Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My

Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (Full Version)

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

Message

Blackhorse -> Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/26/2021 9:13:25 AM)
In the Priest Anti-Soft Values thread, Alpha77 raised a good point about US tank destroyer database inaccuracies. I am responsible for the design (and any errors) in the US Land OOB in stock WitP-AE, so I thought to pull this into a new thread, to better describe the problem... and offer a solution how to more accurately depict the six US self-propelled tank destroyer battalions that were sent to the Pacific. quote: ORIGINAL: Alpha77 Some land unit values are "all over the place" also arrival dates wrong, most glaring examples M10, M18 and M38 TDs.. those were first send to Europe. Units in the pacific had to keep their AT GUNS (not SP) for longer before they got SPs. And M36 should perhaps arrive late 44 or early 45. Look at the date in game..except Axis in Europe would be beaten in 44 already which then frees M18/M36 for the pacific (alternate history?) ... Would be cool if some kind of project could be made going over many of these cases and a consenus could be reached in the community so all this could be corrected once and for all. I mean plane and ships data is much better in general...probably cause the land war in this game is more rudimentary.

Blackhorse -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/26/2021 9:15:46 AM)
The problem starts with the 75mm Gun, Motor Carriage (GMC) Halftrack (device 1174; 932 in the Philippine Army). The GMC was a stop-gap self-propelled artillery piece and anti-tank gun. It was new to the US army in 1941, and 50 of the first 100 produced were sent to MacArthur in the Philippines. They show up on December 18th, on Bataan, as the Provisional GMC Group (6760) which the US Army Armed Forces Far East (USAFFE) cobbled together from soldiers stripped from anti-aircraft units, plus 3rd Lieutenants from the Philippine Scouts to command gun sections, plus raw Filipino recruits. In 1942, regular US Army units arrive equipped with the 75mm GMC Halftrack. In some units, those devices eventually upgraded to artillery (device 1186 M7 Priest SP Arty). In others, the GMCs upgraded to self-propelled anti-tank guns (M10 or M18). When WitP was first overhauled into WitP–AE there were strict limits on the number of new units, bases and devices that could be added. I chose not to have two identical GMC units, each upgrading to different devices. Instead, I set device 1174 to an artillery upgrade (1186) and the first four self-propelled tank battalions arrived in-game already equipped with the M-10 before it was historically available– in IRL they arrived in theatre equipped with the 75mm Gun GMC Halftrack, then upgraded to tank destroyers in 1944. Next: The solution* *- This was a unique database problem for the US land OOB. These were the only devices brought in early to skirt the database limitations.

Blackhorse -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/26/2021 9:18:43 AM)
To make the OOB mostly accurate, make the following changes in the editor: [EDIT: as btd64 notes in a post below; create or edit into scenario 26 or higher] 1. Add a new device (in stock, you can use 1197). Use the same specs as 1174, but name it “75mm GMC Halftrk TD” and set upgrade to 1183 (the M10 Wolverine TD) 2. For device 1183 (M10 Wolverine TD) change available to ‘4401’ 3. For device 1184 (M18 Hellcat TD) change available to ‘4404’ 4. For device 1185 (M36 Jackson) change available to ‘4507’; change pool to ‘100’ 5. For location 2356 (US TD Battalion) change delay to ‘4201’ and change Wpn 1 to ‘1197 75mm GMC Halftrk TD’. Keep the number at ‘36’. Make no other changes. 6. Go to locations 5136, 5137, 5161 and 5162 (the 632nd, 637th, 627th and 640th TD battalions, respectively). At each location click the ‘Use TOE’ button – you should now see device 1197 in the Wpn 1 slot. 7. Go to locations 5305 and 5325 (the 670th and 671st TD battalions). In both cases, change ‘delay’ to ‘441201’. Change TOE ID to 0’. Change Wpn 1 to 1184 M18 Hellcat TD. Keep the number at ‘36’. Make no other changes. With those changes the US self-propelled tank destroyer OOB is nearly accurate. The M-18 Hellcat is a spiffy little sports car of a tank destroyer. It had a road speed of 55 mph – far and away the fastest American armored vehicle. In addition to the 670th and 671st battalions listed above, the 637th battalion, which arrived on GMC halftracks, later upgraded to the M-18. In game, I let the 637th upgrade to the M-10… otherwise we’d need to set up yet another 75mm GMC Halftrack device, specifically to upgrade to the M18, just for the 637th, since it arrived on the GMC halftracks. If you want to make that change, knock yourself out. [8D]

Platoonist -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/26/2021 9:28:08 AM)
Awesome. Thank you for the SPA do-it-yourself game patch. [8D]

btd64 -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/26/2021 11:21:30 AM)
Thank you Blackhorse. One thing that I would suggest is first save the scenario that you change to a scenario slot 26 or higher. And use the saved scenario to make your modifications....GP

Ian R -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/26/2021 11:56:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blackhorse The M-18 Hellcat is a spiffy little sports car of a tank destroyer. The Buick tank killer [:)] image wouldn't post....

fcooke -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/26/2021 2:11:10 PM)
Holy Crow - This is one of the reasons the community here is awesome. Thank you BH.

RangerJoe -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/26/2021 2:34:11 PM)
Long time no see here. Thank you. Allons [:D] Joe

Ian R -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/26/2021 3:30:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Long time no see here. Thank you. Allons [:D] Joe I hope BH saw the homage to his regiment in my scenario notes.

Yaab -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/28/2021 12:08:29 PM)
Blackhorse, players cannot modify scenarios in slots 001-025. Thus, I suggest you contact AndyMac so those changes can be effected by him in those scenarios.

RangerJoe -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/28/2021 12:13:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yaab Blackhorse, players cannot moduify scenarios in slots 001-025. Thus, I suggest you contact AndyMac so those changes can be effected by him. I don't think that he can change those either. I think that is why he put out new scenario numbers.

btd64 -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/28/2021 12:25:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yaab Blackhorse, players cannot modify scenarios in slots 001-025. Thus, I suggest you contact AndyMac so those changes can be effected by him in those scenarios. That is why I suggested up above to save to a slot 26 or higher....GP

Blackhorse -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/29/2021 2:16:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Long time no see here. Thank you. Allons [:D] Joe Back atcha, Ranger! Scouts Out!

Blackhorse -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/29/2021 2:21:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R I hope BH saw the homage to his regiment in my scenario notes. No! I'm always up for a good homage... can you repost it here? ::He asks, shamelessly plugging his old regiment [8D] ::

Ian R -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/29/2021 2:42:07 AM)
Towards the end.

Blackhorse -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/29/2021 10:59:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R Towards the end. Ian, Thanks. "The Long, Long Road to Tokyo" is exceptionally well-researched. Your projections of what US and Allied forces could be brought to bear against a more muscular Japan through 1948 have a loud ring of plausibility. I'm especially impressed by the justification and level of detail of what ship production would have looked like, had the war continued. Well done! I appreciate the Blackhorse shout-out in the notes, with the 11th Cavalry Group returning to the PTO. As Ian knows, the 11th Cavalry ("Blackhorse") makes a cameo appearance in WitP-AE at the beginning of the war, as a static horse cavalry regiment patrolling the San Diego area that withdraws in 1942 to be reformed... first, as an armored regiment, then as the cavalry group, as well as the 11th Tank Battalion, and the 712th Tank Battalion... to fight in the ETO. The OOB research really points out just how much logistics drove US strategy. As Ian's notes show, the US insisted that the invasion of Japan was going to have a single LOC - direct from the US West Coast (!). Consequently, any allied unit ground unit participating in the invasion was going to be US-supplied and US-equipped. Despite loud complaints, especially from the British and Australians, the Americans refused to budge, and the Allies had each acquiesced by the time the war mercifully ended before the invasion was necessary.

fcooke -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/29/2021 11:22:20 AM)
Fun movie. My manager's manager was a Cav guy. He was shocked when I told him a Shillelagh firing Sheridan was bad news for the USSR. He was less impressed when I told him the Cav was meant as a 'speed bump' to slow down the onslaught. Thankfully that never happened.

Ian R -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/29/2021 1:16:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blackhorse quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R Towards the end. Ian, Thanks. "The Long, Long Road to Tokyo" is exceptionally well-researched. Your projections of what US and Allied forces could be brought to bear against a more muscular Japan through 1948 have a loud ring of plausibility. I'm especially impressed by the justification and level of detail of what ship production would have looked like, had the war continued. Well done! I appreciate the Blackhorse shout-out in the notes, with the 11th Cavalry Group returning to the PTO. As Ian knows, the 11th Cavalry ("Blackhorse") makes a cameo appearance in WitP-AE at the beginning of the war, as a static horse cavalry regiment patrolling the San Diego area that withdraws in 1942 to be reformed... first, as an armored regiment, then as the cavalry group, as well as the 11th Tank Battalion, and the 712th Tank Battalion... to fight in the ETO. The OOB research really points out just how much logistics drove US strategy. As Ian's notes show, the US insisted that the invasion of Japan was going to have a single LOC - direct from the US West Coast (!). Consequently, any allied unit ground unit participating in the invasion was going to be US-supplied and US-equipped. Despite loud complaints, especially from the British and Australians, the Americans refused to budge, and the Allies had each acquiesced by the time the war mercifully ended before the invasion was necessary. Despite initial resistance, both the Canadians and Australians were happy to be equipped with free US weaponry [;)] The real political problem that was never solved with the proposed Cth X corps was the UK insistence on a British CO. If MacArthur was simply given a couple of Australian/Canadian divisions & attached tank units (and maybe a French one) that fitted seamlessly into US corps formations, that was a lot more likely outcome IMHO.

Blackhorse -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/30/2021 8:53:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fcooke Fun movie. My manager's manager was a Cav guy. He was shocked when I told him a Shillelagh firing Sheridan was bad news for the USSR. The Sheridan was my first-ever experience in an armored vehicle. At the end of my year-before-commissioning ROTC training at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina (Ticks! Chiggers!) I got to spend a week with the 82nd Airborne Division's tank battalion as they went through their annual gunnery evaluation ("tank tables"). Firing the 152mm main gun on a 15-ton body was a treat. Those of us in the crew grabbed onto hand-holds when the tank commander said 'fire', as over half the vehicle reared off the ground, and slammed back down with each shot. My later tank gunnery in M60s and M1s was tame by comparison. I never saw the Shillelagh fired. In practice, if a Sheridan fired a shell, the violent recoil often ruined the calibration of the Shillelagh's electronics. So tanks could either fire the missile, or main gun rounds, but not both. The combined gun-missile platform worked better in the M60A2, but even that was eventually phased out, and the Army hasn't yet tried to replace it. quote: ... the Cav was meant as a 'speed bump' to slow down the onslaught. That hadn't changed when I joined the (M60A3-equipped) Blackhorse. quote: Thankfully that never happened. [&o]

Blackhorse -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/30/2021 9:17:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R The real political problem that was never solved with the proposed Cth X corps was the UK insistence on a British CO. If MacArthur was simply given a couple of Australian/Canadian divisions & attached tank units (and maybe a French one) that fitted seamlessly into US corps formations, that was a lot more likely outcome IMHO. IIRC - and I may not, I looked into this over a decade ago - the US military command had agreed to a "Commonwealth Corps" led by some British Empire officer. You are right to highlight the geo-political infighting that would have gone into the selection of a commander. I suspect the British would have pushed through Charles Keightley, one of their own, to command. But I tend to agree with the Australians that they had the best potential commander in-hand: Leslie Morshead - 'Ming the Merciless', Hero of Tobruk, veteran of El Alamein, New Guinea, and Borneo.

RangerJoe -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/30/2021 4:24:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blackhorse quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R The real political problem that was never solved with the proposed Cth X corps was the UK insistence on a British CO. If MacArthur was simply given a couple of Australian/Canadian divisions & attached tank units (and maybe a French one) that fitted seamlessly into US corps formations, that was a lot more likely outcome IMHO. IIRC - and I may not, I looked into this over a decade ago - the US military command had agreed to a "Commonwealth Corps" led by some British Empire officer. You are right to highlight the geo-political infighting that would have gone into the selection of a commander. I suspect the British would have pushed through Charles Keightley, one of their own, to command. But I tend to agree with the Australians that they had the best potential commander in-hand: Leslie Morshead - 'Ming the Merciless', Hero of Tobruk, veteran of El Alamein, New Guinea, and Borneo. Not only that, he was used to working for MacArthur.

Ian R -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/30/2021 4:57:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blackhorse quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R The real political problem that was never solved with the proposed Cth X corps was the UK insistence on a British CO. If MacArthur was simply given a couple of Australian/Canadian divisions & attached tank units (and maybe a French one) that fitted seamlessly into US corps formations, that was a lot more likely outcome IMHO. IIRC - and I may not, I looked into this over a decade ago - the US military command had agreed to a "Commonwealth Corps" led by some British Empire officer. You are right to highlight the geo-political infighting that would have gone into the selection of a commander. I suspect the British would have pushed through Charles Keightley, one of their own, to command. But I tend to agree with the Australians that they had the best potential commander in-hand: Leslie Morshead - 'Ming the Merciless', Hero of Tobruk, veteran of El Alamein, New Guinea, and Borneo. Ming was a citizen soldier - which was probably OK by the Canadians/Australians/NZers. The Brits, not so much. In the end, as I suggested in the notes, Bernie Freyberg* may have been the easiest political choice - despite his cock-ups on Crete and at Cassino. Hopefully they would have given him a capable ops officer to actually fight the battles for him. [*Despite being a New Zealander by birth, he was actually British army, and he had a VC from WW1 and was a good bloke. He ticks a few boxes.]

RangerJoe -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/30/2021 5:31:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R quote: ORIGINAL: Blackhorse quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R The real political problem that was never solved with the proposed Cth X corps was the UK insistence on a British CO. If MacArthur was simply given a couple of Australian/Canadian divisions & attached tank units (and maybe a French one) that fitted seamlessly into US corps formations, that was a lot more likely outcome IMHO. IIRC - and I may not, I looked into this over a decade ago - the US military command had agreed to a "Commonwealth Corps" led by some British Empire officer. You are right to highlight the geo-political infighting that would have gone into the selection of a commander. I suspect the British would have pushed through Charles Keightley, one of their own, to command. But I tend to agree with the Australians that they had the best potential commander in-hand: Leslie Morshead - 'Ming the Merciless', Hero of Tobruk, veteran of El Alamein, New Guinea, and Borneo. Ming was a citizen soldier - which was probably OK by the Canadians/Australians/NZers. The Brits, not so much. In the end, as I suggested in the notes, Bernie Freyberg* may have been the easiest political choice - despite his cock-ups on Crete and at Cassino. Hopefully they would have given him a capable ops officer to actually fight the battles for him. [*Despite being a New Zealander by birth, he was actually British army, and he had a VC from WW1 and was a good bloke. He ticks a few boxes.] The professional Australian officers became the staff officers when war broke out because either the militia was not trained to do those jobs and/or there were not enough professional officers to do both. The militia officers were already in command of the militia units.

Ian R -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/30/2021 6:44:39 PM)
Lavarack is the significant exception to that - check out the command chain at Tobruk in 1941. Not that he ever gets much credit for teaching Ming about logistics [:'(] Edit - or how to defend against a combined arms attack by separating the infantry from the tanks ... just sayin'.

jdsrae -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (5/31/2021 1:10:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe The professional Australian officers became the staff officers when war broke out because either the militia was not trained to do those jobs and/or there were not enough professional officers to do both. The militia officers were already in command of the militia units. Royal Military College, Duntroon trainees have been called Staff Cadets since it opened as they were historically posted to the Staff Corps on graduation. I recall a story about a Duntroon graduate in WW1 who took over as an Infantry Bn CO in France and his Brigadier got into trouble from the General for risking a highly trained Staff Corps officer in the front line trenches. So it was just the job of the professional officers to take the staff roles and the militia officers, who early war also had seniority, took command. It wasn’t until after WW2 that the current approach of rotating full time officers between command, staff and training postings was introduced.

Alpha77 -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (6/4/2021 11:06:34 AM)
@Blackhorse: Cool thanks for the fix and someone actually cares about these issues: Of which I have 2-3 more - only in relation to land units for which you seem to be the specialist. Can I post those here too ? I am just curious what might be behind the "issues" IIRC one of these was Sherman modells strange differences and also compared to eg. T34 too high stats. But will post the details if more time to again look in the data.

BBfanboy -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (6/4/2021 6:13:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alpha77 @Blackhorse: Cool thanks for the fix and someone actually cares about these issues: Of which I have 2-3 more - only in relation to land units for which you seem to be the specialist. Can I post those here too ? I am just curious what might be behind the "issues" IIRC one of these was Sherman modells strange differences and also compared to eg. T34 too high stats. But will post the details if more time to again look in the data. You might be referring to the Sherman 'Firefly' mod done by the British and Canadians in France to deal with the German Tiger tanks. They took a Sherman tank, modified the turret slightly and installed a 17 pounder A/T gun which could penetrate the 4" armor of a Tiger. EDIT: I don't know if any of the Firefly tanks made it to the Pacific Theater in 1945.

RangerJoe -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (6/4/2021 6:20:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: Alpha77 @Blackhorse: Cool thanks for the fix and someone actually cares about these issues: Of which I have 2-3 more - only in relation to land units for which you seem to be the specialist. Can I post those here too ? I am just curious what might be behind the "issues" IIRC one of these was Sherman modells strange differences and also compared to eg. T34 too high stats. But will post the details if more time to again look in the data. You might be referring to the Sherman 'Firefly' mod done by the British and Canadians in France to deal with the German Tiger tanks. They took a Sherman tank, modified the turret slightly and installed a 17 pounder A/T gun which could penetrate the 4" armor of a Tiger. EDIT: I don't know if any of the Firefly tanks made it to the Pacific Theater in 1945. They also had to modify the gun as ell. I don't think that the Firefly was needed in the Pacific/SEAC so they were not sent. The Grant was still doing great work for the commonwealth forces in SEAC in 1944, if I remember correctly.

Blackhorse -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (6/4/2021 6:38:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alpha77 @Blackhorse: Cool thanks for the fix and someone actually cares about these issues: Of which I have 2-3 more - only in relation to land units for which you seem to be the specialist. Can I post those here too ? I am just curious what might be behind the "issues" IIRC one of these was Sherman modells strange differences and also compared to eg. T34 too high stats. But will post the details if more time to again look in the data. @Alpha, I'm happy to discuss, with three large caveats that could limit the benefit of the conversation... 1) I'm still subject to a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) so I can't reveal anything about how values were calculated. 2) The work was well over a decade ago, and even with notes, my memory is imperfect. 3) I'm not in a position to discuss the values of non-US equipment (e.g. T-34). Although the devs did coordinate to ensure that our values were consistent [especially important for infantry 'squads'] in the end I can only answer for the US values. You might want to start a new thread to discuss, if you are interested. This thread has developed some interesting side bar discussions.[:)]... even if there are questions I can't answer 'officially' there are other forumite experts who will have opinions worth reading - Diligent searching will find some examples of 'under-the-hood' calculations revealed by those who do have the right to disclose them.

RangerJoe -> RE: Wolverines, Hellcats & Jacksons, Oh My (6/4/2021 8:09:33 PM)
I would presume that the Sherman carried more ammunition which may be a factor plus better resupply for the Western Allies than what the Soviets had - especially at the beginning of the was when the Soviet attacking tank units would run out of fuel and ammo with no immediate resupply available. The three man turret would also make a difference since the tank commander had to load the gun for the T-34 2 man turret. Then having to go to the floor to get more ammo when the ready ammo was used up.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.96875