|
Knavey -> RE: Weak Japanese LCUs in early 1944 (6/17/2009 6:46:19 PM)
|
And more:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
quote:
ORIGINAL: Knavey
How accurate are the current OOBs for the Japanese Divisions? It always seemed a bit odd to me that the standard Japanese division was more powerful than a US Marine division. Any changes to the land OOBs in the form of modifying the TOEs?
OK, jumping in here:
Joe, already explained much about the IJA OOB in this thread. But to add something: You can expect a much more detailed OOB. Most Japanese divisions will have their own, unique TOE in the AE.
The main difference between a US Marine Division and a Japanese division will lie in their firepower (more so than in WITP).
But most of the more known Japanese divisions (5th Division, 38th Division, 48th Division etc.) will still be very strong combat formations.
quote:
ORIGINAL: JWE
quote:
ORIGINAL: Knavey
How accurate are the current OOBs for the Japanese Divisions? It always seemed a bit odd to me that the standard Japanese division was more powerful than a US Marine division. Any changes to the land OOBs in the form of modifying the TOEs?
We will get JWE engaged - he is our "device man" for LCUs. Basically there are two kinds of "powerful" in the current engine and also carry over to "AE" ... Assault Value powerful and Firepower powerful. We will see a greater dicotomy of these two factors in AE. I ask JWE to explain further.
Sorry for delay, gotta sleep sometime.
Joe and Andy Mac, and K, have pretty much hit it. The idea was to accommodate relatively ‘body rich’ but ‘firepower poorer’ units, such as the Japanese (and CW), to relatively ‘firepower rich’ but ‘body poorer’ units, like the US, and strike a proper balance in combat result.
Japan and the CW will tend towards a higher AV, because they have more coys/bn, or squads/platoon under a nominal TO&E. US units will tend towards a higher firepower factor per squad, and have a better chance to disrupt (shoot) an attacker before assault resolution.
This is pretty much how it’s done already, but the Land Team spent some effort, not just counting noses, but also rationally allocating weapons to what is called a ‘squad’.
Weapon effectiveness is carried across device types, so artillery firepower effectiveness is rationally related to squad firepower effectiveness. This allows creation of any number of TO&Es, and allows for TO&E evolution over time.
quote:
ORIGINAL: JWE
Ah …. Finally understand the original question about ‘devices’. I’m slow, but get there eventually.
OOBs (TO&Es) were sliced and diced at the battalion level, to identify those support weapons (and crews) that would naturally be found at the FEBA. The Allies generally had more support weapons at the company level, and those weapon’s firepower (and crew constitution) have been incorporated into what we all call ‘infantry squads’. Company and battalion level machine guns have been directly addressed (for both sides), so that the inherent firepower of a unit is much more adequately modeled.
Infantry support MGs are aggregated into a device type called ‘squad’ (more than one gun in a squad), so that units show a net benefit to AV, as well as firepower. These “MG squads” are aggregated so that loading costs and support requirements are not skewed, by counting every nose as separate.
Basically, the OOBs much better reflect the combat potential of a unit, and are way better able to be accurately represented.
|
|
|
|
