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: British Unit with low Exp

 
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: British Unit with low Exp Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 4:09:28 AM   
mariandavid

 

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline 		I keep brooding over this experience issue and have become convinced (at least to my satisfaction!) that the difficulty is that increase is linear in AE - and I honestly cannot see any alternative. Take the Indian Army - I agree that in 1943 many of its units would have no better than a 40+ level, however a mere six months later their performance would equate to a level of 60-70 at the very least. The problem is that one cannot simulate the dramatic change that could take place given the right circumstances: In this case take the best general you have from his division and put him in charge of training (this is Savory, for some better known as the definitive historian of the British side of the 7 Years War - an intellectual as well as a practical soldier); turn two entire combat units into training divisions (the 14th and Burma); take over vast chunks of western Bengal for training; ruthlessly purge your combat units of unsuitable soldiers and send them where they may do some good; develop a deep, practical and intensive training regime and rotate all battalions through it. Do all this with complete and unquestioned authority and things change in a hurry.

So in answer to the very first post. If you take a below average Indian unit and start it with an efficiency of 10-15 and train it without a break for over two years then you get it to the point it should be at. It didn't happen that way but I guess the system requires it.


crsutton: ""You can't compare the two. The Germans worked hard to make up the losses between the war and trained a professional army. And unlike the Brits class barriers to advancment in the German army were not as severe providing a greater pool of talent.""

Not true I fear -this is an old myth. After 1918 what mattered in the British Army was not class but a minimum level of wealth (the money needed to enter Sandhurst or Woolwich). This is the period when the middle-classes became the main contributors to the upper levels of the British Army - think Montgomery. The Germans were much more severe -partly because of the size restrictions imposed by the Allies, but equally because of the importance of class and family and tradition of entry. Hence the endless proliferation of names (von Manstein etc) that previously appeared in the armies of the Kaiser and the King of Prussia.

I was once told (but cannot confirm) that entry to the German officer corps was also artificially restricted during the war. It seems that unlike just about every other army the number of officers of each rank was limited, regardless of local need and casualties. Hence German battalions being commanded by captains or even lieutenants that could not be promoted because the limit had been reached.

Sorry - drifting off topic a bit at the end there!

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 151
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 7:29:01 AM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Many of Truant's ships were single Italian merchats sunk in the Med against what one must assume was rather flaccid ASW measures by the Italians. Many of Morton's kills were under great duress and kill-or-be-killed conditions. One Wikipedia excerpt from the wild Third Patrol:



Ah yes, one must assume that the Italian war effort was entirely third rate when compared to any other power. After all there aren't any Italian foanboys around to upset.

The same flaccid Italian ASW efforts that sank 16 RN subs, more than twice that of the Germans. And the Italians stopped playing earlier
As for Morton's sinking being under kill-or-be-killed conditions, that's normally the way that war works. I'm assuming from your post that the IJN were fantastic at ASW making sinkings against them much harder than against any other navies....



_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 152
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 8:57:42 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


quote:

ORIGINAL: String



Well the US army did have the privilege of being on another continent with no real threat to its home country and having a year or so to prepare for its first real offensive operations and not really getting into the fray in numbers before 1-2 years, while the British were constantly in action since early 1940.




I am not sure I agree.

Britain declared war on Germany on or about 1 Sep 39. Germany invaded France & the low countries on 10 May 40. The BEF had 8 months and 10 days to prepare. The U.S. entered the war on 7 Dec 41. The 1st Mar Div invaded Guadalcanal and Tulagi on 7 Aug 42. The Marines had 8 months to prepare.





It might still be a little difference to face more or less the whole Wehrmacht on the Western front than to face 2.000 Japanese soldiers in the beginning of Guadalcanal when you land 14.000 troops there. Comparing strategic level with tactic level is tricky IMO.

_____________________________


(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 153
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 10:46:57 AM   
BigBadWolf


Posts: 584
Joined: 8/8/2007
From: Serbia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace



I remain unconvinced that the German Army represented a credible threat to the British Isles.



Well, today we know Germans couldn't hope to invade Britain, with all the historical data we have, but how much of that was known to the British in WW2?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace
If your logic that being at war makes it significantly harder to develop a proficient Army were true, how would you explain the Red Army's success?


That's easy. All you need is endless supply of manpower, Lend and Lease and bunch of commissioners with a PPD-40 shooting at everyone who tried to retreat.

_____________________________


(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 154
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 3:22:22 PM   
ckammp

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Many of Truant's ships were single Italian merchats sunk in the Med against what one must assume was rather flaccid ASW measures by the Italians. Many of Morton's kills were under great duress and kill-or-be-killed conditions. One Wikipedia excerpt from the wild Third Patrol:



Ah yes, one must assume that the Italian war effort was entirely third rate when compared to any other power. After all there aren't any Italian foanboys around to upset.

The same flaccid Italian ASW efforts that sank 16 RN subs, more than twice that of the Germans. And the Italians stopped playing earlier
As for Morton's sinking being under kill-or-be-killed conditions, that's normally the way that war works. I'm assuming from your post that the IJN were fantastic at ASW making sinkings against them much harder than against any other navies....




Ah, but your fellow British fanboys insist the only 'first-class' opponent was the Germans, c.1939.

Therefore, the Italians are, at best, second-rate.

Therefore, the superior Italian ASW vs. British subs must reflect the poor quality of Bitish sub captains.

Therefore, the low game stats of British naval leaders are historical and accurate.

Kudos to the devs for getting it right in the first place!

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 155
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 3:43:41 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
Kudos to the devs for getting it right in the first place!


I take it I'll see you in the other thread arguing that Fletcher and Stilwell do not in fact deserve higher stats, then.

_____________________________


(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 156
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 3:44:56 PM   
frank1970


Posts: 1678
Joined: 9/1/2000
From: Bayern
Status: offline 		Now get real, gentlemen!

Neither the German nor the Japanese nor the Italians had any ASW abilities to speak of. The Allies were the best, plain and simple.
Therefore the Germans have the ultimate sub skippers. Just ask yourself, whether any of the Allied sub skippers would have sunk his tonnage against Allied ASW.

People trying to minimize the British subs´achievements should just compare the plain size of the Med with the Pacific to get some impression about the problems British, Italian and German subs had to fight with in the Med.

_____________________________

If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!

"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"


(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 157
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 3:58:47 PM   
ckammp

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
Kudos to the devs for getting it right in the first place!


I take it I'll see you in the other thread arguing that Fletcher and Stilwell do not in fact deserve higher stats, then.


Not until you concede that Crutchly was, in fact, less aggressive than Fletcher!

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 158
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 4:10:26 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
Not until you concede that Crutchly was, in fact, less aggressive than Fletcher!


Actually the Fletcher thing is interesting as I assume in game that 'caution' isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd quite like a highly competent but cautious commander at times.

I don't know the game mechanics, though. Maybe aggression actually is always good in game?

_____________________________


(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 159
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 6:22:12 PM   
vinnie71

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline 		Well I seem to have stirred a hornet's nest! But my point is that despite what apologetic historians claim, the British army (not RAF or navy) didn't really perform that well. Let's face it, it took them a few years to find a Montgomery to command their main army, and failures were re-employed, again and again. The myth that the British army officer corps was deficient because is just that: a myth. I don't even want to compare it to the German army (which followed a completely different path between the wars) but with the US where despite the prewar limitations that they imposed upon themselves, they were more than able to react decisively and force their enemies to fight on their own terms.

As to the supposed lack of preparedness of the British for the forthcoming war is just another myth. They had been preparing for war since at least 1937 in the economic sphere and militarily as well. Also they didn't declare war on Germany on their own, they had the French supporting them. And before people start trashing the French army, it wasn't as bad as it is pictured. After all it defended Lille with a frenzy, making Dunkirk possible and fought well in the second half (often overlooked) part of the campaign of 1940. And frankly the BEF didn't face the biggest part of the Wehrmacht either. Frankly the sheer ineptitude of the British army officer corps couldn't be better demonstrated than at Dunkirk! It was the navy and airforce that saved their bacon...

I'm not saying that all the officers were crappy, just the top brass (mostly). The quality of the lower grades was generally good but the top brass were mostly part of an old boys network. There was a glass ceiling (in modern parlance) to advancement, which was absent say in America or Germany (though not in Italy). They also tended to snob Dominion officers despite the fact that these countries provided the shock troops and generally augmented British strength in all theatres. This was even more evident in the Far East where there were few British troops but the officer corps was wholly British.

Of course one must not think that all services suffered from the same problem. The RAF and RN had high calibre officers who showed their abilities throughout the war. For example Vian and Cunningham come to mind for the RN...

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 160
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 6:32:02 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Ah yes, one must assume that the Italian war effort was entirely third rate when compared to any other power. After all there aren't any Italian foanboys around to upset.

The same flaccid Italian ASW efforts that sank 16 RN subs, more than twice that of the Germans. And the Italians stopped playing earlier


Comparing ultra-flaccid German ASW to flaccid Italian ASW doesn't quite make your point. Perhaps those 16 were a result of poor RN sub-driving rather than Italian mastery? (Please note smiley.)

quote:

As for Morton's sinking being under kill-or-be-killed conditions, that's normally the way that war works. I'm assuming from your post that the IJN were fantastic at ASW making sinkings against them much harder than against any other navies....



Morton went into ultra-shallow water, without charts, with terrible torpedoes, and accomplished his mission. He didn't have to; no one would have berated him if he'd reconned the harbor from outside and reported traffic flow. My point wasn't that Japanese ASW was great--it wasn't, compared to USN or RN--but that Morton was and is due the 90 rating the game gives him. Big Brass Ones he had. I can state from personal knowlege that, sixty years later, he is still spoken of reverently in the US Silent Service.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 161
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 6:38:13 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


It might still be a little difference to face more or less the whole Wehrmacht on the Western front than to face 2.000 Japanese soldiers in the beginning of Guadalcanal when you land 14.000 troops there. Comparing strategic level with tactic level is tricky IMO.


Well, yes, but it's also a bit shorter trip across the English Channel than from New Zealand to the Canal.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 162
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 7:12:02 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder
As to the supposed lack of preparedness of the British for the forthcoming war is just another myth. They had been preparing for war since at least 1937 in the economic sphere and militarily as well.


Yeah, but they hadn't been prepared for France folding after four weeks. That changed absolutely everything.

quote:

The quality of the lower grades was generally good but the top brass were mostly part of an old boys network.


Quite. The pheasant hunting brigade.


_____________________________


(in reply to vinnie71)
Post #: 163
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 7:12:46 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Well, yes, but it's also a bit shorter trip across the English Channel than from New Zealand to the Canal.


It's a long way from Guadalcanal to Tokyo as well... sauce for the goose and all.

Or for that matter, London to Alexandria.

_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 164
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 8:27:45 PM   
sprior


Posts: 8596
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Portsmouth, UK
Status: offline
quote:

Frankly the sheer ineptitude of the British army officer corps couldn't be better demonstrated than at Dunkirk!


Why, what happened at Dunkirk to demonstrate this?

_____________________________

"Grown ups are what's left when skool is finished."
"History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
- Nigel Molesworth.



(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 165
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 8:53:48 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Dunkirk was actually well handled the rear guard fell back while the evacuation was underway.

No question Gort was over his head as BEF commander, Barker failed as well but Alanbrooke did well as did Alexander and Montgomery got most of his Div out intact.

As with all armies some failed some succeeded when they first met real war.

Having allies collapse all around you and fighting under a hostile sky facing Blitzkrieg for the first time I dont see the BEF's retreat to Dunkirk as an example of ineptitude except possibly at the very top and even then despite his lack of grip Gort made ultimately the bravest decision he could to cut and head for home.

Martells attack at Arras, Montgomeies night manouver to cover the BEF's flank, Alan Brooke holding the perimeter and the general way they withdrew were all actually good - doesnt disguise the fact that they were defeated but they didnt break and fall apart so leadership couldnt have been all that bad. (lets not forget that the BEF had about 10 combat Divs and 1 Tank Bde) the Germans had over 140 Divs incl 10 Armoured Divs

The bulk of the allied force was reliant on the French the BEF was one Army among what about 8 French Armies ??

Now seperate question should the BEF have been that exposed - why wasnt 1st Armoured Div deployed to France rather than a single Armoured bde why why why lots of questions but the fact is the british alonecould not have stopped the fall of france
e
Andy


(in reply to sprior)
Post #: 166
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 9:05:00 PM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1400
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline 		Dunkirk as a symbol was a disaster. Dunkirk as a military operation was very well executed.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 167
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 9:13:07 PM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1400
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

I keep brooding over this experience issue and have become convinced (at least to my satisfaction!) that the difficulty is that increase is linear in AE - and I honestly cannot see any alternative. Take the Indian Army - I agree that in 1943 many of its units would have no better than a 40+ level, however a mere six months later their performance would equate to a level of 60-70 at the very least. The problem is that one cannot simulate the dramatic change that could take place given the right circumstances: In this case take the best general you have from his division and put him in charge of training (this is Savory, for some better known as the definitive historian of the British side of the 7 Years War - an intellectual as well as a practical soldier); turn two entire combat units into training divisions (the 14th and Burma); take over vast chunks of western Bengal for training; ruthlessly purge your combat units of unsuitable soldiers and send them where they may do some good; develop a deep, practical and intensive training regime and rotate all battalions through it. Do all this with complete and unquestioned authority and things change in a hurry.

So in answer to the very first post. If you take a below average Indian unit and start it with an efficiency of 10-15 and train it without a break for over two years then you get it to the point it should be at. It didn't happen that way but I guess the system requires it.

I think there was a general improvement in the British forces in India throughout 43 due to the organizational and training changes and more combat. Its just in 43, the Japanese divisions in Arakan were still better. The Japanese then bled their three experienced divisions white at Imphal, and the skill relationship between the two forces flipped quite quickly. I think the game models this pretty well.

For me, the lesson learned is to do everything to train the Commonwealth forces in India to the highest possible level before committing them to fight a veteran IJA formation in anything like an equal fight.

(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 168
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 9:23:36 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Yes and no I think the Arakan attack was a fiasco from the top more than anything else

You have a Corps tghat has planned and trained for the battle and what does the army commander do he decides to cut the Corps out fo the fight and direct the battle froman Army HQ through a Div HQ that was controlling about 10 Bdes

maybe a more flexible army like the Wehrmacht could have managed it but the Indian Army of late 42/early 43 wasnt able to do it.

IMO Irwin screwed the pooch on that one.

Also the lessons learned fromt eh fall of Burma had not had time to pass through the army and for the training exercises and learning to be brough on board.

IMO 1st Arakan was if anything worse than the fall of Burma - they wasted what few trained troops they had and further destroyed the confidence of the Army by breaking all of the strengths of the British/indian Army and not learning enough fromt he Burma campaign

(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 169
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 9:28:28 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		There is an excellent book that I rate very highly called Pheonix from the Flames by Dan Marsden that covers the retraining the Indian Army had to go through after the blows it took and how it was patrolling and the steady Indianisation of the Army that finally made the difference as there were nto enough quality junior leaders available from British sources so trainign Indian platoon and company leaders was vital as it is junior officers that make the real difference in Jungle warfare

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 170
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 9:29:35 PM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1400
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

Now get real, gentlemen!

Neither the German nor the Japanese nor the Italians had any ASW abilities to speak of.

It is interesting to read the after action reports from the Japanese amphibious operations in the DEI. The Asiatic sub captains were very impressed with the skill the IJN escorts demonstrated. Reading Hara's "Japanese Destroyer Captain" is also an eye openner to those who believe the IJN had no ASW capabilities to speak of. The primary difference, it appears to me, is that the Allied ASW got more capable faster than the Axis subs developed and the Allied subs got more capable faster than the Axis ASW. Made the campaigns in the Atlantic and Pacific very one-sided by 43.

quote:


People trying to minimize the British subs´achievements should just compare the plain size of the Med with the Pacific to get some impression about the problems British, Italian and German subs had to fight with in the Med.

I don't follow your logic here.

(in reply to frank1970)
Post #: 171
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 9:43:57 PM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1400
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Yes and no I think the Arakan attack was a fiasco from the top more than anything else

You have a Corps tghat has planned and trained for the battle and what does the army commander do he decides to cut the Corps out fo the fight and direct the battle froman Army HQ through a Div HQ that was controlling about 10 Bdes

maybe a more flexible army like the Wehrmacht could have managed it but the Indian Army of late 42/early 43 wasnt able to do it.

IMO Irwin screwed the pooch on that one.

Also the lessons learned fromt eh fall of Burma had not had time to pass through the army and for the training exercises and learning to be brough on board.

IMO 1st Arakan was if anything worse than the fall of Burma - they wasted what few trained troops they had and further destroyed the confidence of the Army by breaking all of the strengths of the British/indian Army and not learning enough fromt he Burma campaign


I agree that it was a fiasco in terms of command and control and the futile attacks against the Japanese positions were a waste; however, I was thinking of the defense of the Admin Box, and the emergence of air resupply and the use of artillery in what 20 years later would be the US fire base in viet nam.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 172
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 9:50:51 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Ah that was the second Arakan campaign in 1944 I am refering the 1st Arakan campaign above

The one you are refering to was the XV Corps attack commanded by Christison

(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 173
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 10:00:12 PM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1400
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Ah that was the second Arakan campaign in 1944 I am refering the 1st Arakan campaign above

The one you are refering to was the XV Corps attack commanded by Christison

Yes, you are right. I thought it was the tail end of 43. However, would you disagree with the concept that the British forces in India were progressively getting better ( a linear upward trend similiar to the AE training model) through 43 and into 44, and it was the loss of so many veteran IJA troops at Imphal that caused the dramatic swing in the relative performance of the armies?

< Message edited by Wirraway_Ace -- 11/21/2009 10:13:27 PM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 174
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 11:29:33 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana
British Army leadership was poor, the rest of the situation was pretty good though. At least such is the impression I get reading German accounts of fighting the British Army. von Mellenthin's book on the subject says endlessly how 8th Army was much better equipped than the German/Italian forces, and how British logistics in particular was far superior.

Of course, with Ritchie in charge one might say it was all rather moot.


The 8th Army had some big advantages in the logistics department. At their back was the largest oil reserve on Earth and the best developed region in the northern half of the continent. As the Germans moved east, the British had shorter and shorter supply lines.

On the other hand, Rommel was faced with ever increasing supply lines. His supply ships were subject to attack en route, more than the British supply ships sailing the long way around to Egypt. Once supply was landed in Tripoli, they had a long trek on a single, poor quality road by truck to the front. By El Alamein, something like 80% of his fuel was being consumed moving it to the front.

I have read a criticism of Rommel that he was an outstanding division commander, but as a corps commander he fell down in his understanding of logistics. A division commander doesn't have to worry about the logistics of supply, but a theater commander does. The British realized that Rommel needed Tobruk to shorten his overland supply lines, but Rommel himself didn't realize it until it was too late.

It's also differences in thinking between a naval and continental power, a port is always an important thing to hold for a naval power, but a continental power general might tend to think that trapping troops in a port is a pocket that can be dealt with later.

The Germans made the same mistake at Dunkirk. For the Germans, the British were trapped and isolated, for the British, having their army trapped in Dunkirk was an escape hatch.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 175
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 11:38:48 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
The serious problem in Asia is that the British officers stationed there tended to cling to the old "colonial system" of caste and rank to the determent of morale and cohesion. This problem in Asia was much more pronounced than say in the Western Desert. In Singapore in December of 1941, there were strict barriers between regular army officers and the white Indian officers who were treated as inferior. A native Indian officer could not be served in any officers club or stay in a hotel with whites. (or ride in the same train car for that matter). British regular army officers treated Austailian officers even worse-looking upon them as rank amatuers. An Australian officer's uniform could a get one denied service in a first class restaurant or hotel. This caste sytem carried on into the ranks as well with Australian troops and native ally troops getting very poor treatment over the white enlisted men-who themselves were not a happy or well treated lot. Indian troops were more often used for manual labor and the Indian ranks and officer corps were rife with Nationalist sentiment and hatred for the colonial system that they were being forced to defend. British colonial society has grown rotten and the ills of that society had thoroughly infected the Allied forces. It was an nasty stew of discontent and resentment and goes well towards explaining why 80,000 Allied soldiers were severly butt whipped by 40,000 Japanese.


Discontented colonials became 5th columnists before the war. When the Japanese invaded Malaya, they had very accurate descriptions of the disposition of Commonwealth troops due to discontented colonials selling out. There was a somewhat famous case of a half Indian - half British officer who gave quite a bit of intelligence to the Japanese. He wasn't caught until after hostilities started.

As colonial powers went, the British were better than most at how they treated their subjects, but that's mostly because the other powers were horrible. It's little wonder that the European colonial system died a violent death soon after the war ended.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 176
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/21/2009 11:53:11 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BigBadWolf

Well, today we know Germans couldn't hope to invade Britain, with all the historical data we have, but how much of that was known to the British in WW2?



I think it was pretty clear even to the British that invasion was a remote possibility after the BoB. Even during the BoB they knew that it would be difficult since Germany didn't have any purpose built invasion craft. Recon showed that Germany was collecting together every barge in occupied Europe for the invasion, which could move troops, but would leave them vulnerable.

Countries usually prepare for the worst case scenario of foreign invasion, even if the chances are remote. In the 1930s the US was developing war plans for an invasion from England.

There is also a morale factor. Even if attack is remote, the civilian population's morale is better when they see some kind of protective presence. My father got a six month deferment so he could finish his second year of college before going into the Army. He was in Los Angeles and he said he saw USAAF fighters flying over the city on an almost daily basis. It made him feel safer knowing they were there. It wasn't until he was in the USAAF that he realized those guys were fresh out of training and barely knew one end of the plane from the other.

The West Coast was heavily populated with training bases. Part of the concentration was due to the milder weather in much of the region, and the more sparsely populated countryside meant cheap land to build bases on, but there was also probably a PR reason for all the bases. The civilian populations felt safer seeing all those war planes overhead.

For purposes of civilian morale, the British had to make a show of defending England, even as the odds of an invasion got smaller and smaller.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to BigBadWolf)
Post #: 177
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/22/2009 2:49:08 AM   
mariandavid

 

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline 		I would question one aspect of Andy's account of the disaster that was the First Arakan. I agree with all the rest. Expanding on the abominable command problems involved - Slim the corps commander was not allowed by the army commander to move his headquarters forward to take the load of the unfortunate 14th Division commander! He seemed to hate Slim (this by the way for Outlander is a genuine example of class problems - Irwin the elitist despising Slim the ex-private!) and as a result poor old Irwin had to handle the 10 brigades without help.

What I would add (and it reflects very badly on the Indian army) was that the whole thing collapsed when a brigade was overrun by IJA soldiers, coming out of dense jungle and with heavy weapons. It was so bad that the brigadier was killed (or tortured to death depending on the story) and the entire formation fled - shattering the morale of all they came across. It was this episode that produced the 'fear of jungle fighting' issue and why it was necessary to propagandise loundly the very limited achievements of the first Chindit expedition.

""" However, would you disagree with the concept that the British forces in India were progressively getting better ( a linear upward trend similiar to the AE training model) through 43 and into 44, and it was the loss of so many veteran IJA troops at Imphal that caused the dramatic swing in the relative performance of the armies?"""

Not sure what Andy would say to Wirraway's question but I for one do not subscribe to ideas like this. It is the same argument as '"The Russians (or Americans or Montgomery or whatever) won in 1944 because the Germans had lost their best men in 1943". Although the combat CW/Marauder/African losses in 1943-1944 were less that those of the Japanese they were still very significant. For example at Kohima the 31st (?) IJA Division lost about 15,000 men, but in turn inflicted over 10,000 casualties on the British 2nd and Indian 7th Divisions.  

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 178
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/22/2009 4:47:02 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 179
RE: British Unit with low Exp - 11/22/2009 7:51:01 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
quote:

I highly recommend reading "Forgotten Armies, The Fall of British Asia 1941-45" by Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper.


I own it. I've read it.

While everything you say is certainly true CRSutton (and this post isn't actually a response to you, but more towards the general readership of this thread), I would say that those factors you bring up would affect a units "morale" score, more than experience. True, they wouldn't have the experience of veteran North African Division. But it all really amounts to how the little numbers (morale, fatigue, experience, etc) interact with each other in the game.

You can substitute cohesion for morale, or espre de corp for exp, or whatever. The names and the values themselves are subjective (and in reality the ~labels~ become irrelevent). The real question becomes is, "Does the aggregate of the numbers (regardless of what label they're given: morale, exp, etc), produce a realistic representation of the capabilities and constraints of the unit this is being represented?"

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: British Unit with low Exp Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   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

2.357