Total Finnish Forces at the Winter War:
400,000 men, 9 divisions
145 planes
2 coast defence ships, 5 submarines
http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Orders-of-Battle/Fleets-September-1939.htm
By May 1940, the number of divisions in the German army was as follows:
• 129 infantry divisions;
• 8 motorised infantry divisions (3 Waffen-SS);
• 10 panzer divisions;
• 3 mountain divisions;
• 1 cavalry division;
• 2 airborne divisions;
In addition the SS-Verfuegungstruppe (from April 1940, known as the Waffen-SS) provided three motorised infantry divisions and a brigade. There were now over two-and-a-half million men under arms in the German Army, of which the Waffen-SS contributed about 100,000.
For the invasion of France the German Army was organised into three army groups:
Army Group A (von Rundstedt) with 45 1/2 divisions including 7 panzer;
Army Group B (von Bock) with 29 1/2 divisions including 3 panzer, and
Army Group C (von Leeb) with 19 divisions.
Army Group C held a defensive position against the Maginot Line while the main offensive was launched by Rundstedt’s Army Group A in the Ardennes with a subsidiary invasion of Holland and Belgium undertaken by Army Group B.
From 9 April (when German troops invaded Denmark and Norway) to the armistice with France on 25 June, the German Army confirmed the superiority of its organisation and tactics. Losses in Norway were 5636 men; the invasion of France and the Low Countries cost 27,074 killed, 111,034 wounded and 18,348 missing. On some single days in World War I the losses were higher.
German Air Force (Luftwaffe) and Airborne Forces:
For the campaign in the West the Luftwaffe deployed 3,902 aircraft (1,482 bombers and dive-bombers, 42 ground-attack planes, 1,016 fighter planes and 248 Bf110 twin-engined fighters).
Colonel-General Kesselring commanded Luftflotte 2 with I, IV and IX Fliegerkorps in support of General von Bock’s Army Group B.
Colonel-General Sperrle commanded Luftflotte 3 with II, V and VIII Fliegerkorps in support of General von Rundstedt’s Army Group A.
The forces within the Territorial Air Zones based in Italy were organised as follows:
• Northern Zone: 7 wings of bombers (approx. 315 planes) and 3 wings (plus one group) of CR-42 fighters (approx. 210 planes);
• Central Zone: three wings of bombers (approx. 135 planes) and two wings and a group of fighter planes (approx. 150 planes);
• Southern Zone: five bomber wings (approx. 225 planes) and one fighter wing as well as an autonomous fighter group (approx. 90 planes) and divebomber group (approx. 25 planes);
• South-Eastern Zone: one wing of night-bombers (approx. 45 planes) and float-planes and a group of obsolescent CR-32 fighters (approx. 30 planes).
• the largest of the overseas commands was that based in Libya and comprised four bomber wings (approx. 180 planes) ; a fighter wing and three other fighter groups (approx. 150 planes) ; and two groups plus two squadrons of colonial reconnaissance aircraft (approx. 60 planes).
The Italian Air Force begun the war with nearly 2,000 operational aircraft ready for combat and with almost the same number in reserve.
Italian Navy (Regia Navale)
Mussolini hoped that the Regia Navale would play an important part in any Mediterranean war. He saw control of the sea (Mare Nostrum - Our Sea - was how he described the Mediterranean) as an essential prerequisite for expanding his empire into Nice, Corsica, Tunis and the Balkans.
Picture: a heavy cruiser of the Zara class is firing the guns.
Italian naval building accelerated during his tenure of power, and by June 1940, the Navy comprised:
• 4 battleships;
• 8 heavy cruisers;
• 14 light cruisers;
• 128 destroyers;
• 115 submarines;
• 62 motor-torpedo boats.
There were 1,235 Italian merchant ships, totalling 3,448,453 tons.
The Navy lacked aircraft, and was dependent on the Air Force for protection and reconnaissance. This was an unsatisfactory state of affairs; co-operation was poor, and although the torpedo-bombers and reconnaissance aircraft of the Regia Aeronautica were effective, high-level bombers did not have much success against ships at sea.
Basic US Army units in 1942:
Infantry Division (motorised) Armoured Division Tank Battalion Tank Destroyer Battalion
Total units (in summer 1942) aprox. 28
(42 in December 1942 including armoured) aprox. 5
(16 in 1944-45) 2 +
(65 in 1944-45, often being combined in groups of 3-5, sometimes with mechanized infantry units) 3 +
(80 in 1945)
Infantry regiments 3
(each with three battailons, each with 860 men) 1
(with three battailons, each with 860 men, all mounted on half-tracks) - -
Total men 14,253 10,900 729 1,250
Machine guns 280
(147 x .30, 133 x .50) aprox. 93
(49 x .30, 44 x .50) - -
Mortars 138
(81 x 60mm, 57 x 81mm) 46
(27 x 60mm, 19 x 81mm) - -
Artillery 48
(36 x US 105mm Howitzer, 12 x US 155mm Howitzer)
Self-propelled howitzers 24
(18 x 75mm, 6 x 105mm) 54
(105mm) - -
Anti-tank guns 109
(37mm M3A1 , later 57mm) ? - -
Anti-aircraft guns anti-aircraft battalions were controlled by the Army
Vehicles 1,440
(note: this capacity was not enough to move all equipment and personnel simultaneously) 1,000+ - -
Armoured Cars - 68
(M8) - -
Tanks - 227
(159 medium M3 Lee or M4 Sherman, 68 Stuart)
68
(51 medium M3 Lee or M4 Sherman, 17 Stuart)
36
(M10)
US Army Air Force
In the 1930s there were dramatic strides in civil and commercial aviation, and by the eve of the war the United States was the world leader in civil aviation. Army aviation lagged sadly behind. Its aircraft were not capable of meeting the demands of the war to come, and production was quite limited in comparison with the industry’s potential. In 1938 only 1,800 military aircraft were built, and 2,195 in the following year. But in 1939, when the 1935 Neutrality Act was repealed, the American aircraft industry began to recover. (The Act had put an embargo on the export of all military material to belligerent countries, with the aim of keeping America out of war.) France and Britain were major new customers for American aircraft, and the 1941 Lend-Lease Act gave this production a new boost.
In 1939 the USAAC had a total of 2,400 aircraft, while the U.S. Navy Air Force had 2,500 aircraft, 600 of which were carrier-based.
When war broke out the Army had 3,305 aircraft in a state of readiness, while the Navy had about 3,000 aircraft ready.
Basic British and Empire Army units in August 1940:
Infantry Division (motorised) Armoured Division
Total units approx. 29 - 33 3
Infantry brigades 3 with 2,340 men and 99 officers each 2 battalions with 1,560 men and 66 officers together
Total men 13,600 ?
Artillery 72
(36 x 18 pounders, 36 x 4.5inch Howitzers or 18/25 pounders or 25 pounders) approx. 48
(25 pounders)
Anti-tank guns 75
(2 pounders or 25mm) approx. 48
(2 pounders)
Tanks 28 light tanks, 44 Universal Bren carriers 220 cruiser tanks
Total British and Empire divisions in France on 10 May 1940: 10
Total British and Empire divisions in Great Britain in August 1940: 26 (2 armoured), all short of equipment.
OK then here are some figures:
Ship Type BB CV CA DD SS AP Fighter T Bomber
Germany 1 1 2 2 1
Italy 2 2 3 3 1
Japan 3 2 3 5 2 4
UK 4 2 4 8 2 6
USSR 1 1 1 1
France 2 2 3 3 1
Anzac 1
USA 3 2 3 8 4 6
Spain 1 1
Argentina 1
Brazil 1
Turkey
Dutch 1BB 3
CV 4
CA 10
DD 20
SS 30
what this chart means is take units by type and divide by 3,4,10,20, or 30
So using your data IL, with a ratio of:
Fighter: 1:150
Tac (best I can tell): 1:150
Bomber: 1:600
Germany: 7 Fighter, 4 Tac, 2 Bomber
Japan: 9 Fighter, 2 Tac, 1 Bomber
UK: 5 Fighter, 1 Tac, 1 Bomber
Italy: 4 Fighter, 1 Tac, 1 Bomber
Russia/US have huge air forces, hard to tell how many units they should have based on quality/experience, but my guess is:
US: 8 Fighter, 3 Tac, 2 Bomber
Russia: 4 Fighter, 2 Tac, 1 Bomber
Wow… I am impressed. I really like that you guys are doing all this but, do you have any sort of day job? This is a lot of work…
So using your data IL, with a ratio of:
Fighter: 1:150
Tac (best I can tell): 1:150
Bomber: 1:600Germany: 7 Fighter, 4 Tac, 2 Bomber
Japan: 9 Fighter, 2 Tac, 1 Bomber
UK: 5 Fighter, 1 Tac, 1 Bomber
Italy: 4 Fighter, 1 Tac, 1 BomberRussia/US have huge air forces, hard to tell how many units they should have based on quality/experience, but my guess is:
US: 8 Fighter, 3 Tac, 2 Bomber
Russia: 4 Fighter, 2 Tac, 1 Bomber
OK this is great… BUT you need to qualify some of the planes and ‘discount’ the numbers ( by type) of really inferior types like old WW1 biplanes that inflate the total and really saw no action or could not be classified at front line planes.
I did this with some of the old battleships, rating Germany down a BB because of either pocket battleships ( which are really more like a cruiser) and old WW1 BB’s
ON the Carriers some of the old small carriers were counted at 50% rate into my figures ( example: Hermes and Hosho)
I think your numbers in view of this may be off by 1 plane here and there. PLease check.
Today i will work on Land and lets compare notes.
Once we know what each had in terms of total pieces we can begin to study the placement and plug in the numbers to build us a historical setup.
You could take a real map of the world and draw in the actual AAE/P40 borders and SZ’s.
@Imperious:
So using your data IL, with a ratio of:
Fighter: 1:150
Tac (best I can tell): 1:150
Bomber: 1:600Germany: 7 Fighter, 4 Tac, 2 Bomber
Japan: 9 Fighter, 2 Tac, 1 Bomber
UK: 5 Fighter, 1 Tac, 1 Bomber
Italy: 4 Fighter, 1 Tac, 1 BomberRussia/US have huge air forces, hard to tell how many units they should have based on quality/experience, but my guess is:
US: 8 Fighter, 3 Tac, 2 Bomber
Russia: 4 Fighter, 2 Tac, 1 BomberOK this is great… BUT you need to qualify some of the planes and ‘discount’ the numbers ( by type) of really inferior types like old WW1 biplanes that inflate the total and really saw no action or could not be classified at front line planes.
I did this with some of the old battleships, rating Germany down a BB because of either pocket battleships ( which are really more like a cruiser) and old WW1 BB’s
ON the Carriers some of the old small carriers were counted at 50% rate into my figures ( example: Hermes and Hosho)
I think your numbers in view of this may be off by 1 plane here and there. PLease check.
Today i will work on Land and lets compare notes.
Once we know what each had in terms of total pieces we can begin to study the placement and plug in the numbers to build us a historical setup.
ok, so maybe the following changes:
Germany: 7 Fighter, 4 Tac, 1 Bomber - Lets be serious- Germany shouldn’t have 2 bombers at start if we want some UK fleet to survive Round 1
Japan: 9 Fighter, 2 Tac, 1 Bomber
UK: 4 Fighter, 1 Tac, 1 Bomber
India: 2 Fighter, 1 Tac
Italy: 2 Fighter, 1 Tac - Reduce the Italian air arm significantly. They weren’t well renowned anyway.
France: 1 Fighter
ANZAC: 2 Fighter
US: 6 Fighter, 3 Tac, 2 Bomber - Reduction based on war experience
Russia: 2 Fighter, 1 Tac, 1 Bomber - Reduction based on quality/leadership
Do those look better?
How will the land units be represented? Historically the Russian troops outnumbered the Germans, but had equipment spread out all over the front when Barbarossa began in 1941. The Germans were able to punch holes in the lines and creat massive encirclements of the Russian troops……that is tough to accomplish with the current game mechanics.
Going purely off the numbers how will the axis even have a shot at victory?
I understand that unit quality, troop experience etc. will need to be accounted for…but how can that be quantified?
They have a good shot. BUT Germany and Italy need to be aggressive and coordinated at the outset in order to pull it off. Italy can keep the UK busy in Africa, and Germany needs to do a balancing act by either throwing the Luftwaffe at UK and then all guns east or the reverse, hold Russia at bay and pull a fast Sea Lion.
The thing that really worries me is UK’s split income. The fact that 16+ IPCs have to go to India means that UK is weaker then she appears. To me, the UK will need all her IPCs centered in Europe to survive till Russia and USA rev up.
How will the land units be represented?
Historically the Russian troops outnumbered the Germans, but had equipment spread out all over the front when Barbarossa began in 1941. The Germans were able to punch holes in the lines and create massive encirclements of the Russian troops……that is tough to accomplish with the current game mechanics.
Going purely off the numbers how will the axis even have a shot at victory?
I understand that unit quality, troop experience etc. will need to be accounted for…but how can that be quantified?
First job is to determine the proper ratios and force pools for a June 1940 setup.
Step two is to determine where these units are located in June 1940
Step Three is to address the qualitative factors that need to compensate the totals. This can be done by a number of ways:
If Japan has too few planes you can address the quality of their better trained pilots, by for example making US fighters attack at 2 for the first 1-3 rounds they are at war. This might represent the skilled pilots. Or conversely i can make tokens for the starting Japanese tactical bombers/fighters and they get some special ability as long as they are not destroyed.
Another example is to give Japan a first turn special attack as in AAP , where allied ships defend at 1 on the first turn they are attacked
Another example is Japanese transports and or naval may get a double movement on the first turn they attack USA, So they can get a jump on all these little islands and model the lightening war of her first 6 months.
Another example is a Russian winter rule, Bringing back oil centers, and other ideas.
Step Four is to balance the final setup and provide as many different variations as possible so that the setup is not scripted and can have many options for players. Nothing worse than getting a game where you got the drop on that perfect move…. and the game is not replayed because new strategies are not possible.
Step Five is to rigorously play-test this and provide feedback
Step six is to then make a 1941 ( DEC) setup for a shorter game. The research on this is very good for both theaters of war.
@Imperious:
OK then here are some figures:
Ship Type BB CV CA DD SS AP Fighter T Bomber
Germany 1 1 2 2 1
Italy 2 2 3 3 1
Japan 3 2 3 5 2 4
UK 4 2 4 8 2 6
USSR 1 1 1 1
France 2 2 3 3 1
Anzac 1
USA 3 2 3 8 4 6
Spain 1 1
Argentina 1
Brazil 1
Turkey
Dutch 1BB 3
CV 4
CA 10
DD 20
SS 30what this chart means is take units by type and divide by 3,4,10,20, or 30
hey il, you have made some mistakes with your historical repersentation of navies. actual fleet strength around May-June 1940 is below
BB CV CA DD SS
10 8 38 108 68 Japan
15 7 37 118 112 USA
16 6 70 214 78 Commonwealth
8 0 18 70 25 France
3 0 6 68 218 USSR
4 0 13 26 240 Germany
0 0 5 12 0 Netherlands
6 0 22 59 146 Italy
1 0 4 13 11 Turkey
2 0 7 1 14 Spain
2 0 2 7 0 Brazil
2 0 4 30 0 Argentina
now you can do any ratios you like to get to a board game amount. but you have errors in your real life fleets, one example that jumps out at me is your germany having 1 game CV (4 real life CV) when germany never had the single graf zepplin operational.
i will use a chart that shows ratios of BB 5/1, CV 8/3, CA 19/1, DD 27/1, SS 34/1
these ratios are what larry used to convert japans real 1940 navy to pac40. i then spread it across the other powers.
BB CV CA DD SS
2.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 Japan
3.00 2.63 1.95 4.37 3.29 USA
3.20 2.25 3.68 7.93 2.29 Commonwealth
1.60 0.00 0.95 2.59 0.74 France
0.60 0.00 0.32 2.52 6.41 USSR
0.80 0.00 0.68 0.96 7.06 Germany
0.00 0.00 0.26 0.44 0.00 Netherlands
1.20 0.00 1.16 2.19 4.29 Italy
0.20 0.00 0.21 0.48 0.32 Turkey
0.40 0.00 0.37 0.78 0.41 Spain
0.40 0.00 0.11 0.26 0.00 Brazil
0.40 0.00 0.21 1.11 0.00 Argentina
if i was to make a more historical accurate game setup i would round the navies to the following.
BB CV CA DD SS
2 3 2 4 2 Japan
3 3 2 4 3 USA
3 2 4 8 2 Commonwealth
2 0 1 2 1 France
1 0 0 3 6 USSR
1 0 0 1 7 Germany
0 0 0 1 0 Netherlands
1 0 1 3 4 Italy
0 0 1 0 0 Turkey
0 0 1 1 0 Spain
0 0 0 1 0 Brazil
0 0 0 1 0 Argentina
Lets post further discussion in house rules. We already have a thread. I am re-posting that.
