RE: British Unit with low Exp (Full Version)

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



Message

frank1970 -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 6:03:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: latosusi

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



[8|]


German weren´t and aren´t too bad either ;-)



frank1970 -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 6:22:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

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.



How many divisions did the British field in Europe and Africa? I didnt know there were so many!

edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_Divisions_in_World_War_II

Just found this link. I would assume a lot of the division in the UK were of low quality TA and HG soldiers. The regulars would have been sent overseas.



ähmmmmm, MANY??????? about 80. Many of them have never seen any combat.

Germany had 40 Wehrmacht Pz Divisons alone! Additonally about 200 infantry divisions, 11 mountain divisions, etc. Add the SS- formations, then you´ll see many divisions. Not to speak of the Soviets btw. [;)]



stuman -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 6:54:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


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. [;)]



I think Mush deserves a few extra points just because of his name [;)]



anarchyintheuk -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 6:56:34 PM)

A lot of UK manpower was spent on the RN and member navies, Bomber Command and their merchant marine, forces that Germany and the USSR either didn't have or didn't prioritize. Considering all of their manpower commitments, the UK did well to field such a large army.



Caractacus -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 7:02:00 PM)

I thought that Indian Divisions were made up of one third British troops? (this goes back to the Mutiny). Could this not have an effect on quality ratings (assuming that the British Brigade was possibly bringing better training and equipment along when it integrated in with the Division)?

The Indian divisions in the Med weren't 'cut to ribbons'. Certainly no more than other Allied or Axis divisions. The Indian divisions fought superbly on many occasions. Their East Africa campaign in particular was a triumph over a determined enemy in what was total hellhole to attack into.

The Indians who fought alongside the Japanese were a tiny fraction, to be set against the millions who threw their lot in with the British. Furthermore, most of them were recruited from within Japanese POW camps, which any sane person would do anything to get out of anyway. From what I remember they quckly gave up on the idea, and all but a handful had switched back to fighting alongside the British by the end.



anarchyintheuk -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 7:07:50 PM)

Pretty sure only 1 of 9 battalions were British in Indian Divs at the start of the war. Eventually, even those bns. left. Could be wrong tho.



stuman -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 7:14:57 PM)

Btw, although just a bit off topic, I would like to reccomend a book recently out named Masters and Commanders by Andrew Roberts. One of, if not the , best books regarding Allied Grand Strategy I have ever read. Roberts is a good researcher and writer.



Caractacus -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 7:18:34 PM)

You could be right Anarchy - I'm not 100% on the exact numbers myself. I do recall that some Indian Divs (in the Med in particular IIRC) had one British and two Indian Brigades.

I'm not sure of the Brit/Indian balance in Asia, but I thought that every Indian division had a substantial leavening of Brit troops to forstall a second Mutiny, even 90 years on! It would make sense if that requirement was dropped as the war progressed though.



Kereguelen -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 7:22:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Pretty sure only 1 of 9 battalions were British in Indian Divs at the start of the war. Eventually, even those bns. left. Could be wrong tho.


One British battalion in every Indian brigade was planned, but this was not always and at all times implemented, especially early and late in the (Pacific) war.

British battalions were considerably weaker in manpower and rifle strength than Indian and Gurkha battalions from 1944 onwards, btw. British forces in the CBI always faced serious manpower shortages and the British Regimental System did not exactly help with this.



P.Hausser -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 7:25:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

German weren´t and aren´t too bad either ;-)




Yup!



Caractacus -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 7:41:50 PM)

That's it - thanks Kereguelen. The old memory almost worked, its one battalion per brigade not one brigade per division. D'oh!

In theory it would still be a substantial part of the overall Indian Division's strength that would be made up of British troops if that was implemented though.

Would be intrigued to know how it panned out in reality, and what (if any) consequences there could be for WITP:AE modelling.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 9:24:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders


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 ?



Im my book it does, but then, unlike a lot of posters here, I've actually heard active sonar pinging on my hull. Nothing Hollywood can ever make comes close in fear factor. And those guys pinging were FRIENDS.



EUBanana -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 9:30:30 PM)

Nah, thats nasty.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 9:35:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

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.


Of course not all were 60; as others have said, I suspect that's a factor of developer time and relative fame. There should be some 70-80s, and there should be some 25-40s. As I think you said up-thread, a 60 with working torpedoes in 1941 beats a 90 with non-working fish any day of the week.

But I get touchy when Brits claim their subs did anything CLOSE to what USN subs did in the PTO. Our subs, as Nimitz said, essentially beat Japan. They took the highest percentage casualties of any part of the USN. They dealt with long ranges, lack of advanced bases, crap weapons, old designs, short-sighted tactics, and diversion of resources to naval air. They produced seven Medal of Honor winners. They sank the Japanese merchant marine (and several fleet carriers.)

Men like Sam Dealey, Donc Donahoe, Red Ramage, Dick O'Kane, and old Mush formed the cultural backbone of the USN submarine force that's still there today. Gene Fluckey, by then a Vice-Admiral, presided at the commissioning of my boat. Ned Beach . . . well, what can you say about Ned Beach? Not only "Run Silent, Run Deep" but around the world, submerged? USS Barb's run into Chinese coastal waters was a post-graduate seminar on seamanship, deck-plate engineering, and risk analysis. These guys were legends during the war, and after. If that's the case in the RN submariners, educate me.



Dixie -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 10:01:57 PM)

quote:

But I get touchy when Brits claim their subs did anything CLOSE to what USN subs did in the PTO. Our subs, as Nimitz said, essentially beat Japan. They took the highest percentage casualties of any part of the USN. They dealt with long ranges, lack of advanced bases, crap weapons, old designs, short-sighted tactics, and diversion of resources to naval air. They produced seven Medal of Honor winners. They sank the Japanese merchant marine (and several fleet carriers.)


Of course they didn't, the RN was busy elsewhere. In the freezing waters of the North Sea. Or the shallow and confined spaces of the Med. Or the Baltic. The RN scores were lower because most of their opponents didn't have the large merchant marines that Japan (or the Allies) did. No-one has even said anything close to knocking Japan out of the war.

They dealt with short range boats, less advanced targetting equipment, short ranges and a lack of major targets. They had a simialr impact in the Med though, where enemy airpower was almost everywhere and poor training didn't help. Minefields were a common problem and accounted for more than 25% of losses. They sank 39 u-boats as well. The RN subs weren't exactly flush with advanced bases either, Malta is the only one that really springs to mind.

No-one is trying to deny the impact the USN subs had, the main point is that when they were faced with the chances the RN subs were more than willing (and capable) of taking them. By the time the RN could spare the subs the Jpanese merchant fleet was in tatters already. There were a few major successes though, hitting a moving target with 5 toprepdoes from 4,000 yards after dodging a destroyer attack isn't easy.

The RN took 81 submarine losses during the war, most in the shallow confined waters of the Med in a protracted campaign. Not just individual patrols into and then out of there.

There are more important things to get touchy about. Someone says that RN sub skippers should have a higher rating because Mush Morton went into the Inland Sea whilst they were doing comparable things? No need to get upset...

Some of the RN boats lasted through 5 years of front line action (HMS Porpoise), others lasted a few short months. But the one thing that they all have in common... None of them sound slightly rude (USS Growler and USS Snapper) [:D]



Johan_Banér -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 10:20:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie
But the one thing that they all have in common... None of them sound slightly rude (USS Growler and USS Snapper) [:D]

Not quite correct [;)]

However the Brits also named them like this [:D]



Johan_Banér -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 10:21:04 PM)

Remove double post



Terminus -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 10:27:23 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?


This is certainly real.



EUBanana -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 10:33:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie
(USS Growler and USS Snapper) [:D]



What about HMS Truncheon?

...maybe I just got a sick mind.




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 10:35:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

They dealt with short range boats, less advanced targetting equipment, short ranges and a lack of major targets. They had a simialr impact in the Med though, where enemy airpower was almost everywhere and poor training didn't help. Minefields were a common problem and accounted for more than 25% of losses. They sank 39 u-boats as well. The RN subs weren't exactly flush with advanced bases either, Malta is the only one that really springs to mind.


They had The Rock. And a strong Allied presence in the Med for possible S&R. For that matter, the Nazis didn't behead prisoners . . .
"Jumping off" from Midway for a 10,000-mile round-trip to Empire waters, with no bases, no S&R, very little radio comms, was a whole different war than anything in the ETO. For two years USN subs took the fight to the enemy by themselves. They weren't part of a team; they were all alone in Indian country. The raw distances in the Pacific are frequently forgotten.

quote:

There are more important things to get touchy about. Someone says that RN sub skippers should have a higher rating because Mush Morton went into the Inland Sea whilst they were doing comparable things? No need to get upset...


I'm more upset that he didn't come out of the Inland Sea.





Bullwinkle58 -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 10:37:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Some of the RN boats lasted through 5 years of front line action (HMS Porpoise), others lasted a few short months. But the one thing that they all have in common... None of them sound slightly rude (USS Growler and USS Snapper) [:D]


You forgot USS Bang.[:)]

(Perhaps this is USAian slang. But it's funny over here.)



EUBanana -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 10:38:09 PM)

I don't know why the USN is suddenly being defended here, why Americans are suddenly aggrieved by someone suggesting RN commander should be a little bit better.

Nobody's actually talked about the USN at all, beyond some peoples apparent unshakeable belief that Victor Crutchley VC was less aggressive than just about every US admiral bar Fletcher.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 10:40:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I don't know why the USN is suddenly being defended here, why Americans are suddenly aggrieved by someone suggesting RN commander should be a little bit better.

Nobody's actually talked about the USN at all, beyond some peoples apparent unshakeable belief that Victor Crutchley VC was less aggressive than just about every US admiral bar Fletcher.

I beleive it started with a green smiley.



EUBanana -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 10:40:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
You forgot USS Bang.[:)]


[:D][:D][:D][:D]




EUBanana -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 10:43:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I beleive it started with a green smiley.


...by someone who jumped to the USN's defence, yeah.

I mean, what is it with you. You want the USN to be RN + 20 by default or something? Is it really so insulting to suggest that perhaps RN commanders were actually not numpties? Is Victor Crutchley really less aggressive than every US commander bar Fletcher in your mind?

And people accused /me/ of fanboyism.

I mean, it wasn't me or anybody else that started talking about whether US commanders deserved their stats or not, in fact I already said they did. So no idea what your point is, really. Ra ra?



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/18/2009 11:40:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I beleive it started with a green smiley.


...by someone who jumped to the USN's defence, yeah.

I mean, what is it with you. You want the USN to be RN + 20 by default or something? Is it really so insulting to suggest that perhaps RN commanders were actually not numpties? Is Victor Crutchley really less aggressive than every US commander bar Fletcher in your mind?

And people accused /me/ of fanboyism.

I mean, it wasn't me or anybody else that started talking about whether US commanders deserved their stats or not, in fact I already said they did. So no idea what your point is, really. Ra ra?


Not to beat a dead horse, but the quote below is yours. I took it as a sideswipe that you said "and lived to tell the tale." Look up how Morton and USS Wahoo died, and perhaps you'll understand this ex-submariner's pique.

"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. "

No, I don't want USN to be RN + 20. In a perfect world I'd like the devs to have infinite time and resources for every facet of the game. But the fact is, the USN has ten or twelve superstar sub COs from WWII, and yes, Morton was a 90. After reviewing HMS Truant's record in Wikipedia, I think 60-70 is probably fair in comparison.

Also, Wahoo sank 20 ships, give or take JANAC math.



Andy Mac -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/19/2009 12:11:58 AM)

Guys calm down please.

RN/RAN/RNZN ship captains are the same as stock.

We added/updated stats for TF and HQ leaders and some large LCU's but it was outside my purview to change RN ship captain stats so it is inevitable they are the same generic values as stock.

At some stage last year we took a look at RN sub xp levels and I think 'some' of the late war sub drivers got a modest boost but in general most of the best RN leaders were in the Med or the Atlantic.

Captain Walker would have gotten at lease a 90 from me but he was Atlantic, Wanklyn probably the same but he died.

Fundamentally the best RN leaders are not in theatre until the end of the war.

Admirals like Rawlings and Vian are both good in game as is Somerville and I still believe I may have underplayed Bruce Fraser a little



EUBanana -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/19/2009 1:15:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Not to beat a dead horse, but the quote below is yours. I took it as a sideswipe that you said "and lived to tell the tale." Look up how Morton and USS Wahoo died, and perhaps you'll understand this ex-submariner's pique.


OK.

Well, it wasn't intended as a sideswipe, so if you took any offence, I'm sorry. It only was intended to compare performance. Wahoo is the benchmark of just what excellence in Allied submarines means - hence why Mush has skill 90 no doubt, he was the acknowledged top man.



wdolson -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/19/2009 2:09:07 AM)



quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2

How many divisions did the British field in Europe and Africa? I didnt know there were so many!

edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_Divisions_in_World_War_II

Just found this link. I would assume a lot of the division in the UK were of low quality TA and HG soldiers. The regulars would have been sent overseas.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank
ähmmmmm, MANY??????? about 80. Many of them have never seen any combat.

Germany had 40 Wehrmacht Pz Divisons alone! Additonally about 200 infantry divisions, 11 mountain divisions, etc. Add the SS- formations, then you´ll see many divisions. Not to speak of the Soviets btw. [;)]


The UK was a naval power, Germany and the USSR were both continental powers. The royal navy was the premiere service in the UK and they got the bulk of manpower. The British Army has never been huge and was structured to be primarily a colonial defense and policing army in 1939. Historically the British Army has been a colonial army and an expeditionary army, operating near the coast where the RN could support them. They were never going to be capable of going toe to toe with the Wehrmacht without help.

Bill



Chickenboy -> RE: British Unit with low Exp (11/19/2009 2:26:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Truant is the first British sub you get

Doesn't anyone else find this ironic? [:)]



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.515625