RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread

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 >> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/8/2008 11:26:02 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

I have (300 in 42) 400 Matilda and Matilda CS's and 700 ish M3 Grant/Lee's almost all in late 42. I allowed a small replacement rate on top of that to reflect reconditioned tanks coming back into the line.

I class Marmon H's as an armoured Car and just lump them all together so many MG equipped armoured cars with similar specs in WITP terms exist its bewildering.

Broadly the Aus Armour path is

Improvised AFV - Matilda II - Matilda II CS - M3 Grant/Lee - Churchill VII (in 9/45) for the tiny numbers of shermans etc it was not worth it. (Unique to Austrlia prior to Churchill.)

Lt Armour is Improvised AFV - Stuart I - Stuart VI (shared with other CW nations)

Armoured Car

Beaverette - Marmon Harrington - AC1VP - Humber I - Humber IV - Daimler (from Humber I shared with other CW prior to that shared only with NZ)

Broadly there are totally different tracks for Australia and the rest of the CW largely to keep M3's out of Indian hands in 42 when lets face it 8th Army was grabbing every M3 that left England !!!

After M4's start to arrive at 8th Army then and only then do the Indians start to get Grants (UNLESS India north of Delhi gets invaded in which case a few get diverted to Indian Armoured formations early)

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 451

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/8/2008 12:41:56 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

I PM'd some links, this bit wouldnt attach

69 M3 Stuart & 54 M3 Lee/Grant(I think Lee types) had arrived by 30/4/1942
140 Matilda II�s arrived in July 1942
By August 1942, 656 M3 Lee/Grant & 244 M3 Stuart were in Australia
�C� 17 Light Horse MG Rgt � 4 Arm Rgt 1/5/41 � 104 Motor Rgt 9/3/42 � 14 Arm Rgt(6 Arm Bde) 22/6 42
1 Lt Tk Coy � 3 Arm Rgt 7/3/41 � 3 Army Tk Bn
6 LH Rgt � as Mot Bn Support Gp 1 Arm Div � Armd Car Rgt in 2 Arm Div 21/2/43
15 LH Rgt - as Mot Bn 1 Arm Bde
20 LH Rgt - as Mot Bn 2 Arm Bde
26 MG Bn � MG Bn for the mechanized Bde of 2 Cav Div.
21 LH Rgt � Div Cav Rgt for 2 Inf Div
8 LH Rgt � Div Cav Rgt for 3 Infa Div
8 Arm Rgt raised 9/41 � to Puckapunyal Camp 12/41
18 LH MG Rgt � 12 Arm Rgt 5/42
10 Mot Rgt (ex 13 LH Rgt) � 13 Arm Rgt 8/5/42
12 LH Rgt � 12 Mot Rgt 3/5/42 � 12 Arm Car Rgt 4/11/42
1 Tank Bn � 1 Tank Rgt 1/6/44
At the end of 1941, 2 Cav Div became 2 Mot Div (6 Arm Bde, 12,13 & 14 Arm Rgts. 3 Mot Bde 4,26 & 101 Mot Rgts & 6 Arm Car Rgt(probably a Motor Bn at this point) Division was disbanded 2/43
3 Army Tank Bde formed 6/5/42
1 LH Rgt � 1 MG Rgt - formed 1 Australian Army Tank Bn (Matilda II)
2 Arm Car Rgt � 2 Arm Rgt -
3 Arm Rgt & 1 Lt Tk Co �
(I think these formed 2 & 3 AATk Bn ????)
2/5 Arm Rgt was the first equipped with M3 Grant on 23/4/42
As at 9/42
1 Arm Div � 1 Arm Bde (2/5, 2/7 & 2/10 Arm Rgt) disbanded 7/1/44. 3 Motor Bde (4,26 & 101 Mot Rgt) disbanded 4/43. 2/11 Arm Car Rgt
2 Arm Div � 6 Arm Bde (12,13 & 14 Arm Rgt, 9 Mot Rgt) 2 Motor Bde (15,17 & 20 Motor Rgt) 6 Arm Car Rgt Div disbanded 2/43.
3 Arm Div � 2 Arm Bde (2/4, 2/8 & 2/9 Arm Rgt) 1 Motor Bde (5,11 & 16 Motor Rgt) disbanded 3/7/43 12 Arm Car Rgt
3 Army Tank Bde � 1,2 & 3 Army Tank Bn Bde disbanded 26/9/43, 1 Bn in late 44, 2 Bn 3/44
4 Arm Bde � 1 AT Bn, 2/6 Arm Rgt & 2/9 Arm Rgt (formed in mid 43??)
2/6 Arm Rgt (Stuarts) was detached to New Guinea Force.
2/4 Arm Rgt was formed from Arm Bde Recce Sqns plus 1 Sqn from 2/11 Arm car Rgt
As at 10/43
1 Armd Bde Group � 2/1 Arm Recce (Sqn?)2/5, 2/7 & 2/10 Arm Rgt
4 Armd Bde - 2/6, 2/9 & 2/4 Arm Rgt
New Guinea Force � 2/8 Arm Rgt & 1 Tk Bn
Units which went to New Guinea/Papua/Borneo were equipped with either M3 Stuart or Matilda II as it was considered the M3 Lee/Grant too heavy for use in the Jungle (despite Slim using Medium Tanks in India/Burma

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 452

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/8/2008 12:45:50 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

The Churchill in Australian Service

The 6 mentioned as trials vehicles were 2 x Mk Iv, 2 x Mk V, 1 x Mk VI & 1 x Mk VII

Early in 1944, as a result of a recommendation made by the Lethbridge Mission, the War Office urgently requested the Australian Army to carry out tropical service trials on Sherman and Churchill tanks. The trials were to comparatively test these tanks (alongside Matilda tanks) in tropical conditions similar to those in which Matilda tanks already seen active service. The War Office specifically requested a detailed scientific report on the effects of tropical conditions on electrical equipment (both in service and storage) detailing all modifications considered necessary. The Department of Tank Development were apparently depending on this feedback in order that the electrical equipment of Churchill tanks could be tropic-proofed in production. It was anticipated that the trials would take 2 to 3 weeks, after which time the tanks were to returned to the 4th Australian Armoured Brigade for further tests in Australia.
There was a proposal made by Brig. D Macarthur-Onslow, (CO, 4 Aust. Armd. Bde) that Cromwell, Stuart and Grants also be included in the trials. However, this suggestion was rejected on the grounds that: the Stuart had already been used in New Guinea and found unsuitable, the Grant was being replaced by the Sherman anyway and the Cromwell being a cruiser tank was unsuitable for jungle use (also few spares available).
On the 15th July 1944 six Churchill tanks arrived in Sydney aboard the SS Leaside Park. These tanks were then loaded on to the US Liberty Ship, Norman J. Coleman which then sailed to Brisbane where, on the 5th August, three Churchills were unloaded (T173254/B Mk.V, T172724/B Mk.IV, T173279/C Mk.VI) and replaced with three Shermans (two M4s and a M4A2). The Norman J. Coleman then sailed directly to New Guinea. The three Churchills remaining onboard were (T173033B Mk IV, T173250B Mk V and T173165 Mk VII).
The trials took take place in Madang area, close to the workshops of the 2/4th Australian Armoured Regiment. The terrain selected was quite extreme including mud up to 3 feet deep, very dense undergrowth and creek crossings 18 feet wide and up to 10 feet deep. Rainfall during the period of the trials amounted to over 12 inches per month. Taking part in the trials were fifty personnel from the 4th Australian Armoured Brigade commanded by Major G.C. Dennis (appointed by 6 Armd. Corps), two British Army instructors who arrived from the U.K. with the tanks and two Matildas (Mk.V) of the 1st Australian Armoured Regiment from Finschhafen area (with full crews) used for comparison. The Australian War Memorial web site has a fascinating series of photographs of the trial - to see them use Madang and Churchill as keywords in their search engine.
Whilst the Sherman proved superior in terms of reliability, visibility and its ability to navigate side slopes, the Churchills manoeuvrability, especially at low speeds, was judged to be superior. This coupled with its greater armour thickness and ground clearance led to the Churchill being considered to be the more suitable vehicle for jungle operations.
Following the Madang trials, the tanks were shipped to Australia where some further trials were conducted prior to the Australian Government placing an order for 510 Churchills. By the time the war had ended only 51 Churchills (comprising of the six trials original trial vehicles and 45 production tanks) had been received and at this point the order for the remaining vehicles was cancelled.
Little is known by the author about the postwar use of the Churchill tank in the Australian Army, although it is known that these vehicles served with the 1st Australian Armoured Regiment until the introduction of the Centurion. Legend has it that a Churchill ARV nicknamed "Radish" soldiered on for many years rescuing broken-down and bogged Centurions on the hills and ranges of the Puckapunyal School of Armour
�

FROM http://www.mheaust.com.au/Aust/Austindex.htm

< Message edited by JeffK -- 1/8/2008 12:48:27 PM >

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 453

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/8/2008 1:12:35 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

Radish must have been busy...

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 454

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/8/2008 1:22:57 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

Puckapunyal is the coldest, wettest, dryest, hottest & dustyest place in Victoria.

having been an Army camp since 1914 the dirt is like talcum powder and gets into everything

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 455

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/8/2008 4:56:21 PM

Reg

Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Andy,

Are you going to diferentiate the Marmon-Herringtons as left-handed & right-handed?

quote:

If you are considering the Churchills you should add some Shermans as 3 were trialled, plus a Crusader & I think a Cromwell or Comet, plus the only Covenantors to see combat (bridge carriers). IMHO a waste of effort.

Forget the Shermans. They were tested and rejected in favour of something else that Andy has included. WITP is too big to worry about individual trial vehicles.

Crusader was pattern vehicle for AC1 Sentinal project and the armour school ended up with it. Curiosity item only.

Covenantor bridge layers are valid items. However with only one per regiment, they border on the lower limit of significance (only treated as a single engineering vehicle??)

Churchills are valid as with 500 on order, they would have been a significant player had the war gone on much longer.

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 456

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/8/2008 5:42:09 PM

Reg

Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I have (300 in 42) 400 Matilda and Matilda CS's and 700 ish M3 Grant/Lee's almost all in late 42. I allowed a small replacement rate on top of that to reflect reconditioned tanks coming back into the line.

Sounds good

quote:

I class Marmon H's as an armoured Car and just lump them all together so many MG equipped armoured cars with similar specs in WITP terms exist its bewildering.

Also good

They're gone in 18 months anyway.

quote:

Broadly the Aus Armour path is

Improvised AFV - Matilda II - Matilda II CS - M3 Grant/Lee - Churchill VII (in 9/45) for the tiny numbers of shermans etc it was not worth it. (Unique to Australia prior to Churchill.)

Andy, not so keen on this one. See my PM.
Basically, the M3 Lee/Grants obtained for North Africa (never happened) and then for Home defence is superseded by Matilda (then Churchill) for the jungle counter offensives. The Tank Battalions can jump in at the Matilda point on the path. Before the the Lend Lease vehicles arrived, the regiments had to make do with whatever they could, usually only about half a dozen make shift vehicles until some Bren carriers (and then Marmon H's) become available for training.

Is there any point making the gun Matilda and the CS Matilda separate devices?? Standard organisation has every third one as a CS tank anyway? Either way, they were used concurrently and a gun tank doesn't upgrade to the CS version.

quote:

Lt Armour is Improvised AFV - Stuart I - Stuart VI (shared with other CW nations)

Once again the Stuarts procured for North Africa/Home defence units were supersceded by Matildas (then Churchill??) in 2/9th, 2/5th and 2/4th regiments for the jungle offensives. Home defence units can just stop upgrades. Before the Stuarts arrived, see above.

quote:

Armoured Car

Beaverette - Marmon Harrington - AC1VP - Humber I - Humber IV - Daimler (from Humber I shared with other CW prior to that shared only with NZ)

There were large numbers (500) of M3A1 White armoured cars obtained for the three Armoured divisions from 1942. There were a number of home grown LP (Local Pattern) Scout and Armoured Cars built from 1942 as well (not large numbers - about 250 of each). 275 Staghounds also made an appearance from 1944.

quote:

Broadly there are totally different tracks for Australia and the rest of the CW largely to keep M3's out of Indian hands in 42 when lets face it 8th Army was grabbing every M3 that left England !!!

After M4's start to arrive at 8th Army then and only then do the Indians start to get Grants (UNLESS India north of Delhi gets invaded in which case a few get diverted to Indian Armoured formations early)

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 457

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/8/2008 6:01:34 PM

Reg

Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline

Surprisingly, Wikipedia doesn't do a bad summary. You might like to check out this link: Wikipedia: Australian armoured units of World War II

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to Reg)

Post #: 458

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/8/2008 7:53:58 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Reg,

This to repost where I ended up on Australian Armour units

In addition 6 x AIF armoured and I think 1 x AIF A/C regts exist plus if my memory is correct Div Recce regts in the AIF Divs (although these are removed on 1st upgrade)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

p.s. 2nd Aus Cav Bde that becomes 3rd Army Tank Bde disbands in 43 - allies get 1st Army Tank Bn as an independent unit at that point

In Mid 42 the allies have

1st Motor Bde (Lt Inf and A/C Bde)
3rd Motor Bde (Lt Inf and A/C Bde)
3rd Army Tank Bde (Armoured Bde) - disbands mid 43
4th Armoured Bde (Armoured Bde)
6th Aus Cav Bde (Lt Inf and A/C Bde) - disbands mid 43

Over course of late 42 early 43 the 6 independent LH Bn sized forces disband (de facto some of these moved into the Bdes above and other regts were merged or disbanded)

Andy

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 459

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/8/2008 8:24:18 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

The improvised AFV's (Bren Gun Carriers acting at quasi tanks or trucks with MG's) cover a wide variety of 'improvised AFV's

I lumped them all together as one vehicle because they were really training only vehicles

Now onto the more tricky variants

Should the M3 be an upgrade for the Matilda or vice versa honest answer is not sure as a mix of both was used I Prefer to have the more advanced tank used later and give the player the option whether to upgrade or not.

Without an never ending supply of tanks folks are going to have to be more carefull.

I can make Matilda CS a seperate device that only upgrades to Churchill VII in that way some regiments will always have Matildas no matter what but I think its easier to leave it as is for now but I will look at it now.

I had ignored the Marmon Harrington Tank as it is all lumped with improvied AFV to coever a lot of sins but I may not get away with that one I will think again.

Re Stuarts there is a TOE upgrade that replaces the light sqn with a 3rd heavy sqn in 43 so they will defacto become Matilda or Grant sqns then.

JeffK/Reg thank you for the Staghound info I am looking at changing the Armoured Car upgrade path to make Australian Armoured Cars path totally unique to them.

Probably going to go with

Marmon Harrington Armoured Car - ACV-IP - Rover Armoured Car (first 3 all rifle caliblre MG's) - White Armoured Car (.50 Cal MG) - Staghound (37mm Cannon)

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 460

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/8/2008 10:44:06 PM

Cap Mandrake

Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Wow! The level of detail in the OOB discussions is truly.......ummm........

It is cool, though, even if much of the minutae gets lost in the land combat routines.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 461

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/8/2008 11:29:47 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

ps did I ever mention how much I hate the Australian Light Horse units and their 1,001 configurations and changes

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 462

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/8/2008 11:41:55 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

OK I am going to ditch the CS version of the Matilda as an uneeded complication CW armour drives me nuts

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 463

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/9/2008 12:36:00 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

I dont see the Lee/Grant upgrading to the Matilda II.

Some units changed due to a perceived inability for the Lee/Grant to perform in the Jungles (Though they got some Churchills & Shermans up there!)

So does the game stop the Allies from shipping a better tank just because IRL they thought it couldnt be done? Probably at a higher transport cost.

Do the Aussies loose a tank which could be a better AFV in open (Australia) terrain?

A problem in designing such a game is handling the alternate situations, its easier to say this happened IRL so thats that.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 464

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/9/2008 12:52:23 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Yeah I agree the upgrade path remains Improvised AFV - Matilda II - Grant - Churchill (I ignored the MH Tank and Vickers Tanks for this purpose as they never saw combat and Matildas arrive early enough to make them not worthwhile) p.s. the Matilda web site link is down so I assumed they start arriving iat end Jan 42

There just werent enough Shermans in Australia to make it worthwhile

Indian and NZ Improvised AFV - Vickers Tankettes - Valentine III - General Lee - General Grant - Sherman V - Churchill VII

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 465

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/9/2008 1:57:49 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Yeah I agree the upgrade path remains Improvised AFV - Matilda II - Grant - Churchill (I ignored the MH Tank and Vickers Tanks for this purpose as they never saw combat and Matildas arrive early enough to make them not worthwhile) I would include them in the improvised AFV figures, they have some combat value, and if the wily jap landed in Sydney on 7/12 would have seen combat p.s. the Matilda web site link is down so I assumed they start arriving iat end Jan 42. It worked last night, I'll check the address, maybe I can cut & paste the info
There just werent enough Shermans in Australia to make it worthwhile. There were'nt many more Churchills!

Indian and NZ Improvised AFV - Vickers Tankettes - Valentine III - General Lee - General Grant - Sherman V - Churchill VII

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 466

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/9/2008 2:03:41 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

Try

http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/armourframe.htm

for a lot of works on Aussie armour, Paul Handel has a number of books out.

http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/marmonherringtinph_1.htm

for the left & right handed M-H tanks

http://www.mheaust.com.au/Aust/Research/Matilda/Matdelivery.htm

for the Matilda II

Matilda Tank Shipments Received by Australia 1942
Research by Shane Lovell
This table lists the number of Matilda tanks received in Australia during each week of 1942.� Data for the table was collated from weekly progress reports prepared by the Chiefs of Staff for the Australian Government. Unfortunately the source documents did not identify the mark of Matilda received.

Weekly Arrivals Cumulative

W/E 31/1/42 0 0
7/2/42 0 0
14/2/42 0 0
21/2/42 0 0
27/2/42 0 0
7/3/42 0 0
14/3/42 0 0
21/3/42 0 0
28/3/42 0 0
4/4/42 12 12
11/4/42 0 12
18/4/42 0 12
25/4/42 8 20
2/5/42 42 62
9/5/42 0 62
16/5/42 0 62
23/5/42 30 92
30/5/42 0 92
6/6/42 4 96
13/6/42 0 96
20/6/42 4 100
27/6/42 3 103
4/7/42 0 103
11/7/42 1 104
18/7/42 17 121
25/7/42 27 148
1/8/42 0 148
8/8/42 15 163
15/8/42 0 163
22/8/42 8 171
29/8/42 20 191
5/9/42 8 199
12/9/42 6 205
19/9/42 0 186 note 1
26/9/42 0 186
3/10/42 10 196
10/10/42 2 198
17/10/42 19 217
24/10/42 10 227
31/10/42 0 227
7/11/42 15 242
14/11/42 4 246
21/11/42 23 269
28/11/42 16 285
5/12/42 4 289
12/12/42 5 294
19/12/42 10 304
26/12/42 0 304

It looks good on the edit page

and may not represent if ant arrived in 1943?

[bSources:
AWM227: 34 Weekly Progress Reports of Chiefs of Staff to the Prime Minister.
AWM 113: MH/160 Parts 1-5 Weekly Progress Reports of the Chiefs of Staff to the Prime Minister
Note 1:
During the week ending 19 September 1942 the number of Matildas on hand was revised in response to the discovery of double counting

< Message edited by JeffK -- 1/9/2008 2:25:30 AM >

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 467

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/9/2008 2:07:56 AM

Reg

Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I dont see the Lee/Grant upgrading to the Matilda II.

Some units changed due to a perceived inability for the Lee/Grant to perform in the Jungles (Though they got some Churchills &
Shermans up there!)

It really depends on your definition of 'upgrade'. I was not saying that the Matilda is better, it's just when you have a close look at the armoured regiment equipment schedules (which I sent to Andy), you will notice that the Matilda is further down the time line. Consequently it is simplier to simulate this by putting the Matilda further down the upgrade path. (though I think Andy might be handling this by upgrading the TOE).

The Stuart/Grant organisation was intended for home defence and by the end of 1943 the need had passed and all the armoured divisions were being disbanded (personnel usually went to landing craft units which were desperately needed for this next phase of the war).

Chronologically speaking, the armoured units were re-equipped with the Matilda for the counter offensive against the Pacific islands. This was a definite policy decision. The remaining home defence units (independent Brigades then Regiments) retained their older TOE. (though to be a pain, one or two reverted to the old TOE when they rotated back to the mainland after time in PNG).

The Shermans were only trial examples where it was found other types did it better.

quote:

So does the game stop the Allies from shipping a better tank just because IRL they thought it couldnt be done? Probably at a higher transport cost.

Umm... Whats more important here? The fact that a professional soldier up to his waist in New Guinea mud says it can't be done or that it has a 14 point attack value in the game?

The Australian army did extensive testing (quoted by yourself) and they did not choose to use the Grants (or Shermans or M24 Chaffees either). There must have been a real life reason. Besides even if don't like the Matilda it does upgrade to the Churchill which is a direct successor in the Jungle tank role.

quote:

Do the Aussies loose a tank which could be a better AFV in open (Australia) terrain?

This is an issue. However, the issue here is the fact that the Australian Army adapted itself to the changing conditions and if the game plays out in a slightly different way, those historical changes may not be appropriate to the player.

To keep the older vehicles for home defence duties, can't you halt upgrades? Stick with the older TOE??

quote:

A problem in designing such a game is handling the alternate situations, its easier to say this happened IRL so thats that.

Gotta agree. I'm happy with whatever you guy decide. I'm just providing some historical info you may not be aware of.

< Message edited by Reg -- 1/9/2008 2:16:38 AM >

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 468

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/9/2008 2:23:19 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I dont see the Lee/Grant upgrading to the Matilda II.

Some units changed due to a perceived inability for the Lee/Grant to perform in the Jungles (Though they got some Churchills &
Shermans up there!)

It really depends on your definition of 'upgrade'. I was not saying that the Matilda is better, it's just when you have a close look at the armoured regiment equipment schedules (which I sent to Andy), you will notice that the Matilda is further down the time line. Consequently it is simplier to simulate this by putting the Matilda further down the upgrade path. (though I think Andy might be handling this by upgrading the TOE).

The Stuart/Grant organisation was intended for home defence and by the end of 1943 the need had passed and all the armoured divisions were being disbanded (personnel usually went to landing craft units which were desperately needed for this next phase of the war).

Chronologically speaking, the armoured units were re-equipped with the Matilda for the counter offensive against the Pacific islands. This was a definite policy decision. The remaining home defence units (independent Brigades then Regiments) retained their older TOE. (though to be a pain, one or two reverted to the old TOE when they rotated back to the mainland after time in PNG).

Thats all assuming that the war in 1943+ is in PNG or the islands, look at the games where the japanese has invaded Australia and needed to be evicted in that time frame, we have to be wary of tying players down to reacting to real life rather than whats going on in the game.

The Shermans were only trial examples where it was found other types did it better.

quote:

So does the game stop the Allies from shipping a better tank just because IRL they thought it couldnt be done? Probably at a higher transport cost.

Umm... Whats more important here? The fact that a professional soldier up to his waist in New Guinea mud says it can't be done or that it has a 14 point attack value in the game?

Professional soldiers told Slim that the Lee/Grant couldnt work in the Jungles, 25 Dragoons proved them wrong at the "Admin Box" battles and exploded the myth at Imphal. 14 pts is better than 2, the Matilda was a terrible option for close infantry support.
The Australian army did extensive testing (quoted by yourself) and they did not choose to use the Grants (or Shermans or M24 Chaffees either). There must have been a real life reason. Besides even if don't like the Matilda it does upgrade to the Churchill which is a direct successor in the Jungle tank role.

quote:

Do the Aussies loose a tank which could be a better AFV in open (Australia) terrain?

This is an issue. However, the issue here is the fact that the Australian Army adapted itself to the changing conditions and if the game plays out in a slightly different way, those historical changes may not be appropriate to the player.

To keep the older vehicles for home defence duties, can't you halt upgrades? Stick with the older TOE??

quote:

A problem in designing such a game is handling the alternate situations, its easier to say this happened IRL so thats that.

Gotta agree. I'm happy with whatever you guy decide. I'm just providing some historical info you may not be aware of.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Reg)

Post #: 469

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/9/2008 3:19:06 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Thanks for all the help guys Australian Light Horse and Armoured upgrades make my head hurt !!!!

I am going with the historical sequence Matilda - Grant (Churchill is in 9/45 so it makes no real difference its a red herring the more important issue is the non appearance of Shermans)

Stuart Light tanks I am dealing with via upgrades to TOE removing over time they will equip Australian forces in early 42 before phasing out on various TOE upgrades and a minor annoyance then Australian Forces will end up using a mix of Armoured Cars for some units primarily the Motor Bdes (1st and 3rd with one disbanding in 43 and independent Ard Car Regts 2/11th primarily) (MH, White or if they are lucky Staghound I's) and either Matilda II's or M3 Lee/Grants as tanks Australia will pretty much have enough of both types to equip their entire armoured force especially after 1st Motor Bde and 3rd Army Tank Bde (Ex 2nd Aus Cav Bde) disbands and 6th Cav Bde disbands

There really is a severe contraction in Aus Armoured forces after from early in 43 which means they will have surplus tanks for those that are left.

Australia will reduce from a peak of 5 Motor/Cav/Ard Bdes and a couple of LH Recce Regts plus the AIF Recce Regts in 6th 7th and 9th Div plus the AIF Ard Regts 2/4 - 2/11.

Australia by 43 will end up

1 x Motor Bde a mixed force of an MG Bn, 2 Motor Bns with attached sqns of armoured cars and an Arty Regt (no heavy tanks)
4th Armoured Bde broadly 3 Heavy Armoured Regts and about 7 Independent Armoured Regts/Bns

And then in 44 more are cannibalised for Infantry and Landing Craft replacements the strongest Australian Armour is in the whole war in late 1942 !!!!

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 470

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/9/2008 3:21:38 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

By 44 I reckon off the cuff Australia will have units and manpower to run less than 250 Heavy tanks mostly in 4th Armoured Bde but will have recieved 1,200 Matildas and Grants its weird how it goes

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 471

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/9/2008 3:47:33 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

Sounds about right, by the end of '42 tha japanese had been pushed back over the Owen Stanley's and apart from a scare on the west coast in 43 or 44 the threat of invasion was over, most of the AFV ended up in training plus many that went u/s were cannibilised for parts.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 472

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/9/2008 5:17:28 AM

Reg

Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

14 pts is better than 2, the Matilda was a terrible option for close infantry support.

So this is the bottom line. The Grant is an upgrade because it is more effective in game terms.

However, looking at the device stats I can see where this impression came from and I don't agree with it at all.

               Matilda II   Grant
Effect              3         12
Armour            120         65        
AntiArmour         75        110
AntiSoft           11         31

First of all, One in three Matildas was a 3" howitzer armed CS version which should have stats similar to other 75mm tank (Grant/Sherman etc) which had a similar weapon (I can't see a 3" howitzer on the device list to compare). The Grant's 75mm was a low velocity model so shouldn't be too much superior in the anti-soft case.

Something else to be considered is that the Australian 2lb gun as fitted to the Matilda gun tanks was supplied with and fired HE ammunition!! I feel that the low effect and antisoft values listed above only consider the AP ammunition used in Europe (which was a doctrinal rather than technical decision BTW). There were no Tiger tanks to deal with in the Pacific and machine guns were quite adeqate to deal with most of the enemy infantry units encountered. There was also no vehicle technology race in progress to render existing designs obsolete.

The Matilda's low speed rather than being a disadvantage was actually an asset for infantry support (see the Tank Comparative Trials reports on the internet references in previous posts).

The only issue seems to be that the game does not reflect this. I think if you beef up the Matilda's effect and antisoft values to reflect HE ammunition and I think (with it's high armour), the Matilda will demonstrate a more of its historical performance in game terms. You could average these figures 2:1 with the CS version if you don't want to track this version separately (I believe this is viable in a game of this scale).

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 473

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/11/2008 12:59:41 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Yup thats what I am doing I took out the specific matilda CS as it was too hard and I averaged on a ration of 1 CS to 3 normal the soft attacks (2:1 was per regt structure but the Motor Bdes were different and the HQ's tended to be normal II's hence 3:1 not 2:1)

Matilda ends up with soft attack of 20

However I am sticking with Matilda - Grant as the upgrade option and not Grant - Matilda if you dont like it change it

(in reply to Reg)

Post #: 474

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/11/2008 11:56:30 AM

Reg

Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline

Cool

I'm happy with that. Thanks for listening to our input.

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 475

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/12/2008 1:47:52 AM

Chad Harrison

Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline

Just wanted to throw two quick questions in:

1. Will late war US Marine divisions include the Marine armour or will it be separate as a Tank Bn?

2. It was mentioned earlier, but I think it would make a lot more sense for an individual squad type to simply 'upgrade' to a new unit type rather than have to have the new squad type built. You are not replacing the men, only getting them new(er) weapons. I can not imagine that the US in 1944 had a hard time getting the existing marine squads newer weapons, flamethrowers, bazookas, ect. The real strain was for actual marines, not their personal, squad/platoon equipment. In the current system (as far as I understand it correctly), you need to replace existing Marine 41 Squads with Marine 44 Squads. The device built squads logically represent replacing total lost units; replacing both the men (limited) and the equipment (not limited). This would obviously not apply to devise driven equipment like artillery, AAA, tanks, ect.

(in reply to Reg)

Post #: 476

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/12/2008 2:26:26 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

1. Ask Joel

2. I agree its one of the solutions we are playing with but it depends on prioritisation

(in reply to Chad Harrison)

Post #: 477

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/12/2008 2:50:21 AM

Chad Harrison

Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline

Per Andy, Joel?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison

Just wanted to throw two quick questions in:

1. Will late war US Marine divisions include the Marine armour or will it be separate as a Tank Bn?

(in reply to Chad Harrison)

Post #: 478

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/12/2008 3:00:38 AM

Chad Harrison

Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

2. I agree its one of the solutions we are playing with but it depends on prioritisation

Just did some quick numbers all based on Stock, Scenario 15 to prove my point. Obviously all these values and dates are going to change w/ AE, but if left unchanged, the problem will still exist.

The last version of the USMC Rifle and Engineer Squads show up in December of 1943 (again this is stock). If you assume that both the 5th and 6th Marine Divisions which arrive after that point use the most current squad types, that means that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Marine Divisions will need to upgrade to the new squad types. Stock TO&E puts a full strength Marine division at 297 rifle and 121 engineer squads. The build rate for Dec 43 Marine rifle squad is 54, and for Dec 43 Marine Engineer squad is 21.

That means that it will take 23 MONTHS TO UPDATE THE CURRENT MARINE DIVISIONS TO THE NEW TYPE!!!

And this is assuming no losses during this time. They will all complete upgrading right before the war ends.

Math - 4 Marine divisions
297 Rifle * 4 = 1188 rifle squads / 54 rifle squads/month = 22 months
121 Engineer * 4 = 484 engineer squads / 21 engineer squads/month = 23 months

As I stated above, that does not make sense. This makes sense if you were rebuilding four full strength Marine divisions. But all you are doing is issuing new weapons, not new men. This is obviously not the case with devise driven material such as tanks, AAA guns, CD guns, artillery and so on.

Marines were limited. Thier small arms were not.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 479

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/12/2008 1:13:20 PM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison
1. Will late war US Marine divisions include the Marine armour or will it be separate as a Tank Bn?

Each USMC Division includes a tank battalion. The tank battalions are first formed with 72 light tanks (a mix of M2A4s and M3 Stuarts), then a combination of Stuarts and M4 Shermans, and eventually upgrade to 46 Sherman medium tanks.

A separate medium tank battalion makes an appearance, but is later disbanded (the tanks were used to upgrade the divisional tank battalions).

US Army divisions do not have armor in their TO&E until the Summer, 1945 upgrade to prepare for the invasion of Japan. Then each infantry division gains 54 tanks, evenly split between M26 Pershings, and M4 Shermans (105mm Close Support).

The US Army also gets a couple of battalions of flamethrower tanks. [Only tanks with main-gun flamethrowers were counted. The field-modded tanks that sported a very short-range F/T in place of a bow machinegun were not very effective. They are included, but only as 'standard' tanks of their type.]

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Chad Harrison)

Post #: 480