Australian/New Zealand OOB

[TDR]

Just a few points/questions:

1. The Carrier Platoon.
The carrier Platoon was organic to the Infantry battalions. Its size initially, 1941, was 13 Universal carriers with a Vickers .303 MG and Bren LMG per carrier. Also allocated to the platoon were 4 AT Rifles. The platoon consisted of a HQ and 4 sections of 3 carriers per section.
It has been noted in some texts that each carrier section also had a 2 inch mortar for local protection using smoke and HE.

This structure was fairly consistent through out the war.

This is nothing like the so called carrier Platoon as in the ANZAC OOB. What is attempted here is a carrier Section.
Also I find no doctrine reference to a 3 inch mortar or scout vehicle being organic to such a platoon.

2. The AMF/CMF Rifle Platoon and Rifle Coys.
The implication of this supplied structure is that these structures had organic Islander sections. This was not the case.
The NGVR and the AMF Battalions served with each other but such integration did not organically occur. There were occasions when sections of the NGVR were assigned with a AMF unit in PNG.

3. Where did the term Battalion, Bn, come into use with Artillery?
I was under the impression that all units in Australia and New Zealand followed the British system of calling them Regiments?

3. The Lee and Grant tanks (M3 Medium Series) in Australian use.
The Lee tanks did not have the Commanders cupola as per the US model. Also there is some doubt as to the hull mounted MGs.
Refer to Paul D. Handel’s article, The US M3 Medium Series in Australia Part One - Gun Tanks at
http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Arm...les/m3ph_1.htm

[narwan]

Hi TDR,

thanks for the feedback. However, in order to consider changing the current formations, we'd need some data (ie sources) to back up your suggestions. That's with regards to your points 1 and 2. Nothing personal, it's just that proposed changes to the game OB wise need to be well supported.

As to the first point, concerning the carrier platoon, there is a strong overlap between the formation you describe and the carrier squadron in the game (with the in game platoons being close to the sections you mention).
Could it be that this reflects the make-up of the formation at a later date (than '41)?

Narwan

[TDR]

Well my first comment re the Carrier platoon is that it is organic to an Infantry Battalion.
Do not confuse this formation with that of the Division Cavalry Regiments. These were different formations again. A combination of Light tanks VIB and some VICs and carriers.

The Australian Carrier Platoon as per the Infantry Battalion was similar to that of the British Carrier Platoon.

For a brief outline of Infantry formations especially for AIF cf AMF I suggest your OOB designer get a copy of the book ‘Redcoats to Cams’ a History of the Australian Infantry 1788 – 2001, by Ian Kuring as a basic starting pint for Australian Infantry units.
In this you will find reference to the Carrier Platoon. In the 1941 structure it is as I described. Also when you look at the 1944 Standard battalion the only difference is 1 less carrier.

Now the AMF units DID have carrier platoons in PNG in 1942, 3 such units being 36 Bn when based at Port Morsby before fighting on the Kokoda Track, 9 Bn, 25 Bn and 61 Bn. The last 3 Bns used the carriers in the Milne Bay, PNG, battle, Aug – Sep 42.
In 43 at some point there was an organisation of teh Bns in SWP, where teh carriers were removed from the Tropical Bn structure. Sort of obvious as theywere low slung and bellied out on the mud.

With the Div Cav Regt you can find some details on the web site I gave you already as well as via the Collections database at the Australian War Memorial.

One reference from the AWM being related to the Div Cav Regt Security Troop as:
“ALEPPO, SYRIA. 1941-11. SECURITY TROOP, 9TH DIVISION CAVALRY REGIMENT, ON MANOEUVRES. EACH TROOP COMPRISED THREE 5-TON TANKS AND THREE BREN GUN CARRIERS. ON A STRAIGHT RUN THE TANKS WERE CAPABLE OF A SPEED OF UP TO 45 MPH.”
The tanks in the picture that comes with this caption being VIBs.
In fact I have not found any Div Cav Units with the VIC tank as some OOB suggest.

[narwan]

Most OB's, including the ANZAC one, were designed a long time ago. They have been continually updated and revised were needed, and were new information surfaced. And will likely continue to be updated so your information is welcome.

What do you make of this website and the info with regards to the Australian and New Zealand Ob's therein:

http://www.orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/...itain/__uk.htm

[TDR]

narwan said:

What do you make of this website and the info with regards to the Australian and New Zealand Ob's therein:

http://www.orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/...itain/__uk.htm

"Cute!"
The site itself says litle of depth on the Aust structures. If you are dealing with nothing smaller than a Bn sized unit its Ok.

The big problem that I have found is that the varuious detail structures are not floating about as, say the US ones. You have to do some REAL digging.

[narwan]

The site does list the basic make up of UK and Dominion structures in some detail:

http://www.orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/...nf-div_me.html

Then click on the reconnaisance 'regiment' to get:

http://www.orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/...div_recon.html

Does that look about right for the Australians too?

[TDR]

Hmm.. see PM

[TDR]

OK without pointing at anyone, and looking at what I would consider "this problem" of the Aust/NZ OOB, what is the normal approach on sorting out a few things?

I have no intension of getting into a discussion re this web site vs some other as to its relevant content as it would seem counter productive.

For such a revamp to bring it into some level of reality what were the original sources, references, for the decision of the various Company Platoon etc structures??

I am not intending to be awkward on this point but if I have to verify my comments by quoting sources, I think the original source for decision making should be provided for a development of this OOB. Mainly to set a start point for such work.
Further if it’s a case of "well I have not sourced that suggested change so I will not accept it", then this will become a pointless task.

Just my comments.

narwan said:
Most OB's, including the ANZAC one, were designed a long time ago. They have been continually updated and revised were needed, and were new information surfaced. And will likely continue to be updated so your information is welcome.

What do you make of this website and the info with regards to the Australian and New Zealand Ob's therein:

http://www.orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/...itain/__uk.htm

[narwan]

Hi TDR, the reason we ask for sources is mainly for people to show us they know what they're talking about (and are also not just advocating one side of a 'controversial' issue). Too often people claim something should be changed because they saw for example a documentary on Discovery the night before which mentioned something else or they recall they read something on the web somewhere, some unspecified time ago, etc.

Changes in OB's can have far reaching consequences. It affects existing scenario's, campaigns, AI pick routines, sometimes specific code and off course player mods.
So changes to OB's are balanced on (quality of) content, whether it will enhance the game significantly, the amount of work needed to put into the changes and checking for unforeseen consequences, etc by the designers and some other things aswel (like available time and priority for other things that need to be done).

Major changes are unlikely but minor ones are possible. Take this thread for example:

http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...b=5&o=&fpart=1


Narwan

[TDR]

Well if I left my knowledge source up to the Discovery channel I would build bridges out of match boxes and vote for the man in the moon.

As it is I suspect that in general this is not a heavy OOB. Its not the US Army/USMC/Germany or USSR, just to mention a few of the "common" ones.

My comment on sources was simple. Its not a matter of me producing a valid source, its how its accepted.

Also if it comes down to a case that it can not be fixed due to backward compatibility, but only minor changes you don’t end up with much of a change, if any really at all.
Simple case, AIF Platoon 3 sections and “Scouts”, take out the scouts as they were not there and suddenly you are short of about 4 men, ie a half section. BIG change!!
Now if that scout section is in fact the Pl HQ why is it No 4 in the list it should be No1 in the formation. Then that brings in other weapon load issues.

Also take the carrier Platoon as it is provided in the game. Well it actually is a Carrier section, but why the 3” SP Mor , its not part of the section as per doctrine??