British Unit with low Exp

[EUBanana]

I'm not saying anything against Mush Morton, he was clearly a sub skipper of the very highest calibre (and extreme aggression alright [:D]), and quite possibly unequalled, but it's not like the RN was a sea of grey average.

That said I notice that Truant's crew have a skill of 70 so I guess she's not hard done by at all really, it's just the skippers are somewhat average.

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

I would agree that some Indian units were quite green, since the best were fighting elswhere. But the few British forces available were decently trained as far as I know.

What really pisses me off is the state of the armoured forces in India. They are grossly understrength and amateurs at best. Was this real or just a game thingy?

Real.

For those interested in the subject, I highly recommend reading "Forgotten Armies, The Fall of British Asia 1941-45" by Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper. In truth, the state of the British and Indian army could not have been worse in 1942 for many reasons. The experienced British troops quickly shipped over from the Middle East performed poorly due to lack of any sort of jungle training, and as Alan Brooke commented, the British army had not recovered from the WWI gap. (The loss of a whole generation of young officers who would just now be reaching the rank of colonel and brigadier). There were experineced men, but most of the troops in Asia at the start were not the best.

The Indian army presented a facinating picture. The most amazing thing is that the Indian army fought at all. By 1941 Most Indians were thouroughly "sick" of the British. The most respected Indian leaders (Gandhi, Nehru) were in prison along with about 30,000 other members of the Indian Congress party. After the miserable show of the British in Malaya and Burma, thousands of Indians were flocking to the Indian National Army (to fight the British). In India proper in 1942 there was open rebellion, riots and numerous acts of sabatoge and mutiny. And, due to the bungling of the govenment, a famine was starting in Bengal that was to last well into 1943 and cause millions of Indians to starve to death. The Indian army was treated as inferior, short of decent officers and full of the racial and ethnic discontent.

When one looks at the state of things, it is amazing that the British maintained control and eventually built the Indian army up to the best army in Asia and was able to employ over 2 million Indian soldiers in the drive to reposses their colonial possessions.

There is also the small fact that the Indians fought with the British because they were promised their independence after the war was over.

[Johan_Banér]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Mush Morton, he was clearly a sub skipper of the very highest calibre (and extreme aggression alright [:D]), and quite possibly unequalled,

I'd like to think these 34 guys would possible be at least his equal [:-] particulary those ten first [;)]

[GB68]

ORIGINAL: crsutton



Real.

For those interested in the subject, I highly recommend reading "Forgotten Armies, The Fall of British Asia 1941-45" by Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper. In truth, the state of the British and Indian army could not have been worse in 1942 for many reasons. The experienced British troops quickly shipped over from the Middle East performed poorly due to lack of any sort of jungle training, and as Alan Brooke commented, the British army had not recovered from the WWI gap. (The loss of a whole generation of young officers who would just now be reaching the rank of colonel and brigadier). There were experineced men, but most of the troops in Asia at the start were not the best.

The Indian army presented a facinating picture. The most amazing thing is that the Indian army fought at all. By 1941 Most Indians were thouroughly "sick" of the British. The most respected Indian leaders (Gandhi, Nehru) were in prison along with about 30,000 other members of the Indian Congress party. After the miserable show of the British in Malaya and Burma, thousands of Indians were flocking to the Indian National Army (to fight the British). In India proper in 1942 there was open rebellion, riots and numerous acts of sabatoge and mutiny. And, due to the bungling of the govenment, a famine was starting in Bengal that was to last well into 1943 and cause millions of Indians to starve to death. The Indian army was treated as inferior, short of decent officers and full of the racial and ethnic discontent.

When one looks at the state of things, it is amazing that the British maintained control and eventually built the Indian army up to the best army in Asia and was able to employ over 2 million Indian soldiers in the drive to reposses their colonial possessions.

Excellent comment. The divisive nature of the socio-political status in India caused massive problems for the British Commanders. Many of them had appalling views and ideas of the average Indian soldier.

The Indian National Army , I believe, was also involved in secret discussions with the Japanese to collaborate in actions ranging from guerilla warfare through to coup d'etat in certain states.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Johan_Banér
I'd like to think these 34 guys would possible be at least his equal [:-] particulary those ten first [;)]

Well, yeah, I was talking about the Allies only. [;)]

But on the other hand, there were only so many Maru's and Italian merchants to sink, you can hardly blame Mush Morton for the lack of juicy Japanese targets. [;)]

[EUBanana]

The WW1 gap is talked about a lot, but the Germans had a WW1 gap as well, it's not like no German officers were killed in the Great War, yet they didn't seem to have any trouble.

Bit of an excuse really, IMHO, for truly terrible British (and French) leadership at a high level. I think it was Liddell-Hart who said something like "The only thing more difficult than getting a good idea into a military mind is getting a bad idea out of one." or something like that. Plenty of personal bravery but not much science of war.

The Royal Navy, on the other hand, was pretty sharp I think.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
For those interested in the subject, I highly recommend reading "Forgotten Armies, The Fall of British Asia 1941-45" by Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper. In truth, the state of the British and Indian army could not have been worse in 1942 for many reasons. The experienced British troops quickly shipped over from the Middle East performed poorly due to lack of any sort of jungle training, and as Alan Brooke commented, the British army had not recovered from the WWI gap. (The loss of a whole generation of young officers who would just now be reaching the rank of colonel and brigadier). There were experineced men, but most of the troops in Asia at the start were not the best.

The Indian army presented a facinating picture. The most amazing thing is that the Indian army fought at all. By 1941 Most Indians were thouroughly "sick" of the British. The most respected Indian leaders (Gandhi, Nehru) were in prison along with about 30,000 other members of the Indian Congress party. After the miserable show of the British in Malaya and Burma, thousands of Indians were flocking to the Indian National Army (to fight the British). In India proper in 1942 there was open rebellion, riots and numerous acts of sabatoge and mutiny. And, due to the bungling of the govenment, a famine was starting in Bengal that was to last well into 1943 and cause millions of Indians to starve to death. The Indian army was treated as inferior, short of decent officers and full of the racial and ethnic discontent.

When one looks at the state of things, it is amazing that the British maintained control and eventually built the Indian army up to the best army in Asia and was able to employ over 2 million Indian soldiers in the drive to reposses their colonial possessions.

ORIGINAL: crsutton
There is also the small fact that the Indians fought with the British because they were promised their independence after the war was over.

The deal Gandhi struck with the British in 1942 is what turned the whole situation around. The atrocities in Burma also helped convince quite a few Indians that if they had to side with somebody, the British were better than the Japanese. Hence the Indian army starts out awful, but it gets better.

Bill

[Andy Mac]

Dont mistake India for one pile of political system.
 
Most of the pre war manpower fro the Indian Army came from the so called martial races i.e. father to son and were well trained highly motivated soldiers 4th Indian Div was one of if not the best allied Div in Africa.
 
Having said all that the Indian Army had exhausted this manpower pool by mid 41 during the expansion and keeiping trained officers and NCO's up for the sheer number of formations being raised was impossible and a lot of those used were inadequate to the task not to mention under equipped.
 
Equipent was WW1 vintage where it existed I think it was Auks force in Iraq that wanted to keep the Iraqui kit they captured because it was all frontline British Stuff that they themselves didnt have. e.g. Iraquis had Brens, Vickers MMG's, A/T Rifles and Universal Casrriers where the Indian troops were still using hated WW1 vintage Hotchkis MG's
 
Some of the officers had failed elsewhere or were to old for modern warfare.
 
Also the Army was trainign for mobile warfareso armoured units with no tanks were being raised left right and centre and those divisions forming werre being trained for a motorised role and were then sent to the Jungle.
 
All in all the Indian and British Armies couldnt have been less prepared if they tried.
 
Only 1 Bn in the whole of malaya was really trained for warfare --- 1 !!!! out of about 30 Indian and British Bns
 
It was crazy
 
8th Aus Div was using captured Italain AT Guns with no shells.
 
Most formations were using 18 pounders if they had any arty at all
 
 

[EUBanana]

I did read something the other day about how Churchill got flak from Roosevelt because there were 30 British divisions sitting in the UK for pretty much the whole war, FDR and the US commanders wanted to know why they weren't in Africa contributing, and thought Churchill was either holding out on them or overly paranoid about invasion threats.

The answer was they were ill trained and ill equipped, paper divisions, of almost no military value. And this persisted almost the entire war. The number of Brit divisions fit for purpose was a pretty small fraction of the total.

...So then imagine what the low priority Indian military was like... Churchill didn't care about Japan at all really, he was very Europe focused.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Johan_Banér
I'd like to think these 34 guys would possible be at least his equal [:-] particulary those ten first [;)]

Check out the World War 1 versions, they managed about double!

http://www.uboat.net/wwi/boats/most_successful.html

226 ships for the most successful!

[Andy Mac]

Most of those Divison EUBanana is referring to are the county coastal Divs or training Divs etc etc actually the British more than most of the other armies tried to keep fighting Divs up to strength.
 
Even going as far as cannibalising veteran Divs to keep others up to strength one of the few things the British were good at - more so than any other army a British Div after mid 42 tended to be at full strength and reserves were found to keep it at full strength - I think they actually landed Divisons over strength with a replacement draft landing alongside the invasion forces to enable assault Divs to keep goimg at full strength.
 
I think but dont know that the US did the same - The germans kept reducing the strength of their Divs to the stage where a Wehrmacht Div was about the size and support of a US RCT or a British Bde Gp in strenght

[Mike Solli]

At Normandy, the US Divisions landed their rifle platoons at >100% strength.  Not sure about the other unit types though.

[wdolson]

The US had replacement training units and did what they could to keep divisions at full strength.  There were times when units got depleted though.  During the Ardennes, few units, if any were at full strength after the first few days of fighting.  During island campaigns in the Pacific units would usually get pretty depleted and would have to be withdrawn to rebuild after the island was taken.

The British had similar problems under the same circumstances.  By early 1945 they were dissolving units to feed into front line units as replacements.  By that point, they had exhausted almost the entire population pool of fit young men.

Bill

[Mike Solli]

My Dad was an MP in the ETO.  During the Battle of the Bulge, most combat support units had to give up ~10% of their strength to provide infantry replacements.  The CO "selected" the volunteers (the troublemakers) and my Dad said he never saw them again. [X(]

[Johan_Banér]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Check out the World War 1 versions, they managed about double!

http://www.uboat.net/wwi/boats/most_successful.html

226 ships for the most successful!

That's the U-boats, the WW1 skippers are here
The reason why the WW1 U-boot commanders sank more ships then their brethren twenty years later is because in WW2 the British introduced the convoy system from the start. In the great war it took the British well into 1917 to institute it, when they did the merchant losses dropped drastically. Reason why it took so long? The convoy system was thought by the admiralty to be a defensive measure.

Makes me wonder how many WitP players use a proper convoy system of 20+ merchants escorted by 5+ PC/PG/DE/DD/SC/PB/E. The thinking isn't that the escorts are there to protect the merchants, instead the merchants are bait for the vile subs [:D] to make it easier to find them buggers [;)]

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Johan_Banér
Makes me wonder how many WitP players use a proper convoy system of 20+ merchants escorted by 5+ PC/PG/DE/DD/SC/PB/E. The thinking isn't that the escorts are there to protect the merchants, instead the merchants are bait for the vile subs [:D] to make it easier to find them buggers [;)]

Not me, just not enough escorts. Its usually 5-15 merchants and 1 or 2 DDs or PGs at the moment... high value stuff might get a CL and a few more ASW. From what I see of my erstwhile opponent's convoys it looks rather similar over there...

Funnily enough me putting old CLs in some convoys saved my bacon once. You never know when enemy AMCs might show up. [:D]

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

My Dad was an MP in the ETO.  During the Battle of the Bulge, most combat support units had to give up ~10% of their strength to provide infantry replacements.  The CO "selected" the volunteers (the troublemakers) and my Dad said he never saw them again. [X(]

Eisenhower also drew some flak for sending in black replacements during the Ardennes. When the crisis was over, many of those soldiers were treated unfairly. A good number were sent back to their original non-combat units without so much as a thank you. Many never got their infantry combat badges and those who did were sometimes arrested under the assumption they must have stolen it.

It did open the door for the eventual integration of the military after the war.

My father disliked the MPs. He was never in trouble, he's the sort who always flew way below the radar, but he said he ran into many who thought they were some kind of tin pot dictator. I've seen the same from civilian police too, so not much has changed.

There's one cop who lives down the hill from me who likes to sit in his own driveway and pull over people to harass them. He doesn't give out tickets (Washington has a speed trap law which prevents cops from setting up in the same location all the time), but he does like to scare the heck out of people.

Bill

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: latosusi

RN submarine captains were best in the world. (And still probably are)

[8|]

I wonder if 'American submarine captains were best in the world (And still probably are) would also earn a [8|]...

Yes, EUBanana, it would merit the same emoticon. Any blanket commentary exonerating the superlatives of one's countrymen at the expense of all other comers merits such a response.

I doubt you could give me a reasoned argument how RN submarine captains were inherently superior to all Dutch, Japanese, American, German, Italian and other navies that used submarines in WWII. That is my point.

Wanna argue tonnage sunk per SS lost? Where do you think the RN subs come out there? I'll give you a hint: not number one.

Now, I'll hear your arguments about why their skills should be higher in game terms (e.g., skills of 75-80 or so versus below 60 for aggression, leadership, whatnot), but ex nae on the anfaeoybae, eh?

[Mike Solli]

Bill, my Dad was the most peaceful, kind person you'd ever want to know.  He wasn't the typical MP.  His unit was a POW processing unit, not the typical MP most people (including me) think of.
 
And no, I didn't take offense to the comment.  I agree with you.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

My father disliked the MPs. He was never in trouble, he's the sort who always flew way below the radar, but he said he ran into many who thought they were some kind of tin pot dictator. I've seen the same from civilian police too, so not much has changed.

A few months ago near where I live a police car tried to pull around me to the right (and accelerating) as I was turning right into a parking space (it was a mall parking lot and he was obviously on the move looking for someone). He obviously thought I was going left toward some other spots and wanted to get around me quickly. He stopped before any collision (as did I since I saw him) - then he pulled up beside me and apologized!