Order of Battle and Force Limits

[ev]

Order of Battle

SC2 will have optional Force Limits that are expected to mimmic the Order of Battle in the European Theater. I have concerns about such Force Limits. Frankly, I do not endorse the idea as it stands now. However, I thought it would be useful to get some info on the number of units that fought in the European Theater.

I first conducted some research on the US. The US strategic plan allocated 50% of aircraft to Europe, almost 50% of land forces to Europe, but most of the navy forces to the Pacific.

The US ended the War with 90 divisions, of which 88 saw actual combat.

As of 1943, the US had 10 aircraft carriers 61 battleships, 10 cruisers, 120 destroyers, 112 destroyers escorts and 40 submarines assigned to the European Theater. As of that date the US had, 28 aircraft carriers, 13 battleships, 32 cruisers, 188 destroyers, 123 destroyer escorts, and 57 submarines in the Pacific.

As of that date, the US had 11 Army Divisions in Europe, but 13 Army Divisions and 3 Marine Divisions in the Pacific.

Again, as of 1943, the Air Force had 3,456 fighters, 1,253 medium and light bombers, and 2,263 Heavy Bombers in Europe. At the same time, it had 1,897 fighters, 723 medium and light bombers, and 716 heavy bombers in the Pacific.

I include North Africa as part of the European Theater. I include India/Burma/China as part of the Pacific Theater.

During 1944 the US shipped to England, France, and North Africa another 26 Divisions. So a total of 37 US Divisions were in the European Theater by the end of 1944. Of these 37 Divisions, 11 were Armored Divisions, 3 were Airborne Divisions, and the remaining were Infantry Divisions.

I do not have data on arrivals to the European Front in 1945, but my educated guess is that another 7 Infantry Divisions probably arrived to the European Front in 1945.

As of December 1944, the US had 12,200 combat aircraft in Europe. I do not have a breakdown between fighters and bombers.

I do not have Navy data for 1944.

In subsequent posts I will provide whatever info I get on other countries.

[Kuniworth]

According to John Ellis WW2 Data book 10 new US divisions arrived in Europe in 1945.

[Liam]

as you can hear a massive amount of US Forces. US was never truly mobilized either, what you're speaking of under 100 divisions is a bare bones force in comparison with what the Russians Fielded. I heard that they had upwards of 350-400? Am I correct against less than half as many German ones?

[Kuniworth]

Measuring might in divisions are difficult as strength varied between nations and over time. For example many German divisons at the end of the war were nothing but empty shells.

Druing the war the Soviet Union fielded 121 guards rifle divisions, 17 cavalry, 450-460 rifle divisions along with plenty of motorized and armoured corps/divisions.

[ev]

I agree Kuniworth, measuring might in division is very difficult.

And the same holds true if you use corps or armies, as your unit of reference. In fact, using corps or armies can be even less fruitfull since divisions were often transferred in and out of corps or armies.

As I mentioned earlier, I don´t feel comfortable with the idea of using force limits that follow the historical order of battle. There are many reasons for thisÑ

First, you may end up comparing understrength under equipped units with fully equipped and staffed units.

Second, the Russian and German economies started suffering from lack of able workforce long before they reached their maximum order of battle.

A different mix of navy/air/armor/infantry may have been more efficient for the German economy. Germany was woefully short of infantry replacement, and, badly in need of defending its cities from allied bombing. Perhapps the German high command felt they needed so many infantry divisions to cover the huge Russian Front. But from an ¨economic¨ and demographic point of view, it was probably not the optimum mix.

Third, as far as force pool limits is concerned, what is the difference between one infantry army and two infantry corps. Likewise, what is the difference between two halfstrength units and one full strength unit of the same kind.

The US planning board self impossed upon itself a 90 division limmit. This number was based on an estimate of what they needed to win the war, and what they needed to allocate for air and navy.

I am not advocating that SC2 should use this limit. I rather find some other mechanism to model the increasing cost of fielding more units. Some exampleÑ

1. Setting up a manpower pool. First Germany, and later Russia, scrapped the bottom of their manpower pool. Infantry Divisions and Infantry Reinforcements are high consumers of manpower.

2. There should be an MPP charge associated with the number of units fielded by a country. The more units you field, the higher the monthly charge. This charge could be kept simple - a fixed charge per unit. Or it could be more complex:

(a) Units that do not move, do not engage in combat, and are not adjacent to enemy possitions spend less MPPs.

( Different rates of monthly consumptions for each type of unit could be set up for each type of unit based on supply consumption (ordinance, fuel, etc.).

© Full strength units should cost more to supply than understrength units.

(d) Units furthest away from their industrial centers should cost more to upkeep. So it cost more for the US to operate an army in France than for England, since supplies have to be brought from farther away. Likewise, it should cost more to operate German units in Stalingrad than in Warsaw.

[Kuniworth]

I like the manpower suggestion. Once again an excellent proposal ev.

[ev]

Thx. Kuniworth. Now back to the order of battle:

In 1944 Germany had 347 Divisions. This number dropped to 319 by 1945.

As of June 1944, Germany had 4600 planes. However, according to my sources, as of December 1944, Germany had 8,500 planes. This is very strange. Can anyone confirm this data.

In 1941, Germany assigned 4 Panzer Groups to Operation Barbarosa. These 4 Panzer Groups combined 17 Panzer Divisions, 11 Motorized Infantry or Panzer Grenadier Divisions, and, one Cavalry Division. As of that time, Germany also had two Panzer Divisions and a Panzer Grenadier Division assigned to the Afrika Corps. The Afrika Corps was later expanded and redesignated first as a Panzer Group and further down the road it was redesignated as a Panzer Army.

This found the following definition of a Panzer Group at http://www.lostbattalion.com/FormationFocus/FF_9PZ.html

“Panzer groups” are analogous armies in size and scope. They were multi-corps formations with army grade generals assigned to them. Their original function was to be an army group asset that was to be assigned to subordinate to, an army. Using their mobility, they would be switched from army to army providing breakthroughs, and then the army would take over for the follow-up and mop-up operations. In practice, this did not work out. The panzer groups acted mainly as independent armies and were renamed “panzer armies” in late 1941 and 1942.

Germany would designate a total of 7 "Panzer Armees". They would be know as Panzer Armee Afrika and Panzer Armees 1 thru 6. Panzer Armee 6 was transferred to the SS in 1945.

This is the order of battle for the First Panzer Armee, Spring 1944:

VII Armeekorps

III Panzerkorps

34. Infanterie-Division

198. Infanterie-Division

1. Panzer-Division

16. Panzer-Division

17. Panzer-Division

SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler

VIII Flieger-Korps

Notice the ratio of two Panzers to one (motorized) Infantry. We often find this ratio in the Panzer Corps, Panzer Groups, and Panzer Armies.

[pzgndr]

I rather find some other mechanism to model the increasing cost of fielding more units.

This is what the soft build limits option should provide. So what should the increased cost be for more units above and beyond what you think is a "normal" limit? +10%? +20%? This can be set and edited in SC2. The idea is that if you have more resources and can afford to build more units at increased cost, the soft limits allow you to do so. The hard limits option would strictly enforce the build limits defined in the scenario, which of course could also be edited. This is a simple flexible system, and you can make it as tight or as loose as you want.

[Kuniworth]

Ev;

According to the databook the correct figures are that Germany had 4637 combat aircraft in june 1944, and 5041 in december 1944.

[ev]

Pzgndr, I hear you. Still you are not addressing my concern.

The idea of a soft limit assumes that there is an ideal force mix which the economy can sustain, and, that as long as you keep your total force below that limit you do not incurr on a +10%, or +20% or whatever increased cost.

First, I don't think there is one such ideal mix.

Second, the soft limit places a very strong preasure on the players to mold their forces as per whatever arbitrary force mix the designer chose.

Third, soft limits fail to take into account replacements. If your strategy results in heavy losses which you have to replace, that will put a huge preasure on your resources (specialy manpower) even if you stay within force pool limits.

Fourth, having less units than the designed soft pool limit should result in an "economy" or eficiency just as much as having too many units results in a penalty. This is why I recomend builiding into SC2 an unpkeeping cost.

Anyway, it seems you are committed to the force pool limit. I did not start this threat to challenge you choice. The purpose of this threat is to provide some historical background as to the historical order of battle. I am sure SC2 will be a great game, either way. I may chose to play it without force pool limits ...I don't know.

[ev]

During WWII, the Wermacht fielded 48 Panzer Divisions and 4 Panzer Reserve Divisions. I count Panzer Lehr and 130th Panzer Division as one unit. I count Panzer-Division Feldherrnhalle, Feldherrnhalle 1, and Feldherrnhalle 2 as one unit. And, I also count Panzer-Division Tatra, Panzer-Ausbildungs-Division Tatra, and Panzer Division 232 as one unit. Finally, I count the GrossDeutschland as a Panzer Division. The GrossDeutschland started as a motorized Infantry Division. It was later reorganized as a Panzer Grenadier (Armored Infantry Division). And, finally it was reorganized as a Panzer Division.

The Wermacht also fielded 15 motorized infantry divisions and 15 Panzer Grenadier Divisions. However some of the Panzer Divisions cited above were formed from these Motorized or Panzer Grenadier Units - the Gross Deutschland cited above, the 233 Panzer, the Feldherrnhalle, and the Kurmark, all four started as motorize infantry or panzer grenadiers.

The Waffen SS would have total of 38 Divisions, 7 Panzer and 6 Panzer Grenadier Divisions. I do not know how many of the remaining 25 SS Infantry Divisions were motorized.

All in all Germany would have 55 Panzer Divisions, 22 Panzer Grenadier (4 of which were converted to Panzer Divisions), and at least 15 Motorized Infnatry Divisions (plus an unknown number of SS motorized infantry).

In addition, there were 16 Wermacht Panzer Brigades and 3 SS Panzer Brigades, 4 SS Panzer Grenadier Brigades, and 2 SS Motorized Infantry Brigades. (One of the Wermacht Brigades was converted to SS).

Germany could have consolidated all the above Panzer Formations in Panzer Corps and Panzer Armies. Assuming a typical Panzer Corps had 2 Panzer Divisions and one PanzerGrenadier or Motorized Infantry Divisions, but tapping on the independent Brigades at a rate of 2 Brigades per Division, Germany could have in excess of 30 panzer corps. Further assuming a Panzer Army is made of 2 Corps, Germany could have consolidated the abover formations in 15 Panzer Armies.

As I mentioned above, Germany only designated 7 Panzer Armies throughtout the war. Many Panzer and Panzer Divisions were assigned to infantry armies to act as speaheads, flank guards, or fire brigades. It is probably worth examining whether that was a good decission. But, since SC2 infantry corps and infantry armies represent solely infantry units, and not combined armies, we should devise some way to fully account for all German Panzer Divisions and Brigades in determining the applicable force limits.

[Retributar]

I think the solution should be this...based on Manpower and Material resources. You have only so much manpower in any country , the same with resources.

This will prevent a country from generating forces it realistically couldn't generate. It will also determine which countries one needs to go after and in what order if that nation determines it needs the specific resources to create the force mix it want's.

This is a more complicated way to do it...it can be simplified like we already have in SC1...although it's not nearly as interesting.

Also when for example Germany takes over Czechloslovakia it incorporated the Czech tanks into its first line formations. Czech industry was also instantly utilized to feed new units for the Panzer Formations.

[ July 21, 2004, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[ev]

In addition to the Panzer and Panzer Grenadier Divisions listed above, the Luftwaffe had one Panzer and one Panzer Grenadier Division, which I missed to include in the totals above.

This brings the totals up to 56 Panzer Divisions, 23 Panzer Grenadier Divisions (4 of which were converted to Panzer Divisions), 15 Motorized Infantry Divisions, 19 independent Panzer Brigades, 4 independent PanzerGrenadier Brigades, and 2 idependendent Motorized Infantry Brigades.

[ev]

Originally posted by Retributar:

I think the solution should be this...based on Manpower and Material resources. You have only so much manpower in any country , the same with resources.

This will prevent a country from generating forces it realistically couldn't generate. It will also determine which countries one needs to go after and in what order if that nation determines it needs the specific resources to create the force mix it want's.

I agree.

Nevertheless, I think it is worth researching a bit more about the order of battle of the different countries. For example, until now, I never realized Germany had that many Panzer units. In hindsight, perhaps Germany should have used some of those resources towards building more fighters...

[ev]

Germany had 15 Fallschirmjager (Paratroop) Divisions plus a paratroop training division.

These units belonged to the Luftwaffe. The luftwaffe designated two paratroop corps. The first Fallschirmjagger Corps saw action in the Netherlands, Belgium and France. The second Fallschirmjagger Corps was responsible for the Crete operation.

In 1944 the Luftwaffe organized a Paratroop Armee under General Student. It served in the low countries duirng 1944 and 45. This Paratroop Armee had several medium size units attached to it including 2 Panzer Batallions, a motor transport batallion, and several motorized supply and support units.

[Retributar]

Yes...the Germans had many Panzer Divisions...but also realize that nearly all of the tanks they had then were LIGHT-TANKS(Tinfoil-Tanks).

it wasnt until large quantities of good quality metal was secured...were any qauntity of heavier tanks constructed. German ore was of low quality...even though they had lots of it...it wasn't suitable for Tank-Steel...better steel came from France, Sweden and Norway.

[Shaka of Carthage]

The obvious solution has always been to utilize manpower as an economic unit when you build units. But those who make the suggestion, are either unaware or unwilling to do the work to model the system.

What would the manpower levels be for Germany in 1939? And how much would be gained in '40, '41, etc until '45? Don't forget that a certain percentage of that manpower is not considered fit for active duty (what the Germans used to call "whitebread" units), but will be utilized if the prime manpower suffers enough losses.

For the different military units Germany could build, what would be the manpower usage of each unit? Lets not forget, that we need to include in that number, a certain percentage of manpower that is assigned to a unit but not available to it (sick, on leave, training, etc).

Then there is the non-combat support infrastructure. A ratio of so many non-combat support to combat would work fine, but it does differ for each nation. And its especially fun trying to figure out that number for Naval or Air units.

Then there is the combat resolutions. How to handle the KIA, WIA and POWs? And at what point do the manpower losses in a combat unit effect its combat power?

The above should cover the major points, though there are a huge number of minor points, that some consider just as important (ie women in the military).

And don't forget that you need to do this for each and every nation.

Is it any wonder, that almost every WWII wargame uses a force pool or countermix limit, since those can easily be obtained by looking at OOB's?

Its a lot of work to do manpower correctly, and the end result is a system that very few amatuers can appreciate.

[ev]

Originally posted by Retributar:

Yes...the Germans had many Panzer Divisions...but also realize that nearly all of the tanks they had then were LIGHT-TANKS(Tinfoil-Tanks).

it wasnt until large quantities of good quality metal was secured...were any qauntity of heavier tanks constructed. German ore was of low quality...even though they had lots of it...it wasn't suitable for Tank-Steel...better steel came from France, Sweden and Norway.

I am no expert on steel and armor, but, from my readings I have gathered the following.

The best steel, either in the US or Germany, was not used to make tanks but to make armor piercing shells. The armor of German Tiggers and Panthers was good enough so that regular US armor piercing shells would crack on impact. ...so no matter how good your cannon was, if you did not use the right steel for the shells they would not work.

When Germans tried to build supper heavy tanks, the quality decreased because of poor welding, not due to lack of some kind of ore. I guess, Germany's manpower shortage eventually hit the homefront.

Finally, all armor improvements in WWII were measured in pounds. Many regard the T-34 as the best light tank of WWII and the Panther V as the best heavy tank of WWII. Neither of these were particularly heavy. However they both shared slopping armor, low profile, very good corss country performance, very good hitting power, and in the case of the Panther V very good optics and excellent rate of fire.

As far as high quality ore is concerned, I remember reading the US also had problem getting enough high quality ore to produce the kind of armor piercing shells needed to break through German armor.

[ev]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

The obvious solution has always been to utilize manpower as an economic unit when you build units. But those who make the suggestion, are either unaware or unwilling to do the work to model the system.

Well, let us do something about it. After I finish this OOB, I will strat doing some research on demographics. Maybe we can all give Huber a hand on this.

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

For the different military units Germany could build, what would be the manpower usage of each unit? Lets not forget, that we need to include in that number, a certain percentage of manpower that is assigned to a unit but not available to it (sick, on leave, training, etc).

Then there is the non-combat support infrastructure. A ratio of so many non-combat support to combat would work fine, but it does differ for each nation. And its especially fun trying to figure out that number for Naval or Air units.

We can get some pretty good data for Armored and Infantry Divisions which make the buld of the land forces. It will take a bit more guess work to account for Army and Army Group support staff represented by HQ's in SC2. But we can come up with a reasonable approximation.

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

Then there is the combat resolutions. How to handle the KIA, WIA and POWs? And at what point do the manpower losses in a combat unit effect its combat power?

Again, we can come up with reasonable approximations.

Remember MPP's are approximatins also - no one complains about it. As a matter of fact, we have more data available on casualty rates than on equipment loss. For example: Do you know how many rifles were lost during D Day? Or, how many mortars were lost during the battle of the Buldge? If we can make a good enough approximation for MPPs, we certainly have more than enogh data to mak reasonable manpower approximations.

Take Germany... We know how many soldiers Germany had in arms each year during the war, and, what units they were assigned to. We also know how many men Germany lost each year during the war. We also know how many men Germany drafted each year. We know how many men Germany would have had if it had not incurred the losses it had. And we know when Germany started facing manpower shortage. Finally, we even know when Germany labor shortages in factories and when Germany strated to make us of less fit recruits to fill in the ranks. All this data is readily available.

I believe we could make pretty good manpower models for Germany and Great Britain. It would be slightly more difficult for the US since the US never reach manpoer limits... so we would have to guess where that limit is.

There is less information on Russia, France and Italy. But I am optimistic we can pull it off. I really would not bother with the minors. Force limits for minors seems more than good enough for me.

[Liam]

Just a quick overview on this subject. It's developed nicely. I forgot that Divisions are different in strength not only relative to Nation but Type.<but SC is very strategic and Generalizes everything so that shouldn't matter much the techs are the only true reflection we'll likely get and perhaps a ForcePool Cap> Although we tend to generalize with the proffessionals as to the 'actual strength' of combatants no ? Support troops are as neccessary and don't neccessary have to be from 18-35 years old, or top health or strictly men even do they?

So Manpower is a tricky question. During the last days of the Reich and during Barbarossa I know plenty of women were used for Manpower. As well as young boys.. Germany had relatively a small population to Russia and USA. Meanwhile France and England were similar to Germany. So Germany had to focus on Quality not Quantity, but really in the end I doubt it mattered. They were short of the "VERY" Vital equipment for winning a War. That was Fighter aicraft and well trained Units with the Oil to do that. So was the Manpower pool ever a question for any Major aside from England? I doubt it... Perhaps towards the end for the Reich but well, they were digging from the bottom more and more but the lower quality troops died or surrendered faster<not always the Hitler Youth fought hard as hell> so Nazis and Commies both recruited well, better than the Allies IMO

USA had no lack of Manpower though, nor did Japan<only a lack of Mechanization> Also initially the Mobilization of the USA was pathetic for such a Massive Nation. Their equipment was crap, their only aces were their Navy and Airforce, one which had be maulled by the Japs. Meanwhile Germany though they started with paper tanks, gained experience and an edge with each conquest and annexation. Russia similarly after losing Millions tended to learn a lot? The USA shouldn't start the game with what she does in 1941. She didn't have that, nor did Britian have much to offer. The Germans and French IMO are the only really true reflective Forces in SC original at all. Perhaps having Event Units appear over time would be more accurate then just assigning them to a nation a feature unavailable in SC.

[ July 22, 2004, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[Retributar]

German Ore:

I can't find the passages i saw before that pointed out the deficiency of local German ore...maybey it wasn't the just the 'Ore' itself, but the other metals put into the steel?. I will post these web-sites in place of that to show that there was a problem with the steel for tanks.

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bookshelf/weapons/weapons7.html

The live fire tests were conducted in the fall of 1944 at Kubinka, during the course of which the following results were obtained:

"1. The quality of armor on the "Tiger-B" tank, in comparison with the armor on the "Tiger-I," and "Panther," tanks, as well as early production "Ferdinand" self-propelled gun, has sharply deteriorated. The first individual impacts caused cracks and spalling in the armor of the "Tiger-B" tank. Groups of shell impacts (3-4 shells) caused large-scale spalling and fractures in the armor.

2. Weak weld seams appeared characteristic of all hull and turret joints. Despite careful workmanship, the seams held up to shell impacts significantly worse than they did in analogous constructions on the "Tiger-I," and "Panther," tanks, as well as the "Ferdinand" self-propelled gun.

During lab tests of the "Tiger-B" tank's armor, conducted at TsNII-48, it was noted that there had been an "evident gradual decline in the quantity of molybdenum (M) in the German T-VI and T-V tanks, and a complete absence in the T-VIB. The reason for replacing one element (M) with another (V, vanadium) must obviously be sought in the exhaustion of their on-hand reserves and the loss of those bases supplying Germany with molybdenum. Low malleability appears to be characteristic of the "Tiger-B's" armor. An advantage of domestic armor, as is well-known, is its high malleability; German armor has fewer alloys and is therefore significantly less malleably."

-----------

http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/histprof/misc/wwii.html

The conquest of Denmark and Norway.

"Valuable shipments of iron ore"... (MINE: Why so valuable if Germany had all the ore it needed...i think that their Ore was of insufficient quality.) from Sweden reached Germany by way of Norway's port of Narvik. Hitler feared British plans to cut off those shipments by laying explosives in Norway's coastal waters. In April 1940, German forces invaded Norway. They conquered Denmark on the way. Britain tried to help Norway, but Germany's airpower prevented many British ships and troops from reaching the country. Norway fell to the Germans in June 1940. "The conquest of Norway secured Germany's shipments of iron ore". Norway also provided bases for German submarines and aircraft.

-------

http://www.eurotravelling.net/norway/narvik/narvik_history.htm

Narvik - History

"Great Britain, and Axis forces, headed by Germany, clashed fiercely to secure Narvik, which was a main shipping port for high-grade Swedish iron ore. The ore was a key element for the production of high-quality steel, and therefore critical to the armaments industries of both Great Britain and Germany".

[Shaka of Carthage]

ev

I've got no problem with continuing research on a manpower model. But the goal should be completion of the model, not in producing a model that Mr H will use. Thats something that is outside of our control.

Finish your OOB's than let me know when you want to get started.

[SeaMonkey]

Are you guys sure you want to embark upon this venture without the knowledge of the features SC2 will have to develop this model. IMO, the intracacies of this model will probably exceed the features SC2 will have available unless you make some generic general decisions based on starting raw data and which specifics will be relevant to the model and which will have to be discarded, everything can't be considered.

[Retributar]

I dont think one needs to change SC2 at all.

If someone is willing to get all the data for the major nations (Expeditiously)...then...all that needs doing is to then use that data to set up an option for players to select so that they can play a game using historical manpower levels...which would vary according to usage or non-usage or losses.

If they don't like it ...they can restart the game as it is presently designed. This new feature can be play-tested out...and if it suck's...then it can be removed.

The same could be done for Oil and Ore supplies...if there is any time to get that far.

[ July 22, 2004, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[pzgndr]

IMO, the intracacies of this model will probably exceed the features SC2 will have available

You think? HOI went down this road, but then again Paradox had a well established team of game developers and programmers, plus the EU/EU2 game engine to build upon. And HOI still isn't perfect, nor are its micromanagement features desired by many players. If you want to set out and account for every damn squad, tank, and aircraft, and all of the manpower, steel, coal, rubber, and oil and whatever down to a gnat's ass, and how all this interacts on a variable turn basis, you're looking at a boatload of effort to make it happen. Insert photo of Hubert saying "Who, me?? You want it when??"

Nobody's arguing that all this can't be done in theory. But in practice, for this game, right now, it just ain't gonna happen. Force pool limits may not be perfect, but they will be flexible enough in SC2 to allow players to experiment with different ideas and hopefully find an optimum balance that's appropriate to the scale and scope of this game. Different players will have different opinions about this.

Pzgndr, I hear you. Still you are not addressing my concern.

Well, by responding I am addressing. I may not be resolving your concern to your satisfaction, but that's for you to decide. And frankly, I am not the guy you need to convince to make changes to this game.

I am sure SC2 will be a great game, either way.

This is something we can agree on!