Commonwealth infantry anti-armor rating

[Yaab]

Gentlemen, the Commonwealth anti-armor rating of its infantry sections is WRONG.

Starting from 01/1943 Commonwealth infantry sections (African, Brit, Indian,AIF, KNIL etc) attain a ridiculously high anti-armor rating of 75. This rating equals that of combat engineers.

Looking at Tracker, we find device Bren Section (PIAT) (id 1010), with anti-armor rating of 75. Thus, we can deduce that its anti-armor rating represents PIAT spigot mortars. Also, notice that device Vickers Section (id 1017) also has anti-armor rating of 75, hinting at its inherent PIAT device, even though the very PIAT tag is missing from device description.

Notice that Commonwealth infantry section follow US infantry section in their incremental upgrade of anti-soft rating throughout the war. For example AIF infantry section changes from 20 to 22, and from 22 to 23 anti-soft rating. Whoever was putting that data into the Editor clearly updated anti-soft ratings with each infantry section iteration, while left their 75 anti-armor rating as the LAST anti-armor rating for those devices.

Notice that US Rifle squads ( devices 1101-1104) get both incemental anti-armor and anti-soft rating updates. Notice also that US infantry divisonal TOEs lacks separate anti-armor devices like Commonwealth's Bren and Vickers PIAT sections. Thus, the designers abstracted US Bazookas into US rifle squads' anti-armor rating, which gets incremental upticks each year.

Now, since Commonwealth TOEs put PIATs into sepearate device, its infantry section cannot have PIATS at the same time. The PIATs are moved from inf sections into Bren and Vickers PIAT sections by the designers. Brit divisional TOEs have 50-75 such PIAT sections depending on the year of the war, with Coronet 45 div TOE having 75 PIAT sections.

Thus, Commonwealth inf section anti-armor rating should be lower. What should it be then, you ask? Since the person putting the data into the Editor carefully changed anti-soft rating for each inf section iteration and left the anti-armor ratings untouched, we deduce the rating was to remain constant throughout the war.

Digit "7" can be sometimes misread from shorthanded digit "2". Thus, the only logical Commonwealth infantry rating for the entire war should be 25 instead of 75. It logically follows Jap Inf squad upgrade to 25 anti-armor rating starting 01/1943.

Changing the rating from 75 to 25 shall finally result in a more static and realistic Burma front, and balance the land war there, with the Commowealth divisons having the upper hand by having Bren and Vickers PIAT devices, which have no equal in Jap divisional TOEs.

Without this change, Jap players in Burma face around 420 "combat engineer" devices in each Commonwealth division (325 infantry sections, 50 PIATs, 36 combat eng squads) instead of just 80 (combat eng +PIATs). Also, if unchanged, Commonwealth divisions beat the Marine divisions in their shock attack capabilities. You should be taking Iwo Jima and Tarawa with AIF divisions instead of the Marines.

Prove me wrong.

[Alfred]

Again you are imposing your own, preconceived ideas with zero regard for what the code does.
 
Your basic premise is totally wrong.
 
Alfred 

[Ian R]

Now, since Commonwealth TOEs put PIATs into sepearate device, its infantry section cannot have PIATS at the same time.

Seeing as you asked...[;)] You should research the WE scale of issue of PIATs. Where within the company they were held, and how assigned to platoons. Hint - in Australian use they were called "Projector Infantry Tank Attack", not a PIAT. Another hint - you also need to research a device called the (US designation) M9 rifle grenade (in production in January 1942), which in Commonwealth service was referred to as the No. 85 grenade.

AndyMac and the land team assessed these values back pre-2009. I would be surprised if the value is non-intentional; every grunt with a rifle, and a #85, could knock out a thin skinned IJA tank. The Boys A/T rifle, which was almost useless in Europe, could also knock out the various IJA tankettes.

[Yaab]

Really?

So device CW 1945 Rifle squad (id 1018),available from 12/44, arrives with 55 anti-armor rating. That's a 20 point downgrade from 75 rating, available since 01/1943. Let me guess, they downgraded the device in anticipation for "Coronet" and the British invasion of Japan. See formation id 2898 (Brit 45 Coronet division TOE), with 324 downgraded infantry squads (TOE used by 3rd British and 6th Canadian Divisions)

This device is the last Commonwealth infantry device to appear in the war. Its ratings almost mimic USMC Rifle Squad 44 (55 anti-armor/30 anti-soft). USMC Rfile 44 beats USA Rifle 44 anti-armor by 55 to 45. Thus late-war rifle squads somehow max out at 55 anti-armor excluding earlier Commonwealth squads with 75 anti-armor rating, even though the 75 rating in 01/1943 is an overkill, since flimsy Jap tanks can be as easily killed or disabled with a 25 anti-armor rating.

By the way, what is stopping the USMC from grabbing those mythic Commonwealth satchels and C-4 and upping USMC anti-armor rating to 75 starting 01/1943? USMC shock-attacks on small islands and needs to reduce forts on atolls, thus the 75 rating is more needed in USMC devices than AIF devices guarding empty Australia.

I argue that the anti-armor values as designed by the devs are SOUND, and we just have a data-entry ERROR in the Editor.

EDIT: It now all makes sense. All Commonwealth infantry/parachute units, assigned to X Corps in preparation for "Coronet", have either CW 1945 Rifle or Para/Cdo squads in their TOE. Your standard Commonwealth divisions, with anti-armor 25 rating, were not supposed to land in Japan - they are not a part of the Coronet OOB. They neither upgrade to CW 1945 Rifle devices.

[Yaab]

New info

Brit 43 Div TOE has:

45 x Bren Section ---- upgrade to Bren (PIAT)
18 x Vickers Section ---- upgrade to Vickers (PIAT)
54 x Combat Eng

Total: 117 squads with anti-armor rating 75

Now, add 324 Brit Inf Sections with anti-armor rating 75

Total: 441 squads with anti-armor rating 75



This is the monster your fortified Jap infantry division has to face in Burma in late 1943. Good luck.

[Ian R]

FFS Yaab, read some history. The AMF mostly used PITA, and the HEAT ATGs, for bunker busting- because they saw so few IJA tanks. What you describe is exactly what the IJA faced, and not just in Burma.

[Yaab]

Look here.

At the same time when Commonwealth Inf sections upgrade from their starting anti-armor ratings to anti-armor 75 rating, Commonwealth Cmbt ENG upgrade from anti-armor 25 to anti-armor 75.

Those two types of devices stand side-by-side in the Editor. i.e Brit Inf/Brit inf 43/Brit Cmbt Eng/Brit Cmbt Eng 43 occupy slots id slots 1002-1004)

To me it still looks like a clerical error in the Editor.

[Ian R]

Have a look in the other thread - Ambassador found the developer comment.

The squad strength is based on the company/battalion commander assigning the A/T devices where needed during the combat sequence.

[Yaab]

Thanks, I have seen the comment. It works as designed by devs for US Army, US Marines, Chinese and Soviets.

However, in all those nations the LMG/HMG devices retain their LMG/HMG characteristics (low anti-armor/ high anti-soft) for the entire war.

Commonwealth units use Bren and Vickers devices which somehow morph into AT/MMG devices (anti-armor 75/anti-soft30+) in 1943. It is the only two Allied MG devices which undergo this transformation. If there were no PIAT tag in the Bren Section device, Allied players might never notice this change. Thus, Commonwealth infantry devices enjoy their high anti-armor rating abstracted from their platoon/company weapons (not present in TOEs as per dev design), while their divisions enjoy the very same weapons in now-morped hybrid MG-PIAT devices.

Devs say the platoon/company weapons are abstracted into the squads ratings. So are those two Commonwealth upgrade devices leftovers from some early versions of game TOEs? Should Bren and Vickers upgrade to another version of Bren/Vickers with an incremental uptick in their anti-soft rating, just like any other LMG/HMG device?

[Ambassador]

MMG, HMG, Bren, Vickers, and the like, are not weapons but squads in the game. For some reason, the Developpers considered medium and heavy MGs had to be put in squads of 2 (this is explained in the thread I referenced in the other thread).

What is abstracted is the number of LMG, SMG, light mortars (like the 60mm or 2-in mortars), snipers, Boys rifles, bazookas, etc. PIAT and medium/heavy MGs weren’t the only support weapons available.

[RangerJoe]

Interesting. You are taking early and mid-war ratings when the Commonwealth was relatively flush with manpower and comparing it to late-war ratings when manpower was relatively scare but nice, explosive toys plus automatic weapons were much more plentiful - not to mention munitions. No other factors have been considered?

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Interesting. You are taking early and mid-war ratings when the Commonwealth was relatively flush with manpower and comparing it to late-war ratings when manpower was relatively scare but nice, explosive toys plus automatic weapons were much more plentiful - not to mention munitions. No other factors have been considered?

This remark is pertinent when reading JWE’s explanations in the link provided by Alfred in the other thread.


Wikipedia’s article on the PIAT also refers to a Canadian Army survey (references provided in the article, but no excerpt available on line, so maybe someone could check the Canadian archives in person...) according which the officers coming back from front considered the PIAT « outstandingly effective », #1 out of 31 weapons subjected to their review, with the Bren coming second. It could be interesting to know if the bazooka (any model) was on this list.

[RangerJoe]

Two things that the PIAT had over the bazooka was that the PIAT could be fired indoors plus there was no warning smoke to give away the position.

Otherwise with the bazooka:

BACK BLAST AREA CLEAR!!!!


If I remember correctly without looking it up, the Bren was based on a Czech design.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

MMG, HMG, Bren, Vickers, and the like, are not weapons but squads in the game. For some reason, the Developpers considered medium and heavy MGs had to be put in squads of 2 (this is explained in the thread I referenced in the other thread).

What is abstracted is the number of LMG, SMG, light mortars (like the 60mm or 2-in mortars), snipers, Boys rifles, bazookas, etc. PIAT and medium/heavy MGs weren’t the only support weapons available.

What is also important is that veteran units tended to "aquire" more toys to play with than the TO&E allowed for not to mention that some of these nice toys would not necessarily show up on the inventory.

Someone told me that he left a non-working bazooka up against a French farmhouse. The batteries died, a simple fix but there were apparently no fresh batteries available. I guess that he did not want to carry it. But if another unit happened by with spare batteries, then they would have an opportunity to have an extra bazooka.

[Ambassador]

The lack of smoke is indeed a big survivability boost.


Yes on the Bren. Actually, the name comes from the city where the factory was located, Brno.

It might have been the best LMG during the war, IMHO.

[RhinoDad]

Perhaps the move of Commonwealth troops into Burma by some players earlier than history is not caused by inflated anti armour ratings. Maybe it is because the computer English/American officers and men do not fear the jungle; they do not see it as a place they cannot successfully operate, that it is the realm of savages such as the Japanese. Maybe the human player does not see it that way either.

It is a historically based game not a historical one. Players are not constrained to historical thoughts and practices. A player can advance into Burma without the years of learning that the jungle was a place they could operate successfully, that it was not the sole purview of the Japanese.

[Randy Stead]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

MMG, HMG, Bren, Vickers, and the like, are not weapons but squads in the game. For some reason, the Developpers considered medium and heavy MGs had to be put in squads of 2 (this is explained in the thread I referenced in the other thread).

What is abstracted is the number of LMG, SMG, light mortars (like the 60mm or 2-in mortars), snipers, Boys rifles, bazookas, etc. PIAT and medium/heavy MGs weren’t the only support weapons available.

What is also important is that veteran units tended to "acquire" more toys to play with than the TO&E allowed for not to mention that some of these nice toys would not necessarily show up on the inventory.

Someone told me that he left a non-working bazooka up against a French farmhouse. The batteries died, a simple fix but there were apparently no fresh batteries available. I guess that he did not want to carry it. But if another unit happened by with spare batteries, then they would have an opportunity to have an extra bazooka.

Good point, Joe, that type of thing frequently happens in war. Think of all those knocked out Shermans that still had functional machineguns on them. Any passing infantry squad would be tempted to grab an extra .30 cal or Ma Deuce. Unless a guy like Captain Sobel came along and confiscated "US Army property." [Band of Brothers reference]

I read in a Canadian book about our guys on U.N. duty during the meltdown in former Yugoslavia. According to their TOE, or more likely, their politically based mission orders, they were not to have anti-tank weapons. Their commander requested them and was refused. In spite of that official refusal, he scrounged some and surprised the guys who tried to test our soldiers with armour, relying on the knowledge that our guys had no AT weapons. After that they were not tried again.

[Randy Stead]

ORIGINAL: RhinoDad

Perhaps the move of Commonwealth troops into Burma by some players earlier than history is not caused by inflated anti armour ratings. Maybe it is because the computer English/American officers and men do not fear the jungle; they do not see it as a place they cannot successfully operate, that it is the realm of savages such as the Japanese. Maybe the human player does not see it that way either.

It is a historically based game not a historical one. Players are not constrained to historical thoughts and practices. A player can advance into Burma without the years of learning that the jungle was a place they could operate successfully, that it was not the sole purview of the Japanese.

Rhino, that is essentially every war game produced. As the player, we wield the power and capabilities beyond any historical personage. You get to do anything you want without having to face a political or military opposition. No one person had 100% control over industry, production, research, transport, logistics and operations from grand strategic down to tactical level. Where in history is the commander who tells a factory what type of aircraft to produce, then an hour later is telling a fighter group commander at which altitude to fly his fighter and tell the bomber pilots whether to carry bombs or torpedoes.

When I was a younger player and was able to "change history" via game play [I ignored Army Group South and Kiev and took Moscow instead and won the war on my own. Yay, what a great commander I am!]and would think perhaps I could have done better. In reality, nobody had such omnipotence. Not even Stalin, Churchill or Roosevelt. So I tell myself that while this was fun, it does not mean the actual historical personalities were great or incompetent. Everything they did was because of factors unique to their day and their decisions were based on what they knew or believed, with the information they had at the time, including the capabilities and capacities of their militaries and the gear they had at the time.

Notwithstanding, these games are a hell of a lot of fun and let us indulge our digital fancies of frustrated field martialdom.

[Randy Stead]

Oops, failed edit.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Randy Stead

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

MMG, HMG, Bren, Vickers, and the like, are not weapons but squads in the game. For some reason, the Developpers considered medium and heavy MGs had to be put in squads of 2 (this is explained in the thread I referenced in the other thread).

What is abstracted is the number of LMG, SMG, light mortars (like the 60mm or 2-in mortars), snipers, Boys rifles, bazookas, etc. PIAT and medium/heavy MGs weren’t the only support weapons available.

What is also important is that veteran units tended to "aquire" more toys to play with than the TO&E allowed for not to mention that some of these nice toys would not necessarily show up on the inventory.

Someone told me that he left a non-working bazooka up against a French farmhouse. The batteries died, a simple fix but there were apparently no fresh batteries available. I guess that he did not want to carry it. But if another unit happened by with spare batteries, then they would have an opportunity to have an extra bazooka.

Good pooiont, Joe, that type of thing frequently happens in war. Think of all those knocked out Shermans that still had functional machineguns on them. Any passing infantry squad would be tempted to grab an extra .30 cal or Ma Deuce. Unless a guy like Captain Sobel came along and confiscated "US Army property." [Band of Brothers reference]

I read in a Canadian book about our guys on U.N. duty during the meltdown in former Yugoslavia. According to their TOE they were not to have anti-tank weapons. Their commander requested them and was refused. In spite of that official refusal, he scrounged some and surprised the guys who tried to test our soldiers with armour, relying on the knowledge that our guys had no AT weapons. After that they were not tried again.

[:D]

That was a very good commander.