GHQ rules questions

[kiasutha]

A unit TO&E has always been the optimum personnel and equipment level expected. Only one army in WW2 was at TO&E most of the time, ...the US Army, which was at times over provided for by the supply and replacement system.

Almost every Army is short of equipment or personnel most of the time. Using a TO&E literally isn't realistic, but insisting on accuracy appears to be normal for many gamers. Any time you get a report of a units TO&E it will apply to the moment it was written down, and only that moment. Anyone who has been in the field knows that... or should know that, ...and gamers need to know that.

Will

Umm, if this is aimed at me; or even if not...
First, I also agree that this is true. I suspect many of us know it; even gamers...
There are different kinds of accuracy though.
My concern with TO&E's is not that every man and weapon is present and in it's proper place; that is a bit too much to expect. And as you point out, kind of silly.
My point is more that the charts don't always reflect too well what the army in question put in the field in the first place. Many people depend on the info in those charts.

Since I've been studying the Balkan Axis states lately, I'll use Hungary as an example-
In the GHQ weapons chart, Hungary has no anti tank guns at all. Not even a vague reference to foreign weapons use- like in the Romanian listing.
In the Hungarian TO&E charts, they have only the German Pak 38 and Pak 40.
GHQ now sells a Skoda 47mm ATG in a Hungarian pack that isn't mentioned either
So, the rules tell us nothing about the Hungarian Skoda guns usage; maybe good, since I can't find any info that they owned them anyway...Does this mean Hungary has NO anti-tank guns until Germany can spare Pak 38/40 sometime in 1942/3? It would seem so...
But I do have info that Hungary had German Pak 35/6, and a license to build their own; which they produced with their 40mm Bofors barrel. (same as Turan-1 tank, I believe?)
I don't know if they re-chambered their German made guns too.
I also have info Hungary had quite a few Bohler/Breda type 47mm guns, and later received captured Belgian 47mm guns from Germany.
But none of these weapons are even listed for the Hungarian army...

Then there is Romania- again; Pak 38/40 are listed, once they become available.
Before that, "Czech 47mm" and "German 37mm" are listed in their TO&E.
Now, I don't say that Romania had no Czech 47's or German 37's; I think they did have a few at least, as well as Bohler/Breda 47mm, though I understand those were used mostly as infantry guns. But these were not their "common standard" anti tank guns.
Before the war, Romania bought heavily in France; this time 25mm and 47mm ATG's.
They also bought 37mm Bofors guns, and then over 500 more ex-Polish Bofors guns from Germany.
There was also the German supplied Pak 97/38, and Romanian made Ressita 75mm later in the war.
Yet none of this shows up in the Romanian TO&E, just the reference to using foreign guns in the weapons lists.

Sorry for the long winded explanation, but I felt it was necessary to clarify what I was actually refering to. One doesn't like to seem too much the fool...
I've also been trying to be polite to our host and their product.
Regards,
JR.

[sfcgreg29er]

With all do respect to everyone's great discussion on the GHQ rule's TO&Es and weapons data, ( I honestly don't want to p*$$ anyone off) I would genuinely appreciate any help with the mechanics of the rules as written. I've been playing GHQ's rules off and on for about three years now and I do run into some questions on the mechanics of play.

See previous question regarding close assault.

By the way, who else on the forum plays GHQ WW2 rules?

Thanks in advance,

PS. I use another rule set's TO&Es to organize my armies. And if I don't see a weapon system included in the TO&E, I just try to plug it in somewhere.

[dnichols]

I play the WWII rules on a regular basis and have since thier playtesting days.

In answer to the question.

"Next question, the rules state you can add a -3 to engineers in close assaulting. Is this in addition to the normal -3 an infantry unit would have?"

Yes, this would be in addition to the normal -3. Giving an engineer unit a -6 in close assualt. The additional -3 would account for the flamethrowers, satchel charges etc. that would normally be found in an engineer unit,

---Daryl

[sfcgreg29er]

Daryl,

Thanks for the reply.

Any ideas on the other question??

Question is, it says in the rules that all terrain effects are ignored when close assualting. Does this apply to improved positions?? It seems any unit in the position would have no advantage of being in said postion if close assaulted only an advantage against direct or indirect fire. It would be the same as close assaulting infantry in woods or any other type of terrain.

[jb]

Daryl,

Thanks for the reply.

Any ideas on the other question??

Question is, it says in the rules that all terrain effects are ignored when close assualting. Does this apply to improved positions?? It seems any unit in the position would have no advantage of being in said postion if close assaulted only an advantage against direct or indirect fire. It would be the same as close assaulting infantry in woods or any other type of terrain.

Knowing that every rule set can't cover evrything,without being the size of the old and new testament, I would venture to say you negate the cover of LT,Med,and Hvy improved positions. After all they are in the terrain effects chart and should be determined as "terrain".The reason being for negating this cover is you survived the OF while coming in and are now in the midst of your opponent. This would be my interpretation as it is written...

[Luca]

I think that this particular rule make sense, because the improved positions are mainly build to resist against the enemy FIRE, and to provide cover to the infantry when FIRING at the enemy. making improved positions is done to avoid the enemy's close assaults, because you can shot at them whitout being shooted. But when they get in the improved position, they jump in the trenches and even a simple pistol became deadly as HMG, the earth works became useless.

A "complicated" solution would be the construction of anti-assault position, like the ones Ceaser built in Alesia against the gauls, or the deadly traps made by the vietcong in vietnam.
But this anti-personnel traps would cost extra-points because they requires a lot of time to be built.

[sfcgreg29er]

Gentlemen,

Thanks for the replies. Make more sense when someone else explains their ideas and thoughts. I think it would be kinda of cool to have some examples explaining the mechanics of play of the GHQ rules complete with pictures of models and terrain.

[jb]

Gentlemen,

Thanks for the replies. Make more sense when someone else explains their ideas and thoughts. I think it would be kinda of cool to have some examples explaining the mechanics of play of the GHQ rules complete with pictures of models and terrain.

Its like I mentioned earlier,If you had to put every example and explain every rule you would have a book the size of the bible. I've amended my previous post here. It seems that I just need to study a little harder when going through rules.

[Rolando]

I remember seen a chapter in the Band of Heroes series that they close assaulted AA positions digged in in trenches, maybe a light improved position...

They got at the entrnce from the trench and droped grenades, then got inside the position and shooted with submachineguns the crew...

There were also machinegun pits, they got near with stealth and reapeted the proses...

That chapter says at the end that since that operation the procedure of assaulting an improved position the "band of brothers" used have been taught for new recruits... in fact is similar to the way SWAT and special forces assaul anything...


I thing that at knife range the erthworks and bunker walls are of no use

[dnichols]

Daryl,

Thanks for the reply.

Any ideas on the other question??

Question is, it says in the rules that all terrain effects are ignored when close assualting. Does this apply to improved positions?? It seems any unit in the position would have no advantage of being in said postion if close assaulted only an advantage against direct or indirect fire. It would be the same as close assaulting infantry in woods or any other type of terrain.

Yes, that would be correct. All terrain effects are ignored for close assualt. Rule 8.6.8 clearly states "Terrain effects are ignored in "Close Assualt"."

Basically terrain is ignored because in the close assualt both units are in the same terrain and it is a test of wills between the two combatents.

---Daryl

[1ComOpsCtr]

I just received my new copy of the WW2 rules so we can begin setting up for the GHQ Campaign. My group is going to concentrate on the Afrika portion of the land campaign and the Mediterranean portion of the Naval campaign.

There are some areas in the rules that are not clear, but you can infer from other portions of the booklet or from the examples which include the requirement for turreted or spindle based artillery to only fire in one direction or the number (1, 2 or 3) after artillery that takes a while to figure out and there is no clear statement as to the meaning other than a difference in points. I also have a couple of questions that I think I know the answer to, but would like to have some comment from the author or someone who was involved in the development of the TO&E the system establishes as a baseline.

From a TO&E standpoint I am curious why, in this set of rules, the Afrika Corps does not have any anti-aircraft guns other than the 88 or any SP artillery available? Is there really a reason, or was it just an oversight to leave the other AA weapons and the SP guns that were there out of the establishment?

Perhaps I have missed something that answers my questions, but I have looked for the answers, and have not found them... Reason I am asking is that if more than one group plays the same theater the tools should be the same as the basic level.

And one last point... What is a Matilda CS? Is it a command stand, or a close support stand. It costs enough to be both but if so why aren't there similar units in other armies?

Pardon my stupidity... Thanks, Will

[groundlber]

Everyone - A quick look through my reference books found one statement that 'some' Matilda III' s had a 3" howitzer instead of the 40mm AT gun. However, I've never seen any pictures of same or any other reference to a close support Matilda. I can't answer the questions on the Afrika Korps off the top of my head: but I don't believe they had a lot of self propelled artillery (except in war movies) or a particularly strong anti aircraft organization . My books on the Afrika Korps aren't on top of any stacks of books, it may take me some time to find that information.
Groundlber

[1ComOpsCtr]

Thanks Groundlber,

I am aware or the shortage of SP artillery, but there were a couple of flak units, Flakabteilung 1/33 and Stab Flak-Regt (Motorized) 102 in theater by the end of Feb 41 plus a whole bunch of AA units (19th Flak Div) arrived in August 42. 20th Flak Div. arrived in November 1942. All of this comes from Lannoy's AfrikaKorps, which so far has proven pretty reliable.

Thanks again, ...all input is welcome as we get ready for the campaign. The beginning of which will change the availability anyway, I guess? Will

[kiasutha]

I'm going to stick my neck out and say "one of many oversites"...
And I fully agree that this type of thing could play havoc with having common ground for a campaign...
I'm no Afrika "expert", but just off the top of my head I know of three "batteries" worth of SP guns with the Korps-
150mm SIG-33 auf Pz.2- all 12 of these produced were sent to Afrika.
GW lorraine/150mm SFH-13- I don't know how many of the 94 built went to Afrika, but 4 were captured at Alamein.One is still in the Aberdeen tank museum. Many years ago, GHQ actually made a model of it; I still have several of them.
I know I've seen photos of 20mm and 37mm Flak in Afrika too, some on Ht's; but no idea what units had them.

On a similar note, (and adding to my "Balkans fettish"), they also left out the Hungarian Csaba armored car and Toldi light tanks.
EDIT-actually, the Csaba does appear in the org. charts, but doesn't exist in the weapons data charts; neither early or late version of Toldi is in either chart.
These were used throughout the war, and as I recall were the highest production Hungarian AFV's...GHQ even makes them now, andI i'm sure would like to see them used...
regards,
JR

[1ComOpsCtr]

Kiasutha, Thanks for the input which backs up the information I have regarding the PzII SPGun and the 150mm SPGun based on the French Lorraine which I also have from my first go round with the Afrika Korps many years ago.

More types of AA guns were in country in limited quantities but I guess the designer wanted to limit their usage, but for our campaign purposes that won't work so I will just set up a baseline and let supply and chance take it from there. Same with SPGuns.

I want to see how the "Campaign Game" DAK handles both because we are using that as the basis of the campaign... Thanks. Should have that game soon.

I did look up the Matilda 75mm Howitzer version which can be converted from a standard tank fairly easily, so that question is answered, thanks again Groundlber for your input.

It appears the number (1-3) following mortars could indicate the number of guns in the battery the stand is supposed to represent by giving you the number of impact markers you get when you fire which makes sense.

Thanks so far for your help...

Will