Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units

 
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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/3/2005 5:01:49 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline 		Several Forum members are combining their efforts to produce a new scenario for War In the Pacific. This will be a full war scenario, based on the standard Scenario 15, with a possible extension into 1946. Attention will be paid to historical accuracy and detail. It has previously been referred to as “Ron Saueracker/Tankerace/Don Bowen's Mod“.

The scenario will be based on two “released” modified scenarios (Lemurs, Andrew Brown) and several others that have been completed for earlier WITP versions. It will feature a new map (Andrew Brown), tons of new artwork, many new ship classes and aircraft types, expanded Orders of Battle, and adjusted land unit Table of Organizations. We hope to merge the best of everyone’s work to produce an accurate and playable scenario.

A number of threads are being opened to group comments in different areas (devices, aircraft, artwork, etc). Please post in the most applicable one.

Please post comments on Land Unit Composition (TOE) in this thread.
Post #: 1
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/3/2005 6:39:28 PM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline 		The first job for land OOB is the Japanese army artillery.
As the historical scenario was written it is wildly innaccurate.
I have done some patching in my Lemurs mod, but it needs whole sale rework.

What i propose is that a couple of us strip the OOB from the standard scenario and seperate out the independent artillery and the divisions and check totals and see how we stand.

Does anyone out there have good knowledge of the subject? I have quite a bit of knowledge and sources but they are not perfect and a second person to brainstorm with would help.

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 2
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/3/2005 11:38:04 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		I have tried to look on the net for any info about Japanese Army OOB's and TO&E, but can find nothing but books for sale.

I can find alot about German and American though.

I have been wondering why the Japanese only have 12 203mm howitzers in their entire arsenal. I think that is the number of guns over in Manchuria.

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 3
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/3/2005 11:51:21 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		You wanted numbers of artillery pieces in Japanese Div, how about for every unit on
Dec 7, 1941.

http://www.orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/014_japan/__ighq.htm

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 4
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/4/2005 12:06:08 AM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline 		Already PMed you, have that site but it does not have everything.

I know there were other heavy artillery units in the Japanese army.

Don is sending me some stuff hopefully.

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 5
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/4/2005 1:29:29 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		For the triangle divisions, there are 18 70mm infantry guns.

2 per batt, 3 batt per reg, 3 reg per div.

Triangle divisions: each has 3 regiments. also has a armor cav unit

18 70mm infantry guns
48 75mm field guns (36 in the div art and 12 more in the Reg's)
12 105mm howizters
18 37mm AT guns
72 MMG
216 LMG
33 light tanks

Square divisions: each has 2 brigades of 2 regiments. also has horse cav unit

24 70mm infantry guns
48 75mm field guns
16 105mm howitzers
30 37mm AT guns
102 MMG
288 LMG

**NOTE** These are rough numbers from counting everything on the site and adding it up. My count seems to differ from the counts below, but I guess when he did the OOB of a division, he averaged them out some.

< Message edited by 2ndACR -- 1/3/2005 5:50:26 PM >

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 6
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/4/2005 4:25:42 AM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline 		I came up with the same numbers but they completely contradict what Matrix gave us.

I like the numbers from that site but it will DRASTICALLY lower Japanese combat capability.

One of the problems with a staright odds combat system is it has a hard time representing unusual conditions.
As an example the Hong Kong defences outnumbered and outgunned the attacking force, yet surrendered in 2.5 weeks and caused very few casualties.

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 7
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/4/2005 4:26:45 AM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline 		And we do not have a number for medium mortars.
I actually have a number for 45mm and 50mm mortars but i do not have a number for 81mm & 90mm.

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 8
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/4/2005 4:29:54 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		I have not found anything for mortars yet.

I place the number of squads for a square division as 576 infantry squads. I was working up a complete TO&E for each type of division going off his Nordiesters numbers.

Once I complete the numbers, I was going to compare them to the official division and see where we stand then.

Also, I am having a hard time figuring out the number of engineer squads. 900 men in the internal engineer battalion. If I use the 12 man squad, that is alot of engineers.

< Message edited by 2ndACR -- 1/3/2005 8:31:07 PM >

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 9
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/4/2005 7:34:49 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline 		some sites that might help:

http://maisov.oops.jp/e/main02.htm

http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/

_____________________________


(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 10
OOB for US ETO Reinforcements - 1/4/2005 10:25:38 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline 		Listed below are the 16 US Divisions and 5 HQs from Europe that would have participated in the planned invasion of Japan if the war had continued. With one exception, these units were to be part of Operation Coronet, the March 1946 invasion of the Tokyo Plain.

Each row contains the following information:
Division . . . # days in combat in Europe / battle casualties . . . proposed experience/morale rating . . . month unit actually arrived in US from Europe – proposed date unit would be available for deployment from San Francisco . . . name of division commander.


Unit . . . . .Days/ Losses . . . . Exp/Mor . . .To US/ to PTO. . . .Commander

2nd . . . . . 303/ 15,000 . . . . .85/65 . . . . .7/45 --10/45. . . . .MG Almond, E.M.
4th . . . . . .299/ 22,000 . . . . .85/60 . . . . .7/45 – 10/45 . . . . MG Hays, G.P.
5th . . . . . .270/ 12,000 . . . . .80/65 . . . . .7/45 – 10/45 . . . . MG Brown, A.E.
8th . . . . . .266/ 13,000 . . . . .80/65 . . . . .7/45 – 10/45 . . . . MG Miley, W.M.
28th . . . . .196/ 16,000 . . . . .80/65 . . . . . 8/45 – 11/45 . . . .MG Cota, N.D.
35th . . . . .264/ 15,000 . . . . .80/65 . . . . . 9/45 – 12/45 . . . .MG Baade, P.W.
42nd . . . . 106/ 3,000. . . . . . 75/75 . . . . . never -10/45 . . . .MG Collins, H.J.
44th . . . . .230/ 10,000 . . . . .80/70 . . . . . 7/45 – 10/45 . . . .MG Dean, W.F.
86th . . . . .34/ <1,000 . . . . . .65/80 . . . . . 6/45 – 8/45 . . . . MG Melasky, H.M.
87th . . . . .134/ 5,000 . . . . . .75/70 . . . . . 7/45 – 10/45 . . . .MG Culin, F.L.
91st . . . . .200+/unknown . . .80/70 . . . . . . 9/45 – 12/45 . . . MG Livesay, W.G.
95th . . . . .151/ 6,000 . . . . . .75/70 . . . . . .6/45 – 9/45 . . . . MG Twaddle, H.L.
97th* . . . .31/ <1,000 . . . . . .65/80 . . . . . .6/45 – 9/45 . . . . MG Halsey, M.B.
104th . . . .178/ 7,000 . . . . . . 75/70 . . . . . .6/45 – 9/45 . . . . MG Allen, T.
13Armor* .16/ <1,000 . . . . . . 60/80 . . . . . .7/45 – 10/45 . . . MG Millikin, J.
20Armor* . 8/ <1,000. . . . . . .60/80 . . . . . . 8/45 – 11/45 . . .MG Leonard, J.W.


Headquarters

III Corps* – LTG Van Fleet, J.A. arrive 10/45
V Corps – MG Huebner, C.R. arrive 11/45
VII Corps – LTG Collins, J.L. arrive 12/45
XVIII Corps – MG Ridgway, M arrive 12/45

First Army* – LTG Hodges, C.H. arrive 12/45

* = Unit already in Scenario 15 database (ver 1.3)


Bibliography:
1. For European Divisions assigned to the invasion of Japan:
“The Devil was in the Details”; D.M. Giangreco; JFQ June 1995 (magazine Article about Operation Downfall)

2. For dates that divisions arrived in the US from the ETO, and the names of their commanders:
Combat Chronicles of U.S. Army Divisions in World War II
U.S. Army Center for Military History web site giving brief history of Army divisions : an on-line compendium reproduced from The Army Almanac: A Book of Facts Concerning the Army of the United States, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1950, pp. 510-592.
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/lineage/cc/cc.htm

3. For days in combat and casualties suffered by divisions in Europe:
ORDER OF BATTLE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY WORLD WAR II EUROPEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS: DIVISIONS
OFFICE OF THE THEATER HISTORIAN: PARIS, FRANCE: December 1945
- - -

The next post contains my explanatory notes, suggestions for cleaning up the database, and recommendation to reduce the number of small units by attaching independent battalions to the late-arriving European Divisions.

< Message edited by Blackhorse -- 1/4/2005 8:36:29 AM >

_____________________________

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 Tanaka)
Post #: 11
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/4/2005 10:29:08 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline 		Notes:
The 91st Infantry division fought in Italy, and there is no official estimate of its casualties, or days in combat. It began fighting near Rome in June, 1944 and fought constantly in Italy until the Spring of 1945. It likely had well over 200 days of combat, and 10k casualties.

The 86th and the 97th Divisions actually did ship out from San Francisco to the Philippines on the dates indicated. Except for the 42nd Division, all other divisions are assumed to be available for deployment to the Pacific three months after their arrival in the US from Europe.

According to Giancreco, the 42nd Infantry Division – the division MacArthur commanded in WWI -- was the only European unit slated to participate in the November 1st Operation Olympic invasion. Oddly, the division never shipped from Europe to the States. It is hard to imagine how it could have arrived in the PTO in time and in shape to participate in Olympic. To allow at least the possibility, I have made it available in San Francisco on October 1st, 1945.

Experience and Morale: Experience is based on days in combat. Morale is inversely related to battle casualties. The US began rapidly demobilizing its European divisions well before Japan surrendered. Veteran soldiers were discharged first. There would have been severe morale problems if the US had refused to release veterans in the units earmarked for the Pacific, while others were sent home. But the army had little choice – the alternative was to release all the veterans and send green troops to the PTO for the invasion.

I have not attempted to rate the division or HQ commanders. The Army commander (Hodges), three of the corps commanders (Collins, Ridgway, Van Fleet) and one division commander (“Terrible Terry” Allen of the 104th) have historically been regarded as capable-to-excellent commanders.


Database Cleanup:

The US First Army HQ is already in the database (111). Change the commander to Hodges, and the arrival date to 451215.

The III Corps (159) starts (!) the game in San Francisco. Change the arrival date to 451015.

There are duplicate IX Corps in the database (160, 164). Remove 164.

Three of the European Divisions are in the database (13 Armor - 3250, 20 Armor - 3251, 97 Infantry – 3252) as 8/45 reinforcements. Change their arrival dates, and the names of their division commanders.


Proposed TO&E Adjustments for Divisions arriving from Europe.

The 16 Divisions arriving from Europe would have been augmented by the artillery, armor, tank destroyer, engineer and other support battalions of four corps and an army. By folding the corps and army support into each division’s TO&E as proposed below, we can limit the number of new units to twelve – 16 Divisions plus 5 HQs, minus 3 Divisions already in the database, minus 2 HQs already in the database, minus 4 redundant battalions eliminated from the database.

Attached Artillery and Engineer Battalions (All 16 Divisions)
450 155mm Howitzer +12
251 Engineers +27
252 Support +39

Attached One-half Tank Battalion (The 14 Infantry Divisions Only)
474 M4 Sherman 18
472 M24 Chafee 8
474 M4 Sherman CS 3
468 81mm Halftrack 5
253 Motor Support 33

(FYI, this represents the attachment of seven tank battalions: the 28th, 762nd and 766th, which fought in the PTO but are not in the database, the 779th and 785th which are listed as 8/45 reinforcements, the 812th which was in the US, and one additional battalion shipped over from Europe).

Attached Tank Destroyer Battalion (The 2 Armor Divisions Only)
477 M10 Tank Destroyer 36
471 M5 Stuart Light Tank 8
467 M3 Halftrack 33
253 Motor Support +69

(FYI, this represents the attachment of the 671st and 806th Tank Destroyer Battalions, which are in the database as 1945 reinforcements).

Along with the above changes, delete the following units from the database: the 779th and the 785th Tank Battalions, the 671st and 806th Tank Destroyer Battalions. (units 3247, 3248, 3229, 3249)

< Message edited by Blackhorse -- 1/4/2005 8:41:34 AM >

_____________________________

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 Blackhorse)
Post #: 12
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/4/2005 10:29:09 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline 		Wow. Great work Blackhorse!

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 13
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/4/2005 1:05:41 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Morale might conceivablybe lower for these units having been pulled from Europe to Pacific.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 14
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/4/2005 3:32:33 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline 		Excellent work indeed. I am a little concerned with the number of available HQ and Leaders. A quick check of Scenario 15 Leaders shows only 9 empty slots. Also 5 empty Allied HQ slots. We can probably garner a few more by duplication checks, but we just don't have enough space for wholesale additions.

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 15
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/4/2005 4:58:36 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Excellent work indeed. I am a little concerned with the number of available HQ and Leaders. A quick check of Scenario 15 Leaders shows only 9 empty slots. Also 5 empty Allied HQ slots. We can probably garner a few more by duplication checks, but we just don't have enough space for wholesale additions.


We could add a few submarine HQs if there is no bigger priority.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 16
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/4/2005 7:39:53 PM   
Philbass


Posts: 34
Joined: 12/30/2004
From: London, UK
Status: offline 		If there is a squeeze on allied HQ slots, then could I make a quiet plea for 'Force W' as an HQ. This was the small British HQ formed to control the amphibious forces of the British East Indies Fleet (such as they were) from late 1944, which were used in the small scale landings in the Arakan(at Akyab, Kangaw and Ramree Island), Rangoon (Op DRACULA), and Malaya (post Japanese surrender - Op ZIPPER). It would be commandered by Rear-Admiral B C S Martin, and at a guess would have about 50 Support Squads (max).

Of course, this presuposes that we can have the AGCs LARGS and BULOLO (designated Landing Ship Headquarters Large) and perhaps also HMS NITH and HMS WAVENEY (Landing Ship Headquarters Small - converted River Class Frigates) to carry it in, and the selection of worn out and broken down landing craft and transports that made up the Brtish East Indies amphibious forces in 1945.

Details for LARGS, NITH and WAVENEY can be found in: Lenton, H T and Colledge J J (1964) Warships of World War II (London: Ian Allen) p585.

Details of the 1944-45 East Indies amphibious operations can be found in: Naval Historical Branch MOD (1995) Naval Staff History War With Japan Volume IV (London: HMSO) Chapter 1

A complete list of Force W in August 1945 can be found in Naval Historical Branch MOD (1995) Naval Staff History War With Japan Volume VI (London: HMSO) Appendix ZB and Willmott, H P (1996) Grave of a Dozen Schemes: British Naval Planning and the War against Japan 1943-45 (Annapolis, MD, USA: Naval Institute Press).

I realise this is marginal compared to the need to fix other elements of the OOB, but would be nice to see. But then again it could all be part of my plan to convert everyone to the idea of focussing upon 'Lines of Mutual Exhaustion: War in the Indian Ocean 1942-1945'. Pip Pip. Now to see if we can have 3 Commando Brigade, a Gurkha parachute battalion, Ramree Island and a worn-out/ramshackle British Pacific Fleet train added!

Phil Bass

_____________________________

Plan followed plan in swift procession,
Commanders went; commanders came,
While telegrams in quick succession
Arrived to douse or fan the flame

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 17
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/4/2005 7:48:06 PM   
PeteG662


Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline 		Signing on here for OOB work on this....let me know where I can fill in on OOBs and TOEs.

(in reply to Philbass)
Post #: 18
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/4/2005 8:16:08 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Philbass

If there is a squeeze on allied HQ slots, then could I make a quiet plea for 'Force W' as an HQ. This was the small British HQ formed to control the amphibious forces of the British East Indies Fleet (such as they were) from late 1944, which were used in the small scale landings in the Arakan(at Akyab, Kangaw and Ramree Island), Rangoon (Op DRACULA), and Malaya (post Japanese surrender - Op ZIPPER). It would be commandered by Rear-Admiral B C S Martin, and at a guess would have about 50 Support Squads (max).

Of course, this presuposes that we can have the AGCs LARGS and BULOLO (designated Landing Ship Headquarters Large) and perhaps also HMS NITH and HMS WAVENEY (Landing Ship Headquarters Small - converted River Class Frigates) to carry it in, and the selection of worn out and broken down landing craft and transports that made up the Brtish East Indies amphibious forces in 1945.

Details for LARGS, NITH and WAVENEY can be found in: Lenton, H T and Colledge J J (1964) Warships of World War II (London: Ian Allen) p585.

Details of the 1944-45 East Indies amphibious operations can be found in: Naval Historical Branch MOD (1995) Naval Staff History War With Japan Volume IV (London: HMSO) Chapter 1

A complete list of Force W in August 1945 can be found in Naval Historical Branch MOD (1995) Naval Staff History War With Japan Volume VI (London: HMSO) Appendix ZB and Willmott, H P (1996) Grave of a Dozen Schemes: British Naval Planning and the War against Japan 1943-45 (Annapolis, MD, USA: Naval Institute Press).

I realise this is marginal compared to the need to fix other elements of the OOB, but would be nice to see. But then again it could all be part of my plan to convert everyone to the idea of focussing upon 'Lines of Mutual Exhaustion: War in the Indian Ocean 1942-1945'. Pip Pip. Now to see if we can have 3 Commando Brigade, a Gurkha parachute battalion, Ramree Island and a worn-out/ramshackle British Pacific Fleet train added!

Phil Bass


We are already working on the British Fleet Train and would love to add the British Command Ships. You wouldn't happen to have any artwork for them, would you??? I have Lenton (both old and new) but not a lot of time to work on icons. I already have two of the ex-River Conversions - using the standard River Icon. For some reason now lost to history I selected Chelmer and Waveney.

We will be using Andrew Brown's map - you can make your case for Ramree Island in his Map Mod thread (main section).

And, I think there's a good chance for 3 Commando. No knowledge of an independent Gurkha Para Battalion.

Oh, I didn't like "Grave of a Dozen Schemes" and sold my copy. Too much vague description of plans and too little hard OOB data. Also briefly had and subsequently sold "War in the Far East". I did like "Empires in the Balance" but Wilmott is not my favorite historian. I would love to reach across the Atlantic to Her Majesties Stationary Office but my credit card is too weak!




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Philbass)
Post #: 19
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/4/2005 8:17:48 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

Signing on here for OOB work on this....let me know where I can fill in on OOBs and TOEs.


Pete, just go ahead and jump on in anywhere you have interest or data.

Welcome Aboard!

(in reply to PeteG662)
Post #: 20
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/4/2005 8:21:41 PM   
PeteG662


Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline 		Roger.

I am tracking down information on engineer units. Either Engineer battalions have too many or engineer regiments have too few engineer squads. Something is screwy in the WitP database here.

< Message edited by Tallyman662 -- 1/4/2005 1:22:48 PM >

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 21
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/4/2005 9:36:02 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		I have been trying to figure out the scale they are using for squads. For infantry, it looks like Matrix is using 12 men per squad.

But for engineers, it looks like it is either more men per squad or they are short changing them. Hard to tell. The internal engineer Batt of Japanese Divisions had 900 men in it. In 3 companies.

(in reply to PeteG662)
Post #: 22
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/4/2005 10:57:35 PM   
PeteG662


Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline 		The standard size of squads IRL WWII was different for each nation. 12 would be about average to smoothe things across the board for comparison purposes. The things I saw last night in the database were real screwy with like a 10 squad difference between a battalion and a regiment so I know something is wrong there and will find it soon enough.

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 23
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/4/2005 11:32:21 PM   
Blackhorse


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

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Excellent work indeed. I am a little concerned with the number of available HQ and Leaders. A quick check of Scenario 15 Leaders shows only 9 empty slots. Also 5 empty Allied HQ slots. We can probably garner a few more by duplication checks, but we just don't have enough space for wholesale additions.


Thanks Don (and also Elf). The limit on HQ slots will be a major constraint. We should probably run the same drill that you are doing on aircraft -- tally up the requests for new HQs, and prioritize them against existing HQ and other requests.

Is there really a problem with leader slots? Can't we overwrite one of the innumerable COLs or LTCs if we have new leaders to add?

Alternatively, can a unit be added without a leader assigned? Or can we create one 'generic' division leader* and assign him to all 16 of the '45 ETO divisions, just to get them in the game? Although historical accuracy would suffer, I think few players would be concerned if MG Harry Twaddle was not commanding the 95th Infantry Division when it arrived in S.F. in September, 1945.

* = MG Joe Dirt

_____________________________

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 Don Bowen)
Post #: 24
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/4/2005 11:43:18 PM   
Blackhorse


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

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Morale might conceivablybe lower for these units having been pulled from Europe to Pacific.


Ron,
Good point. I deliberately lowered the morale for the most veteran units (I figured the guys who had fought from Normandy to the Elbe would be more put out about being sent to the Pacific than the guys whose only duty was rounding up prisoners during the last 8 days of the war -- yes, 20th Armor Division, I'm talking about you!). Take a look at the numbers, tho -- if you think they should be adjusted further, I'm willing to be convinced.

Only after I posted the ETO-Pacific OOB did I notice that there was a separate thread for LCU OOBs (You might think an ex-cavalry scout would be good with directions . . . apparently not ) I'm copying my OOB and Explanatory Notes posts onto the other thread, to make life easier for Don et. al. when they try to pull everything together.

_____________________________

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 Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 25
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/4/2005 11:48:07 PM   
Philbass


Posts: 34
Joined: 12/30/2004
From: London, UK
Status: offline 		(1)I don't have any artwork myself for the LSH (L) (apart from the photo of BULOLO in my copy of Lenton), but here is a link to a site that has two photos and a painting of LARGS:
Link to LARGS photos (see bottom of that web page)

Anyway, to keep this on the Land Units TOE thread, the Gurkha parachute battalion was dropped on the coastal defences of Elephant Point (on the mouth of the estuary that leads to Rangoon) as part of Op DRACULA. The battalion itself was a composite one formed from the remains of the 50th Indian Parachute Brigade (that was gutted at Sangshak/Sheldon's Corner during the Japanese advance on Kohima in 1944), reinforced by drafts when 44th Indian Airborne Division's formation was halted at the end of 1944. I'm not sure on the strength of the composite battalion, but according to the source I have at hand,

...700 Gurkhas followed half an hour later, delivered from 38 Air Commando Dakotas, escorted by P-51s. Unfortunately the paratroopers suffered casualties later on from bombs dropped by one of the Liberators carrying out a preliminary attack on the Japanese positions; nothing daunted they went on to annihilate the garrison
Probert, Air Commodore Henry (1995)The Forgotten Air Force: The Royal Air Force in the War against Japan 1941-45 (London: Brassey's)p272

Therefore there is some justification for a British parachute capacity in the Far East of at least a battalion (Gurkha composite), or a brigade (assuming that 50th Indian Parachute Brigade isn't destroyed).Of course there is still the entire problem of how to show 44th Indian Airborne Division (when the HQ itself was formed from the 44th Indian Armoured Division, and then migrated into the 44th Indian Infantry Division by way of the 9th Indian Airborne Division - I think). Happy to work up ideas and research a TOE if requested.

Anyway, if you think the idea of a British parachute capacity is worth pursuing I can check out the Indian Army Official Histories and Gurkha regimental histories when I'm in work (we have all the Brit, American, Indian, Australian and NZ offical histories in the library).

(2) Also, I think that 3 Commando is a must for the British in 1945. It took part in fierce battles (launched with the aim of cutting off the retreat of Japanese 28th Army - so it had a role applicable in a strategic wargame) as a complete brigade. Its TOE would be very light with 3" (maybe 4.2" as well) mortars and Vickers machine guns as the heaviest kit. Again, I can research a TOE if requested.

(3) Can we show the change in TOE for the Australian Divisions in SWPA? After February 1943 (not clear on exact date yet) 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th and 11th Divisions are reorganised to Jungle division organisation. This was done to reflect the realities of war in New Guinea and the Upper Solomons and reduce the logistical burden by eliminating non-essential units from the division and concentrating them instead in a central 'pool' for allocation as needed. The main changes versus the standard British infantry division TOE (which the Australian Imperial Forces and Citizen Military Forces were initially based on) were:

  • removing 2 of the field artillery regiments
  • removing the divisional cavalry regiment (reconnaissance battalion)
  • removing between 1/3 and 1/2 of the support troops (supply and transport, ordnance, repair, signals and mobile bath unit)

Within the infantry battalions, extraneous troops and vehicles were removed as well.
Source: Palazzo, Albert (2004),'Organising for Jungle Warfare', in Peter Dennis & Jeffrey Grey, eds., The Foundations of Victory: The Pacific War. The 2003 Chief of Army's Military History Conference(Canberra, Australia: Army History Unit)

If we can do it for the Australians, then we could do it for the British in India and Burma and show the reconversion of the Indian Army for mobile warfare in central Burma in early 1945. (Op EXTENDED CAPITAL - with Andrew Brown's map, at least I can drive on Mektila)

(4) Is there any way of altering the rate of replacement squads over time? Do we have room in the devices database to play with this? By 1945, there are pretty much no British (as opposed to Indian or African) reinforcements in India, and the decision was taken to reduce the length of 'tour' for those British already out there. This has a serious impact on British planning for 1945 and 1946, and led to the disbandment of some units, and the 'Indianisation' of other brigades and divisions (details in British Official History 'War in the Far East' Volume VI - I think. No copy to hand at home).

So erhhh, I guess I'd like to sign up to help on this.

Phil Bass

_____________________________

Plan followed plan in swift procession,
Commanders went; commanders came,
While telegrams in quick succession
Arrived to douse or fan the flame

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 26
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/4/2005 11:56:20 PM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline 		2ndACR,
I think the total squads for an engineer battalion(seperate) in the Japanese OOB is accurate.
In other words remember that 12 squads in a battalion are infantry and 27 squads or so are support.

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to Philbass)
Post #: 27
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/4/2005 11:58:05 PM   
PeteG662


Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline 		There seems to be plenty of room in the devices database from what I saw. There are even a few devices we could eliminate if necessary as duplicate (see devices thread)

(in reply to Philbass)
Post #: 28
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/5/2005 12:27:18 AM   
Blackhorse


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

ORIGINAL: Philbass

(3) Can we show the change in TOE for the Australian Divisions in SWPA? After February 1943 (not clear on exact date yet) 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th and 11th Divisions are reorganised to Jungle division organisation. [Snip]

(4) Is there any way of altering the rate of replacement squads over time? [Snip]
So erhhh, I guess I'd like to sign up to help on this.


Phil,

I don't think the database is geared up to accept wholesale reorganizations of units -- you can upgrade "devices" (vehicles / weapons) but I'm not aware of a way to eliminate entire battalions and add new sub-units of a different type. Same thing with changing replacement rates. Anyone else know a way to accomplish Phil's goals?

If you do have access to AUS/US/UK official records, could I ask your help in one area? There was supposed to be a "Commonwealth Corps" formed to participate in the notional March, 1946 Allied invasion of the Tokyo Plain (Operation Coronet). According to my (single) source, it would consist of the 3rd British Division, the 6th Canadian, and the 10th Australian (to be formed from returning European veterans from other divisions). Any information you can find on the organization and equipment of the divisions, the leaders, and when they would be available for combat operations, would be appreciated.

Thanks!

< Message edited by Blackhorse -- 1/4/2005 10:34:44 PM >

_____________________________

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 Philbass)
Post #: 29
RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units - 1/5/2005 2:07:42 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

If you do have access to AUS/US/UK official records, could I ask your help in one area? There was supposed to be a "Commonwealth Corps" formed to participate in the notional March, 1946 Allied invasion of the Tokyo Plain (Operation Coronet). According to my (single) source, it would consist of the 3rd British Division, the 6th Canadian, and the 10th Australian (to be formed from returning European veterans from other divisions). Any information you can find on the organization and equipment of the divisions, the leaders, and when they would be available for combat operations, would be appreciated.

Thanks!


Hi Blackhorse,

I don't have access to the official Aussie histories right now, perhaps I can organise a trip to the library sometime in the near future.

In the meantime, a bit of googling found this little snippet of info about the Australian 10th:

quote:

The mythical 10th Australian division for the invasion of Japan seems to pop up reasonably frequently with these discussions. Many years ago I searched to find out where this came from. I could find only 1 source. Unfortunately I can't remember the author. I do however remember that they did not list where the notion came from. So I would be more than willing to find out the sources of this information.

The planned Australian contingent for any operations in Japan - according to the 7th volume of the Australian army OH, was the 9th division. At the time of the final operations the 6th and 7th divisions were being wound up as the AIF volunteers were being given the option of going home if they had chalked up 5 years service. These divisions each lost about a third of their manpower however many more volunteered to fight on. Thus the 9th division would have been assigned to the operation, along with a plethora of corps assets - a tank brigade, commando regiment, AA, AT, Pioneer, beach force, engineers and medium artillery that went to rounding out pretty much any of the Western Allied armies of 1945.

The 10th division did exist. It was a militia division raised in early 42 to oversee the troops deployed in the Newcastle region. From about August 42 the brigades under its command were slowly redeployed elsewhere and the garrison battalions were slowly decreased in standing manpower, thus the division was disbanded in the August - October 42 time frame and was not reformed.

Some other reasons why the 10th division would NOT have been the Australian division to invade Japan:

The 10th division was a militia force unit. As such it could legally NOT serve north of the equator. NO AIF soldier would have served voluntarily in a Militia formation. No AIF divisions were formed after Japan entered the war.

When Australian divisions were disbanded they were NOT reformed. Witness the formation of the 11th division in February 43 and the formation of the 12th division in 45. The 10th was not reactivated.


The page I found this is: forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=504041

I have no idea as to the authenticity of this comment but it does tie in with Aussie practice regarding division numbering etc.

Andrew

_____________________________

Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website


(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> Combined Historical Scenario - Land Units Page: [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

1.469