RE: logistic analysis

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: logistic analysis

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Tech Support >> RE: logistic analysis

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: logistic analysis - 10/23/2005 1:39:07 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

As to Logistics, Yamato hugger is correct. Water use alone for a combat infantryman in action would probably amount to a MINIMUM of several gallons (21+ pounds) per day (including drinking water, coffee, and water used to prepare rations). This would be true of either the Japanese or US forces. Of course, if water is locally supplied this does not need to be shipped....

Which, in the mountains of Northern Luzon, it is supplied by a number of fast flowing fresh water rivers. The rivers serve as defensible barriers in their own right, but also as sources of water. This is rice country - and rice is a very water intensive crop - you could not produce lots of rice if there was not lots of water. Bataan was very different in that era (today it is cut over). There were a few coastal villages - and not much civil population - none at all in the interior. There are places like this today in the Visaya's - villages hemmed in by the jungle into which people seldom go - in spite of having some genetic tolerence for the endemic diseases. It probably would have been better to stay in Manila - no need to move supplies then - no diseases either - and the creation of the "open city" to "save" it turned out not to be meaningful. Mac used eight inch guns on the place in 1944, and Manila was more damaged than any other Asian city - even including those subject to firebombings and atom bombings.

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 61

RE: logistic analysis - 10/23/2005 1:46:38 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Local supplies would be consumables. Water, maybe. Food certainly. Lumber. Concrete. Sand. ______________ <fill in the blank>. There are lots of "local" things that are needed in game terms to drive the supply function of the game. Would it be nice to have it broken down into "this is food" "this is bullets" "this is 16" shells"? Some people would say yes. Others would say no. Have to draw a line somewhere.

I agree with you - too much detail is as bad as too little. I call for three kinds of supply:

1) Fuel (POL - all forms of fuels used by military units, plus lubricants).

2) Ammo (all forms of ammunition larger than small arms - which I define as up to .50 cal).

3) General (everything else, especially including food, spares, and small arms ammunition).

IF you want to talk about economic points other military supply, I think you should also have a pretty small number, pretty abstracted. I myself use something like Heavy Industry Points (MFG points) and OIL points (CRUDE points) such as are found in WITP. I tend to divide Resource Points into a few more categories - Iron Ore, Coal and Bauxite are examples - with the latter including Copper and other minerals. But I would not go all the way to Liddle Hart's "26 materials needed for war."

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 62

RE: logistic analysis - 10/23/2005 1:47:53 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

I thought the pasta rule simply doubled the water supply requirement for Italian units

That is what it says in my edition. Maybe there was more than one edition?

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 63

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Tech Support >> RE: logistic analysis

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]