A10.7 Allied Troops

Nineteen Kilo

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
795
Reaction score
323
Location
Fair Oaks CA
Country
llUnited States
A stray thought hit me today while perusing multi-force scenarios. Is there a scenario in which the A10.7 Allied Troops rule has been invoked via SSR between Wehrmacht and SS forces on the same side? If not, can a case be made that maybe it should be from time to time?

With a different command structure between the two, it seems plausible to me.

Edit: Can the same argument also be made for Wehrmacht and Fallschirmjagers?
 

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
13,924
Reaction score
2,679
Location
Oxfordshire
First name
Jan
Country
llCzechia
I think CH used the Allied Troop rule for SS and Wehrmacht in their Berlin module.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,387
Reaction score
10,291
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
A stray thought hit me today while perusing multi-force scenarios. Is there a scenario in which the A10.7 Allied Troops rule has been invoked via SSR between Wehrmacht and SS forces on the same side? If not, can a case be made that maybe it should be from time to time?

With a different command structure between the two, it seems plausible to me.

Edit: Can the same argument also be made for Wehrmacht and Fallschirmjagers?
I would strongly argue against imposing the A10.7 rule to combinations of Wehrmacht, SS, and/or Fallschirmjäger forces.

The Germans were generally very flexible in attaching units of various formations to each other as the mission or the situation warranted. This included combinations of Wehrmacht, SS, Fallschirmjäger, and even some navy formations late in the war.

I am not sure what you mean with a different command structure. The ranks had different designations in Wehrmacht, SS, Luftwaffe, and Marine. There were more designations for (former) Cavaltry units and numerous others. On the whole, though, the functions were quite similar for ground units of any type.

If you want to reflect late-war confusion of worn out, rag-tag outfits cobbled together from remnants of various units, then a low ELR and inferior Leadership is the way to handle this IMHO.

von Marwitz
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,918
Reaction score
5,103
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Early in the war in northern Finland the SS troops assigned there were so unruly and undisciplined that both the German and Finish commanders tried to foist them off on each other. The German commander of the XXXVI Corps was so disillusioned with the performance and lack of cooperation of the SS Nord units he requested their immediate transfer from his sector to the point of offering his resignation.
 

Nineteen Kilo

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
795
Reaction score
323
Location
Fair Oaks CA
Country
llUnited States
I would strongly argue against imposing the A10.7 rule to combinations of Wehrmacht, SS, and/or Fallschirmjäger forces.

The Germans were generally very flexible in attaching units of various formations to each other as the mission or the situation warranted. This included combinations of Wehrmacht, SS, Fallschirmjäger, and even some navy formations late in the war.

I am not sure what you mean with a different command structure...
Thanks for the response. I have to admit upfront, I have zero idea if there was a rivalry between SS and Wehrmacht but I'm operating under the assumption that their command operated independently of each each other.

So to give an example of where I was coming from in the original question: a Wehrmacht Lieutenant would report to a Wehrmacht Captain, and in turn a Wehrmacht Major, and so on up the line. There would not be an SS officer in that Lieutenant's command hierarchy. Thus friction, confusion, and/or ambivalence might have happened when an officer of one force gave orders to troops of the other force?

It just seems like such an odd situation, to effectively have two armies operating in parallel to one another under one banner.

Clarification: I really shouldn't have singled out the Fallschirmjagers but rather should have said the Luftwaffe Field Formations (as they were also duplicating the Army's job/role).
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,619
Reaction score
5,119
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
Thanks for the response. I have to admit upfront, I have zero idea if there was a rivalry between SS and Wehrmacht but I'm operating under the assumption that their command operated independently of each each other.

So to give an example of where I was coming from in the original question: a Wehrmacht Lieutenant would report to a Wehrmacht Captain, and in turn a Wehrmacht Major, and so on up the line. There would not be an SS officer in that Lieutenant's command hierarchy. Thus friction, confusion, and/or ambivalence might have happened when an officer of one force gave orders to troops of the other force?

It just seems like such an odd situation, to effectively have two armies operating in parallel to one another under one banner.

Clarification: I really shouldn't have singled out the Fallschirmjagers but rather should have said the Luftwaffe Field Formations (as they were also duplicating the Army's job/role).
I don't know if I ever used this rule. 🤔

I do have a question though about the use of the upper case " A " in Allied. This to me might mean that portion of the rule only applies to units of the Allied Powers. Why not use " allied " if it was meant to refer to units of different countries belonging to the same military alliance? Any thoughts on this?🤔😉
 

Nineteen Kilo

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
795
Reaction score
323
Location
Fair Oaks CA
Country
llUnited States
I don't know if I ever used this rule. 🤔

I do have a question though about the use of the upper case " A " in Allied. This to me might mean that portion of the rule only applies to units of the Allied Powers. Why not use " allied " if it was meant to refer to units of different countries belonging to the same military alliance? Any thoughts on this?🤔😉
It is specifically stated to apply to troops of different nationalities. This is why it would be stretching it to cover Wehrmacht/SS situations.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,619
Reaction score
5,119
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
It is specifically stated to apply to troops of different nationalities.
I only quickly glanced at the rule, kitties were being rowdy. Will reread it now that Captain Bacchus and I are not occupied. 😋

Interesting thread. A rule early on in Chapter A that I believe I never used. Great stuff!!😊
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,619
Reaction score
5,119
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
It is specifically stated to apply to troops of different nationalities. This is why it would be stretching it to cover Wehrmacht/SS situations.
It says " influencing Allied Troops of a different nationality. " It specifically refers to Allied Troops. Why the upper case A and T? If this was meant to apply to troops of the Axis Powers also wouldn't it be simpler and clearer just to have it read " influencing troops of a different nationality. "?

I Googled " Allied " and got information about the Allied Powers. I'll do the same for " allied " and see what comes up.

Not trying to be disputaious or a bolshie jick ( lol shamelessly plugging his own thread ) but would enjoy debating this rule. 🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗

Very enjoyable thread! Thanks!!! Helped pass the time on a Saturday night.😊😊😉😉
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,619
Reaction score
5,119
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
A Leader can add his modifier to all entrenching attempts in his Location ( B27.11 ) . A Prisoner can be forced by his Guard to attempt Entrenchment ( A20.5 ). Is the Leader's modifier reduced because he is directing troops of a different nationality? Or not reduced because the Prisoners aren't Allied Troops? If the Allied Troops are Prisoners, and Allied actually means Allied Powers, is the Axis Powers Leadership modifier reduced?

Lol!! What a great game!! A Saturday night's worth of entertainment from a game I don't even play anymore. 🥰🥰

Btw I believe the rule is meant to apply to Allied and Axis Troops. Just testing the defense.

Why the rule uses Allied Troops is beyond me. Is that term used anywhere else in the ASLRB?
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,619
Reaction score
5,119
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
A Leader can add his modifier to all entrenching attempts in his Location ( B27.11 ) . A Prisoner can be forced by his Guard to attempt Entrenchment ( A20.5 ). Is the Leader's modifier reduced because he is directing troops of a different nationality? Or not reduced because the Prisoners aren't Allied Troops? If the Allied Troops are Prisoners, and Allied actually means Allied Powers, is the Axis Powers Leadership modifier reduced?

Lol!! What a great game!! A Saturday night's worth of entertainment from a game I don't even play anymore. 🥰🥰

Btw I believe the rule is meant to apply to Allied and Axis Troops. Just testing the defense.

Why the rule uses Allied Troops is beyond me. Is that term used anywhere else in the ASLRB?
I'm intrigued thinking about a Leader's modifier possibly not being reduced while directing a Prisoner but reduced while influencing Allied Troops.🤔😥😉😉
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,619
Reaction score
5,119
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
I only quickly glanced at the rule, kitties were being rowdy. Will reread it now that Captain Bacchus and I are not occupied. 😋

Interesting thread. A rule early on in Chapter A that I believe I never used. Great stuff!!😊
Thinking about it may have encountered this while playing Cat and Mouse. Not sure if it would have applied though. 🤔
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,918
Reaction score
5,103
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Thanks for the response. I have to admit upfront, I have zero idea if there was a rivalry between SS and Wehrmacht but I'm operating under the assumption that their command operated independently of each each other.

So to give an example of where I was coming from in the original question: a Wehrmacht Lieutenant would report to a Wehrmacht Captain, and in turn a Wehrmacht Major, and so on up the line. There would not be an SS officer in that Lieutenant's command hierarchy. Thus friction, confusion, and/or ambivalence might have happened when an officer of one force gave orders to troops of the other force?

It just seems like such an odd situation, to effectively have two armies operating in parallel to one another under one banner.

Clarification: I really shouldn't have singled out the Fallschirmjagers but rather should have said the Luftwaffe Field Formations (as they were also duplicating the Army's job/role).
However what did happen, often, was a Luftwaffe officer under the commend of a Wehrmacht (or SS) officer as the AA assets in a Wehrmacht/SS division/brigade were under the auspices of the Luftwaffe and were actually considered a Luftwaffe command and not an army command. Of course there are many other instances where "allied leaders" could be represented.

One of my uncles was in the Philippines at the outbreak of the war and served as advisor/company commander to Philippine troops for a while. So few of his troops could understand him that he had to relay his commands to a sergeant that spoke English & Spanish and he then relayed them to the men that spoke some Spanish so they could then relay the commands to the the men in the local dialect spoken by the majority of the troops.
 

Danno

Ost Front Fanatic
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
1,472
Reaction score
873
Location
Land of OZ
Country
llUnited States
I think designers should use this rule whenever there is a language barrier. This happens more frequently than you would think. Any multi-national units should be under the restrictions. Soviet units, Ost Battalions, Commonwealth units, And whenever Partisans were working with "liberating" forces. It does not apply where there were inter-service rivalry, which was mostly a problem in non-combat interactions, like logistics meetings where even unified nationalities had major breakdowns such as the Japanese Navy and Army having fist fights when discussion transport submarines. Combat usually clarified the priorities for mere rivalry but magnified barriers such as language.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,387
Reaction score
10,291
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
Thanks for the response. I have to admit upfront, I have zero idea if there was a rivalry between SS and Wehrmacht but I'm operating under the assumption that their command operated independently of each each other.

So to give an example of where I was coming from in the original question: a Wehrmacht Lieutenant would report to a Wehrmacht Captain, and in turn a Wehrmacht Major, and so on up the line. There would not be an SS officer in that Lieutenant's command hierarchy. Thus friction, confusion, and/or ambivalence might have happened when an officer of one force gave orders to troops of the other force?

It just seems like such an odd situation, to effectively have two armies operating in parallel to one another under one banner.

Clarification: I really shouldn't have singled out the Fallschirmjagers but rather should have said the Luftwaffe Field Formations (as they were also duplicating the Army's job/role).
Especially early in the war, SS-units were often looked down upon by Wehrmacht officers. While everyone shared patriotism and nationalism, much of the officer corps of the Wehrmacht had roots in the nobility of old which was more attached to the old Kaiserreich that ceased to exist after WW1. The SS was a political formation based on Nazi ideology. This was especially true for the early units. The social backgrounds of those in command were often (but of course not always) cross. I'll try to make a somewhat awkward comparison: People who accept science and facts as a base of arguments don't go well together with those of a different 'ideology' which is based on 'alternate facts' (i.e. lies), negates science, etc. For the sake of the example, the SS would fit in the latter category. Wehrmacht units sometimes refused to give up some of their eqipment to forward it to early SS units, which were at that point often not as well equipped and had to use some captured equipment in some cases.

Later on, the SS expanded greatly. It ceased to be a volunteer force and people were drafted into it like into the Heer. The equipment of some of the early SS-Division was greatly improved - they were favored by the Nazi leadership for political reasons. They were preferred in receiving more and better weapons and reinforcements. These were the Divisions that won the renown for battle prowess (Das Reich and Totenkopf for example). Often, these Divisions or parts thereof acted as 'fire brigades' or spearheads in operations and thus Wehrmacht units were often glad if they had them as a neighbor and were highly respected.

Late in the war, surprisingly, all sorts of non-Germans were used for SS-Divisions. I am not talking of Danish, Dutch or Skandinavians that the Nazis could consider 'aryan' and thus 'racially acceptable' but for example people from the Balkans etc. These late SS-Divisions were mostly mediocre at best.

As for the command structure:

Say, for example, a battered German Infantry Division received 'fire brigade' help by an SS-Regiment. This SS-Regiment would be despatched from its Division and subordinated to the command structure of the Wehrmacht Infantry Division. This is the way it worked on any level - from entire Divisons over Regiments, Battalions, Companies or even a single AFV Platoon. Regardless of what branches of German military was involved. So if you imagine a Wehrmacht Divison with an attached Fallschirmjäger Bataillon, to which a SS-Tank Platoon was in turn attached, then the SS-Tanks would be receiving orders from the Fallschirmjäger Bataillon, who in turn would be commanded by Wehrmacht Officers from the unit to which they were attached.

These attachements, subordinations etc. could change very quickly, especially late in the war. Think of various "Kampfgruppen" that were an assortment of units sometimes built on the spot in an improvised manner, sometimes created for a particular mission follwing a thorough plan.

This system worked quite well and was one of the strengths of the German military in WW2.

von Marwitz
 
Last edited:

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,619
Reaction score
5,119
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
Especially early in the war, SS-units were often looked down upon by Wehrmacht officers. While everyone shared patriotism and nationalism, much of the officer corps of the Wehrmacht had roots in the nobility of old which was more attached to the old Kaiserreich that ceased to exist after WW1. The SS was a political formation based on Nazi ideology. This was especially true for the early units. The social backgrounds of those in command were often (but of course not always) cross. I'll try to make a somewhat awkward comparison: People who accept science and facts as a base of arguments don't go well together with those of a different 'ideology' which is based on 'alternate facts' (i.e. lies), negates science, etc. For the sake of the example, the SS would fit in the latter category. Wehrmacht units sometimes refused to give up some of their eqipment to forward it to early SS units, which were at that point often not as well equipped and had to use some captured equipment in some cases.

Later on, the SS expanded greatly. It ceased to be a volunteer force and people were drafted into it like into the Heer. The equipment of some of the early SS-Division was greatly improved - they were favored by the Nazi leadership for political reasons. They were preferred in receiving more and better weapons and reinforcements. These were the Divisions that won the renown for battle prowess (Das Reich and Totenkopf for example). Often, these Divisions or parts thereof acted as 'fire brigades' or spearheads in operations and thus Wehrmacht units were often glad if they had them as a neighbor and highly respected.

Late in the war, surprisingly, all sorts of non-Germans were used for SS-Divisions. I am not talking of Danish, Dutch or Skandinavians that the Nazis could consider 'aryan' and thus 'racially acceptable' but for example people from the Balkans etc. These late SS-Divisions were mostly mediocre at best.

As for the command structure:

Say, for example, a battered German Infantry Division received 'fire brigade' help by an SS-Regiment. This SS-Regiment would be despatched from its Division and subordinated to the command structure of the Wehrmacht Infantry Division. This is the way it worked on any level - from entire Divisons over Regiments, Battalions, Companies or even a single AFV Platoon. Regardless of what branches of German military was involved. So if you imagine a Wehrmacht Divison with an attached Fallschirmjäger Bataillon, to which a SS-Tank Platoon was in turn attached, then the SS-Tanks would be receiving orders from the Fallschirmjäger Bataillon, who in turn would be commanded by Wehrmacht Officers from the unit to which they were attached.

These attachements, subordinations etc. could change very quickly, especially late in the war. Think of various "Kampfgruppen" that were an assortment of units sometimes built on the spot in an improvised manner, sometimes created for a particular mission follwing a thorough plan.

This system worked quite well and was one of the strengths of the German military in WW2.

von Marwitz
Interesting but I would value your opinion of my contention that Allied Troops implies units of the Allied Powers.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,387
Reaction score
10,291
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
If the Allied Troops are Prisoners, and Allied actually means Allied Powers, is the Axis Powers Leadership modifier reduced?
Interesting but I would value your opinion of my contention that Allied Troops implies units of the Allied Powers.
Limiting the rule to "Allied" forces as opposed to "Axis" forces never occurred to me.

But I have no doubt that "Allied Troops" is meant to refer to any forces fighting on the same side.

von Marwitz
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,619
Reaction score
5,119
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
Limiting the rule to "Allied" forces as opposed to "Axis" forces never occurred to me.

But I have no doubt that "Allied Troops" is meant to refer to any forces fighting on the same side.

von Marwitz
Thanks! What facts can you present to back up your opinion?

I'm not trying to be contentious or a butt hole just would like to see the argument that could be used against someone who was so inclined.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,648
Reaction score
5,631
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
I always read "Allied" in that rule as units on the same side.
It would apply, for an example, to an Italian leader directing a German one.
Should one contend that only the Allies had problems mixing troops of different nationalities?
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,648
Reaction score
5,631
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
The only other usage of "Allied" in the rules seems to be "Allied Minors".
And it wouldn't fit in A10.7.
 
Top