Question about CW nations (Aus,NZ,Can,Brit,Ind)Infantry Squad 1943 anti-armor ability~~ (Full Version)

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



Message


championzhao -> Question about CW nations (Aus,NZ,Can,Brit,Ind)Infantry Squad 1943 anti-armor ability~~ (7/30/2011 12:25:35 AM)

anti-armor all was 75, so powerful? all with RPG?[:D]

scenario 1106i




AIF Inf Section 43

[image]local://upfiles/29900/53D3805AF4D041A5925F52D6272228A1.jpg[/image]




championzhao -> RE: Question about CW nations (Aus,NZ,Can,Brit,Ind)Infantry Squad 1943 anti-armor ability~~ (7/30/2011 12:28:50 AM)

USA Rifle Squad 43

anti-armor 45

[image]local://upfiles/29900/6CC142BB7277495BBBEA595AA9112588.jpg[/image]




championzhao -> RE: Question about CW nations (Aus,NZ,Can,Brit,Ind)Infantry Squad 1943 anti-armor ability~~ (7/30/2011 12:31:35 AM)

Stuart VI LightTank

anti-armor 70



[image]local://upfiles/29900/394615B5F5CF4F71AAB9B5ED44D6241F.jpg[/image]




Sardaukar -> RE: Question about CW nations (Aus,NZ,Can,Brit,Ind)Infantry Squad 1943 anti-armor ability~~ (7/30/2011 7:26:21 AM)

Donno if AIF 43 Squad had PIAT...it did have better penetration than US bazooka...but was otherwise inferior...




eloso -> RE: Question about CW nations (Aus,NZ,Can,Brit,Ind)Infantry Squad 1943 anti-armor ability~~ (7/30/2011 2:22:47 PM)

It was standard to have 1 PIAT per platoon in late 43 for UK and her commonwealth allies. The Bazoooka was around in limited quantities in 43, but didn't become standard issue for PTO theater units until 44. (I believe their first use by the USMC was at Tarawa in 11/43). A Stuart has a 37mm high velocity anti tank gun mounted on it, which isn't really a tank killer, but was sufficient for PTO operations where light armor was employed by all combatants.




inqistor -> RE: Question about CW nations (Aus,NZ,Can,Brit,Ind)Infantry Squad 1943 anti-armor ability~~ (7/31/2011 11:04:35 AM)

Actually it is even more interesting with other squads.

CW had better AT equipment at the war beginning (Boys, AT hand grenades etc.), yet US have the same statistics (15).
Japan have 5 for whole war, but they eventually had even better equipment in 1943, than CW in 12/1941.

And I have found, that there were substantial lend-lease transports of Boys AT Rifles, and Bazookas to China, yet they stay at 5 all time.

Also, it is possible, that Anti-Armor is used only in last land-combat phase, and Penetration can be used before it, during long-range fire phase.




crsutton -> RE: Question about CW nations (Aus,NZ,Can,Brit,Ind)Infantry Squad 1943 anti-armor ability~~ (7/31/2011 5:50:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Actually it is even more interesting with other squads.

CW had better AT equipment at the war beginning (Boys, AT hand grenades etc.), yet US have the same statistics (15).
Japan have 5 for whole war, but they eventually had even better equipment in 1943, than CW in 12/1941.

And I have found, that there were substantial lend-lease transports of Boys AT Rifles, and Bazookas to China, yet they stay at 5 all time.

Also, it is possible, that Anti-Armor is used only in last land-combat phase, and Penetration can be used before it, during long-range fire phase.


American 50 cal MG was most likely a better AT weapon than the Boys AT rifle. In fact, jamming big rocks under the bogey wheels was probably a better AT weapon than the boys AT rifle....[:D]

Interesting stat I just read about a recent bio on Chang Kai Shek. Of all the supplies sent to China in 1944 60-70% went to support the Allied Air Force. Of the remaining supplies and material, about 95% was directed to the Chinese forces supporting the Allied effort in Burma. (X and Z) The remaining two million Chinese soldiers got practically nothing from the Allies and just made do. I doubt they got many if any bazookas. I do know that they had very little in the way of AT assets and for the average Chinese squad 5 should be about right.




inqistor -> RE: Question about CW nations (Aus,NZ,Can,Brit,Ind)Infantry Squad 1943 anti-armor ability~~ (7/31/2011 8:06:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
American 50 cal MG was most likely a better AT weapon than the Boys AT rifle. In fact, jamming big rocks under the bogey wheels was probably a better AT weapon than the boys AT rifle....[:D]

Definitely NOT good weapon, but better than hand-grenades.
Also, if you are NOT Japanese, you will probably do not want to close to tank, so every option of long range shot increase chance, that soldiers actually engage enemy, instead of retreating immediately [:D]

quote:

Interesting stat I just read about a recent bio on Chang Kai Shek. Of all the supplies sent to China in 1944 60-70% went to support the Allied Air Force.

Taking percentages of weight probably half of all was either AVGAS, or ammo for planes. But lend-lease tables list all types of equipment, that was hardly needed for air forces.
Some examples:
Rocket, 2.36", M1 & M9 2018
That would be Bazooka. Not much, but definitely significant number.

US, Cal. .55, AT, Boys 6129
Also NOT that much, but it is over 10% of overall production. Should be enough to give one per Company at front.

quote:

Of the remaining supplies and material, about 95% was directed to the Chinese forces supporting the Allied effort in Burma. (X and Z) The remaining two million Chinese soldiers got practically nothing from the Allies and just made do. I doubt they got many if any bazookas.

It is interesting, that there is British equipment in tables. I am guessing this is exactly what was send to units in Burma:
US, Cal. . 303, Lee-Enfield 40000
2 Pdr 78
25 Pdr 62

Why it is listed as lend-lease?
Maybe there was "magical" money transfers involved? Once for "buying" equipment from Britain, then additional to "sell" it to Chinese officials? [:D]

quote:

I do know that they had very little in the way of AT assets and for the average Chinese squad 5 should be about right.

It seems they have quite a lot of personal weapons (Boys, AT Grenades, Rifle Grenade Launchers etc.), but for AT guns only 37mm, and 2pdr are listed. There is position for 57mm, and ammo for it, but in China case both values are 0.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.294922E-02