WesWorld

OOC: Rocky, feel free to discuss any changes you want to make.

The Indian Army of 1935 has a reputation of close to 80 years of victorious campaigns from the 19th and early 20th Century. Their victory over the British in 1856/57 was the birth of the modern Indian Army but it was the decision by Raj Askora III to bring German advisors into the Empire the decision that shaped this force; making it a somewhat copy of the German Army. At the same time the Army have limited experience in both the war with the Netherlands and with SALSA but the experience they acquired fighting Saudi troops and their advisors in Asir was the one that made the decisions in regard to motorization of Field Marshall Johinder Sin Bahadur during the late 1920’s and early 1930’s seem as a stroke of genius.

In India, all able-bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45, were liable for military service. Some men working in professions considered more important than military service are considered exempt, with their service being performed doing that professions. The Indian Army is based in the German model but with certain differences. For example has three classifications instead the four classifications of German military service; Active, Reserve and the so-called “National Cadre“ that takes the place of the German Landwehr and Landsturm. Following the German model at the age of 17, a man might be called up to serve in the National Cadre for a period of three years, learning the ropes for his future military service in the active branches. In peace, it was mandatory to serve in the Army upon a man's 20th birthday. A 2-year period of Active service then began, or 3 years in the cavalry, field artillery or the Guards Corps (1). After that time, a man would be liable to serve the next 4 to 5 years in the Reserve, usually a 2-week training period each year. Serving in the Reserve during peacetime was generally regarded as a vacation from home and work. After the Reserve period, a man was then liable to serve in the National Cadre for the next 18 years. After the age of 45, a man was then free from further military service. It was only in times of war that the National Cadre was recalled.

The basic military unit of the Indian Army was the infantry regiment; some using borrowed names of German lexicon like Fusilier, Musketeer, and Grenadier. Regiments were traditionally raised and maintained at the local level. Some large cities and towns could muster an entire regiment, while some rural areas would be responsible for raising a company or battalion for the regiment associated with the region. This system was integrated into the social structure of the country. It was a very complex but highly organized system. After a man served in an Active regiment, he would then serve in a Reserve regiment that was made up mostly with past members of his previous regiment. National Cadre units were organized on a similar basis. During times of peace, the military service time was very much like social club. One could serve the entire 22 years required by the army along side one's family, friends and neighbors. This system formed very strong bonds of loyalty within the regiment, and this system worked very well in times of peace.

The various types of regiments were organized into divisions, filed forces, and army groups. The vast majority of the military machine was based on marching armies and horse/oxen drawn artillery, with horse/oxen/elephant drawn supply trains. By 1935, the Indian Army was organized into established Army Corps, most of which were commanded by the Imperial Army. The Imperial Army also maintained the Guard Corps; the name given to the armored brigades build during the 1930’s to denote their considered elite status.

The development of the railroad networks in the subcontinent during the last 50 years have allowed armies to be deployed, reinforced and supplied with unprecedented speed compared to the last century. But once on the battlefield, the armies could maneuver no faster than those of the glory days of the Mughal Empire. By 1935 the army was composed by 60 infantry divisions, 12 Guard Brigades and 12 Cavalry Brigades. While by this time the Indian industries were capable of supplying the nation with all the small weapons deemed necessary mechanization was a complete new problem altogether. 2/3 of the infantry divisions and the cavalry brigades were organized like German Great War units but twenty divisions were being transformed into triangular divisions also following a German Model.

1935 Forces Organization (2):

The Infantry Division has a strength of 21,800 men, but with communications, heavy artillery and other support units being at the Corps level. It is organized as follows:
4 Rifle Regiments (18 x HMG, 12 x 81mm mortars)
1 Bicycle Company or Cavalry Squadron (depending of terrain)
1 Artillery Brigade (54x 77mm field guns, 12x 105mm howitzers)
Headquarters and Rear Service units

The Mountain Division were exactly the same except the artillery was lighter and the recon forces being troopers trained for high altitude fighting.

The Infantry Division (new design) is based in the German 1931 (3) organization but contrary to the German Army in 1931 the forces have their allotted TO&E.

The Cavalry Brigade has a strength of 6,000 men and consists of the following:
2 Cavalry Regiments of 5 Squadrons per Regiment
1 Cavalry Artillery Battalion (12 x 77mm guns)
Headquarters and Rear Service Units

The Field Force has a strength of 72,000 men with logistics, heavy artillery and techincal support units being at this level. It’s organized as follows:
2 Infantry Divisions
1 Pioneer Regiment
2 Cavalry Brigades
1 Heavy Artillery Regiment (24 x 150mm howitzers, 12 x 210mm howitzers)
Headquarters and Service Units

(1) the name given to the motorized forces in an attempt to get the best of the best to enter this branch.

(2) Organization and history of the Guards later.

(3) Please check the German Army for the organization of this new divisions. Twenty divisions are already using this new organization. They are expected to be the first ones to be deployed out of the country in case of war.

Overall good.

You should reword "experience gained in both the bloodthirsty war of conquest against the neutral and ill-prepared Dutch, and against the SALSA patriots"

Under Corps, do you mean 2 infantry divisions?

So the old divisions were 21,800, but the new triangular are smaller? That'll work. Rocky indicated I will need to have POW camps for 16 divisions by 1939, I was figuring 20k/division, so less will work.

German pattern 1931 infantry divisions are a little over 10,000 men, so yes, smaller than Great War pattern divisions in manpower.

It's a good start, Perd. Nice work. Some comments:

-The National Cadre was "Government Service" rather than a more narrow "Military Service". I expected a large number of the uptake to be put to work on large-scale civil engineering projects like flood control works in Bangladesh.

-The main unit in the Army had been the division, with units often taking a name associated with their geographic base - ie, "Deccan Highlanders" - or something associated with their past (such as the divisions named for venomous snakes).

-I'd used the term "Field Force" instead of "Corps", just to be different.

-I didn't envisage any princely states remaining within the Empire; early experience with the colonial powers indicated that the Europeans could and would play rulers against each other for thier own profit. Subsequently, rulers of places such as Bengal would have a role in the imperial government, and retain much of their fortunes, but the governors would serve at the Raj's pleasure, and the entirety of the military would answer to the Raj. It would be a single, monolithic government.

-Anyway, the current ruler has just two sisters.

-There is some background on my views of the Indian Army towards the bottom of this forum.

-Describing the Imperial Corps of Commandoes and the Camel Corps might be fun projects to consider in the future.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
It's a good start, Perd. Nice work. Some comments:

-The National Cadre was "Government Service" rather than a more narrow "Military Service". I expected a large number of the uptake to be put to work on large-scale civil engineering projects like flood control works in Bangladesh.

-The main unit in the Army had been the division, with units often taking a name associated with their geographic base - ie, "Deccan Highlanders" - or something associated with their past (such as the divisions named for venomous snakes).

-I'd used the term "Field Force" instead of "Corps", just to be different.

-I didn't envisage any princely states remaining within the Empire; early experience with the colonial powers indicated that the Europeans could and would play rulers against each other for thier own profit. Subsequently, rulers of places such as Bengal would have a role in the imperial government, and retain much of their fortunes, but the governors would serve at the Raj's pleasure, and the entirety of the military would answer to the Raj. It would be a single, monolithic government.

-Anyway, the current ruler has just two sisters.

-There is some background on my views of the Indian Army towards the bottom of this forum.

-Describing the Imperial Corps of Commandoes and the Camel Corps might be fun projects to consider in the future.

eliminated the mention of princely states and changed Corps to Field Force. Organizing the National Cadre as part of the military structure makes for an easier integration to the Army in case of war. But I could see then being used as large-scale work force. The work will create an spirit of unit that is always helpful in case of action plus they are doing something useful instead of sitting around. Also a young boy of 17 doing three years of hard work before joining the military will create a very fit Army from the get going.

Small Arms

Mauser Gewehr 98 (1900-1935)
7.92mm x 57 Mauser, manually operated rotating bolt
49.2" length
29.12" barrel length
9 lbs weight
5 round in integral box magazine

Notes:A large batch purchased from Germany early in the century. Still kept in storage to be issued to National Cadre units in case of war.

IRF-05 (1905-1935)
7.92mm x 57 Mauser, manually operated rotating bolt
43.3" length
23.62" barrel length
8 lbs weight
5 round in integral box magazine

Notes: Essentially a copy of the Mauser rifle but with small changes to reduce length and weight to help smaller size soldiers. Main battle rifle of Indian Army.

Kanpur 1912 (1913-1935)
9mm x 19 Luger, recoil operated single action
9" length
4" barrel length
8 round capacity

Notes: Essentially a copy of the Luger pistol and service pistol since.

MP-18 (1919-1935)
9mm x 19 Luger, open blow back automatic
32.75" length
7.87" barrel length
9.2 lbs weight
20 round capacity in detachable box magazine

Notes: Part of a large batch purchased at the end of the Great War from Germany, modified in late 1920's to accept the 20 round box magazine instead of the original 32 round snail drum. Lacking the experince of the trenches of the Great War the Indian Army prefers to issue this weapon to specialized units like the Commandos, the Chosen or the Strong. Replaced in operational duty by the Kanpur 32.

Kanpur 32 (1933-1935)
9mm x 19 Luger, open blow back automatic
35" length
9" barrel length
7.5 lbs weight
30 round capacity in detachable box magazine

Notes:An original Kanpur Small Arms Factory design that improved into the MP-18's in service at the time. With a larger capacity and lighter than the MP-18, it was still a very easy to control weapon when firing in full auto.

Bhandara 1911 (1913-1935)
7.92mm x 57 Mauser, water cooled HMG
56.9" length
28.35" barrel length
124 lbs weight (sledge or wheeled)
250 round belt
4000m maximum range
2000m effective

Notes: Old reliable Maxim machinegun. The Indian Army main HMG.

Bhandara 1919 (1921-1935)
7.92mm x 57 Mauser, air cooled LMG
46.25" length
28.34" barrel length
48 lbs weight (bipod)
250 round belt
4000m maximum range
2000m effective

Notes: Copy of the German version of the 08/18 light machine gun. Too heavy to be used in the role of squad machinegun and replaced by the Bhandara 1929 in that role. Still in service with Reserve units and some Regular Army units.

Bhandara 1929 (1930-1935)
7.92mm x 57 Mauser, gas operated LMG
45.3" length
26.42" barrel length
22.5 lbs weight (bipod)
20 round detachable magazine
2000m maximum range
1000m effective

Notes: Licenced copy of the Czech ZB vz.26 machinegun. Expected to fully replace the Bhandara 1919 by the end of the decade in Regular Army units.

A couple comments on the new support weapons entry:

150mm and 210mm howitzers: barrels are far too long for howitzers at 55 calibers, those are long-range guns. Howitzers should be in the 20-30 caliber range. The historical German howitzers of these sizes had 30 and 29 caliber barrels respectively. Historically, Germany produced a small number (around 15) 21cm guns on normal chassis, preferring instead the 17cm gun (which weighed about 8 metric tons less).

Updates are getting the artillery closer to right. Now just have to update the weight and range of the 21cm howitzer: the historical German 21cm howitzer had a weight of 16700 kg and a range of 16750 m.

Not sure about the idea of the Indian army using the Char 2C as the basis for it's tank corps, and I'm definitely doubtful of the numbers built. For the day, the 2C was VERY expensive, and quite complicated to build and maintain. The FT-17 would seem a much more likely choice, in part because there were plenty of them that were surplus after the end of the war.

A potentiall useful (or not) snippet from 1922:

Quoted

After three years of serious experimentation, the Indian Army is equipping its first combat unit with armored vehicles. The First Jagganatta* Battalion will be deployed to the Eight Field Force, which is situated along the border with British Pakistan, later in the year.

The battalion is expected to consist of three combat companies, each with a different type of vehicle. One company will be equipped with Sher (“Lion”) tanks, which are reported to be equipped with a 1.4" cannon and four machine guns. Another company will field the Gadaa (“Bludgeon”), which carries four 0.6" machine guns and two light machine guns. The third company will operate armored cars mounting two 0.6" machine guns on a wheeled chassis.

All three vehicle types are the result of experiments performed by the army’s 48th Motorized Cavalry Regiment, based near Delhi. That unit has tasked with developing and testing a range of motorized vehicles with military applications.


*OOC: Jagganatta is the term from which the word juggernaut is derived; it refers to a practice in which devoted worshippers would throw themselves under the wheels of carts and wagons bearing religious decor.

In reality is the reason to build the Argun and the Shakati companion vehicle. Have to set a precedent of the reason of the vehicle in late 1935.

Then I could reduce the number of vehicles produced if there is a competition(first with the Gadaa and later with other vehicles for production and resources)

I noticed the Sher is very similar to the stats for the Zamburak so I just change the name and it should fit. I guess I need to design the Indian Gadaa and the armored cars next.

Thanks all for the info. Will do changes.

More comment on the 210mm howitzer, i still think that the barrel is a bit to long.

Here is the data for the Lange Mörser 1910/16

Calibre 210×230 mm
Ammunition 21 cm m/17
Projectile weight 120 kg
Muzzle velocity 227 - 394 m/s
Maximum range 10,2 km
Design Krupp
Action Horizontal sliding-wedge breech
Separate loading

Manufacturer Krupp
Barrel 14,5 cal
Length 7580 mm
Weight 7530 kg
Miscellaneous Field Howitzer
Box trail
German "lange Mörser 1910/16"
Four delivered to Finland in february 1940

As you see the barrel was only 14,5 cal long, and still it was a very hevy weapon.

And in 1935-39 a 150mm howitzer was about 22 to 24 cal long.

I took the data from this site
http://www.mvs.chalmers.se/~m95perm_2/vapen/kanon/index.html

And with weapons who is designed just after the great war the barrels should be a tad shorter.

And the Jabalpur 75 1921 (1922-1935)
75mm, 12 caliber
882lbs
maximum range 3375m
Notes: Current light artillery gun of the Indian Army.

That gun got a barrel that is too short, unless it is a mountain gun.

Krupps 75mm fieldguns of 1900-05 was about 23 to 30 cal in length.

The British 18pdr fieldgun was 29,4 cal in length.

But the India should have a standard type of mountain gun/howitzer to in its arsenal since large parts of the borders are mountains. I am thinking about the 3,7in mountain howitzer type gun.

I've got serious issues with the Argun tank and Satyaki APC. The Argun is, basically, a slightly earlier, faster, version of an Israeli Merkava, and much too large and well developed for 1934-35. especially when India has not fought against any armor-using foes. The same issues already raised against other fully-tracked APCs apply to the Satyaki: it's too early and too expensive for such a vehicle.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
I've got serious issues with the Argun tank and Satyaki APC. The Argun is, basically, a slightly earlier, faster, version of an Israeli Merkava, and much too large and well developed for 1934-35. especially when India has not fought against any armor-using foes. The same issues already raised against other fully-tracked APCs apply to the Satyaki: it's too early and too expensive for such a vehicle.

That is the reasoning for the other tanks before the Argun, create a precedent for then. Also they have being studying foreign data and the flaws of their own design for the last six years. Russia is already building then or something similar plus SPEARFISH intelligence must be getting hold of the Russian info. In regard of the Merkava I can see the similarity but in reality the reasoning is to replace both the heavy and medium tank with it and crew protection is paramount of for the Indian military. I could try to reduce the weight to the 25 tons of the Panzer III but that will increase the speed of the vehicle due to the use of a V12 engine with around 350-400 hp range.

There's little reason for crew protection to be paramount in Indian armor design: if there's one thing that India has, it's personnel. They may not be trained yet, but there's no shortage of personnel (unlike the Israeli situation).

I'm doubtful that the Philippine and Asir experiences would show any reason to replace the existing vehicles, there weren't any armor-vs-armor encounters and few enough times when the opposition was even equipped with anti-armor weapons. WW is not, seemingly, as far ahead of OTL in the realm of tanks as it is in aircraft, perhaps a year or two but not 3 or more years ahead. What Russia is building, as I recall, is a good deal smaller and lighter than the Argun (while the text said 30 tons, the design is only 20, though the secondary turrets will increase that to perhaps 22 tons).

yes, they is a reasoning for crew protection, training spend on the crews is a necessity and is easier to give a new vehicle to a crew than to train a new crew and make then proficient enough compared with the other one.

Actually yes, lack of reliability of the medium tank designs and the heavy one is too slow to keep with the truck borne motorized units in pursue of fleeing Saudis plus the Sher is too heavy to support amphibious operations and tank with the equivalent protection but with less weight will means easier to deploy. Also the use of data, like the one I asked Germany to share or the info received of new Russian and Dutch designs will force India to improve their vehicles to be at par or superior to their possible foes. We are going form the heavy tank to a medium/heavy tank, different from the rest of the world that is going from a light/medium to a medium tank.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
There's little reason for crew protection to be paramount in Indian armor design: if there's one thing that India has, it's personnel. They may not be trained yet, but there's no shortage of personnel (unlike the Israeli situation).

I'm doubtful that the Philippine and Asir experiences would show any reason to replace the existing vehicles, there weren't any armor-vs-armor encounters and few enough times when the opposition was even equipped with anti-armor weapons. WW is not, seemingly, as far ahead of OTL in the realm of tanks as it is in aircraft, perhaps a year or two but not 3 or more years ahead. What Russia is building, as I recall, is a good deal smaller and lighter than the Argun (while the text said 30 tons, the design is only 20, though the secondary turrets will increase that to perhaps 22 tons).

I've got to agree with Hrolf,
Why build larger more expensive machines if you don't see a role for them and recent experience has shown they are not needed. Further both of those experiences were overseas. Larger than needed means more lift capacity and higher fuel usage which means more supply needed, as well as more strain on engines and transmissions combined with lesser mobility.

The Dutch forecast more of a Verdun-style battlefield on our homefront with heavy artillery, fortification and mud, there is no such high-threat environment for Bahrat.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
yes, they is a reasoning for crew protection, training spend on the crews is a necessity and is easier to give a new vehicle to a crew than to train a new crew and make then proficient enough compared with the other one.

Historically, the general case appears to be the opposite: that it was easier to get replacement crews than to get replacement engines (the Merkava is one of only very few designs to use the engine as armor, most designs put the engine in the rear, protected by the structure in front of it). Keep in mind that we're talking about the 1930s, where training is simpler and less complex than the modern day.

If India goes and builds larger numbers of 30 ton tanks, then everyone else will have to do the same. Germany was hoping to stay with the 20-22 ton vehicles for some years, but ......

Atlantis too has stayed within the range of 20 tons for its largest tanks, the Sabre (20) and Sentinel (19).

I agree with Hrolf, the Sher will be an extreme liability to the Indian army given the mobility issues. A far better choice would be an smaller tank based on the FT-17 which could be available in significant numbers and at a much cheaper price. Their were plenty of post war improvements to the basic FT-17 design. and a TS-12/T-20 type would seem more likely for India, at least IMO.

I just went to opposite way than the rest of the world. I didn't try to make a Merkava, I just try to be different in regard of armor development but it seems that's the way it turned out.

But you can see the Argun is just the match of everything they found desirable of three different tanks(the suspension of the Karna, the protection of the Sher plus the extra space to carry infantry in a pinch and the extra protection of the location of the engine on the Gaada) into one. And yes, I pretty much made obsolete every single tank coming out of factories in 1935. Not my intention, as I said before I wanted to follow a different evolutionary path that the rest of the world. ( An army start with a large infantry tank as their main battle tank and an ineffectual medium tank, their experience demonstrated that while their heavy tank is too heavy and slow for their expected future operations (amphibious ones and versus tank armed foes) their medium tanks are too light protected and armed. The decision made was to design a vehicle heavy enough to fill the heavy tank role but fast enough to eliminate the medium ones. Also the construction of a sister vehicle will create communality of parts, making easier for the supply infrastructure to keep spares aorund.