British OOB and TOE (Full Version)

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



Message

Caranorn -> British OOB and TOE (9/16/2004 1:15:59 AM)

Cross Post from OOB comments < http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=669287&mpage=9&key=&# >

-----


I started to compare WitP's OOB and TOE with historical ones a bit more. Here are my first conclusions concerning apparently missing equipment from the WitP TOE.

-----


Missing elements in British Infandry Division TOE:

39 x engineer squads (27 in three Field Companies RE, 30 in 9 infantry battalions and cavalry regiment)

24 x 3" mortars (60 x in 9 infantry battalions and cavalry regiment)

78 x 2 and 6 pdr AT (72 x 2pdr in 9 infantry battalions, 48 x 6 pdr in anti tank regiment, 6 x 6pdr in cavalry regiment)

6 pdr AT while in the OOB files, are not currently used (no buildrates and 2pdr update to 57mm (american) AT instead, this needs to be fixed

22 x Vickers AAMG (2) (40 x in 9 infantry battalions and cavalry regiment)

48 x 40 mm Bofors AA (the LAA regiment seems to be missing entirely)

4.5" how. should be used instead of 4.5" field gun (distribution should be 36 x 18 pdr and 18 x 4.5" how.), the 4.5" how. should also upgrade to 25 pdr (yes that means two 25 pdr entries for upgraded divisions)

MG battalions are entirely missing from TOE, that means 48 x Vickers MMG missing, as there is no such beast in the current WitP I have no idea how to represent this essential fire power

-----


I would no be astonished if divisions in Asia had fewer AT guns then those in the ETO or MTO. But the theoretical TOE is 72 x 2 pdr. and 54 x 6pdr (once the 17 pdr is issued that changes again, though I have serious doubts about the 17 pdr in Burma, that's one hell of a barrel to get up mountain trails:-).

In addition to the Twin AAMG's a large number of single (Bren I believe) AAMG also existed in the division. Of course many of these were mounted on vehicles used for other purpouses.

The LAA regiments are missing entirely (yes at times divisions used mixed LAA/AT regiments, but AA is still missing).

I think one reason for the differences between the current WitP TOE and those I find might have a game phylosophy origin. To me in a game like this, a unit's TOE should be it's maximal strength, which usually means using a relatively late war TOE.

Independant Brigades (actually Brigade Groups) should have 1/3rd of all the equipment of a division's TOE. This is not currently the case for all British style brigades.

I will create a new topic named British OOB and TOE in the main discussion area so we can British OOB and TOE issues like this one. Then only submitting finished conclusions in this thread.

Marc aka Caran...



juliet7bravo -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/16/2004 1:58:54 AM)

I'm making a spreadsheet on the Dutch OOB and infrastructure across the board.

IIRC the British forces were apparently missing a great deal of equipment at wars start, that had been siphoned off for Brit forces elsewhere. A great deal of "robbing Peter to pay Paul" going on. The items you've noted as being missing were all items in short supply in the British Army during this period...the 3" mortar, AT guns, artillery, AA guns, and vehicles. Also, I think the TO&E changed dramatically for most countries between 1940 and 1945, even for the CW. Not sure, but don't think this is reflected in WitP one way or the other.

US 57mm AT was a copy of the Brit 6 pdr. BTW...guess it could work the other way.

What is intentionally missing for game balance and what isn't...dunno. Don't know either if the game has a mechanism to differentiate between the "theoretical" TO&E and the "Real Life" TO&E, or the difference between marginally equipped early war units and later war units with their full equipment list. I suspect it doesn't. I think the reality is that some ground units TO&E should be updated periodically (1-2 times) as the war progresses...give them an opportunity to upgrade just like ships and AC. An Allied Division "salvaged" from the early war and used till 1945 using its pre or early war TO&E would be operating under a significant firepower disadvantage I'd think.



Lemurs! -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/16/2004 2:23:03 AM)

Most AAA weapons have been subsumed into base forces which never really existed as a unit. The Japanese did have a bit more than a dozen base forces but no other nation used 'base forces' as a unit. They are a combination of AAA, CD, aviation units, maintainance units, a few construction engineers and sometimes a few infantry.

I would guess these were created for the most part to help the AI properly garrison islands. One stop shopping.
Most of the Japanese Divisions should have some AAA but only a few do in the game.

Mike



Skyros -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/16/2004 2:25:53 AM)

I found this link to a site focused on the Dutch East Indies in WWII. I have not had a chance to dig deeply into it but it looks interesting.

http://www.geocities.com/dutcheastindies/



rogueusmc -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/16/2004 7:35:41 AM)

The ground units do upgrade weapons but the TOE stays as it is...so you will have units evolving into usually more than the TOE has slated for them.



Central Blue -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/16/2004 9:13:07 AM)

seem like most of the energy has gone into ships and planes.

Many units, like the base defense forces seem all too generic. Some, like the Marine defense batallions are surprisingly close to the paper TOE's.

http://www.nps.gov/wapa/indepth/extContent/usmc/pcn-190-003133-00/sec3.htm

If you spent all your time between Pac War and WITP playing Steel Panthers and TOAW, to name two, then you've probably spent a good deal of time staring at TOE's and OOB's.

Some of you may remember TOE's and OOB's by a guy named Niehorster. He disappeared for a while, but is now back at orbat.com. Ninety per cent of the people posting here probably know that.

http://niehorster.orbat.com/000_admin/000oob.htm

And more here:

http://niehorster.orbat.com/600_pto/41-12-07_pacific.htm

And if you're obsessive, here's the load on the "Pensacola COnvoy"

http://niehorster.orbat.com/013_usa/_41_usn/z-convoys/convoy_4002.html

THis is another good one:

http://www.militarytablesoforganisation.com/

Fans of the Royal Arty will want to check out this one:

http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/index.htm

LIke I say, these are probably repetitive for most of you. But if anyone else is curious I would be glad to post more links.



strawbuk -> RE: British LMGs (9/16/2004 2:14:12 PM)

Brens/Lewis LMGs - not so much a TOE issue as an probelm in the 'power' of the Empire squads making unit a unit in the game(see discussions about different capabilites for Indian Army vs British, Gurhas etc) as about the combat rating given squad types.

A squad of infantry in a 1941 btn where there is ome LMG per PLATOON has its firepower easily tripled(?) when each squad has an LMG , espeically the lovely Bren. As I read it (eg in 194o's infantry manuals) good platoon/section, even Company tactics, was about using the riflemen to protect the LMG crew so they could get into a good killing position. Many jungle fights weere won by the Bren and the grenade.

A solution - can squads 'upgrade' eg have a 'early war' squad that upgrade in to a late war squad with more oomph?



strawbuk -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/16/2004 2:23:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Caranorn

In addition to the Twin AAMG's a large number of single (Bren I believe) AAMG also existed in the division. Of course many of these were mounted on vehicles used for other purpouses.



1. Light MG AA - utterly useless as AA defence (even as 'deterent' or aim spoiler) , unless en mass - which it wouldn't be in Empire divs in Burma in field. So in game effect is....? Efforts to try to fift these into TOE useful?

2. If any unit has enough LMGs/Brens spare to use as on the single AA mounts then their quarter master is a lying , thieving genius. All accounts reflect shortages, even 1944 (by which time air threat is considerably reduced.



Montbrun -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/16/2004 3:27:52 PM)

Absolutely correct, Strawbuk. Platoon/Squad Tactics revolved around the Platoon/Squad "weapon" - whatever it may be. There was an extreme shortage of equipment in the Far East CW units until about mid-1943. The Indian Army units had to make do with whatever they could get their hands on - mostly obsolete Vickers-Berthier MGs and no carriers, ATRs, 2" or 3" mortars. It was a sad state of affairs in the beginning. How do we model this situation in WitP? It remains to be seen.....

Brad



Caranorn -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/16/2004 3:45:14 PM)

Bah, typed a long post in response to teh various points raised and it didn't get through to the boards and I didn't keep a copy.

I will try again somewhat later.

Marc aka Caran...



Caranorn -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/16/2004 3:59:27 PM)

I don't think the Vickers-Berthier LMG was that inferior to the Bren. It seems to me both were very similar in quality and certainly superior to anything the US had at the time.

As to shortages of equipment, they should not be shown in the large unit TOE's. They should entirely based on build rates of Infantry Squads or the specific weapons. As shortage of Brens in WitP should mean only the 1941 squads. Once more Brens become available (1 per squad) a British squad update to reflect that. Once enough come to be the final Squad update (currently Britain only has 2 when 3 might be better as it went in three stages, 1 gun/ platoon, 1 gun squad/section, 2 gun squad/section).

Marc aka Caran...



strawbuk -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/16/2004 4:14:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Caranorn

I don't think the Vickers-Berthier LMG was that inferior to the Bren. It seems to me both were very similar in quality and certainly superior to anything the US had at the time.


hmmm - I've carried and used a Bren (only as squaddy cadet and only 'cause I was biggest kid there...) it was cool (as much as such things can be) but I leave that argument for another forum!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Caranorn
As to shortages of equipment, they should not be shown in the large unit TOE's. They should entirely based on build rates of Infantry Squads or the specific weapons. As shortage of Brens in WitP should mean only the 1941 squads. Once more Brens become available (1 per squad) a British squad update to reflect that.


uh - huh - agree and as I said. Caranorn - you have lots of good stuff, but please read other peoples posts throughly (or ask me to re-post if I am not being clear) and occaisionally acknowledge agreement! [:)]



Caranorn -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/16/2004 4:35:54 PM)

Okay I'll try it once again:-).

1) TOE for a strategic wargame in my opinion should reflect the TOE of units by the end of the war, or at least what was used for a long time. So what I used was indeed one of the better TOE for British forces, but that's what they should be able to build up if production is hoarded etc. Starting forces don't have to abide by the TOE, and build rate should be the determining factor for what actually ships to the units.

2) The problem with the 57mm AT and 6 pdr AT is upgrade paths. Currently Britis style units use the 57mm and upgrade to the US 76mm (which by the way is rated too highly in WitP I feel). Instead they should use the 6 pdr and either not upgrade at all, upgrade to 6pdr with improved ammo (mid 1944) or upgrade to 17 pdr (my personal preference is 6 pdr with improved ammo).

3) As far as I can see TOE cannot upgrade in WitP. It's not needed either as late war TOE could be used for the entire game and production be used as limiting factor to prevent unrealistic build ups.

4) If the divisional AA assets have been added to base forces, something is rather wrong with that aspect of the game. Looking at other armies' in game TOE I guess this is true. This means mobile units are more vulnerable to air attack.

5) Units tend to evolve to less then their historic TOE were.

6) LMG numbers per squad are already factored into the Infantry squads I believe.

7) Probably correct to exclude single AAMG, they would probably have been used in only a very small area and as such would not play a significant role at WitP's scale.

I am certain my first post that didn't get through talked about more stuff. Wish I recalled it all.

Possibly how 4.5" howitzers should be used in FA regiments (so in divisions and brigades) instead of the current field guns. And that those howitzers should eventually upgrade to 25pdr.

As you can see I tend to be pretty chaotic and disorganised:-).

I will try to compare the various nations' TOE in WitP to find what some of the design decisions behind leaving out material might be. I'd agree that single AAMG can be left out, Light AA otherwise should be included in mobile units and removed from base forces

Marc aka Caran...



Caranorn -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/16/2004 4:40:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: strawbuk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Caranorn
As to shortages of equipment, they should not be shown in the large unit TOE's. They should entirely based on build rates of Infantry Squads or the specific weapons. As shortage of Brens in WitP should mean only the 1941 squads. Once more Brens become available (1 per squad) a British squad update to reflect that.


uh - huh - agree and as I said. Caranorn - you have lots of good stuff, but please read other peoples posts throughly (or ask me to re-post if I am not being clear) and occaisionally acknowledge agreement! [:)]


So we do agree there? I'm a bit stressed right now (for no aparent reason too), so it's quite likely any errors or oversights are on my side. And while I use english daily (in writting), studied in the US etc. it's neverless not my first language. So any problems of understanding definitelly would be on my side, so not your fault:-).

Marc aka Caran...



Montbrun -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/16/2004 4:45:52 PM)

Caranorn,

As I have tried to convey in earlier posts, don't get hung up on the War Office War Establishments (especially for the Far East). This is what Joslen contains. You have to dig alot deeper to find "actual" TOEs for these units. Also, commanders in-theater were given alot of lee-way in unit structuring. As long as a commander did not increase or decrease personnel by more than 10%, used all of the TOE equipment, and didn't create a new "official" sub-unit, he could structure his command as he saw fit.
A classic example of this for the campaigns in India and Burma is the pooling of Universal Carriers in Brigade and Divisional "Transport Pools." Because the combat effectiveness of carriers in jungle warfare was extremely limited, all of the carriers in a unit would be pooled, providing transport for troops and supplies, and evacuating the wounded. In WitP, this would be reflected as "support," and not actual combat "devices." Another example of this, in the European Theater, would be the assignment of Sherman "Firefly" tanks. Some commanders chose to parcel individual "Fireflies" out to each troop, while others pooled all of the "Fireflies" in one squadron.

PLEASE PUT YOUR JOSLEN DOWN AND SLOWLY STEP AWAY - LOL [;)]

Brad



Caranorn -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/16/2004 5:08:18 PM)

I know Brad. But I find that theoretical TOE is the best thing to aim for in a strategic wargame. If we aim for anything less we will end up with as many TOE as division/brigades existed. In the end we can only have one or maybe 2 TOE per unit size. If that's the case we should use either the most common or the most complete. Anything else should be controlled by equipment availability.

I also recognise that on the terrain the experience in Asia was unique compared to the rest of the war for Britain. That's why for instance, without any detailed research, I seriously doubt a gun like the 17pdr could have been used in Asia (too big, too heavy etc. and just not needed either against Japanese tanks). Carriers I would not see as a weapon anyhow (except maybe in Motor units), probably the closests would be mechanised support.

Anyhow, for European issues I usually do put Joslen's down and compare it's data with other sources. For asia I'm a bit short on those, but things obviously don't add up as in the game right now. I will have to head to London some day and spend a few weeks in the archives and at the Imperial war Museum (intended to do actual research for years). One thing that's definitelly clear is that Joslen's TOE is of little use as it's just a few arbitrary dates during the war. On the other hand, looking at the individual unit entries (and the entries for British units on the Indian Establishment) you can learn a lot about the differences between units in the various theaters of operations (like when LAA or AT regiments started to appear in divisions).

Marc aka Caran...



Montbrun -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/16/2004 5:52:42 PM)

...when you do go to London, let me know - you're a helluva lot closer than I am - LOL

Brad



strawbuk -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/16/2004 7:03:13 PM)

Actually , The national army museum (Chelsea London) library is better on Brit and other CW army specifics - still got a readers card somewhere... must dig it out and find five minutes to go again. ( I live half an hour away)



UncleBuck -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/16/2004 7:44:10 PM)

Why do you tink the US 76MM gun is over powered in WitP? I think this gun would go through any land vehicle the Japanese dreamed up during the war like crap through a goose. The 76MM would go through the much heavier German armor , not glacius plate but side and rear armor, at moderate ranges. Teh T-34 had a 76 MM gun and that was nothingt o snif at.

The Bren can put up a great argument as one of the best LMG's of all time let alone WW2. However do nto discount the BAR. It was an excellent Base fire weapon. It fired a more powerful cartridge than the Bren, and was easier to handle with a single operator. It did have less ammo per magazine, and the magazine postiion caused a problem with downward deflection, but was not needed often.

the biggest reason US troops were generally considered hevier troops was the M1-Garand and M-1 Carbine. The US had 4 times teh firepower per soldier as any other force in WW2.

If you were to try to name the best Squad support weapon of WW2, I think the BAR and Bren gun woudl be tops. The Japanese had teh Lashio LMG wich was also excellent, but they were not as common as the Allied LMGs. THE Mg34/41 were great LMG's but were not truly squad support weapons.


Not trying ot be a US fan boy, but teh BAR is often overlooked since it is not as glamourous as the others. The US used it into Vietnam. It was dated by t hen but many troops used it even after teh introduction of the M-60.
UB



Montbrun -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/16/2004 8:56:13 PM)

...also, the 76mm Towed ATG was not used by the US in the Pacific during the war (except for the 815th TD Battalion - but it used the 3" ATG - a different animal, actually). The USMC never even upgraded to the 57mm ATG - they kept their 37mms until the end of the war. The US Army maintained use of the 57mm until the end...I believe that the upgrade 37mm > 57mm > 76mm is meant for the Soviet units, and as an expedient, was used for all allied units - just my theory.

Brad



Montbrun -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/16/2004 9:00:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: strawbuk

Actually , The national army museum (Chelsea London) library is better on Brit and other CW army specifics - still got a readers card somewhere... must dig it out and find five minutes to go again. ( I live half an hour away)


...umm, do you accept bribes? [;)]

Brad



Caranorn -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/16/2004 10:37:53 PM)

Yep (to Brad:-), I assumed the 76mm AT was supposed to represent the US 3" guns. The soviet guns are an entirely different beast again. I expect the US 3" would have been sufficient for any tanks encountered in Asia and the Pacific, but in Europe it was deemed insufficient IIRC. The reason why I feel the 76mm (again assuming this is the US 3" and not the Soviet 76.2mm AT) is overated in WitP is that the British 6pdr came close to doing the same job (as anti tank, the 3" was better for fire support). In WitP the 76mm AT is quite a bit better then the 6pdr.

Concerning the BAR, all I hear that was indeed a good weapon, but it was largely issued to the USMC (I seem to recall some with the army, but coudl be wrong), so it was not the army's squad weapon. And the Browning LMG is not quite in the same category as the Bren, Vickers-Berthier or other true LMGs.

Marc aka Caran...



Montbrun -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/16/2004 10:47:21 PM)

Wow - let's just say you've been misinformed - the BAR (Rifle, Automatic, .30 Caliber) was the PREMIER squad weapon in the US Army during World War II....



Lemurs! -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/16/2004 11:11:05 PM)

The BAR was not one of the best support weapons ever made. The US squad did not have 4x the fire power of any other squad. They had one advantage that the Garand gave them; could fire fairly accurately, fairly quickly on the move. One problem with that is you do not want to fire very quickly on the move with a 30-06 very often as you will not hit your target.
There is a reason every nation uses the 22 for assault weapons now; less recoil. Even so, accuracy with an assault weapon is minimal.
The much maligned '03 rifle was a bit more accurate than the Garand.

The BAR lacked a quick change barrel, had a small magazine,
was prone to barrel overheating, and was not issued with a tripod. Many American groups/sites will claim it was 'the best light machine gun ever'. Um, no.

Maybe the Lewis or the MG42, not the BAR.

Mike



Montbrun -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/16/2004 11:46:41 PM)

...but it WAS issued at the squad level to US Army units throughout the war...



UncleBuck -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/17/2004 12:24:29 AM)

M1918A1/A2



Operation Air cooled, gas operated, magazine fed, shoulder type
M1918A1 selective fire (fully and semi-automatic)
M1918A2 fully automatic
Caliber .30 (30-06)
Muzzle velocity 853.4 mps (2800 fps)
Capacity 20-round detachable box magazine
(1) Bandoleer (BAR belt): 12 magazines
(2) Magazine changeable in 2-4 seconds
(but averaged 6-8 seconds in combat)
Weight 8.33 kg (18.5 lbs)
Overall length 119.4 cm (47 in.)
Rate of fire 550 rounds per minute
Effective range 550m (600 yds)
Ammunition (1) Ball M2; 150 gr bullet, 50 gr charge
(2) Tracer M25, M1: for designating targets and signalling
(3) Armor piercing M2 (black tip); 165gr/53gr
(4) Armor piercing incendiary: for lightly armored flammable targets



The initial M1918A1 version of the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) was first used in combat by American soldiers during World War I, and many saw service in World War II. The BAR received high praise for its reliability under adverse conditions.

In 1940, the model M1918A2 was adopted. Unlike earlier models, it could only be fired in two automatic modes--slow (300 to 450 rpm) or fast (500 to 650 rpm)--but not in semiautomatic mode. Both versions were widely used in the second world war. The USMC preferred the semiautomatic mode in some tactical situations, and modified most of the M1918A2 guns to include that capability. A buffer spring in the butt greatly reduced recoil, to the advantage both of firing accuracy and shooter endurance.

The M1918A2 also mounted its folding bipod (2.38 pounds!) on a special flash hider near the end of the barrel. Since the bipod could easily be detached in this model, it very frequently was! but not often in defensive positions, where it was very effective. The flash hider, which was the point of attachment for the bipod, was not usually removed. Hiding the flash from enemy troops when firing on them isn't the purpose of the hider, all automatic weapons are easily visible when fired at night. It blocks the muzzle flash from the vision of the shooter, maintaining his night vision. That's important!

The Army infantry squad of nine men was tactically organized around a single BAR. The Marine squad of thirteen men was organized around three fire-teams, each organized around a BAR. The much greater fire power of a Marine platoon with its nine BARs over the Army platoon with its four BARs was a great combat advantage.

The BAR was a popular weapon in WWII and Korea, because it was very reliable and offered an excellent combination of rapid fire and penetrating power. The BAR's only serious drawbacks were its lack of a quick-change barrel (to reduce the chance of overheating), and its weight (BAR, with bipod and a loaded bandoleer, came to about 40 pounds).


From
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/browning.htm


I never said it was one of the best Light Machine guns of teh war. I said it was one of the best Base of Fire guns and between the Bren and BAR the top squad support weapon.

It was never used with a tripod, it had an intergral Bi-pod. The M1917 Machine Gun was the Tripod mounted 30 cal mg for the US.

UB



rogueusmc -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/17/2004 7:53:48 AM)

The sound of those things would effect ya too...they used the BAR in boot camp during live fire beach ops...that BAR had a pounding sound that really made the 'pucker factor' rise...[:D]



strawbuk -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/17/2004 11:20:00 AM)

I should say 'hey this is the Brit OOB thread, take the techno speak elsewhere' but I started the LMG fanboy stuff so can't resist.

In any US suad, Garands tend to make up for any possible, may be, shortcomings in BAR (which was built for a different war - get out of trench, fire max round while slung from hip while crossing no mans land to keep Huns heads down and off the Maxim triggers - yeah right) hence its inherent limniations re mag etc but also tested to be dropped in a 1917 shell hole complete with rotting pack mule and still work.

MG34/42 - not really light but fearsome on a tripod, changeable barrels, belt feed - and at 1200 rpm (MG42) I don't suppose the Schutzs minded the extra weight - ask one of of German Bundeswher fiends on the forum - the MG3 they used is pretty similar. And German philosphy was very very much protect the MG to get it into position to kill.

Bren - purpose built after a design competition, (and we Brits woiuld like to thank the Czechs for the design by the way, along with enigma prototypes and the second baddest fighter pilots in Battle of Britain), rock solid, runs covered gunk, changeable barrels (in about 5 seconds) , ok smallish mag, but ammo stays clean. Great for Burma conditions. Can fire all day (but you might need to change gunners mates!)

So IMHO if you don't have to carry it all day I'll have the MG42; if you want power, reliabilty and ease of handling, Bren: if your govt decided to save budget by recycling an OK weapon to fill a gap - that's the BAR then.

Now - who's got the likely real equipment allocation for a Malay brigade (I start the bidding with one pointy stick).



Montbrun -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/17/2004 3:01:50 PM)

Malaya Brigade - hmmm - let me dig around....



Caranorn -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/17/2004 3:11:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: strawbuk

Now - who's got the likely real equipment allocation for a Malay brigade (I start the bidding with one pointy stick).


Do you mean the two Malaya Brigades or the two Volunteer forces? The Malaya Brigades would obviously have had your average equipment (as in average for Asia) as they were more or less regular units. The volunteers though I could imagine with pointy sticks, bayonets on pointy sticks and rusty shot guns without bayonets:-). Oh and maybe some old smooth bore guns, probably captured portuguese or dutch from the 16th century;-).

As to the BAR, guess I'l have to read up on machine guns again. I would swear the BAR was not the US squad weapon in WWII, but maybe I got confused with the name/number. (Ok just checked minimally and expect I was thinking of the M1916A6 as Squad weapon (it was at least used to supplement the BAR)). But my best books on small arms (smaller then a vehicle or piece of artillery) have been missing for a while.

Marc aka Caran...



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.09375