Where are all the troops?

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Blackhorse
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Eastern US

RE: Where are all the troops?

Post by Blackhorse »

ORIGINAL: mantrain

Well the Marine Corp seems small now. But I did not know that US troops were fewer in number than the Japanese in that theatre. I just thought that the USA was so large. I knew about "europe first." Looking at the first land campaign between the USA and Japan, Guadalcanal, I would think the Japanese were having problems with numbers of troops too, otherwise why didn't they just take it outright with 50,000 + troops. If the Japanese had committed that many men they would have defeated the USA there (presuming they would supply them). Seems like the USA struggled so much in that campaign with numbers too -- marines barely hanging on until the Army arrived. I dont quite understand. If you look at the european theatre, how many US troops were committed to Operation Torch? Probably 150,000 USA troops,and there were the Brits and French too, on one relative place on the map. It doesn't seem the same numbers were there at all in the Pacific. I doubt there were ever in excess of 75,000 US ground troops involved in any one campaign in the Pacific. Didn't the USA lose that many troops in the BAttle of the Bulge alone?

The Marine Corps is small. At the beginning of the war it consisted of only two understrength divisions -- each recently expanded from a brigade. By 1944 it expanded to 6 divisions, but only by eliminating the separate ranger and parachute units, and shutting down every small post, depot, ROTC detachment and recruiting office they could, to scrape together enough men to create the 5th and 6th divisions.

The plan at the start of the war was for the US Army to field 200 divisions. In the event, 98 was the most it ever activated. During the Battle of the Bulge, the last two divisions being trained in the US were shipped to Europe (including one being trained for jungle warfare that had been slated for the Pacific). After that, there was nothing left in the pipeline.

There were many reasons the US Army ended up smaller than planned. One of the most significant, IMHO, is that planners consistently underestimated how many servicemen were needed in "service and support" for an army to deploy and fight across the world's two greatest oceans. The Organization of Ground Combat Troops (1947; Greenfield, Palmer & Wiley) does an excellent job of chronicling the Army's challenge.

Every US Army & Marine Corps formation, battalion-sized or larger, that deployed in the Pacific is included in game. In addition, every US Army division and regiment, and most of the battalions, that trained on the West Coast before shipping off to Europe are also included. What you see on the map is what was actually there.
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!
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Where are all the troops?

Post by Terminus »

The US Army also underestimated how many riflemen they'd need.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Where are all the troops?

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The US Army also underestimated how many riflemen they'd need.

And how many replacements they would need. In the latter stages of the Battle of the Bulge Eisenhower authorized feeding black troops into the line which caused a lot of controversy. Those troops served with distinction though. Like the Japanese American RCT, those soldiers had something to prove.

Planners usually start off planning based on past experience. The only other times the US had mobilized in any large scale were the Civil War and WW I. The Civil War was another era and supply lines were short. WW I was the first large scale overseas war for the US, but it had the advantage of plugging into the existing logistical support system for the French and British armies on the continent.

In WW II the US had to build or rebuild logistical systems from scratch to support the pointy end of the spear. Conditions in the Pacific were often very primitive. Noumea was the most built up place in the South Pacific, but it was a back water outpost by the standards of the rest of the world.

Even in Europe that had to contend with infrastructure that was largely destroyed before the Allies got there. It had to be rebuilt or bypassed.

I think one of the strengths of WitP and AE is it gives the player some feel for the logistical support necessary to conduct a war in the Pacific. It's not perfect in that regard, but it does a better job that any other game I've seen.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Where are all the troops?

Post by Terminus »

Yah.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Symon
Posts: 1885
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:59 pm
Location: De Eye-lands, Mon

RE: Where are all the troops?

Post by Symon »

At its peak in March 1945

8,157,400 Total US Army
2,753,500 Army Ground Forces: 1,252,000 divisional, 1,501,500 non-divisional.
2,993,000 Army Services Forces
2,410,900 Army Air Forces: 1,224,000 combat, 1,187,000 support/training/supply
Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”