WW1 OOB (1914) needed!

jim panse · July 18, 2003, 05:18

As you´ve read, I would need some OOBs of World War One. Divisional/Corps level would be fine, including "Air Forces" would be fantastic. OOBs of the navies I´ve got. Can anyone help?

Boco · July 18, 2003, 06:31

Which theaters?

jim panse · July 18, 2003, 06:38

Europe and the Middle East would be fine .....

Boco · July 18, 2003, 06:51

I've got a lot offline. Let's see what the Grognards can give you from online sources, then I'll try to fill in some gaps.

Here's a start.

Pocket German Army

Orbat Historical OOB's

Galvatron · July 18, 2003, 08:56

A big Hello

I've the "World War I Databook" it's 323 pages full with OOB's, manpower, raw material production, ministers, leaders and everything what a WWI buff like me needs.

I can provide you with OOB's for EVERY nation in this conflict even with Portugal, South Africa or Canada if needed.

Ok let's start with our glorious Imperial Army of A-H:

Total Inf. Divisions: 76

16 pre-war formed Div (1 div was a "Schützen-div (belonged to the Austrian Landwehr, and two div belonged to the Honved (Hungarian Landwehr), rest: regular Infantry, were deployed in Serbia. They were reinforced by 4 divisions in 1915 (1 Honved, the rest regular)

40 pre-war Div in Russia (consisting of the two famous Mountaineer div: Gebirgsjägerdiv. Edelweiss and Kaiserjäger, 8 Schützen, 2 Landsturm and 5 Honved, the rest: regular)

The Schützen, Landsturm and Honved were used as Gendarmerie in the occupied provinces to maintain order)

1 div was reserved for Montenegro

The rest was used for interior duties till the Italians entered the war, then 18 Div were send to Italy (1 Schützen, 1 Honved, rest: regular)

Cavalry Div: 12

1 Div in Serbia

10 Div in Russia (two were mounted Honveds, they ride into battle but fought dismounted, they used the horses only for movement, they had no training in fighting on horseback).

And now to our good friend and neighbours

the Germans:

Infantry Div Total: 241

35 div along the Belguim-Marne Line: 35 (4 elite Guards, 10 Reserve and 1 Bavarian Div)

35 div in Russian Poland (East-Prussia) (11 Reserve, 7 Landwehr, regular)

1 Marine Div along the Flandern Coast (reinforced 1917 with a second Marine div)

17 div in Lorraine (6 Bavarian, 7 Reserve and 3 Landwehr)

12 div in Alsace (4 Landwehr, 4 Reserve)

10 div in Flanders ( 1 Bavarian, 9 Reserve)

11 div along the Luxembourg-Marne Line: 4 Reserve

4 div in Lithuania (Russia): 2 Landwehr

1 div in Artois (Reserve)

That's it for now, I've to go, wohoo party. Hope this helps, will continue as soon as possible, of course.

jim panse · July 18, 2003, 09:13

Thank you all. I only need the numbers of the infantry and cavalry divisions for October 1914 if possible.

The countries OOBs I would need are: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Italy, United States and last but not least: Great Britain and France.

Only approx. numbers are also enough.

Boco · July 18, 2003, 20:35

Um...wasn't much of the US army in Mexico in 10/1914?

Ellis' book is an excellent source for this stuff. Galvatron, be my guest.

Btw has anyone compared Ellis' book to Haythornewaite's "WWI Sourcebook"?

Btw2, IIRC those 'elite' Prussian Guard divisions weren't significantly better than standard army divisions.

JP, are you aiming for civ-specific units?

An idea for cavalry. Since in Europe they were useful only for reconnaissance and exploiting breakthroughs, why not give them low af, moderate df, ignore ZOC, and see 2 squares?

jim panse · July 19, 2003, 04:06

@ Boco: I have some different types of units for each civ; the main infantry unit is the "ordinary" army of each country, in the beginning of the war without steel helmets and - after having researched the sppropriate technology - with steel helmets.

A civ can build these units:
Army (basic infantry unit)
Army w/Steel Helmets (improved infantry unit)
30mm Field Gun (close support gun)
Field Artillery (generic light artillery)
Cavalry Regiment (mounted troops)
MG Position (defense position, ideal for "trench warfare")
Siege Artillery
Armoured Vehicle

There are some "specialised" forces for some civs too:
Strumtruppen (attack infantry unit; only Germany)
A7V PzKpfw (only Germany)
762mm IG L16.5 (light assault gun; only Germany)
Mark V Tank (only Entente cordiale)
Sub Hunter (only Entente cordiale)

The following units come via events:
Kaiserjäger (good alpine troops; only Austria)
Alpini (good Alpine troops; only Italy)
Chasseurs d´Afrique (colonial troops; only Entente)
Schutztruppe Afrika (colonial troops; only Germany)
King´s African Rifles (colonial troops; only Entente)
ANZAC Troops (good infantry unit; only Entente)

I would need some stats about the armies in 1914. I have some OOBs at home too but I need additional information. Could anyone please post/send some OOB to me?! Thanks in advance.

Boco · July 19, 2003, 08:07

Midwar infantry improvements sound good. Tactics and equipment changed dramatically.

Looks like you're covering Africa as well as Europe. How will you keep regular armies out of Africa?

Galvatron · July 19, 2003, 13:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Boco
Ellis' book is an excellent source for this stuff. Galvatron, be my guest.

Btw has anyone compared Ellis' book to Haythornewaite's "WWI Sourcebook"?

Btw2, IIRC those 'elite' Prussian Guard divisions weren't significantly better than standard army divisions.

And here I'm again. Wow a really good party yesterday, I just came out of bed approximately one hour ago: Alc, Girls and Trance, what could a man need more

.

Ok back to topic:
Right the databook from Ellis/Cox is really perfect, everything is covered: campaigns, OOB's, weapons, equipment, everything you need. I accidentally stumbled over it at the British Bookshop, well it was a little bit expensive but hey it's worth every Euro.

Regarding the Prussian div:
As Germany unified the Prussians were the leading force behind, they had the best trained army and after the Unification the Regular Prussian Divisions became "Guard"-status.

Oh and Jimmy the stats I posted are these from 1914. These are the starting OOB's.

Now let's continue with the show:

Galvatron · July 19, 2003, 14:08

Germany

Cavalry Divisions=11

1 div in Russia
10 on the west front (1 against Belgium, the others against France)

France
Inf.Div. = 140 (22 were Colonial Div mobilized in Algier and Marocco)
Cav.Div = 12 (2 were Foot Cavalry=ride into battle but fought dismounted)

Great Britain
Inf.Div = 68

1 in Egypt
3 in India
The rest on the West Front

Cav.Div = 4

Italy
Inf.Div = 36 (2 Bersaglieri Div)
The famous Alpini Div were formed during the war: 1 on January 1917 and the second on September 1918)

Cav.Div = 4

Russia
Inf.Div = 243
Cav.Div = 53 (29 were Cossack Divisions)

Regarding the United States I've the following:
Inf.Div = 43

30 of these Div's were sent to Europe and the first reached the continent on June 1917.

I've no record for an earlier date, as Boco stated earlier I'm sure they were in Mexico following Pancho Villa.

I hope this will help you, just ask if you need something more. Really good WW I scen are rare and I'm always glad when somebody work on this theme. I'm looking forward to the outcome.

jim panse · July 19, 2003, 19:05

@ Galvatron: 1st of all: Thank you very, very for the stats! Great! 2nd: I hope I can justify your faith in my scenario ....

jim panse · July 20, 2003, 07:21

@ all: I´ll soon open a preview thread in the Civ2-Creation section.

jim panse · July 20, 2003, 07:53

uh, can someone get me the Ottoman OOB too?

Boco · July 20, 2003, 09:00

It's also in Ellis. Do you have all the other OOB's you need?

I think you should depict reserve/territorial/landwehr/honved divs with lower stats than 1st line divs. Also don't forget that colonial garrisons and slow mobilizations tended to keep divs from the main front for months. Had those 68 divs of GB been all 1st line divs and deployed in Flanders, the war would have been over by 1916. The Germans had enough trouble with a handful at Mons.

AFAIK, the delineations between 1st and 2nd line divs tended to blur as the war progressed. In Civ2 terms both could be upgraded to the mid-war improved infantry.

jim panse · July 20, 2003, 09:51

I just need the Ottoman/Turkish OOB for the Ottoman Empire. More information will be given later the day in an information thread.

Case · July 26, 2003, 08:07

I wish I was rich enough to afford the Ellis books - they're geek heaven, but would cost me about $200 each if I ordered them from Amazon.com

WW1 isn't really my thing, but I do have a few links which may be useful:

http://www.1914-1918.net is a fantastic site, with lots of information on the British Army in WW1 including OOBs and TO&Es.

http://www.orbat.com/site/warpath/index.htm covers the same ground and isn't as good. On the upside, it is simpler to navigate and has division level OOBs for various engagements in 1914 available at: http://www.orbat.com/site/warpath/battles_ff/1914.htm

http://www.tdg.nu/resources/TOE/TO&E...4glorysend.htm has TO&E's for the German and French Armies.

While I've got some doubts over the accruacy of the information at the site http://home.wanadoo.nl/thomas.kolley/oc.html is definetly worth a look.

The West Point Maps of WW1 may also be worth a look - they often contain useful OOB information graphically presented on thier maps. Check them out at: http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/dhi...ges/WW1ToC.htm

If you dig around http://www.lib.byu.edu/estu/wwi/ long enough you're sure to find something of interest. If there's not much OOB information there, then it's more then made up for by the collection of articles on obscure topics.

While it doesn't really apply to 1914, http://www.adfa.edu.au/~rmallett/index.html has the complete OOB of the Australian Army in WW1 (AFAIK, the closest the Australian Army got to Europe in 1914 was Egypt where the 1st Australian Division and some Light Horse units were sent to conduct their training while acting as a somewhat dubious strategic reserve for the defence of the Suez Canal)

Galvatron · July 27, 2003, 04:01

Hi here I'm again sorry for the long delay it was a long weekend and a much looonger week full with

and

I think you got the picture

Well concerning the thingy Boco said, here are some notes for the Brits:

From the 64 (- the 4 colonial mentioned above) divs used were only 11 1st Line. And 6 div were formed for Home Defence duties they never went over sea and served the whole war at home.
So long story short: 58 div's served abroad (11 1st Line Guards)

And finally a nice story I've read which I must tell you, 2 of the 47 non guard div's were scots and they were feared by the Germans because the whole divisions consisted of battleharded Scottish brawlers (you know the kind of guys in the Scottish taverns we know from the films). German battle protocols showed a much higher rate of deserters and lower fighting skills when a German Army was involved in fighting with Scots. Furthermore the Scots never take prisoners. It was often observed that in infight a German armed with a rifle and bayonet was knocked out by a Scot with his bare hands.

Scary guys those Scots

Especially for me I'm only around 5.8 feet high

(Hmm think I've calculated this one right, I'm around 1,78m for all Europeans and this correspond with 5.8 feet due to my calculations)

Now I will do the Ottoman stats in a few minutes plz stand by

Galvatron · July 27, 2003, 04:33

Ok here we go on with the show:

Ottoman Empire

Inf.Div = 37 (includes the 13 divs which were part of the 5th army responsible for containing the Allied landing at the Dardanelles)

Cav.Div = 2

Well judging the figures we see the Turks were really in their decline and not longer a force the once were.

PS: Oh and Jimmy I just donwloaded your scen, really good I like it plz keep up the good work

And for further infos plz refer to the Galvy bureau of WW I information, short: GBWWI
I might not have the time to react immediately but I will as soon as possible

Palaiologos · July 27, 2003, 06:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Galvatron
Scary guys those Scots

Especially for me I'm only around 5.8 feet high

(Hmm think I've calculated this one right, I'm around 1,78m for all Europeans and this correspond with 5.8 feet due to my calculations)

Ha!

I am 1,81m. Eat that!

P.S The ausies didn't take prisoners either.

jim panse · July 27, 2003, 06:34

Dammit, I´m only 1,76m. F***! ;-)

Ayway, thank you all very, very much!

Galvatron · July 27, 2003, 06:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Palaiologos
Ha!
I am 1,81m. Eat that!

Wow Palai you're a giant

I think I will mess with Jimmy, it's always more safe to pick on smaller people and funnier too

Because the difference between our heights is soooo high

don't even think one will see it only with his eyes

Boco · July 27, 2003, 10:46

1.83m

, but first under a table in barroom brawls.

Quality in the Turk units varied tremendously. Some were good enough to shame the Allies at Gallipoli, Al Kut, 1st Gaza, and Galicia. 'Course it took a liberal amount of Allied bungling, too. At the bottom end, some of the Iraqi divisions simply fell apart on first contact. Most suffered horribly under Enver's mercurial but invariably poor generalship.

Palaiologos · July 27, 2003, 18:28

Actually Turkish quality was not what halted the Brits at Callipoli, but the aggresive leadership of Kemal. As i have become quite the expert on the Callipolis Campaign recently i can safely deduct that the Ottoman army in general was crap.

fairline · July 27, 2003, 19:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Palaiologos
Actually Turkish quality was not what halted the Brits at Callipoli, but the aggresive leadership of Kemal. As i have become quite the expert on the Callipolis Campaign recently i can safely deduct that the Ottoman army in general was crap.

Bollocks! (just wanted to see if Apolyton would censor this - apologies) There are numerous references to the courage and stoicism of the Turkish soldiers in the Gallipoli campaign. The decisive factor may have been Kemal's incisiveness, or Hamiltons indecision, whichever way you look at it, but without troops who were prepared to die by the thousand Kemal would have counted for nothing.

Palaiologos · July 27, 2003, 19:46

Pah!.......

Palaiologos · July 27, 2003, 19:49

The Ottoman army may had a a great tradition but it was in decline.

It had just sufered a catastrophic defeat in the Balkan wars, and i think that they were the worst army in WW1 next to the italians.

Palaiologos · July 27, 2003, 19:52

As for the "turkish courage" and "martial art" it is a thing we in greece hear quite often.

You see i think that western historians are more or less influenced by the Turkish stereotype of a "warrior nation".

Also it is easier to accept defeat if the opponents are said to have fought bravely.

Case · July 27, 2003, 19:53

The story of WW1 for the Ottoman Army seems to be that the Turkish soldiers could only be relied on to fight well during the actual defence of Turkey. The troops at Galipoli fought with a great amount of determination, and the armies routed out of Syria in 1918 seem to have remained determined to fight any invasion of Turkey proper.

I suspect that it's no coincidence that the troops commander on both occasions was one Kemal Ataturk, soon to become the leader of a Turkey freed from the demands of empire, and that once in office Ataturk would specifically rule out conquring a greater Turkey.

Palaiologos · July 27, 2003, 19:59

To put things straight i believe that courage is not what the Turks lacked(for instance:did you read gareth on that site i found that story about that Turk that lifted an artillery shell by his own and fired the gun at the British ships?).

Courage and heroism was exhibited by the Turks many times.
But these are not enough elements to make an army efficient.Their whole command structure, obsolete armament(artillery mainly), 19th century tactics, lack of training all more than overshadowed the average Johny Turk's bravery.

The are tough and have a will to fight, i give them that.
But their army was simply outdated and therefore crap. It is like saying the Poles had a good army in WW2.