What rating would you give?

[Tactical Wargamer]

What rating would you give for the 1st Division and the 29th Division at Omaha? Both an average of Veteran status?

re. Scenario creation?

thx

[LemoN]

Uh... misread.

Scratch this.

[Sgt Joch]

29th divison would be "regular", lots of training, but no combat experience.

Dont have enough info to comment on the Big Red.

[Holman]

1st Division had already seen a lot of the war, so many of them would be veteran. But replacements were always coming in.

I'd say: 40% veteran, 40% Regular, the rest higher and lower.

[gunnergoz]

1st Division had already seen a lot of the war, so many of them would be veteran. But replacements were always coming in.

I'd say: 40% veteran, 40% Regular, the rest higher and lower.

That sounds reasonable.

On the other hand, what is the game definition of experience in terms of "regular" as opposed to "green?" I can see conscripts as being quickly or poorly trained, green as adequately trained but unseasoned by any front line duty, regular as well trained and/or having some front line experience, veteran as having considerable front line experience, crack as having a lot of battlefield experience and elite as...what? The most experience and still surviving without becoming stale or gun-shy?

What makes this a bit confusing to me is that, say in the quick battle screen, we get to choose our units by different levels in four categories: experience, motivation, fitness and leadership.

To me, "veteran" just speaks of experience. On the other hand, "crack" and "elite" imply something more than just experience...attitude, maybe, or confidence? If so, those speak of training, motivation and leadership...the latter two of which are already supposed to be separate categories.

Perhaps I'm going too deep into the conventional meanings of these terms. After all, the game category for this is "experience." Perhaps the intention was to simply have convenient terms to describe the experience spectrum from "barely trained" to "most highly proficient" in the art of combat, and these words were selected as being ones people are most familiar with. But when most people casually use the terms "crack" or "elite" they generally intend to describe a host of combat qualities not limited to mere level of training or experience.

Anyway, just some thoughts and questions on what these terms mean, both in game terms and with respect to history and the real world.

[GSX]

That sounds reasonable.

On the other hand, what is the game definition of experience in terms of "regular" as opposed to "green?" I can see conscripts as being quickly or poorly trained, green as adequately trained but unseasoned by any front line duty, regular as well trained and/or having some front line experience, veteran as having considerable front line experience, crack as having a lot of battlefield experience and elite as...what? The most experience and still surviving without becoming stale or gun-shy?

What makes this a bit confusing to me is that, say in the quick battle screen, we get to choose our units by different levels in four categories: experience, motivation, fitness and leadership.

To me, "veteran" just speaks of experience. On the other hand, "crack" and "elite" imply something more than just experience...attitude, maybe, or confidence? If so, those speak of training, motivation and leadership...the latter two of which are already supposed to be separate categories.

Perhaps I'm going too deep into the conventional meanings of these terms. After all, the game category for this is "experience." Perhaps the intention was to simply have convenient terms to describe the experience spectrum from "barely trained" to "most highly proficient" in the art of combat, and these words were selected as being ones people are most familiar with. But when most people casually use the terms "crack" or "elite" they generally intend to describe a host of combat qualities not limited to mere level of training or experience.

Anyway, just some thoughts and questions on what these terms mean, both in game terms and with respect to history and the real world.

All good points but Id add that some units that never saw combat until D-Day were regarded as Crack or elite. Take the Parachute units in Normandy. Pegasus Bridge for example would have been taken by troops which would only have been Green in the above context but I dont think you could describe them as Green in any other way than unbloodied. Same goes for various US units, Rangers etc......

Definitely hard to quantify exactly.

[Sergei]

Here's the definitions from manual.

- Conscript: draftees with little training and no combat experience whatsoever.

- Green: draftees with little training and some combat experience or reservists

with some training and no combat experience. Green can also represent

professional soldiers whose training is substandard in comparison to another

force.

- Regular: professional soldiers who went through extensive, quality training

programs, but lack combat experience. Or, Regular can represent troops

that received mediocre training that have a fair amount of combat experience.

- Veteran: professional soldiers with standard military training and first hand

combat experience. Alternatively, it can be professional soldiers who have

trained to a slightly higher standard than Regulars, yet lack combat experience.

- Crack: exceptional soldiers with more than the average training and plenty

of combat experience.

- Elite: the best of the best. Superb training, frequent combat experience, and

generally all around tough guys.

So eg. a unit could be 'veteran' even if they haven't seen combat yet, just because they have had a very thorough training.

[gunnergoz]

Sergei, I looked for that in the manual and missed it, thanks for posting it.

No question that the 101st performed very well indeed on D-Day, probably on a par with the 82nd which had previous combat experience in Sicily and Italy. By the game definitions, the 82nd should be at least crack and perhaps elite after the drop, while the 101st would have been veteran before and crack or even elite afterwards. 1st Infantry probably equivalent to crack on D-Day too.

Of course, taking a lot of casualties can really affect a unit and may end up dropping these values in the aggregate after the replacements come in and dilute the average level of experience. There has to be a sufficiently sized cadre of combat experienced troops left in the command and time to infuse the new guys with some of the know-how before they are committed to combat again. Several of the US divisions saw their line troops replaced several times over by the time the war ended so this was an ongoing process.

[Speedy]

I think you are looking at it as a linear progression where as I see it more as an exponential progression. While the training/experience needed to progress from conscript to regular is not a lot, that needed to progress to veteran is quite a bit more and that needed to get to crack is significantly more than veteran.

As for Elite well I would restrict that to exceptional small units/people such as Wittman, or SAS teams etc.

Using this progression structure I would class units such as the 101st as Veteran for D-Day and Market Garden progressing to Crack for the Ardennes (even here there could be an argument for that division not to classed as Crack until after the Ardennes). I would never rate any divisional force greater than Crack and very few would get to that level, that said it is possible for a couple of exceptional team or vehicle in that division to be classed as Elite they are easily offset by the majority that are Crack, Veteran or even Regular.

[gunnergoz]

Yes an entire division of elite troops sounds not quite credible. There has to be some sort of scattering of qualities, given that different units had different replacement levels and not all units in a division saw exactly the same combat...some could have been in reserve or holding a quieter sector. Perhaps more of a bell curve then?

[Childress]

Due to the misguided 'Repple Depple' system in the US Arrmy during the war injured and lost soldiers were returned to a replacement depot and redistributed to new units. This, it was belatedly discovered, had a result of diluting the quality and cohesiveness of veteran formations.

Which leads one to think that during the time period depicted game there should probably a wider range of quality per unit.

[Speedy]

Due to the misguided 'Repple Depple' system in the US Arrmy during the war injured and lost soldiers were returned to a replacement depot and redistributed to new units. This, it was belatedly discovered, had a result of diluting the quality and cohesiveness of veteran formations.

Which leads one to think that during the time period depicted game there should probably a wider range of quality per unit.

This would also suggest a potential for a lower motivation level for US troops, you might be willing to risk your life for a mate you have lived, trained and fought beside for two years but you most likely wont for someone you first met yesterday or a week ago.

What was the German policy for soldiers returning to the front after recovering from wounds?

[Sgt Joch]

I would be careful about applying the experience definitions too strictly. They were established in CMSF to try to come up with comparable experience levels for Arab armies and irregulars which do not fight the same way as western armies, although it could also apply to the Eastern front. It would not really apply to Normandy since regular German and Allied soldiers all received comparable training. I would also be careful about giving too high an experience level since that skews combat results as shown in the HMG thread.

In NWE 44-45, I don't see a justification for classifying entire units as Crack or Elite, although certain veteran units who are highly skilled could be, for example a Crack tank crew or sniper.

I would classify units along the following lines:

1 - D- Day:

A unit like the US 29th would be regular with normal leadership/motivation. It had no combat experience, but had trained extensively for 2 years prior to D-Day. Most of the US divisions entering combat in Normandy for the first time should be rated more or less the same.

A unit like the US 101st could be veteran, but since it has no combat experience, it would be more inclined to rate it as "regular", but since all the men were volunteers and highly motivated, bump up its motivation level.

A unit like the German 352nd Division had a cadre of veteran officers/NCOs with extensive combat experience, but most of its troops were green, recruits just out of basic training. That would average out to regular, although you could also mix veteran/ green units. Since the leaders were veterans, you could also bump up its leadership level +1. Motivation would be normal. Most of the regular German divisions entering combat in Normandy would be similar

2. July.

A division which had been in combat in June would have changed by the time the offensive restarted in mid- july.

The 29th US had taken heavy losses. Most of the batallion, company and platoon leaders on june 6th were gone; killed, wounded or deemed unfit for a combat leadership role. Their replacements were veterans who had proved themselves in combat. So again, you could justify a +1 leadership bonus. However, 50% or more of the combat troops were replacement, trained soldiers, but who had never served ot trained as a unit, so you could bump down the motivation level by one, since there is evidence that units with many replacements were less motivated.

The 352nd German was in a different situation. Because of problems with the German replacement system, it would have received very few replacements and its units would be very understrength, although because of the extensive combat experience, you could have a mix of veteran/regular units. You could also drop its motivation level by one, since there was evidence that too much combat was pushing the remaining troops to their breaking point.

using these levels would probably provide more of a challenge also.

[c3k]

Don't forget the effect on the British divisions. Risk averse, not wanting to be the last man to die, etc. Now, before the flames start, that was a gross oversimplification, but there were comments - contemporary - about the desert veteran divisions not performing at the elite/crack/veteran level expected of them. (I'm sure this would be true of any other nation as well, given the same circumstances.)

[GSX]

Don't forget the effect on the British divisions. Risk averse, not wanting to be the last man to die, etc. Now, before the flames start, that was a gross oversimplification, but there were comments - contemporary - about the desert veteran divisions not performing at the elite/crack/veteran level expected of them. (I'm sure this would be true of any other nation as well, given the same circumstances.)

Also, and your points taken on board, its a big difference running around the desert for 2 years and then suddenly finding yourself in tight hedgerow country. Im sure more than 1 'Desert rat' found that a bit bewildering.

This is a good example of how a veteran unit could become a regular unit though as it moves into an alien environment. Of course the men from the 7th Ard et al probably did feel that theyd done their bit though.