Airborne v. Regular Infantry

[imij0607]

I started a thread about airborne being better than regular infantry. The result was that airborne infantry were basically of the same quality. I was under the impression that airborne/ranger/sas etc. were better shots, more endurance etc. Was this not true in WWII?

[Blackcat]

If you are thinking about D-day and the early Normandy campaign most of the allied forces, probably the overwhelming majority were green, i.e. they had never been in combat before. Taking that as the base line I think it would be correct to say that generally the green airborne troops (and especially the paras) were fitter, better trained and more highly motivated than their line infantry or cavalry counterparts.

Th UK commando forces were in a different league as, they were as highly trained as the paras and most of them had already seen the elephant. However, there were comapatively few of them many of them in Normandy. The Rangers I think of as analogous to Commandos, but I don't know enough to risk a comment.

[Battlefront.com]

US Airborne were trained to a higher standard than regular infantry. They were also hand picked (for the most part) vs. the mixed bag of regular infantry. They also had a good cadre of experienced NCOs and officers from the previous 2 years of war. Some while paras, others transferred in after infantry experience.

The way this is simulated in CM is by setting the Airborne units with slightly higher Experience, Morale, and Leadership Modifiers.

Steve

[Sardaukar]

Basically what Blackcat said.

Allied Airborne, Commando & Ranger units were volunteers and generally had better motivation & training.

These units were comparatively small (US/UK airborne div would be under half of manpower of regular infantry div. Similar was situation with e.g. Ranger battalions compared to line infantry battalions.

So well-trained & motivated, but majority were still untested in combat.

Not that SAS (and US OSS Jedburgh teams) do not belong to same category as airborne, UK commandos or Rangers, since they were special forces trained to fight in small groups behind enemy lines, usually in concert with intelligence & resistance efforts. Others were not special forces, which were even more rare and small in numbers.

[Blackcat]

... The way this is simulated in CM is by setting the Airborne units with slightly higher Experience, Morale, and Leadership Modifiers.

Steve

True, but I am not convinced you have jacked them up enough in the morale and leadership departments.

[YankeeDog]

If you are thinking about D-day and the early Normandy campaign most of the allied forces, probably the overwhelming majority were green, i.e. they had never been in combat before.

I'm not sure I would say "Overwhelming Majority". To be sure, a majority of the American divisions landing in Normandy were seeing combat for the first time, but there were also a fair number of Veteran formations in the mix.

If you look at the 5 American divisions that got significant boots onto France on D-Day, both 82nd Airborne and the 1st Infantry Division were Veteran units by any standard in June 1944.

So, for the first 24 - 48 hours of combat at least, 40% of American forces were Veteran, 20% were unbloodied but highly trained and motivated (the 101st Airborne), and the remaining 2 divisions/40% (the 29th and the 4th Infantry Divisions) could be called "Green." Both the 4th and the 101st also had a substantial number of transfers from other veteran combat units to bolster their training and experience. Not sure about the 29th in this regard.

It is true that most of the follow-on formations landing from D+1 on had no prior combat experience. But especially some of the divisions that landed in the days immediately following D-Day, such as the 2nd Armored Division (9th June) and the 9th Infantry Division (10th June), had combat experience in the North Africa, Sicily, and/or Italy.

So if you want to look at the first 2-3 weeks of the Normandy campaign, as fairly respectable number of the American units engaged in combat have prior combat experience.

[Schrullenhaft]

Blackcat - There is no permanent difference between unit types in terms of their Experience, Morale and Leadership modifiers. These are settings you can change yourself and any unit can be anywhere on the spectrum regarding these settings. SS will not always be 'ubermen' and Ost Battalions may not be the worst units you could possibly field. You can change them to match that, but there is no inherent modifier that is ALWAYS associated with a particular unit/type.

If you disagree with a scenario author's settings for these units you can either change them yourself (if they are individual scenarios) or you can potentially contact the campaign creator to have them changed (since you can't change campaigns that you don't have the component files to).

[sburke]

If you look at the 5 American divisions that got significant boots onto France on D-Day, both 82nd Airborne and the 1st Infantry Division were Veteran units by any standard in June 1944.

So, for the first 24 - 48 hours of combat at least, 40% of American forces were Veteran, 20% were unbloodied but highly trained and motivated (the 101st Airborne), and the remaining 2 divisions/40% (the 29th and the 4th Infantry Divisions) could be called "Green." Both the 4th and the 101st also had a substantial number of transfers from other veteran combat units to bolster their training and experience. Not sure about the 29th in this regard.

The 82nd can't be counted as a full formation. Only the 505th as a whole was a veteran formation. The 504th did not participate and the 507th/508th were new formations.

[Blackcat]

YankeeDog,

You have a point, I suppose it depends on how you define Units (see Mr. Burke's comment above). I tend to think of battalions rather than divisions, but thats just me.

Anyay lets not get into metaphysics here. Most of the troops on the allied side in those first few weeks of the campaign were green, but the paras were a cut above the line infantry and cavalry in terms of training, motivation and morale. Could you agree to that?

[Blackcat]

Blackcat - There is no permanent difference between unit types in terms of their Experience, Morale and Leadership modifiers. These are settings you can change yourself and any unit can be anywhere on the spectrum regarding these settings. SS will not always be 'ubermen' and Ost Battalions may not be the worst units you could possibly field. You can change them to match that, but there is no inherent modifier that is ALWAYS associated with a particular unit/type.

If you disagree with a scenario author's settings for these units you can either change them yourself (if they are individual scenarios) or you can potentially contact the campaign creator to have them changed (since you can't change campaigns that you don't have the component files to).

You are quite correct. I was projecting on to Battlefront, issues that aren't theirs. Except in the matter of purchase price in a QB, of course.

[YankeeDog]

The 82nd can't be counted as a full formation. Only the 505th as a whole was a veteran formation. The 504th did not participate and the 507th/508th were new formations.

*Shrug* So call the American forces landing June 6-7 30% Veteran, though I do think the extensive command experience at the divisional level, and the fact that a fair number of officers and noncoms transferred into these new formations makes them a notch above "Green."

In any event, I don't think it's accurate to call the American Units engaged early in Normandy overwhelmingly green.

[mjkerner]

Also, while the 29th and 4th were green from a combat perspective, they had been training--HARD--for two years. The 29th's training regimen was about as rigorous as the 101st, judging by the memoirs of Sgt. Bob Slaughter.

[MikeyD]

Hand-picked Type A 'macho' personalities does have its downside in combat. Airborne went through a meatgrinder in Normandy, were pretty much rendered combat ineffective and withdrawn by mid-July. One could speculate going a bit lighter on the 'gung-ho' personality type would've produced fewer aggregate casualties while still getting the job done. A CM equivalent is the 'fanatical' grade of soldier. They're a tough nut to crack but the chances that they're going to live to fight another day are greatly reduced.

[SelfLoadingRifle]

Oh dearie me...

The airborne and the infantry DO NOT LIKE EACH OTHER AT ALL.. (at least not in my army)

Whether or not one is better than the other is purely a matter of opinion...

TAKE COVER!!!

SLR

[Nidan1]

Oh dearie me...

The airborne and the infantry DO NOT LIKE EACH OTHER AT ALL.. (at least not in my army)

Whether or not one is better than the other is purely a matter of opinion...

TAKE COVER!!!

SLR

Wow, you have your own army!

Just watch "The Dirty Dozen"

[JonS]

Th UK commando forces ... there were comapatively few of them many of them in Normandy.

Two oversized brigades.

The Rangers I think of as analogous to Commandos, but I don't know enough to risk a comment.

That's probably fair. They were modelled on - and trained by - the Commandos. They had much smaller numbers though - only two battalions in Normandy (vice eight Commando 'bns'), and they only fought for a week or two, while the Commandos were in the thick of it till August.

[Battlefront.com]

Remember that according to our definitions:

Green = poor training with some combat experience *or* average training and little combat experience

Regular = very good training with maybe some combat experience *or* poor training with a decent amount of combat experience

The US units going into Normandy were all very well trained. Many had some combat experience, some had extensive combat experience (but had been out of the line for a while, so that dulls the edge a bit). Which means overall the quality of US units going into Normandy was quite good. A smattering of Greens, mostly Regulars, and a smattering of Veteran sounds about right to me.

Airborne would be a cut above so I'd say most of their units should be Regular or Veteran. None should be Green. I'd say that none should be Elite or Crack either.

Steve

[akd]

Crack is easy to overuse absolutely best left in the hands of the scenario designers (also known as crack dealers).

[imij0607]

so i'm going to assume then a regular airborne squad and a regular infantry squad will basically perform the same in game terms?

[akd]

so i'm going to assume then a regular airborne squad and a regular infantry squad will basically perform the same in game terms?

Assuming you mean parachute infantry, given the same experience, motivation, fitness, and leadership, the difference will come down to equipment.

[YankeeDog]

so i'm going to assume then a regular airborne squad and a regular infantry squad will basically perform the same in game terms?

Correct. Unit quality and other attributes like morale are parent-formation and nationality independent. Regular = Regular, no matter what uniform a soldier wears, or whether or not they tuck their trousers into their boots.

If you believe airborne units were, on average, higher quality than "straight leg" infantry, the way to depict this in CM is give airborne units a higher level of experience, on average.

[JonS]

If you believe airborne units were, on average, higher quality than "straight leg" infantry, the way to depict this in CM is give airborne units a higher level of experience, on average.

Or; give the leg infantry a lower level than the airborne.

Also bear in mind that the difference between opponents experience rating matters. Vets on both sides is likely going to be a mutual bloodbath, while vets vs green is likely to be a lopsided singular bloodbath.

Think about what level (or how 'good' or 'bad' you want them to be) you want your 'core' force to be, then adjust everyone else up or down around that to get your core force as much 'better' or 'worse' that you want them to be.