Comparative vehicle losses in ground combat

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Comparative vehicle losses in ground combat

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Comparative vehicle losses in ground combat

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Comparative vehicle losses in ground combat - 2/26/2017 11:04:08 AM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

Combat modifiers
Defender: preparation(-), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker: shock(+), disruption(-)

Japanese ground losses:
4322 casualties reported
Squads: 109 destroyed, 257 disabled
Non Combat: 8 destroyed, 65 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 71 disabled
Guns lost 114 (47 destroyed, 67 disabled)
Vehicles lost 20 (1 destroyed, 19 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
1599 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 106 disabled
Non Combat: 53 destroyed, 232 disabled
Engineers: 9 destroyed, 19 disabled
Guns lost 121 (16 destroyed, 105 disabled)
Vehicles lost 69 (27 destroyed, 42 disabled)
Units destroyed 1

This seems to be 'standard fare' in these battles. I was just wondering how the IJA "tin-foil" tanks manage to do so well against the Allied Matilda Mk IIs and Grants/Lees (comparative vehicle losses). Do the vehicle losses include unarmored trucks/jeeps?

Post #: 1

RE: Comparative vehicle losses in ground combat - 2/26/2017 11:35:05 AM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

Yes, that is mostly motorized support vehicles (trucks).

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 2

RE: Comparative vehicle losses in ground combat - 2/26/2017 3:11:50 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

There is also the possibility the Japanese had "rapid fire gun" units in the mix. These are anti-tank guns.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 3

RE: Comparative vehicle losses in ground combat - 2/26/2017 3:20:18 PM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

AT arty works great against early tanks when on the defensive (can't see from the snippet who was attacking). But later in the game regular artillery of higher calibers is the only reliable anti-tank weapon Japan has left. Lowpe can attest to this.

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 4

RE: Comparative vehicle losses in ground combat - 2/27/2017 12:29:24 AM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

27 destroyed vehicles which probably are mostly trucks, quite light losses

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 5

RE: Comparative vehicle losses in ground combat - 2/27/2017 1:48:45 AM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

Yes, the edited combat report provides no information about combatants on either side, so it is not possible to make any meaningful observation about what 'seems wrong' or 'seems right' about the outcome.

I won't waste time guessing about who may have been on the offensive, defensive, what year it was, who was involved, what their default armor type was, etc. But I will echo those comments about effectiveness of AT weaponry-particularly against lightly armored vehicles.

_____________________________

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 6

RE: Comparative vehicle losses in ground combat - 2/27/2017 10:28:30 AM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

For the record it was the latter half of 1942 and the Japanese were attacking in Scenario 2. Their attacking forces included an armored division and a tank regiment and totaled about 5 divisions total. The Allies included some US Marines, a US infantry division, a regular Australian Infantry Division, an Australian Cavalry Brigade with 12 Stuarts and 36 Matilda IIs, another Australian unit with 24 Grant/Lees, and assorted reduced Australian militia types plus several artillery regiments.

The question basically had to do with whether vehicle losses were reports of relative tank losses or of any vehicles.

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 7

RE: Comparative vehicle losses in ground combat - 2/27/2017 2:32:39 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

For the record it was the latter half of 1942 and the Japanese were attacking in Scenario 2. Their attacking forces included an armored division and a tank regiment and totaled about 5 divisions total. The Allies included some US Marines, a US infantry division, a regular Australian Infantry Division, an Australian Cavalry Brigade with 12 Stuarts and 36 Matilda IIs, another Australian unit with 24 Grant/Lees, and assorted reduced Australian militia types plus several artillery regiments.

The question basically had to do with whether vehicle losses were reports of relative tank losses or of any vehicles.

The answer to that is easily seen if you look at the armoured units for loss of tanks from their TOE vs the loss of motorized support from the TOE of all units. Typically the disabled ones are easy to spot first off, then do a TOE view to check for completely missing devices.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 8

RE: Comparative vehicle losses in ground combat - 2/27/2017 2:54:25 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

Guess this was discussed often enough, that getting a bit more info in the combat reports would be cool... however it is as it is. I remember the old War in russia had 3 detail levels in the highest one you could see every tank or plane type destroyed or damaged.

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 9

RE: Comparative vehicle losses in ground combat - 2/27/2017 4:35:29 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

The number is total vehicle losses. Which for the Allied player is usually trucks. Grant and Lees should not show too many losses vs Japanese armor or At defenses. You need only to look at the units to confirm that. in 1942 tank losses for each side may be about equal especially if the Allies are still using a lot of M2 and M3 light tanks. However the big changes come in 1943 when most Allied tank units have medium tanks and Allied infantry squads get a tremendous boost in their individual AT values. Then you average combat should feature very heavy Japanese tank casualties.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 10

RE: Comparative vehicle losses in ground combat - 2/27/2017 4:42:09 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

The one annoying thing is that Allied tank brigades that have infantry seems really lose infantry even in moderate attacks. Sometimes it is better to use smaller tank units that do not possess infantry. I complained about the disparity in truck and infantry losses in Allie tank units a loooonng time ago. I am quite proud of this graphic I drew to illustrate the issue.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 11

RE: Comparative vehicle losses in ground combat - 2/27/2017 9:07:44 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

Yes! I was remembering this very drawing yesteday. Thank you for bringing it back, crsutton! You get 'street cred' from me for this one.

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 12

RE: Comparative vehicle losses in ground combat - 2/27/2017 9:20:10 PM

MakeeLearn

Posts: 4278
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline

Sotheby's..........Opening Bid.....

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 13

RE: Comparative vehicle losses in ground combat - 2/27/2017 10:15:00 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

Do the vehicle losses include unarmored trucks/jeeps?

From my observations, yes.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to MakeeLearn)

Post #: 14