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: British Unit with low Exp

 
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: British Unit with low Exp Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 12:41:59 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Most of those Divison EUBanana is referring to are the county coastal Divs or training Divs etc etc actually the British more than most of the other armies tried to keep fighting Divs up to strength.

Even going as far as cannibalising veteran Divs to keep others up to strength one of the few things the British were good at - more so than any other army a British Div after mid 42 tended to be at full strength and reserves were found to keep it at full strength - I think they actually landed Divisons over strength with a replacement draft landing alongside the invasion forces to enable assault Divs to keep goimg at full strength.

I think but dont know that the US did the same - The germans kept reducing the strength of their Divs to the stage where a Wehrmacht Div was about the size and support of a US RCT or a British Bde Gp in strenght

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 31
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 12:48:11 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
At Normandy, the US Divisions landed their rifle platoons at >100% strength.  Not sure about the other unit types though.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 32
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 1:03:22 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
The US had replacement training units and did what they could to keep divisions at full strength.  There were times when units got depleted though.  During the Ardennes, few units, if any were at full strength after the first few days of fighting.  During island campaigns in the Pacific units would usually get pretty depleted and would have to be withdrawn to rebuild after the island was taken.

The British had similar problems under the same circumstances.  By early 1945 they were dissolving units to feed into front line units as replacements.  By that point, they had exhausted almost the entire population pool of fit young men.

Bill


_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 33
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 1:08:33 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
My Dad was an MP in the ETO.  During the Battle of the Bulge, most combat support units had to give up ~10% of their strength to provide infantry replacements.  The CO "selected" the volunteers (the troublemakers) and my Dad said he never saw them again.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 34
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 1:45:22 AM   
Johan_Banér

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 1/21/2007
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Check out the World War 1 versions, they managed about double!

http://www.uboat.net/wwi/boats/most_successful.html

226 ships for the most successful!

That's the U-boats, the WW1 skippers are here
The reason why the WW1 U-boot commanders sank more ships then their brethren twenty years later is because in WW2 the British introduced the convoy system from the start. In the great war it took the British well into 1917 to institute it, when they did the merchant losses dropped drastically. Reason why it took so long? The convoy system was thought by the admiralty to be a defensive measure.

Makes me wonder how many WitP players use a proper convoy system of 20+ merchants escorted by 5+ PC/PG/DE/DD/SC/PB/E. The thinking isn't that the escorts are there to protect the merchants, instead the merchants are bait for the vile subs to make it easier to find them buggers

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 35
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 1:53:48 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Johan_Banér
Makes me wonder how many WitP players use a proper convoy system of 20+ merchants escorted by 5+ PC/PG/DE/DD/SC/PB/E. The thinking isn't that the escorts are there to protect the merchants, instead the merchants are bait for the vile subs to make it easier to find them buggers


Not me, just not enough escorts. Its usually 5-15 merchants and 1 or 2 DDs or PGs at the moment... high value stuff might get a CL and a few more ASW. From what I see of my erstwhile opponent's convoys it looks rather similar over there...

Funnily enough me putting old CLs in some convoys saved my bacon once. You never know when enemy AMCs might show up.

_____________________________


(in reply to Johan_Banér)
Post #: 36
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 2:00:07 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

My Dad was an MP in the ETO.  During the Battle of the Bulge, most combat support units had to give up ~10% of their strength to provide infantry replacements.  The CO "selected" the volunteers (the troublemakers) and my Dad said he never saw them again.


Eisenhower also drew some flak for sending in black replacements during the Ardennes. When the crisis was over, many of those soldiers were treated unfairly. A good number were sent back to their original non-combat units without so much as a thank you. Many never got their infantry combat badges and those who did were sometimes arrested under the assumption they must have stolen it.

It did open the door for the eventual integration of the military after the war.

My father disliked the MPs. He was never in trouble, he's the sort who always flew way below the radar, but he said he ran into many who thought they were some kind of tin pot dictator. I've seen the same from civilian police too, so not much has changed.

There's one cop who lives down the hill from me who likes to sit in his own driveway and pull over people to harass them. He doesn't give out tickets (Washington has a speed trap law which prevents cops from setting up in the same location all the time), but he does like to scare the heck out of people.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 37
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 2:34:19 AM   
Chickenboy


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: latosusi

RN submarine captains were best in the world. (And still probably are)






I wonder if 'American submarine captains were best in the world (And still probably are) would also earn a ...

Yes, EUBanana, it would merit the same emoticon. Any blanket commentary exonerating the superlatives of one's countrymen at the expense of all other comers merits such a response.

I doubt you could give me a reasoned argument how RN submarine captains were inherently superior to all Dutch, Japanese, American, German, Italian and other navies that used submarines in WWII. That is my point.

Wanna argue tonnage sunk per SS lost? Where do you think the RN subs come out there? I'll give you a hint: not number one.

Now, I'll hear your arguments about why their skills should be higher in game terms (e.g., skills of 75-80 or so versus below 60 for aggression, leadership, whatnot), but ex nae on the anfaeoybae, eh?

_____________________________


(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 38
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 2:53:20 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
Bill, my Dad was the most peaceful, kind person you'd ever want to know.  He wasn't the typical MP.  His unit was a POW processing unit, not the typical MP most people (including me) think of.

And no, I didn't take offense to the comment.  I agree with you.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 39
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 3:53:16 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

My father disliked the MPs. He was never in trouble, he's the sort who always flew way below the radar, but he said he ran into many who thought they were some kind of tin pot dictator. I've seen the same from civilian police too, so not much has changed.


A few months ago near where I live a police car tried to pull around me to the right (and accelerating) as I was turning right into a parking space (it was a mall parking lot and he was obviously on the move looking for someone). He obviously thought I was going left toward some other spots and wanted to get around me quickly. He stopped before any collision (as did I since I saw him) - then he pulled up beside me and apologized!






Attachment (1)

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 40
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 8:39:47 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
IMHO, In AE, the devs hit the Commonwealth twice by giving the LCU low ratings ( acceptable given the low levels of training in the Indian Army at 12/41) THEN giving their leaders low ratings.

Maybe Heath would have done better if his troops were better, if Percival had been replaced by a more competent land commander, if, if, if.

But Heath gets 32 skill & 19 Inspiration, Wainwright 47/38

Percival is also treated harshly by the devs, only in command about 5 months, he found his Indian units drained of trained manpower and most reinforcements had barely past basic training, his Air Force was not well led and armed with obsolete weapons. The penalty for being a backwater. He wasnt a superstar, but far from a cripple rating  35/25.

At least some stars have been rated with some thought, Morshead is 81/78, Slim 68?? / 72, Messervy  64/68



_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 41
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 9:35:20 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
I doubt you could give me a reasoned argument how RN submarine captains were inherently superior to all Dutch, Japanese, American, German, Italian and other navies that used submarines in WWII. That is my point.


I never said they were.

quote:


Now, I'll hear your arguments about why their skills should be higher in game terms (e.g., skills of 75-80 or so versus below 60 for aggression, leadership, whatnot), but ex nae on the anfaeoybae, eh?


It's not fanboyism to note that RN submarine commanders have a blanket stat of 60 and want something done about that. And that RN admirals in general suck, and that I don't see much historical basis for a lot of that suck.

I think it's kinda sad you think it is fanboyism.

And I think the subs aren't even the best example.

Victor Crutchley in game has leadership 31, inspiration 37, naval skill 52 and aggression 44 (!!!). I know why - because all people thought of when statting him up was Savo Island with the PacWar blinkers on. But this is a man who captained the most successful British battleship of all time, and drove that battleship up a fjord while under fire to tangle with some DDs. Lets just leave his contentious competence out of it for a second for fears of fanboy accusations - aggression 44? No. Simply - no. The logic behind those stats was clearly "He lost Savo Island, lets make him suck".

There is simply no justification for those dire stats, none at all. He did have a bad fight but that doesn't mean he sucked golf balls through a garden hose.

Admiral Kimmel had rather bad fight himself but his stats are in the sixties.

< Message edited by EUBanana -- 11/18/2009 9:43:25 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 42
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 9:42:58 AM   
cantona2


Posts: 3749
Joined: 5/21/2007
From: Gibraltar
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I did read something the other day about how Churchill got flak from Roosevelt because there were 30 British divisions sitting in the UK for pretty much the whole war, FDR and the US commanders wanted to know why they weren't in Africa contributing, and thought Churchill was either holding out on them or overly paranoid about invasion threats.

The answer was they were ill trained and ill equipped, paper divisions, of almost no military value. And this persisted almost the entire war. The number of Brit divisions fit for purpose was a pretty small fraction of the total.

...So then imagine what the low priority Indian military was like... Churchill didn't care about Japan at all really, he was very Europe focused.



How many divisions did the British field in Europe and Africa? I didnt know there were so many!

edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_Divisions_in_World_War_II

Just found this link. I would assume a lot of the division in the UK were of low quality TA and HG soldiers. The regulars would have been sent overseas.


< Message edited by cantona2 -- 11/18/2009 9:45:36 AM >


_____________________________

1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born


(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 43
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 9:47:30 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2
How mamy divisions did the British field in Europe and Africa? I didnt know there were so many!


Neither did I, thats why I was surprised and remembered it. But as Andy says, they weren't fighting units, it was home defence, training and such.

The book was 'Churchill at War' or something like that, it was focused on the political rather than the military, I found it quite a good read. Never really knew much about the civilian government in WW2. I didnt even know who the Chancellor of the Exchequer was at the time, or even thought about it, till I read that.

Anyway, the number of troops held in the UK was apparently a contentious political point among the Allies in 1942. I'm not saying there were really 30 fighting divisions available, there weren't, it was just a spat between politicians.

_____________________________


(in reply to cantona2)
Post #: 44
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 10:14:33 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

Having said all that the Indian Army had exhausted this manpower pool by mid 41 during the expansion



I agree with the rest but I dont see 1000+ Divisions . Maybe exhausted the best.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 45
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 12:22:11 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Thats what I am saying the traditonal Indian martial pool had been strained to its limit by 41 they had to look outside of the traditional martial races for the further expansion.

Its why the achievement of the Indian Army is so special it was all volounteer mostly civilian soldier army regiments were recruited from areas that hadnt been recruited from for decades.

Andy

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 46
Quit India movement - 11/18/2009 1:56:15 PM   
wpurdom

 

Posts: 476
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:
quote:

The deal Gandhi struck with the British in 1942 is what turned the whole situation around. The atrocities in Burma also helped convince quite a few Indians that if they had to side with somebody, the British were better than the Japanese. Hence the Indian army starts out awful, but it gets better.


Huh?

This seems to have things backwards. The only 1942 "deal" was the unsuccessful Cripps mission. Ghandi refused the deal with the Brits and ordered a national strike. The Brits surprised the Congress leadership by rounding them up, clapping them in jail, and working with the anti-Congress politicians, including the Muslim League, making the partition of India inevitable. Here's what Wikipedia says:

quote:

Cripps spent much of his time in encouraging Congress leaders and Jinnah to come to a common, public arrangement in support of the war and government; however, the Congress leaders felt that whatever Cripps might say, his political masters were not interested in granting the complete Indianisation of the Viceroy's Executive Council, its conversion into a Cabinet with collective responsibility, or Indian control over Defence in wartime. They were also suspicious of an opt-out clause which Amery was rumoured to have offered the Muslim League in any putative Dominion arrangement. There was too little trust between the British and Congress by this stage, and both sides felt that the other was concealing its true plans.

The Congress stopped talks with Cripps and, guided by Mohandas Gandhi, the national leadership demanded immediate self-government in return for war support. When the British remained unresponsive, Gandhi and the Congress began planning a major public revolt, the Quit India movement, which demanded immediate British withdrawal from India. As the Imperial Japanese Army advanced closer to India with the conquest of Burma, Indians perceived an inability upon the part of the British to defend Indian soil. This period concurred with the rise of the Indian National Army, led by Subhas Chandra Bose. The British response to the Quit India movement was to throw most of the Congress leadership in jail.


< Message edited by wpurdom -- 11/18/2009 1:57:40 PM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 47
Never mind - 11/18/2009 2:38:22 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Whoops! quoted the wrong post.

< Message edited by crsutton -- 11/18/2009 2:47:01 PM >


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Johan_Banér)
Post #: 48
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 2:47:04 PM   
crsutton


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

I would agree that some Indian units were quite green, since the best were fighting elswhere. But the few British forces available were decently trained as far as I know.

What really pisses me off is the state of the armoured forces in India. They are grossly understrength and amateurs at best. Was this real or just a game thingy?



Real.

For those interested in the subject, I highly recommend reading "Forgotten Armies, The Fall of British Asia 1941-45" by Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper. In truth, the state of the British and Indian army could not have been worse in 1942 for many reasons. The experienced British troops quickly shipped over from the Middle East performed poorly due to lack of any sort of jungle training, and as Alan Brooke commented, the British army had not recovered from the WWI gap. (The loss of a whole generation of young officers who would just now be reaching the rank of colonel and brigadier). There were experineced men, but most of the troops in Asia at the start were not the best.

The Indian army presented a facinating picture. The most amazing thing is that the Indian army fought at all. By 1941 Most Indians were thouroughly "sick" of the British. The most respected Indian leaders (Gandhi, Nehru) were in prison along with about 30,000 other members of the Indian Congress party. After the miserable show of the British in Malaya and Burma, thousands of Indians were flocking to the Indian National Army (to fight the British). In India proper in 1942 there was open rebellion, riots and numerous acts of sabatoge and mutiny. And, due to the bungling of the govenment, a famine was starting in Bengal that was to last well into 1943 and cause millions of Indians to starve to death. The Indian army was treated as inferior, short of decent officers and full of the racial and ethnic discontent.

When one looks at the state of things, it is amazing that the British maintained control and eventually built the Indian army up to the best army in Asia and was able to employ over 2 million Indian soldiers in the drive to reposses their colonial possessions.


There is also the small fact that the Indians fought with the British because they were promised their independence after the war was over.



Yes, but the fact that the British were clear in their intent to retake their colonial possessions in Burma and Malaya led many Indians to mistrust any promises made about India, and to very ambigious feeling among both the Indian and British lower ranks about the real purpose of the fighting that they were doing in that theater. A lot of British citizens were "sick' of Empire as well.



_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 49
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 2:49:03 PM   
Rising-Sun


Posts: 2082
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dobey

Actually having a quick look through the OOB, the British units that come into theatre later don't look too bad to me. An example is the 2nd Tank Reg at 75Experience, 75 Morale.
I think you might have been looking at an Indian army unit.

Overall I think unit experiences are a lot better now. In original WITP I noticed that even most of the US National guard units started the war on Dec 7th with higher morale and experience than most Japanese forces or other allied troops (Something like 65\70 from memeory).

In relation to commanders I do agree that overall, non-US commanders (particularly naval) do tend to range from mediocre to down right awful. I doubt there is any national bias intended, most probably it was just assumed that because most ships bigger than a cruiser are US therefore most TF's will be lead by US ships so other commanders perhaps didn't get the same level of attention to detail.


Highest i seen under Yamashita's command is 75/85 out of 100, that really good.

(in reply to Dobey455)
Post #: 50
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 3:16:37 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

... I don't see much historical basis for a lot of that suck.


First time I've seen 'suck' used as a noun, and well done too!

I think you've made very good points with the examples you've given. I presume it's more ignorance in the form of lack of information and lack of time/manpower to get that information on the part of the AE team. Hopefully the examples you've cited will cause them to reconsider some of those ratings for a patch.

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 51
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 3:44:31 PM   
Chickenboy


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
I doubt you could give me a reasoned argument how RN submarine captains were inherently superior to all Dutch, Japanese, American, German, Italian and other navies that used submarines in WWII. That is my point.


I never said they were.

quote:


Now, I'll hear your arguments about why their skills should be higher in game terms (e.g., skills of 75-80 or so versus below 60 for aggression, leadership, whatnot), but ex nae on the anfaeoybae, eh?


It's not fanboyism to note that RN submarine commanders have a blanket stat of 60 and want something done about that. And that RN admirals in general suck, and that I don't see much historical basis for a lot of that suck.

I think it's kinda sad you think it is fanboyism.

And I think the subs aren't even the best example.

Victor Crutchley in game has leadership 31, inspiration 37, naval skill 52 and aggression 44 (!!!). I know why - because all people thought of when statting him up was Savo Island with the PacWar blinkers on. But this is a man who captained the most successful British battleship of all time, and drove that battleship up a fjord while under fire to tangle with some DDs. Lets just leave his contentious competence out of it for a second for fears of fanboy accusations - aggression 44? No. Simply - no. The logic behind those stats was clearly "He lost Savo Island, lets make him suck".

There is simply no justification for those dire stats, none at all. He did have a bad fight but that doesn't mean he sucked golf balls through a garden hose.

Admiral Kimmel had rather bad fight himself but his stats are in the sixties.

EUBanana,

I think I've addressed your question re: the use of emoticons in my original response.

If one (not you, of course) reverts to tacit fanboyism, then I'm going to call them on it. PP that posited that RN submarine commanders were the best in WWII and still are without providing additional references or arguments for same deserve to be questioned. If one (not you, of course) backs these nonsensical fanboy arguments then, by extension, you are yielding to fanboyism. I don't really care if you think my logical approach here is sad or not, mate.

You've got a point re: the low skills of a number of UK forces, be it naval or otherwise. But it's a far logical cry from saying that low in game skills should be adjusted upwards (reasonable, pending evidence) to stating that UK sub commanders are and have been the best in the world.

For USN submarines, I'd kill for blanket early war skills of 60 for my commanders. There are absolute dregs out there and, as PP have indicated, some halfway decent ones. I'd support a similar distribution of skills (or lack thereof) for RN submarine skippers, akin to what the USN is experiencing before the heavy weed out. Prove that of the hundreds of RN subs that there weren't a few dregs that bring down the average that need to be replaced with PPs.

Maybe the RN sub captains average skills could be slightly higher than average USN sub captains, but only just. There were well described problems with a seemingly large number of early war USN sub captains vis a vis their timidity and prosecution of targets. I don't recall hearing of these problems in other navies sub branches, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist.

_____________________________


(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 52
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 3:57:01 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Being at war for a longer time already I presume that most of the weaker RN sub commanders had been weeded out already.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 53
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 3:57:10 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
RN Subs actually were pretty aggressive mostly there impact was from Maltese bases.

Re Heath/Percival AND Malayan units low xp being double counting - I disagree

Percival and Heath are both better rated than stock and I did look at them both carefully the biggest single reason for the low ratings was

1. lack of flexibility and under estimation of their foe - I really thought about reducing wavell for the same reason - they were both quite contemptuos of the Japanese
2. inability for a Corps and Army commander to get along and act professionally - they were both in theatre for a reasonable amount of time and neither did what they should have.

So both of those ratings are deliberate as are the ratings of the allied forces in theatre a lot of whom were defacto untrained.

Andy

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 54
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 4:00:10 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Another example of folks not able to get on was Smyth (17th Indian Div) and Hutton - Hutton insisted on forward deployment 9at the urging of Wavell) and got the Div shredded.

Ratings are to some extent going to be situational

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 55
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 4:24:54 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
You've got a point re: the low skills of a number of UK forces, be it naval or otherwise. But it's a far logical cry from saying that low in game skills should be adjusted upwards (reasonable, pending evidence) to stating that UK sub commanders are and have been the best in the world.

For USN submarines, I'd kill for blanket early war skills of 60 for my commanders. There are absolute dregs out there and, as PP have indicated, some halfway decent ones. I'd support a similar distribution of skills (or lack thereof) for RN submarine skippers, akin to what the USN is experiencing before the heavy weed out. Prove that of the hundreds of RN subs that there weren't a few dregs that bring down the average that need to be replaced with PPs.


There aren't many British subs around but the T class do have 10 torpedo tubes on the nose with torpedoes that work in them, so I'd like to put aggressive bordering on psychopathic captains in them, for the same reason Mush Morton currently commands S-41 in my game right now - it is one of the few Allied weapon systems in 1941 that works, and you want to put someone in charge of it who is going to use it. I'm sure such commanders existed in the RN, Truant is the first British sub you get and Truant had quite a distinguished career for an Allied submarine.

The Dutch submarine captains have absolutely awful abilities by default, I was wondering why the usual Dutch slaughter in WITP wasn't replicated in AE, and soon found out when I started peeking at commanders. However they do have a few more aggressive captains you can pick, at least.

And I think Commonwealth commanders at sea do matter in game, it's not like they are wholly peripheral. The Royal Navy has quite a hefty force of surface warships in 1942. Assuming Pearl Harbor gets trashed and the USN BBs with it, the RN presence is important, even more so given players are often happy to send em into the South Pacific. And the Aussie/NZ navy of course is usually heavily involved.

We're getting a bit hung up on subs. But my thoughts on this came about when I sat down to do a serious bit of PP expenditure ensuring my ships were competently run, and then finding out that the old officer corps was rather lacking... Seems harsh. I actually looked into Victor Crutchley because I never heard of him and was wondering what disaster this muppet was responsible for.

_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 56
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 4:30:26 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

2. inability for a Corps and Army commander to get along and act professionally - they were both in theatre for a reasonable amount of time and neither did what they should have.


This is a big deal. Good call.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 57
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 5:00:41 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
they were both quite contemptuos of the Japanese


You'd have to reduce a lot of Allied commanders for that.

(not that I mind the dire stats of the army though)

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 58
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 5:06:23 PM   
vinnie71

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
The pool of martial races wasn't really dried up. What dried up was the enthusiasm of Indians (in general) to volunteer for the army. Between the wars, belonging to the army meant having a particular standing in the country, but once war came about, it became a death ticket. Remember that even in WWI, Indian formation were shredded on the Western Front and defeated by the Turks in Iraq as well, and yet the army moved on. The problem in WWII was that Indian formations were cut to ribbons in the desert when they started facing the Afrika Korps, something which filtered back home. this plus discontent with the colonial regime (mostly among Hindus rather than the muslims) led to a deterioration of morale.

One other basic factor that increased the deterioration of Indian units was that there were too few British officers who could actually lead Indian units. remember that these had to be acclimatised, know the variuos languages and customs of their soldiers. There were too few of them even before the war and once the war began, only the dregs of the barrel remained.It was not possible to train another pool of such officer in a short time. Nor was it possible to train Indian officers in their stead rapidly. It is no exaggeration to say that the lack of British officers really crippled the Indian army. This was mainly due to the system which the British themselves instituted in the army where even companies within the same battalion were made up of Indians coming from different states or tribes. Basically the British officer corps were sort of umpires within the army and therefore their loss was more hard felt than the loss of a comparible army officer in any other army. 

It should be noted that the Indian army in general performed much better when defending home soil. Ex they were ready to stick it out in Imphal and Kohima when Slim promised them airborne supplies, even though they were surrounded. A similar situation in Malaya or Burma would have resulted in the wholesale surrunder of Indian units. 

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 59
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/18/2009 5:29:02 PM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The US had replacement training units and did what they could to keep divisions at full strength.  There were times when units got depleted though.  During the Ardennes, few units, if any were at full strength after the first few days of fighting.  During island campaigns in the Pacific units would usually get pretty depleted and would have to be withdrawn to rebuild after the island was taken.

The British had similar problems under the same circumstances.  By early 1945 they were dissolving units to feed into front line units as replacements.  By that point, they had exhausted almost the entire population pool of fit young men.

Bill



Bill, Anthony Beevor even argues that being out of soldier material affected the British strategy in the Normandy Campaign.... Ofcourse the germans had the "advantage" of "enjoying" a fascist regime. They just ordered 12 year olds to pick up rifles.

< Message edited by Cannonfodder -- 11/18/2009 5:34:37 PM >


_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: British Unit with low Exp Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.359