IJN SNLF and US Marine

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

IJN SNLF and US Marine

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> IJN SNLF and US Marine

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

IJN SNLF and US Marine - 4/10/2003 10:47:26 AM

Full Moon

Posts: 201
Joined: 1/25/2003
From: Texas
Status: offline

As I know IJN SNLF is Japanese equivalnet of US Marine. But at the same time it seems they are much different. Can anybody tell me how they are similiar and how they are different?

_____________________________

"War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory."
Georges Clemenceau

Post #: 1

- 4/10/2003 11:20:28 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

The United States Marine Corps is the World's Finest Fighting Force.

Everyone else is just wannabes.

I think the Special Naval Landing Forces were sailors who were given rudimentary combat training and used as an extension of the IJN. Dont know much about them, though.

They were typically smaller formations (around 5000 men, If I recall), where the USMC would be (by Army standards) slightly oversized divisions.

US Marines are considered Elite troops.

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Full Moon)

Post #: 2

SNLF - 4/10/2003 12:12:45 PM

JohnK

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline

Jim Dunnigan gives an excellent outline of the SNLF vs. US Marines in his "Victory at Sea" (which is a great reference for the Pacific War derived from the research for what turned out to be a crappy disaster of a computer wargame.)

As noted, there's basically nothing elite about the SNLF. Generally not as good as Japanese Army troops.

Just sailors with guns. They seem accurately rated in UV.

(in reply to Full Moon)

Post #: 3

Re: SNLF - 4/10/2003 11:44:21 PM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnK
[B]Jim Dunnigan gives an excellent outline of the SNLF vs. US Marines in his "Victory at Sea" (which is a great reference for the Pacific War derived from the research for what turned out to be a crappy disaster of a computer wargame.)

As noted, there's basically nothing elite about the SNLF. Generally not as good as Japanese Army troops.

Just sailors with guns. They seem accurately rated in UV. [/B][/QUOTE]

Agreed. Dunnigan is a very good source. But so is Al Nofti.

_____________________________

�It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.�

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Full Moon)

Post #: 4

Hmmm... - 4/11/2003 1:54:52 AM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

As far as I recall the Japanese were pioneers in naval invasion and their troops were first to be trained and first to do it in modern history...

Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to Full Moon)

Post #: 5

- 4/11/2003 3:52:41 AM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

I'm not sure I'd call them "pioneers in naval invasion", in the NICE sense.

I suppose you could call the guy that strapped a pair of boards to his arms, and flapped widly as he jumped off a cliff an "aviation pioneer" also. But neither the aforementioned chap or the Japanese would actually be considered as very successfull as pioneers.

Ok. So the Japanse weren't -that- UNsuccessful, but I don't think they exhibited anything all that remarkable. 1st invastion of Wake Island was driven into the sea. The invasions of the Phillipines and the Malay Penensula was albeit successful, however, they were largely unopposed. But the LOCATION of the invasions were good; however, I'd classify that as better STRATEGY than any sort of skill in the actual invasion.

As stated the SLNF were were sailors with guns, and Japanese Army guys were usually better trained.

My comments are really only meant for their (mild) humor value; please to not take as a personal attack. But aside from all of it, the SNLF couln't hold a candle to the US Marines (and I'm not just saying that to be boistrous).

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Full Moon)

Post #: 6

SNLF might be Elite... - 4/11/2003 4:24:22 AM

wesy

Posts: 224
Joined: 2/10/2002
From: Berkeley, CA
Status: offline

http://www.star-games.com/exhibits/snlf/snlf.html

Can't say for sure, but it seems that the definition of SNLF may have been generalized for a number of units. Can't verify how good this source is, but the level of detail is pretty good.

(in reply to Full Moon)

Post #: 7

- 4/11/2003 4:35:31 AM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

Very interesting link Wesy. The stuff I've read is probably more in reference to the Naval "conscript" sort of guys.

Good read. Thanks!
-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Full Moon)

Post #: 8

Malaya... - 4/11/2003 4:39:11 AM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Feinder
[B]I'm not sure I'd call them "pioneers in naval invasion", in the NICE sense.

I suppose you could call the guy that strapped a pair of boards to his arms, and flapped widly as he jumped off a cliff an "aviation pioneer" also. But neither the aforementioned chap or the Japanese would actually be considered as very successfull as pioneers.

Ok. So the Japanse weren't -that- UNsuccessful, but I don't think they exhibited anything all that remarkable. 1st invastion of Wake Island was driven into the sea. The invasions of the Phillipines and the Malay Penensula was albeit successful, however, they were largely unopposed. But the LOCATION of the invasions were good; however, I'd classify that as better STRATEGY than any sort of skill in the actual invasion.

As stated the SLNF were were sailors with guns, and Japanese Army guys were usually better trained.

My comments are really only meant for their (mild) humor value; please to not take as a personal attack. But aside from all of it, the SNLF couln't hold a candle to the US Marines (and I'm not just saying that to be boistrous).

-F- [/B][/QUOTE]

When I wrote "pioneers" I meant that Japanese first created such force and
were first to use it (for amphibious assault) in modern times.

It's true that they didn't have specialized landing craft that Allies developed later
in war but this nonetheless doesn't mean that they didn't test the principle (and
it was successful).

Also Malaya was great victory against much stronger opponent.

It was the one and only "Blitzkrieg" in Pacific (yes - they used bicycles instead
of tanks but it doesn't matter)...

Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to Full Moon)

Post #: 9

- 4/11/2003 5:59:49 AM

juliet7bravo

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline

http://www.info-indo.com/history/eastindies08.htm

(in reply to Full Moon)

Post #: 10

- 4/15/2003 11:33:08 AM

crsutton

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

I think the prime reason for the SNLF forces was the lack of cooperation between IJN and Army forces. Neither arm could truly count on the other for cooperation and support when needed. Better to have your own naval infantry than to rely on army support that may or may not happen.

Although American interservice rivalries were and still are a serious handicap, the Japanese took it to a much higher level and suffered severly as a result.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Full Moon)

Post #: 11

Jap Marines - 4/24/2003 1:33:09 PM

stubby331

Posts: 268
Joined: 10/24/2001
From: Perth, Western Australia
Status: offline

Hi Leo,

Don�t know much about the SNLF, except it was they who tried to take Milne Bay and lost. From the accounts I have read from Milne bay they were tough buggers but seemed to me to be too keen to rush headlong into a frontal attack against dug in Vickers HMG (WW1 style) rather than seeking out and trying to exploit any tactical advantage that may or may not have been there.

Regards Malaya, as you would know, that campaign has been much discussed many times within this forum which made me all the more surprised at your comments.

The numbers of combat forces involved were more or less equal.

The Japanese however did have lots of tanks, crap models, but plenty good enough when the Commonwealth forces had none (though some were taken out by 2 pounder anti-tank guns and 25 pounders over open sights) .

An example (if you need one) is the 2/29th�s stand at Bakri where they dug in with a detachment of two Australian 2-pounder anti-tank guns. The Japs assaulted them in a combined armour/infantry assault and the 2 pounders took out 8 tanks which had penetrated the battalion area.

The 2/29th held fast even after being bypassed by the japs and suffered 50% casualties when it finally did withdraw through the jungle leaving behind all its heavy equipment.

(in reply to Full Moon)

Post #: 12