Average and Ideal ratio of divisions?

[Big Yehudah]

What is the average and would would be the idea ratio of each type of division in an army in Europe during WWII?

Armored division, mechanized, infantry, airborne, all of the various types.

I ask this because i recently got several hex games, Strategic War in Europe, Time of Wrath, Fall Weiss.

[Gary Kennedy]

Well I don't know about average ratios, these are some of the actual dispositions at least;

By June of 1940 the BEF 10 Inf Divs, one incomplete Armd Div and 3 incomplete Inf Divs for Pioneer duties. One of the Inf Divs was classed as Motorised, but required RASC attachments to be so.

2nd Army of 1944/45 flitted between 7 or 8 Inf Divs, maintained 3 Armd Divs and never more than one Abn Div in theatre at once (predominantly the 6th). There were no Motorised Divs, but there was the specialised 79th Armd Div throughout.

Cdn 1st Army consisted of 3 Inf and 2 Armd Divs, with one of each in Italy until early 1945.

British Divs in Italy varied a lot, peaking at 6 Inf and 2 Armd in Jun/Jul 1944, but mostly being around 4/5 Inf and one Armd. Also one Abn (1st) at the outset of the campaign in Italy. You can also add one each NZ and SA Div, which were bordering on the 'Mixed' Divs the British tried mid-war, also at least three Indian Divs (Inf Divs, but lighter than Br/Cdn types).

US Divs in Italy grew from 4 to 7 Inf prior to the offensive in Southern France, then dipped to 4 Inf before picking up to 5. They also included the sole US Mountain Div (10th) from early 1945. There was a single Armd Div (1st) in Italy throughout, and briefly an Abn (82nd) at the start in Italy.

In the ETO proper US Inf Divs increased month on month through Jun44-Apr45, going from 8, 12, 17, 18, 21, 27, 30 in 1944, then from 33, 38, 40 and 42 in 1945. Armd Divs went from 2 in Jul44 to 15 by May45; 6 Aug-Oct, 8 Nov, 11 Dec44-Feb45, then 12, 14 and 15 in 1945. There were 2 Abn Divs in Jun44, both coming back for Sep-Dec44, then increasing to 3. That excludes the 'unlucky' 13th Div.

Those are very basic figures from a spreadsheet I did on a wet weekend years ago, and don't take into account intricacies such as days in combat, when you could call a Div fully available, downtime, and so on. I was just interested to track the build-up for Allied forces, but I didn't get around to the Free French or Polish Divs, or proper detail on the Indian Army in Italy.

I don't have the German or Soviet equivalents, though I'm sure the former are somewhere on the internet

Gary

[Rob Stuart]

2nd Army of 1944/45 flitted between 7 or 8 Inf Divs, maintained 3 Armd Divs and never more than one Abn Div in theatre at once (predominantly the 6th). There were no Motorised Divs, but there was the specialised 79th Armd Div throughout.

The British, Canadian and US infantry divisions were all motorized.

[Big Yehudah]

If I have 16 divisions how many of them should be armored, mechanized, infantry, etc?

[steverodgers801]

For the US all divisions are motorized as opposed to German and Soviet units, though the US helped the Soviets in that regarded. the answer is partly based on the terrain and supply. Tanks and truck require fuel, tanks are useless in mountain and heavy forested areas and much better in flat terrain like desert. The next question is how much support do the units have, tanks units cannot hold ground effectively so they need infantry help, infantry cannot move fast with out trucks or APC's. Even though the US and Soviets had about a one to nine ratio of tank units to infantry, they had a lot of regiments and battalions of tanks, tank destroyers and such to support the infantry units. The Soviets also had numerous independent tank corps. In some cases it would be possible for an US or Soviet infantry corps to have as many tanks. TD's as a German tank division.

[Gary Kennedy]

2nd Army of 1944/45 flitted between 7 or 8 Inf Divs, maintained 3 Armd Divs and never more than one Abn Div in theatre at once (predominantly the 6th). There were no Motorised Divs, but there was the specialised 79th Armd Div throughout.

The British, Canadian and US infantry divisions were all motorized.

The Motor Division of 1940 was a specific type of formation in the British Army, built around two Inf Bdes rather than three and with a corresponding reduction in supporting arms. Each Inf Bde colud be motorised with the addition of an RASC Troop Carrying Coy. The Motor Div was discontinued in British use after the campaign in France; that is the Motorised Div I was referring to.

While all British and Canadian Inf Divs in 21 Army Group were fully motorised in terms of their unit transport, they could not lift all their personnel with that transport; to move a whole Inf Div required the allocation of RASC/RCASC from Corps/Army level. The same was true for US Inf Divs, which required QM Truck Coys to fully motorise them.

Gary

[Gary Kennedy]

If I have 16 divisions how many of them should be armored, mechanized, infantry, etc?

I take it that you're looking at a balanced force for a game/simulation? You can play around with things and see what gets you the best results. 16 Divs would need three to five Corps HQ (a Corps generally being a minimum of two to a max of five Divs), and that's where you'd see the mix of Div types. WW2 armies were a lot more infantry heavy than World of Tanks would have you believe, Western armies in Europe being very roughly 3 Inf to 1 Armd Div, though that excludes non-Div armd and tank units that would support Inf Divs. Abn Divs were also very limited, though an Abn Corps of two Abn Divs might give you some fun on the table top. Mechanised Divs aren't something I generally think of for WW2, probably the closest would be a German Motorised, later Panzer Grenadier Div, which did have organic transport to lift all its personnel and included an Assault Gun, or occasionally Panzer Bn. Br/CW and US would normally reinforce a standard Inf Div with transport and tanks to achieve something similar (though you argue the NZ and SA Divs in Italy were Mechanised as they included their own Armd Bde). The Red Army is difficult to equate to Western Allied or German Divs, especially when a Soviet tank Bn might have as few as 21 tanks at full strength.

Gary

[Big Yehudah]

Thanks Gary. Yes this is specifically for gaming. However, this is not for World of Tanks or any game like that. This is for games such as:

Time of Wrath
Fall Weiss
Strategic War in Europe
Making History II

The first three are HEX based games. The latter is a turn based grand strategy game.

[Kingfish]

Terrain plays a big part in determining what is the ideal ratio. Mobile formations such as armored or mechanized divisions would be ideal in generally open terrain with well established road nets (think Western Europe), but no so much in the triple canopy jungle of Burma or New Guinea.

[Art]

The British, Canadian and US infantry divisions were all motorized.

Not fully motorized. All their transport was motor, but infantry still walked on foot. An infantry division could be converted to fully motorized by attaching additional truck units, see for example US 1 Infantry Divsion in operation "Cobra". US Army was toying with idea of motorized division but ultimately abandoned it because this type of division was too bulky and required to much shipping space when transferring it overseas.

[AJFFM]

Shouldn't one first make a clear definition of each category of division so one can be able to give his opinion?

[Gary Kennedy]

Categorisation would be helpful, but not necessarily straightforward.

British and US Inf Divs did have a lot of motor transport, but not enough to lift the entire Div without being supplemented by Corps/Army resources (which is why I don't count them as Motorised Divs with a capital M). German Inf/Gren Divs only ever had a fraction of the MT of their Western Allied opponents, and a reliance on horses unknown to the same opposition. I'd still though consider Br/US/German Inf Divs, and the developments of Gren and Volks Gren for the latter, all in the same category. The Germans did have fully Motorised Divs, with enough organic transport to lift all their infantry units as well as their artillery, engineer and recce. The British came closest to that with 50th Div in 1940, but it still needed the attachment of RASC to lift the Inf Bns (150 3-tonners from memory), while as mentioned earlier the US Motorized Divs, intended to work directly with the Armd Divs, never saw active service as such, the Divs testing the concept adopting Inf Div org before going overseas. Pz Gren Divs were essentially Motorised Divs with an organic armoured unit, so is that sufficient to call them mechanised? Personally I'd expect some
degree of mechanisation for the infantry to do so, otherwise any Inf Div with some tanks attached could be called 'mech'. And the use of attachments, such as tank, anti-tank, anti-aircraft units (the latter two I'm thinking specifically of US Divs) complicates any 'universal' approach as well.

You can probably treat Armd Divs, Abn Divs and Mountain Divs equally across all potential armies fighting in Europe due to their specialist nature.

Gary

[Kelvin]

German 22.infanterie division was organized into Luftlande division, is it somewhat fighting method like modern US 101st Air Assault Division ?

[Gary Kennedy]

I think it was a bit more basic than the modern concept of air assault. From memory 22nd LL Div was intended to be put down on an airfield that had been captured by Parachute and/or Glider units. The lift was provided by the Luftwaffe and required the LL units to be shoehorned into the available aircraft. The 1941 KStNs show a modified Inf Div organisation, with a lot of lightening. The British 52nd (Lowland) Div was similarly tasked and trained in 1944, with the same role of being ferried into a captured airfield. 52nd Div ended up fighting in the flood waters of Holland (below sea level, having first been trained as a Mountain Div), and I think 22nd LL guarded the Rumanian oilfields when German Paras assaulted Crete (Mountain Troops taking their place in the follow-up), and ended up garrisoning the island afterwards.

Gary

[Kelvin]

Hi, Gary, thank for your reply.