British Unit with low Exp

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Some of the RN boats lasted through 5 years of front line action (HMS Porpoise), others lasted a few short months. But the one thing that they all have in common... None of them sound slightly rude (USS Growler and USS Snapper) [:D]

You forgot USS Bang.[:)]

(Perhaps this is USAian slang. But it's funny over here.)

[EUBanana]

I don't know why the USN is suddenly being defended here, why Americans are suddenly aggrieved by someone suggesting RN commander should be a little bit better.

Nobody's actually talked about the USN at all, beyond some peoples apparent unshakeable belief that Victor Crutchley VC was less aggressive than just about every US admiral bar Fletcher.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I don't know why the USN is suddenly being defended here, why Americans are suddenly aggrieved by someone suggesting RN commander should be a little bit better.

Nobody's actually talked about the USN at all, beyond some peoples apparent unshakeable belief that Victor Crutchley VC was less aggressive than just about every US admiral bar Fletcher.

I beleive it started with a green smiley.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
You forgot USS Bang.[:)]

[:D][:D][:D][:D]

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I beleive it started with a green smiley.

...by someone who jumped to the USN's defence, yeah.

I mean, what is it with you. You want the USN to be RN + 20 by default or something? Is it really so insulting to suggest that perhaps RN commanders were actually not numpties? Is Victor Crutchley really less aggressive than every US commander bar Fletcher in your mind?

And people accused /me/ of fanboyism.

I mean, it wasn't me or anybody else that started talking about whether US commanders deserved their stats or not, in fact I already said they did. So no idea what your point is, really. Ra ra?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I beleive it started with a green smiley.

...by someone who jumped to the USN's defence, yeah.

I mean, what is it with you. You want the USN to be RN + 20 by default or something? Is it really so insulting to suggest that perhaps RN commanders were actually not numpties? Is Victor Crutchley really less aggressive than every US commander bar Fletcher in your mind?

And people accused /me/ of fanboyism.

I mean, it wasn't me or anybody else that started talking about whether US commanders deserved their stats or not, in fact I already said they did. So no idea what your point is, really. Ra ra?

Not to beat a dead horse, but the quote below is yours. I took it as a sideswipe that you said "and lived to tell the tale." Look up how Morton and USS Wahoo died, and perhaps you'll understand this ex-submariner's pique.

"The USS Wahoo sank 15 ships in WW2. But HMS Truant sank 15 ships in WW2 as well (and lived to tell the tale). Mush Morton has naval skill 90, the guy on board Truant has 60. In fact, nobody in the entire RN submarine arm has naval skill 90. Or even 80, for that matter.

That is the point. "

No, I don't want USN to be RN + 20. In a perfect world I'd like the devs to have infinite time and resources for every facet of the game. But the fact is, the USN has ten or twelve superstar sub COs from WWII, and yes, Morton was a 90. After reviewing HMS Truant's record in Wikipedia, I think 60-70 is probably fair in comparison.

Also, Wahoo sank 20 ships, give or take JANAC math.

[Andy Mac]

Guys calm down please.
 
RN/RAN/RNZN ship captains are the same as stock.
 
We added/updated stats for TF and HQ leaders and some large LCU's but it was outside my purview to change RN ship captain stats so it is inevitable they are the same generic values as stock.
 
At some stage last year we took a look at RN sub xp levels and I think 'some' of the late war sub drivers got a modest boost but in general most of the best RN leaders were in the Med or the Atlantic.
 
Captain Walker would have gotten at lease a 90 from me but he was Atlantic, Wanklyn probably the same but he died.
 
Fundamentally the best RN leaders are not in theatre until the end of the war.
 
Admirals like Rawlings and Vian are both good in game as is Somerville and I still believe I may have underplayed Bruce Fraser a little

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Not to beat a dead horse, but the quote below is yours. I took it as a sideswipe that you said "and lived to tell the tale." Look up how Morton and USS Wahoo died, and perhaps you'll understand this ex-submariner's pique.

OK.

Well, it wasn't intended as a sideswipe, so if you took any offence, I'm sorry. It only was intended to compare performance. Wahoo is the benchmark of just what excellence in Allied submarines means - hence why Mush has skill 90 no doubt, he was the acknowledged top man.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: cantona2

How many divisions did the British field in Europe and Africa? I didnt know there were so many!

edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Br ... rld_War_II

Just found this link. I would assume a lot of the division in the UK were of low quality TA and HG soldiers. The regulars would have been sent overseas.

ORIGINAL: Frank
ähmmmmm, MANY??????? about 80. Many of them have never seen any combat.

Germany had 40 Wehrmacht Pz Divisons alone! Additonally about 200 infantry divisions, 11 mountain divisions, etc. Add the SS- formations, then you´ll see many divisions. Not to speak of the Soviets btw. [;)]

The UK was a naval power, Germany and the USSR were both continental powers. The royal navy was the premiere service in the UK and they got the bulk of manpower. The British Army has never been huge and was structured to be primarily a colonial defense and policing army in 1939. Historically the British Army has been a colonial army and an expeditionary army, operating near the coast where the RN could support them. They were never going to be capable of going toe to toe with the Wehrmacht without help.

Bill

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Truant is the first British sub you get

Doesn't anyone else find this ironic? [:)]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

But I get touchy when Brits claim their subs did anything CLOSE to what USN subs did in the PTO. Our subs, as Nimitz said, essentially beat Japan. They took the highest percentage casualties of any part of the USN. They dealt with long ranges, lack of advanced bases, crap weapons, old designs, short-sighted tactics, and diversion of resources to naval air. They produced seven Medal of Honor winners. They sank the Japanese merchant marine (and several fleet carriers.)

Of course they didn't, the RN was busy elsewhere. In the freezing waters of the North Sea. Or the shallow and confined spaces of the Med. Or the Baltic. The RN scores were lower because most of their opponents didn't have the large merchant marines that Japan (or the Allies) did. No-one has even said anything close to knocking Japan out of the war.

They dealt with short range boats, less advanced targetting equipment, short ranges and a lack of major targets. They had a simialr impact in the Med though, where enemy airpower was almost everywhere and poor training didn't help. Minefields were a common problem and accounted for more than 25% of losses. They sank 39 u-boats as well. The RN subs weren't exactly flush with advanced bases either, Malta is the only one that really springs to mind.

No-one is trying to deny the impact the USN subs had, the main point is that when they were faced with the chances the RN subs were more than willing (and capable) of taking them. By the time the RN could spare the subs the Jpanese merchant fleet was in tatters already. There were a few major successes though, hitting a moving target with 5 toprepdoes from 4,000 yards after dodging a destroyer attack isn't easy.

The RN took 81 submarine losses during the war, most in the shallow confined waters of the Med in a protracted campaign. Not just individual patrols into and then out of there.

There are more important things to get touchy about. Someone says that RN sub skippers should have a higher rating because Mush Morton went into the Inland Sea whilst they were doing comparable things? No need to get upset...

Some of the RN boats lasted through 5 years of front line action (HMS Porpoise), others lasted a few short months. But the one thing that they all have in common... None of them sound slightly rude (USS Growler and USS Snapper) [:D]

Well and true, Dixie, but what about the PTO RN subs that were deployed prior to the tattering of the IJN? Granted, not many, but are their ratings thoroughly unjustified as specific examples? Or are you using the exploits in other theaters to extrapolate how they actually did IRL in the PTO.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Well and true, Dixie, but what about the PTO RN subs that were deployed prior to the tattering of the IJN? Granted, not many, but are their ratings thoroughly unjustified as specific examples? Or are you using the exploits in other theaters to extrapolate how they actually did IRL in the PTO.

Well, the RN captains are boring and uniform, I didn't notice that Truant at least is actually one of the more competent (in terms of crew experience) Allied submarines on the map actually at the start of the game.

So I was probably being a little overly harsh as I was only looking at the leader screen.

It would be nice if the Commonwealth commanders had a bit of TLC though.

[mariandavid]

Dragging the debate back to the original post: Had the game started in 1939 the Indian Army would have been rated as high (or higher being all long-service regular and volunteer) as any armed force in the world. Equipment would be a different story. Between 1939 and 1941 the following happened to drop the rating;
 
- the very best Indian units went west - the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 10th Divisions and the only trained and equipped mobile units. The 4th (not the Australians) was the infantry division that defeated the Italians in late 1940. It stayed in Europe as did the others except for the 5th - presumably it returns as a very good unit (havn't played that far myself).
 
- the ones that stayed were then progressively diluted of their regular cadre as the Indian Army tripled in size. Units of this type were the ones that fought in Malaya and in Burma. At the same time (as Andy said) the armoured units faced conversion from horses and a total lack of equipment - most operated with trucks and makeshift armoured cars until the first tanks (and then only Stuarts and Grants) appeared in late 1942. Note that the ones that had been mechanised for some time had gone west
 
- the 'independence movement' had very little (if any) impact on the army. People forget that the groups that enlisted (very often traditional military castes) had little interest in and less support for the movement. The major impact was that many infantry units had to be diverted from the front to the cities - especially British units (the British did not trust Sikh/Punjabi/Jat etc battalions to 'behave' when threatened by Bengali rioters!). Often forgotten but with even greater impact was the great famine that affected eastern and southern India - troops of all kinds were diverted to emergency transport of grain etc from abroad and from the west of India to the affected areas. All these together gravely affected training.
 
- finally there was a serious morale problem among the dozen or so infantry brigades that had been involved in the debacle that was the First Arakan Campaign. It took Slim, Auchinleck, Savory and a precise training system to turn the Indian Army in the east into the very effective force it became in 1944.

[JeffroK]

Dragging the debate back to the original post: Had the game started in 1939 the Indian Army would have been rated as high (or higher being all long-service regular and volunteer) as any armed force in the world. Equipment would be a different story. Between 1939 and 1941 the following happened to drop the rating;

- the very best Indian units went west - the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 10th Divisions and the only trained and equipped mobile units. The 4th (not the Australians) was the infantry division that defeated the Italians in late 1940.  [:D] 4th Indian  attacked and defeated the Italian Army at Sidi Barrani, it was then moved south to Eritrea where in conjunction with the 5th Indian fought at Keren & cleared Eritrea & Northern Ethiopia. The 6th Australian took up the attack in conjunction with the 7th Armoured Div and cleared the Italians from Bardia, Tobruk, Derna & Bengazhi.  4th Indian returned in time for Battleaxe & Crusader, went to Syria in partnership with 7th Australian, returned for Alamein and the push to Tripoli and Tunis and fought in Italy (at Cassino) and ended the war in Greece. 5th Indian fought in Eritrea, garrisoned Cyprus, suffered from Rommel at Gazala, and at Ruweisat Ridge. it then went to Iraq before finally moving to India & Burma. ( http://ourstory.info/library/4-ww2/Ball ... ml#TC  )It stayed in Europe as did the others except for the 5th - presumably it returns as a very good unit (havn't played that far myself).

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: cantona2

How many divisions did the British field in Europe and Africa? I didnt know there were so many!

edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Br ... rld_War_II

Just found this link. I would assume a lot of the division in the UK were of low quality TA and HG soldiers. The regulars would have been sent overseas.

ORIGINAL: Frank
ähmmmmm, MANY??????? about 80. Many of them have never seen any combat.

Germany had 40 Wehrmacht Pz Divisons alone! Additonally about 200 infantry divisions, 11 mountain divisions, etc. Add the SS- formations, then you´ll see many divisions. Not to speak of the Soviets btw. [;)]

The UK was a naval power, Germany and the USSR were both continental powers. The royal navy was the premiere service in the UK and they got the bulk of manpower. The British Army has never been huge and was structured to be primarily a colonial defense and policing army in 1939. Historically the British Army has been a colonial army and an expeditionary army, operating near the coast where the RN could support them. They were never going to be capable of going toe to toe with the Wehrmacht without help.

Bill

I really don´t want to highjack this thread, but do you really think German U-Boats had no crew, German fighter planes and bombers had no crew?

Everything you say ist absolutely true, but that doesn´t make 80 Divisions many , for a country which ruled 2/3rds of the world in these times.

[mariandavid]

JeffK: I was stating the perception of the time. As far as Wavell and O'Connor were concerned the Italian Army had been wrecked beyond repair at Sidi Barrani - what was left was clearing up. So the experienced 4th Indian was sent to fight the intact Italians in Eritrea and the inexperienced and untested Australian 6th used to mop up the remnants in Bardia and Tobruk. Remember this is not disparagement - it is what the contemporary judgement was and they presumably knew best.
 
Frank: I would estimate the British at over 100 divisions, adding in the Canadians, Australians, Indians, Africans and dozens of independent brigades. Comparison between services is tricky and deadly - an infantry division needed about 40,000 men to fight and support - a battleship about 1,000 plus (and this is a guess) about another 5,000 shore support. But the real consumers of manpower were the merchant navies and the small ships - a single escort group in the Atlantic required as many men (and more specialists) than a battleship - and there were a lot more of them!

[Caractacus]

OK, first of all I wish the juvenile 'my sub's better than your sub' guys would bugger off and start their own thread. Especially the SS fanboy and his German friend. Why? Because there's a lot of good and rare stuff in here about the Indian Army, and some obviously knowledgable guys. Diamonds among the rough indeed.

Secondly, my reading also suggests that the 4th Indian was the jewel of the Desert Army in 1940. No question, sorry Aussies.

Furthermore, Keren was one of the the toughest campaigns that any Allied force sucessfully completed during the war. It was the campaign that broke the Italian army's elite units in ideal defensive terrain. The Italians fought ferociously, and the Indians/Commonwealth acheived their objectives in a moonscape.

Once units like the Savoia Grenadiers had been defeated, it's no suprise that Italian morale was undermined. Furthermore, Keren permenantly opened the Red Sea, without which the Mediterranean theatre was a total non-starter for the Allies. Axis occupation of the oilfields would have been almost certain.

So, well played the 4th. However, after my slightly lame eulogy, I'm still very intrigued as to how units like the 4th compared to the Indian army in general. I'm also looking for a general approximation of the number of British troops in each Indian division, and how the whole recipe works out for WITP:AE.

Grateful for any responses on that [:)]

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Caractacus
OK, first of all I wish the juvenile 'my sub's better than your sub' guys would bugger off and start their own thread. Especially the SS fanboy and his German friend.

I have to say, I'm getting really frickin' irritated with the incessant straw men here, not to mention the overly sensitive. The OP was about British leadership and ratings, including in the RN. The 2nd post here, from me, was also about British leadership and their ratings. Sub fanboy? Maybe you should actually like, read.

Grateful for any responses on that [:)]

Enjoy it. [8|]

[Caractacus]

Actually Mr Banana - I thought that you were inevitably dogpiled by the usual types, and sympathised with what you posted. It was a bit naive though!

[edit - I've just realised, much later, - I meant SS as in Nazis, not SS for submarines! - P Hausser was head of the Waffen SS!].

[Andy Mac]

The Indian Army units on map on start in general have a 1 Brit bn to 2 Indian Bn mix but it does differ from a unit by unit basis depending on the Bns avaialble as British Bns were in short supply.

In general British Bns in India are better trained and equipped than Indian Bns because the best Indian Bns are already overseas.

Take 46th Indian Bde

It has 7/10th Bqaluch, 3/17th Ghurka and 5/17th Dogras so it has 3 Indian Bns with no British Bns under command

48th Gurkha Bde is another example as it has 1/3rd Queen Alexandra's Gurkhas, 2/5th Royal Gurkha Rifles 1/4th POW Own Gurkha Rilfes

So these are all Indian Bdes so even at start the shortage of British Bns is causing more and more pure Indian formations.

e.g. steadily through the war Indian Division become more Indian as british Bns waste away.

So take 25th Indian Div as an example it starts with a TOE of 3 Brit and 6 Indian Bns (standard Indian Army template)
Its first TOE upgrade turns it into an 8 Indian or Gurkha to 2 British Bn Div
Its second upgrade changes it agian to 9 and 1

So at the end of the war the Div has only 1 British Bn

20th Indian Div starts with no British Bns and ends the war with none as well.

So the Indian/British Army proportions were breaking down even before the great expansion of the army