OOBs

[StephenT]

If the Asia Korps will be represented as a Turkish unit, as opposed to a German expeditionary force, then it may be reasonable to strengthen it accordingly, given that the average German soldier in Yilderim was better trained, more sumptiously fed and had greater morale than his Turkish counterpart. Given that, a 100% strenth rating would render it more distinct from the other units in the Turkish order of battle.

Rather than do that, I'd prefer to represent it as a more up-to-date unit. If the Turks are given 1912 infantry (model 2), reserves (model 1) and militia divisions, then making the Asienkorps a 1917 model unit would surely make it quite distincitve enough.

A heavy weapons attachment would also be appropriate considering the impressive firepower potential each individual battalion possessed:

- Six MGs
- Eighteen Light MGs
- Six field guns
- Two mountain guns/howitzers
- Four mortars

But a normal German line division in 1918 had twelve MGs, twenty-four light MGs, and six mortars per batallion! Artillery was concentrated at the divisional level, but five guns per batallion was the average. So in other words, the Asienkorps only had about 2/3 the firepower of a normal division, not extra! Unless the weapons you list were additional to the normal complement of a batallion?

Based on this, I'd make the Asienkorps a 1917 (model 3) Light Infantry unit.

[StephenT]

Revised OOB for October 1917:

British

Egyptian Expeditionary Force

GHQ (Gen. Allenby)
HQ Unit
10th (Irish) Division - Guards model 2
Imperial Camel Corps - Cavalry model 3 at 50% strength

XX Corps (L/Gen Chetwode)
53rd (Welsh) Division - Infantry model 3
60th (London) Division - Infantry model 3
74th (Yeomanry) Division - Reserves model 2

XXI Corps (L/Gen Bulfin)
? He commanded this corps in 1918; I haven't been able to confirm if he was in charge in 1917.
52nd (Lowland) Division - Infantry model 3
54th (East Anglian) Division - Infantry model 3
75th Division - Reserves model 2

Desert Mounted Corps (L/Gen. Chauvel)
ANZAC Mounted Division - Cavalry model 3
Australian Mounted Division - Cavalry model 3
Yeomanry Mounted Division - Cavalry model 3

RFC Palestine Brigade (M/Gen Borton)
Bomber division at 50% strength
2seat-fighter division at 30% strength

Also, during the 3rd Battle of Gaza, a cruiser and four monitors from the Royal Navy provided shore bombardment. Unfortuantely I don't know the names of the ships involved - I don't know if you want to include this?

I also don't have detailed manpower figures for the Arab forces in October. Maybe Allenby can help?

Some of the British divisional leaders (M/Gen) involved were:
Shea (60th)
Girdwood (74th)
Chaytor (ANZAC Mounted)
Hare (54th)

A 1918 OOB also gives the following British leaders, who may or may not have been in charge in 1917 as well:
Longley (10th)
Mott (53rd)
Palin (75th)
Hodgson (Australian Mounted)
Barrow (Yeomanry Mounted)

Hoskins (3rd Lahore)
Fane (7th Meerut)
Younghusband (2nd Mounted)

[Allenby]

Unless the weapons you list were additional to the normal complement of a batallion?

The weaponry I listed was the complement of each battalion in the Asia Korps. Each battalion also had an attached machine gun company (with six MGs)

The 701st Artillery Detachment (consisting of eight 77mm guns and four 105mm howitzers) and the 'Hentig' Machine Gun Detachment served with the 'Pasha II' Brigade, which formed the core of the Asia Korps.

With the 'Pasha II' Brigade reserves, centred around the 146th Masurian Regiment, was a Mountain Artillery Detachment with twelve howitzers and a Mountain Machine Gun Detachment with four machine gun companies.

The Asia Korps as a whole possessed 370 guns, which I think makes it worthy of having an attachment, especially when we consider that it was more prodigiously armed than the average Ottoman division.

[Allenby]

XXI Corps (L/Gen Bulfin)
? He commanded this corps in 1918; I haven't been able to confirm if he was in charge in 1917.

Yes, he was.

A 1918 OOB also gives the following British leaders, who may or may not have been in charge in 1917 as well:

Major-General John Hill commanded the 52nd (Lowland) Division.

[Allenby]

A 1918 OOB also gives the following British leaders, who may or may not have been in charge in 1917 as well:
Longley (10th)
Mott (53rd)
Palin (75th)
Hodgson (Australian Mounted)
Barrow (Yeomanry Mounted)

Hoskins (3rd Lahore)
Fane (7th Meerut)
Younghusband (2nd Mounted)

Major-General Henry MacAndrew commanded the 5th Cavalry Division.

The 2nd Mounted Division was disbanded in January 1916 and did not serve with the EEF in 1917-1918. Younghusband (he of Tibetan fame, I presume) did not, to my knowledge, serve in Palestine.

If you know when they arrived in the Middle East, that would be helpful. All I can discover so far is that they were locked at Aleppo in autumn 1917 and didn't take part in the fighting that year; received reinforcements at some point; and were part of the Turkish 8th Army in autumn 1918.

It appears that the Asia Korps first saw action in Palestine in March 1918.

Unfortuantely I don't know the names of the ships involved - I don't know if you want to include this?

Rear Admiral Jackson commanded Allied naval forces in the Eastern Mediterranean. For Third Gaza, the force was composed thus:

Grafton British light cruiser (model 0)
Raglan British monitor (model 0) 2 x 14-inch; 2 x 6-inch
M15 British monitor (model 0) 1 x 9.2-inch
M29 British monitor (model 0) 2 x 6-inch
M31 British monitor (model 0) 2 x 6-inch
M32 British monitor (model 0) 2 x 6-inch
Empress British seaplane carrier (model 0)
City of Oxford British seaplane carrier (model 0)
Raven II British seaplane carrier (model 0)
Staunch British destroyer
Comet British destroyer
Arbalète French destroyer
Voltigeur French destroyer
Coutelas French destroyer
Fauconneau French destroyer
Hache French destroyer

I doubt that including the destroyers will be of much use given that we are including the naval vessels for the purpose of shore bombardment. Although there existed the problem of German submarines (which sunk both M15 and Staunch, I don't believe we need to model this with a reduced-strength unit on the map. The aircraft serving with the seaplane carriers were used to bombard Turkish positions at Gaza.

It was decided that the Megiddo Offensive should be aided by just two British destroyers: Druid and Forester.

[Zuckergußgebäck]

Would the monitors also have the HMS prefix, as in 'HMS M15'?

[Allenby]

Would the monitors also have the HMS prefix, as in 'HMS M15'?

Yes, they would.

[Zuckergußgebäck]

Good, good. As for the Hejazi front, I have put Aqaba under hejazi occupation, should also the second southern Jordanian province be hejazi, and where should the northern army be?

[StephenT]

Major-General Henry MacAndrew commanded the 5th Cavalry Division.

The 2nd Mounted Division was disbanded in January 1916 and did not serve with the EEF in 1917-1918. Younghusband (he of Tibetan fame, I presume) did not, to my knowledge, serve in Palestine.

Hmm. I was using this as the source for the leader names, and it puts Younghusband in charge of 5th Cavalry. But another source (the Purnell History of WW1) agrees with you on MacAndrew, so I presume the other is wrong.

According to Ellis & Cox, 2nd Mounted Division was reformed in May 1918, and renamed 5th Cavalry Division in August 1918. Likewise, the Yeomanry Mounted Division was renamed 1st Mounted Division in April 1918, and renamed again as 4th Cavalry Division in July 1918.

Rear Admiral Jackson commanded Allied naval forces in the Eastern Mediterranean. For Third Gaza, the force was composed thus:

Grafton British light cruiser (model 0)
Raglan British monitor (model 0) 2 x 14-inch; 2 x 6-inch
M15 British monitor (model 0) 1 x 9.2-inch
M29 British monitor (model 0) 2 x 6-inch
M31 British monitor (model 0) 2 x 6-inch
M32 British monitor (model 0) 2 x 6-inch
Empress British seaplane carrier (model 0)
City of Oxford British seaplane carrier (model 0)
Raven II British seaplane carrier (model 0)
Staunch British destroyer
Comet British destroyer
Arbalète French destroyer
Voltigeur French destroyer
Coutelas French destroyer
Fauconneau French destroyer
Hache French destroyer

I doubt that including the destroyers will be of much use given that we are including the naval vessels for the purpose of shore bombardment.

Thank you!

Given the difference in firepower between the monitor HMS Raglan (two battleship-calibre guns and two cruiser-size guns) and the other four monitors (seven cruiser-size guns between them) I'd actually give the British just two monitors: one for the Raglan and one for the other ships combined. Likewise for the seaplane carriers: the original naval OOBs assumed one unit per 25 aircraft capacity, and the Empress and Raven II between them only carried eight! (Conways doesn't even mention City of Oxford) I'd say give them just one CV model 0. On the other hand, Grafton was 7000+ tons, and I'd make her a model 1 armoured cruiser for the sake of the scenario. There's be no harm in adding a single destroyer unit to represent the seven ships you list, I think.

[Zuckergußgebäck]

Actually, I put all the ships in, and together they made a shore bombardment penalty of around 13-14%. Nothing game altering in my opinion, so I´ll just stick with all of them.

I haven´t got the foggiest idea of the ottoman OOB, so I´d like to have it.

[Allenby]

Given the difference in firepower between the monitor HMS Raglan (two battleship-calibre guns and two cruiser-size guns) and the other four monitors (seven cruiser-size guns between them) I'd actually give the British just two monitors: one for the Raglan and one for the other ships combined. Likewise for the seaplane carriers: the original naval OOBs assumed one unit per 25 aircraft capacity, and the Empress and Raven II between them only carried eight! (Conways doesn't even mention City of Oxford) I'd say give them just one CV model 0. On the other hand, Grafton was 7000+ tons, and I'd make her a model 1 armoured cruiser for the sake of the scenario. There's be no harm in adding a single destroyer unit to represent the seven ships you list, I think.

Remember that the attack attributes of units can be precisely edited, so I see no problem in adding the relevant monitors in full and changing their statistics appropriately.

Good, good. As for the Hejazi front, I have put Aqaba under hejazi occupation, should also the second southern Jordanian province be hejazi, and where should the northern army be?

Bayir should be Arab, yes. The Northern Arab Army ought to be in Aqaba, but it is very difficult to assess what its numerical strength was.

[StephenT]

Remember that the attack attributes of units can be precisely edited, so I see no problem in adding the relevant monitors in full and changing their statistics appropriately.

Well, OK.

Raglan's broadside was 3376 lb, or 1535 kg.
The other monitors each had a broadside of 200 lb, or 91 kg.

Therefore, if Raglan has a shore bombardment factor of 10, then each of the other ships should have a factor of 0.6.

Bayir should be Arab, yes. The Northern Arab Army ought to be in Aqaba, but it is very difficult to assess what its numerical strength was.

I've seen various references to Feisal having an active strength of 3000 - 4000 men in the main battles. For example, Wavell's account of the campaign has this to say:

When Allenby launched his decisive attack in 1918, half of the Turkish troops in the operational zone were pinned down in the Arab sector east of the Jordan - close on 50,000 Turks being there engaged and paralysed, by an Arab force of barely 3,000 men, while little more than 50,000 Turks were left to meet the assault by Allenby's army of 250,000 troops.

[StephenT]

OK, here's the Turkish OOB:

At Aleppo:

Yilderim Ordu (Falkenhayn) - locked in place until March 1918 when another 30% strength German unit is added - or increase the current one to 60% strength)
HQ unit
Asienkorps - (German) infantry model 4 at 30% strength

At Gaza:

NOTE: All Turkish units at Gaza should be at 50% strength.
(10 divisions with only 46,500 combatants between them)

19. Piyade Tümeni - reserves model 1


7. Ordu (Djemal Pasha)
24. Piyade Tümeni - reserves model 1
27. 'Haifa' Piyade Tümeni - militia model 1
3. Süvari Tümeni - cavalry model 1


8. Ordu (Kress von Kressenstein)

XX Kolordu
16. 'Adana' Piyade Tümeni - reserves model 1
26. 'Aleppo' Piyade Tümeni - reserves model 1
54. Piyade Tümeni - militia model 2

XIII Kolordu
3. 'Scutari' Piyade Tümeni - infantry model 2
7. 'Rodosta' Piyade Tümeni - infantry model 2
53. Piyade Tümeni - militia model 2


300/5 'Pascha' Abteilungen (Serno)
1917 model Bomber unit at 50% strength (German)



In Medina province (HEJAZ), under siege:
21. 'Asir' Piyade Tümeni - militia model 1, strength = 55

In Jiddah proince (HEJAZ), under siege:
22. 'Hedjaz' Piyade Tümeni - militia model 1, strength = 55

For reinforcements and withdrawals see earlier post.

[Zuckergußgebäck]

Would the turks in Gaza have a maxstrength at 50% or should they be 'reinforceable'?
EDIT: Where should the turkish reinforcements appear?

[Allenby]

NOTE: All Turkish units at Gaza should be at 50% strength.
(10 divisions with only 46,500 combatants between them)

46,500 may be too generous to the Turks.

Wavell assessed their strength as 45,000 rifles.
The Official History reckoned it to be 33,000 rifles.
von Kress claimed that it was 23,000.
Colonel Hussein Husni Amir Bey estimated that it was nearer 21,000.

Matthew Hughes has put the figure as low as 20,000 - although it is hard to tell whether the estimates of von Kress and Husni are genuine or downplayed to cover up the fact that the Turks lost the battle...

Nevertheless, most agree that Wavell's figure is almost certainly too high, so we might want to look for a compromise figure of about 30,000. Besides, we don't want this battlescenario to become too easy.

[Allenby]

EDIT: Where should the turkish reinforcements appear?

It would be best to deploy them in Syria, where the player can have them moved southwards. That would account for the probability of Gaza being taken by the British, and would also represent the somewhat shambolic Turkish railway system in southern Palestine.

[Zuckergußgebäck]

All right. Turkish reinforcements appear in Damascus, whereas the british appear in Suez or Alexandria, depending from where they have been deployed.

Is everyone satisfied with this?

[Allenby]

All right. Turkish reinforcements appear in Damascus, whereas the british appear in Suez or Alexandria, depending from where they have been deployed.

Is everyone satisfied with this?

Yes that ought to be fine.

Remember to make alterations to the infrastructure of some provinces in Egypt and Palestine. It should naturally follow in the game that it ought to be easier for the British to deploy their divisions to the front from Egypt than it should be for the Turks to deploy from Syria.

You may also want to add events which model the construction of light railways in Palestine during the British advance, too. These were of crucial importance, as was the extensive used of motorised transport.

[StephenT]

Would the turks in Gaza have a maxstrength at 50% or should they be 'reinforceable'?

I would say they should, in theory, be reinforceable to 100%. However, the Turkish player should not have enough spare IC or manpower to have the slightest hope of ever doing this...

[Zuckergußgebäck]

Will do. I´ve got me some bugs to sort out before this, though. When I attempt to merge a newly deployed unit (reinforcent) with a previously existing one, I get a CTD. Got any idea why?