RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/1/2008 10:02:00 AM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

Right now aviation support squads need no support. Will this be changes in AE, or will all Aviation Regiments lose their support squads, since they are not needed?

This is being reviewed. At this time, US Aviation Regiments have no support squads -- they support only air, not ground, units. Play testing and time will determine if other base forces give LCUs adequate support.

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to VSWG)

Post #: 421

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/1/2008 10:08:42 AM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

But apparently the CD defenses controlling Manila Bay are still split between the Bataan hex and the Manile hex?

Yes. There's no easy answer for this.

In the actual war, if the Japanese captured Bataan while the Allies dug in to Manila, the harbor forts would still have prevented the Japanese fleet from sailing into Manila Bay. So we can't have all the CD defenses in Bataan.

Splitting the CD defenses seems to be the "least bad" option.

_____________________________

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 422

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/1/2008 10:44:33 AM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
There is a new book - Australian Special Forces - and it appears that small forces - small enough to be delived by submarine on occasion - were a factor later in the war. And farther afield than I would have imagined. Similarly, an older book, The Alamo Scouts, indicates the US used such forces with effect in the MarArthur area. [They were modeled on the Eskimo Scouts, who during the war were special recon elements: today two different kinds of units claim their liniage: Alaska National Guard claimed all but one of its battalions were "Eskimo Scouts" until they were required to reform as support battalions - but a few small elements were retained anyway; The Alaska State Defense Force - which stills wears the ATG (Alaska Territorial Guard) patch - claims its three light infantry battalions are also of the same liniage (a fourth battalion - newly formed up - is Military Police).] The Aleutians campaign involved a lot of learning - including why you should NOT send in a landing without current assets on island. In a strange battle, US and Canadian forces landed on opposite ends of a valley - but the enemy was not present - so when they met - in the near perpetual fog of the area - they engaged each other - somewhat vigorously! The other big land battle didn't go so badly - because the enemy was actually there - although they did spook us by a kamakaze charge at the end that nearly overran a firebase.
The engine seems to work well if you put ANY small unit in the hex - you get good intel.

I did some follow-up research on the Alamo and Eskimo Scouts. The Alamo Scouts were the brainchild of LTG Krueger. He called them "Alamo Scouts" because he was a proud Texan.They reported directly to him as an "Army" level asset. Their total strength never exceeded 127 men, and they deployed in 'teams' of a dozen men or less to conduct raids and recon. The Alamo Scouts are too small to include as a separate unit in WitP-AE, especially in 1944.

The Alaskan Territorial Guard, aka "Eskimo Scouts" was a collection of unpaid, all-volunteer Alaskans who patrolled the long, sparsely populated coastline in their spare time looking for Japanese scouting parties, and searching for survivors of not-infrequent US airplane crashes. There were over 6,000 of these folks, led by a permanent military staff of 21 people, commanded by a US Army Major.

The Eskimo Scouts were basically "Coastwatchers on Ice". Wikipedia has a nice article on them. To represent the capabilities of the Eskimo Scouts I will see if we can add a "coastwatcher" capability to Alaskan bases in WitP-AE in a patch, if it is not already incorporated.

MG Buckner formed another special recon unit, the "Alaskan Scouts", later formalized as the 1st Combat Intelligence Platoon (Provisional). These were local rugged outdoorsmen who conducted recon and guided US landings in the Aleutians. This group was analagous to the Alamo Scouts, and like them, is too small to make an independent appearance in WitP-AE.

_____________________________

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 423

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/1/2008 10:58:38 AM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

That's it for US Land OOB observations for the next few days.

I'm still racing through China on vacation -- Taipei, Shanghai, Wuxi, Nanjing and Beijing so far, and I'm off to Harbin tonight.

Note to self: WitP-AE definitely needs more cold weather penalties in Northern China in the Winter.

Happy New Year, all!

_____________________________

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 424

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/3/2008 1:53:34 PM

saj42

Posts: 1125
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Somerset, England
Status: offline

A question regarding replacements and upgrade 'cos i'm a bit confused (not TO&E change - I understand that)

In stock WITP, air units have separate buttons for 'upgrading' and 'accepting replacements', LCUs don't.

In AE, will LCUs handle 'upgrading devices' and 'accepting replacement devices' as separate processes ??? (so we don't have the old problem of recombining a Division's three elements because one has upgraded). This would also allow a player to rebuild a rear area/garrison LCU with old devices, saving the new devices/upgraded squads for the frontline combat units.

_____________________________

Banner by rogueusmc

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 425

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/3/2008 8:16:49 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

No sorry Tallyho as per stock

(in reply to saj42)

Post #: 426

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/3/2008 10:13:01 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

According to "Shattered Sword" there were two 7 or 7.1 inch coast defense guns on Midway in June 42.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 427

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/3/2008 11:31:59 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

According to "Shattered Sword" there were two 7 or 7.1 inch coast defense guns on Midway in June 42.

Suckers must have been really old..., I don't think the US had used a 7" gun since before the turn of the century. If I recall correctly, there were a few on Oahu that the Navy had given the army during the First World War...., so it's possible.

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 428

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/3/2008 11:49:35 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

History of Marine Corps Operation In World War II has this to say about the 7 inchers...in Volume I, Part V, Chapter 3, Page 216-217...

quote:

p 216 -Batteries A and C of the 4th Defense Battalion, left pearl Harbor on 19 December with the old Navy 7-inch (note 4) and the 3 inch guns which had been shipped to Pearl Harbor for Midway prior to the outset of war.

p 216 ...turned over to Battery A the mission of installing and manning the 7inch and 3 inch batteries to be emplaced on Eastern Island...

p 216 (note 4) - These 7 inch weapons had been removed from pre-World War I battleships and stored in reserve at naval yards. KJ Bauer "Ships of the navy"

p 217 Umstead's 5 inch Battery, along with the island's other 7 inch battery, were set up south of the radio station on Sand Island.

< Message edited by treespider -- 1/3/2008 11:51:12 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 429

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/4/2008 1:16:36 AM

msieving1

Posts: 526
Joined: 3/23/2007
From: Missouri
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

According to "Shattered Sword" there were two 7 or 7.1 inch coast defense guns on Midway in June 42.

Suckers must have been really old..., I don't think the US had used a 7" gun since before the turn of the century. If I recall correctly, there were a few on Oahu that the Navy had given the army during the First World War...., so it's possible.

They came from the Connecticut class pre-dreadnought battleships, which were completed 1906-1908, contemporary with HMS Dreadnought. The Connecticuts were armed with 4 12", 8 8", and 12 7" guns.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 430

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/4/2008 1:27:14 AM

Don Bowen

Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

The desired weaponry of a Marine Defense Battalion was army 155mm CD and 90mm AA guns. But both these types were in short supply, but various Naval weapons were available. For CD guns, there were numbers of old 5in/51, mostly previous installed in casemates on battleships and removed during refits.

So the Marines produced several separate TOEs for Defense Battalions. TOE numbers in the range 133-155 were used for Defense Battalions. I have three, all dated 27 February, 1941. I wish I had them all.

D-155-A:

Eight 155mm CD Guns
Twelve 90mm AA Guns
Twelve 37mm AA Guns
Twelve 20mm AA/AT guns
Sixteen 50Cal AAMG
Thirty 30Cal MG

To the best of my knowledge no Defense Battalion was ever fielded with this armament. By the time 155mm and 90mm guns were available, the 37mm were replaced by 40mm and the numbers of AA weapons rearranged.

D-155-B:
I have never been able to find a TOE under this designation, but I assume it is for a Defense Battalion variation. Based on the TOE of the other variations that I have, this is probably the one in general usage at the end of 1941. If anyone has any additional data, I'd be very happy to see it!

D-155-C:
Eight 155mm CD Guns
Twelve 90mm AA Guns (3inch M3 substitutes if 90mm not available)
Thirty 50Cal AAMG
Thirty 30Cal MG

D-155-D:
Six 7inch/45 CD Guns (substitute 5"/51 is 7" not available)
Twelve 90mm AA Guns (3inch M3 substitutes if 90mm not available)
Sixteen 50Cal AAMG
Thirty 30Cal MG

The ultimate TOE of a Defense Battalion was:
Eight 155mm cD Guns
Sixteen 90mm AA Guns
Sixteen 40mm AA Guns (one source says six but I think this is a typo)
Sixteen 20mm AA Guns
Sixteen 50Cal AA Guns (later in the war, as 4-gun mounts)
Thirty 30Cal MGs (reduced as the war went on and the threat of amphibious assault waned)

The standard MDB at the end of 1941 had:
Six 5"/51 CD Guns
Twelve M3 3" AA Guns
Twenty Four 50Cal AAMG
Thirty 30Cal MG

There is another known TOE:
Six 5"/51 CD Guns
Twelve M3 3" AA Guns
Twenty-Four 50Cal AAMG
Twenty-Four 30Cal MG

At some time prior to this, the numbers of MG were larger:
Six 5"/51 CD Guns
Twelve M3 3" AA Guns
Forty Eight 50Cal AAMG
Forty Eight 30Cal MG

All Defense Battalions were designed to be split or reinforced as required. TOEs existed for reinforceing light infantry companies, slightly enlarged light tank platoons (6 tanks), and additional CD guns (both 6" and 7", along with 5"/51). Each installation could be tailored as need and especially to space and supply constraints.

The six CD guns of an early Defense Battalion, for example, were organized into three firing batteries of two guns each and a minimal HQ Battery of less than a dozen clerks and supply types. The senior Commanding Officer of a firing battery doubled as Coast Defense Battery Commander, the next senior as XO, etc. What would be the HQ Battery staff was mostly split up between the firing batteries. If the CD Battery was concentrated at a single location, like Wake, the HQ battery would be formed from the component parts. If the firing batteries were dispersed (like Johnston and Palmyra) the HQ detachment remained at a rear base (Pearl) and oversaw the deliveries of supplies and replacements.

Note that the term "Battery" is overloaded. The Defense Battalion consisted of a CD Gun Battery, AA Gun Battery, Light AA Battery (AAMG), Beach Defense Battery (30Cal), Searchlight Battery, and HQ Battery. The CD "Battery" was organized like a battalion, with it's component units designated as batteries. Thus the CD Battery included three firing batteries and an HQ Battery.

< Message edited by Don Bowen -- 1/4/2008 1:30:01 AM >

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 431

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/4/2008 3:35:53 PM

Montbrun

Posts: 1498
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

Malarial Zones

The allies made a concerted effort to battle Malaria, assigning special medical units, and even obsolete aircraft to spray pesticides. For example, Guadalcanal became a R&R area later in the war.

IMHO, Allied HQs in a Malarial Zone should reduce the effects of malaria.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 432

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/5/2008 3:45:00 PM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

Malarial Zones

The allies made a concerted effort to battle Malaria, assigning special medical units, and even obsolete aircraft to spray pesticides. For example, Guadalcanal became a R&R area later in the war.

IMHO, Allied HQs in a Malarial Zone should reduce the effects of malaria.

good idea...

_____________________________

(in reply to Montbrun)

Post #: 433

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/5/2008 9:30:26 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

Malarial Zones

The allies made a concerted effort to battle Malaria, assigning special medical units, and even obsolete aircraft to spray pesticides. For example, Guadalcanal became a R&R area later in the war.

IMHO, Allied HQs in a Malarial Zone should reduce the effects of malaria.

good idea...

Hmm, I can see it now...the great Japanese crop-duster hunt...shot down the crop-dusters, malaria goes up, allied morale goes down....

OK, maybe that is a bit silly....

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 434

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/5/2008 9:44:53 PM

Nomad

Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline

Then you get Gen. Vandegrift at guadalcanal stating something like 'I am here to kill japs, no mosquitoes.' This was after a breifing on mosquitoes and malaria.

_____________________________

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 435

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/6/2008 6:18:33 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Andy,

When you say that in India Japanese units north of a certain line (I think you said near Madras) would trigger reinforcements, did you mean geographically North of that point, or Above that point on the rotated game map projection being used?

(in reply to Nomad)

Post #: 436

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/6/2008 2:24:26 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Bollocks I always get Delhi and Madras mixed up.

The reinforcements will only arrive if a line parralell to 1 hex below Delhi is crossed (or at least thats trhe intent)

Broadly we dont want to make it so that no where is vulnerable.

Andy

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 437

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/6/2008 2:35:50 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Bollocks I always get Delhi and Madras mixed up.

The reinforcements will only arrive if a line parralell to 1 hex below Delhi is crossed (or at least thats trhe intent)

Broadly we dont want to make it so that no where is vulnerable.

Andy

Folks will also have to realize that the India invasion Gambit will be an entirely different kettle of fish for the Japanese in AE simply due to the changes in shipping requirements for such an endeavor....

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 438

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/6/2008 3:43:51 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

As Treespider says Normandy style invasions by either side in 42 or 43 are going to be tricky until proper ships are available.

Not impossible but not easy either.

Andy

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 439

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/6/2008 11:09:28 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

Do the allied replacement levels significantly increase as new equipment items come online later in the war, or are you still stuck with a brigade or so a year for most allied powers? I think either replacement levels should be tweaked way up to a division plus a month to allow rapid changeover of equipment types, or some very large units should arrive and be disbanded after 1 day to add tons of the upgraded equipment to the pools to allow for upgrade speeds that can compete with how fast Japan can upgrade its entire army in about a month.

Even a division worth of equipment a month probably won�t allow the US to upgrade all its forces by game end. So perhaps a mix of larger replacement rates and disbanded units to allow upgrades to be complete within a few months?

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 440

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/6/2008 11:22:28 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

We are working on this Jim we have 2 solutions broadly device rates set in game are replacements with one off disbanding units for upgrades at key points.

I have a more elegant solution but I need to wait for coders to tell me if its possible.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 441

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/7/2008 1:12:25 AM

Reg

Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline

Would it possible to introduce squad 'upgrades' which would be cheaper or more available than replacements as it is a heck of a lot easier to issue new kit to an existing and trained group of soldiers than build a unit up from scratch.....

Edit: This would also allw you to upgrade your entire army whilst still maintaining the same reinforcement levels.

< Message edited by Reg -- 1/7/2008 1:26:07 AM >

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 442

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/7/2008 1:44:44 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

As I said watch this space I have an idea on how to fix it but it comes down to rpogramming time now as I also have a brute force solution that does actually work.

It comes down to elegant and possibly time consuming or brute force and no additional programming - I need to get with the team and do some figuring.

(in reply to Reg)

Post #: 443

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/7/2008 9:02:14 AM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

According to "Shattered Sword" there were two 7 or 7.1 inch coast defense guns on Midway in June 42.

As Don Bowen notes, there were practically as many configurations as there were Marine Defense Battalions. The uniquely-equipped Marine Defense Battalions are included in AE in all their glory.

The Marines on Wake have 5" guns; On Samoa, 6" guns; Midway has an extra battery of four 7" guns (only 1 at start, the other three were on Oahu on December 7th, awaiting shipment to Midway). Most reinforcing battalions arrive equipped with old WWI-era M1918 155mm guns. All battalions eventually upgrade to modern M1A1 155mm Coast Defense guns, before converting to AA battalions in 1944.

About half of the battalions have a tank platoon -- M2A4 or M3 Stuarts -- or an infantry company (one battalion has two additional infantry companies) or both attached.

All of these historical details are correctly reflected in the OOB. You'll even find the Marines only Marmon-Harrington Armored Cars on patrol in Samoa!

This truly microscopic attention to detail is brought to you by Andy Mac's unmatched* AE OOB team. Our motto: "Giving you what you want, before you know you want it."

* "unmatched" = we've never actually been in a match of any sort

_____________________________

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 444

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/7/2008 8:24:08 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

unmatched and undefeated until one of the modders takes a look and spots something we missed...

My most recent favourites were RM Viper Force being para capable what was I smoking the day I input that one

or a personal favourite of mine 9th Colonial FFR Div (or whatever I called it) having US Squads !!!!

Everything needs to be checked and rechecked and yes then checked again....

My current topics of concern and things I am tweaking is how many Valentine III Tanks ended up in India and NZ (I have about 370 total 250 ish NZ and 120 India, how many Matildas ended up in Australia (144 ish)

How many AAMG's did a late war Indian Division actually deploy it varies a lot depending on sources largely because Arty Regts and support units all seemed to 'aquire' a couple despite the inconvenience of lugging them over northern Burma trails.

And then my current personal favourite 17th Indian Div and the case of the mutiple TOE changes (aaaarggggh its enough to drive a sane person nuts !!!!)

But its all fun.

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 445

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/7/2008 8:35:26 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

p.s. wanted to explain a little why I am still tweaking British Squads.

Look at my stock game with Pauk in the Burma campaign I have broadly got 4 British Divs (2nd, 18th,36th and 70th (as Chindit Bdes)

So far so good.

After a years fighting on Mandalaygrad the Divs are all shadows through lack of replacements quite rightly the British dont get enough squads to keep 4 Divs on the line in that kind of combat and actually 18th Div should not be involved !!!!.

The pool is always empty.

In AE I I dont get any more replacement squads in fact I get less in proportion especially when you consider that Indian Army Divs have British Squads as well (although there are several big injections to upgrade but once upgraded the squads replacements are low)

BUT in AE I would have the option to disband a Bde or a Div to provide replacements for the others and as Indian Divs become more Indian in nature as Brit Bns are switched for Indian ones then these excess squads are also available.

So the tools in AE allow better management of tight resources BUT British Infantry will always be tight.

Like in my game v Pauk if you keep an ahistorical Div in the line and lauch an attiritional battle you WILL run low on key squads as your pools exhaust.

This IMO is correct and properly reflects the pressures the allies were under especially the British it is this balancing act we seek to preserve some nations WERE tight on replacements - British, NZ and Australians especially.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 446

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/7/2008 10:35:32 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
some nations WERE tight on replacements - British, NZ and Australians especially.

As was Japan. It would be interesting to hear what TO&E strength those Japanese units you are facing are at. My guess is they are near 100% if their supply lines are open.

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 447

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/8/2008 12:17:28 AM

Reg

Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

My current topics of concern and things I am tweaking is how many Valentine III Tanks ended up in India and NZ (I have about 370 total 250 ish NZ and 120 India, how many Matildas ended up in Australia (144 ish)

But its all fun.

Andy, see my PM.

Matildas delivered to Australia numbered over 400.

Note Australia also inherited some Marmon Herrington light tanks (52 allocated for operational use, the rest for training) after the fall of their original destination in the NEI. in Aug'42 18 were tentatively slated for airstrip defence duties and several actually issued to units in the Cape York Peninsular area (including the Torres Strait Force). They were all withdrawn by mid'43 and disposed of by Dec'43. The Ford Motor company in Geelong Vic used the armour plate from these vehicles in the construction of landing craft.

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 448

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/8/2008 1:45:10 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

You can ask him I cannot ;) just dont tell me the answers....

Reg you are correct the 144 I had was a number for March 42 more may (and indeed did from your source) arrive afterwards.

I was more interested in the number of Grants they recieved and tha fact that Aus Regts never went Sherman interesting source you had there ;) I will open this up slightly for interest only as Reg started me thinking

Aus AIF Regts go through 3 iterations at present

A half arsed weak TOE 1941 - March 42 involving not a lot 10 Improvised tanks (of which 5 become a sqn of Vickers or Stuarts and the other 5 Matildas)

9 sections of Bren or Vickers on Carriers (each section has 3 Brens or Vickers) so 27 Carriers

and

8 ACIVP's or Marmon Harrington Ard Cars

I think we would all agree thats not a lot and not very good ;)

A March 42 Aus Ard Regt - mid 43

has 1 Light and 2 Heavy Sqns each 1 has 5 Troops of 3 and an HQ section of 3 (Stuarts and Matildas or Grants)
and a Regt HQ of 4 Matildas

So 58 Tanks total

A Mid 43 Regt - end of war has RHQ of 4 Matilda Close Supports or Mk II's
Typically 3 Sqns each of 5 Troops each troop has either 3 x M3's or 2 X Matilda II's and 1 x Matilda CS
ands a sqn HQ of any of the 3 types depending on its troops equipment/

There is a late 45 config that I have ignored that has some Aus Rgts getting Churchill VII's I took the cop out option and just set the M3 Grant/Lee to upgrade to the Churchill without another TOE change for the sake of 2 tanks.

so shoot me !!!!

(in reply to Reg)

Post #: 449

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/8/2008 3:52:31 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

Andy,

if you are still looking for Matilda(& other AFV) arrivals in OZ I can get that tonight?

Are you going to diferentiate the Marmon-Herringtons as left-handed & right-handed?

If you are considering the Churchills you should add some Shermans as 3 were trialled, plus a Crusader & I think a Cromwell or Comet, plus the only Covenantors to see combat (bridge carriers). IMHO a waste of effort.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 450