WesWorld

Realistically, no, they're not enough to seriously impair most operations. The only place your force is actually light is in artillery, which is pretty realistic for a smaller army like yours.

80 guns is light? Ok, that's fine. I can always expect support from the Russians...Yes, I know the tank idea is odd.

What will suprise you is what I would call the Grand Artillery Reserve. A regiment or two within my division of "special" things, that has a lot of artillery, including things not normally issued to the normal army. For example, the 6 LR mortars from Bulgaria are assigned there.

Is this ok? Can I move on to creating my Latvian Guards Regiment T&OE?

Seem rather artillery heavy to me at least, considering that the German OTL Inf Div had 54 field guns and the Russian 20-50 (depending on date). Dont worry about having to little artillery

But I thought that at that point, they were stripping the artillery battatlions to create a massive reserve? I would think a better example would be the US or Britian, or even Sweden.

My understanding is that the Russians concentrated their best artillery at high levels - the corps, the army, or front levels, while the lower units got the regimental and divisional guns, as well as mortars.

Latvia should probably be following French artillery doctrine - most European armies of the period used this doctrine. The UK ended up refining it, and the US - once they entered WWII - refined British doctrine. WWII German doctrine was mediocre and probably wouldn't be followed, and US and UK doctrine requires an extremely expensive and experienced artillery corps which Latvia probably couldn't manage to pay for. (That's why Bulgaria went for artillery centralization in the ARGK - it saves money and doesn't require as much specialization.)

Brock posted while I was typing

Not really sure if that is directed at me, anyway if you are refering to the Soviets stripping the infantry divisions to create artillery divisions that is only partially correct, there was simply an shortage of guns leading to fieldguns being replaced by 120 mm mortars. As more fieldguns became available they were issued.

Soviet pre-war division 16x76,2mm, 20x122mm and 12x152mm

Late 1941 division 16x76,2mm and 8x122mm

1944 division 36x76,2 and 12x122mm

The large Romanian divisions had (in theory) 12x75mm, 24x100mm and 12x150mm by 1943

Now that I look at it again and read Brocks post perhaps HH meant that your artillery is light in the sense that it is small caliber and short ranged.

Perhaps you should consider Heavy independent artillery battalions or regiements

I don't think that. Most divisions in the Wesworld carry 1 regiment of artillery. but mine only carries 2/3's of one. Here's the Latvian Guard's T&OE. Tell me if anything is wrong with it, espically the percentage of SLRs to carbines.

Latvian Guards Squad:
- 1 Corporal: SMG
- 9 privates: 1 LMG, 3 SMG, 5 semiautomatic rifles
- Total: 10 men, 4 SMGs, 1 LMG, 5 semiautomatic rifles

Latvian Guards Platoon:
- 3 Latvian Guards squads: 10 men, 4 SMGs, 1 LMG, 5 semiautomatic rifles
- 1 command squad: 1 lieutenant (SMG), 1 sergeant (SMG), 2 runners (2 carbines), 1 machinegunner and 1 helper (1 LMG, 1 carbine)
- Total: 36 men, 4 LMGs, 14 SMGs, 15 SLRs, 3 carbines

Latvian Guards Company:
- 3 Latvian Guards platoons: 36 men, 4 LMGs, 14 SMGs, 15 SLRs, 3 carbines
- 1 company commander: carbine
- 1 company NCO: SMG
- 1 company XO: SMG
- 1 command squad: 4 messengers (4 carbines), sharpshooter squad (3 men, 3 rifles), 2 radiomen. 9 men total.
- 1 Flamethrower team: 10 men, 3 flamethrowers, 3 SMGs
- 1 Machinegun squad: 6 men, 2 LMGs, 4 carbines
- Total: 132 men, 14 LMGs, 47 SMGs, 3 flamethrowers, 45 SLRs, 3 sniper rifles, 20 carbines

Latvian Guards Battalion:
- 3 Latvian Guards companies: 132 men, 14 LMGs, 47 SMGs, 3 flamethrowers, 45 SLRs, 3 sniper rifles, 20 carbines
- 1 Sniper squad: 10 men, 10 sniper rifles
- 1 Battalion HQ/Supply Platoon: 36 men, 36 carbines
- 1 halftrack squad: 12 P107 halftracks, 12 drivers, 12 carbines
- 2 MG squads, 10 men, 4x.30cal MMGs
- 1 AT squad, 10 men, 4x20 mm AT rifles, 2 SLRs
- Total: 484 men, 42 LMGs, 8 MMGs, 141 SMGs, 9 flamethrowers, 4 ATRs, 137 SLRs, 19 sniper rifles, 108 carbines

Latvian Guards Regiment:
- 3 Latvian Guards battalions; 484 men, 42 LMGs, 8 MMGs, 141 SMGs, 9 flamethrowers, 4 ATRs, 137 SLRs, 19 sniper rifles, 108 carbines
- 1 Regiment HQ- 36 men, 36 carbines
- 1 Supply Company- 125 men, 125 carbines (includes Signals, Engineering, Sappers, and Field Kitchen)
- 1 Gun-Howitzer Battery-100 men, 10x75mm Gun Howitzers, 10 tractors, 10 trucks
- 1 AT Company- 100 men, 12 AT guns, 15 AT rifles, 10 carbines
- 1 Field Hospital- 100 men
- 1 AA Platoon- 70 men, 15 AAMG’s, 10 carbines
- 1 MG+Flamethrower+Sniper Platoon, 67 men, 10 MMGs, 10 flamethrowers, 10 sniper rifles, 6 carbines
- Total; 2,050 men,10 gun-howitzers 126 LMG’s, 38 MMGs, 423 SMGs, 37 flamethrowers, 27 ATRs, 411 SLRs, 67 sniper rifles, 12 AT guns, 15 AAMG’s, 511 carbines

What SLR are you planning to use?

(Switzerland and Bulgaria send representatives to suggest the STPR-36 Radichkov / Sig Sauer SK36!)

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Now that I look at it again and read Brocks post perhaps HH meant that your artillery is light in the sense that it is small caliber and short ranged.

Perhaps you should consider Heavy independent artillery battalions or regiements

That might perhaps be true. I'd expect Latvia to use the French 75mm guns, or ex-WWI German 100mm guns; any larger artillery would be newer, I expect.

Brockpaine: This is one of those area's where I cannot afford to use anything besides a Russian round. Using anything else could really hurt if I had to deploy my force's to a foreign area. If you can convince me that using the STPR-36 Radichkov / Sig Sauer SK36 is a good idea, I'll do it. But for rifle rounds, which would be in high usage, wouldn't that be a bad idea?

As for the artillery, Latvia uses a 75mm gun-howitzer for most of it's needs. Being in such a small country, it simplify's supply needs. Now, this gun-howitzer can use the shell of the French guns, or it can use other ammunition (I think) . It is a very versitile piece in that regard. My artillery is very light, but wouldn't that make it more mobile?

I probebly do have ex-German 100mm guns. Remember what I said about the big warehouse with a bunch of artillery to be used if requested? Those guns are probebly the ones used by the reserve.

What is French artillery doctrine? What is the German doctrine?

We probebly use something in the family of the STV-36 and the ATV-36.

http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?threadid=6639&sid=

The ZH-29 is in fairly widespread use in WW and it shouldnt be to hard to make 7,62x54R variant

Latvia uses (or rather, used in OTL) the Czech Vz-24 Mauser with its 7.92x57 round. The Latvians never historically used Russian equipment until after WWII.

The STPR-36 has been offered in various calibers. Bulgaria uses the 7.5x55 Schmidt-Rubin, but Sig-Sauer and Kazanlak have sold Radichkov rifles in 7.92x57 Mauser to the Lithuanian Army (though I don't believe the order exceeded 500 rifles). The Swiss also sent rifles in 8mm and 7mm Mauser to Argentina for trials, and .303-chambered Mausers to Britain. (Neither purchased them.) Turkey ordered the Radichkov in 7.92x57 as well.

Altogether, it's the epitome of Swiss workmanship: pinpoint accuracy, supreme reliability, and a bit more expensive than the competition. The Bulgarian-built rifles (built in Kazanlak) are a bit cheaper than the Swiss versions, but correspondingly less accurate (1.5 MOA compared to .5 MOA). The rifle uses a large number of K31 Schmidt-Rubin parts to keep costs down (stock, trigger assembly, sights, and barrel).

The Russians, like the rest of FAR, have moved to the 6.5x51mm Nemesis round, so there's really no reason to stick with the 7.62x54R.

Quoted

Originally posted by TexanCowboy
What is French artillery doctrine? What is the German doctrine?

Let me explain the differences in the major artillery doctrines of WWII.

The French were regarded by the rest of Europe as the preeminent practitioners of artillery at the end of the 1930s. This despite the fact that their guns were fairly small and elderly (mainly the well-regarded "French 75"). The French Army's doctrine when moving a unit into a new location was to establish a fire plan for the guns; they would lay wires to the forward observers, integrate communications, place FO posts, register the guns, etc. The French anticipated "deliberate advance"; the artillery would destroy the enemy front lines, and the infantry would occupy it. The artillery would move forward and repeat it. The army would advance across the landscape like a caterpillar, systematically destroying all enemies in it's way. There was little desire for breakthroughs and such that typified Blitzkrieg thinking. Most European armies of the day follow these general tactics. (The Italians, for instance, basically used this system but added more FOs.)

Radios were not generally prevalent, and the FOs would instead use wire to phone back to the batteries. Unlike most nations which used their tactics, the French developed the "poste central du groupe" which calculated where the FOs were in relation to the guns, and then triangulated to the target. They then called the battery commanders and issued instructions; the batteries followed their orders. French artillery often fired by battalion; other French-inspired artillery units in Europe carried these calculations out at the battery level, preferring to give the battery commanders more control.

The Germans used a similar system, but their emphasis was on higher central control, and very exacting destruction of point targets. They followed very rigorous, precise doctrine that took into account everything from altitude, barrel wear, atmospheric conditions, etc. This conflicted with their highly centralized control system. The German artillery was very precise when they had the time to do the calculations - for instance, in preparation for an assault - but they were conversely very slow and a bit clumsy when they had to fire at targets of opportunity which they weren't prepared for. Despite the centralized control, the Germans maintained excellent flexibility in parcelling out smaller artillery units to support the infantry, while still ensuring they could reunite the smaller units and run a larger set-piece bombardment. And like the French, the Germans only let forward observers call the artillery.

The UK did better, but their artillery doctrine had a different aim. While the artillery of France, Germany, and Russia was designed to obliterate the enemy - requiring long bombardments - the British used their artillery to make the infantry's job easier. They used shorter fire missions to neutralize rather than destroy the enemy. They placed greater emphasis on speed than on pure accuracy - and to help that along, they developed maps for their FOs using the grid system. An FO would call out the square where artillery was needed (each square a kilometer per side) and then steer the artillery within the square. The British could have massive artillery formations firing on targets within minutes of the request for fire. The FOs also received radios, and so were not quite so bound by stringing wires about the countryside.

The US, once it entered WWII, independently developed the same grid system as the British (one of the benefits of having a first-class mapping/surveying department). But the US added two extra pieces to the British doctrine. First, they added the Fire Direction Center, which in a sense imitated the French poste central du groupe. The FDC precomputed tables for the gunners, so when a fire mission came in, the American gunners merely had to look through a book, find their settings, put them in, and start shooting. This meant that the US artillery could shoot just as fast as the British, but with the pinpoint accuracy of the Germans. The FDCs could also talk to each other and group their units for massed fire - even to the point of ordering the batteries to fire at precise times so their shells all arrived at once, often with only a few minutes warning. This system was unique to the US in WWII.

The other thing the US did differently was to train everyone to call artillery: the theory was that FOs tended to get themselves shot at inconvenient times, and so even platoon sergeants were trained to call artillery. Better yet, the US had enough money to give every infantry platoon two or three radios, so those officers could ring up the FDCs and make the calls. This meant that the already highly-effective US artillery was ready and waiting at the hands of every platoon NCO and green lieutenant, who, if the FDC was amenable and the guns were available, could call down guns from the corps artillery to provide help. The US artillery was never quite as fast getting onto target as the British, but it was more accurate, on par with German methods.

Of course, we must discuss the Russians. The Soviets loved their artillery, and they liked to use lots of it. In the opening barrage of the Battle of Berlin, the Soviets unleashed over fifty thousand guns of all calibers on the German defenders. (I believe the record bombardment of the Western Allies was 1,800 guns at El Alamein.) But for all the Soviet love of artillery, their doctrine was abysmal: there were few Forward Observers, and all the command decisions were made from a high level. Generally, the units were quite inflexible in supporting actions. Communications were terrible: the Soviets didn't have money to buy radios for the FOs, so they used wires; and whenever the Soviets were displaced from a position, their ability to call for fire was broken. Battalion commanders could call artillery, as could scouting elements, if the FO was killed or lost contact; but the dependence on wire and the lack of radios meant that this was a tricky process.

Conversely, the Russians could put together one 'ell of a preplanned bombardment, concentrating hundreds or even thousands of guns on a single point of contact. But it was extremely inflexible.

The worst artillery of WWII was the Japanese, who... well, didn't bother using it much. Their guns weren't anything to write home about, but it was the doctrine which was really poor. The Japanese just didn't see the use of much artillery, and so they never put together any command and control structure to group their batteries. As a result, they were extremely decentralized, with poor communication. Worse, their tactics were poor: they'd zero in their batteries before firing for effect (and only in daylight), which usually forewarned people of their intentions. They'd toss disparate types of guns in the same batteries - which means calculating different fire missions for each type of gun. On the other hand, they were pretty accurate, because they'd use multiple FOs - one on the front, two on the sides - to steer artillery onto the targets.

As noted, most smaller countries in Europe copied French artillery doctrine, but preferred to keep fire missions in the hands of battery rather than battalion commanders (as they lacked the poste central du groupe). This is what the WW 1930s Bulgarian Army has done, but the Bulgarians customized it by adding the ARGK at the highest level to provide Russian-style firepower for attack and defense. The Bulgarians also view ground-attack aircraft as the "long arm" of the artillery - roving, over-the-horizon artillery.

I'm guessing mine would be somewhere along the lines of British, French, with the mods you suggested.

As for the guns, Latvia is actually friendly with Russia, unlike in OTL. Besides, even if I use something different now, I'm about to change, IF I get into FAR.

Back to discussion, though, how is my Latvian Guards command chart?

It's worth bearing in mind the considerable extra cost of SLRs, both in initial purchase and ammunition expenditure. Is it really worth it for a small country like Latvia at the moment? For the difference in combat effectiveness probably better sticking with bolt action rifles and buying more machine guns or artillery.

Quoted

Originally posted by TexanCowboy
I don't think that. Most divisions in the Wesworld carry 1 regiment of artillery. but mine only carries 2/3's of one.

I was referring to the consistent use of 75mm weapons versus larger bore guns. Certainly the smaller weapons are handier and more mobile, but their lighter shells have less effect on their targets as well.

Quoted

Here's the Latvian Guard's T&OE. Tell me if anything is wrong with it, espically the percentage of SLRs to carbines.

Latvian Guards Squad:
- 1 Corporal: SMG
- 9 privates: 1 LMG, 3 SMG, 5 semiautomatic rifles
- Total: 10 men, 4 SMGs, 1 LMG, 5 semiautomatic rifles

Latvian Guards Platoon:
- 3 Latvian Guards squads: 10 men, 4 SMGs, 1 LMG, 5 semiautomatic rifles
- 1 command squad: 1 lieutenant (SMG), 1 sergeant (SMG), 2 runners (2 carbines), 1 machinegunner and 1 helper (1 LMG, 1 carbine)
- Total: 36 men, 4 LMGs, 14 SMGs, 15 SLRs, 3 carbines

Latvian Guards Company:
- 3 Latvian Guards platoons: 36 men, 4 LMGs, 14 SMGs, 15 SLRs, 3 carbines
- 1 company commander: carbine
- 1 company NCO: SMG
- 1 company XO: SMG
- 1 command squad: 4 messengers (4 carbines), sharpshooter squad (3 men, 3 rifles), 2 radiomen. 9 men total.
- 1 Flamethrower team: 10 men, 3 flamethrowers, 3 SMGs
- 1 Machinegun squad: 6 men, 2 LMGs, 4 carbines
- Total: 132 men, 14 LMGs, 47 SMGs, 3 flamethrowers, 45 SLRs, 3 sniper rifles, 20 carbines

Latvian Guards Battalion:
- 3 Latvian Guards companies: 132 men, 14 LMGs, 47 SMGs, 3 flamethrowers, 45 SLRs, 3 sniper rifles, 20 carbines
- 1 Sniper squad: 10 men, 10 sniper rifles
- 1 Battalion HQ/Supply Platoon: 36 men, 36 carbines
- 1 halftrack squad: 12 P107 halftracks, 12 drivers, 12 carbines
- 2 MG squads, 10 men, 4x.30cal MMGs
- 1 AT squad, 10 men, 4x20 mm AT rifles, 2 SLRs
- Total: 484 men, 42 LMGs, 8 MMGs, 141 SMGs, 9 flamethrowers, 4 ATRs, 137 SLRs, 19 sniper rifles, 108 carbines

Latvian Guards Regiment:
- 3 Latvian Guards battalions; 484 men, 42 LMGs, 8 MMGs, 141 SMGs, 9 flamethrowers, 4 ATRs, 137 SLRs, 19 sniper rifles, 108 carbines
- 1 Regiment HQ- 36 men, 36 carbines
- 1 Supply Company- 125 men, 125 carbines (includes Signals, Engineering, Sappers, and Field Kitchen)
- 1 Gun-Howitzer Battery-100 men, 10x75mm Gun Howitzers, 10 tractors, 10 trucks
- 1 AT Company- 100 men, 12 AT guns, 15 AT rifles, 10 carbines
- 1 Field Hospital- 100 men
- 1 AA Platoon- 70 men, 15 AAMG’s, 10 carbines
- 1 MG+Flamethrower+Sniper Platoon, 67 men, 10 MMGs, 10 flamethrowers, 10 sniper rifles, 6 carbines
- Total; 2,050 men,10 gun-howitzers 126 LMG’s, 38 MMGs, 423 SMGs, 37 flamethrowers, 27 ATRs, 411 SLRs, 67 sniper rifles, 12 AT guns, 15 AAMG’s, 511 carbines

Comments:

1 - The force seems somewhat confused: is it a force for assaulting defended positions, probably over short distances (suggested by the large numbers of SMGs and the flamethrowers)? Or is it a force for some other purposes (the sniper rifles, the MMGs)?

2 - No mortars at company or battalion level?

3 - When you say "carbine", what do you mean?

4 - A reason to stick with 7.62 x 54R is that Latvia has the rounds, and if Russia is going to the 6.5mm, more 7.62mm will likely become surplus (and thus cheap) in the near future.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
4 - A reason to stick with 7.62 x 54R is that Latvia has the rounds, and if Russia is going to the 6.5mm, more 7.62mm will likely become surplus (and thus cheap) in the near future.

I still think, good relations with Russia or not (and I must remind you that "good relations with Russia" didn't start until the 1930s) the Latvians should keep with their historical Czech Vz24 Mausers. I don't know offhand what Latvia uses for machine guns - probably Madsens - but I'd have to say it'd probably not be 7.6254R either.

Are you sure about the Vz.24 Mauser? Axis history forum lists the Enfield as the standard rifle and the LMG´s as Lewis and Vickers-Berthier all in .303

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Are you sure about the Vz.24 Mauser? Axis history forum lists the Enfield as the standard rifle and the LMG´s as Lewis and Vickers-Berthier all in .303

If memory serves, the Enfields were presented during the British campaigns to the various Baltic nations - I think Lithuania got a bunch too. But my Mauser book says the Latvians ordered 15,000 Vz24s from Czechoslovakia. The author wasn't sure if they received any Latvian markings, however. Looking back at the book, the Vz24 order was later than I thought, so perhaps the Latvians just use Enfields.

Edit: Hm, I found that Axis History forum thread. I'll copy over some relevant data:

Latvian Tank Page

Quoted

Postby daveh on 16 Oct 2005, 16:25
I have seen reference to the following in Latvian use

latvian tanks:

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/

Small Arms:

all 7.7mm calibre
Ross Enfield (Canadian made Enfield) rifles
Lewis Mk 1 light MG
Vickers-Berthier Mk 1 MG
Vickers heavy MGMk1

Artillery:

Field Artillery:
British Mk IV 18 pdrs
Krupp 77mm
Schneider M1897 75mm

Heavy artillery:

Schneider M1913 105mm
Schneider M1910 152mm howitzer

AA Guns:
Vickers 75 mm
Oerlikon 20mm

AT Guns

Bohler 47mm
Bofors M 35 37 mm

80mm mortars (unspecified make)

Much of the army's equipment was WW1 surplus.

Quoted

Some information from German "Taschebuch der Heere 1939" about Latvian Military:

Basic information:
- Population: 1.97 million (1937)
- Population density: 30 persons per square km
- Land borders: 1.196 km
- Sea borders: 494 km

Military service:
- Army type: State Army, universal consription
- Service time: 29 years (years 21 - 50)
- Active service: 1 year for infantry, 1.5 years for other braches of Armed Forces.
- Active Service: age 21
- Reserve: age 22 - 39
- Home Reserve: age 40 - 50 (presumably comparable to German Landsturm)
- Members of Armed Forces 1.24 % of population (peacetime)

Peacetime troops:
- Armed Forces: 24.300 men
- Frontier Guard: 1.200 men
- Total: 25.500 men
Wartime troops: 150.000 men

Structure of peacetime Army:
- 4 Divisions
- Technical Division

Structure of infantry division:
- division HQ
- 3 infantry regiments
- artillery regiment

Structure of technical division:
- division HQ
- engineer regiment
- tank regiment
- signals regiment
- aircraft regiment

Troops of General HQ:
- General HQ
- heavy artillery regiment
- coastal artillery battalion
- armoured train regiment (2 armoured trains)

Locations of peacetime divisions (note: with original German placenames):
- 1. Division: Libau
- 2. Division: Riga
- 3. Division: Rezekne (Rositten)
- 4. Division: Donaburg
- Technical Division: Riga

Amounts of peacetime troops:

Infantry:
- 12 regiments = 28 battalions = 112 companies
Cavalry:
- 1 regiment = 7 squadrons
Tanks:
- 1 regiment
Artillery:
- 4 field artillery regiments = 8 artillery battalions = 24 artillery batteries
- 1 heavy artillery regiment = 2 artillery battalions = 5 artillery batteries
Technical troops:
- 1 engineer regiment
- 1 signals regiment
Special formations:
- 1 armoured train regiment (2 armoured trains)

Structure of infantry regiment:
- regimental HQ
- 2 or 3 battalions, each containing
--- battalion HQ
--- 3 rifle companies
--- 1 machinegun company
- mortar company
- signals company

Weaponry listed in this book is pretty much the same as listed by daveh earlier. However I spotted following differences in information concering field artilelry weapons:
- No German 77-mm or French 75-mm field guns listed
- British 13-pounder field guns are listed
- Both 105-mm cannons and 152-mm howitzers have been marked as British instead of French, in addition to this "Taschenbuch..." lists German 15 cm s.F.H 13 among heavy weaponry used by Latvian Army.