British Unit with low Exp (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

latosusi -> British Unit with low Exp (11/17/2009 2:19:45 PM)

I can't believe any british unit should have 5/100 exp.... (Armor unit early in war is 5/100). Or with low naval skills. With high standards of naval tradition/training and in war since 1939 all british warships should be better in exp than USN. British navy officers should be far better than what they are in game. Like USN/Army had no prior battle experience before WW2.



EUBanana -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/17/2009 2:38:39 PM)

British admirals and captains seem to be either shockingly awful or average. I can understand the ground commanders being poor, with the pheasant hunting brigade in charge of the army, but the Royal Navy? I don't buy it.

Consider Victor Crutchley - his stats in this game are absolutely awful - why? Because of one Pacific engagement where he didn't cover himself with glory? That wasn't the only thing he did - he captained the Warspite in Norway and did a pretty good job, he certainly would be considered 'aggressive' at least. In AE he's below just about every US commander in the USN, thats just... wrong.

Or sub commanders. I don't know who the captain of HMS Truant was, but he was obviously a fighting man, check out Truant's record.

Even with PPs the captains just aren't there.





P.Hausser -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/17/2009 2:47:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

British admirals and captains seem to be either shockingly awful or average. I can understand the ground commanders being poor, with the pheasant hunting brigade in charge of the army, but the Royal Navy? I don't buy it.

Consider Victor Crutchley - his stats in this game are absolutely awful - why? Because of one Pacific engagement where he didn't cover himself with glory? That wasn't the only thing he did - he captained the Warspite in Norway and did a pretty good job, he certainly would be considered 'aggressive' at least. In AE he's below just about every US commander in the USN, thats just... wrong.

Or sub commanders. I don't know who the captain of HMS Truant was, but he was obviously a fighting man, check out Truant's record.

Even with PPs the captains just aren't there.








+1



latosusi -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/17/2009 2:51:55 PM)

RN submarine captains were best in the world. (And still probably are)
Taking their perisher course...



Dixie -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/17/2009 3:39:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: latosusi

RN submarine captains were best in the world. (And still probably are)
Taking their perisher course...



They certainly had a reputation for aggressive action.

Just reading about the perisher in Woodward's account of the Falklands War sounds confusing enough [:D]



vinnie71 -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/17/2009 5:04:54 PM)

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?



Dobey455 -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/17/2009 5:10:21 PM)

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.



Squamry -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/17/2009 5:34:44 PM)

Some good units do appear for the British in 42. Given that Britain had already been at war for 2 years it should be no surprise that efficient units may have been shipped closer to home and that those in India and Malaysia got the worst of everything. It is also a lesson that the British have failed to learn time and time again that the armed forces are usually underprepared for war because of cutbacks, etc. I find the poor units at the beginning to be a good reflection of typical behaviour.



sprior -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/17/2009 5:37:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie


quote:

ORIGINAL: latosusi

RN submarine captains were best in the world. (And still probably are)
Taking their perisher course...



They certainly had a reputation for aggressive action.

Just reading about the perisher in Woodward's account of the Falklands War sounds confusing enough [:D]


I remember being on a frigate hunting the sub during the perisher course, I can attest that the skimmer skippers put everything they've got into it.



Chickenboy -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/17/2009 5:39:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: latosusi

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



[8|]



Andy Mac -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/17/2009 5:40:01 PM)

Most of the Indian Armoured Units were newly forming or transferring from Horsed Cav to a new armoured role also the best units were being drawn on for cadre for units in Middle and Near East.

Hence the low xp.

A lot of effort was put into RN Admirals and exp of RN Submarines is now quite high.

In general TF, Large LCU, Corps, Army and Air HQ leaders have been reviewed and a lot of the later arriving Generals/Admirals and Air Vice Marshalls are a lot better now.

e.g. we actually have CW air HQ leaders now



Andy Mac -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/17/2009 5:41:35 PM)

A lot of the leaders in the East if they were any good had been transferred elsewhere.

Others have low ratings because of known issues.

Heath is an arguable example of a leader that should rate higher but his performance didnt reflect that.

So I reduced his ratings and Percivals to reflect the fact that they could not act professionally together



Andy Mac -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/17/2009 5:42:47 PM)

p.s. I am not aware if we did anything compared to stock with naval captain ratings most of the changes were to Admirals and Commodores



EUBanana -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/17/2009 6:09:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: latosusi

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



[8|]


I wonder if 'American submarine captains were best in the world (And still probably are) would also earn a [8|]...



d0mbo -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/17/2009 7:06:22 PM)

And there i was thinking the dutch sub captains (all 4 of them) were the best in the world.......


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: latosusi

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



[8|]


I wonder if 'American submarine captains were best in the world (And still probably are) would also earn a [8|]...




EUBanana -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/17/2009 7:38:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: d0mbo
And there i was thinking the dutch sub captains (all 4 of them) were the best in the world.......


Heh.

211 British submarines fought in WW2. Thats not really the point, though, is it.

The USS Wahoo sank 15 ships in WW2. But HMS Truant sank 15 ships in WW2 as well (and lived to tell the tale). Mush Morton has naval skill 90, the guy on board Truant has 60. In fact, nobody in the entire RN submarine arm has naval skill 90. Or even 80, for that matter.

That is the point.



crsutton -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/17/2009 10:36:46 PM)


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.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/17/2009 11:04:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: d0mbo
And there i was thinking the dutch sub captains (all 4 of them) were the best in the world.......


Heh.

211 British submarines fought in WW2. Thats not really the point, though, is it.

The USS Wahoo sank 15 ships in WW2. But HMS Truant sank 15 ships in WW2 as well (and lived to tell the tale). Mush Morton has naval skill 90, the guy on board Truant has 60. In fact, nobody in the entire RN submarine arm has naval skill 90. Or even 80, for that matter.

That is the point.


That RN skipper went into the Inland Sea in 1943, did he?



Smeulders -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/17/2009 11:23:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: d0mbo
And there i was thinking the dutch sub captains (all 4 of them) were the best in the world.......


Heh.

211 British submarines fought in WW2. Thats not really the point, though, is it.

The USS Wahoo sank 15 ships in WW2. But HMS Truant sank 15 ships in WW2 as well (and lived to tell the tale). Mush Morton has naval skill 90, the guy on board Truant has 60. In fact, nobody in the entire RN submarine arm has naval skill 90. Or even 80, for that matter.

That is the point.


That RN skipper went into the Inland Sea in 1943, did he?


And getting into the Inland sea makes a 30 point difference in naval rating ?



Andy Mac -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/17/2009 11:24:24 PM)

No but it did go into the Baltic with German AF's on three sides and serve in three theatres for 6 years - does that count ?



EUBanana -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/17/2009 11:38:49 PM)

I'm not saying anything against Mush Morton, he was clearly a sub skipper of the very highest calibre (and extreme aggression alright [:D]), and quite possibly unequalled, but it's not like the RN was a sea of grey average.

That said I notice that Truant's crew have a skill of 70 so I guess she's not hard done by at all really, it's just the skippers are somewhat average.



Mike Solli -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/17/2009 11:45:55 PM)


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.



Johan_Banér -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 12:02:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Mush Morton, he was clearly a sub skipper of the very highest calibre (and extreme aggression alright [:D]), and quite possibly unequalled,

I'd like to think these 34 guys would possible be at least his equal [:-] particulary those ten first [;)]



GB68 -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 12:02:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton



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.



Excellent comment. The divisive nature of the socio-political status in India caused massive problems for the British Commanders. Many of them had appalling views and ideas of the average Indian soldier.

The Indian National Army , I believe, was also involved in secret discussions with the Japanese to collaborate in actions ranging from guerilla warfare through to coup d'etat in certain states.



EUBanana -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 12:04:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Johan_Banér
I'd like to think these 34 guys would possible be at least his equal [:-] particulary those ten first [;)]


Well, yeah, I was talking about the Allies only. [;)]

But on the other hand, there were only so many Maru's and Italian merchants to sink, you can hardly blame Mush Morton for the lack of juicy Japanese targets. [;)]



EUBanana -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 12:09:03 AM)

The WW1 gap is talked about a lot, but the Germans had a WW1 gap as well, it's not like no German officers were killed in the Great War, yet they didn't seem to have any trouble.

Bit of an excuse really, IMHO, for truly terrible British (and French) leadership at a high level. I think it was Liddell-Hart who said something like "The only thing more difficult than getting a good idea into a military mind is getting a bad idea out of one." or something like that. Plenty of personal bravery but not much science of war.

The Royal Navy, on the other hand, was pretty sharp I think.



wdolson -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 12:11:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
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.


quote:

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


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.

Bill



Andy Mac -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 12:23:16 AM)

Dont mistake India for one pile of political system.

Most of the pre war manpower fro the Indian Army came from the so called martial races i.e. father to son and were well trained highly motivated soldiers 4th Indian Div was one of if not the best allied Div in Africa.

Having said all that the Indian Army had exhausted this manpower pool by mid 41 during the expansion and keeiping trained officers and NCO's up for the sheer number of formations being raised was impossible and a lot of those used were inadequate to the task not to mention under equipped.

Equipent was WW1 vintage where it existed I think it was Auks force in Iraq that wanted to keep the Iraqui kit they captured because it was all frontline British Stuff that they themselves didnt have. e.g. Iraquis had Brens, Vickers MMG's, A/T Rifles and Universal Casrriers where the Indian troops were still using hated WW1 vintage Hotchkis MG's

Some of the officers had failed elsewhere or were to old for modern warfare.

Also the Army was trainign for mobile warfareso armoured units with no tanks were being raised left right and centre and those divisions forming werre being trained for a motorised role and were then sent to the Jungle.

All in all the Indian and British Armies couldnt have been less prepared if they tried.

Only 1 Bn in the whole of malaya was really trained for warfare --- 1 !!!! out of about 30 Indian and British Bns

It was crazy

8th Aus Div was using captured Italain AT Guns with no shells.

Most formations were using 18 pounders if they had any arty at all




EUBanana -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 12:33:22 AM)

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.



EUBanana -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 12:40:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Johan_Banér
I'd like to think these 34 guys would possible be at least his equal [:-] particulary those ten first [;)]


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!



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.703125