Matrix Games Forums

Happy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser Trailer
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread

 
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: Admirals Edition Land Thread Page: <<   < prev  68 69 [70] 71 72   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/16/2011 12:53:48 PM   
EasilyConfused

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline
Thanks for your responses Blackhorse, they've been very helpful.

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 2071
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/25/2011 1:10:43 PM   
EasilyConfused

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline
Few more things I noticed that might be mistakes or might be intentional.

1.  The TOE Corps Engineer Battalion (2834) has Ind Inf Section 43 in the first ID slot, but all the units that use the TOE have some version of Ind Cmbt Eng, which would seem to make more sense given the unit type.

2.  Should 7.2" Arty Gun be in the 60 Pounder Gun-4.5" Field Gun-5.5" Arty Gun upgrade path?  Since it isn't, the 134th (East Ang) Regiment (6520) and the 55th Heavy Regiment (6576) will actually downgrade from the 7.2" Arty Gun to the 60-4.5"-5.5" devices.

3.  Fifth USAAF Eng (5247) is party of the Far East USAAF rather than Fifth USAAF, which it presumably belongs.

I forgot to mention it before, but all the stuff I've been reporting is from the regular grand campaign (scenario 1).

(in reply to EasilyConfused)
Post #: 2072
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/25/2011 4:22:55 PM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1926
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused

Few more things I noticed that might be mistakes or might be intentional.

1.  The TOE Corps Engineer Battalion (2834) has Ind Inf Section 43 in the first ID slot, but all the units that use the TOE have some version of Ind Cmbt Eng, which would seem to make more sense given the unit type.

2.  Should 7.2" Arty Gun be in the 60 Pounder Gun-4.5" Field Gun-5.5" Arty Gun upgrade path?  Since it isn't, the 134th (East Ang) Regiment (6520) and the 55th Heavy Regiment (6576) will actually downgrade from the 7.2" Arty Gun to the 60-4.5"-5.5" devices.

3.  Fifth USAAF Eng (5247) is party of the Far East USAAF rather than Fifth USAAF, which it presumably belongs.

I forgot to mention it before, but all the stuff I've been reporting is from the regular grand campaign (scenario 1).



#3 -- You are correct. The LCU is assigned to the wrong HQ. Nice catch!
Checking this out reminded me again of how huge the U.S. late-war engineer units are: starting in 1944, the Air Force Engineer Aviation Battalions arrive packaged as 4-battalion brigades: each unit has 108 Engineers and 52 vehicles . . . the construction equivalent of 368 engineers!

AndyMac is the Keeper of the Flame of Knowledge for all British and Commonwealth TOE decisions.

_____________________________

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 EasilyConfused)
Post #: 2073
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/25/2011 7:32:37 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3567
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

...AndyMac is the Keeper of the Flame of Knowledge for all British and Commonwealth TOE decisions.


Then quick, you better stop him from going to Las Vegas and losing the "Flame".

Alfred

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 2074
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/30/2011 7:23:26 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
There is Device 1044 12 Pounder CD Gun.

It is defined as DP, but its ceiling is 0. I wanted to find it somewhere, but I can not see any 12 Pounder with such large projectile, or such low range. It seems something is wrongly deined here.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 2075
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/30/2011 11:58:47 AM   
Iron Duke


Posts: 520
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

There is Device 1044 12 Pounder CD Gun.

It is defined as DP, but its ceiling is 0. I wanted to find it somewhere, but I can not see any 12 Pounder with such large projectile, or such low range. It seems something is wrongly deined here.





Think this may be the British 12pdr QF Mk.1 (dated 1894) shell weight = 12.5 lb , max range = 8,000 or 10100 yd(both quoted in same reference) ,muz.vel = 2,258 ft/sec
cd gun for anti torpedo boat use (WW1 era torpedo boats)
not a DP gun

< Message edited by Iron Duke -- 7/30/2011 12:00:28 PM >


_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 2076
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/31/2011 10:58:25 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke
Think this may be the British 12pdr QF Mk.1 (dated 1894) shell weight = 12.5 lb , max range = 8,000 or 10100 yd(both quoted in same reference) ,muz.vel = 2,258 ft/sec
cd gun for anti torpedo boat use (WW1 era torpedo boats)
not a DP gun

Database simply uses directly weight of projectile in lbs, as effect number.
So the only things, which roughly seems right is range.

Maybe this is some strange type of Howitzer/mortar? Maybe some special ammunition?

(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 2077
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 8/13/2011 6:57:12 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Scenario 6 (8th December beginning).

Chinese squads production numbers are not updated (they still produce at 200). It was changed in last data patch to 350 per month, but not in this Scenario.

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 2078
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 9/17/2011 4:04:58 PM   
Heeward


Posts: 316
Joined: 1/27/2003
From: Lacey Washington
Status: offline
Unit 6260 Groupment Massu Bde French Armored Unit. In general as the Free French were equipped with US equipment.  The unit appears to be a short combat command.

Looking at it It has in
WPN5 slot 1018 CW 1945 Rifle Squad   Should this be 1055 FFR Infantry Squad
WPN7 slot 1010 Bren Section (PIAT)      Should this be ?

Should the unit also have attached to it
1056 FFR Cmbt Engr - 9
1057 FFR MMG - 8
1126 0.5 M2HB AAMG x4 - 24?
251 Engineers - 3 to 4
Added Motorized Support (or not) This is a French unit.
Your thoughts?





_____________________________

The Wake

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 2079
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 9/21/2011 5:28:56 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13721
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
1. Error
2. No they were specialist weapons and I didnt want them becoming to available (i.e they were heavy guns not medium field guns)
3. Error

ta

Andy
quote:

ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused

Few more things I noticed that might be mistakes or might be intentional.

1.  The TOE Corps Engineer Battalion (2834) has Ind Inf Section 43 in the first ID slot, but all the units that use the TOE have some version of Ind Cmbt Eng, which would seem to make more sense given the unit type.

2.  Should 7.2" Arty Gun be in the 60 Pounder Gun-4.5" Field Gun-5.5" Arty Gun upgrade path?  Since it isn't, the 134th (East Ang) Regiment (6520) and the 55th Heavy Regiment (6576) will actually downgrade from the 7.2" Arty Gun to the 60-4.5"-5.5" devices.

3.  Fifth USAAF Eng (5247) is party of the Far East USAAF rather than Fifth USAAF, which it presumably belongs.

I forgot to mention it before, but all the stuff I've been reporting is from the regular grand campaign (scenario 1).



(in reply to EasilyConfused)
Post #: 2080
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 9/21/2011 5:30:28 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13721
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
To late lost the lot !!!
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

...AndyMac is the Keeper of the Flame of Knowledge for all British and Commonwealth TOE decisions.


Then quick, you better stop him from going to Las Vegas and losing the "Flame".

Alfred


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 2081
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 9/21/2011 5:31:18 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13721
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Yup error not a DP gun fortuantely ceiling not a problem
quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

There is Device 1044 12 Pounder CD Gun.

It is defined as DP, but its ceiling is 0. I wanted to find it somewhere, but I can not see any 12 Pounder with such large projectile, or such low range. It seems something is wrongly deined here.





Think this may be the British 12pdr QF Mk.1 (dated 1894) shell weight = 12.5 lb , max range = 8,000 or 10100 yd(both quoted in same reference) ,muz.vel = 2,258 ft/sec
cd gun for anti torpedo boat use (WW1 era torpedo boats)
not a DP gun


(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 2082
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 9/21/2011 5:31:39 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13721
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Bugger error
quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Scenario 6 (8th December beginning).

Chinese squads production numbers are not updated (they still produce at 200). It was changed in last data patch to 350 per month, but not in this Scenario.


(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 2083
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 9/21/2011 5:32:31 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13721
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Yup CW 1945 is a proxy for CW troops serving in US TOE units as part of tiger force and only there
quote:

ORIGINAL: Heeward

Unit 6260 Groupment Massu Bde French Armored Unit. In general as the Free French were equipped with US equipment.  The unit appears to be a short combat command.

Looking at it It has in
WPN5 slot 1018 CW 1945 Rifle Squad   Should this be 1055 FFR Infantry Squad
WPN7 slot 1010 Bren Section (PIAT)      Should this be ?

Should the unit also have attached to it
1056 FFR Cmbt Engr - 9
1057 FFR MMG - 8
1126 0.5 M2HB AAMG x4 - 24?
251 Engineers - 3 to 4
Added Motorized Support (or not) This is a French unit.
Your thoughts?






(in reply to Heeward)
Post #: 2084
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 10/19/2011 8:49:04 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 6838
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Andy,


The 56th and 37 Soviet motorized divisions both have 43 motorized squads, 600 trucks and about 100 AC and light tanks. Should these two units have the same mobility as an armored or mech unit? As it is now they are classified as infantry divisions and are no more mobile than any vanilla infantry unit.


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 2085
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 10/19/2011 8:52:46 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 6838
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Bugger error
quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Scenario 6 (8th December beginning).

Chinese squads production numbers are not updated (they still produce at 200). It was changed in last data patch to 350 per month, but not in this Scenario.




Just for the record, I have two scen #2 games going-both started two years ago. Both have been patched up, yet one has the replacement rate at 350 for my Chinese squads and the other remains at 200. I am at a loss to explain this. We are in different beta versions now but even when we had both games in version q5 the rates were different.


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 2086
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 10/20/2011 12:13:32 AM   
USS America


Posts: 15864
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Bugger error
quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Scenario 6 (8th December beginning).

Chinese squads production numbers are not updated (they still produce at 200). It was changed in last data patch to 350 per month, but not in this Scenario.




Just for the record, I have two scen #2 games going-both started two years ago. Both have been patched up, yet one has the replacement rate at 350 for my Chinese squads and the other remains at 200. I am at a loss to explain this. We are in different beta versions now but even when we had both games in version q5 the rates were different.



Huh. I'm playing a Scenario 1 game, started with the next to last official patch, but I think we didn't do the "database upgrade" for some reason at the time. I'm still only getting 200 Chinese squads per month.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 2087
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 10/20/2011 7:25:53 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6057
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Andy,


The 56th and 37 Soviet motorized divisions both have 43 motorized squads, 600 trucks and about 100 AC and light tanks. Should these two units have the same mobility as an armored or mech unit? As it is now they are classified as infantry divisions and are no more mobile than any vanilla infantry unit.



If those were post-December 1942 motorised corps, they should have the mobility of an armoured unit.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 2088
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 10/20/2011 1:45:34 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 6838
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Andy,


The 56th and 37 Soviet motorized divisions both have 43 motorized squads, 600 trucks and about 100 AC and light tanks. Should these two units have the same mobility as an armored or mech unit? As it is now they are classified as infantry divisions and are no more mobile than any vanilla infantry unit.



If those were post-December 1942 motorised corps, they should have the mobility of an armoured unit.


Well they are now with motorized 43 squads and are soon to get motorized 44 squads but perhaps I have not left them at "rest" to allow them to upgrade. I think I have but will check next turn.


No, I checked and all Soviet "motorized" units are basically infantry units and must walk, even though a motorized division has 600 vehicles where a regular Soviet division has no vehicular support. All my units have upgraded to 43 or 44 motorized squads. I realized that a lot of motorized units were only that in name, so perhaps this was the idea. Still, when a unit has that many vehicles one would expect it to be able to move along roads at a better clip than regular infantry.

Bear in mind that my Russians are not activated, so I really can not test their mobility. But my experience is that if it looks like an infantry unit (symbol), then it is an infantry unit.



< Message edited by crsutton -- 10/20/2011 3:12:22 PM >


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 2089
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 10/20/2011 5:15:49 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6057
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Andy,


The 56th and 37 Soviet motorized divisions both have 43 motorized squads, 600 trucks and about 100 AC and light tanks. Should these two units have the same mobility as an armored or mech unit? As it is now they are classified as infantry divisions and are no more mobile than any vanilla infantry unit.



If those were post-December 1942 motorised corps, they should have the mobility of an armoured unit.


Well they are now with motorized 43 squads and are soon to get motorized 44 squads but perhaps I have not left them at "rest" to allow them to upgrade. I think I have but will check next turn.


No, I checked and all Soviet "motorized" units are basically infantry units and must walk, even though a motorized division has 600 vehicles where a regular Soviet division has no vehicular support. All my units have upgraded to 43 or 44 motorized squads. I realized that a lot of motorized units were only that in name, so perhaps this was the idea. Still, when a unit has that many vehicles one would expect it to be able to move along roads at a better clip than regular infantry.

Bear in mind that my Russians are not activated, so I really can not test their mobility. But my experience is that if it looks like an infantry unit (symbol), then it is an infantry unit.




The Soviet forces in the Far East had two Motorized Rifle Corps (division-sized) between 1941 and 1945. They may not have been at full strength until the summer of 1945, but they were most definitely motorized. If you've been monitoring the discussion on Deep Battle, led by Nemo, you should recognise them as the mechanised core of the tank army with the mission of capturing and holding a major enemy logistics centre in the deep rear (ca 125 miles) in two to four days. At full strength, they had about 400 AV, and as these units were well-trained and part of the winning hand at Khalkhin Gol, they should be able to put a real hurt on any IJA units choosing to take them on.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 2090
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 10/21/2011 11:37:58 AM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1774
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Andy,


The 56th and 37 Soviet motorized divisions both have 43 motorized squads, 600 trucks and about 100 AC and light tanks. Should these two units have the same mobility as an armored or mech unit? As it is now they are classified as infantry divisions and are no more mobile than any vanilla infantry unit.



Yes, they would be better represented as armored units. Design error.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 2091
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 10/21/2011 11:49:07 AM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1774
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Andy,


The 56th and 37 Soviet motorized divisions both have 43 motorized squads, 600 trucks and about 100 AC and light tanks. Should these two units have the same mobility as an armored or mech unit? As it is now they are classified as infantry divisions and are no more mobile than any vanilla infantry unit.



If those were post-December 1942 motorised corps, they should have the mobility of an armoured unit.


Well they are now with motorized 43 squads and are soon to get motorized 44 squads but perhaps I have not left them at "rest" to allow them to upgrade. I think I have but will check next turn.


No, I checked and all Soviet "motorized" units are basically infantry units and must walk, even though a motorized division has 600 vehicles where a regular Soviet division has no vehicular support. All my units have upgraded to 43 or 44 motorized squads. I realized that a lot of motorized units were only that in name, so perhaps this was the idea. Still, when a unit has that many vehicles one would expect it to be able to move along roads at a better clip than regular infantry.

Bear in mind that my Russians are not activated, so I really can not test their mobility. But my experience is that if it looks like an infantry unit (symbol), then it is an infantry unit.




The Soviet forces in the Far East had two Motorized Rifle Corps (division-sized) between 1941 and 1945. They may not have been at full strength until the summer of 1945, but they were most definitely motorized. If you've been monitoring the discussion on Deep Battle, led by Nemo, you should recognise them as the mechanised core of the tank army with the mission of capturing and holding a major enemy logistics centre in the deep rear (ca 125 miles) in two to four days. At full strength, they had about 400 AV, and as these units were well-trained and part of the winning hand at Khalkhin Gol, they should be able to put a real hurt on any IJA units choosing to take them on.


There were no Motorized Rifle Corps in existence in the Far East (neither in the Far East nor in the Transbaikal MD) between 1941 and 1945.

Don't know where you got this info, but your statement is wrong. There were 61st and 111th Tank Divisions, the 36th and 57th Motorized Rifle Divisions and lots of Tank Brigades [some of them for some time formed into two provisional tank divisions) and a Armoured Car Brigade (unique formation, later converted to a Mechanized Brigade) but definitely no Motorized Rifle Corps (not even as HQ's for other formations).

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 2092
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 10/21/2011 1:24:53 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6057
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Andy,


The 56th and 37 Soviet motorized divisions both have 43 motorized squads, 600 trucks and about 100 AC and light tanks. Should these two units have the same mobility as an armored or mech unit? As it is now they are classified as infantry divisions and are no more mobile than any vanilla infantry unit.



If those were post-December 1942 motorised corps, they should have the mobility of an armoured unit.


Well they are now with motorized 43 squads and are soon to get motorized 44 squads but perhaps I have not left them at "rest" to allow them to upgrade. I think I have but will check next turn.


No, I checked and all Soviet "motorized" units are basically infantry units and must walk, even though a motorized division has 600 vehicles where a regular Soviet division has no vehicular support. All my units have upgraded to 43 or 44 motorized squads. I realized that a lot of motorized units were only that in name, so perhaps this was the idea. Still, when a unit has that many vehicles one would expect it to be able to move along roads at a better clip than regular infantry.

Bear in mind that my Russians are not activated, so I really can not test their mobility. But my experience is that if it looks like an infantry unit (symbol), then it is an infantry unit.




The Soviet forces in the Far East had two Motorized Rifle Corps (division-sized) between 1941 and 1945. They may not have been at full strength until the summer of 1945, but they were most definitely motorized. If you've been monitoring the discussion on Deep Battle, led by Nemo, you should recognise them as the mechanised core of the tank army with the mission of capturing and holding a major enemy logistics centre in the deep rear (ca 125 miles) in two to four days. At full strength, they had about 400 AV, and as these units were well-trained and part of the winning hand at Khalkhin Gol, they should be able to put a real hurt on any IJA units choosing to take them on.


There were no Motorized Rifle Corps in existence in the Far East (neither in the Far East nor in the Transbaikal MD) between 1941 and 1945.

Don't know where you got this info, but your statement is wrong. There were 61st and 111th Tank Divisions, the 36th and 57th Motorized Rifle Divisions and lots of Tank Brigades [some of them for some time formed into two provisional tank divisions) and a Armoured Car Brigade (unique formation, later converted to a Mechanized Brigade) but definitely no Motorized Rifle Corps (not even as HQ's for other formations).


I was going from Glantz but using my knowledge of the relationship between MRD and MRC. The MRDs were part of the prewar organisation of the RKKA. During 1941-42, they were either disbanded or converted into MRCs. After the end of the war, the wartime Tank Corps were redesignated Tank Divisions, and the wartime Motorised Rifle Corps were redesignated Motorised Rifle Divisions. At full strength, the MRC was a square unit with three motorised rifle brigades and a tank brigade. The motorised rifle brigade was also a square unit with three motorised rifle battalions and a tank regiment (about 40 tanks). The tank brigade had two or three tank battalions (@21 tanks each) and a motorised SMG battalion (the tank marines). There are various sources with this information, including the US Army WWII-era and 1950s FMs on the RKKA/Soviet Army, various wartime and post-war German language publications, and post-war Russian language publications. Tracing the history of RKKA/Soviet Army organisational changes was a bit of a cottage industry during the Cold War.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 2093
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 10/21/2011 3:58:45 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1774
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Andy,


The 56th and 37 Soviet motorized divisions both have 43 motorized squads, 600 trucks and about 100 AC and light tanks. Should these two units have the same mobility as an armored or mech unit? As it is now they are classified as infantry divisions and are no more mobile than any vanilla infantry unit.



If those were post-December 1942 motorised corps, they should have the mobility of an armoured unit.


Well they are now with motorized 43 squads and are soon to get motorized 44 squads but perhaps I have not left them at "rest" to allow them to upgrade. I think I have but will check next turn.


No, I checked and all Soviet "motorized" units are basically infantry units and must walk, even though a motorized division has 600 vehicles where a regular Soviet division has no vehicular support. All my units have upgraded to 43 or 44 motorized squads. I realized that a lot of motorized units were only that in name, so perhaps this was the idea. Still, when a unit has that many vehicles one would expect it to be able to move along roads at a better clip than regular infantry.

Bear in mind that my Russians are not activated, so I really can not test their mobility. But my experience is that if it looks like an infantry unit (symbol), then it is an infantry unit.




The Soviet forces in the Far East had two Motorized Rifle Corps (division-sized) between 1941 and 1945. They may not have been at full strength until the summer of 1945, but they were most definitely motorized. If you've been monitoring the discussion on Deep Battle, led by Nemo, you should recognise them as the mechanised core of the tank army with the mission of capturing and holding a major enemy logistics centre in the deep rear (ca 125 miles) in two to four days. At full strength, they had about 400 AV, and as these units were well-trained and part of the winning hand at Khalkhin Gol, they should be able to put a real hurt on any IJA units choosing to take them on.


There were no Motorized Rifle Corps in existence in the Far East (neither in the Far East nor in the Transbaikal MD) between 1941 and 1945.

Don't know where you got this info, but your statement is wrong. There were 61st and 111th Tank Divisions, the 36th and 57th Motorized Rifle Divisions and lots of Tank Brigades [some of them for some time formed into two provisional tank divisions) and a Armoured Car Brigade (unique formation, later converted to a Mechanized Brigade) but definitely no Motorized Rifle Corps (not even as HQ's for other formations).


I was going from Glantz but using my knowledge of the relationship between MRD and MRC. The MRDs were part of the prewar organisation of the RKKA. During 1941-42, they were either disbanded or converted into MRCs. After the end of the war, the wartime Tank Corps were redesignated Tank Divisions, and the wartime Motorised Rifle Corps were redesignated Motorised Rifle Divisions. At full strength, the MRC was a square unit with three motorised rifle brigades and a tank brigade. The motorised rifle brigade was also a square unit with three motorised rifle battalions and a tank regiment (about 40 tanks). The tank brigade had two or three tank battalions (@21 tanks each) and a motorised SMG battalion (the tank marines). There are various sources with this information, including the US Army WWII-era and 1950s FMs on the RKKA/Soviet Army, various wartime and post-war German language publications, and post-war Russian language publications. Tracing the history of RKKA/Soviet Army organisational changes was a bit of a cottage industry during the Cold War.


The Motorized Rifle Divisions and Tank Divisions in the FE (including Zabaikal) were not disbanded (or even restructured) before the end of the war and any knowledge about the post war structure of the Red Army is completely irrelevant when it comes to the Red Army between 1941-45. And Glantz (or any other source) does not mention any Motorized Rifle Corps in the FE 1941-45.

< Message edited by Kereguelen -- 10/21/2011 4:01:00 PM >

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 2094
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 10/21/2011 5:36:30 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6057
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Andy,


The 56th and 37 Soviet motorized divisions both have 43 motorized squads, 600 trucks and about 100 AC and light tanks. Should these two units have the same mobility as an armored or mech unit? As it is now they are classified as infantry divisions and are no more mobile than any vanilla infantry unit.



If those were post-December 1942 motorised corps, they should have the mobility of an armoured unit.


Well they are now with motorized 43 squads and are soon to get motorized 44 squads but perhaps I have not left them at "rest" to allow them to upgrade. I think I have but will check next turn.


No, I checked and all Soviet "motorized" units are basically infantry units and must walk, even though a motorized division has 600 vehicles where a regular Soviet division has no vehicular support. All my units have upgraded to 43 or 44 motorized squads. I realized that a lot of motorized units were only that in name, so perhaps this was the idea. Still, when a unit has that many vehicles one would expect it to be able to move along roads at a better clip than regular infantry.

Bear in mind that my Russians are not activated, so I really can not test their mobility. But my experience is that if it looks like an infantry unit (symbol), then it is an infantry unit.




The Soviet forces in the Far East had two Motorized Rifle Corps (division-sized) between 1941 and 1945. They may not have been at full strength until the summer of 1945, but they were most definitely motorized. If you've been monitoring the discussion on Deep Battle, led by Nemo, you should recognise them as the mechanised core of the tank army with the mission of capturing and holding a major enemy logistics centre in the deep rear (ca 125 miles) in two to four days. At full strength, they had about 400 AV, and as these units were well-trained and part of the winning hand at Khalkhin Gol, they should be able to put a real hurt on any IJA units choosing to take them on.


There were no Motorized Rifle Corps in existence in the Far East (neither in the Far East nor in the Transbaikal MD) between 1941 and 1945.

Don't know where you got this info, but your statement is wrong. There were 61st and 111th Tank Divisions, the 36th and 57th Motorized Rifle Divisions and lots of Tank Brigades [some of them for some time formed into two provisional tank divisions) and a Armoured Car Brigade (unique formation, later converted to a Mechanized Brigade) but definitely no Motorized Rifle Corps (not even as HQ's for other formations).


I was going from Glantz but using my knowledge of the relationship between MRD and MRC. The MRDs were part of the prewar organisation of the RKKA. During 1941-42, they were either disbanded or converted into MRCs. After the end of the war, the wartime Tank Corps were redesignated Tank Divisions, and the wartime Motorised Rifle Corps were redesignated Motorised Rifle Divisions. At full strength, the MRC was a square unit with three motorised rifle brigades and a tank brigade. The motorised rifle brigade was also a square unit with three motorised rifle battalions and a tank regiment (about 40 tanks). The tank brigade had two or three tank battalions (@21 tanks each) and a motorised SMG battalion (the tank marines). There are various sources with this information, including the US Army WWII-era and 1950s FMs on the RKKA/Soviet Army, various wartime and post-war German language publications, and post-war Russian language publications. Tracing the history of RKKA/Soviet Army organisational changes was a bit of a cottage industry during the Cold War.


The Motorized Rifle Divisions and Tank Divisions in the FE (including Zabaikal) were not disbanded (or even restructured) before the end of the war and any knowledge about the post war structure of the Red Army is completely irrelevant when it comes to the Red Army between 1941-45. And Glantz (or any other source) does not mention any Motorized Rifle Corps in the FE 1941-45.


You're right about the MRDs. Glantz (1983) describes those two motorised rifle divisions as "a remnant of the 1941 force structure." The 6th GTA also had two standard mechanised corps (MRCs) and a standard tank corps. There was another MRC(-) in the east. The count of tanks, tank battalions, and motorised rifle battalions in the 6th GTA is consistent with the MRDs being organised as MRCs. I've seen his Russian language sources, but only as borrowed copies.

My sources were the 1945 TM 30-430, House (1984), and a bunch of Soviet publications. They were primarily concerned with the main show.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 2095
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 10/25/2011 11:22:59 PM   
jcjordan

 

Posts: 1690
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline
Not sure if this has been posted or not but in looking at the database w/ the current betas it looks like the problems still exist in scen #1 but assume it'd go thru about all other scen as well.

1) For airunits at Petropavlovsk that don't have the range to get to the mainland they can't upgrade due to being assigned to Soviet FE Cmd HQ & not in range to fly to it to upgrade. Solution might be to make Kamchatka Cmd HQ a command lvl HQ instead of it's current corp level.

2) 7005 246th Rifle Brig can't combine w/ other units to form the parent div due to being assigned to Sov FE Cmd whereas the other units as well as the parent are 5th Rifle Corp HQ.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 2096
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 2/10/2012 5:14:33 PM   
amatteucci

 

Posts: 315
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: ITALY
Status: offline
It's only a minor nitpick, anyway...
The correct designations for the Soviet Iosif Stalin heavy tanks (and for the SP guns based on these tanks) are: IS-2, IS-3, IS-122, IS-152 and not JS-2, JSU-122 etc.

(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 2097
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 2/11/2012 9:25:03 AM   
btbw

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/7379/screenshot221a.jpg
Scenario 6
http://www.mediafire.com/?krwc1dbaqyyl62x
All Air Defense units not have AA artillery, only machineguns. Some of units receive 12cm T03 AA Gun in 900+ days but before ( and some never got upgrade and receive AA gun) it useless LCUs.

< Message edited by btbw -- 2/11/2012 9:30:45 AM >

(in reply to amatteucci)
Post #: 2098
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 2/17/2012 7:06:17 AM   
Heeward


Posts: 316
Joined: 1/27/2003
From: Lacey Washington
Status: offline
Scenario One
Unit 7847 Convoy WS.18/OS22 Supply Convoy
Weapon 5 - 82mm Mortar  - 24 Device 1307 should these be Device 1040 3" Mortar?
or perhaps 81mm Mortar device 1306?


_____________________________

The Wake

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 2099
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 2/17/2012 10:15:43 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13721
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Nope they are Chinese LL Mortars

(in reply to Heeward)
Post #: 2100
Page:   <<   < prev  68 69 [70] 71 72   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread Page: <<   < prev  68 69 [70] 71 72   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

0.141