Heroes of the Allies (Full Version)

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



Message

fbastos -> Heroes of the Allies (8/10/2004 7:37:36 AM)

Only 3 Allied Divisions start the long game with XP greater than 80:

- The 3rd Australian Divison
- The 25th US Division
- The 2nd USMC Division

These are hereby granted the title of Heroes of the Allies!

Uh? 25th US Div? Yeah, Guadalcanal, I know... but some Marines would argue about having a green Inf Division side by side with the USMC...



Andy Mac -> RE: Heroes of the Allies (8/10/2004 1:18:44 PM)

Ummmm why 3rd Aus ?

I would expect 6th or 7th to be around that level but 3rd seems weird.

I dont know much about the history of third can anyone shed some light on this ?

Andy



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Heroes of the Allies (8/10/2004 9:18:54 PM)

The 2nd USMC was just as green as the 25th on 12/7/41.



fbastos -> RE: Heroes of the Allies (8/10/2004 10:55:22 PM)

Yeah, that's a good point. The 25th and the USMC should be green (specially the 25th, which didn't have even a year of age by then), but they list experience in the 80s.. what is very high.

A better way to represent that would be to have the entire US Army green but make them learn fast, rather than starting as veterans.

The Australians should be harder than they list (in the 60s I think), as they had fighting experience in the middle east. But to start the war with 80s (or 90s like the USMC Bn)...wow.. :)



McNaughton -> RE: Heroes of the Allies (8/10/2004 11:46:00 PM)

The problem with a lot of starting experience represented later troop redeployments and high levels of training. Does substantial training equal that of combat experience? Never ever will, no matter how realistic virtual realitiy gets.

One thing that most wargames omit are different types of experience. There should be at least two types of experience.

#1. Training. These ratings represent what you do with the troops prior to combat experience, and this value really is only useful UNTIL the unit gets into their first combat experience. All that this value can do is to increase the chance that troops will survive, and/or achieve goals. in their first battle.

#2. Experience. These ratings represent what you have learned from combat, and what your troops are generally capable of.

You could never train a unit to be equals to a veteran combat unit (given all things equal), but since there is no difference between combat experience, and trained experience, we have to make do with what values we are given.

The difference between the 6th, 7th, and 9th Australian Divisions and any other Australian units is that they were vonunteer formations, while the rest were militia. No other units had combat experience prior to 1942. The reason for the 3rd Division being of such high experience was that it was used in New Guniea, basically full of experienced Militia troops from the early campaign (which are represented in other units). What happened a lot in the British/Empire army was brigade and battalion transfers. Brigades moved from divisions all the time, and battalions moved as well. The 3rd Division was actually full of veterans by the time it shipped out (however, its initial troops remained in Australia). The problem is, that Australia now gets 2x the veterans it should, as the starting units get them (i.e., those that fought the early New Guinea battle), but since you cannot move brigades and troops from division to division, there is no other way to represent the high-quality 3rd Division when it is shipped out later in the campaign. A similar problem happened with the 5th and 11th Division, as they were created by merging Brigade Groups into Divisions.



fbastos -> RE: Heroes of the Allies (8/11/2004 12:01:39 AM)

Very instructive post, McNaugton. Thank you.



mdiehl -> RE: Heroes of the Allies (8/11/2004 12:08:18 AM)

quote:

Does substantial training equal that of combat experience? Never ever will, no matter how realistic virtual realitiy gets


On an individual level it does not, although it can come very close depending on what sort of combat you are discussing. There is no appreciable difference, for example, in training to detect submarines in a training exercise and attempting to detect submarines in war. Similar also for advanced combat training for pilots. Also for bombardiers, navigators, and aerial and surface gunners. At the level of operating your Landing craft or whatever, launching amphipbious forces etc again training can be as good as actual combat.

The real uncertainty is in how individuals respond under fire. There are extremely good reasons why the USMC units sans combat have their training levels set at 80. It is because they were intensively and realistically trained, and their performance under fire was as good as or better than the performance of other nations' combat veteran units. I seriously doubt that any veteran Japanese, German, or Italian unit of similar size could have successfully invaded Tarawa, because absent USMC training the individuals would not have known how to respond to basic questions like "I'm ashore but everybody else in my squad including the lieutenant is dead or wounded now what do I do?"



fbastos -> RE: Heroes of the Allies (8/11/2004 12:12:08 AM)

Yeah, but Tarawa was late 1943... these guys are already super by 1941, and it looks like they could do Tarawa just after Pearl Harbor... what they couldn't



mdiehl -> RE: Heroes of the Allies (8/11/2004 12:20:06 AM)

quote:

Yeah, but Tarawa was late 1943... these guys are already super by 1941, and it looks like they could do Tarawa just after Pearl Harbor... what they couldn't


Nothing wrong with that. It's not like the USMC didn't have any large units trained up to a high level of capability prior to 1942. They just didn't get sent on any offensive missions until August 1942.



kellyc -> RE: Heroes of the Allies (8/11/2004 12:38:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Nothing wrong with that. It's not like the USMC didn't have any large units trained up to a high level of capability prior to 1942. They just didn't get sent on any offensive missions until August 1942.


Given what happened when they did, I tend to think they went on the offensive just abit too early.

Kelly



mdiehl -> RE: Heroes of the Allies (8/11/2004 12:43:18 AM)

quote:

Given what happened when they did, I tend to think they went on the offensive just abit too early.


I can't imagine what you're talking about. They went ashore at Guadalcanal, held a defensive perimiter despite the absence of supporting forces and a horrendous supply shortfall, and won the decisive part of the ground battle. They went ashore at Tarawa in the face of incredible obstances, with inadequate air support and inadequate pre-invasion bombardment, suffered outrageous casualties, and won. There's nothing in their accomplishments to suggest that they were inadequately trained for combat or that their peformance does not top the most esteemed performance of any Axis unit of comparable size.



Cap Mandrake -> RE: Heroes of the Allies (8/11/2004 12:49:57 AM)

I dont think its unreasonable to have the 2nd Marine Div at 80% given their superior performance when exposed to combat.

If one imagines the "experience" variable also encompasses esprit de corps and motivation, it seems squite fair.



hithere -> RE: Heroes of the Allies (8/11/2004 1:03:11 AM)

another Marine attaboy...(and I'm a Army guy so that really kills me!! [:)] ) is at wake island. the marine force there was able to hold back several assults before the commander finally said enough after it was clear that they were not going to get relieved and the attacks would just keep coming till they ran out of everything



mongo -> RE: Heroes of the Allies (8/11/2004 1:10:53 AM)

You can also look at it like this. The 2nd USMC was still composed of a lot of "Old Breed" regular Marines. The experience wasn't diluted by all the kids coming into the ranks.



kellyc -> RE: Heroes of the Allies (8/11/2004 1:24:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Given what happened when they did, I tend to think they went on the offensive just abit too early.


I can't imagine what you're talking about. They went ashore at Guadalcanal, held a defensive perimiter despite the absence of supporting forces and a horrendous supply shortfall, and won the decisive part of the ground battle. They went ashore at Tarawa in the face of incredible obstances, with inadequate air support and inadequate pre-invasion bombardment, suffered outrageous casualties, and won. There's nothing in their accomplishments to suggest that they were inadequately trained for combat or that their peformance does not top the most esteemed performance of any Axis unit of comparable size.


First off I'm not slamming their accomplishments, what they did in the face of those kinds of odds defies imagination. However, in the training department shortfalls most certainly existed. Case in point: Malaria, a preventable malady which they could have prevented it's wide spread effect but officers didn't order the enlisted to take it (the reason the enlisted didn't want to take it was because it was rumored to make them impotent--this is STILL a problem in the military to this day.)
Vandegrift fingered 'inadequate physical training and hardening prior to combat' as the greatest problem his command initially faced.
These facts I got out of Richard Frank's great piece of work entitled Guadalcanal.
In the end though, I don't think no level of training will prepare ANY troopers for the rigours of combat. Throw in jungle warfare and it just gets all the uglier.
Sincerely and respectfully
Kelly



mdiehl -> RE: Heroes of the Allies (8/11/2004 2:20:17 AM)

OK I wasn't sure what you were driving at. But in re your example "Malaria" again, even the veteran Japanese units suffered from Malaria and much worse than the Allied units, even the ones that did not see combat. So I fail to see how that example pertains to the LCU EXP ratings in WitP, which affect combat, not attrition loss rates in the face of supply problems.



The Dude -> RE: Heroes of the Allies (8/11/2004 12:36:31 PM)

remember, lots of those marines would have had extensive expeirience working in Central America during the 20-30s. And several 2nd Mar Div units worked as complete units in the atlantic. So the troops defintiely had operational expierience, however the 2nd Mar Div hadnt operated as a complete unit and that i think is represented well in the game by a damaged div. The time needed to build it up could represent the work up and exercise need to get the div effective as a cohesive organization



Jaws_slith -> RE: Heroes of the Allies (8/11/2004 4:45:36 PM)

I can't find the 2nd USMC...? Which base does it start?



Cap Mandrake -> RE: Heroes of the Allies (8/11/2004 4:49:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jaws43

I can't find the 2nd USMC...? Which base does it start?


I think it pops up in San Diego (Camp Pendleton)



Jaws_slith -> RE: Heroes of the Allies (8/11/2004 4:58:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jaws43

I can't find the 2nd USMC...? Which base does it start?


I think it pops up in San Diego (Camp Pendleton)


Got them....[:)]
they were shipped in and that is why I could not find them in the units list...[&:]



fbastos -> RE: Heroes of the Allies (8/11/2004 7:19:52 PM)

Well noticed on the prior service record, Dude. Point taken!

F.



fbastos -> RE: Heroes of the Allies (8/11/2004 7:24:38 PM)

Okies, I got convinced that the 2nd USMC was already heroic by 41.

Now, the 25th Inf looks like a bit of a strech. The division only had guard duty in Hawaii before, if I remember it correctly.

Other than having the hindsight that they will perform well in Guadalcanal, is there any other argument to prove that they had experience greater than all of the Soviet divisions that had just fought (and very well) against the Japanese on Nomohan?

Regards,
F.



Blackhorse -> RE: Heroes of the Allies (8/11/2004 9:00:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Dude

remember, lots of those marines would have had extensive expeirience working in Central America during the 20-30s. And several 2nd Mar Div units worked as complete units in the atlantic. So the troops defintiely had operational expierience, however the 2nd Mar Div hadnt operated as a complete unit and that i think is represented well in the game by a damaged div. The time needed to build it up could represent the work up and exercise need to get the div effective as a cohesive organization


Even though I'm an old Army "dogface" I defer to no one in my admiration for the Marines. [&o]

Even so, I think the 2nd Marine Division's experience is overrated at the start of the game.

The Marine's pre-war peacetime establishment was about 19,000 men. By the end of 1941, the Corps had tripled in strength -- so at least two-thirds of the soldiers only had from 0 to 2 years training. Most of the veterans would not have had combat experience, even of the 'pacification' sort; the last Marine involvement in Central America ended in 1934, over seven years before Pearl Harbor.

The 2nd Division was formed -- on paper -- in February, 1941. The core of the division was the 6th Regiment, which was to be expanded by new recruits into a full-sized division. But in May, the 6th Regiment and its supporting units -- chosen specifically because they were the elements of the 2nd Dision ready for active deployment -- were ordered to the East Coast to be ready to participate in an occupation of the Azores. When the Nazi threat to Portugal blew over, the 6th Regiment was sent to Iceland.

What was left of the 2nd Marines in California was understrength, stripped of its veteran cadre, and still being used as a replacement pool for other Marine units.

"Back in California, the 2d Marine Division was rounding into shape, engaged in constant training and maneuvers. [The unit had not] reached its full strength yet as constant demands for Marines for base, fleet, and barracks duty drained the available manpower pool as fast as it filled. . . On November 30th . . . the 2nd Division plus its Air Wing had about 8,000 men on the West Coast . . . (The full strength of a reinforced division was about 20,000)." Opening Moves: Marines Gear Up for War. Marines in World War II Commemorative Series by Henry I. Shaw, Jr. 1991



Mike Scholl -> RE: Heroes of the Allies (8/12/2004 4:54:30 AM)

A lot being said about Allied "lack of experiance" here..., what about the Japanese?
Yes, the had a number of formations that had fought in China (against a poorly-
trained, ill-equiped, and under-supplied for) and some that had had their heads
handed to them by the Russians. The rest were basically as "green" as the Allies
on 12/07/41...but they performed well enough to get the job done (against ill-
prepared, under-equiped, and poorly supplied Allied units). So training and indoc-
tronation must be able to produce usefull units.

I can't see any particular reason to have some of the Allied units "noticably superior"
to others in 1941 either..., with the possible exception of the "Wake" contingent and
the Philippines Scouts and a few others who proved themselves to be a "cut above"
in the actual campaign. But both sides were learning during the opening months.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875