Battle of the Scheldt

Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
302
Reaction score
1
Location
Not Here
Ben Turner said:
I'm not completely familiar with the battle- was it a matter of having to clear the whole estuary before Antwerp could be put to use or did advances have an incremental effect on its capacity?
It was all or nothing. To be able to use Antwerp, the coastal guns on Walcheren island in particular (as well as some guns along the whole estuary) had to be eliminated.

I've looked into doing a Scheldt scenario myself, and come to similar conclusions. It's not the greatest battle to redo as a full 2 month campaign. It basically followed three sequential and seperate battles (Breskens Pocket, South Beveland Isthmus, and Walcheren Island). I think it might be better to create 3 small scenarios with company sized units, although the battles on South Beveland were simply head-on slugging matches on very narrow and limiting terrain. Perhaps interesting from an historical perspective, but difficult to make entertaining in a game. Breskens and Walcheren could still result in interesting scenarios (due to certain variables such as amphibious landings), however small map size and high unit density would be such that the scenarios would have to be rigged and customized in a certain way, in order to make them reasonably playable. Also, there is the difficulty in recreating the flooded polder effects, such as the LVT tactics and the ineffectiveness of armour. If TOAW was a more tactical game, it may work well. As it is, I think it is a tall order to make this battle by itself to work in TOAW, however cudos to anyone who can do it.
 
Last edited:

Bdr.Mallette

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2004
Messages
1,087
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
Martin Schenkel said:
It was all or nothing. To be able to use Antwerp, the coastal guns on Walcheren island in particular (as well as some guns along the whole estuary) had to be eliminated.

I've looked into doing a Scheldt scenario myself, and come to similar conclusions. It's not the greatest battle to redo as a full 2 month campaign. It basically followed three sequential and seperate battles (Breskens Pocket, South Beveland Isthmus, and Walcheren Island). I think it might be better to create 3 small scenarios with company sized units, although the battles on South Beveland were simply head-on slugging matches on very narrow and limiting terrain. Perhaps interesting from an historical perspective, but difficult to make entertaining in a game. Breskens and Walcheren could still result in interesting scenarios (due to certain variables such as amphibious landings), however small map size and high unit density would be such that the scenarios would have to be rigged and customized in a certain way, in order to make them reasonably playable. Also, there is the difficulty in recreating the flooded polder effects, such as the LVT tactics and the ineffectiveness of armour. If TOAW was a more tactical game, it may work well. As it is, I think it is a tall order to make this battle by itself to work in TOAW, however cudos to anyone who can do it.
Hey,
thx for comments.
I agree with most of the points made.
I was thinking of either doing all of Holland or re-think the scenario. I have some good ideas for the event editor but haven't dove in yet. Still thinking on this one and have been busy.
To do each one in a separate scenario would mean very small maps.
The one I have so far seems to work well. Mostly muddy with flooded areas represented as flooded marshes. Amphibious units are represented and so have all allied units for both English and Canadian troops. The problem I have is the size of the Divisions. For the Canucks, there were 3 Brigades per Division and within them there were 3 Regiments. Now the strengths I have for them are a little inaccurate because they were over-strengthed in most cases but under supplied.
The german units seem to be well built, so I will leave them be, for now.
Gotta try and figure out to either put triggers in for T.Ops for Historical ops(amphib.) or have them turn triggered.

Ehh, on hold for now. That's 2 now. Battle of the atlantic and Scheldt. Sheeeesh.

:D
 

Ben Turner

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
0
Location
London
Country
ll
Martin Schenkel said:
Also, there is the difficulty in recreating the flooded polder effects, such as the LVT tactics and the ineffectiveness of armour.
Well LVT units would just be made amphibious and the river mapped as shallow water. Then these units would be able to move around in the river at will.
 

Ben Turner

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
0
Location
London
Country
ll
Bdr.Mallette said:
To do each one in a separate scenario would mean very small maps.
That wouldn't be the end of the world. I think there could stand to be a lot more really high quality small scenarios for TOAW. The last thing we need is another Opart 300 scenario played out over a hundred a fifty turns.
 

Bdr.Mallette

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2004
Messages
1,087
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
true,

I'll take a look into doing a smaller map.
I was thinking of designing the one I have now to run in the order of the assaults planned(Allied) and forcing uninvolved units into static mode till their time comes to fight.
But I always like to leave the overall strategies to the players themselves, rather than a total attempt at a re-creation.

Any comments about the Allied unit build at present? Each Brigade has 3 regiments?
As far as I can research, thats the way it was for the Canadians.
:D
 

Ben Turner

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
0
Location
London
Country
ll
Bdr.Mallette said:
Any comments about the Allied unit build at present? Each Brigade has 3 regiments?
As far as I can research, thats the way it was for the Canadians.
:D
Well not exactly (takes a deep breath);

The infantry regiment in the British army is not a combat formation as such but rather a mechanism for administration and recruitment, tied to a specific geographical area of the United Kingdom. Typically in peacetime each regiment has only one or two battalions. In wartime these are then duplicated but the number of regiments remains the same- the major reason for this is that it requires an act of parliament to raise new regiments, and it is just plain simpler to keep the regimental system unchanged. Generally the battalions are refered to as such, i.e. 2nd Battalion, The Manchester Regiment (MG)

Cavalry/armoured and artillery regiments are just battalions plain and simple. The infantry system doesn't apply to them.

So in practical terms each brigade has three battalions, but these are sometimes called regiments. Some designers give the units the regiment icon but I'd advise against this- it means that if you divide the unit you will get battalions instead of companies.

As an aside, there's also the Brigade Group, which is a bit like a miniature division. Four battalions instead of three, an engineer company, an artillery regiment (battalion) and an anti-tank battery.
 
Last edited:

Chuck

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2003
Messages
113
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Country
llUnited States
Ben Turner said:
So in practical terms each brigade has three battalions, but these are sometimes called regiments. Some designers give the units the regiment icon but I'd advise against this- it means that if you divide the unit you will get battalions instead of companies.
Now I'm confused. So to get this right, the British brigade, which is really a regiment, should be labeled as a brigade. But the British regiment, which is really a battalion, should actually be labeled as a battalion.
 

Bdr.Mallette

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2004
Messages
1,087
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
I have them set as Battalions at present with over-strengthed numbers to represent reg. strength, almost.
Their numbers were expanded due to their piece of the pie was greater than average.
 

Ben Turner

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
0
Location
London
Country
ll
Chuck said:
Now I'm confused. So to get this right, the British brigade, which is really a regiment, should be labeled as a brigade. But the British regiment, which is really a battalion, should actually be labeled as a battalion.
Almost. The American/German/French/Soviet/Japanese/Italian Regiment is really a brigade.

You realised this at some point during the Cold War. Now all NATO armies use brigades.

The regimental system in Britain is a reflection of the fact that the British army has never been based on massive conscription except for the period 1916-8 and again 1939-60. As such, we still use the system which was common in Europe in the 17th century where the regiment acts as a conduit for the population of a particular region to pass into the armed forces.

That the armour and artillery use this system is a bit of a peculiarity. One doesn't get multi-battalion regiments in these services.

In any case, when it comes to TOAW icons, a brigade will divide down into battalions which is right. But a regiment will also divide down into battalions which is wrong.
 
Last edited:

Ben Turner

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
0
Location
London
Country
ll
Bdr.Mallette said:
I have them set as Battalions at present with over-strengthed numbers to represent reg. strength, almost.
Their numbers were expanded due to their piece of the pie was greater than average.
I'm not sure quite what you're getting at here. The British infantry battalion's rifle strength remained largely unchanged over the course of the war, to my knowledge.

In fact, if anything in Autumn of 1944 a lot of these infantry units should be understrength. We were having a really hard time replacing all the casualties we had taken in Normandy. The vast majority of the population had been engaged in vital war work since some time in 1942. When losses started to be severe after D-Day we started going through things like units assigned to airfield defence and stripping them of their personnel to put them in combat units. Even that wasn't enough and I believe at one point we disbanded an entire division to bring the others up to strength.
 

Bdr.Mallette

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2004
Messages
1,087
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
actually, I think you're probably right about the strength levels, I've got their actual strength below their full strength with replacements set very low and to arrive later into the scenario. Creating events which will disband 'supply' or 'replacement' units that enter and leave very quickly.

About the Pie thing, I was reading, and I can't remember which article it was but it was a reference to an Army's Piece of the Pie, in strength of an overall Force. I don't remember the correct terms but it was an interesting article I read while researching. Wish I could explain better but I remember it wasn't necessarily based on numbers and percentages.

So far, Allies are under strength as well and low supply levels. They will have to slug it out to gain any ground.

:D
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
302
Reaction score
1
Location
Not Here
Bdr.Mallette said:
I have them set as Battalions at present with over-strengthed numbers to represent reg. strength, almost.
Their numbers were expanded due to their piece of the pie was greater than average.
Actually, by this point in the NW European campaign (Oct 1944), the Canadian Infantry Bns were around 40-60% of full rifle strength. Remember, Nov 1944 was the height of the replacement/conscription crisis in the Canadian Army. This is why the Battles in the Scheldt went as they did. The Canadian rifle strength was so low, they were throwing in virtually untrained personnel from other ranks (cooks, drivers, etc, although many from the now redendant AA Batteries were also brought in). The few rifle recruits they did have were sent in prematurely and poorly trained. (poor lads :cry: ).
 
Last edited:

Chuck

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2003
Messages
113
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Country
llUnited States
Martin Schenkel said:
Actually, by this point in the NW European campaign (Oct 1944), the Canadian Infantry Bns were around 40-60% of full rifle strength. Remember, Nov 1944 was the height of the replacement/conscription crisis in the Canadian Army. This is why the Battles in the Scheldt went as they did. The Canadian rifle strength was so low, they were throwing in virtually untrained personnel from other ranks (cooks, drivers, etc, although many from the now redendant AA Batteries were also brought in). The few rifle recruits they did have were sent in prematurely and poorly trained. (poor lads :cry: ).
Hi Mr. Martin Schenkel! - I am still slowly playtesting your Naples 43 scenario with LaPalice. It appears that the Germans will win but there is still a ways to go.

PS - Does this battalion problem also occur in Italy? I was just wondering for my Rimini scenario and maybe the extended version if I ever get to doing it.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
302
Reaction score
1
Location
Not Here
Chuck said:
PS - Does this battalion problem also occur in Italy? I was just wondering for my Rimini scenario and maybe the extended version if I ever get to doing it.
Well, the replacement difficulties I mentioned were more accute in the Canadian Army in NW Europe than for the British, but the problem was similar (even worse perhaps) for the British in Italy. By the winter of 43-44, personnel shortages forced British Inf Bns to reduce their strength from 4 Rifle Companies to 3. This was in fact an official organizational change for British Inf Bns in Italy. It wasn't quite as bad in other Commonwealth units in Italy, but by the fall of 44, even their Inf Bns had been consolidated into 3 rifle companies. To help make up for this shortage, you find that Commonwealth Armoured Car and Recce Regiments operating in the 'dismounted' role regularly, and AA units converted wholesale into line infantry. Even the Americans were using AA troops in frontline units by the winter of 44-45 in Italy due to replacement shortages in the US Army in Italy.

While the rifle strength in Commonwealth Bns was reduced in Italy, the firepower and heavy weapons allocation was often increased to greater levels than than the standard Bns operating in NW Europe. I don't have my books with me (they're still packed away), but IIRC the standard increase in firepower was in the mortar and HMG sections of the Bn and Brigade support companies. Of course, the simple reduction from 4 to 3 Rifle Companies created an excess of weaponry, which could then be allocated to the remaining companies.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
302
Reaction score
1
Location
Not Here
Chuck said:
Hi Mr. Martin Schenkel! - I am still slowly playtesting your Naples 43 scenario with LaPalice. It appears that the Germans will win but there is still a ways to go.
Great! I would love to hear any findings you guys have at the end.
 

Bdr.Mallette

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2004
Messages
1,087
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
Battle of the scheldt scenario not yet completed.

Have started to do it again.
Took a break for awhile....


thinking of completing the "Battle of the Atlantic" as well, altho that will be a bugger to finish.


bdr. :D
 
Top