RHS 4.14 [Eratta; Chinese Army planning]

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The statement about "all IMBs being China type" cannot be correct:  there is at least one motorized IMB when the war begins - and there are two almost identical units called "regiments" rather than brigades (although the nose and machine count is virtually the same).  I don't know what the basis of Scenario 15 research was, but whatever it was, it cannot be correct if it ignores these significant offensive units.  I also do not know if the units I refer to are the only ones of their type at the time?  IJA is a very complex organization and just because you know this about that does not mean it does not have a similar clone somewhere else.

 
All IMBs available at start of scen. 15.
 
And (as I wrote) the motorized IMB was already disbanded (not sure about this one, but it does not appear in any OOB for Dec 7th 1941 I've seen).
 
Don't know about the Independent Mixed Regiments (I always wondered about them but could not find anything).
 
And yes, the OOB for vanilla 15 is not accurate...

[el cid again]

For the sake of more data, I have queried Joe - who did the CHS review of brigades and divisions - and a JASDF captain historian resident at the National Diet Library I happen to correspond with.
I am seriously wondering if all those IMBs listed in the reinforcement section might not be better classified as IIBs?  Maybe a lot of those at the start as well?

Note also that the First IMB is NOT in the game - unless my assumption that it is what I call the First Motorized Brigade (forming in June 1942) is really it - and I have it appearing too late?  I use the term generically - representing all elements of the First Tank Division NOT part of the First Tank Brigade.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There is a real difference between an Independent Infantry Brigade and an Independent Mixed Brigade:

Yes, indeed!

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Fundamentally an IMB is an augmented regimental combat team, with a full battalion of organic artillery, an engineer unit, a signal unit, and often a tank unit, as well as a proper slice of what we call support.  It can divide, but normally functions as a single unit, and it can be assigned offensive missions.

Fundamentally, an IIB is a set of independent battalion combat teams, each with a company of light guns, a platoon of signals, a platoon of engineers, and its own support company.  It is these latter that formed into Class C divisions - by giving two of them a HQ element and little else - not the IMBs.  It can be in one place, but virtually always is divided into four or five parts, stationed too far apart to be mutually supporting - and it never is assigned offensive missions against major field formations.

Now that said, I will repeat:  IJA is complex.  Only the PLA of today is MORE complex (and remarkably similar).  It is possible to find exceptions to any rule - and it is almost impossible to make any general statement that is true because there are so many exceptions!  So I sympathize that different interpretations may exist.  The nature of written Japanese is such it is easy to get lost in your own assumptions (it is normal to only IMPLY the subject of a sentence - guess wrong and you misread the writer).  Further, if Kanji are used, there are AT LEAST four (and my ex CIA software often produces TWELVE) different possible meanings!

 
The IMBs certainly varied alot, but for most of them their equipment and composition is known.
 
The C-Type divisions were formed from the same Independent Battalions, artillery units and engineer units that were part of the IMBs that formed them and the IMBs were redesignated Independent Brigades afterwards (as part of the C-Divisions; in most cases the IMBs supplied five battalions and three new battalions were newly raised to get the full complement of eight battalions = two brigades with four battalions each).

[el cid again]

I dimly remember reading this somewhere - except I missed (or forgot) the name change.  In which case the solution in WITP terms is simply to redefine IMBs (mostly) as IIBs.  I like it - UNLESS we know this is a real IMB (in the regimental combat team sense of the word-  and I do know of several) it probably is an IIB. IF they changed names, that explains how the early name confuses people.

OK - some good news.  Joe did better work than I realized - and he gave us half a dozen kinds of Japanese infantry brigades - including amphib and airborne - four without them.  The OB probably wrongly points to formation 916 in most cases (of reinforcements) - it should be 915 (IJA Brigade Group) - and the IIBs properly point to 917.  Few units should point at 916 - tentatively only four - those Joe shows with organic tanks to start - slots 1017, 1319, 1378 and 1378.  Some "brigades" pointed to division formations - fixed.  There is also a strange case - I.B. + 2 Regiments - I think this was supposed to include 65th Brigade - but it pointed to an impossible formation - and the Kurafuto Mixed Brigade also points at it - which may be right.   That is formation 918 I think.

Turns out that the IMB term was used several times in several ways - and there IS a late war one - so the units in the reinforcement list really are NOT the same as IIBs - and I think 915 shows their organization well.  But I am open to suggestion. 

Edit:  Joe writes that 55 and 56 divisions and 65 Brigade all use the same formation on purpose:  I have renamed it a 6 battalion I.D. for clarity.  65 Brigade eventually had three regiments! of two battalions.  55 and 56 divisions had a regiment detached, so they had two regiments of three battalions.  Wierdly, in our system, 65 Brigade (which had three regiments) can form into 2 detachments;  55 and 56 Divisions (which had two regiments) can form into 3 detachments! 
 
I have just changed this:  In 2.594 and above these units will divide properly but have strange names
 
65th "Brigade" Division
55 and 56th "Division" Brigade

[CobraAus]

V2.59.1 critical update for CVO-RAO-BBO posted on link page

V2.59.2 medium update for CVO-RAO-BBO posted on link page

Cobra Aus

[Ol_Dog]

Just started 2.59.2 - Sea Hurricane or what ever it was is back again as TBD picture

[CobraAus]

V2.59.3 upgrade for CVO-RAO-BBO posted on link page

Cobra Aus

[el cid again]

Sea Hurricane uses bitmap 77.
 
TBD used bitmap 20.
 
No reason they MUST be the same art.  We will check.

[el cid again]

In 2.593 I have attempted to make three British, Indian and Commonwealth brigades divide.  If it works, I will try to make them all divide.

[Jo van der Pluym]

I have find the following error
The ship[:)] RN CVLs has the FAA No.801 Sqdn

[Jo van der Pluym]

Some comments about version 2.593

The Soviet 1 SepFlight/POFAFlot is on board of the British Cruiser Shropshire.

I know that they where allieds, but to my knowledge was never a Soviet plane on a British Cruiser.[:)]


Also some or most of the Airslots between 1000 to about 1064 are hardcoded. I the Soviets become active then most of these slots changed in Soviet Airunits, what also happend by some locationslots.


Then the Airgroup of the Carrier Midway exist out:
VF-74
VBF-74
VB-74
VT-74

[el cid again]

There is intentionally no air group for Midway. She is ONLY a ship.
No time to train - either you use her as a green ship or don't use her.

[el cid again]

Not sure why you think it is wrong to have CVLs with 801 Squadron?
But the FAA MUST BE wrong. Too much movement - disbandment - you name it. We have to compromise. Unless the unit is duplicated, it likely is intended. MANY units are right - but that forces others to be wrong - in the sense they can't have the same unit - which they did! Or the unit they had disbanded to make this one - etc. Can of worms.

[el cid again]

Tell me about slots 1000-1064 for Soviet Air units - and how we know this?

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There is intentionally no air group for Midway. She is ONLY a ship.
No time to train - either you use her as a green ship or don't use her.

There would have been an air group already formed for her before she was even commissioned, not the way that your post suggest, that is an air group is formed only after a carrier is commissioned. The only way a Midway Class cariier can even get to the West Coast, being too large for the Panama Canal, is by going the long way either around South America or even longer by going either through the Med or around Africa. Kinda of fantasy to think that she would have no time to train an airgroup....

[el cid again]

I was under the impression we still used the Panama Canal as a design limit in WWII - I know the battleships were so designed. But this is easily looked up. The canal is 110 feet wide and they pass ships up to 109 feet.

The lack of an air group is not meant to imply one does not exist. It is meant to impose an inefficiency. By NOT assigning one you MUST use code imposed efficiency rules - the ship is green - no doubt about it. Have to "cheat" to get her at all really. She would only have been committed in an emergency, or for a duty like ferry - which of course she would do superbly.
 
I am thinking we can put Midway's air group in but NOT assign it to the ship.  That way you CAN assign it - but it will be green.  That would be good simulation.  We normally do not allow ships in before they can be operational on the US side - we do on the Japanese side - and so I followed the convention that a ship sent new is green - and without air group.  However, I am willing to admit a group would have been formed-  and the game will let it function too.  But if assigned to a carrier by me the group would be too efficient.  If assigned by a player it will be properly penalized and suffer higher attrition losses.

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Not sure why you think it is wrong to have CVLs with 801 Squadron?
But the FAA MUST BE wrong. Too much movement - disbandment - you name it. We have to compromise. Unless the unit is duplicated, it likely is intended. MANY units are right - but that forces others to be wrong - in the sense they can't have the same unit - which they did! Or the unit they had disbanded to make this one - etc. Can of worms.

I mean that the 801 squadron is not attached to a ship/CVL but on the header RN CVL's waht only os txt but no ship.

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Tell me about slots 1000-1064 for Soviet Air units - and how we know this?

I have find this by luck to set the scenario start date of a CHS scenario to the date of the Soviet automatic activation. After a day where some USAAF squadrons exchanged for Soviet aviation Divisions.

About this must be a thread on the forum.

[CobraAus]

just in V2.59.4 minor upgrade on link page

Cobra Aus

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Tell me about slots 1000-1064 for Soviet Air units - and how we know this?

I have find this by luck to set the scenario start date of a CHS scenario to the date of the Soviet automatic activation. After a day where some USAAF squadrons exchanged for Soviet aviation Divisions.

About this must be a thread on the forum.

I can confirm this. Just ran a test turn for my Downfall scenario, which has US air groups in the 1000-1064 slot range. After that turn, I suddenly had a Soviet Bomber Aviation Division on the tarmac at the US base at Kadena.