat.

Other factors that effect quality level are the quality of the human material - a bare bones version of the selection effect - and the motivation and loyalty of the men. Also, even when a unit is composed of recruits, its cadre of officers and NCOs may be far more experienced, since their skills can grow over time even if not all survive. Vet cadre and green manpower is the form most "regular" units usually have in wartime.

Combat experience was not nearly as common as some seem to suppose, even in the German army, on the eve of D-Day in the west. Only rare formations had seen action, and generally only cadres of them had done so if the action had been at all extensive. For the obvious reason - extensive action and losses sufficient to require complete rebuilding go hand in hand.

Panzer Lehr was probably the best trained formation to fight in Normandy. But it had never seen a day of combat action. It was formed from school units. The men were high quality material with good motivation, highly trained, and rigorously selected. These were quite sufficient to make them veteran to crack in CM quality terms, despite never having seen action. In addition, they were superbly equipped.

But Lehr was largely destroyed in Normandy, with all its armor and more than half its infantry wiped out. Rear area troops did better, but matter less for this subject. Lehr was rebuilt for the Bulge, but necessarily the level of training and rigor of selection of the personnel could not match that of the original Normandy trainers. Experience had improved somewhat to compensate, but with half the combat personnel new, the division could not rate more than veteran status and many would be regulars.

Then it took heavy losses again in the Bulge fighting, and was rebuilt again for the early 45 defensive fighting. By then it was a regular to veteran formation much like any other German panzer division, with the old "school selectivity" long since fought out. Notice how heavy action makes the quality "converge" toward "regular", with "veteran" dependent on success and relatively low losses.

The 2nd Panzer had extensive combat experience. It had excellent cadre. But it was in France to refit for losses sustained in the east. Its quality was probably veteran mixed with regular. It was about cut in half in the Normandy fighting, and after rebuilding for the Bulge thus probably in essentially the same state.

The 21st Panzer is a famous division number, associated with the exploits of the Afrika Korps. But the original was destroyed in Tunisia, and the 21st that fought in France had only the formation number in common with it. It was formed anew in the summer of 1943. The new formation had not seen any action, and was judged unfit for the eastern front (in part because of non-standard equipment, including captured French tanks). They were green to at best regular.

The 116th Panzer was formed around a cadre from the largely destroyed 16 Pz Gdr division. It thus had eastern front veterans for cadre. But the bulk of the men came from the 179th reserve panzer division, who had some training but had seen no action. They were still training with Panthers in July, and kept in reserve until the breakout to give the new men time to train. They were at best regulars (due to cadre), probably mixed with green.

The 9th and 11th Panzer, which both fought in the west but not in Normandy, were similar to the 2nd Panzer. Solidly regular to veteran, but not better because of dilution due to losses. The Panzer brigades of the September period were entirely green. 3rd and 15th Pz Gdr were veterans from Italy - solidly veteran, since they were not brought back up to full strength before the Lorraine fighting.

17 SS and 12 SS had seen no action before D-Day. Both were green and still forming, had not completed their training, and both were also understrength in officers and NCOs. They had high quality manpower and motivation, however. Each was reduced in the course of the Normandy fighting and rebuilt afterward. 17 SS incorporated new green Pz Gdr regiments wholesale for the Lorraine fighting. 12 SS was rebuilt for the Bulge, and lost heavily again there in the January fighting outside Bastogne, before being sent east.

9 SS and 10 SS had seen about 2 weeks of serious action in the Tarnapol relief operation on the eastern front, in the spring of 44, after formation and training. That was the first time in combat for each of them. So they had "seen the elephant" as the saying goes, but had no time to develop serious combat skills. They also benefited from manpower and motivation, and unlike the two previous were not understrength in officers and NCOs.

But they were no better than regular quality in the Normandy fighting. Not at all long service veterans of years of hard Russian fighting. They were cut in half in the Normandy campaign, and also lost most of their tanks. They then fought at Arnhem. That is a good example of a case of understrength units fighting as veterans because they had not yet been diluted again by replacements. Everyone there was a Normandy veteran, they were just understrength units too. Then they were brought back up to strength - and realistically, down to regular quality - for the Bulge.

1 SS and 2 SS were among the most experienced formations in the German army. But they had also seen heavy action. 1 SS was first reduced in the Rostov fighting late in 1941. It was rebuilt for Kharkov, improved by experience, then fought at Kursk and was roughly halved again there. It was sent to Italy to rebuild, and to fight partisans.

Then back east, where it was encircled by the Russian winter offensive, eventually rescued but with heavy losses. It was in France to refit from this when the invasion occurred. So it was a cadre being expanded by replacements at that time, much like 2 Panzer.

Normandy replayed this experience, and after a bit of fighting at Aachen in a reduced but experienced state, it was rebuilt to full strength for the Bulge. Where it lost KG Peiper. It was rebuilt again before being sent east. You see the pattern - full strength at regular to veteran, half strength veteran, back to full strength at regular to veteran.

The 2 SS story is similar. First reduction was outside Moscow in the winter of 41-42, then a refit in France. Kharkov makes them vets, Kursk halves them. A KG was left in the east while the other half went to France to rebuild and fight partisans. The KG left in the east was encircled along with 1 SS. By D-Day, 9000 men in the division were new recruits. Then in Normandy they lost all their tanks and 1/3 to 1/2 of their personnel. Then the same pattern of rebuilding for the Bulge and again after it before being sent east.

It you turn to the Luftwaffe forces, the situation is far worse and hardly justifies the CM standard of treating all of them as elite formations. They weren't; they had nothing like the call on the best personnel that the US and British airborne did, since in the German army that was reserved for the mobile divisions, especially the SS formations. The manpower was good and training usually good. But almost none of the FJ that fought in Normandy had seen any action before.

The 6th FJ regiment (the KG of 2 FJ that fought in Normandy) had an average age of 17 1/2. One in five NCOs had seen action. The unit was formed in late 1943. They were very well equipped, and motivation and manpower quality were high. That was all. They were not crack or even veteran, and only the quality factors keep them from being greens.

The 3rd FJ formed 6 months before the Normandy fighting and was still incorporating men on D-Day. They had no combat experience. The division was destroyed in Normandy and rebuilt for the Bulge, where it was decimated again. These weren't even particularly well equipped, with weapons load out more like standard Heer infantry than like the CM FJ type.

5 FJ was worse, at 2/3rds manpower strength, green, many not trained and below strength in rifles and helmets, let alone LMGs. They were used in fragments and subordinated to other units, as a sort of oversized field replacement battalion, in effect.

6 FJ sent one KG to Normany and it was destroyed. The division was reformed afterward out of existing Luftwaffe fortress battalions. They then fought the Canadians in Holland, the Reichswald, and opposed the British Rhine crossing - very effectively. But starting with neither high quality manpower (Luftwaffe fortress units were not a high manpower priority in late 1943!) nor any combat experience to speak of among surviving members, post-Normandy. They doubtless improved to regulars in the course of fighting the Canadians, and whatever was left alive by early 45 was probably understrength but veteran.

The 16th Luftwaffe field division was formed as a garrison unit and had no battle experience. It fought the Brits in Charnwood and Goodwood and took heavy losses, and was disbanded after Normany. Green, I'd say.

Moving on to the Heer infantry divisions, the ones that fought in Normandy come in 4-5 classes. The "2 digit" types were formed early in 1944, had no combat experience and generally weak artillery (though the 85th had well equipped infantry). Half the 85th survived the battle, the other two were disbanded.

The 700 series (4 of them) were old static divisions, 1/6 to 1/3 easterners and the rest including men overage for infantry service. These mostly got cut up in the retreat or bottled up in the Atlantic fortresses. None had any experience, and they generally used captured artillery. Most were green and the easterners probably deserve to be considered conscripts.

The 200 and 300 series - the bulk - come from two types. Either rebuilt divisions from the east (5 out of 12) or new garrison divisions for the west (7 out of 12), mostly formed in 1943. The 200 series included about 1/8 Hiwis, used for labor work. One division also included men from occupied territories (aka Poles and Czechs with blue eyes), who deserted when they got a chance, while another was 1/3 easterners.

The main difference was that the 5 formed from east front cadres - about 1/3 men experienced -probably deserve regular status at the start of the campaign, while the 7 without it, who had seen no action to date, were green. There are other variations among these - 3 are well equipped, a few poorly, many using some captured artillery, etc. Then men were often young - classes that reached military age in 1943.

Summing all of that up, I see 1 crack division, 3%. I see 5-7 that might merit "veteran" status, or more realistically be composed of mixed veterans and regulars. 8-9 deserve regular status, and 17-22 were green, with components the size of 2-5 divisions meriting "conscript" status.

The variations mostly depend on how important you think manpower quality is compared to experience. If you rate it as more important, you'd have more veterans but also more conscripts. If you consider it less important, then veterans and conscripts would be more rare, with a tighter mix of mostly green and regular.

Overall, though, half the force merits a "green" rating, with most of the rest split between regular (about 2/3rds of the remainder, or 1/3rd overall) and veteran (about 1/3rd of the remainder, or 1/6 overall). Treating the crack and conscript forces as outliers. Or if you want a 2d6 system -

12 = crack

10-11 = veteran

8-9 = regular

4-7 = green

2-3 = conscript

Allow +2 to the roll for mobile troops (armor force type or combined arms), -1 for infantry troops (infantry force type), if you want to distinguish them.

The image some may have of the green Allies attacking the veteran Germans has little basis. The whole Germany army had combat experience, certainly. But most of the soldiers facing the invasion had no more experience than the invaders did.

As for the Allies, most of the formations would be green for similar reasons, some regulars, and the picked formations and those with experience may merit veteran status. After early losses, though, you'd see the force converge on 2/3 green 1/3 regular. With only rare successful formations, that saw a lot of action but relatively low losses, perhaps graduating to veteran in the course of the campaign (e.g. US 2 AD, some UK forces). By the Bulge and post-Bulge period, the same mixed veteran and regular "cream" would appear, on a mostly regular and green "base".

Compared to what many CM players use, the big thing is that greens are far, far more common than in most CM fights, and veterans are more exceptional. The reason being, forces that have seen heavy action and *not* been depleted by it, and therefore diluted by replacements, are relatively rare. While new men - necessarily green - are continually being fed into the line.

I hope this is helpful.

[Caesar]

Surely you would seldomly ever get entire companies/battalions of veterens or better. I would have thought that even the best of forces would have contained units of at least regular or worse.

I would like to see CM include a QB random option for experience (and fitness now I suppose) where you could choose a level and while you would generally get that level, you would also get higher and lower level squads among them. Say something like 1/3 of the force would be lower or higher (for historical accuracy sake, maybe more lower than higher, sharpshooters and other specialists less likely to be lower etc etc)

It would also be good if it could include a randomised starting unit depletion as well. Squads with men missing, platoons a squad down etc. This sort of thing would enhance the realism a lot and make the game more interesting.

[Firefly]

One of the assumptions we are making here (not surprisingly because CM makes the same assumption) is that veteran units will perform better than units with less experience. This was certianly not borne out by the experience in Normandy. The British commanders were dismayed by the performance of the three veteran divisions in the campaign (7th Armoured, 49th and 50th infantry), whilst the less experienced 11th Armoured Division and 1st Polish Armoured (attached to the Canadian Army) performed relatively well. Carlo D'Este quoted a British officer saying that combat experience did not necessarily make a soldier braver, just more crafty which could involve knowing things like the best time for your tank to develop mysterious engine problems. I don't have Decision in Normandy to hand so I can't give the exact quote.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Firefly:

One of the assumptions we are making here (not surprisingly because CM makes the same assumption) is that veteran units will perform better than units with less experience. This was certianly not borne out by the experience in Normandy. The British commanders were dismayed by the performance of the three veteran divisions in the campaign (7th Armoured, 49th and 50th infantry), whilst the less experienced 11th Armoured Division and 1st Polish Armoured (attached to the Canadian Army) performed relatively well. Carlo D'Este quoted a British officer saying that combat experience did not necessarily make a soldier braver, just more crafty which could involve knowing things like the best time for your tank to develop mysterious engine problems. I don't have Decision in Normandy to hand so I can't give the exact quote.

C. Carwood Lipton of Band of Brothers fame told us that he would never have taken risks like he did on June 6th, 1944 - it was his inexperience that helped him be so effective that day.

You raise an excellent point.

[WWB]

I generally use Green as the baseline for units infantry, with a varying proportion of regulars and possibly vets depending on situation. Historically, Green units (trained but not blooded) were probably the most common. And in CMBO, green units play much more realistically than regulars or vets.

WWB

[Mattias]

JasonC,

An interesting reference in relation to your post:

Gen. Der Panzertruppen Leo von Schweppenburg ranks combat efficiency of the Panzer Divisionen in Normandy as follows (on June the 6th 1944):

Class A:

2nd PD

9th SS PD

12th SS PD

Pz Lehr Div.

Class B:

11th PD

2nd SS PD

21st PD

Class C:

9th PD

17 SS PzG Div.

116th PD

Class D:

10th SS PD

1st SS PD

He (Schweppenburg) goes on to comment further on this list but I don't have your stamina when it comes to typing

The source is "Fighting the Invasion, The German army at D-Day", Edited by David C. Isby

--

M.

[ March 17, 2002, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[Renaud]

Great replies, amazing detailed in some cases (like JasonC's essay, thanks JasonC).

I think we all realize from the get-go that CM's troop quality rating system is extremely simplistic and it's rather difficult to make it jive with reality. I think the new 'fitness' rating is going to help out there a lot. I think there need to be 5 measurements before you can begin to approximate reality: 'Esprit de Corp' (unit cohesion and comraderie), 'Morale', 'Fitness', 'Training', and 'Experience'. Naturally these would affect the various aspects of CM troop behavior differently and some ratings would overlap shared performance characteristics. IIRC, I posted this suggestion a few years ago and Steve said it would be lovely to do but pooh-poohed it due to time/complexity constraints on game development (full game wasn't out yet).

I do heartily agree that the equivalent of CM-Green rating was the mainstay in historical reality. 800 point or below infantry fights with conscript-green-regular are the most realistic and fun games I think. Takes you back to the good old Squad Leader days.

JasonC: I think 21st did have an extensive cadre of officers and senior NCO's that got out of Tunisia in time (minus all heavy equipment of course). This cadre was used to rebuild the 21st in France. Read that in Von Mellenthin's Memoirs and one other general history by a british author.

Renaud

[Doug Beman]

As for US formations, during the Germans' counteroffensive in the Ardennes, many US formations would probably show up as "green" in CM terms (newly formed units, newly in theatre, little/no combat experience for the majority of component units) yet fought valiantly and performed much better than most troops I've seen in CM with the "green" rating.

DjB