RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design



Message

CobraAus -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/29/2006 2:12:58 AM)

The real V2.58.3 micro update link posted on Rapidshare link page

Cobra Aus



el cid again -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/29/2006 4:34:57 AM)

quote:

- japanese sound detector is upgrading to type 21 radar (surface radar) -> should upgrade to type 13 radar (air search radar)
- type 21 radar upgrades to type 22 radar -> type 21 radar should not upgrade


With all due respect, you are incorrect. These settings are in the just revised file, and they are quite deliberate. We changed the first - to Type 21 radar - in response to forum discussion - a week or two ago. The reason is that Type 13 radar IN THE GAME is NOT air search (the real one is surface search and air search). So a unit (in this case an AA unit) with air warining in the form of a sound detector LOSES ALL ABILITY to detect planes when the sound detector "upgrades" to the Type 13 radar - that CANNOT detect planes. Plain wrong - so wrong a utility was written so players could change it. I fixed this - on purpose - because it was broke - and bad simulation. It is not now wrong because you noticed the setting is different than CHS or stock. It is now right. Don't change it back UNLESS you are a secret AFB and want Japanese AAA to become disfunctional.

Type 21 radar never before upgraded to a type 22 radar. And in fact it is entirely debatable wether or not it should. But thinking about this (today) - as a radar tech - I decided

1) They are functionally IDENTICAL - no real difference in cost either;

2) The practical difference is merely reliability and range. The production rate is low. If a few upgrade, this better models the slowly upgrading radar net of Japan than forcing it to keep the older device.

I made the change deliberately and think it is the best compromise. But I am open to an argument why it isn't the best compromise? In general, RHS is ALWAYS open to an argument why something isn't right: even in the case above - I think it is impossible - but go ahead - tell me why a Japanese sound detector should upgrade to a SURFACE SEARCH radar? The ALLIED sound detector also upgrades to air search radar - you want to make that surface search instead?



Aterpa -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/29/2006 1:34:44 PM)

With all due respect, but you mixed it up:
In stock scenarios we have the following situation:
- sound detectors are upgrading to type 13 radar
- type 13 radar is surface radar (penetration = 0)
- type 21 radar is surface radar (penetration = 0)
- result is in stock all air base forces have the correct device, but is does work wrong
- there is this tool you mentioned to change penetration value of type 13 radar to 500, making the type 13 an air search radar
-> with this tool applied, all is well

In RHS scenarions (version 2.583) we have this situation:
- sound detectors are upgrading to type 21 radar (surface radar)
- type 13 radar is air search radar (penetration = 500)
- type 21 radar is surface radar (penetration = 0)
-> result is in RHS all air base forces will get (on 08.12.1941, since type 21 radar is available at scenario start) good ability to locate ships, but have to look with thier eyes only for enemy aircraft

Also one remark regarding your comment for the slow upgrade because of the low production rate: For japanes production there are no production rates from the editor used. Instead if a device is requested the program looks if there are enough arnament points and manpower points in the pools and if yes it uses this points und makes the device (at once). So if an upgrade is due and the player has stockpiled enough point all units are upgraded in one turn.



el cid again -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/29/2006 2:47:57 PM)

When am I going to learn?  Trust NOTHING done by ANYONE in the WITP database.  Turns out EVERYONE is confused.  Radar is a total mess - and it is hard to say CHS did any better than stock.
I should not have trusted the device research at all - and I am sorry I assumed it was probably OK.

The Japanese case is simpler - so I began there.  Type 13 radar is clearly ONLY an air search set.  It is the mass produced third generation of the Navy early warning set Type 11 (there also was a Type 12) - and it is similar in function (if not in frequency) with the Army Tachikawa 60 and 80 EW sets.  We have no slots for radar at all - so I have lumped the army and navy together - and call the combined set Type 11/12/13 - in honor of the better Navy set.  The range is always the same - about 90 miles - so I changed the database from 100 to 90.  This set is not available until some time in 1942 - I call it July pending exact data.

The Type 21 is an entirely different approach to the radar problem - and it is most confusing of all.  At first it only works as air search - but it lacks the range of the Type 11/12/13 - only 60 miles.  On the other hand, it is more reliable.  So it ALSO should be classified as air search.  It was first used about April 1942 and could have been present at Midway (but was not) - being fitted to a battleship instead of a carrier! 

The Type 22 is a variant of the Type 21 and finally it gets the precision to be useful in surface search applications.  It RETAINS the air warning ability - and today would be called "surface search/air search" - but in the game we should classify it as a surface search radar.  It is only able to work in the surface search application from the end of 1943. 

Thus Japan should start with NO radar capability at all - just sound detectors.  And the SD(J) device can upgrade to either a type 13 or a type 21 radar - the former having more range but less reliability - and the latter being available sooner - but not a whole lot sooner.  Probably it is not very important - and I sure wish I knew how code interprets radar ranges for air search?  But I am inclined to go with the greater range device. 

It appears to me ships will only upgrade when they change class type.  It appears to me land units will upgrade when the device is available and certain conditions are met.  But in no case should a Japanese sound detector upgrade before 1942 - in this case (with present settings) July.

Now for the Allied can of worms.  [CXAM - the most famous navy air search radar - is not air search?  Who thought that? ]

For further data, see

Instruments of  Darkness:  The History of Electronic Warfare, 1939-1945

Rising Sun (Game) Data Annex:  Ships and Aircraft: Annex G1

Radar, A Wartime Miracle

Echos of War:  The Story of H2S Radar

Winning the Radar War

The Invention That Changed The World:  How a small group of radar pioneers won the Second World War and launched a technical revolution

The Battleship Fuso

The Heavy Cruiser Takao



CobraAus -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/29/2006 3:19:23 PM)

quote:

With all due respect, but you mixed it up:


sometime you just have to persist and knock on the door a lot eventually that door will open and let the light in

Cobra Aus



el cid again -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/29/2006 3:21:38 PM)

OK - for the Allies I took an almost artistic interpretation:  there are enough radar slots to show the evolution of radar - and barely enough to let the British have their own types (at least early on).  But I allow the names to be generic - each one represents 6 to 12 sets in its own series and twice that many if one considers all similar sets.  But the initial names are more or less right for the most numerous in the class, and the later names and data are typical - not always to be taken literally "this set was introduced on that date".  The idea is to have radar change over time - and end this nonsense of "everything is available in Dec 1941" we have now. 

The surface search series begins with SC, proceeds to SG, and ends with SJ.  The British start with their own Type 271 and it migrates into the US series at SG.  The reliability increases with each step - but range stays the same - or decreases!  SC and 271 begin the war, SG is introduced in spring 1942, and SJ at the start of 1943 (I picked a specific model for its reliability increase - not the first model).

The air search series is similar.  The US begins with CXAM and the UK with Type 279.  The CXAM can become the SCR-270 in mid 1942 - the Type 279 does not because it has equal range.  Both SCR-270 and Type 279 become CPS-1 in mid 1943.



Aterpa -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/29/2006 6:00:39 PM)

I have noticed that in RHS the TOE of mixed independent brigades include a lot tanks and there are a lot mixed independent brigades. Also counting the tank brigades and other formations that include tanks this equals more than 1000 light und more than 1000 medium tanks. Did Japan realy produced that much tanks?



Kereguelen -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/29/2006 6:31:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aterpa

I have noticed that in RHS the TOE of mixed independent brigades include a lot tanks and there are a lot mixed independent brigades. Also counting the tank brigades and other formations that include tanks this equals more than 1000 light und more than 1000 medium tanks. Did Japan realy produced that much tanks?



Well, at least three Independent Mixed Brigades fielded tank companies. Don't know what Sid was doing here, but giving all IMB's tank units would certainly overstate their strength. Especially considering that they basically were garrison units.

K



CobraAus -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/29/2006 10:36:18 PM)

v2.59 for CVO-RAO-BBO posted link in Rapidshare link page

Cobra Aus



Ol_Dog -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/30/2006 1:08:12 AM)

in 2.59, scen 60

- RO-52, RO-53 and R0-54 show on ships sunk list as scuttled near 0,0. In database editor, it shows delay dates of 4401015, 4401115 and 4401215. 

                                                 
-  In 5 attacks on Pearl Harbor, 4 times there were no torpedo hits, 1 time there were 7 hits on ships

-In the database for aircraft, B17D, B17E/F, B24D, B24J and B29 all show max bomb load of 500x12 and reduced bomb load of 500x6. In Scen15, 17s had 8,12; 24s 16,16 and 29s 40.










el cid again -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/30/2006 3:32:05 PM)

First, the ROs should not have been in the game anyway - they are RHSBBO ships wrongly in your scenario (unless you were playing BBO) - my fault no doubt. 

Second, I detected this error when correcting the slots, so it is already posted in fixed form (for BBO only - CVO has the ships 9999ed out).  These subs were part of a proposed construction program not implemented due to early war events. 



el cid again -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/30/2006 3:34:25 PM)

I have not seen results - nor heard of  results - like you posted about Pearl Harbor.  I am running test game number 58 too.  AI does OK with the attack - and often hurts the USN badly - but the cost in planes is higher than before.  I have revised plane durability upward to see if that helps?  Did you change any settings for units?
IF I tamper with settings I can get quite amazing results - if I leave them as is I get slightly less than historical outcomes.



el cid again -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/30/2006 3:37:43 PM)

You are quite correct about bomb loads for the heavy bombers.  This is not accidental, and is both deliberate and tied to their range. Players objected to the short range of CHS heavy bombers.  I went with the data - at the time under direction of Joe - and the data for range comes attached to a bomb load!  Except I made a boo boo - it should be TEN bombs - the USAAF standard bomb load is 5000 pounds - not 6,000 pounds! Both my parents served with B-17s (that is how they met), and I grew up surrounded by bomber guys.
I even got to fly and to climb around cockpits on the ground on special days.  You either get range or payload - not both.  This is not REDUCED bomb load either - that is NORMAL bomb load.  These planes can carry many more bombs over short distances (but WITP won't let us do that - yet:  however I DID define Max load correctly - and I think WITP WILL let us use it by this summer).
Reduced bomb loads are carried to extended range.  The price you pay for historical range is historical loads! [The rest of the weight goes to fuel, more or less]. 



el cid again -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/30/2006 3:54:59 PM)

There are a bewildering array of brigades in IJA.  [My IJA spreadsheet lists no fewer than 25 brigades and "groups" - which are at least brigade size].  So it is hard to simulate this with the few slots available to us.  On top of that, I didn't DO IJA for stock, CHS or RHS - I just tinkered a bit with what was done - since Joe had just done a major review for CHS (and I got to participate in the case of the airborne brigades).  So the question I faced was, first of all, in the context of "you have no slots at all for formations - what few there are must be given to vital support units not properly defined" and second "you don't have time to review every unit like Joe did for this pass"

I decided that Kerguelin (sp?  I think I am using the Island spelling) is correct about ONE kind of brigade - and that brigade is NOT the kind discussed (criticized) here.  The INDEPENDENT brigade is the garrison unit.  The INDEPENDENT MIXED brigade is the offensive unit - and has tanks - mechanized recon - nice artillery - combat engineers - etc - for that reason.  I would prefer to break these down further - and for WITP 2 I will - assuming we have more slots.  These would include Independent Infantry Brigade (Class C), Independent Infantry Brigade (Class B), Independent Infantry Group (Class B), Independent Mixed Brigade (Class A), Independent Mixed Brigade (Class B), Independent Mixed Brigade (Motorized), Amphibious Brigade, Infantry Group (Amphibious), Infantry Group (Class A), Infantry Group (Class A, Augmented), Infantry Group (Class A, Enhansed), Infantry Group (Class B), Infantry Group (Class B, Augmented), Infantry Group (Class B, Enhansed), Infantry Group (Class C), and the Raider Brigades (Airborne).

The tank companies of the Independent Mixed Brigades are of two forms:  organic and attached.  The ones ORGANIC to the IMB are light tank heavy - they have only one company of real tanks - those light things are properly just armored cars with tracks.  Oh - did you notice that "only one COMPANY" part?  The "three IMBs" Kerguelin talks about have "tank units" in them - not tank companies! They have FOUR tank companies - so they are not exactly "companies" are they?  Otherwise, an IMB might have a company of light tanks and a company of motorized/mechanized recon - up to a whole tank "regiment" (battalion) - of the standard type - that is one company of light tanks and several (it varies over time) of "mediums".  What to do ?  We do not have enough slots for this bewildering array of brigades - even the smaller set with tanks?
I compromised - ALL Independent Infantry Brigades get NO tanks at all - Kerguelin's "guerrison units."  The IMBs get a sort of reduced "tank unit." 

However, I do note a very large number of IMBs in reinforcements.
I am not sure they are really IMBs?  [I did neither the original research nor the review for stock or CHS:  I know IJA - but not this particular OB set.]  It may be better to call them Independent Infantry Brigades - particularly IF they are supposed to be garrison units.  I don't remember this - I thought the Class C divisions and Independent Infantry Brigades were the garrison units:  both are composed of Independent Infantry Battalions - you just get two brigades in each Class C division - typically 5 per brigade - ALL division or brigade assets are divided up equally - so each battalion has one battery of field guns, etc.  And NO tanks. 



el cid again -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/30/2006 4:00:55 PM)

Comments in the CHS notes about radar on Allied subs are interesting:  Andrew writes they are air warning - but they are surface warning in WITP.  Actually they are both:  we could assign them either way.  But a short range radar is of limited value vs planes, and if you don't let the subs have surface search, they would never (say) have found Shinano to sink.  Also, IF they are air warning, there are no surface sets at all.  That makes no sense to me.  Apparently in WITP Allied surface sets also simulate Fire Control and help gunnery and torpedo attacks.



el cid again -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/30/2006 4:03:18 PM)

As for numbers, Japan produced several times that many AFVs.  Wether or not they are tanks is a different question. A Japanese tankette is a Bren Carrier - not a tank.  A Japanese light tank is a tracked armored car - not a tank.  A Japanese medium tank is - until late in the war when they field a Sherman like thing - a light tank - barely a tank. 



Jo van der Pluym -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/30/2006 4:20:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Raider Brigades (Airborne).


The Dai I Teishin Dan (1st Raiding Brigade) exist early 1942 out
Brigade HQ (Col Seiichi Kume)
1st Raiding Regt (Maj Takeo Takeda)
2nd Raiding Regt (Maj Takeo Komura)
Raiding Flying Regt ( Maj Akihito Niihara) (Airforce)
   (4 Transport Companies each 12x  Hickory or Topsy a/c)
Airfield Comapny

Raiding Regt 1942
Regt HQ
1st, 2nd and 3rd Rifle Companies
   each Co HQ
   3x Rifle Platoon each 3 sections (each 1 LMG, 2x or 3x Grenade dischargers)
   HMG Platoon (2 or more HMGs)
   AT Section (1x 3.7cm AT Gun or 1x 2cm AT Rifle or 1x 3.7cm Infantry gun)
4th Engineer Co.
   Co HQ
   3x Engineer Platoon




Kereguelen -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/30/2006 4:26:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There are a bewildering array of brigades in IJA.  [My IJA spreadsheet lists no fewer than 25 brigades and "groups" - which are at least brigade size].  So it is hard to simulate this with the few slots available to us.  On top of that, I didn't DO IJA for stock, CHS or RHS - I just tinkered a bit with what was done - since Joe had just done a major review for CHS (and I got to participate in the case of the airborne brigades).  So the question I faced was, first of all, in the context of "you have no slots at all for formations - what few there are must be given to vital support units not properly defined" and second "you don't have time to review every unit like Joe did for this pass"

I decided that Kerguelin (sp?  I think I am using the Island spelling) is correct about ONE kind of brigade - and that brigade is NOT the kind discussed (criticized) here.  The INDEPENDENT brigade is the garrison unit.  The INDEPENDENT MIXED brigade is the offensive unit - and has tanks - mechanized recon - nice artillery - combat engineers - etc - for that reason.  I would prefer to break these down further - and for WITP 2 I will - assuming we have more slots.  These would include Independent Infantry Brigade (Class C), Independent Infantry Brigade (Class B), Independent Infantry Group (Class B), Independent Mixed Brigade (Class A), Independent Mixed Brigade (Class B), Independent Mixed Brigade (Motorized), Amphibious Brigade, Infantry Group (Amphibious), Infantry Group (Class A), Infantry Group (Class A, Augmented), Infantry Group (Class A, Enhansed), Infantry Group (Class B), Infantry Group (Class B, Augmented), Infantry Group (Class B, Enhansed), Infantry Group (Class C), and the Raider Brigades (Airborne).


Hi,

I was not talking about Independent Brigades, I was talking about Independent Mixed Brigades! There were three (basic) TOE's for Independent Mixed Brigades (IMB), China-Type, Type-A, Type-B. All IMB present at start of scen 15 were "China-Type" IMB's and did not field tank companies (or tanks at all), they were garrison formations mainly employed as city garrisons or for railway protection (and no, they had not even the famous Japanes armoured cars used on railway tracks, at least not as part of their TOE). Most of them were eventually used to form C-Type Garrison Divisions. As far as I can tell, only some of the IMB's used on the Pacific Islands later in the war did have tanks as part of their TOE (I think they added Independent Tank Companies, but not sure about this). 1st Independent Mixed Brigade was special (being an experimental mechanized formation), but it apparently was already disbanded by Dec. 1941.

Thus your statement about IMB's being offensive units is plain wrong, they did not even have the neccessary weapons for this purpose. Some were offensively used in China at times (even Independent Brigades were used in the 1944 offensives), but elsewhere? Only 65th Brigade (not really a IMB) was used offensively in the Pacific.

K



el cid again -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/30/2006 4:35:19 PM)

The statement about "all IMBs being China type" cannot be correct:  there is at least one motorized IMB when the war begins - and there are two almost identical units called "regiments" rather than brigades (although the nose and machine count is virtually the same).  I don't know what the basis of Scenario 15 research was, but whatever it was, it cannot be correct if it ignores these significant offensive units.  I also do not know if the units I refer to are the only ones of their type at the time?  IJA is a very complex organization and just because you know this about that does not mean it does not have a similar clone somewhere else.

65th Brigade is indeed a special case - and it is certainly not called an IMB.  That, technically, is probably because it is not given enough special units when formed.  It is actually a regimental combat team - although eventually it has two OTHER regiments attached (albiet small ones).  It also seems to have had a tank regiment attached on occasion - although cooperation and attachment may not be the same thing.  Its commander feared it would not do well - it was green - but it did superbly well - at one time it alone bottled up two corps on Bataan!  [The divisions had been withdrawn for more offensive actions farther South].  I did not think of 65th brigade as an IMB - but  I can make a case it was a de facto one!

The 1st IMB probably did not 'disband by the end of 1941.'  It may, however, have been related to the formation that joined the First Tank Brigade to become the First Tank Division - by about June 1942.  I find it hard to believe FOUR brigades of motorized troops were formed from scratch in only two months in the summer of 1942.  And some materials say obscure things like "these units formed from (unspecified) existing elements."  This was a period of intense interest in tanks - Yamashita had inspected the Eastern Front and written a proposal to form a tank corps - and faster than we have been told in the past it did form (see Nomanhan).  It appears this was a political problem - Tojo feared Yamashita might replace him - and these ideas were eventually scuttled - and the tank corps no longer exists (although all four tank divisions still do) in 1945.  I am still learning the details of what happened during the critical period 1941-1942 - and I don't think you can find it fully described in English anywhere. But note this:  every time I revise my picture - it is in the direction of increasing the Japanese motorized forces - and the conventional wisdom the four divisions only formed by 1945 is now known to be false: ALL FOUR existed in summer 1942.  You may elect to believe the "experiments" of 1941 went nowhere - I don't share it. 



el cid again -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/30/2006 4:42:04 PM)

There is a real difference between an Independent Infantry Brigade and an Independent Mixed Brigade:

Fundamentally an IMB is an augmented regimental combat team, with a full battalion of organic artillery, an engineer unit, a signal unit, and often a tank unit, as well as a proper slice of what we call support.  It can divide, but normally functions as a single unit, and it can be assigned offensive missions.

Fundamentally, an IIB is a set of independent battalion combat teams, each with a company of light guns, a platoon of signals, a platoon of engineers, and its own support company.  It is these latter that formed into Class C divisions - by giving two of them a HQ element and little else - not the IMBs.  It can be in one place, but virtually always is divided into four or five parts, stationed too far apart to be mutually supporting - and it never is assigned offensive missions against major field formations.

Now that said, I will repeat:  IJA is complex.  Only the PLA of today is MORE complex (and remarkably similar).  It is possible to find exceptions to any rule - and it is almost impossible to make any general statement that is true because there are so many exceptions!  So I sympathize that different interpretations may exist.  The nature of written Japanese is such it is easy to get lost in your own assumptions (it is normal to only IMPLY the subject of a sentence - guess wrong and you misread the writer).  Further, if Kanji are used, there are AT LEAST four (and my ex CIA software often produces TWELVE) different possible meanings!



Kereguelen -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/30/2006 4:51:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The statement about "all IMBs being China type" cannot be correct:  there is at least one motorized IMB when the war begins - and there are two almost identical units called "regiments" rather than brigades (although the nose and machine count is virtually the same).  I don't know what the basis of Scenario 15 research was, but whatever it was, it cannot be correct if it ignores these significant offensive units.  I also do not know if the units I refer to are the only ones of their type at the time?  IJA is a very complex organization and just because you know this about that does not mean it does not have a similar clone somewhere else.


All IMBs available at start of scen. 15.

And (as I wrote) the motorized IMB was already disbanded (not sure about this one, but it does not appear in any OOB for Dec 7th 1941 I've seen).

Don't know about the Independent Mixed Regiments (I always wondered about them but could not find anything).

And yes, the OOB for vanilla 15 is not accurate...



el cid again -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/30/2006 5:05:18 PM)

For the sake of more data, I have queried Joe - who did the CHS review of brigades and divisions - and a JASDF captain historian resident at the National Diet Library I happen to correspond with.
I am seriously wondering if all those IMBs listed in the reinforcement section might not be better classified as IIBs?  Maybe a lot of those at the start as well?

Note also that the First IMB is NOT in the game - unless my assumption that it is what I call the First Motorized Brigade (forming in June 1942) is really it - and I have it appearing too late?  I use the term generically - representing all elements of the First Tank Division NOT part of the First Tank Brigade.



Kereguelen -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/30/2006 5:07:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There is a real difference between an Independent Infantry Brigade and an Independent Mixed Brigade:


Yes, indeed!

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Fundamentally an IMB is an augmented regimental combat team, with a full battalion of organic artillery, an engineer unit, a signal unit, and often a tank unit, as well as a proper slice of what we call support.  It can divide, but normally functions as a single unit, and it can be assigned offensive missions.

Fundamentally, an IIB is a set of independent battalion combat teams, each with a company of light guns, a platoon of signals, a platoon of engineers, and its own support company.  It is these latter that formed into Class C divisions - by giving two of them a HQ element and little else - not the IMBs.  It can be in one place, but virtually always is divided into four or five parts, stationed too far apart to be mutually supporting - and it never is assigned offensive missions against major field formations.

Now that said, I will repeat:  IJA is complex.  Only the PLA of today is MORE complex (and remarkably similar).  It is possible to find exceptions to any rule - and it is almost impossible to make any general statement that is true because there are so many exceptions!  So I sympathize that different interpretations may exist.  The nature of written Japanese is such it is easy to get lost in your own assumptions (it is normal to only IMPLY the subject of a sentence - guess wrong and you misread the writer).  Further, if Kanji are used, there are AT LEAST four (and my ex CIA software often produces TWELVE) different possible meanings!


The IMBs certainly varied alot, but for most of them their equipment and composition is known.

The C-Type divisions were formed from the same Independent Battalions, artillery units and engineer units that were part of the IMBs that formed them and the IMBs were redesignated Independent Brigades afterwards (as part of the C-Divisions; in most cases the IMBs supplied five battalions and three new battalions were newly raised to get the full complement of eight battalions = two brigades with four battalions each).



el cid again -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/30/2006 5:16:04 PM)

I dimly remember reading this somewhere - except I missed (or forgot) the name change.  In which case the solution in WITP terms is simply to redefine IMBs (mostly) as IIBs.  I like it - UNLESS we know this is a real IMB (in the regimental combat team sense of the word-  and I do know of several) it probably is an IIB. IF they changed names, that explains how the early name confuses people.

OK - some good news.  Joe did better work than I realized - and he gave us half a dozen kinds of Japanese infantry brigades - including amphib and airborne - four without them.  The OB probably wrongly points to formation 916 in most cases (of reinforcements) - it should be 915 (IJA Brigade Group) - and the IIBs properly point to 917.  Few units should point at 916 - tentatively only four - those Joe shows with organic tanks to start - slots 1017, 1319, 1378 and 1378.  Some "brigades" pointed to division formations - fixed.  There is also a strange case - I.B. + 2 Regiments - I think this was supposed to include 65th Brigade - but it pointed to an impossible formation - and the Kurafuto Mixed Brigade also points at it - which may be right.   That is formation 918 I think.

Turns out that the IMB term was used several times in several ways - and there IS a late war one - so the units in the reinforcement list really are NOT the same as IIBs - and I think 915 shows their organization well.  But I am open to suggestion. 

Edit:  Joe writes that 55 and 56 divisions and 65 Brigade all use the same formation on purpose:  I have renamed it a 6 battalion I.D. for clarity.  65 Brigade eventually had three regiments! of two battalions.  55 and 56 divisions had a regiment detached, so they had two regiments of three battalions.  Wierdly, in our system, 65 Brigade (which had three regiments) can form into 2 detachments;  55 and 56 Divisions (which had two regiments) can form into 3 detachments! 

I have just changed this:  In 2.594 and above these units will divide properly but have strange names

65th "Brigade" Division
55 and 56th "Division" Brigade



CobraAus -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/31/2006 12:48:04 AM)

V2.59.1 critical update for CVO-RAO-BBO posted on link page

V2.59.2 medium update for CVO-RAO-BBO posted on link page

Cobra Aus



Ol_Dog -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/31/2006 8:53:35 PM)

Just started 2.59.2 - Sea Hurricane or what ever it was is back again as TBD picture



CobraAus -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (6/1/2006 3:20:59 AM)

V2.59.3 upgrade for CVO-RAO-BBO posted on link page

Cobra Aus



el cid again -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (6/1/2006 6:21:54 AM)

Sea Hurricane uses bitmap 77.

TBD used bitmap 20.

No reason they MUST be the same art.  We will check.



el cid again -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (6/1/2006 6:30:10 AM)

In 2.593 I have attempted to make three British, Indian and Commonwealth brigades divide.  If it works, I will try to make them all divide.



Jo van der Pluym -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (6/1/2006 7:30:12 AM)


I have find the following error
The ship[:)] RN CVLs has the FAA No.801 Sqdn



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1