The Philippine Army and USAFFE (Revised data from AKWarrior item at end)

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Ah. THAT "marine battalion"!! I know about it. It is usually listed as infantry - and it even had a number - something like "12th" - not to be confused with a real Marine battalion - this unit is composed of sailors from all sorts of activities no longer with a job for various reasons.

The official designation of the unit was 1st Separate Marine Battalion. It was organized as an AA unit with four batteries (A-D) of 3-inch guns (plus some 50Cal MG) and two batteries of 50Cal MG (E and F). Total strength is given as 754 men but that probably includes the personnel of the Cavite Marine Barracks. Apparently there were not enough 3-inch guns available/operational and the battalion is usually credited with only 9 instead of the authorized 16.

Battery C was eventually detached and assigned to the Naval Battalion (with it's guns) for both artillery and combat experience support. E and F batteries (and the Cavite Marine Barracks) were dissolved when Cavite was abandoned and the personnel distributed among other units. Battery A was assigned to Corregidor as an AA unit but eventually dissolved and it's personnel absorbed into the 4th Marines. Battalion HQ and batteries B and D were used to form the 3rd Battalion of the 4th Marines on January 1, 1942.

Note that the Naval Battalion also joined the 4th Marines as the 4th Battalion - Battery C being retained as an AA unit. Other personnel were attached from the US Army, Air Corps, Philippine Scouts, and even some Philippine Army and Constabulary troops. With four battalions and a 2-company Regimental reserve, the 4th had companies going all the way up to "P".

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

And a 2nd Regular Division was planned, but never formed - unless somehow this is meant to refer to the Philippine Constabulary (which formed up 2 regiments on Luzon and was supposed to form one at Zamboanga to beef up 101st Division). The Constabulary was para-military in character, and could form light infantry at need - it was reasonably common to form companies for special missions - particularly on Mindinao (where the Constabulary was born - there is even a Gary Cooper movie about this). Clearly the scholarly materials collected by Trota were not available before.

The Constabulary had been identified as the 2nd Regular Army Division since the Philippine Army was Formed. The two Constabulary Regiments on Luzon (1st and 2nd) were briefly organized into the 51st Brigade after war broke out, then another regiment was formed (4th Provisional Constabulary Regiment) and the three regiments on Luzon were formed into the 2nd Regular Division in early January, 1942.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Don is correct in this. All base units in the game are equipped with intrinsic AA. This AA capability can account for much of the AA units which are not in the game. To add all of these unit would probably, at least on the Allied side, fill up every slot. I have identified well over 60 regiments assigned to either the West Coast, Panama Canal Zone, or the Pacific Theatre up to mid 1943. It was during Mid-1943 that two things happened to the Coastal Anti-Aircraft Regiments. First, an independent Anti-Aircraft command was established which absorbed all of the Coastal AA units. Second, the regimental system was removed and in favor of independent BN's. Thus if we were to accurately portray this there would literally be hundreds of BN's in the Pacific theatre. The compromise was to let the AA units be represented by making them organic to the Base units, since that would be their primary mission.

While CHS and stock OBs do not, in general, have AA in most base units, or not anything approaching realistic quantities, I have for this area carefully included it. Thus where there are fixed 3 inch AA guns at coast defense forts, I put them in the forts. For example, in San Francisco there is an old battery of these - and it remained part of a coast gun regiment even after a true AAA regiment was attached to the command. The guns were used for practice instead of firing the big guns (if I remember right), and were retained mainly for that reason, I suppose. Similarly, there are six identified fixed 155s in the Philippines - 4 at one fort and 2 at another - and these I list with the forts. There are additional 155s of more than one type - and they serve more than one service. There are coast defense guns, there are howitzers of the regular type, and they serve in US coast defense regiments, Philippine Scouts coast defense regiments, the First (non-scout) Philippine coast defense regiment, and apparently both US and Philippine artillery regiments/groups/battalions. I have a photograph of a 155 concealed on Lingayen Gulf - a wheeled gun set up for coast defense - and the unit assigned to that area was a regular artillery unit which does NOT list ANY 155s in most references! It is not a coast defense gun, but it is being used as such, and it is clearly mobile.

Well goes to show how these discussions tend to mirror previous ones. If it was manned by Coast Defence personnel it is Coast Artillery, whose primary mission by Inter Service agreements and doctrine, was to engage naval vessels. At one time they aslo were the only units permitted to man heavy field artillery. Study the role of the CAC in France during WWI. Now, this does not say that regular artillery are not able to fire at ships, and they frequently did. What is at issue here is not what field artillery does or might do. Can you tell if the the artillery piece in the photo is a gun or howitzer? All of the mobile Coast Artillery 155mm at the beginning of the war were equipped WWI French designed guns (M1919 in US designation), this is per Coast Defence Corp sources. However, as you point out, not all 155mm were mobile, and indeed some were on various types of mountings. Okay, having stated this, this Phillipines might be an exception in that in time of need fine distinctions get blurred as to who mans what.

As far as the AA guns go, go ahead and add what you think needs to be added. However, be prepared to add literally several hundred AA artillery units for the US Army alone. Hmm.. not enough slots. So what would you suggest we do? In my mod I prorated artillery defence for bases by using the basis of late-prewar early US AA doctrine states that the minimum size of AA unit to defend a base was one BN (12 or 16 guns depending on year). I decided to split the defference and half 2 batteries each of Gun and Auto Weapons for the smaller base units. So any defence for a base must eventually be at least this. Larger bases might mean two gun battalions. Ditto for the Auto Weapons Bn's. So yeah, the numbers in CHS or Stock scenarios do not add up probably because no one really researched what the minimum should be.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The only thing wrong with this approach is that it is NOT what is in CHS or stock. And I think what is there - representing AA regiments for early war formations - is correct. I also cannot reconcile the official Army history with the view that the two air base complexes were not covered. [In fact, there is both testimonial and photographic evidence the Army history "The Fall of the Philippines" is correct on this, and from both sides.]

Okay, lets get something straight. The TO&E of the CAA regiments in the stock and CHS are grossly under strength and the upgrade paths for the devices do not even match historical TO&E's. I have posted on this already. Just what is not in the stock or CHS? The fact that they have AA units intrinsic to base units? Or is it that the purpose was to mitigate the need to have seperate AA units after the wear started? I rtefer to the following thread:

tm.asp?m=964302

There were others will need to search fro them... But yes, the role of putting AA guns into bases was to mitigate the problem of representing al the Allied and Japanese AA guns in theatre, at least in CHS. Also, independent engineer units are underrepresent in the game as well. Again some of this last capability is present in base forces.

Did you even check out the website I referenced? This site was for, and contributed to by, the survivors of 200th CAA rgt and I feel it is an extremely reliable source. It clearly state what was happening with the 515th CAA vis-a-vis the 200th and the decision to have the 200th defend the North and the 515th defend in the south. I tend not to rely on any single reference, not matter how "official" it may be. Of course, if one want to biased then go ahead. Post-graduate level research is very exacting in this aspect, espcially in determinig the veracity of the reference..

However, the situation was dynamic and involved three or four stages:
pre war, opening of the war, what happened after there were no air bases to defend, and possibly something later in the prolonged defense of Bataan. My focus is only on the second of these - what was the situation when the war began? First, we have difinitive data for 8 December 1941.
Second, it is the start of our scenario. So other things may be "true" - but we don't care what was the normal assignment in peacetime (e.g. a unit at Fort Mills) nor what happens after the war begind (because players control that).

IF you want to represent what was there in the Phillipines then strip out all of the AA stuff in all the base units, forts, etc. You will should have a total of 4 BN's of Guns (48 total) and 2 BN's of Auto weapons (One still equipped with 48 M2 Water Cooled HMG, and the other only partially equipped with 16 37mm AA guns.) I do not know what AA assets were with the Phillipines army or that might be in stocks and unassigned yet. For Ft. Mills the AA unit was NOT MOBILE. It guns were mounted and emplaced and as much responsible for the defence of Ft Mills as the 12 CD howitzers (mistakenly called mortars).

[el cid again]

I'd be very interested in the data and/or corrections that your have for the Philippine locations. Please post them or send them to me.

Check your email. Anyone else interested send an address to trevethans@aol.com. Andrew is collecting these things for a later edition - and so I always send them to him.

Shortly my device file and location file will be completed - and I will post them. Next the aircraft and air groups files will be posted - they are nearly done. After that ship classes and then ships. I don't do leader files. I also had to change pwhex - but I am not sure it really matters? It does not seem to need to have the notes related to items I change in the location file - they may just be for reference. But that too I will post.

I always use the latest edition of Andrew Brown's Extended Map - the only map there is IMHO.

[el cid again]

The Constabulary had been identified as the 2nd Regular Army Division since the Philippine Army was Formed. The two Constabulary Regiments on Luzon (1st and 2nd) were briefly organized into the 51st Brigade after war broke out, then another regiment was formed (4th Provisional Constabulary Regiment) and the three regiments on Luzon were formed into the 2nd Regular Division in early January, 1942.

Do you have a date for formation for the 4th Provisional? The first two pages of index are missing from Trota's book so anything at the beginning of the alphabet is hard to look up (e.g. "constabulary").
It seems to me that the 2nd Division should not form (as it does) at the start since its third element is not available. But the 51st Brigade might - saving a slot (a brigade divides into two - nice). Note, however, the CHS OB has these units wrongly organized like other Philippine units - and in fact there are no heavy weapons at all in the Constabularly - except for .30 cal mgs which were not listed at all for any units. Since we added them (where in separate heavy weapons units ) for Japan- I have added .30 cals to everyone (also for heavy weapons or AA units). I am a big fan of the Constabularly - more or less the ancestor of the PNP of this day. That is something akin to RCMP - we have no counterpart in the USA unless it is the US Marshall Service - but the latter does not form up into companies or battalions or regiments to fight at need!

Also, the planned mobilization date for the 3rd regiment PC (at Mindinao, almost certainly at Zamboanga, HQ of 10th Military District) was 12 December. Since war came on 8 December, do we know the REAL date of its formation?

[el cid again]

The Constabulary had been identified as the 2nd Regular Army Division since the Philippine Army was Formed. The two Constabulary Regiments on Luzon (1st and 2nd) were briefly organized into the 51st Brigade after war broke out, then another regiment was formed (4th Provisional Constabulary Regiment) and the three regiments on Luzon were formed into the 2nd Regular Division in early January, 1942.

I have used this data - combining 1 and 2 into a brigade - and creating a slot for 4th - using tentative dates for 3rd (411212) and 4th (420101) pending better data data. But all my PC units are very light - only MMGs for heavy weapons.

[el cid again]

Can you tell if the the artillery piece in the photo is a gun or howitzer? All of the mobile Coast Artillery 155mm at the beginning of the war were equipped WWI French designed guns (M1919 in US designation), this is per Coast Defence Corp sources. However, as you point out, not all 155mm were mobile, and indeed some were on various types of mountings. Okay, having stated this, this Phillipines might be an exception in that in time of need fine distinctions get blurred as to who mans what.

Since we are neighbors, I can show you the picture. It looks to me like a howitzer - but it IS concealed after all! It clearly is wheeled. A visitor to US and Philippine coast defense sites for decades, I should know a M1919 on a Panama Mount or other installation when I see one!

A new book by Osprey [The Defenses of Manila Bay] says you are exactly correct - and we do not even know the number of 155s in the Philippines - which they put at between 24 and 37 - just in the coast defense role (presumably not including my wheeled gun in a regular arty unit up at Lingayen - even if it was being used for coast defense). The Philippine Army says that 24 guns were recieved (for 1st and 2nd battalions, First CD Regiment) - but does not give a model - and it says they had no sights or fire control equipment of any kind! [That PROBABLY means they had to be used on mountings for the coast defenses around Subic Bay and Manila Bay under control of the US coast defense command - a brigade more or less. But artillery sometimes gets used creatively in wartime - I witnessed a naval artillery battle in which LAND artillery WITHOUT fire control of the naval sort was used on junks - and we didn't win the battle either in a strategic sense - we didn't even dare go back and try it again! You never can say never.]

[el cid again]

As far as the AA guns go, go ahead and add what you think needs to be added. However, be prepared to add literally several hundred AA artillery units for the US Army alone. Hmm.. not enough slots. So what would you suggest we do?

Note I carefully said that "in this area" (the Philippines) we should put things as they reall were at the start of the war. In general, I favor NOT listing US AA units at all. I favor Joe's suggestion of assigning the AA to units that had them attached. Also, over time (I am not trying to redo the Allied OB - which I was told has been redone pretty well), I will rename a lot of units properly. Some game conventions are not really the right names - and also don't tell you where a unit is (if fixed). Thus, I use "The Hawaii Separate Coast Defense Brigade" - because that is the right name AND because it tells you where it is. To the extent such a unit has things - infantry, engineers, AAA, etc - I add them. I did this for ALL Japanese major CD sites - which are formally brigades by the way - usually with two infantry battalions - and always with an AA battalion - usually also with mobile field guns as well. I don't separate the component units - I lump them - or that is my plan (not every last such slot is yet revised). So that is my method. I try to free up slots, if only so I can put missing things in them. If possible, I try to leave empty slots for other modders - even if there were none to start with.

[el cid again]

I prorated artillery defence for bases by using the basis of late-prewar early US AA doctrine states that the minimum size of AA unit to defend a base was one BN (12 or 16 guns depending on year). I decided to split the defference and half 2 batteries each of Gun and Auto Weapons for the smaller base units. So any defence for a base must eventually be at least this. Larger bases might mean two gun battalions. Ditto for the Auto Weapons Bn's. So yeah, the numbers in CHS or Stock scenarios do not add up probably because no one really researched what the minimum should be.

This is all very reasonable. UNLESS there is hard data that on 8 December 1941 there was exactly this (which we have for many places) I like it a lot.

[el cid again]

The TO&E of the CAA regiments in the stock and CHS are grossly under strength and the upgrade paths for the devices do not even match historical TO&E's.

How does the code "know" which upgrade path to use for a particular named land unit? I see the upgrade paths, and I see the units themselves, but nothing that specifies what one to use. I don't think the code is as smart as you are - able to tell from the name.

[el cid again]

Just what is not in the stock or CHS? The fact that they have AA units intrinsic to base units? Or is it that the purpose was to mitigate the need to have seperate AA units after the wear started?

The Fall of the Philippines (a volume of the official US Army history set on WWII) says that two AA units existed - 60th and 200th if I remember right. It says that one of these was stationed in peacetime at a fort - Mills I think. It says that the need to defend air bases caused these units to be sent to Clark AAF and an AAF in the Manila hex. But only ONE of these is in the CHS OB - 200th if I remember right. I felt that it was best to create the 60th as well. I also believe players might want to move the AA to a different place entirely - and if part of a base it might not be possible or practical. For example, a clever player might decide to do what Yamashita did (at least if he has my modified map - which is really just a location file change that seems to be a map change). What Yamashita did was base at Baguio City - which even has an airfield - and which is a fine supply source - is non-malarial - and has defensible terrain and a retreat path into a rice (and mineral) producing area behind it. We decided it would be easier to get written orders to surrender than just to attack. [I just learned not everyone was ordered to surrender - and the orders to come out were only issued 30 years later in one case.] The defense of Manila Bay is reall a function of the fall of Fort Drum - not Corregidore or Bataan. The defense of Manila is possible and practical, but was not done to save the city from destruction (which in the event prooved moot - it became the most destroyed city in Asia later - in fact only Warsaw was more damaged - something not many people know who do not study the battle for Manila). But it isn't really feasible to defend Angeles/Clark. And Bataan is malarial and not a source of any supply. Players have real choices for the mobile units - and what choices they make matter. I have yet to hear that Yamashita was a fool and should have defended Bataan, for example. Or that his order to surrender Manila (dishonored by a navy Rear Admiral) was wrong.

[el cid again]

Did you even check out the website I referenced? This site was for, and contributed to by, the survivors of 200th CAA rgt and I feel it is an extremely reliable source.

No. For one thing, we do not generally use web sites - it isn't up to the documentary standards of CHS which I adopted for RHS as well. For another, I don't have infinite time, and I don't feel the scale is small enough to require microscopic accuracy. This is a brigade/division level game - with a few battalions where they have some vital independent role. I want to meet time plan deadlines - so I am not going to take the time to read every possible thing. Instead I adopt things - such as what Don just submitted about the Constabulary - or what Joe did for IJA combat units (a subject I am qualified to do, but why reinvent the wheel?).

[el cid again]

I do not know what AA assets were with the Phillipines army or that might be in stocks and unassigned yet.

Except to the extent the .50 cal Browning was (and remains) officially an AA weapon, this is simple: none. [Technically it is illegal to use a "50 cal" on infantry! But it is legal to fire on "vehicles or equipment" - so in the US we say "we are firing on hemits and web gear" - we are not aiming at the men - just their equipment!] And the issue of .50s on paper was a whole two per regiment - and apparently none for any other units. Where a US artillery unit would get some .50s, the Philippine Army substituted .30s. There was a plan to form up an AAA "regiment" (which seems generally to mean "battalion" for specialist arms in the PA) - but the request was made too late for implementation. [Thinking was that the war would not come until April or even June 1942 - the Army and the Philippine political authorities were not informed by Adm Hart he had orders to insure hostilities as soon as the Japanese could be provoked to fire on a "US warship" - because those orders - from the President personally and not via Adm King - were secret and not to be disclosed. He appears only to have informed the British commander of Force Z - but that meeting was in progress when the war began and of no operational impact.]

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The Constabulary had been identified as the 2nd Regular Army Division since the Philippine Army was Formed. The two Constabulary Regiments on Luzon (1st and 2nd) were briefly organized into the 51st Brigade after war broke out, then another regiment was formed (4th Provisional Constabulary Regiment) and the three regiments on Luzon were formed into the 2nd Regular Division in early January, 1942.

Do you have a date for formation for the 4th Provisional? The first two pages of index are missing from Trota's book so anything at the beginning of the alphabet is hard to look up (e.g. "constabulary").
It seems to me that the 2nd Division should not form (as it does) at the start since its third element is not available. But the 51st Brigade might - saving a slot (a brigade divides into two - nice). Note, however, the CHS OB has these units wrongly organized like other Philippine units - and in fact there are no heavy weapons at all in the Constabularly - except for .30 cal mgs which were not listed at all for any units. Since we added them (where in separate heavy weapons units ) for Japan- I have added .30 cals to everyone (also for heavy weapons or AA units). I am a big fan of the Constabularly - more or less the ancestor of the PNP of this day. That is something akin to RCMP - we have no counterpart in the USA unless it is the US Marshall Service - but the latter does not form up into companies or battalions or regiments to fight at need!

Also, the planned mobilization date for the 3rd regiment PC (at Mindinao, almost certainly at Zamboanga, HQ of 10th Military District) was 12 December. Since war came on 8 December, do we know the REAL date of its formation?

The data on the 2nd Constabulary is primarily from the Green Book Fall of the Philippines (below). Trota mainly discusses formation issues pre-war and does not go into that much detail on war-raised formations. There used to be a number of very good web sites on the Philippine Army but many of them died during the great dot-com bust at the turn of the century.

Also note that the formation of the PC regiments represents the bringing together of existing smaller PC formations, not the creation of units from scratch. The fighting power was there (for the first three regiments at least) just in company and battalion pockets.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

If you are talking about the Photograph in the Green Books, it is a mobile 155mm of the 86th FA Bn (PS). A battery from this unit was emplaced at the southern end of Lingayen Gulf but the Japanese landed further North and the battery did not come into action and was soon withdrawn.

This makes sense. The 86th was the only artillery unit in the area. And I know a battery was placed. And it DID fire - by mistake - at shadows - three nights BEFORE the real invasion! The only thing wrong with this is that the 86th is usually llisted with 75s or 105s, not with 155s. I think it DID have a battery of 155s - but I am not sure why? There were, however, 24 new ones sent from the US for the Philippine Army, and possibly not all were issued. There are other possibilities.

Is this the photo?

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The TO&E of the CAA regiments in the stock and CHS are grossly under strength and the upgrade paths for the devices do not even match historical TO&E's.

How does the code "know" which upgrade path to use for a particular named land unit? I see the upgrade paths, and I see the units themselves, but nothing that specifies what one to use. I don't think the code is as smart as you are - able to tell from the name.

Not sure I understand this question. Are you talking about the Formation Field in the Location data? It ties a unit to it's TOE.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Land units do not upgrade, so they dont have upgrade paths. Only equipment within units upgrades.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I'd be very interested in the data and/or corrections that your have for the Philippine locations. Please post them or send them to me.

Check your email. Anyone else interested send an address to trevethans@aol.com. Andrew is collecting these things for a later edition - and so I always send them to him.

Shortly my device file and location file will be completed - and I will post them. Next the aircraft and air groups files will be posted - they are nearly done. After that ship classes and then ships. I don't do leader files. I also had to change pwhex - but I am not sure it really matters? It does not seem to need to have the notes related to items I change in the location file - they may just be for reference. But that too I will post.

I always use the latest edition of Andrew Brown's Extended Map - the only map there is IMHO.

I've taken a quick look at Sid's changes to the bases in the Philippines and several of them are quite correct.

1. The renaming of Lingayen to San Fernando and San Marcelino to Lingayen. This is not only more historically correct but fits the 60-mile hex map quite well. The only problem is what to do with the units that were previously listed for San Marcelino. These units were actually at Iba, about half way between Bataan and Lingayen. With 60 miles per hex there is simply no hex between Bataan and Lingayen so the units must be moved to one or the other. Neither seem right so (sound of coin flip) how about Bataan?

2. Movement of Tacloban. This base is indeed on Leyte right up against Samar, not at the Southern tip of Leyte.

3. Lucena as a base between Manila and Naga. One of the Philippine Divisions (51st if memory serves) was stationed in this area. Adding this base solves an old problem of where to put the South Luzon Force.

4. Not quite so sure on renaming Iloilo as San Jose Buenavista. At the scale of the WITP map it could go either way.

Sid has also added a lot of historically correct bases, especially in the Visayas. Kind of fills up the map though. Perhaps some of them should become "beaches" at the start.

Note: the attached map was created using Sid's location file but my basic scenario, so air and naval unit locations might appear wierd.

[el cid again]

Also note that the formation of the PC regiments represents the bringing together of existing smaller PC formations, not the creation of units from scratch.

Absolutely correct. Each province and district had a PC unit - typically a company or platoon per district. There were also places and occasions where real military operations were mounted - but against irregulars of various kinds. These were experienced men, and many of them were used as officers or NCOs in the Philippine Army - along with Philippine Scouts and US Army - only a small number of Philippine Army officers were trained and these were very junior. While the PC units are lightly armed, they should be given reasonably high ratings for experience and morale.