GHQ Models Forums

So in scenario planning, I've been trying to develop full scale deployment courses of action. Basically to do so I've been transcribing full orders of battle onto a mapping program in order to play out the larger scale scenario (smaller engagements will be done through wargaming). Wikipedia and Global Security .org have been handy as open source resources, but their coverage is spotty in some areas.

Example of Wikipedian orders of battle:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... y_Army.png

While there is abundant information for most NATO countries, OPFOR orders of battle are a bit lacking. While this would be realistic if I were just trying to game the NATO side, I'm trying to generate a full, accurate picture of how world war III might go down. The larger troop movements would help me determine what types of forces clash where.

I'm wondering if anyone has access to some up to date orders of battle (2000+ if possible) for a number of the traditional OPFOR nations, of which there is inaccurate or inadequate organized data. At the time this includes:

Russian Federation Ground Forces
People's Liberation Army (and Marine Corps)
Iranian Army and Pasdaran (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps)
Korean People's Army
And although less important pretty much any other non-NATO Eastern Bloc or Arab league country would be pretty useful.

The specifics I'm looking for are Echelons Division sized down to maneuver Battalion and Company when possible (otherwise brigade or regiment will suffice), Unit type (IE Mech infantry, Armor, etc. in order to generate accurate symbology and better plan maneuvers and engagements) and units' home stations so I can plot their initial start point.

Any help towards this end would be appreciated. Thanks!

Check out the MicroMark series of TOE on the Wargames Vault, some have OOB in, eg the Iranians, within their army support lists. There is a complete Russian 2009+ OOB/TOE as well.

Mark

Oh man, that would be useful! beats spending hours trying to crossreference 3 different incomplete or slightly outdated sources.

Do you have a link by any chance? assuming its not a commercial site.

T'is indeed a commercial site, pm sent. Or just google 'Wargames Vault' and you'll find it.

Mark

if you email me direct I have a couple of files on the North Koreans with OOB, albeit more 1990s than current, but I don't think it has changed much.

Mark
sultanbev@googlemail.com

Thanks, Sultanbev. Iran seems to be the most elusive TOE thus far, as a number of different sources are conflicting, and no one seems to have the full picture. I wish I knew Marks' sources so I could try to cross validate it myself. Not belittling his hard work, but I'm the kind of person that likes to ana!yse the source of information.

Hi Alex,
I'm the author of the MicroMark lists, sources are all open, mostly internet, just good google-fu and persistence!
When researching on the net, I've found it necessary to
a) switch safe search to off (moderate protection blocks some military sites)
b) go at least 10 google search pages in
c) change key words and repeat
eg
Iranian army
Iranian tank division
Iranian tanks
then use the named divisions you have found
and so on. You can find there are two layers to the internet, the Wiki level et al, then the more academic pdfs and forums which provide random snippets.

When I did the current Australian lists recently, I had to resort to using the google search term:
"what is the current size of Australian infantry platoon" or something similar. And by god it turned up the info I needed!

To give you an idea, each MicroMark list takes as much as 10 hours of research to develop. I know some people object to paying for TOE data, but they have to ask themselves what is more valuable - their 10 hours of research time, or the few dollars you might spend on MicroMark lists that you would otherwise spend on beer?

The Iranian info in the Micromark case is merely an amalgam of best bets. That and my experience of collating TOEs over the decades. Basically all armies follow patterns at lower levels, usually related to their arms supplier. Given the nature of our interests, we are never going to know the whole truth, but I can say what I present is going to be the best available from declassified sources at the time of writing. Doesn't mean it's 100% correct, doesn't mean it's wrong. If someone can prove me wrong I'd be happy to know it!

Hope the files I sent will be of use, I'll send you some of the Iranian source material I used.

Mark