How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (Full Version)

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



Message


guytipton41 -> How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/22/2012 6:42:43 PM)

Hi Folks,

I'm thinking about trying to throw the Japanese off Australia using mainly restricted Australian Command units. It's mid Dec '42 and time to start making plans (I hope). I'm concerned about replacement rates for Australian forces - they don't look very high. Will this turn out like the British units that I bought out of the dead pile that are still way under strength after 8 months of rest? Or do folks consider them to be a wasting asset - use them while the Japanese are within reach?

Cheers,
Guy

[image]local://upfiles/37716/7990975D67994972B08A36E6FE2DBDEB.jpg[/image]




JeffK -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/23/2012 1:22:41 AM)

You should have 2 good AIF units as well, or have you spent them elsewhere??

Look at the the stregths of the Australian units, as well as their weaknesses.

When do their Armoured Regiments upgrade to a real Regiment strength?

What flanks do the IJA offer?

Can you scrape up an NZ Bde or two or some USA/USMC support. Tank battalions might be more useful in OZ instead of Pago Pago?

PS, nothing wrong with the scruffy lot you have pictured, I'll bet their rifles are clean and are more than willing to give it another crack! (Its either 39 Bn CMF or 2 Independent Company AIF?)




PaxMondo -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/23/2012 4:31:54 AM)

I would not characterize them as fragile, but rather brittle.  As you note, low replacement rates but as Jeff states they are well armed and good morale.  So you will want to be careful where and when you use them. It can take a lot of time to rebuild losses, so consider that before you put them in harm's way.  Make sure your goal is worth the loss of the use of the unit for some time if it gets mauled.




Reg -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/23/2012 6:35:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

PS, nothing wrong with the scruffy lot you have pictured, I'll bet their rifles are clean and are more than willing to give it another crack! (Its either 39 Bn CMF or 2 Independent Company AIF?)


That officer out the front looks like he may have been transferred in from the AIF so you can say they were also well led....




JeffK -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/23/2012 6:42:47 AM)

Its 39 Bn on 22 Sept 42, Taken by Damien Parer

http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/013289
MEMBERS OF THE 39TH BATTALION, AMF, PARADE AFTER WEEKS OF FIGHTING IN DENSE JUNGLE DURING THE KOKODA CAMPAIGN. THE OFFICER IN FRONT IS LIEUTENANT JOHNSON. THE MEN STANDING BEHIND HIM, FROM THE LEFT, ARE: ARNIE WALLACE, BILL SANDERS, HARRY HODGE, KEVIN SURTEES, GEORGE CUDMORE, GEORGE PUXLEY, KEVIN WHELAN, LEN MURRELL, DICK SECKER, NEIL GRAHAM, CLIVE GALE AND JACK BOLAND. THEIR BEDRAGGLED DRESS REFLECTS THE HARD FIGHTING OF PAST WEEKS.




guytipton41 -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/23/2012 2:36:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Its 39 Bn on 22 Sept 42, Taken by Damien Parer

http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/013289
MEMBERS OF THE 39TH BATTALION, AMF, PARADE AFTER WEEKS OF FIGHTING IN DENSE JUNGLE DURING THE KOKODA CAMPAIGN. THE OFFICER IN FRONT IS LIEUTENANT JOHNSON. THE MEN STANDING BEHIND HIM, FROM THE LEFT, ARE: ARNIE WALLACE, BILL SANDERS, HARRY HODGE, KEVIN SURTEES, GEORGE CUDMORE, GEORGE PUXLEY, KEVIN WHELAN, LEN MURRELL, DICK SECKER, NEIL GRAHAM, CLIVE GALE AND JACK BOLAND. THEIR BEDRAGGLED DRESS REFLECTS THE HARD FIGHTING OF PAST WEEKS.


That's correct. I know that I shouldn't have used a Kodoka Trail picture but there are a dearth of invasion of Australia pictures. Most have airbrushed out by the Illuminati.

Cheers,
Guy




Q-Ball -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/23/2012 2:54:38 PM)

I would not commit Militia units to serious combat; they lack adequate firepower, and get almost no replacements. I would convert them to AIF formations first, by upgrading the CMF Militia squads to '42 squads, as well as the 18pdr to 25pdr. That takes some time.

I think you can stretch the Australian Army with select disbands. The Militia divisions are all understrength, so converting them all to AIF formations (by upgrading the infantry from CMF Militia to AIF '42 squads, etc) will create a drain on the replacement pool without any combat.

The solution is before you convert the Militia Divisions to AIF, disband some formations and bring them to full-strength on CMF squads. Then, when you convert, you won't drain the pool of '42 squads (they upgrade the squads without draining the pool), and you can upgrade several formations.

In this manner, I think you can convert 3-4 Militia divisions fully to AIF by the end of 1942, AND have adequate replacements. I think you need to disband one of the divisions to get there, though.




crsutton -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/23/2012 3:47:07 PM)

If the Japanese are there in strength, I would not. Not in early 43. You are weak in devices and numbers. In 43 you get 40 squads a month and that is not enough to sustain hard fighting. You need to accumulate those squads so that you can keep upgrading. A 44 Australian division with full TOE is a powerful unit. Your tanks are good but the M3 Grant tank is the final upgrade and the flow of replacements eventually come to a halt. It is 1945 in my game and I will have to start disbanding tank regiments as my pool of Grants is about gone. Otherwise they are very good units.

The most important thing to remember is that it is not just the squads. All Commonwealth units pull devices from the same pools and the replacement rate for those pools is not very good. If you are losing 25 pounders in Australia in early 1943 then you are going to be hard pressed to replace the 18 pounders in your growing Indian army in late 43. And it is not just these. Six pounders, vickers MMGs, 81mm mortars, armored cars are all in short supply for me-even in 1945.

So, you need American units in OZ,of which you should have enough in 43. If there is a big offensive coming, I would send every American tank unit that is not needed elsewhere to OZ. This is the best terrain you will ever have for tanks so why not make the most of it. And a large armored force can turn a victory into a rout. Also, it does not hurt that your American units are gaining combat experience as they start out pretty mediocre. They will sorely need this experience later on. Not just combat units. Base forces, construction units and air units are all in short supply and will be needed to sustain an offensive.




guytipton41 -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/23/2012 5:34:13 PM)

Hi Folks,

Thanx for the interesting advice. Disbanding units to fill the pool... hummm. Guess I need to look at these units in the editor and find out when they upgrade and stuff. Another facet of the game that I didn't even think of, sigh.

On a lighter note here is some of the rare archival footage of the invasion of Australia where the primitive photo-shopping of the Illuminati can be clearly seen.

Cheers,
Guy

[image]local://upfiles/37716/EE4F85D482284FDFA353B126FFE65A84.jpg[/image]




Dobey -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/24/2012 12:21:50 AM)

If it's Dec '42 you should be getting another AIF division shortly as well. The 9th AIF returns from north Africa early in 43 (Jan or Feb if I recall correctly)




SpitfireIX -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/24/2012 4:38:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
PS, nothing wrong with the scruffy lot you have pictured, I'll bet their rifles are clean and are more than willing to give it another crack! (Its either 39 Bn CMF or 2 Independent Company AIF?)

From Sharpe's Enemy:

SHARPE: No apologies about your men?

FREDERICKSON: Men are dirty, sir. Rifles are clean.

[:)]




Dan Nichols -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/24/2012 4:53:54 AM)

For Australian armored units, I do have about half of the units upgrade to Matildas and then turn off upgrade allowed. If you are not careful you will end up with all units having M3 Grants and a huge stockpile of Matildas that you can not use. The program will not down grade a unit device.




rjopel -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/24/2012 5:33:23 AM)

I wish you could downgrade devices. I've got a ton of 18pdr guns that I'd love to be able to use.




JeffK -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/24/2012 8:56:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
PS, nothing wrong with the scruffy lot you have pictured, I'll bet their rifles are clean and are more than willing to give it another crack! (Its either 39 Bn CMF or 2 Independent Company AIF?)

From Sharpe's Enemy:

SHARPE: No apologies about your men?

FREDERICKSON: Men are dirty, sir. Rifles are clean.

[:)]


[:D]

Can I create a leader or 2 with greater than 100 leadership & Inspiration pts (Maybe a bit low on Administration) That plus a company of Rifles should be enough to clean up the IJA.
(Can I make a Sergeant counter as well?)

The works of Bernard Cornwall started me off in a deep interest into the Peninsula Campaign, easier to read than Oman.




Andy Mac -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/24/2012 11:54:21 AM)

To the original question - it depends

Australia can comfortably operate the three AIF Divs and maybe 1 CMF Div onm rotation plus a few Armoured Regts

If you rebuild the 8th Div or try to operate more than 1 CMF Div or are playing with no withdrawals you will struggle.

Australian Inf replacements are deliberately low you will need to cannibalise and stockpile replacements

Its not as bad as it used to be as eventually unused CMF squads will upgrade in the pool to the latest iteration

The AIF is incredibly powerfull on a unit by unit basis

A single full strenght AIF Div is more than a match for a Japanese Div - they have the same or better experience, good leaders, decent basic squads, better support squad levels and far better support weapons

All in all a full strength AIF Div one on one is a tough proposition but you only have a few of them and replacements are not plentifull

The same goes for the Indian and British Divs (minus the plethora of good leaders until late war and the experience levels that make the AIF so dangerous)

Japanese Divs need an HQ or base force for additional support squads and maybe an attached arty bn.

Its the experience differential in the early war that give s the Japanese the edge against most CW formations and that simply doesnt apply v the AIF.




crsutton -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/24/2012 10:22:39 PM)

To expand on the previous two posts. Yes, it is a good idea to retain the Matildas for a while. They are useful and better than any Japanese tank you will see. However, I would upgrade to the M3s eventually as they are better tanks. You should have just enough to last out the war. The Australians get two motorized brigades early on. These are probably the two best and most useful Allied units in the war through 1942. Especially if you are fighting in OZ as they have their own organic armor support. You get two cavalry brigades that convert to armor brigades around the end of 42. With about 150 medium tanks each, these units are very powerful. However, you lose one to withdrawal and it is questionable if you want to convert it to a tank regiment as you will then lose all of its tanks when it pulls out. However, it has been a long time and I was fighting in OZ way back when the tank replacement bug was in effect. If you can upgrade the unit that withdraws to matildas and then leave it that way, then by all means convert.




witpqs -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/25/2012 12:09:53 AM)

I thought that many or all of those units that withdrew put their devices into the pools? I know that air groups gives us a message, but how can we tell the difference with an LCU?




Dan Nichols -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/25/2012 1:16:51 AM)

You would have to look at the unit in the editor. If the withdrawal type is 2, then the devices are returned to the pool.
A quick glance for scenario 1 shows most of the Australian armored and cavalry units are type 2 and should return their devices back to the pool.




crsutton -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/25/2012 2:19:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

You would have to look at the unit in the editor. If the withdrawal type is 2, then the devices are returned to the pool.
A quick glance for scenario 1 shows most of the Australian armored and cavalry units are type 2 and should return their devices back to the pool.



Ah, something that I did not know.. Never mind....

Actually, I have withdrawn a couple of Australian units with Grant tanks and did not notice any jump in my pools. It would be about 100 tanks and I think I would have noticed that. So I am not sure about this.




Dan Nichols -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/25/2012 2:54:13 AM)

I haven't really watched, but I will when I have some withdraw, but here is an excerpt from the editor manual:

Withdraw and Type of Withdraw is the date when the unit will be auto-withdrawn from the game.
This is a 6 digit number where the first two digits represent the year, the middle two the month, and the
last two the day. Type 1 is no devices are returned to pool and type 2 is where all devices are returned
to pool.


So they are supposed to be returned, I just am not sure I ever checked to see if the really did.




michaelm -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/25/2012 5:33:36 AM)

In the player's Op report, it should say " ... withdraws out of theatre" with the devices, and "... disbands" if the devices got returned to the pool instead.




witpqs -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/25/2012 11:35:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

In the player's Op report, it should say " ... withdraws out of theatre" with the devices, and "... disbands" if the devices got returned to the pool instead.

Cool!




witpqs -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/25/2012 3:48:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

In the player's Op report, it should say " ... withdraws out of theatre" with the devices, and "... disbands" if the devices got returned to the pool instead.

Cool!

I looked at this in-game some more. On the LCU display in purple type for units that withdraw is:

"Withdraw in X Days" for units that do go to the pools.

"Withdraw in X Days out of theatre" for units that do not go to the pools.

So you can already tell ahead of time. Very nice! [8D][&o]




oldman45 -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/27/2012 1:30:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dobey

If it's Dec '42 you should be getting another AIF division shortly as well. The 9th AIF returns from north Africa early in 43 (Jan or Feb if I recall correctly)


Does anybody know why the 9th came back and wasn't used in Italy?




Dobey -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/27/2012 6:29:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dobey

If it's Dec '42 you should be getting another AIF division shortly as well. The 9th AIF returns from north Africa early in 43 (Jan or Feb if I recall correctly)


Does anybody know why the 9th came back and wasn't used in Italy?



Australia wanted to pull all of its divisions out of the middle east immediately, Churchill insisted none must be removed, the compromise reached was that 2 would withdraw immediately with the third to remain until US or other forces could replace them. US troops were to be sent to Australia to compensate for the 9thDiv remaining in Africa.

Ultimately Australia decided early on that it wanted to make the Pacific its main theatre of war based on several assumptions and political realities:

1) Britain had proven that it lacked both the military capacity and the political will to defend Australia\NZ and if forced to choose between defending Aus or defending India it was prepared to consider Aus\NZ as expendable.

2) The United States was actively involved in the pacific war, would win and would make the key decisions on shaping the region after the conflict ended.

3) Australia was a pacific nation and would continue to be affected by the shape the region took after the war.

4) The relationship between Australia and the UK would always be one in which Australia was viewed as the subordinate partner and was likely to have its views dismissed if those views contradicted the British views.

5) If Australia made the maximum possible political and military commitment to the pacific theater the US was more likely to give Australia a significant role in shaping the region post war.

6) No government can justify continuing to deploy its own troops halfway around the world while its home territory is under direct threat. Nor can it ask others to help defend its territory if it is not prepared to make a maximum effort with its own resources.




oldman45 -> RE: How fragile are the early '43 Australians? (11/29/2012 3:03:43 PM)

Thanks Dobey!




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0390625