Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Japan infantry squad organization

 
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 >> Japan infantry squad organization Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Japan infantry squad organization - 1/23/2011 12:07:20 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1338
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
In old WITP Japan had like 3, or 4 upgrades for squads during war. Now I see only basic types, which never upgrades. So I went, and made some research. Here is a basic proposition, to make it more realistic.

To keep it simple, only modification of squads, no extra 20mm Rifles, or lighter mortars etc., as that would require remaking of lot of OOBs.


Standard rifle was Arisaka 6.5 mm, but Japan already began rearming into 7.7 mm version, because of too weak projectile in old model. Both were produced in vast quantities (3.5 millions), and rearming began:

quote:

The change of the rifle from Type 38 to Type 99 was carried out division by division, because the ammunitions must be unified in a division. At first, the divisions in Manchuria changed Type 38 to Type 99. Then, the divisions in Japan homeland changed. The divisions in the Pacific front were the last. However, the change of the rifle was not finished during the war. So, many infantrymen in the Pacific used Type 38 until the war ended.


So...
Japan begins game with standard squads, as they are now (Hard Attack 5, Soft Attack 20, and 17 weight), but those are squads armed with Tye 38 Rifle, and no longer "produced", new squad Type 99 is introduced, and all units in Manchuria, and Japan mainland are already rearmed to them. That would give interesting option, that, when Japan player will turn replacements for all units, including China, rearming of all squads should suck all armament reserve in a blink. I am wondering what happens, when units is supposed to get replacements, and squads are no longer in production? Anyway, new 7.7 mm bullet should increase firepower by about 10%, so 22 Soft Attack looks about right.

SNLF units had similar organization to infantry, so squads should weight the same, but units were small, and prestigious enough to get some rare weapon, like 13,2 mm HMGs, instead standard smaller calibres, or Thompson MGs.
However, there was an submachine gun, the only produced in any quantities in Japan, which is reported to be used during invasion of Southern China, by "Marines", and special, folding version, was delivered for paratroopers, and used in February 1942. Reported production of over 20k, should be enough to equip all SNLF, and frontline para troops, during war, so we can safely assume, this was a standard weapon of frontline "special infantry". Then, there was also spigot launcher, reported to be used by SNLF.
SNLF squad had much firepower. Mostly equipped in 8mm submachine guns, custom MGs, and spigot launchers. We can safely assume, that Soft Attack will be:
13 soldiers in squad, but in game terms squad probably include also 3 soldiers from "knee mortar" team, still mortar crew is not line infantry, there are 4 soldiers in MG team, and one is detached as runner for HQ, that leaves 7+commander to equip with submachine guns.
That would add around 8*2 (better fire-rate than M1) Soft Attack, so 36-38
seems right.

Paratroopers:
10-13 paratroopers per plane, suggest, that their squads were smaller. But since there was 4 people for Machine Gun (operator, assistant, and 2 ammo carriers), I am guessing, they just get rid of extra ammo guys.
Since they have very precise plans, and used flamethrowers in at least one operation, we can assume, that they get every possible specialised equipment to carry their mission. Including Engineer demolition Charges, and antitank "grenades". Plane jump means, they could not get much ammunition, but they surely should have better Hard attack. So HA 15, SA comparable to SNLF, maybe few points less because squad is smaller, also because need for conserving ammunition (28-34), weight 14-15.


Now, things begin to look interesting. On 12 May 1942 arrives to Japan example of German Schiessbecher. By August their copies are being produced, by October some examples reach Guadalcanal.
So...
Considering, that during August 1942-unspecified 1943 Japan produced around 49000 Type 2 Grenade Launcher, we can make assumption, that there is enough such devices, to equip ONE soldier in both SNLF, and Para squads. They could also shot AT grenades, and adding such hand-AT-grenades could be captured from Allies in Singapore, and Bataan in large quantities:
new type of SNLF squad should be available at September 1943, with HA 15 (standard for Allies), but there should be already enough Type 97 20mm AT Rifles, to add some to SNLF units. Standard organization was 2 such Rifles per Company, so HA in fact should be 25-35 and slightly better SA (Type 2 Grenade Launcher), maybe by 2 points.
Similarly for Para squad, HA is already 15, so we could increase it to 20 (Type 97 20mm AT Rifles were far too heavy for para drop), SA also +2.


And now... things looks even more interesting.
In 1942 also begin production of Type 100 Grenade Launcher, and in 1943, a new AT Type 3 grenade (first produced by Japan) begin production. Since there is both Type 2 Grenade Launcher, and Type 100 Grenade Launcher are already at full production, a new infantry squad should be introduced in January 1943, with standard HA 15, and slightly better SA (+2-4).


1944 sees introduction of Japan version of Bazooka Type 4 AT Rocket Launcher, and also new model of Type 100/44 Sub Machine Gun, with almost twice fire-ratio.
I would put first equip attempt after Peleliu, and before Iwo Jima, so in November-December 1944 new Para squad, with HA 55, and around 5 points more in SA should be introduced. In 1945, but still before Iwo Jima, so in January 1945, new SNLF squad, with similar statistics should be available.


And interesting future. Game so far do not force Allied player to haste, new Japan plane types are good, but when they will be available, more than 50% of plane production will be in ruin,
So...
as a penalty, if Allied player is "behind the schedule", in September 1945 all infantry squads could be equipped with Type 4 AT Rocket Launcher. HA 55, another extra grenade launcher could increase SA by 2 points.

More about it later...
What do you think?
Post #: 1
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/23/2011 12:12:09 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41361
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Yawn... IJA infantry squads upgrade already... Well okay, they technically get a bit worse, but that's historically accurate. Don't like it, make a mod.

< Message edited by Terminus -- 1/23/2011 12:13:28 PM >


_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 2
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/23/2011 12:29:32 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13803
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
I am not the expert on this area JWE and Kereguelen did the japanese stats but they were well researched and more importantly we spent a lot of time on comparative OOB's and TOE's to make them comparable.

Making changes like these just the japanese opes up a whole can of worms with all the other nations.

There is a reason Japanese squad firepower is anemic start messing with that and AV would need to drop as some of what you are referring to was deliberate to achieve the relative fighting ability within the games rules.

Basically its not that simple if its a mod you want fine go ahead but this kinda thing will never change the core scenarios because we thik we got it more or less right m- it certainly took long enough !!!.

Convince JWE and Kereguelen and you will probably get me convinced but JWE especially is the real expert on this stuff and its not straight forward

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 3
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/23/2011 12:31:52 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13803
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
"Japan begins game with standard squads, as they are now (Hard Attack 5, Soft Attack 20, and 17 weight), but those are squads armed with Tye 38 Rifle, and no longer "produced", new squad Type 99 is introduced, and all units in Manchuria, and Japan mainland are already rearmed to them. That would give interesting option, that, when Japan player will turn replacements for all units, including China, rearming of all squads should suck all armament reserve in a blink. I am wondering what happens, when units is supposed to get replacements, and squads are no longer in production? Anyway, new 7.7 mm bullet should increase firepower by about 10%, so 22 Soft Attack looks about right. "


p.s. A bolt action rifle is a bolt action rifle in most terrain types it would be a rounding at most for what we are looking at

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 4
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/23/2011 12:47:16 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5925
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
More importantly, is the cost involved.  You would need to re-balance the economics again (big task).  Upgrading INF units mean building new INF squads at load cost (~12) * 6 (HI) and then load cost (~12) in supplies for each squad.  For a division at about 360 squads, that's 25920 HI and 4320 supplies.  That's a pretty big chunk of change.  With the current economy, you would (maybe) be able to upgrade your LCU's, but would then arrive in 1945 with no HI reserves ....

I agree with Termy on this one ... sure, the frontline IJA units did get some improved weapons representing more firepower as the war went on.  But how much?  It seems to me not enough to warrant the hassle of doing an upgrade and fiddling with the economics to get the balance right.  Think if someone forgoes the marginal LCU improvement repesented by this upgrade to put this additional economy into say A/C R&D?  I think you would get more ahistorical "gamey" outcomes.  So, for me, I think the devs did the right thing here.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 5
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/23/2011 1:26:04 PM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1927
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

Just to underscore what AndyMac said: you don't want to mess with one nation's squad (or other device ratings) without making similar adjustments to all others. One of the big hidden improvements in AE was the effort made to 'normalize' weapon values across countries. In WitP, for example, one could find various .50 caliber MG devices with different soft and hard ratings, and ranges from 2k to 14(!)k. I won't say that we got everything perfect in AE, but it is a huge improvement over what we inherited.

For determining squad firepower ratings, a semi-automatic rifle is twice as good as a bolt-action rifle, and a submachine gun is better than either. But a squad's real firepower comes from belt-fed machineguns and light mortars.

To no-one's surprise, the Americans have the most lavishly equipped infantry. And, by late in the war, a US Marine division had enough bazookas, flamethrowers and sachtel charges to issue one of each to every squad. The Army had only half as many flamethrowers and sachtel charges per division, but made up for it with recoilless rifles that began arriving in quantity in 1945. None of these weapons show as separate devices in-game, they are all baked into the squad's hard and soft ratings.

Even with all this hardware, the US infantry's "soft" ratings top out at 37 (Army) and 43 (Marines). These ratings are, and should be, double that of Japan's infantry (20-22 soft).

_____________________________

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 Andy Mac)
Post #: 6
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/23/2011 5:31:14 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
Good comment.

The German Army found the Russians were unable to advance against a sustained firepower density of 5 rifle calibre rounds per minute per meter of front, so that was their rule of thumb in allocating infantry formation frontages. They had a corresponding figure--about 5 heavy AT weapons per kilometer--for antitank defence, which they regarded as even more important. Using the frontage that a squad could cover based on this rule of thumb is a good figure of merit.

_____________________________

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 Blackhorse)
Post #: 7
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/23/2011 8:48:02 PM   
stuman


Posts: 3864
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline
Interesting info inqistor.

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley


(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 8
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/23/2011 10:26:41 PM   
topeverest

 

Posts: 2431
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline
I hadn't nearly looked into this aspect so deep, and in my dozen or so games over the years, I have never felt this aspect of the game to be wanting relative to the broad brush of historical backdrop.  Certainly an interesting mod potential.

If you mod it, please post your changes.

Inquisitor, do you make your career in small arms?




_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to stuman)
Post #: 9
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/23/2011 11:55:22 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13803
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
 
The adj in IJA army squad firepower suggested above to 36 - 38 means a Japanese rifle squad is almost at 1945 USMC Firepower levels at squad level, is about twice the level of a British, Indian, Australian or New Zealand Squad and is higher than a US Army Squad.......

So that means in terms of represented soft attack firepower which lets face it out of 20 ish points maybe 7 or 8 come from the rifles in a squad the rest come from squad level automatic weapons, or share of platoon and company level assets like 2" morters, LMG sections, sniper sections, flamethrowers maybe some attached MMG's or whatever is in a Company OOB etc etc what the ratings suggest is that a Japanese rifle section is better supported by these company and platoon level support weapons than a US Army Section or CW section.....

"to make it more realistic" <shrugs> sure go to it but it will be an out of wack mod not more realistic

(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 10
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/24/2011 1:28:24 AM   
topeverest

 

Posts: 2431
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline
Thanks for the perspective Andy

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 11
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/24/2011 4:57:43 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
The following from an Australian perspective in the jungles of PNG. The various battalion histories focus on two weapon types, the "Nambu" machine guns, and the mortars. Both are the effective weapons (the light mortars in particular).

A captured Japanese AAR focusus on the number of grenades carried and their effectiveness.

Rifle small arms aren't really that important.

Cheers

Rob

_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 12
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/24/2011 11:35:48 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar

The following from an Australian perspective in the jungles of PNG. The various battalion histories focus on two weapon types, the "Nambu" machine guns, and the mortars. Both are the effective weapons (the light mortars in particular).

A captured Japanese AAR focusus on the number of grenades carried and their effectiveness.

Rifle small arms aren't really that important.

Cheers

Rob


Lots of factors went into the organisation of a squad or section. An individual bolt-action rifle could cover 2 metres (4 if professionally trained in rapid fire). A semiautomatic rifle could cover 4 metres. A BAR or other individual automatic weapon, 12 metres. A crew-served light MG 24 metres. A medium MG, about 48 metres. So a crew-served LMG could generate the firepower of an automatic rifle plus six riflemen or a total of twelve riflemen. A crew-served MMG could cover the frontage of half a platoon--with a lot more vulnerability to casualties. Guess why rifles were not that important. Having multiple weapons types in a platoon gave the leader more options. Held up by direct fire? Use the light mortar to suppress it. (Ex-machine gunners used to set off metal detectors.) A WWII platoon appears to be designed to defeat a section in field fortifications. Add a tank or heavy weapon, and it could defeat a section in a seriously fortified position, with the squad providing target acquisition/flank protection and the tank firepower. The same rules seem to apply at higher echelons.

_____________________________

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 jrcar)
Post #: 13
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/24/2011 11:55:44 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
"to make it more realistic" <shrugs> sure go to it but it will be an out of wack mod not more realistic



If you substitute "make it more favorable to playing Japan" for "make it more realistic", you will find the motivation for most of these demands. When will the JFB's realize that Japan is not Germany? It's Italy, with suicidal bravery substituted for spagetti! But the quality of it's weaponry still generally sucks.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 14
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/24/2011 1:56:26 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
Yes, squad anti-soft firepower is calculated from every infantry weapon included at company level. Individual ‘effectiveness’ values were given to each class of weapon: bolt-action rifle, self-loading rifle, automatic rifle, magazine fed LMG, belt fed LMG, magazine fed MMG, belt fed MMG, 50mm GD, 2” mortar, 60mm mortar, etc. Everything was incorporated into a squad, except for MMGs (.30 cal ‘heavys’) and HMGs (.50 cal ‘heavys’), which were incorporated into 2-gun MG Section ‘squads’.

The number of weapons in a platoon (or company) element were totaled and multiplied by their respective ‘effectiveness’ value. Done exactly the same way for every single nation, using exactly the same ‘effectiveness’ values for every single weapon class. These totals were then normalized in order to bring infantry anti soft firepower in line with the anti soft firepower of the basis artillery piece, so that inf/arty firepower is a unified and, rationally related, whole (i.e., infantry values like 21733 and 19147, became 22 and 19, respectively).

As Rob Carpenter mentions, the majority of squad firepower is derived from the support weapons (MGs and mortars), so dinking with a rifle or a hand grenade is a fruitless exercise. As Andy mentions, all of these things were done to all nations as a whole. If one is changed, all others must be changed as well. One must also make allowances for exactly how individual squad sizes (i.e., troop count as expressed by load cost) were determined in order to properly allocate the appropriate proportion of platoon/company firepower to each squad.

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 15
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/27/2011 6:33:47 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1338
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

More importantly, is the cost involved.  You would need to re-balance the economics again (big task).  Upgrading INF units mean building new INF squads at load cost (~12) * 6 (HI) and then load cost (~12) in supplies for each squad.  For a division at about 360 squads, that's 25920 HI and 4320 supplies.  That's a pretty big chunk of change.


You are right. I am trying to solve few problems with simple solution. Japan had trouble, with producing enough modern weaponry, and put it into front. As it is now, Japan players regularly TURN OFF armament industry, because they have too much reserve. That should not happen in historical game, as that means Japan had produced great surplus of weaponry. Players turn off production around 1943 beginning, so that is PERFECT date for new squad.
Please remember, than in WITP there were at least two upgrades. Does armament production was lowered for AE, because lack of them?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

Just to underscore what AndyMac said: you don't want to mess with one nation's squad (or other device ratings) without making similar adjustments to all others.


I just found those number of new Japanese equipment:

Type 100 Grenade Launcher 36000
Type 2 Grenade Launcher 49000
Spigot Grenade Launcher unspecified
Type 100 submachine gun 24000-27000 including (6000-7500 folding version)
Navy imported sub machineguns 6000
Type 97 20 mm anti-tank rifle 10000
Type 3 AT grenade unspecified
Type 4 70 mm AT Rocket Launcher 3500

Mostly entered service AFTER 1941, yet, because Japan squads NEVER upgrade, and also most big units NEVER upgrade their TOEs, are completely ignored.
For an extra insight:
There were 115000 units of PIAT produced. They were send to Soviet Union, and Resistance. They were used by most of Commonwealth troops on both fronts. Even considering that HALF of it ended in PTO, it gives us 57500 pieces, and they are standard equipment for Commonwealth units, yet greater number of Grenade Launchers, and half of it of Automatic Sub Machineguns for Japan are completely omitted.
It seems to me, that Japan later-war statistics were not adjusted at all.

quote:

Even with all this hardware, the US infantry's "soft" ratings top out at 37 (Army) and 43 (Marines). These ratings are, and should be, double that of Japan's infantry (20-22 soft).


I modify infantry statistics only slightly, and mostly AT strength. It is "special forces" which used "special equipment". They are modified in larger part. I do not know how much of that equipment they used, but surely it was used in combat.


quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest

I hadn't nearly looked into this aspect so deep, and in my dozen or so games over the years, I have never felt this aspect of the game to be wanting relative to the broad brush of historical backdrop. Certainly an interesting mod potential.

If you mod it, please post your changes.


As I said, I want to keep that as simply as possible. So without digging into Manchuria garrison, and keeping first upgrade away, it would be, like 15 minutes of work. There are still few problems:
(1) Player can burn all his armament points, if he turn on upgrades in China quickly
(2) I am wondering, what happens, when unit have REPLACEMENTS ON, but squad is not in production anymore, and it is not enough supply, to upgrade whole unit
(3) Production of SNLF Para squad is like 2 per month. So after upgrade player would need to wait several months to gather enough squads to upgrade.

quote:

Inquisitor, do you make your career in small arms?


Naah, I am not even especially interested at this scale, but it made me wondering, why Japan squads never upgrade. Especially their AT power, as that was main concern of Japan army.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

The adj in IJA army squad firepower suggested above to 36 - 38 means a Japanese rifle squad is almost at 1945 USMC Firepower levels at squad level, is about twice the level of a British, Indian, Australian or New Zealand Squad and is higher than a US Army Squad.......


It is SNLF squad, not army.
Marines have 43 rating for 13 "weight" squad. SNLF is 17, so 30% heavier. Counting Firepower-Per-Person it should be 43*1.3=56, it is far lower.
Soviet SMG squad have Soft Attack 30, and "weight" 10. So SNLF squad is 70% heavier, and have only 50% firepower more. That is still in line.
US Assault Squad have 45 Soft Attack, yet it is far lighter. And here I see the problem.
Also, COMMANDO unit, at least in ETO, 8th September 1943, had 4 LMGs, 2 STENs, and 9 THOMPSONs in "troop". They are seriously underpowered. But they surely used THOMPSONs at Dieppe.

quote:

So that means in terms of represented soft attack firepower which lets face it out of 20 ish points maybe 7 or 8 come from the rifles in a squad the rest come from squad level automatic weapons, or share of platoon and company level assets like 2" morters, LMG sections, sniper sections, flamethrowers maybe some attached MMG's or whatever is in a Company OOB etc etc what the ratings suggest is that a Japanese rifle section is better supported by these company and platoon level support weapons than a US Army Section or CW section.....


Since most heavy weapons were moved to their own device-unit, Japan squad, according to your design, is generally better supported. They have, on average, 1 Light Mortar per squad, while US, for example, have only 1/3rd of such mortar.


quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar

The following from an Australian perspective in the jungles of PNG. The various battalion histories focus on two weapon types, the "Nambu" machine guns, and the mortars. Both are the effective weapons (the light mortars in particular).

A captured Japanese AAR focusus on the number of grenades carried and their effectiveness.


That is exactly in line, what I am doing with upgraded squads. Have you got more data about those AARs? Especially Type 3 AT grenade, and using of Grenade Launchers with Type 99 Grenade, and Type 2 Rifle Grenade 30mm, and 40mm/AT versions? After all, Rifle Grenade Launcher is a form of mortar. Heck, M-10 Grenade Discharger fired hand grenades! I know, that Australians translated large parts of official 121-volume post-war written Japan WWII history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Lots of factors went into the organisation of a squad or section. An individual bolt-action rifle could cover 2 metres (4 if professionally trained in rapid fire). A semiautomatic rifle could cover 4 metres.


Now that is very interesting info. Is that mean, that semiautomatic rifle was not especially better, than standard rifle? Especially in hands of experienced soldiers?

quote:

A BAR or other individual automatic weapon, 12 metres. A crew-served light MG 24 metres. A medium MG, about 48 metres.


That would mean, that I actually underscored abilities of Type 100 submachine gun. As I counted them as 3 points per item, and it should be up to 6?

I can even ask an interesting question:
DOES SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE IS BETTER, THAN NORMAL RIFLE WITH ATTACHED GRENADE LAUNCHER? How to compare those two in terms of firepower? In early US squad sergeant got his Garand replaced for standard rifle, because there was not Grenade Launcher for Garand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Yes, squad anti-soft firepower is calculated from every infantry weapon included at company level. Individual ‘effectiveness’ values were given to each class of weapon: bolt-action rifle, self-loading rifle, automatic rifle, magazine fed LMG, belt fed LMG, magazine fed MMG, belt fed MMG, 50mm GD, 2” mortar, 60mm mortar, etc.


Does "etc." include Rifle Grenade Launchers?

quote:

As Rob Carpenter mentions, the majority of squad firepower is derived from the support weapons (MGs and mortars), so dinking with a rifle or a hand grenade is a fruitless exercise. As Andy mentions, all of these things were done to all nations as a whole. If one is changed, all others must be changed as well.


Well, there is one, serious problem, which I can not nail. Why does most Allied squads begin war with 15 Hard/AT attack, and Japan keeps 5 for whole war?

I see, that too much text made some confusion to proposed changes. Here is simple table to illustrate all of this (if I manage to discover how to add pictures ):




Attachment (1)

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 16
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/27/2011 7:43:15 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25313
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
If you substitute "make it more favorable to playing Japan" for "make it more realistic", you will find the motivation for most of these demands. When will the JFB's realize that Japan is not Germany? It's Italy, with suicidal bravery substituted for spagetti! But the quality of it's weaponry still generally sucks.



This thread was doing fine without a dose of your typical acrebic JFB's are everywhere type commentary.

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 17
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/27/2011 7:49:49 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25313
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


As Rob Carpenter mentions, the majority of squad firepower is derived from the support weapons (MGs and mortars), so dinking with a rifle or a hand grenade is a fruitless exercise. As Andy mentions, all of these things were done to all nations as a whole. If one is changed, all others must be changed as well. One must also make allowances for exactly how individual squad sizes (i.e., troop count as expressed by load cost) were determined in order to properly allocate the appropriate proportion of platoon/company firepower to each squad.



I can't imagine that even a modest change in one or more rifle device values would even show much in the final results given all the die rolls and everything. The overall package seems to represent the differences in firepower well. I recall some tests i did back in the day having a full strength IJA div attack an unentrenched US army RCT in a jungle hex and then a US div vs. a Japanese regiment, same sit. The difference in casualties produced was marked.


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 18
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/27/2011 11:41:40 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
Rifle grenades were not a primary weapon. The figure of merit I was working from was 5 rpm sustained per meter of front to prevent troops from being able to advance against a position. It held for both WWI and WWII. I saw it reported in both German and Russian sources.

I'm curious about your statement that the M1 didn't have a grenade launcher. I carried an M1 for two years, and it did. You attached it over the muzzle to the bayonet stud, and there was a pin to keep the gas cylinder open. It was a bit of an afterthought, so bolt action rifles were retained in the TOE for serious grenade launcher duty.

I was serious about needing professionally trained soldiers to get 20 rpm from a bolt-action rifle. The British could do it in 1914, but nobody else had the time or ammo to train the troops. The US Army figured having the M1 meant that they could get by with the BAR instead of a real LMG, but it didn't really work out that well.

_____________________________

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 inqistor)
Post #: 19
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/28/2011 1:19:34 AM   
jomni


Posts: 2769
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
The US Army figured having the M1 meant that they could get by with the BAR instead of a real LMG, but it didn't really work out that well.


The BAR is still the main squad support weapon during the Korean War.


_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 20
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/28/2011 5:09:11 AM   
vettim89


Posts: 3331
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Yes, squad anti-soft firepower is calculated from every infantry weapon included at company level. Individual ‘effectiveness’ values were given to each class of weapon: bolt-action rifle, self-loading rifle, automatic rifle, magazine fed LMG, belt fed LMG, magazine fed MMG, belt fed MMG, 50mm GD, 2” mortar, 60mm mortar, etc. Everything was incorporated into a squad, except for MMGs (.30 cal ‘heavys’) and HMGs (.50 cal ‘heavys’), which were incorporated into 2-gun MG Section ‘squads’.

The number of weapons in a platoon (or company) element were totaled and multiplied by their respective ‘effectiveness’ value. Done exactly the same way for every single nation, using exactly the same ‘effectiveness’ values for every single weapon class. These totals were then normalized in order to bring infantry anti soft firepower in line with the anti soft firepower of the basis artillery piece, so that inf/arty firepower is a unified and, rationally related, whole (i.e., infantry values like 21733 and 19147, became 22 and 19, respectively).

As Rob Carpenter mentions, the majority of squad firepower is derived from the support weapons (MGs and mortars), so dinking with a rifle or a hand grenade is a fruitless exercise. As Andy mentions, all of these things were done to all nations as a whole. If one is changed, all others must be changed as well. One must also make allowances for exactly how individual squad sizes (i.e., troop count as expressed by load cost) were determined in order to properly allocate the appropriate proportion of platoon/company firepower to each squad.




Sorry for hijacking the thread here but this brings up a point I have always wondered about. Why was the basic unit of infantry for a strategic game that covers over half the Earth a 10-15 man squad? I realize that it is the nature of the beast at this point but it just feels wrong to me. I know many would not share my opinion but it seems to me making the platoon or even company the basic unit would have saved a lot of work

If a person were crazy enough, could you convert the system to platoons? I know it might screw up the Assault Strength calculations but perhaps not. I mean isn't 300 to 300 the same ratio as 30 to 30? Just thinking out loud really

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 21
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/28/2011 5:42:51 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
If you substitute "make it more favorable to playing Japan" for "make it more realistic", you will find the motivation for most of these demands. When will the JFB's realize that Japan is not Germany? It's Italy, with suicidal bravery substituted for spagetti! But the quality of it's weaponry still generally sucks.



This thread was doing fine without a dose of your typical acrebic JFB's are everywhere type commentary.


Interesting comment..., as in your next post you basically turn around and agree with me...

quote:

I can't imagine that even a modest change in one or more rifle device values would even show much in the final results given all the die rolls and everything. The overall package seems to represent the differences in firepower well. I recall some tests i did back in the day having a full strength IJA div attack an unentrenched US army RCT in a jungle hex and then a US div vs. a Japanese regiment, same sit. The difference in casualties produced was marked.


Which was my point exactly! The original poster's attempts to "mutate" the values of Japanese Weaponry were simply "wishful thinking" based on a desire to make Japanese units more effective..., with no thought to how the relationships between the values of all the competing nations would also have to be juggled.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 22
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/28/2011 5:45:23 AM   
jomni


Posts: 2769
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89
Sorry for hijacking the thread here but this brings up a point I have always wondered about. Why was the basic unit of infantry for a strategic game that covers over half the Earth a 10-15 man squad? I realize that it is the nature of the beast at this point but it just feels wrong to me. I know many would not share my opinion but it seems to me making the platoon or even company the basic unit would have saved a lot of work


In what way will using platoon or company save work?

The destruction or disruption of a single company has a more severe impact than a single squad. With squads, at least you have a veriety of results and gradual degredation of assault value.


< Message edited by jomni -- 1/28/2011 5:48:07 AM >


_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 23
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/28/2011 7:09:00 AM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Sorry for hijacking the thread here but this brings up a point I have always wondered about. Why was the basic unit of infantry for a strategic game that covers over half the Earth a 10-15 man squad? I realize that it is the nature of the beast at this point but it just feels wrong to me. I know many would not share my opinion but it seems to me making the platoon or even company the basic unit would have saved a lot of work

If a person were crazy enough, could you convert the system to platoons? I know it might screw up the Assault Strength calculations but perhaps not. I mean isn't 300 to 300 the same ratio as 30 to 30? Just thinking out loud really


Things like transport (especially air and barge), supply usage, etc would need to be dealt with. I agree with you that land units might have been easier/better? to work with/look at, if they were smaller in device totals. I wonder how the small units would be affected. Instead of 30 squads in a raider unit, there would be 6 platoons? or 2 companies? I bet the life expectancy in a good sized stack would be pretty low. Small units tend to die quick, even with large relative device totals.

Nice thought, but this isn't something that will get looked at, even in the next couple of years.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 24
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/28/2011 7:47:49 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
The US Army figured having the M1 meant that they could get by with the BAR instead of a real LMG, but it didn't really work out that well.


The BAR is still the main squad support weapon during the Korean War.



It was still the main squad support weapon in some units in 1964. The M14 was coming into use. Replacing individual and squad equipment in an army is a slow process. Don't even talk about changing ammo.

_____________________________

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 jomni)
Post #: 25
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/28/2011 10:22:48 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89
Sorry for hijacking the thread here but this brings up a point I have always wondered about. Why was the basic unit of infantry for a strategic game that covers over half the Earth a 10-15 man squad? I realize that it is the nature of the beast at this point but it just feels wrong to me. I know many would not share my opinion but it seems to me making the platoon or even company the basic unit would have saved a lot of work


In what way will using platoon or company save work?

The destruction or disruption of a single company has a more severe impact than a single squad. With squads, at least you have a veriety of results and gradual degredation of assault value.



From a post of mine two years ago:

'Wayne Hughes writes:

'"During the 1960s, defense systems analysts suffered a foretaste of the ways complex simulations inhibit imagination and creativity when they tried to solve problems by exploiting the brute-force capacity of the computer by adding more and more inputs and making more and more runs. They learned that too much detail for the sake of realism is confusing and self-defeating."

'There are two problems here. First, too complex a model will surpass the comprehension of the users. Secondly, too good a model will teach the users to lean on the model too much, so that when it fails, they have no foundation on which to construct their own solutions. You've seen that with stock WitP. It came to be seen as the oracle that described how the war in the Pacific was fought. Then some people with a knowledge of reality began poking holes in it, and it was too complex to resist the hole-poking.'

_____________________________

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 jomni)
Post #: 26
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/28/2011 1:20:47 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3331
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89
Sorry for hijacking the thread here but this brings up a point I have always wondered about. Why was the basic unit of infantry for a strategic game that covers over half the Earth a 10-15 man squad? I realize that it is the nature of the beast at this point but it just feels wrong to me. I know many would not share my opinion but it seems to me making the platoon or even company the basic unit would have saved a lot of work


In what way will using platoon or company save work?

The destruction or disruption of a single company has a more severe impact than a single squad. With squads, at least you have a veriety of results and gradual degredation of assault value.



My original post was in respnse to JWE's explanation that the hard and soft attack strengths of the squad were not calculated by looking at the weapons in the squad but instead looking at the total weapons in the platoon (and sometimes company) and then dividing that value by the number of squads. This allowed the designers/mods to incorporate the heavy support weapons found at the platoon and company level into the firepower of the squad. My point was simply why not make the base unit the platoon in the first place to avoid those calculations

I 100% agree on your second point that the combat system as it is probably cannot handle such a change. In that point Harry is probably correct in that the original complexity built into the system prohibits any large scale revision.



_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to jomni)
Post #: 27
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/28/2011 1:24:59 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3331
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89
Sorry for hijacking the thread here but this brings up a point I have always wondered about. Why was the basic unit of infantry for a strategic game that covers over half the Earth a 10-15 man squad? I realize that it is the nature of the beast at this point but it just feels wrong to me. I know many would not share my opinion but it seems to me making the platoon or even company the basic unit would have saved a lot of work


In what way will using platoon or company save work?

The destruction or disruption of a single company has a more severe impact than a single squad. With squads, at least you have a veriety of results and gradual degredation of assault value.



From a post of mine two years ago:

'Wayne Hughes writes:

'"During the 1960s, defense systems analysts suffered a foretaste of the ways complex simulations inhibit imagination and creativity when they tried to solve problems by exploiting the brute-force capacity of the computer by adding more and more inputs and making more and more runs. They learned that too much detail for the sake of realism is confusing and self-defeating."

'There are two problems here. First, too complex a model will surpass the comprehension of the users. Secondly, too good a model will teach the users to lean on the model too much, so that when it fails, they have no foundation on which to construct their own solutions. You've seen that with stock WitP. It came to be seen as the oracle that described how the war in the Pacific was fought. Then some people with a knowledge of reality began poking holes in it, and it was too complex to resist the hole-poking.'



Harry, do you realize that in that you have just undermined the bulk of the arguments you have made of late? Regardless of the validity of the technical aspects of your arguments, the system cannot handle or be modified in a way to implement the changes you see necessary.

BTW, that last sentence does not say what I think you wanted it to imply. I think you meant that the system is so complex that it resists the hole-poking. Or maybe I am wrong and you meant what you wrote

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 28
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/28/2011 2:08:11 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25313
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Interesting comment..., as in your next post you basically turn around and agree with me...



Inquisitor did some research and posted thoughts that he felt certain Japanese values were underrated and asked for commentary. Your commentary about his motivations being "typical JFB fantasies" was degrading and not backed up by anything concrete, thus polluting an otherwise useful and mature discussion. Nice job Scholl.



< Message edited by Nikademus -- 1/28/2011 2:15:21 PM >

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 29
RE: Japan infantry squad organization - 1/28/2011 2:23:03 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25313
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89


Sorry for hijacking the thread here but this brings up a point I have always wondered about. Why was the basic unit of infantry for a strategic game that covers over half the Earth a 10-15 man squad? I realize that it is the nature of the beast at this point but it just feels wrong to me. I know many would not share my opinion but it seems to me making the platoon or even company the basic unit would have saved a lot of work

If a person were crazy enough, could you convert the system to platoons? I know it might screw up the Assault Strength calculations but perhaps not. I mean isn't 300 to 300 the same ratio as 30 to 30? Just thinking out loud really


I think it's mostly a carryover from past engines that Gary Grigsby designed....they also used "squads" In hindsight, a wargame that simulates such a vast conflict at the operational level would probably be better off represented with more generalistic and abstract combat ratings but Grigsby games have always been highlighted by the "tactical" feel and representation that they give.......starting way back in the 8-bit days. I recall the advertising on the back of the first "War in Russia" game.....combat resolved down to every plane, every tank.....and every squad.

Be that as it may....in the end the combat formulas and die rolls still play a prominant part in the overall results, hence original WitP programmer Mike Wood's comment to me years ago about the beauty of Grigsby based systems being that they give the player "The illusion of choice" That meaning that players can manipulate just about every device in the game, with each device having a half dozen changable values but in the end, whether weapon A has a soft value of 2 or 4, the ultimate result is not going to be substantially changed. Further, as related in this thead.....simply changing value A and B will not necessarily lead to C.

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Japan infantry squad organization Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   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

0.136