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

[el cid again]

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.

Well - that is what I was asking for. I didn't see a tie in field. That is what I wished to see. So you answered my question! It is what I wanted to know - but not what I was talking about except in the sense I felt there ought to be such a field.

Thank you.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: 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.

A unit upgrade depends upon the upgrade paths for the devices assigned to it. Since most of the LCU's attempt to simulate standardized TO&Es how devices (squads, guns, vehicles, etc. uograde over time is the controlling factor in how the unit's comabt value changes. In the case of the AA regiment there are three BN's (late 1941 change not reflect in all units see http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/usarmy/94thcar.htm ): Guns, Auto-weapons, and Seachlight). Omitting the Searchlight BN, we can first look at the Gun BN. For heavy AA there are two gun types, 3" and 90mm, a pretty straight forward upgrade path, except that by mid-42 the BN changed from a 3 battery 4 gun to a 4 battery 4 gun units. This we also must take into account this increase in the original unit composition. I assign the unit 12 guns to begin with and 4 guns disabled which I think is the best solution giving the nature of static unit composition.

For auto cannon (MG's included in this example) there is 2 fixed, 1 with no upgrade and 1 upgrading to the M51 quad .50cal. For the Auto Cannon there were two possible upgrades. The fixed is the .50's organic to the Gun BN on the scale of two per gun battery for local defence. The Auto Weapons BN is a different matter. Pre-war it was four batteries of 8 each .50 cal Browning Watercooled. The 37mm was the Army's first replacement for the .50, and eventually 40mm Bofors when it became available. Both weapons equipped 2 batteries of 4 sections of 4 guns (16 guns each x 2 = 32). Thus we have 2 possible upgrades, 1 to 37mm and 1 to 40mm.

So the Historical Rgt should look like this:
12(4)x3" -> 90mm (03/42)
6(8)x.50 cal
16(16)x.50cal -> 37mm (12/41) or 40mm (6/42)
16(16)x.50cal -> M51 (6/42)
44xSupport
Parenthesis in quantity signifies disabled.

but instead the CHS looks like this:
12x3" -> 90mm 12/41
8x40mm
8x20mm
25xSupport

Not enough guns and a totally out of whack auto cannon types, besides being to few in number. The US Army determined, through feed back from the field, that there was no need for a gun between the 50cal and 40mm so it does not even belong in the unit!

So in the historical one there is significant increase in firepower but uses 9 device slots:
3"-> 90mm 2 slots
.50 M2 AA
.50 M2 AA -> 37mm 2 slots
.50 M2 AA -> 40mm 2 slots
.50 M2 AA -> M51 2 slots



Any questions?

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: 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?).

Strange, oral history is usually a very reliable primary source when it comes from someone who spent three years in a Japanese POW camp. The internet is used today as a reliable source as long as one is a skeptic and has at least corroberating source. Indeed it is to be found in sholarly works. In this case the units is also listed in :

Order of battle, U.S. Army, World War II
Author: Stanton, Shelby L., 1948-
Publication: Novato, CA : Presidio, 1984

Stanton lists the 515th Regiment as coming into exisence in the Phillipines on December 12th with the parent unit being the 200th. As to the scale of the game there are plenty of BN's included. However, it is your mod.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: 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.]

Maybe you should invite me over for coffee. Only untill the age of the guided munitions did artillery (land or sea)become a precision weapon. You are correct, non-coast defence trained and equipped artillery has a hard time dealing with moving targets at any range except point blank.

[el cid again]

For heavy AA there are two gun types, 3" and 90mm, a pretty straight forward upgrade path, except that by mid-42 the BN changed from a 3 battery 4 gun to a 4 battery 4 gun units. This we also must take into account this increase in the original unit composition. I assign the unit 12 guns to begin with and 4 guns disabled which I think is the best solution giving the nature of static unit composition.

This seems better than it is. Unless a unit suffers casualties, or is grossly unsupplied, it will "upgrade" in a few days. So says Joe, with about 13,000 WITP turns of experience. But sometimes you can control the date of an upgrade. For example, in an aircraft, I can set the replacement plane date to the first operational date in the theater, and before that date NO unit will upgrade to it. Theoretically you can do this with land weapons - provided you don't need them right away.

[el cid again]

but instead the CHS looks like this:
12x3" -> 90mm 12/41
8x40mm
8x20mm
25xSupport

Not enough guns and a totally out of whack auto cannon types, besides being to few in number. The US Army determined, through feed back from the field, that there was no need for a gun between the 50cal and 40mm so it does not even belong in the unit!

I noticed this - and some special casses without 40s or 20s and only something like 8 mgs - and for the Philippines adopted

12x3 inch
24x37 (I think)
24x50 cal

[If I am not confused there is no 40mm yet available - and I don't see any listings at all for it in the real inventories]. I am not sure that upgrade paths matter for these guys - unless somehow they escape the Philippines. For other places, perhaps we can just put the AAA inside other units?

[el cid again]

Stanton lists the 515th Regiment as coming into exisence in the Phillipines on December 12th with the parent unit being the 200th. As to the scale of the game there are plenty of BN's included. However, it is your mod.

We have the same problem with air units. Many units were disbanded, reformed, split, etc. The principle (as explained to me) used by CHS is to focus on the units that begin the war - and because we have no way to disband them - units derived from them are not used at all. But we can add a component. For example, Don says that the first and second PC regiments formed the 51st Provisional Brigade. In January he says the fourth PC regiment was formed and then added to the other two, and the Second Regular Division was formed. [The third was on Mindinao - not available to join the formation]. IF we create the first and second (as I did) OR IF we create the 51st Brigade (which I did after hearing what Don had to say), THEN we CANNOT form the Second Regular Division. But we CAN add the fourth regiment when it forms. The alternative is to form a Second Regular Division at the later date, and ignore the first and second regiments (or 51 brigade) until it appears. Since there is going to be fighting in December it is better for the allies if the components appear sooner. But if a spin off coast defense unit is formed after the war begins - that is a problem IF it takes men and/or weapons from the start units. ONLY if it leaves the original units at strength could we add such a unit. It IS present for game purposes - INSIDE the units it was created from. Players have all the guns - just not in the later named units. Only as originally organized. This is a normal sort of issue modders must face. There are several cases where they got it wrong too - we have units appearing twice! Once alone and once as part of a brigade or division.

[el cid again]

Only untill the age of the guided munitions did artillery (land or sea)become a precision weapon. You are correct, non-coast defence trained and equipped artillery has a hard time dealing with moving targets at any range except point blank.

This is a modern conceit. I date to before the age of guided munitions, and that is not what I was taught. And in fact it was normal for coast-defense artillery to be able to hit or straddle on the first salvo. The reason we have "coast defense AA" units is that they were considered so good at hitting moving targets it was logical to ask them to shoot airplanes. But that is the ARMY version. In the NAVY we are taught we can shoot MORE precisely than the guys on land. And we used words like "precision" and, in fact, my first ships gunnery chief had a doctrine that "if you don't hit on the first shot, you are not solving the fire control problem properly." He came up with a system of rewards that worked so well it was the NORMAL case to hit with the first shot - air, naval or land mattered not a whit. I later remembered this and adopted a similar method in order to have guns back up other things in missile defense.

But we were taught NOT to respect "mere" army type artillery when used for coast defense on an improvised basis, and even less when used on moving vessels at sea. Imagine my surprise to learn that the enemy had actually solved the fire control problem with what can only be described as imaginative application of primitive methods. OK - I could understand aiming stakes (used on land normally) just planted in the water - or triangulation with radar or optics - triangulation does yield range after all - and if done with passive radar or optics you don't even know they are doing it. But at sea? Not a problem - we all believed. So when they sent a column of USN destroyers - some of them WWII era with many guns -
to intercept mere junks made of wood - none of which had proper naval weapons at all - we were confident that our "precision" radar fire control would win the day. It didn't. We failed to cut the sea line of communications from Malaya to Cambodia - the main route (tonnage wise) for supplies into South Viet Nam's Delta region. Only a LAND invasion of Cambodia - years later - finally cut that line of supply. It was clear they had SOME way to aim their guns - and if you hit unarmored destroyers with 122, 130 or 152 mm, they are going to get hurt. Too many rounds got way too close - and if we kept it up someone was going to get hit. We were never allowed to attempt a rematch either.

[Andrew Brown]

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

I agree. Although just having completed two map revisions I am not about to start another just yet...

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?

Actually, that is one change that is easy to make since it doesn't involve map work.

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

The problem with Tacloban on my map is that the hex that is more correct for placement of the base (45,56) is actually part of the island of Samar, so the base can't be moved there. It could be moved to 44,56, where Ormoc is now, but it would still be in the wrong hex, and be on the Western coast of Leyte instead of the Eastern.

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.

There is always a need to add more bases. In a lot of locations. Are we sure that more bases should be added to the Philippines? is it more important to add bases there than elsewhere? Having said that, one or two bases could be added without too much concern on my part.

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

Again there are map limits here. The hex where Iloilo should be (43,56) is actually part of Negros in game terms.

Another potential new base that Sid has mentioned is Baguio. It could be placed in 44,50. The roads would not be quite correct, but that would have to wait for a future map revision. The base could still be added, however.

So, if there are to be, say, two bases added in the Philippines, which two locations should be added? Anyone want to make some recommendations as to location and base values?

Andrew

[Don Bowen]

At a minimum I would recommend the name changes for Lingayen/San Marcelino and the addition of Lucena (between Manila and Naga). Baguio might be nice too but is not 100% necessary and can not be made 100% accurate in the 60-mile version of Luzon. Lucena is a rather good idea as it gives a base for the South Luzon Force that is south of Manila and that could be cut off by Japanese landings at Lamon Bay. I think the original Scenario 15 had South Luzon Force at Naga, which is much too far south but has the same tactical considerations.

After that it falls off into the nice-to-have category in game terms. The movement of Tacolban and Iloilo would be historically correct in some ways but would create placement problems of their own - the 60 mile hex map just won't accept too much detail. Probably not worth it unless we want to skew the map out of proper topological context represent them. But, if we want to do that, let me put it a plug for my old pet peeve Vigan. It currently sits to the east of Lingayen when it should be to the North. Moving it one hex North West would put it way out in the water, requiring a skewing of North Luzon to get it “dry” again.

Sid had another 9 or 10 bases in the Visayas/Mindanao, effectively "filling the grid" so that there was a base in every hex. All are historically correct (as best the map can represent) but only one or two of these might have some merit in game terms. The existing patchwork of bases in this area is probably enough for game mechanics (in my opinion).

[el cid again]

The problem with Tacloban on my map is that the hex that is more correct for placement of the base (45,56) is actually part of the island of Samar, so the base can't be moved there. It could be moved to 44,56, where Ormoc is now, but it would still be in the wrong hex, and be on the Western coast of Leyte instead of the Eastern.

This appears to be false. I cannot move a land unit from Tacloban to any other Samar hex - but I can move it to another Leyte hex - so the code seems to think it is on Leyte. Actually - it should be able to do both. Is there a way we can keep the art but define the hex side as a river?
I do not understand how to define hex sides - or even see them? My PW hex file as it appears in WITPExcel has nothing in the fields but 0s. Is there another way to see the file? Of all places in the Visayas, the Leyte/Samar crack is the easiest to pass - and probably we should code them as the same island. IF we do that, there is no problem whatever using the proper hex.

[el cid again]

There is always a need to add more bases. In a lot of locations. Are we sure that more bases should be added to the Philippines? is it more important to add bases there than elsewhere? Having said that, one or two bases could be added without too much concern on my part.

First, mitigating the "add bases" issue, I converted beaches and trivial bases to important ones. Got something like 6 that way. Second, yes - the Philippines is a critical area. It is on the very center of the line of communications between Japan and Indonesia, Japan and SE Asia, Japan and Australia. Fighting over it ought to matter. On top of that, the minor shipping is vast - and adjacent ports will make supplies and resources flow as they should - instead of collecting in pockets. The Philippines is a place that is almost self sufficient in economic terms - it needs oil in our system (and in reality) to make industry work - and it really did (and does to a degree) grow some of the wrong crops (too much sugar and tobacco and too little rice and vegtables) - but nevertheless these are of economic significance. IF you have oil at Manila - and heavy industry - either by storage or by shipping it in - Manila will produce! Or should if we get it right. They have the minerals right there, and also timber and food and gravel (the most basic of all industries is cement, and PI have major cement industry). We have a problem right now - the disconnected ports do not permit supplies to "leak" as they would on small craft. Even though code permits it. And there are so many ports and airfield sites no one can defend the place from a major invasion force - they can go where you are not - set up forward air bases - and cover locally - as both sides historically did.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The problem with Tacloban on my map is that the hex that is more correct for placement of the base (45,56) is actually part of the island of Samar, so the base can't be moved there. It could be moved to 44,56, where Ormoc is now, but it would still be in the wrong hex, and be on the Western coast of Leyte instead of the Eastern.

This appears to be false. I cannot move a land unit from Tacloban to any other Samar hex - but I can move it to another Leyte hex - so the code seems to think it is on Leyte. Actually - it should be able to do both. Is there a way we can keep the art but define the hex side as a river?
I do not understand how to define hex sides - or even see them? My PW hex file as it appears in WITPExcel has nothing in the fields but 0s. Is there another way to see the file? Of all places in the Visayas, the Leyte/Samar crack is the easiest to pass - and probably we should code them as the same island. IF we do that, there is no problem whatever using the proper hex.

Try this...it was put together by AAwulf...

http://mathubert.free.fr/witp_files/WitpExcel1.4.zip

[el cid again]

Baguio might be nice too but is not 100% necessary and can not be made 100% accurate in the 60-mile version of Luzon.

I renamed this Baguio/Balinta Pass. This is THE critical hex of the entire map! It is non-malarial, a major resource hex, mountainous for defense (I think this is represented by forts in the base hex????), and a significant airfield location. WITHOUT Baguio you not only cannot see WHY Yamashita made it his HQ, you simply cannot do anything historically that makes sense at all. Further - in spite of the awful restriction on number of non-malarial hexes - there is one available which should be malarial but is not. [So we trade]. This hex has ANOTHER critical location - Balinta Pass. And it was defended. An invasion down the Cayagan valley doesn't matter much if you hold this pass - both sides knew it - and 48th Brigade did not bother to try the route even after going halfway down the valley to get an airfield. Scale makes it necessary to merge the two locations - but no problem - since both are highlands and non-malarial. Baguio was my first addition and I continue to refine it. You have to see it to understand it. When I first crested the ridge coming up the Naguilion road (used by both Japanese and US offensives) from Buang on Lingayen Gulf I understood instantly why it was chosen by Yamashita. I had passed half a dozen defensible ridge lines, and this was the last, and best of all - 2 or 3 thousand feet of cliffs to cover most of your position - a road winding up vulnerable at many points. Behind an immense, non-malarial valley with terraced rice fields - you can eat here - and beyond mountains with gold, copper and other mines - and significant rice production. Defensible terrain, resources, infractructure (this is the summer capital of the Philippines and the site of the Philippine Military Academy), it makes a lot more sense to defend here - you could hold out for years. In fact, the troops from Fort John Hay did just that, and the threat Yamashita also might do that got us to get him written orders to surrender from the Emperor.

[el cid again]

Try this...it was put together by AAwulf...

That is WITPExcel. Great for looking at things - including hidden things - but dangerous for some things - and other things are missing. Still - it is the only tool I have that shows PWHex. But I don't see anything in almost every field - just zeros. Does it really work with this file?

[el cid again]

Sid had another 9 or 10 bases in the Visayas/Mindanao, effectively "filling the grid" so that there was a base in every hex. All are historically correct (as best the map can represent) but only one or two of these might have some merit in game terms. The existing patchwork of bases in this area is probably enough for game mechanics (in my opinion).

Not quite. Some are moved from minor locations. And since two invasions will occur here it really matters where real ports and airfields are/could be. I actually focused on MAJOR ports and airfield sites, and got rid of minor ones. No beaches - not even good ones - to save slots.
The nearly full grid also means that supplies will flow as they ought to do - if the Manual is right in how adjacent ports work?

[el cid again]

let me put it a plug for my old pet peeve Vigan

Panama drives me nuts! It is 90 degrees rotated. It is an S lieing on its side with respect to North. The Caribbean end of the Canal is technically WEST of the Pacific end of the Canal! You cannot tell from the map.

But I can live with Vigan. It is in the right place for the art we are using. Changing it might affect where Taiwan and China are - I leave that to Andrew. I worked with the existing art- and I know that "north" cannot always be "up" on a third of the globe spread flat!

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Try this...it was put together by AAwulf...

That is WITPExcel. Great for looking at things - including hidden things - but dangerous for some things - and other things are missing. Still - it is the only tool I have that shows PWHex. But I don't see anything in almost every field - just zeros. Does it really work with this file?

I made some changes in China with it using the pwhex editor...although I haven't played with it enough to know all of its ins and outs as far as the pwhex editor.

[el cid again]

I made some changes in China with it using the pwhex editor...although I haven't played with it enough to know all of its ins and outs as far as the pwhex editor.

What defines a hex side's meaning? Is there a terrain type code for the hex itself? If so, where is it defined?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I made some changes in China with it using the pwhex editor...although I haven't played with it enough to know all of its ins and outs as far as the pwhex editor.

What defines a hex side's meaning? Is there a terrain type code for the hex itself? If so, where is it defined?

In the copy I have the code number is defined by Column T,

So for example if I want to change the East Side (Column E) of a hex, I refer to the Hexside type (Column W) find the type I want and enter the corresponding value for that row from Column T into Column E. If I need to change the tranport info (Column N) I find the descriptor in Column AG and enter the corresponding value from column T into column N.


Hope that made sense.


Edit: You may also have realized but make sure that the pwhex file is the one you want loaded. I didn't notice at first but the file location doesn't change like the other dat files when you enter in the location under devices...You have to enter the pwhex file location seperately on the Misc Worksheet