RE: British OOB and TOE

RE: 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

Montbrun -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/17/2004 4:44:35 PM)
Quoted from "US Army Infantry Divisions 1943-45 - Volume 1 - Organization, Doctrine and Equipment:" Rifle Squad (1943) 1 Sgt. - Squad Leader - Rifle 1 Cpl. - Squad Leader Assistant - Rifle 1 Pvt. - Automatic Rifleman - BAR 1 Pvt. - Automatic Rifleman Assistant - Rifle 1 Pvt. - Ammunition Bearer - Rifle 7 Pvt. - Rifleman - Rifle ..."The squad was articulated around the BAR Team. This consisted of: the automatic rifleman (BAR), the automatic rifleman assistant and the ammunition bearer. Two of the rifleman were designated as scouts. The three men in the BAR Team were each issued with a Belt, magazine, M1937, BAR, until 30 June 1944...." Brad

UncleBuck -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/17/2004 4:53:35 PM)
AS I said the Bren and the BAR I beleive are the two best Squad weapons that were fieldsed in WW@. Teh MG-34/42 woudl be in the M1917/Vickers class of Light MG. these weapons were also deployed in Machine Gun Squads, not quite teh same as the Squad Manuver and fire weapon. now the MG-34/42 with a Bi-pod was nasty, but the two man crew requirement I think takes it out of the competition. The Paratroop version of teh M1917 (can't thinkof the nomenclature right now) had a Wooden shoulder stock and bi-pod and a two man crew as well. It had the same rate of fire as the M1917, and then you just get into accuracy. reliability etc. The BAR was not recycled. It was adopted, and it was not cheap. It was in fact more expensive by far than the Bren. It had a solid machined reciver wich also added t it's weight. The Key to the BAR I beleive was the proliferation of them into the US squads. The Marines had 3 BAR's per 13 men(three fire teams of 4 and a squad leader) THe Army had 1 BAR per 9 man squad. That means a single Marine Platoon had 9 BARs, and an Army Platoon had 4. That is a bunch of firepower. The Marines also developed procedures so that all of the BAR's were not out of ammo at teh same time. The US tactics were much differnt than the German. The German Squad was ther to protect the MG. THe US squad was the offensive arm, the LMG was there to supress, and fix an enemy for the riflemen to advance on. As for the Brit OOB. I will see what I can get. My GF is a Big Brit Militaria collector. (Here Grandfather was in Burma someplace) I will see if she has info on the theater. UB

anarchyintheuk -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/17/2004 10:55:19 PM)
quote: 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!) In addition to making for a great scene in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. [:'(]

Montbrun -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/18/2004 2:05:27 AM)
quote: Now - who's got the likely real equipment allocation for a Malay brigade (I start the bidding with one pointy stick) Well, strawbuk, you win your pointy stick. I can't find anything other than OOB info on the Malayan Brigades with the sources at hand... Brad

Mike Scholl -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/18/2004 12:43:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter ...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 One problem with this theory is that the Russians didn't use a 37mm, they started the war with a 45mm. As far as the upgrades in allied anti-tank capability in the game I wouldn't worry much about it. The Japanese never had a "tank" that the 37mm couldn't knock out---so whatever gun destroys those miserable pieces of junk will be achieving the proper goal.

Montbrun -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/18/2004 3:25:52 PM)
...true - just looked in the editor - no 37mm ATG for the Soviets... Brad

Lemurs! -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/18/2004 5:22:43 PM)
Actually, the Russians did start the war with a 37mm AT gun that was the copy of the German 37mm gun. Of course they were in the process of switching to the 45mm at war start. The late war Japanese tanks were better protected to about the level of a M4a1 or a3 Sherman, not the EZ8. Mike

Caranorn -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/19/2004 3:37:29 PM)
Last night I noticed how small the LCU part of the game data base is. Almost every available slot seems to be used up already. So even a realistic representation of Hong Kong (4 instead of 2 units) would probably be a real pain in the butt to have included in an official update. The naval and air OOB's do of course suffer from a similar lack of free slots, but it's not quite as bad. By the way, I think in a few cases the allies also seem to benefit from the sub units and parent units problem of the IJA (both being included at full strength, giving the unit's anywhere from 125-150% of historic strength). Though I've only found one unit like this for the brits in scenario 15 for certain (3rd WA Inf Bde and 81st WA Division both arrive as reinforcements at their respective full strength). Someone with more detailed material might also wish to check on those supposed Artillery regiments in India (some were indeed on the IE, others I cannot fnd at all, particularly the three Mountain Regiments). In any case, these artillery regiments would probably be one area to trim the current database and free slots for other more realistic units. I have also found what that LAA regiment in Malaya is (it and two others were actually at sea at the time it seems, and this regiment and another never even made it to Malaya). It would be much easier to rebuild the british TOE and OOB from the ground then to fix the current one I feel. Right now I'll just wait for the next patch and take another look at that time to see whether anything has been fixed etc. Marc aka Caran...

Montbrun -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/19/2004 4:08:54 PM)
...the existing TOEs for the ground units obviously include "attachments" - ie additional infantry, engineer and artillery units. Brad

strawbuk -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/20/2004 1:00:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UncleBuck My GF is a Big Brit Militaria collector. (Her Grandfather was in Burma someplace) I will see if she has info on the theater. UB Any idea what unit? She got Brit ancestors? My great uncle was on one of the Chindit ops but still trying to find out which one.

strawbuk -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/20/2004 1:03:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Caranorn I have also found what that LAA regiment in Malaya is (it and two others were actually at sea at the time it seems, and this regiment and another never even made it to Malaya). Marc aka Caran... I do wonder on the LAA, that as they rarely fought as a unit operationally , but were placed to protect kery units (and more often key routes, bridges, dumps etc) theyt should be/stay split up as part of, say, mains bgds in a div? Or at least one battery put in as part of HQ?

Caranorn -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/20/2004 2:51:53 PM)
Yep, makes little sense to have any British artillery regiments (I think the term caused the problem) acting independently. Most of the mobile types should have been split into divisions and brigades. The less mobiles (not quite static) in base forces. Right now, divisions/brigades have no useful AA defense and too little intrinsic artillery (due to the apparent confusion of battery sizes and the decision to use on the terrain TOE instead of theoretical plus attachments). But that problem also exists to at least some degree for the other nations. In my opinion, battalion sized (which also means regiments of that size) units should only be included in WitP if they had a very special function (CD, para and such). Any others should either be distributed to larger units, or be amalgated (for instance many of the japanese engineer regiments, probably also their armor). That would free wuite a few slots in the data base. Marc aka Caran...

Montbrun -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/20/2004 4:57:44 PM)
I did some reading on this topic this weekend. There was alot of unit rotation within the divisions and brigades in SE Asia. Apparently, Matrix chose to represent constituent units for some brigades, rather than the brigade itself. For example, the 50th Indian Armoured Brigade is not represented, but the armoured regiments that were part of this brigade at differing times, are represented. As far as additional unit "space," several units can be eliminated. The 3rd Indian and 70th UK Divisions need to go. The brigades of the 70th Division were converted to the "Chindit" Brigades, and the 3rd Indian Division was a cover for those same brigades. We can also remove several of the US RCTs attached to NOPAC, as they were used strictly for garrison duties, and either never saw combat, or were transferred to CONUS, or europe in 1944. Unit structures within the British and Indian divisions changed as they gained experience against the Japanese. By 1943, the Indian divisions had converted their motorized transport units to additional infantry platoons, as well as troops/platoons within the AA/AT regiments. Because of the Japanese use of "infiltration tactics," these additional rifle platoons were used to form brigade and division-level HQ defense companies. In the Indian divisions this represents almost an additional rifle battalion. The British 2nd Division continued to be "road-bound" into 1944, when this division adopted the Indian division's organization. To compensate for the removal of transport, mule and local porter units were assigned. Brad

UncleBuck -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/20/2004 5:01:35 PM)
I will ask her, I am sure she has it narowed down. SHe has many Brit Ancestors. Her Father was Second Generation AMerican and her mother was Stolen by her father from England. SHe has a couple of brothers living in England working for the Oil industry. UB

Montbrun -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/20/2004 5:21:20 PM)
Wow - "Stolen." - LOL[:)]

Mike Scholl -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/21/2004 2:00:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter I did some reading on this topic this weekend. There was alot of unit rotation within the divisions and brigades in SE Asia. Apparently, Matrix chose to represent constituent units for some brigades, rather than the brigade itself. For example, the 50th Indian Armoured Brigade is not represented, but the armoured regiments that were part of this brigade at differing times, are represented. As far as additional unit "space," several units can be eliminated. The 3rd Indian and 70th UK Divisions need to go. The brigades of the 70th Division were converted to the "Chindit" Brigades, and the 3rd Indian Division was a cover for those same brigades. We can also remove several of the US RCTs attached to NOPAC, as they were used strictly for garrison duties, and either never saw combat, or were transferred to CONUS, or europe in 1944. Brad Brad. The Problem with removing those units from NOPAC because "they never saw combat" is that it supposses that your game opponant won't try anything "cute" in that area. As there is no guarantee of that, the units need to be available in case he does. Midway, which pretty much ended the major threats of continued Japanese expansion in most of the Pacific, is NOT a guarantee in the game by a long shot. So contingency forces still need to be represented. A better solution would be to up the political points cost for the US player to use them ahistorically in other areas.

Montbrun -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/21/2004 2:24:11 AM)
I agree, but we might be better served with regiment-sized "garrison" units... Brad

UncleBuck -> RE: British OOB and TOE (9/21/2004 6:45:37 PM)
You can have aregiment sized Garrison units. Just divide teh divison up and you will end up with roughly 3 regiment sized units. I do this all the time to secure semi-forward bases, and free up units for invasion duty. UB

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.015625