Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

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

 
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 >> Question about CW nations (Aus,NZ,Can,Brit,Ind)Infantry Squad 1943 anti-armor ability~~ Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Question about CW nations (Aus,NZ,Can,Brit,Ind)Infantry... - 7/30/2011 12:25:35 AM   
championzhao


Posts: 51
Joined: 8/13/2008
From: Ningbo,China
Status: offline
anti-armor all was 75, so powerful? all with RPG?

scenario 1106i




AIF Inf Section 43




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

The most persistent sound which reverberates through man's history is the beating of war drums.

Post #: 1
RE: Question about CW nations (Aus,NZ,Can,Brit,Ind)Infa... - 7/30/2011 12:28:50 AM   
championzhao


Posts: 51
Joined: 8/13/2008
From: Ningbo,China
Status: offline
USA Rifle Squad 43

anti-armor 45




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by championzhao -- 7/30/2011 12:29:18 AM >


_____________________________

The most persistent sound which reverberates through man's history is the beating of war drums.


(in reply to championzhao)
Post #: 2
RE: Question about CW nations (Aus,NZ,Can,Brit,Ind)Infa... - 7/30/2011 12:31:35 AM   
championzhao


Posts: 51
Joined: 8/13/2008
From: Ningbo,China
Status: offline
Stuart VI LightTank

anti-armor 70






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

The most persistent sound which reverberates through man's history is the beating of war drums.


(in reply to championzhao)
Post #: 3
RE: Question about CW nations (Aus,NZ,Can,Brit,Ind)Infa... - 7/30/2011 7:26:21 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 8192
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
Donno if AIF 43 Squad had PIAT...it did have better penetration than US bazooka...but was otherwise inferior...


_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to championzhao)
Post #: 4
RE: Question about CW nations (Aus,NZ,Can,Brit,Ind)Infa... - 7/30/2011 2:22:47 PM   
eloso


Posts: 335
Joined: 5/28/2006
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area, USA
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________


(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 5
RE: Question about CW nations (Aus,NZ,Can,Brit,Ind)Infa... - 7/31/2011 11:04:35 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1809
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to eloso)
Post #: 6
RE: Question about CW nations (Aus,NZ,Can,Brit,Ind)Infa... - 7/31/2011 5:50:26 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

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....

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.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 7
RE: Question about CW nations (Aus,NZ,Can,Brit,Ind)Infa... - 7/31/2011 8:06:25 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1809
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
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....

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

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?

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.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 8
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Question about CW nations (Aus,NZ,Can,Brit,Ind)Infantry Squad 1943 anti-armor ability~~ Page: [1]
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

0.129