"Need detailed TO&E charts" Topic

Hello ladies and gentlemen, I am developing my own WW2 ruleset and I am at a point where I am in need to detailed organizational charts that show the composition of US and german Infantry battalions, regiments then divisions.
I need these charts to break down what options a player can select depending upon how large of a game they want that ranges from platoon vs platoon with no support all the way to major battles with battalion, regimental and divisional support. Might even include air support but not sure how to go about that yet.
My ruleset basically has a stock platoon with no add-ons like rifle grenades and such. Those at the platoon level are purchased. Players are limited though so they can't max out the platoon. The same goes for battalion, regimental and divisional support. This will allow a platoon to have MG's and tanks but no arty or arty and MG's or anything in between.
That is essentially what I am working on. I will post it when I feel there is enough for players to enjoy the game to its fullest as more content is added. Thank you gents for ladies for your help.

Rifle grenades were not an "add on" to the platoons, they were an integral part of them.

Try Gary Kennedy's site bayonetstrength.150m.com

but I wouldn't put too much store by book to&e, after a couple of days in combat most ww2 platoons were pretty much the same, around 20 grubby exhausted blokes with some rifles and LMGs.

Much less than 20 and they'd be disbanded and merged with another platoon as the minimum effective section size was 5 or 6.

For US and German TOEs (and some others), the website that Martin Rapier linked should provide you with more than enough material.

Should you wish to eventually want to cover the Soviet forces, then the Companion to Red Army 1939-1945 (from Zaloga) is a great book.

Excellent!!! Thank you for sharing.

P.

Have enough defenders to endure 60 to 120 Katyusha strikes (D20 drift) and enough attackers to be vodka-fueled arm in arm across the board in human wave. There's your OB. Eastern Front.

Thanks guys. Totally forgotten about this site.

Regarding the US divisions, notice that the infantry divisions usually had various independent battalions attached that do not show up in the basic divisional TOE. Some common ones were independent tank battalion, tank destroyer battalion (towed or self-propelled), anti-aircraft battalion and chemical mortar battalion.

See link
they are at 1:2/1:3 ratio for vehicles and guns.

good info on the US in Osprey Warrior booklet "US Infantry #3" and a ton of very good info. Author is a US Army CSM (Ret) so not your typical Osprey booklet rife with errors, partial facts, bad captions, etc.

Illustrated German organizations (incomplete) can be found on here
wwiidaybyday.com
click in the KStN link
shows a list, then click on the list for what you want
VERY INCOMPLETE LIST
some organization tables changed every few months, every wave of unit building/rebuilding.

Bayonet Strength 150 is a good site, shows the organizations at various times of the war. Division and BN organizations.

I have followed several recommended changes/house rules for Bolt Action. I also shun the POINT ARMIES, prefer TO&E battles with limited support. Have been looking at the British and Americans vs the Germans at Geilenkirchen/Prummern/Hoven as well as Huertgen Forest. More or less stand-up fights, limited armor, man against the elements and artillery

good comments Martin Rapier. Plenty of stories of US Squad of 12 fighting with far less, Germans with not 10 or 9 but 6. Both would move soldiers from shattered platoons to fill others. For my future gaming, the scenario can have 100% 90%, 80% strength or other pre-existing conditions

with all my tables out, I could have organic mortar PLTs from BN on the board, other support would be further back. Later in 1944 the Germans withdrew the 8cm mortars back to the Heavy Company, and sent MMG section down to each line company. Many units had the 8cm mortar platoon (6 tubes)and a 12cm mortar platoon (4 tubes) and the rest of the MMGs in the heavy company. Some units did not have the 12cm mortars so they had a 2nd 8cm mortar platoon.

In company game, sides could easily get help from the mortar platoons…or have some detailed down in direct support, same for MMG

online the NAFZIGER collection has plenty. just be wary his online charts, and his OOB book have errors. Chief among them, his HEER DIV '44 chart shows Bicycle or mounted Recon platoon in the BN when no such thing existed except in the REGT HQ

Would appreciate cross talk on some of this id you are interested

Re: squad strength, don't forget that the squad did (and does) not operate as a maneuver element independent of the platoon in most cases. You might have a squad sized patrol or OP/LP but those are not expected to engage in sustained combat in isolation.

Platoon strength is far more important and can vary from as little as 1/3 (almost squad sized!!!!) to full strength with 1/2 to 2/3 being common for long periods of sustained combat. In light of losses of NCO squad leaders it would be more common to consolidate platoons to fewer squads than allow squads to operate in tiny packets without solid leadership.

As mentioned above, GRENADE LAUNCHERS were integral to the squad and platoon. In the case of the HEER '44, one per squad. While this is good, later on, Fall of '44 they consolidated the three squad Grenadiers with the PL. They become more useful in my eyes for some sort of coordinated close range barrage fire vs pin-pricks of single launches.

Panzerfaust were issued like grenades. Mid '44, you seldom see a picture of a team or squad without one. By the fall of '44 you probably would not be far off without two Pzf per Squad normally and more if defending. Winter '44/45, lots of Pzf!

Panzerschreck were from the Regimental AT Company. Their use would be dictated way up the food chain so you'll likely NOT see them in a skirmish. If used, I believe they would be in a group of three tubes minimum with three shooters, three loaders/spotter/bossmen, and a group leader (more research required).

Panzerschreck were from the Regimental AT Company. Their use would be dictated way up the food chain so you'll likely NOT see them in a skirmish. If used, I believe they would be in a group of three tubes minimum with three shooters, three loaders/spotter/bossmen, and a group leader (more research required).

That is my understanding also when it comes to infantry regiments.

However, panzergrenadiers could have Panzershrecks assigned at lower level – either as an anti-tank squad on company level, or even with a Schreck assigned to each individual squad (at least on TOE).

Reviewing rigid paper OBs is interesting but rarely produces accurate forces for a given historical battles.

Duggan (sp?) produced a serias of books showing acutal holdings in various German divisions. They rarely corresponded to paper OBs. Causlties and breakdowns soon play havoc on even well equiped allied divisions.

Local commanders often reorganized units to meet actual tactical needs and paid no attention to offical unit structures.

Best approach is to review actual OBs for battles (hard to do below platoon level but as Vimpact mentioned this is the real atomic unit for WWII). Try to develop a feel for actual unit strengths and weapons available over various engagements. You'll evenually get a range of the likey and the possible. If playing a hypothetical pick up game this can give a nice range for allowing some player choice as to force structure. (Just spent a very long time doing this to put together the Army Lists for Combat Command…)

TomT

righto, as I said several posts up easy to be at 90, 80, 70% real quickly and broken platoons becoming filler for others.
I have been reading up on Huertgen forest, even the massive replacement pool of the US Army could not keep up with losses.

In Iraq late 03-late 04, my Cav Sqdn gave up a line Troop in exchange for an Infantry Company. Task organize to fit the mission and battle space.

re Panzerschrecks above….was thinking plain Grenadiers, completely spaced on the PzGndrs. Thx! I seem to recollect each American M-3 HT had a bazooka

I have been reading up on Huertgen forest, even the massive replacement pool of the US Army could not keep up with losses.

I was under the impression that the replacement issues that US Army encountered had quite something to do with underestimating the amount of casualties that infantry would be really taking on WWII battlefield.

Just to put up a defence of the authorised organisations, though that's partly down to my own compulsion in tracking down the details over the years.

I think you need a balance when trying to understand what units looked like in the field, so you cannot adhere slavishly to the authorised WE, KStN, T/O&E, Shtat, or whatever document was issued, but equally you cannot dismiss them as total folly. I think you need an understanding of the framework of unit organisation as that was what commanders were trained to use, and ultimately was what field modifications sprang from.

As Battalions, Companies, Platoons and Sections/Squads contracted through casualties and other losses, and replacements failed to keep pace with them, field modifications did become necessary. That may be as simple as dropping Sec/Sqd strength by a couple or three men, or as drastic as deactivating a Rifle Pl per Coy, or indeed a whole Rifle Coy. The British tended to temporarily disband one of the four Rifle Coys in a Bn, and in Italy for a period in late 1944 that became a universal approach.

Whatever approach was used would not mean that all Squads for example would be brought up to book strength because a Coy had been sacrificed, and some Rifle Pls may well be operating a Sec/Sqd down as well. USMC Rifle Coys were on the large side but reports often speak of them dropping to under 100 men after intense periods of action, or prolonged spells in unhealthy environments. Unit commanders still wanted to maintain some coherency and would need to keep a structure of Squads and Platoons even though they were only shadows of the authorised strengths.

The only way you can know what units looked like in the field after long bouts is to examine unit diaries, and I don't think they were as detailed as we'd like. You may get the size of a Rifle Coy but not how the Pls and lower were formed to cope.

Gary