CHS Scenario update now available - version 2.07

[ny59giants]

I am going through all the Allied units/bases one by one since this is my first time with CHS and extended maps to get a better understanding. I have gone through all Allied units/bases east of Midway and found:
United States has a Port and it's expandable (??)  
Some bombers set for Naval Attack from around Denver (??)
LA Air Capacity is 10(6) - I thought it could only expand by a factor of 3, not 4
Portland Air Capacity is 7(3)
Portland BF has "Future Objective Set" at (53), but no objective named

[vonSchnitter]

Sorry Andrew [&o] !

These are the things hard to determine from the outside.
About to get going on a "friendly" PBM soon.
If you do not mind, I will try to bring up any "questionables" or "huh?s" earlier.


Cheers

[Monter_Trismegistos]

815th US TD Bn (location 3155) - in stock it has M10 tank destroyers. Now it has 36 x 3in ATG. It should no longer be of type "armoured unit" and should be changed to "artillery unit".

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

815th US TD Bn (location 3155) - in stock it has M10 tank destroyers. Now it has 36 x 3in ATG. It should no longer be of type "armoured unit" and should be changed to "artillery unit".

I don't know how they are treated in WITP, but in nomenclature, a lot of the so-called TD units were towed guns, not self-propelled..Perhaps they maintain their mobility rating due to the fact they did have their own transportation?

[Monter_Trismegistos]

But still towed guns as a defensive weapon should not take place in offensive actions. This is why all towed ATG units (Japanese, Australian) are of artillery type.

[vonSchnitter]

Talking of early warnings ...

I am certainly not an expert in Japanese dispositions or OOBs. But moving the 56th Brigade away from the DEI / Palau does not occur to me as "historic".

I am sure there are sharper (and better informed) minds on this board than mine. But according to E. Gries (editor), The Second WW, Asia And Pacific (West Point Military), Appendix 3, the IJF (short for Japaese) used at least two regiment sized forces around the Celebes Area: Saguchi Detachment for Tarakan (Based on the 56th regimental group) and the 228th Regiment for Amboina (plus Kure 1st SNLF). Since I have no IJA Regiment reference in front of me - (I could try, using some sources from the early 40s) I would think moving the brigade to Palau, splitting it up to regiments and giving them the prep points should be a good Idea

By the way, anyone cares about US Army/Navy/Air Corps manuals about the Japanese ? (Ground, Sea, Air). I beleive I can start at prewar ...

Cheers

[DuckofTindalos]

But other towed AT units are counted as Artillery, viz the Australian AT regiments.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

But other towed AT units are counted as Artillery, viz the Australian AT regiments.

Yeah, that's why I started my comment by saying "I did not know how it was handled in WITP"..Now that you have educated me, I will say this. The American "towed" TD units were NOT considered a *defensive* unit, but an *offensive* unit, by American Army SOP..
Yeah, I know, sounds impractical as hell, but even a scan of Patton's book will reveal one of the primary tactics he expected to be used, was the importance of keeping those "towed" ATG's "at the front" of any offensive action. He was not alone in this, but was reinforcing the (then) U.S.Army doctrine that TD units were for fighting enemy tanks, and U.S.tanks were for fighting enemy infantry..
Don't know for sure, but since this is pretty much common knowledge, maybe the designer made those towed U.S. Army units as he did, because of that "offensive" doctrine??
I'm not arguing one way or the other, just speaking from history..

[Monter_Trismegistos]

ORIGINAL: m10bob
maybe the designer made those towed U.S. Army units as he did, because of that "offensive" doctrine??

Not designer. It was done by a modder. We are talking about CHS not stock.
I still see no reason for such privileage for this unit.

[vonSchnitter]

Hm,

dunno about Patton and doctrine, but there are two Jap(anese) RF gun units in Canton - antitank guns - which only have some defensive value, none in the offensive (bombarding).

Just for the records

Cheers

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

Talking of early warnings ...

I am certainly not an expert in Japanese dispositions or OOBs. But moving the 56th Brigade away from the DEI / Palau does not occur to me as "historic".

I am sure there are sharper (and better informed) minds on this board than mine. But according to E. Gries (editor), The Second WW, Asia And Pacific (West Point Military), Appendix 3, the IJF (short for Japaese) used at least two regiment sized forces around the Celebes Area: Saguchi Detachment for Tarakan (Based on the 56th regimental group) and the 228th Regiment for Amboina (plus Kure 1st SNLF). Since I have no IJA Regiment reference in front of me - (I could try, using some sources from the early 40s) I would think moving the brigade to Palau, splitting it up to regiments and giving them the prep points should be a good Idea

By the way, anyone cares about US Army/Navy/Air Corps manuals about the Japanese ? (Ground, Sea, Air). I beleive I can start at prewar ...

Cheers

Regarding 56th Bde ... this one certainly got some discussion on the team .. but there are sources (such as the oft cited Dr. Niehorster) that show 56th in Home Islands at start of war. Contrarily "destroyer captain" Tameichi Hara describes "many transports" waiting to invade enemy held territories and standing by in the Palau anchorage as his task unit is departing prewar .. at least a "shadow" of an indication that a substantive force is present there. So the evidence is/was inconclusive. However, the balance of the evidence seemed to indicate at least the bulk of the Bde was in the home islands though it certainly rapidly moved to the South.

[aletoledo]

wow, I'm glad the A2A changes that Nik has put forward have finally been incorparated into CHS. I didn't really feel the non-A2A changes were really dramatic (especially with patch 1.8), so I really look forward to the best of both mods into a single mod!

[vonSchnitter]

Thx jwilkerson !

yup, I understand your concerns. And as to the 56th Brigade you are right (I have read both accounts).
Diskussing the early IJF dispositions would make for quite a topic. For the most part because of the lack - or contradictions - of resources - even compared to the early war allied ones.

Anyway. I would suggest to "beef up" the IJF forces offensive power at Palau by one or two regiment sized units prepped for Tarakan and/or Amboina just to help the Jap PBM player to maintain the pace of the "Centrifugal offensive" around the Celebes.

It just occured to me to use the 56th for the purpose - since it is in question anyway.

Do not get me wrong - I like the way CHS 2.0x is tightening up on Jap options early on - making it the high risk thing it was - not the easy victory from hind sight. But helping to keep the pace up should be a consideration

Cheers

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

Thx jwilkerson !

yup, I understand your concerns. And as to the 56th Brigade you are right (I have read both accounts).
Diskussing the early IJF dispositions would make for quite a topic. For the most part because of the lack - or contradictions - of resources - even compared to the early war allied ones.

Anyway. I would suggest to "beef up" the IJF forces offensive power at Palau by one or two regiment sized units prepped for Tarakan and/or Amboina just to help the Jap PBM player to maintain the pace of the "Centrifugal offensive" around the Celebes.

It just occured to me to use the 56th for the purpose - since it is in question anyway.

Do not get me wrong - I like the way CHS 2.0x is tightening up on Jap options early on - making it the high risk thing it was - not the easy victory from hind sight. But helping to keep the pace up should be a consideration

Cheers

If there is sufficient shipping present at the current CHS loc for 56 Bde, then exploiting the pre-game accelerated move, may be sufficient to allow historical capabilities .. if not, perhaps we should relocate a bit more shipping to the 56 Bde H.I. location.

Just quickly scanning around ... I note the following historical timetables for elements and attachments of 56 Bde.

20 Dec - Sakaguchi detechment (bulk of 56 Bde with I/33 I.R. of 16 I.D. attached ) Davao
24 Dec - Matsumoto detachment (III/146 -2 Co) Jolo Island ... as support for Borneo Invasion
11 Jan - Sakaguchi detachment (bulk of 56 Bde with 146 I.R.) Tarakan.
24 Jan - Sakaguchi detechment () Balikpapan.

Regarding Amboina, historically this seems to have been handled by the Ito detachment.

30 Jan - Ito detachment (bulk of 228 I.R. of 38th I.D. ) Amboina.

So actually, I don't see anything jumping out at me that should not be achiveable with the current deployment, even if insufficient shipping exists to leverage the pre-game advanced move for 56 Bde.

[vonSchnitter]

jwilkerson,

thank you for your attention again.

Even though, I was not aware of the details - care to name the sources (please) - I had understood, the IJF used a lot of "fragments" in WitP parlance - to get things moving.

Right now (2.03) the 56th is located at Fukuoka - and there is not enough shipping available to get them moving. And both regiments are training for Davao.

Making the shipping available at this port should be a "good enough" solution

Cheers

[bradfordkay]

As far as the question of US TD units is concerned: they started out the war as towed AT guns, but later upgraded to the M10 (and then M36?) Tank Destroyers. Making them artillery units might preclude this historic upgrade.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

jwilkerson,

thank you for your attention again.

Even though, I was not aware of the details - care to name the sources (please) - I had understood, the IJF used a lot of "fragments" in WitP parlance - to get things moving.

Right now (2.03) the 56th is located at Fukuoka - and there is not enough shipping available to get them moving. And both regiments are training for Davao.

Making the shipping available at this port should be a "good enough" solution

Cheers

Rottman, Gordon L., "Japanese Army in World War II - Conquest of the Pacific 1941-42", Oxford: Osprey Publishing Ltd, 2005.

Andrew's call on the shipping, though as I indicated above, upon examination, seems like redeployment of shipping not neceesary to enable historical operations.

Regarding "both regiments" the 56th Brigade only had one regiment, the 146th (though there were both attachments and detechments from this base). The other two regiments of the 56 I.D. the 113th and the 148th were, together with the bulk of the 56th Division, initially assigned to Yamashita and the Malaya operation. However, Yamashita declined to commit the new, untested division to combat and it was not deployed for combat operations, until reassigned to the 15th Army and landed in Rangoon 25 March 1942.

I will start up a thread in the design forum entitled CHS OOB Questions, so that these topics can be pursued further. We generally try to avoid detailed scenario design questions on the main forum.

But your comments and questions are certainly welcome.

Thx.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

As far as the question of US TD units is concerned: they started out the war as towed AT guns, but later upgraded to the M10 (and then M36?) Tank Destroyers. Making them artillery units might preclude this historic upgrade.

Nope, some of them remained towed. Particullary in this scenario 76mm ATG is not upgrading to anythung.

[DuckofTindalos]

Oh yeah, there were plenty of towed TD units in the US Army, all the way through to the end...

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Oh yeah, there were plenty of towed TD units in the US Army, all the way through to the end...

In the event anybody decides to "re-do" any of the American TD units, I have the unit histories of every U.S, Army unit,roughly Bn on up, and the dates those TD units upgraded to "anything", (towed or SP)..