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: AE Land and AI Issues

 
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: AE Land and AI Issues Page: <<   < prev  52 53 [54] 55 56   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/17/2009 11:45:43 AM   
Blackhorse


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

ORIGINAL: rjopel

Should USA Engineer Sqds have a start production of 99/99? Should it not be 41/12?


No. The US uses device 1108 "US Cmbt Eng Sqd" with a 12/41 production of 24. US devices used in AE start at 1101 in the editor.

All the old stock devices (@ 300-700) like the "USA Engineer Sqds" are still in the editor, but "9999"ed. IIRC, there was a good reason for not completely deleting them . . . but it has been lost in the mists of time.

_____________________________

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 rjopel)
Post #: 1591
Cochin Fort - 8/17/2009 5:19:11 PM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline
Cochin Fort is assigned to Eastern Fleet, which has bases in odd locations (like Diego Garcia). Shouldn't it be assigned to Southern Command, like the other nearby units?

Thanks!
fbs

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 1592
RE: Cochin Fort - 8/17/2009 5:20:29 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Ah but Eastern Fleet is the naval command and Cochin Fort was a Naval Base

So that is deliberate

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 1593
RE: Guadalcanal USN AI - 8/17/2009 8:43:14 PM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline 		Andy: I know you tried to make Annie(AI) aggresive. But sometimes too much is too much

Guadalcanal campaign around oct.1942:
1.
3 US carriers remained stationed near guadalcanal for almost a month - I massed subs and had fired more than 100 !!! submarine torpedoes against them. Big E got 3, Sara got 2, Wasp another 1 - then I moved my carriers and finished them.
2.
AI sent 1xCA + 3xDD to bombard Rabaul
3.
AI sent 3xCA+4xDD to hunt my retreating cruisers - 4 hexes off Truk
4.
AI sent 1xBB, 1xCL + 5x DD to hunt my retreating BBs - 5 hexes off Truk

I am really afraid what AI could do with 4 USN CVs raiding Truk ...

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1594
RE: Guadalcanal USN AI - 8/17/2009 9:13:28 PM   
Andy Mac

 

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

if its 1 or 2 send me a save please a.mcphie@btinternet.com

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 1595
RE: Guadalcanal USN AI - 8/18/2009 12:58:22 AM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline 		Are we going to see National sortable selections for the land reinforcement screen?

In other words, being able to see only certain Nationalities and/or unit types within the land reinforcement screen. The only reason I ask is because this is the only screen that does not now allow additional sorting of some sorts. All the current lists and reinforcement lists, except this one, allow the additional sorting. Now that we have this new option, its makes the old way seem soo . . . old This was a great feature to add by the way!

So just curious if this was intentionally left out, or if it required too much coding for whatever reason to get it into this screen.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1596
RE: Australian 2nd AIF artillery - 8/18/2009 1:23:27 AM   
mariandavid

 

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline 		Apologies if covered elsewhere, but just noted that first three reinforcing 2nd AIF brigades appear to have only twelve 25pdr guns each; the second three a notional four 18pdr (actually not in service in the Middle East since mid 1940 - I think there is confusion here with the 18/25pdr). I was under the impression that both the 6th and 7th Divisions left with their intact artillery (72 field guns each) as they were expected to enter straight into battle.

(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 1597
RE: Very late war CW anti-tank guns - 8/18/2009 1:32:09 AM   
mariandavid

 

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline 		The formations arriving in late 1944/1945 have inadequate anti-tank capability (this being applicable to all, including the imaginary Royal Marine Division and the 6th Airborne Division). About one quarter of the 6pdr guns should be replaced by 17pdr guns. The correct ratio is actually one-third but it is reasonable to assume that in view of load restrictions and the lack of Japanese armour that some of the heavier and bulkier guns would have been left behind.

(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 1598
RE: Very late war CW anti-tank guns - 8/18/2009 1:34:32 AM   
mariandavid

 

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline 		I forgot to add that although some equipment was to be replaced by US equivalents for the invasion of Japan, the British/Canadian etc insisted on retaining those items that were superior in quality.

(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 1599
RE: Very late war CW anti-tank guns - 8/18/2009 1:48:50 AM   
Blackhorse


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

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

I forgot to add that although some equipment was to be replaced by US equivalents for the invasion of Japan, the British/Canadian etc insisted on retaining those items that were superior in quality.


Can you source this?

I ask because the sources I used for building the American OOB state that, for logistics and supply reasons, MacArthur and the US Joint Chiefs were emphatic that all Commonwealth forces participating in Operation Downfall had to use American-style organization and equipment. The Sea Line of Communications (SLOC) was to run direct from San Francisco to Japan, and there was not enough shipping available to run secondary SLOCs for the Commonwealth.

From what I have read the Brits and Canadians had agreed to the US terms, and the Australians were still arguing about it when the war ended. But this wasn't a focus area of my research, so I won't claim that my notes are the definitive word.


_____________________________

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 mariandavid)
Post #: 1600
Hydebarad Base Force - 8/18/2009 6:05:59 AM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline 		Scenario 001, there are two units with the same name:

#6353 2nd Hydebarad Base Force
#6368 2nd Hydebarad Base Force

Thanks
fbs

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 1601
RE: Cochin Fort - 8/18/2009 6:12:23 AM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Ah but Eastern Fleet is the naval command and Cochin Fort was a Naval Base

So that is deliberate



Right, but the other naval bases on the Indian coast are assigned to Indian territorial HQs:

Karachi Fortress -> Northern Command(R)
Bombay Fortress -> Southern Command(R)
Madras Fortress -> Southern Command(R)
Diamond Harbour Fort -> Eastern Command(R)
Fort William -> Eastern Command(R)

Cochin seems to be a pretty unassuming base to be under direct command from the Admiralty.


Thanks
fbs

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1602
RE: Hydebarad Base Force - 8/18/2009 6:15:46 AM   
scott64


Posts: 4019
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

Scenario 001, there are two units with the same name:

#6353 2nd Hydebarad Base Force
#6368 2nd Hydebarad Base Force

Thanks
fbs

And in Scen #2 also

_____________________________

Lucky for you, tonight it's just me


Any ship can be a minesweeper..once !! :)

http://suspenseandmystery.blogspot.com/

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 1603
RE: AI & Wake Island - 8/18/2009 6:36:03 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes

BUT unlike stock you no longer have the squads or devices to do so.

Rebuilding an Australian Div from a Bn will leave you with no reserves and no ability to take combat losses and will cripple the upgrade programme for the CMF troops.

You can do it it is a valid choice just dont expect to take casualties in your primary formations



I am having a problem getting a unit to rebuild, I followed the instructions ie supply location etc. What happend was I was only able to get part of the 224 group RAF HQ out of Singapore. It was enough that when the Singapore fell there is no slash (/x) next to the title. So I moved it to Oosthaven (since there is fighting in Palembang) ramped up the supplies and waited. Its been 6 months or so and it still has not recieved any support or aviation squads. I changed its HQ to ABDA was that a mistake?

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1604
RE: Cochin Fort - 8/18/2009 8:56:26 AM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Ah but Eastern Fleet is the naval command and Cochin Fort was a Naval Base

So that is deliberate



Right, but the other naval bases on the Indian coast are assigned to Indian territorial HQs:

Karachi Fortress -> Northern Command(R)
Bombay Fortress -> Southern Command(R)
Madras Fortress -> Southern Command(R)
Diamond Harbour Fort -> Eastern Command(R)
Fort William -> Eastern Command(R)

Cochin seems to be a pretty unassuming base to be under direct command from the Admiralty.


Thanks
fbs


Those fortresses (or rather: their coastal defense installations) were under Army control.

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 1605
RE: AI & Wake Island - 8/18/2009 11:12:07 AM   
Blackhorse


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

ORIGINAL: oldman45

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes

BUT unlike stock you no longer have the squads or devices to do so.

Rebuilding an Australian Div from a Bn will leave you with no reserves and no ability to take combat losses and will cripple the upgrade programme for the CMF troops.

You can do it it is a valid choice just dont expect to take casualties in your primary formations



I am having a problem getting a unit to rebuild, I followed the instructions ie supply location etc. What happend was I was only able to get part of the 224 group RAF HQ out of Singapore. It was enough that when the Singapore fell there is no slash (/x) next to the title. So I moved it to Oosthaven (since there is fighting in Palembang) ramped up the supplies and waited. Its been 6 months or so and it still has not recieved any support or aviation squads. I changed its HQ to ABDA was that a mistake?


I don't know what might be causing your problem -- but changing HQs should *not* affect the ability to rebuild, as long as you have adequate supplies.


_____________________________

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 oldman45)
Post #: 1606
RE: CW equipment in Op. Olympic - 8/18/2009 3:01:03 PM   
mariandavid

 

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline 		Blackhorse: Alas my source is my own book which involves special pleading! However the sad truth is that regardless of the solomn pomposities of MacArthur the Commonwealth Chiefs of Staff would determine the equipment type, especially its feasibility. The basic problem was of course that US equipment was not on hand in sufficient quantities, nor early enough for the concentrated re-training that would have been required. As far as I know the total US equipment in CW hands amounted to about one and a half brigades; that being the material used by the Canadian element in the Aleutian Campaign, plus (probably) that left over when the SSF departed.

I do agree that the Indian division(s) selected could have used US equipment - accessing the piles accumulated to supply the Chinese. However even here there is a problem - the obvious choices, those assembled for Operation Zipper etc (to invade Malaya, Indonesia etc) were fully trained for amphibious landings using CW weaponry.

I really suspect that they whole business was an attempt at a power play (you cannot play unless you use our toys!); almost certainly when Truman realised that his CinC's were risking heavier US losses by limiting the exposure of other troops he would have got very excited! The story about transport capacity limits is also doubtful; as the European war ended large numbers of RN landing ships were under orders to sail to Vancouver/Seattle, while AP's were being retained in service to ship designated British and Canadian units to the same area. The logical approach which would probably have been adopted (just as in Italy and France) was that the two Allies had designated targets using two different supply links.

On the subject note that the Royal Marine Division should be replaced by two Commando Brigades, probably the 1st and 4th as the Med lacked shipping.

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 1607
RE: CW equipment in Op. Olympic - 8/18/2009 4:37:07 PM   
DBS


Posts: 513
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline 		Regarding debate over CW divisions' equipment and organisation for Op Coronet...

For what it is worth, I have quickly trawled through the relevant volumes of the British, Australian, New Zealand and Canadian Official Histories.

The British OH is very poor on the the planned UK involvement in Coronet, other than noting a July 45 directive to Mountbatten warning him that the contribution was likely to be 3-5 divisions (plus a small tac air force if practicable), with assault lift for two of them coming from his area.

The Australian OH has almost nothing.

The New Zealand OH mentions briefly preparedness to contribute and HQ and two brigade groups (ie effectively a Div- ) plus ten squadrons but then states that early planning was quickly overtaken by events and switched to planning the contribution to the Occupation Force.

The Canadian OH specifically agrees with Blackhorse, with agreement as early as November 1944 that 6th Canadian Division be equipped and organised (or perhaps more correctly have its units renamed) along US lines. So the Div Recce Regt became a Squadron, etc. But of course, that was perhaps the one Division which was very clearly going to come via CONUS to reach the operational area.

I sympathise entirely with mariandavid with regards to pragmatism vs MacArthurism. The CW were only supposed to come into play in 1946, for Coronet - no land force involvement in Olympic. Agreements might have been made in principle, but the logistic realities were perhaps not as yet fully realised in July/August 45. The CW forces in SEAC were undergoing sufficient trauma already with the implementation of the Python repatriation commitment - too many experienced British troops were being emptied out prematurely to meet political promises, such that Zipper was endangered, let alone any further reorganisation to keep Doug happy...

So I would incline to the view that forces coming into theatre via the USA or Canada (ie 3rd UK and 6th Canadian) might well have been Americanised, up to a point, but reinforcements such as 6th Airborne which arrived in SEAC via the Med would not have been so readily messed with.

David

< Message edited by DBS -- 8/18/2009 4:38:12 PM >

(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 1608
RE: CW equipment in Op. Olympic - 8/18/2009 5:10:30 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		My source has the RM force being a Div whats your source ?

re Indian Divs my understanding is that Mac refused the use of Indian Divs whether he would have changed his mind is open to debate.

At the end of the day I have

6th Can Div
3rd Br Div
RM Div
2 Armoured Bde
an AGRA and various support units

An Aus Div can be taken from the Aus forces already in theatre as can the NZ Bdes

If required you also have 4th, 8th and 10th Indian Divs arriving back from the Middle East so the CW will be well represented if and when Coronet is launched.

That should be more than sufficient to demonstrate a reasonable estimate of what might have been - also take a look at late war ships a lot of the amphibs arriving are RN

Andy

(in reply to DBS)
Post #: 1609
RE: CW equipment in Op. Olympic - 8/18/2009 5:11:13 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Wat the name of the boo mariandavid I am always on the lookout for new source material

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1610
Norfolk Island Force - 8/18/2009 6:39:04 PM   
DBS


Posts: 513
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline 		Just noticed that N Force Detachment (#6257) has INVALID SUFFIX in the database.

Don't know if this would cause problems. Presume should be 109-Base Force.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1611
RE: Guadalcanal USN AI - 8/18/2009 6:49:08 PM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
Which Scenario ?
if its 1 or 2 send me a save please a.mcphie@btinternet.com


If you was asking me, it was Guadalcanal Scenario

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1612
RE: Guadalcanal USN AI - 8/18/2009 6:55:53 PM   
mariandavid

 

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline 		AndyMac: I am the primary author of the series published by Nafziger "British Armies an Organisational History" (with two other writers  and now totalling about 12 volumes and 4 supplements).

The RM Division was broken up on August 15th, 1943 and its battalions coverted into commandos and its HQ's used to command the 1st-4th Commando Brigades

I think your invasion OB is dead on with the exception of the RM Division. My only hang-up is with the equipment issue. I find it very difficult to believe that two corps could be totally re-equipped with new guns, artillery, tanks and vehicles and retrained up to standard in six months - part of which is spent travelling. Quite apart from the probable refusal of senior officers to refit their men with what many considered inferior/unsuitable/not made here equipment! [the classic objections were to the BAR and all US anti-tank guns].

Yes - MacArthur with his customary and debatable racial attitudes did dislike Indians (there are stories to the effect that he had met/corresponded with Wingate who had the same questionable attitude). However by now the Burma Army divisions were the most experienced and effective in facing a Japanese field army (Aussies and Marines might object) so the pressure to use them could well surmount MacA's statements [[caveat: you might detect that I despise both Mac and Wingate!]].

Note that the 4th, 8th and 10th Indian would not be accessed - they were far too busy on occupation duty in Greece and the Near East where (on DBS's point, repatriation had decimated British/New Zealand/Canadian units).

DBS: You are quite correct on the 6th Canadian Division although I suspect (without checking a primary source) that this 1944 proposal was related to a planned advance down the Aleutian chain with the 6th converting to match its already converted to US standards 13th Infantry Brigade

Note that although the 6th Canadian Division was nominated in fact most of its battalions were coming from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Divisions in Europe, especially the three regular infantry battalions and regular artillery of the 1st Division (the 'real' 6th was regarded as little more than a militia force).

On the Python repatration: By mid 1945 this was not really a problem as the front-line divisions had replaced the vast majority of their British infantry with Indian or Gurkha battalions. Its effect was really being experienced in India itself with the growing lack of competant security forces, especially on the North-West Frontier; as usual a mad mullah or two was detecting 'Imperial decay' and lashing the tribes into a proposed foray into the lush (and Hindu) lowlands!

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 1613
RE: AI & Wake Island - 8/18/2009 6:57:17 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes

BUT unlike stock you no longer have the squads or devices to do so.

Rebuilding an Australian Div from a Bn will leave you with no reserves and no ability to take combat losses and will cripple the upgrade programme for the CMF troops.

You can do it it is a valid choice just dont expect to take casualties in your primary formations



I am having a problem getting a unit to rebuild, I followed the instructions ie supply location etc. What happend was I was only able to get part of the 224 group RAF HQ out of Singapore. It was enough that when the Singapore fell there is no slash (/x) next to the title. So I moved it to Oosthaven (since there is fighting in Palembang) ramped up the supplies and waited. Its been 6 months or so and it still has not recieved any support or aviation squads. I changed its HQ to ABDA was that a mistake?


I don't know what might be causing your problem -- but changing HQs should *not* affect the ability to rebuild, as long as you have adequate supplies.



I found in the manual where it states you need double the supplie requirements for the unit and it will get replacements. No joy here, they just don't want any more help

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 1614
Another INVALID SUFFIX - 8/18/2009 7:27:50 PM   
BPRE

 

Posts: 624
Joined: 10/16/2000
From: Stockholm,Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS

Just noticed that N Force Detachment (#6257) has INVALID SUFFIX in the database.

Don't know if this would cause problems. Presume should be 109-Base Force.


Also seen that 2/11th Armoured Car Bn (#5957) has Invalid Suffix. Presumably it should be 84 - Battalion.

/BPRE

(in reply to DBS)
Post #: 1615
RE: AI & Wake Island - 8/18/2009 7:38:15 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		I have to be true to my sources David and they indicate the invasion force Division was intended to be

4 Commando Bdes each of 4 Commandos (16 total)
116th/117th RM Bde each 3 Bns of Marines for Beachead defence
34th RM Amphib Support Regt
SOG

So a powerfull formation of 12 Commandos and 6 Inf bns even allowing that one of the Cdo Bdes was probably 3rd Bde


p.s. the rest was

10 Corps HQ
1st Royal Gloucester Hussars (Corps Cav)
4th and 9th Ard Bdes
3rd Brit Div
6th Can Div
10th Aus Div
RM Div

Indian Airborne Corps
44th Indian Para
6th Airborne

re the Indian Divs

8th Indian Div was back in India 6/45 due to be sent to Burma
10th Indian Div was en route to India in Nov/Dec 45
4th Indian Div was in India 1/46

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 1616
RE: AI & Wake Island - 8/18/2009 7:40:08 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		p.s. my source is Mark Bevis's superb British and Commonwealth Armies 1944 -45

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1617
RE: AI & Wake Island - 8/18/2009 7:48:48 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		David I sorta agree on tyhe equipment front but have chosen to go with my sources over my own common sense AT guns are not that important (often the lighter 2 pounder was more use v the japanese anyway)

The only logic for equipping them with 17 pounders is if it came to a shooting war witht he soviets !!!

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1618
RE: AI & Wake Island - 8/18/2009 7:49:04 PM   
NormS3


Posts: 521
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: Wild and Wonderful WV, just don't drink the water
Status: offline 		Not sure if this is the right place, but finished up the Guadalcanal senario and it kept going past the end date without any indication that the senario was over.

Having never completed any Witp campaigns, is this normal?

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1619
RE: Guadalcanal USN AI - 8/18/2009 11:28:04 PM   
JSBoomer


Posts: 267
Joined: 11/5/2004
From: Edmonton Alberta
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

AndyMac: I am the primary author of the series published by Nafziger "British Armies an Organisational History" (with two other writers  and now totalling about 12 volumes and 4 supplements).

The RM Division was broken up on August 15th, 1943 and its battalions coverted into commandos and its HQ's used to command the 1st-4th Commando Brigades

I think your invasion OB is dead on with the exception of the RM Division. My only hang-up is with the equipment issue. I find it very difficult to believe that two corps could be totally re-equipped with new guns, artillery, tanks and vehicles and retrained up to standard in six months - part of which is spent travelling. Quite apart from the probable refusal of senior officers to refit their men with what many considered inferior/unsuitable/not made here equipment! [the classic objections were to the BAR and all US anti-tank guns].

Yes - MacArthur with his customary and debatable racial attitudes did dislike Indians (there are stories to the effect that he had met/corresponded with Wingate who had the same questionable attitude). However by now the Burma Army divisions were the most experienced and effective in facing a Japanese field army (Aussies and Marines might object) so the pressure to use them could well surmount MacA's statements [[caveat: you might detect that I despise both Mac and Wingate!]].

Note that the 4th, 8th and 10th Indian would not be accessed - they were far too busy on occupation duty in Greece and the Near East where (on DBS's point, repatriation had decimated British/New Zealand/Canadian units).

DBS: You are quite correct on the 6th Canadian Division although I suspect (without checking a primary source) that this 1944 proposal was related to a planned advance down the Aleutian chain with the 6th converting to match its already converted to US standards 13th Infantry Brigade

Note that although the 6th Canadian Division was nominated in fact most of its battalions were coming from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Divisions in Europe, especially the three regular infantry battalions and regular artillery of the 1st Division (the 'real' 6th was regarded as little more than a militia force).

On the Python repatration: By mid 1945 this was not really a problem as the front-line divisions had replaced the vast majority of their British infantry with Indian or Gurkha battalions. Its effect was really being experienced in India itself with the growing lack of competant security forces, especially on the North-West Frontier; as usual a mad mullah or two was detecting 'Imperial decay' and lashing the tribes into a proposed foray into the lush (and Hindu) lowlands!



The "real" 6th Can division as you put it was broken apart in 44 to allow for more men to be sent to Europe as replacements. The 6th Can Division for the invasion of Japan was to be a new 6th division using the names of the formations of 1 Can Div; not neccessarly its soldiers though as it was volunteer force drawing from returning soliers from Europe and those that never left Canada.
This division was to have trained in the US to American methods/organization and equipment. This division was planned specificaly for the invasion of Japn and was unrelated to 13 Bdes operations in the Aleutians. This plan was allready in motion when it no longer became neccessary and was cancelled.
During the War the term militia applied to all soldiers who were in the "Army". The major diference from the original 6 Div from the others was that it didn't deploy, lacked combat experience, and some of its Bns were concripts.

< Message edited by J Boomer -- 8/18/2009 11:32:14 PM >

_____________________________

Jordan S. Bujtas
Deas Gu Cath


(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 1620
Page:   <<   < prev  52 53 [54] 55 56   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: AE Land and AI Issues Page: <<   < prev  52 53 [54] 55 56   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.640