Anti Aircraft Units

[general billy]

What to do with all the AA units? I have so many of them in my game. Since I dont have any planes to shoot down in WPO what other good use are they for? Can they be used for defense? If so, what benefits do they have?

Thanks

[Helpless]

That's the question I been asking long time ago. I have no idea why there is so many japanese AA units. Apparently they have very minimal usage - only against aicrafts if they able to reach them [:D]. Other usage would be to fool your opponent on number of LCU you have in hex [:)]. Otherwise they just consume supplies and give your opponet points when destroyed.. [:D]

Imho, AA units should be completely removed, like in new Cautionaries..

[Tankerace]

Believe it or not, there is a good (albeit hypothetical) reason for all the Japanese AA units.

In the 1920s, The U.S. Army had an air service. The French Army had an air service. The Thai army had an air service. The Red Army (more or less) had a (more or less) air service. The British had an independent air force.

The Japanese Army, however, possessed no internal air service until the late 1920s. The Japanese Army, until 1929-1931, was technologically backwards. One Japanese historian even decided at best it was only suitable for garrison duties in Manchuria. It lacked modern artillery, machineguns, powerful rifles, and modern tactics. (It had Machineguns, but only at the Regimental Level versus the Squad level as was common after WWI). Though WPO does compromise and give the IJA tanks (A grand total of something like 50), in reality the only tanks it had were for experimental purposes, and not suitable for combat.

Beyond all of that, with the exception of a few planes for testing and evaluation, the Japanese Army had no air service. The Japanese Navy was the only Japanese arm to champion the tennants of air power. In later years (though mainly for obvious wartime reasons) I gave the Japanese army some squadrons. But in a pre war, or peacetime, context, there was no air service.

It seemed to me based on that, the Japanese Army would adopt Anti Aircraft units to ensure protection of its bases, or at least mainland Japan. I also did it as a balancing act, fewer planes so more anti aircraft units.

The Japan we all 'know and love' from WitP fully embraced the air concept with open arms. However, in the 1920s, only the Navy did (and could afford) to have any size of an air force. Thus it was the navy, not the army, that provided the majority of planes for the defense of Japan. As this would naturally mean a drastic size gap between the combined air powers of the US Army, Navy, and Marines (let alone combining the FAA and RAF, and maybe the Armee d'la Aire), the Japanese army would throw together more AA units with which to counterattack the disparity between the two nations.

At any rate, it seemed to me that throwing together ad hoc AA units would be better than throwing together a ton of squadrons with planes that didn't exist with an air service that didn't exist.

[Rysyonok]

But if IJA had difficulties equipping its divisions with artillery, where in the world would they come up with all those extra AA barrels?

[Helpless]

Imho, Japan never been over-reacting... usually quite opposite...

[Tankerace]

Admittedly, this was one of the few balance measures I did put in to WPO. I justified it (as much as an balance can be) by my analysis above.

Correct, Japan usually doesn't over react. But it seems to me they do have a problem with reacting to the wrong thing, or not at all. It seemed to me that the buildup of AA units (again, as garrisons and as balance. Remember, Japan also does not have tanks. DP AA guns help to offset both elements, lacking an air force and a tank corps) could have been a potential element. AA guns are cheaper than planes, and a Defense Bn of them is cheaper than a tank company. Especially when you don't have any tank designs starting out to equip the company.

That is the beauty of hyoptheticals, each interpretation is different. My feeling was that Japan would produce AA units, for three reasons. Primarily, PR. Tell the people "See, we are immune to air attack, we don't need an air force" while all the money is being funneled into the 8-8 Navy program. Secondly, the lack of an air force. It would be cheaper, though not as efficient, to create AA units. Third, the lack of a tank corps. The 37mm ATG shared by France, Japan, and the United States is all but worthless. it is an effective support weapon, and can maybe knock out an FT-17, but it can't damage the Mk Vs or later 1920s tanks. Japan would need large, guns that are higher velocity than howitzers AND are more expendable than the expensive artillery. The solution could be found in 40mm and 75mm AA guns.

As to suppling divisional artillery, I felt that the building of these AA units would naturally prevent the divisions from getting more artillery, especially of the latest types. This also rounds out the fact that Army Doctrine of the 1920s wouldn't have been rewritten. They were good enough in 1904, they were good enough in 1917, why wouldn't they be good enough in 1926? (As history shows, it wasn't even modified until 1929 and on into the thirties in peace time, war time have been even less reform minded).

Again, I realize it is mainly a balance measure that won't please everybody. But this balance measure (which you will all love by 1.3. Japanese Divisions are each loosing a regiment, effectively becoming 3/4 strength max) helps to prop up the Japanese army int he face of overwhelming odds. Moreover, unlike some potential balance measures, this one is grounded in a certain element of probability. Our interpretations may differ, but I felt there was enough of a balance need, and enough plausibility, to allow it.

If you really don't like it.... just stack them in remote Japan and forget about them. Or use them as rear area garrisons on islands not worth a Bn, Rgt, or Bde.

[Helpless]

At least now we know that AA units exist due to official doctrine and not because someone fogot to delete them from WITP database... [;)] [:)]

by any means this is not a game breaker...

[general billy]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Admittedly, this was one of the few balance measures I did put in to WPO. I justified it (as much as an balance can be) by my analysis above.

Correct, Japan usually doesn't over react. But it seems to me they do have a problem with reacting to the wrong thing, or not at all. It seemed to me that the buildup of AA units (again, as garrisons and as balance. Remember, Japan also does not have tanks. DP AA guns help to offset both elements, lacking an air force and a tank corps) could have been a potential element. AA guns are cheaper than planes, and a Defense Bn of them is cheaper than a tank company. Especially when you don't have any tank designs starting out to equip the company.

That is the beauty of hyoptheticals, each interpretation is different. My feeling was that Japan would produce AA units, for three reasons. Primarily, PR. Tell the people "See, we are immune to air attack, we don't need an air force" while all the money is being funneled into the 8-8 Navy program. Secondly, the lack of an air force. It would be cheaper, though not as efficient, to create AA units. Third, the lack of a tank corps. The 37mm ATG shared by France, Japan, and the United States is all but worthless. it is an effective support weapon, and can maybe knock out an FT-17, but it can't damage the Mk Vs or later 1920s tanks. Japan would need large, guns that are higher velocity than howitzers AND are more expendable than the expensive artillery. The solution could be found in 40mm and 75mm AA guns.

As to suppling divisional artillery, I felt that the building of these AA units would naturally prevent the divisions from getting more artillery, especially of the latest types. This also rounds out the fact that Army Doctrine of the 1920s wouldn't have been rewritten. They were good enough in 1904, they were good enough in 1917, why wouldn't they be good enough in 1926? (As history shows, it wasn't even modified until 1929 and on into the thirties in peace time, war time have been even less reform minded).

Again, I realize it is mainly a balance measure that won't please everybody. But this balance measure (which you will all love by 1.3. Japanese Divisions are each loosing a regiment, effectively becoming 3/4 strength max) helps to prop up the Japanese army int he face of overwhelming odds. Moreover, unlike some potential balance measures, this one is grounded in a certain element of probability. Our interpretations may differ, but I felt there was enough of a balance need, and enough plausibility, to allow it.

If you really don't like it.... just stack them in remote Japan and forget about them. Or use them as rear area garrisons on islands not worth a Bn, Rgt, or Bde.

So just to confirm, they do nothing in defense or offense combat?

[Rysyonok]

They count as regular guns in offense and defense Same way AA MGs on early transports can be used to mow down careless submarines.

[Helpless]

They count as regular guns in offense and defense Same way AA MGs on early transports can be used to mow down careless submarines.

to add:

If AA unit has DP guns then you can expect them to fire on non-air target. Otherwise they are totaly useless. Usually main AA guns are AA-only, ex. 75mm AA Gun Type 11