Merchie Loadouts

[JWE]

Genesis is Cid’s request for a “capacity” value for merchies – maybe general, maybe Allied and Japanese. Mike Scholl tweaked the discussion by noting the US considered 1 ton of “average military cargo” to occupy about 236 cu. ft. Much of the ship design data suggests that 1 metric ton of capacity is equivalent to 100 cu. Ft. of hold space (in numerical terms). So … So many different cargo types in the game represented by only one capacity figure for an AK, so let’s look at cargos.

For the US, let’s look at tanks, trucks, guns, rations, at their highest density level. Canned rats weighed in at 93 cu. Ft. per metric ton (all tons hereafter are metric). C & D rats were about half that. A truck was 300 cf/t, a jeep was 179, a 105mm was 266, but that was the “box” number; you don’t stack ‘em, you put them on tween decks with maybe 11’ heights. So you get 370 cu. ft./ton for a 2 ½ , 730 for a 105mm, 138 for a Lt.Tk., 835 for a jeep.

The cargo master fills it out with arty ammo at 23 cu. ft./ton, .30 cal ammo at 19, canned rations at 93, mines at 48, anything that’s denser than 100. The US hauled all this as well as clothing, Hershey bars, cigarettes, Matson plates, barbed wire rolls, dozers, 40’ cranes, and furniture, so 236 cu. ft per metric? Ok.

Japanese were different. They didn’t have a lot of trucks, didn’t have jeeps. Resources were weight limited: bauxite is 28 cu. ft./ton, manganese is 16, tin is 15, coal (crushed) is 33.

Wow! What to do? Thinkin & crankin: smilin & dialin. May have some thoughts soon.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Genesis is Cid’s request for a “capacity” value for merchies – maybe general, maybe Allied and Japanese. Mike Scholl tweaked the discussion by noting the US considered 1 ton of “average military cargo” to occupy about 236 cu. ft. Much of the ship design data suggests that 1 metric ton of capacity is equivalent to 100 cu. Ft. of hold space (in numerical terms). So … So many different cargo types in the game represented by only one capacity figure for an AK, so let’s look at cargos.

For the US, let’s look at tanks, trucks, guns, rations, at their highest density level. Canned rats weighed in at 93 cu. Ft. per metric ton (all tons hereafter are metric). C & D rats were about half that. A truck was 300 cf/t, a jeep was 179, a 105mm was 266, but that was the “box” number; you don’t stack ‘em, you put them on tween decks with maybe 11’ heights. So you get 370 cu. ft./ton for a 2 ½ , 730 for a 105mm, 138 for a Lt.Tk., 835 for a jeep.

The cargo master fills it out with arty ammo at 23 cu. ft./ton, .30 cal ammo at 19, canned rations at 93, mines at 48, anything that’s denser than 100. The US hauled all this as well as clothing, Hershey bars, cigarettes, Matson plates, barbed wire rolls, dozers, 40’ cranes, and furniture, so 236 cu. ft per metric? Ok.

Japanese were different. They didn’t have a lot of trucks, didn’t have jeeps. Resources were weight limited: bauxite is 28 cu. ft./ton, manganese is 16, tin is 15, coal (crushed) is 33.

Wow! What to do? Thinkin & crankin: smilin & dialin. May have some thoughts soon.

Actually, the Japanese did have jeeps - made by Tokyo Gas & Electric - they were called "the black model" and there were several different species of them, including a micro pickup truck and a snow cat (complete with snow blower and using three of the small engines vice one - IJA was big on cold weather vehicle capability). Two of the best divisions sent South were "motorized" (I prefer "semi-motorized" because exactly half the transport regiments had trucks, and the troops had bikes). But even the "walking" divisions, and most of the artillery formations, used tractors or trucks to tow guns (although there were also limber and casson units in China, and there were pack guns usually packed by mules - but one version broke down to man pack loads - 11 per piece). Artillery spotters might use tankettes, but more often they used these "nonexistent" jeeps. Troops went forward more often on AKs than on APs - which makes no sense to me - but the AKs were self loading/unloading - and perhaps they wanted the cranes for heavier equipment - e.g. guns and tractors or trucks - or "jeeps". They also used "Harey" in numbers - this is a mispronunciation of Harley - and they were the most produced of all Japanese motor vehicles - properly licenced. Aside from what you think of as a Harley, there were vesions with side cars (and mmg), and what might be called micro trucks - even smaller than the "jeep pickup version" - these were extreamly numerous - called Sanrinsha - and they were particularly popular in the narrow streets of Asian cities. Engineers also had micro railroads (the Marines on Guadalcanal called the one there "the Toonerville trolly" - no engines - just cars pushed by men on 12 inch narrow gage tracks - for lowly construction engineers. Specialist engineers got dual truck/RR tractors - with both road wheels and RR wheels - able to haul 8 standard gage flatcars - and also they got the flatcars. The biggest of wartime vehicles were actually construction vehicles - including a very large dump truck. Military trucks came in series using the same chassis and engines: the oldest of these had no less than 80 variants. Standard for IJA was the 1.5 ton truck type. But photographs of the 1944 offensive in China uniformly show columns of these trucks - stretching as far as the eye can see - moving forward on the roads. Units sent to jungle covered islands would be stripped of vehicles (and horses if they had them) - on both sides - it was not just IJA. That should not create the impression TO&E was without vehicles.

[m10bob]

I appreciate the fact John is trying to calculate right to the thumbtack how the ships were loaded, to arrive at a fair and uniform system.
I have never liked the current system on any version, basing load capacity as a "percentage of vanilla".
Hawgwash, folks......
Kudos JWE.

[JWE]

Thank you Bob,

The real sticky part is not the lift capacity, but what is being lifted. There are two main quantities, resources and supply. Resources tend to be weight limited, supply tends to be space limited.

Resources aren’t an issue; you can put 5000 MT of tin or rice on a 5000 MT capacity ship. It seems the only really important issue, in the resource case, is how many ships there were of what capacity, assuming the capacities are reasonably related. It does make a difference if you have 300 ships with a 5000 MT capacity and 1200 ships with a 1500 MT capacity, as opposed to the 50/50 split between 7000 and 3500.

Supply though is an ogre. Supply is based on the number of devices in a unit. A unit with 100 155s and 50 squads will require the same supply as a unit with 100 squads and 50 mortars (in general game terms). The game considers vehicles and guns as devices rather than units of supply, so there is another source of disparity. Notwithstanding, volumetric cargo can also be rationally related to ship size, so a 5000 tonner can indeed carry 3.33 times more than a 1500 tonner, given similar cargo densities.

What might make up the difference is not necessarily adjusting capacity, but rather adjusting load costs for devices and compelling a “mechanization factor”. A 105 requires a mover, a 70mm Bn gun doesn’t. It shouldn’t be too hard to identify weapons that would normally require “motorized support”, and substitute that in for regular support. Given the larger mechanization component of Allied units, this would have the effect of increasing the scale of shipping required to lift an Allied unit vis a vis the Japanese (i.e., raising the Allied cubic footage per ton, as Mike Scholl suggested).

Most of our density differential is caused by relatively low density stuff like trucks, jeeps, weapons carriers, radar sets, radios, etc. Most of this stuff is included in LCU unit totals anyway, so playing with load cost seems reasonable.

[Mike Scholl]

I believe the Japanese also used a good deal of "animal transport" (like the Germans), which opens up a whole different "can of worms".

[el cid again]

Yes they did - mules as well as horses. And these require more weight of fodder than is nice to consider: we sent a horsed division to Africa and promptly unhorsed it because of the fodder problem. Both sides also used a good deal of local labor as porters - huge numbers actually - but unlike horses and mules you don't have to feed them - they eat off the local economy. Not sure how to represent them though - and they work for both sides usually.

[Dili]

I have put field hand squads in Alpini Divisions to simulate mule handlers.

[el cid again]

Nice to see they have got a real life. They are my invention - for other reasons.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I believe the Japanese also used a good deal of "animal transport" (like the Germans), which opens up a whole different "can of worms".

Yep, a can ‘o worms and a pile ‘o horse poop. Was digging thru some Alvin Coox essays and found his take on the IJA of 1941 (comparison emphasis on the Kwantung Army vis a vis China Expeditionary Army). He was looking at what we would call a mechanized or reinforced A division (the anti Soviet version), post Nomonhan.

About 300 vehicles (about 500 if it had a tank Bn and a decontamination (anti-gas) Bn,), with about half in the transport regiment, and the rest about equally divided between the recon regiment, the arty regiment, and the Div/Brig/Regt HQ.

About 8,000 “horses”, with about 2k in the transport regiment, about 2k in the arty regiment, about 800 in each of 3 inf regiments, and the rest in the recon regiment and Div/Brig/Regt HQ.

Brother Alvin wrote “[T]he plight of the regular infantry was worse. The absence of even these minimal amounts of motor transport was not compensated by a corresponding increase of animal transport. … The deficiency had to be made up through use of the troops themselves, or the organized labor battalions. … As soon as the bayonets of the guards were pointed elsewhere, the Korean volunteers melted into the countryside.”

Our T/O 7 (1 June 1941) puts 1834 vehicles in a nominal (standard, unreinforced) infantry division. T/O&E 7, 1 Aug. 1942 says 2149, 15 July 1943 says 2012, and 24 Jan. 1945 says 2114. Let’s say 2,000 over the period.

2,000 vehicles vs 8,000 animals; a 4 horses = one vehicle ratio. Reasonable.

Question for you Mike, is how many animals do you think a nominal unit be expected to transport for service in IJA areas of responsibility in the South West Pacific; I’m thinking NG, Solomons, PI, etc..

[el cid again]

It depends on the area of operations. The semi-motorized division sent to Malaya would have all its vehicles and horses - and more actually - because it had other units attached (but we may ignore them as they break out separately). Same for the other one on Luzon. Both places had proper roads. [The ones on Luzon had 10 ton road bridges - data from the concrete on the bridges themselves - read by yours truly - a uniform value without exceptions.] Mayala had not only proper roads, but paved roads. But in New Guinea, divisions went in with NO horses at all, and very few vehicles. And this is very much like the US Army insofar as all units were stripped entirely of horses (after the First Cav went to North Africa with them - and was stripped - no other unit ever went forward with horses). Some vehicles were sent - but nothing like a unit that would go to fight in a place like - say - France.

I don't think we can deal with this very well: the best we can do is create organizations and let the game load them. A division sent to (or in) a place with roads may well get more vehicles - but we have no horses at all (unless they are in support squads or light artillery squads - except of course we do have cavalry squads) - but we cannot prevent a player sending a unit from Manchukuo to a jungle place - nor vice versa. And IRL IJA pack formations had many more men than even draft formations did - although we can simulate that with labor squads - I am not sure we should? [The code considers squad count the basic element of combat power - do you want to say the pack units are significantly stronger in staying power than the draft or motorized ones? IRL it is the other way around - the motorized units - which have least manpower - are strongest - draft is in the middle - but still stronger than pack - due to logistics - mainly ammunition lift. Ammunition is the main thing you lift by weight to supply units in combat - as much as 95% when there are no vehicles. Do we really want bigger IJA divisions rated as stronger when they are really weaker? That is what adding labor squads - with no firepower - would do.]

[JWE]

Not interested in RHS. That's your nickel. Data is data and you do with it as you wish.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I believe the Japanese also used a good deal of "animal transport" (like the Germans), which opens up a whole different "can of worms".

Question for you Mike, is how many animals do you think a nominal unit be expected to transport for service in IJA areas of responsibility in the South West Pacific; I’m thinking NG, Solomons, PI, etc..

Real problem is that very few IJA Divisions were shipped "whole" to the SW Pacific..., many arriving in pieces with "ad hoc" TO&E's put together from whatever had arrived when a need arose. The 4-to-1 ratio seems a good compromise. But one the whole, I believe most were short of transport in the SW Pacific Theatre. It's not something I can pose as an "expert" on..., I made the observation because it seemed to have been ignored in the thread to that point.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Not interested in RHS. That's your nickel. Data is data and you do with it as you wish.

I did not answer for RHS. I just answered your question. WTIP is hard coded. We do not have control over how it loads things. Nor can we change how a unit is structured - it is whatever it starts as.

Thinking about this matter more, I think we might be able to simulate all three kinds of divisions: motorized, draft and pack. Right now, in RHS, I designed the support and motorized support to represent two cases: motorized and draft - and lumped pack in with draft.

What if we do it this way: for a draft unit, we take the number of support squads in the transport regiments and double it - and compensate by adding a number of labor squads equal to the original (pre doubled) number of support squads?
That way, the net support the division needs vs what it has does not change at all - but there is a whole lot more to lift and feed. Further - I don't think the extra squads thing is to bad - as more squads ARE harder to beat. Armies use men like spare parts to feed the front as required.

I think the pack divisions are the Class B divisions with mountain guns in the artillery regiment (vice field guns).

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: JWE

Not interested in RHS. That's your nickel. Data is data and you do with it as you wish.

I did not answer for RHS. I just answered your question. WTIP is hard coded. We do not have control over how it loads things. Nor can we change how a unit is structured - it is whatever it starts as.

Thinking about this matter more, I think we might be able to simulate all three kinds of divisions: motorized, draft and pack. Right now, in RHS, I designed the support and motorized support to represent two cases: motorized and draft - and lumped pack in with draft.

What if we do it this way: for a draft unit, we take the number of support squads in the transport regiments and double it - and compensate by adding a number of labor squads equal to the original (pre doubled) number of support squads?
That way, the net support the division needs vs what it has does not change at all - but there is a whole lot more to lift and feed. Further - I don't think the extra squads thing is to bad - as more squads ARE harder to beat. Armies use men like spare parts to feed the front as required.

I think the pack divisions are the Class B divisions with mountain guns in the artillery regiment (vice field guns).

If that works for your scenario OOBs and loadout requirements, it works for me. Never had occasion to to consider animals. Normally, I would just figure they are about 1/2 or 2/3 of a mech support and go with that, for simplicitys sake. But I don't know how you define your OOBs, and loadouts. If your method floats your boat, then okey dokey.

[el cid again]

Well - I would like the cost to lift - and supply - a "light" pack unit to be higher than a "medium" draft unit - to be higher than a motorized unit. Because that is the way it was. In RHS I made the motorized support half the lift cost of a regular support unit - the other half representing animals probably. But now I think I can double that again - by adding labor squads and more support - so the units with mountain gun regiments (which are entirely packable) have a higher cost to move or feed (and less firepower).