Limitations on paradropping

[Curtis Cook]

Can airborne divisions with attachments be dropped in HOI3?

The Italians had a division that was gliderborne (80th La Spezia), specifically so it could use heavier weapons. Italian parachute divisions had (at least on paper) enormous numbers of 47mm AT guns — supposedly 141 per division, at the expense of not having anything larger for artillery support.

So my question is, would an airborne division with three parachute and two AT brigades still function as airborne in the game? Would it function as an airlanding unit (meaning air transportable to a captured airfield)? If the AT units wouldn't work, is there anything that would? Engineers or AA?

 

[Count Blue]

Can airborne divisions with attachments be dropped in HOI3?

No. At least not to my knowledge.
They have to contain pure para regiments. In vanilla that is.
With certain mods they can be accompanied by ENG and various other support troops availabe in this Mod.

 

[AAA_Robert]

No. Paratroppers are the only ones that can be dropped in vanilla...
With some mods adding new units, you can make heavier airborne operation. For example, on BlackIce, you can load in a plane or in a glider many types of brigades: paratroppers, airlanding infantry, airborne supports, special puropose armor, commando, etc...

 

[Kovax]

The infantry brigades are assumed to include integral light AT weapons (AT rifles, magnetic mines, bazookas/panzershreks, etc.) and portable Artillery (mortars, light field guns); you have Infantry techs for those, which improve the corresponding stats of the brigade. Heavier artillery and large-caliber AT guns were not usually available to paratroops, except in rather unusual circumstances, and even then not in large numbers. You can still airlift some of those units to a captured or placed airfield (you can pre-build a Level 1 airfield, and place it when you capture a province), but you can't air drop units other than paras.

 

[Curtis Cook]

Thank you to all three who responded. The pre-built airfield idea provides possibilities.

Going to a mod is less doable. I'm using the Mac version, and VPLTD tech support tells me the Mac versions of all of that generation of games (HOI3, EU3, Vic2, CK2 and Rome) are not designed to be moddable or editable. If anyone here knows differently, please let me know.

 

[Palmerdale]

I get annoyed when I can't even transport a HQ unit via air. Not an air invasion mission, simply move from A to B. That's in TFH without mods. This makes the only viable air units as 4xAIR (or 5xAIR, when you research the tech.) I think some of the support brigades (ENG, AT, AA and AC) should be reconsidered for air worthiness, maybe included in the Airborne Infantry tech advance. (Should Paradox ever consider a patch for HOI3. But they might see that as HOOI4 having failed).

This restriction (only AIR brigades on transport planes) also severely restricts the usefulness of the Transport planes and all their associated tech. There's really not much need for air dropped supply, and the quirks of the supply system seems to limit the predictability to islands.

 

[AAA_Robert]

This restriction (only AIR brigades on transport planes) also severely restricts the usefulness of the Transport planes and all their associated tech. There's really not much need for air dropped supply, and the quirks of the supply system seems to limit the predictability to islands.

Hum... During the firt few hours of a late sealion operation (1945 with 3 500 000 of english men defending, for example...), or while invading provinces without boats (because of a too much powerfull enemy navy), I find that they are very usefull ! And when the enemy airforce is made of more than one hundred air squadrons, producing many transport planes is requested.
For me, the problem of the vanilly isn't that unit can't be load in a plane. The problem is that there are not enough different units.

 

[Phili]

I can understand why only Airborne brigades can be used for air drops and I agree that other brigades such as HQ's should be transportable on planes.
If air transport was a property of Militia and/or Mountain infantry then it might have made the use of militia as a rapid reaction force more attractive to those countries with far flung empires like France and the UK.

I attach my Para's to an Army Group HQ as though it were a Corps HQ along with the Transports that they use and a wing of Multi role aircraft for air support.
By using an Army Group HQ they are more likely to stay within the command range and get the trait bonus of the HQ general plus the supply savings from the generals level.
I use the MR's in the hope that with their long range they will be able to perform air protection and/or ground attack roles over the drop zones.
If the target province is close enough to use other air units like TAC's then I'll include them.

 

[Curtis Cook]

Unfortunately, HOI3 wasn't set up to recognize distinctions in size of guns. Dropping anything larger than 25mm, or gliding in anything larger than 50mm, should be a non-starter. As for coming in via air transport, maybe a 75mm mountain howitzer or infantry gun should be the upper limit. Since many of those (infantry guns and mortars, AT guns under 37mm, and I don't know about mountain howitzers) aren't allowed to be made seperate brigades in the first place, things shouldn't get out of hand.

And that brings up the issue of glider units. Usually they were entire brigades, so that part is easy, but I'm astonished that when they liberalized how Marine divisions could be equiped they didn't add a glider option at the same time. A quarter of American and German paratroopers were actually glider troops, and 30% of Italians. They would have slightly higher combat abilities, since they could bring in heavier mortars, more and heavier machine guns, more AA, etc. They might also suffer higher losses upon landing, since glider crashes were proportionately more common than parachute failures.

Other units could perhaps have an additional cost and time required during building/training to allow them to be air transportable — engineers, HQs, etc.

Which brings up the idea of being able to tweak other brigades or divisions. AT units can be made mobile as Tank Destroyers and artillery/rocket brigades can be made SPArt. Other units like AA and MPs should also be made capable of motorization. The German Luftwaffe divisions were essentially small motorized divisions that would have been ideal for rear area partisan suppression, but were badly misused as frontline units. I suppose you could make one motorized infantry brigade and attach two or three MP brigades to it, but it's… inelegant.

This is becoming an interesting discussion.

 

[Kovax]

The problem with motorized AA is that there was never enough of it concentrated in one place to comprise a brigade. Basically, it should be a modifier to other motorized units, providing better AA defense.

Some air-transportable assests (light field guns, heavy mortars, light AT weapons) sits on the border between "infantry equipment" and dedicated brigades, and might benefit from some kind of all-purpose "air transportable support brigade" that adds modest AA, AT, and Arty support for air-dropped units. Again, being able to research lighter systems to increase the stats (and costs) of the basic paratrooper brigades would also cover it. Either you research the extra stuff, and then need larger planes to handle it, or you keep using basic paratroops.

 

[Curtis Cook]

The problem with motorized AA is that there was never enough of it concentrated in one place to comprise a brigade. Basically, it should be a modifier to other motorized units, providing better AA defense.

This brings up something I've been wrestling with this past week — How many guns (or tanks) do you need to count as a brigade? Purely based on airplane brigades needing 100 planes, I've been using 100 of a given type of artillery, tank, armored car, etc. as the number. Is there an official number?

I like the idea of an 'air transportable support brigade'; perhaps the same principle could be used for a 'beach landing brigade'.

Completely off-topic, but a naval tech that should be researchable is the ability to transport very light infantry brigades — marines, mountain, paratroop absolutely, maybe militia — on destroyers and cruisers. (The Germans used both light and heavy cruisers for infantry transport in Norway and in 1945 in the Baltic, and the Japanese used light cruisers extensively for the purpose.)

 

[Palmerdale]

This brings up something I've been wrestling with this past week — How many guns (or tanks) do you need to count as a brigade? Purely based on airplane brigades needing 100 planes, I've been using 100 of a given type of artillery, tank, armored car, etc. as the number. Is there an official number?

I think this number varied greatly between nations, the time, and composition of the individual unit. It's been a long time since I looked at specifics for these, but I think I remember early US armored brigades contained with 2 or 3 companies companies (10-20 vehicles per combat company) plus specialized combat vehicles. Americans tended to include a lot of the support troops (mechanics, especially) into the actual count of personnel in the brigade. The model of the actual vehicle also influenced the personnel count -- 15 tanks with a 3-man crew or 15-tanks with a 5-man crew is a difference of 30 men, which may may inflate manpower counts of brigades. (Thinking requires caution, especially with me these days. Hopefully someone will correct this if it's wrong).

I like the idea of an 'air transportable support brigade'; perhaps the same principle could be used for a 'beach landing brigade'.

Completely off-topic, but a naval tech that should be researchable is the ability to transport very light infantry brigades — marines, mountain, paratroop absolutely, maybe militia — on destroyers and cruisers. (The Germans used both light and heavy cruisers for infantry transport in Norway and in 1945 in the Baltic, and the Japanese used light cruisers extensively for the purpose.)

I like the idea of air-portable and naval-portable units. Rather than expanding the technology tree, I expect it would be simpler to add a pair of attributes (isPara and isNaval) to specific units and be able to control these from the Unit information screen, similar to the receiving upgrades, receiving reinforcements and priority options. Switching the IsPara and IsNaval options on or off would cause a modest increase in Reinforcements need on the Production screen. All MAR brigades would be built with IsNaval = ON, all PAR brigades would be built with IsPara = ON, and all other brigades would start with IsNaval = OFF and IsPara = Off. Units like armor or motorized would not have either flag. All HQ units would be created with both options = OFF.

This might be possible via a Mod, but I've never dabbled in that world, so I'm definitely not the one to ask about that.

 

[Count Blue]

The BICE mod does complete paradivision builds even with airborne engineers and airborne arty.
Of course the size of the units is small, like battailons.
In bice divisions can be up to 8 subunits (regiments and battailons).

 

[AAA_Robert]

I like the idea of air-portable and naval-portable units. Rather than expanding the technology tree, I expect it would be simpler to add a pair of attributes (isPara and isNaval) to specific units and be able to control these from the Unit information screen, similar to the receiving upgrades, receiving reinforcements and priority options. Switching the IsPara and IsNaval options on or off would cause a modest increase in Reinforcements need on the Production screen. All MAR brigades would be built with IsNaval = ON, all PAR brigades would be built with IsPara = ON, and all other brigades would start with IsNaval = OFF and IsPara = Off. Units like armor or motorized would not have either flag. All HQ units would be created with both options = OFF.

This might be possible via a Mod, but I've never dabbled in that world, so I'm definitely not the one to ask about that.

That's an interesting idea. I've never seen a mod adding new attributes on the unit information screen. Impossible ?
Often, mods prefer to add new units with specials abilities...

The BICE mod does complete paradivision builds even with airborne engineers and airborne arty.
Of course the size of the units is small, like battailons.
In bice divisions can be up to 8 subunits (regiments and battailons).

Well, for info, here is a list of all BICE units and of all units that can be paradrop.
http://bicestats.twilightparadox.com/bicestats/index.aspx?sortcol=unit_can_paradrop&sorttype=desc&

 

[Curtis Cook]

I think this number varied greatly between nations, the time, and composition of the individual unit. It's been a long time since I looked at specifics for these, but I think I remember early US armored brigades contained with 2 or 3 companies companies (10-20 vehicles per combat company) plus specialized combat vehicles. Americans tended to include a lot of the support troops (mechanics, especially) into the actual count of personnel in the brigade. The model of the actual vehicle also influenced the personnel count -- 15 tanks with a 3-man crew or 15-tanks with a 5-man crew is a difference of 30 men, which may may inflate manpower counts of brigades.

For Infantry-type units (including Garrison, MPs, Engineers, Motorized, Mechanized and what all else) I understand basing number of brigades on TOE manpower strength. For Artillery-types and Armor-types it seems to me that the important number would be how many effective barrels you can point at the enemy, rather than the number of people you need to crew them.

As you mentioned, 'brigades' could be practically any strength, with the Germans alone ranging from around 40 assault guns in a Tank Destroyer brigade up to around 200 tanks in their early-war Panzer brigades, and that's not to mention nations that used regiments instead of brigades… and regiments instead of battalions.

I need something I can compare across at least the major nations. I started with 72 as my brigade base, but that resulted in FAR too many brigades, so I bumped up to 100. That may also be too low, but I'm kind of at a loss as to how high the number should be pushed.

 

[Big Nev]

My take on this goes something like…

During WWII, the number of 17pdr AT guns deployed by glider was in single figures.

And about half of those that made it to the ground were unuseable due to damage.

Although the US was building 6pdr AT guns, they couldn’t fit them in to their gliders.

That leaves a handful of operations where the Brit’s used some specially adapted 6pdrs (skinny-wheels & cut-down gun shields) and, not forgetting that by the time the Allies are invading Europe, the 37mm/2pdr was obsolete as an AT gun.

These facts, in my mind, translate very clearly in to “you can’t air-transport/para-drop EFFECTIVE anti-tank guns.”

Also, by this time, the bazooka was being used very effectively as both an AT weapon and light artillery.

 

[Curtis Cook]

The German Gigante gliders and a couple of other models appear ON PAPER to have been capable of transporting a 50mm AT gun… but I see your point. I was under the impression that an American glider unit brought in some AT guns during Operation Overlord, but since about half of those gliders crashed (if I'm remembering correctly at all), that really doesn't seem to help my point.

 

[Palmerdale]

My take on this goes something like…

During WWII, the number of 17pdr AT guns deployed by glider was in single figures.

And about half of those that made it to the ground were unuseable due to damage.

Although the US was building 6pdr AT guns, they couldn’t fit them in to their gliders.

That leaves a handful of operations where the Brit’s used some specially adapted 6pdrs (skinny-wheels & cut-down gun shields) and, not forgetting that by the time the Allies are invading Europe, the 37mm/2pdr was obsolete as an AT gun.

These facts, in my mind, translate very clearly in to “you can’t air-transport/para-drop EFFECTIVE anti-tank guns.”

Also, by this time, the bazooka was being used very effectively as both an AT weapon and light artillery.

The issue I've had is building 3 paratroop divisions and not being able to air-drop the corresponding HQ of the Corps. And even air-dropped divisions had air-dropped jeeps, at least according to every movie ever made (and probably more importantly, described at this link http://arnhemjim.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-airborne-jeeps-of-1st-airborne.html). The British 1st Airborne had quite a few jeeps on the ground during Operation Market Garden, and even some 75 mm Howitzers present. Even if there are only unarmed vehicles in question, the jeep was too useful for recon and signal corps to not be considered in any airborne drop.

If I were in a paratroop division, I'd surely want a brigade (even a "thin" brigade -- half or fewer guns) of old obsolete 2 pound AT guns with a heavy mix of HE rounds. Guns going Boom! keeps the enemy infantry in cover, leaving enemy tanks to your bazookas, who can work in peace. Agreed that the old obsolete guns couldn't do much against armor, but they could cause havoc with supply trucks and other lightly armored targets (ambulances, trains, even defensive structures) one might find opposing an airborne mission. Inclusion of AT guns would also be very dependent on the actual mission.

 

[Big Nev]

The issue I've had is building 3 paratroop divisions and not being able to air-drop the corresponding HQ of the Corps. And even air-dropped divisions had air-dropped jeeps, at least according to every movie ever made (and probably more importantly, described at this link http://arnhemjim.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-airborne-jeeps-of-1st-airborne.html). The British 1st Airborne had quite a few jeeps on the ground during Operation Market Garden, and even some 75 mm Howitzers present. Even if there are only unarmed vehicles in question, the jeep was too useful for recon and signal corps to not be considered in any airborne drop.

If I were in a paratroop division, I'd surely want a brigade (even a "thin" brigade -- half or fewer guns) of old obsolete 2 pound AT guns with a heavy mix of HE rounds. Guns going Boom! keeps the enemy infantry in cover, leaving enemy tanks to your bazookas, who can work in peace. Agreed that the old obsolete guns couldn't do much against armor, but they could cause havoc with supply trucks and other lightly armored targets (ambulances, trains, even defensive structures) one might find opposing an airborne mission. Inclusion of AT guns would also be very dependent on the actual mission.

I'd really like to agree but, as I'm sure you know, the 2pdr AT gun was never issued with a HE round.
Such a small solid shot really isn't that good against a truck. You might hit the engine or something else vital, but you'd probably be better off using a sniper to take-out the driver or a Boys AT rifle for the engine.

Now, on the PLUS side of your argument, yes, jeeps were used quite a lot.

And, curiously, so were bren' carriers. Now, technically, that would be airborne mechanised infantry.
The numbers were, however, quite small. Only 18 for the entire 1st Airborne Division, that's about half the number issued to each battalion in a standard British infantry division of the time.

Here’s an interesting article http://arnhemjim.blogspot.it/2012/10/the-universal-carriers-of-british.html

And this is a very interesting quote regarding the air deployment of a HQ.

(The deployment of LtGen Boy Browning's headquarters on the first day of the operation resulted in the diversion of 32 Horsa and 6 Hadrian gliders which when added to 22 Horsa gliders which were available could otherwise have flown in an air landing infantry battalion (nominally 1064 additional combat personnel requiring 56 gliders), or an anti-tank unit (an air landing anti-tank battery (minus) i.e., less the 8 massive 17Pdrs. This would have meant 16 additional 6Pdr A/T guns, including gun crews, support personnel, prime movers, ammunition trailers and basic ammunition loads.)

From here http://arnhemjim.blogspot.it/p/operation-market-garden.html

The “prime movers”, in this case, being more bren’ carriers.

 

[Palmerdale]

So, according to that site, transporting a HQ unit was possible. It came down to an airlift capacity issue, and the British chose to insert a HQ unit instead of additional troops. HOI3's implementation removes that decision from the human commander. From a game logical standpoint, dropping multiple airborne Divisions (4xPAR or 5xPar) without a Corp HQ deprives those troops the benefit of the Corps Leader's influence. Either you attach your paratroop Divisions directly to an Army, Army Group or Theater unit to keep within the 'command range' or you accept air drop missions at distances that would make the CAS ranges look generous (if you're trying to keep 'in range').

Concerning the 2 pdr (40 mm) guns. Different sources claim different things about HE rounds. http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/gb/AT-guns/2-pounder.php claims the HE rounds were developed, but since the gun was used in an Anti-Tank role, the HE ammunition was not used. The HE rounds were used for practice and distributed to anti-invasion troops stationed in the UK. Another source, https://ww2db.com/weapon.php?q=227 suggests that HE rounds were never developed, and hints at a possible conflict between the Littlejohn conversion unit and HE shells. It appears that the HE usage was entirely up to British convention; Artillery fired HE shells, AT units didn't.

After a couple hours of research, it's even more confusing. Some sources list manufacturing numbers for HE rounds, but no performance statistics. Many sources claim that HE rounds existed, others disagree, most simply don't mention HE rounds. Some articles claim that HE rounds were made for later guns by the Australians.

In any case, this appears to be a British issue. The Americans used 37mm HE shells. And the Bofors 37 mm (used by several countries) has HE available. Maybe I should only consider the 2 pdr gun only if I want to keep my own infantry confused and unable to use our own bazookas. You would think that records would be a little more concise and less prone to speculation and interpretation. Issues like this will continue to reappear as WW2 becomes an even more distant memory. *sigh*