Japan infantry squad organization

[Brady]

I vetted the above info with Taki who confirmed the Typical Japanese IJA Squad consisted of:

15 men, 14 rifels and one LMG and typicaly one Knee mortar (the later also carried a rifle).

Rated at 5 anti armor and 20 (or 22) Soft.

Now it is my understanding that the following is or was Typical:

British & Commonwealth Infantry Squad (Section) - 10 men: Section leader (Sten SMG), Assistant Section Leader (rifle), 6 riflemen (rifle), Bren Number 1 (Bren LMG), Bren Number 2 (rifle).

Rated at 15 anti armor 19 soft for the early war varient.



US Army Infantry Squad - 12 men: Squad leader (Thompson submachine gun 'SMG', M1 carbine, or M1 Garand rifle), 10 rifleman (M1 Garand rifle), 1 automatic rifleman (BAR). ( Some Early war US Units still fieled the Springfield)

Rated at 15 anti armor 23 Soft for the early war varient ( I beleave this is the springfied rifle type) As the 42 Type goes up to 35 and 30 respectively. ( presumably this is the M1 Garand)


...................

What I dont get is:

1) Whats imbuing the higher Anti armor values in the Allied squads.

2) Why with almost 50% more men and a LMG and a mortar are the Japanese more or less equilevent to the allied squads with bolt action rifels?

[Fallschirmjager]

I think TOAW handled this well. Rifle squads from WW1 are not necessarily more powerful that AT+ rifle squads at the beginning of the 20th century as far as their anti soft values.

The reasoning for this was that rifle squads across all armies got progressively more powerful and thus balanced one another out.
I think AE is the same way. While a Japanese rifle squad in 44-45 may have a lot more firepower, so does every Allied rifle squad that they face.

[Brady]

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

I think TOAW handled this well. Rifle squads from WW1 are not necessarily more powerful that AT+ rifle squads at the beginning of the 20th century as far as their anti soft values.

The reasoning for this was that rifle squads across all armies got progressively more powerful and thus balanced one another out.
I think AE is the same way. While a Japanese rifle squad in 44-45 may have a lot more firepower, so does every Allied rifle squad that they face.

I edited my post above to show the relative values for teh basic squads in game so they could be compared.

Also note their is no late war IJN or SNLF squad types they stay the same throught the war they dont get stronger from what I can see. (SNLF squads are about the same as IJA squads in game 5 and 20)

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Brady

US Army Infantry Squad - 12 men: Squad leader (Thompson submachine gun 'SMG', M1 carbine, or M1 Garand rifle), 10 rifleman (M1 Garand rifle), 1 automatic rifleman (BAR). ( Some Early war US Units still fielded the Springfield) The Marines went ashore on Guadalcanal carrying the '03, but all US Army units deploying overseas carried the Garand.

Rated at 15 anti armor 23 Soft for the early war varient ( I beleave this is the springfied rifle type) As the 42 Type goes up to 35 and 30 respectively. ( presumably this is the M1 Garand)


...................

What I dont get is:

1) What's imbuing the higher Anti-armor values in the Allied squads. I'm guessing the ubiquitous presence of PIAT's and Bazooka's. The Japs really didn't deploy anything comparable.

2) Why with almost 50% more men and a LMG and a mortar are the Japanese more or less equilevent to the allied squads with bolt action rifles?

[CV2]

Among other things in my days in the army, I was basically infantry. And in the infantry we had a saying: "the squad is nothing more than flank security and replacements for the MG crew". 1 MG is 66% of a MODERN infantry squads firepower (and the MG Im talking about is the M-60, which is basically an MG42). Artillery was by far the leading cause of casualties in WWII.

And as for why Japanese squads have the same firepower as allied is simple. Allied units had an MG or 2 attached to the squad from higher up that wasnt part of the TO&E. The weapons platoon was almost always without exception broken up and attached to other platoons. Tank platoons were often attached to companies from battalion. AA batteries and artillery batteries were often attached to a regiment from division. Ect. Ect. Ect.

[Brady]

ORIGINAL: CV2

Among other things in my days in the army, I was basically infantry. And in the infantry we had a saying: "the squad is nothing more than flank security and replacements for the MG crew". 1 MG is 66% of a MODERN infantry squads firepower (and the MG Im talking about is the M-60, which is basically an MG42). Artillery was by far the leading cause of casualties in WWII.

And as for why Japanese squads have the same firepower as allied is simple. Allied units had an MG or 2 attached to the squad from higher up that wasnt part of the TO&E. The weapons platoon was almost always without exception broken up and attached to other platoons. Tank platoons were often attached to companies from battalion. AA batteries and artillery batteries were often attached to a regiment from division. Ect. Ect. Ect.

The weapons platoon is represented in the TOE as such, the MG squads for all nations,other than the squad afik. Each Japanese Rifle Company had a weapons platoon as well. The Link above shows this.

From the Link above:

Infantry rifle company ("A" type with heavy weapons platoon). (1) General. The company consists of a company commander, usually a captain, a company headquarters, 3 rifle platoons, a heavy weapons platoon, and an ammunition platoon. Total strength is 262

(b) Heavy weapons platoon. 46 officers and men.

Platoon commander 1
Liaison noncommissioned officer 1
2 heavy machine gun sections (noncommissioned officer and 10 men) (2 7.7-mm heavy machine guns) 22
2 antitank rifle sections (noncommissioned officer and 10 men) (2 20-mm antitank rifles) 22


(c) Ammunition platoon. Eleven men.

(4) Equipment. There are in the company 150 rifles, 9 light machine guns, 12 grenade dischargers, 2 heavy machine guns, two 20-mm antitank rifles.

[Brady]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Brady

US Army Infantry Squad - 12 men: Squad leader (Thompson submachine gun 'SMG', M1 carbine, or M1 Garand rifle), 10 rifleman (M1 Garand rifle), 1 automatic rifleman (BAR). ( Some Early war US Units still fielded the Springfield) The Marines went ashore on Guadalcanal carrying the '03, but all US Army units deploying overseas carried the Garand.

Rated at 15 anti armor 23 Soft for the early war varient ( I beleave this is the springfied rifle type) As the 42 Type goes up to 35 and 30 respectively. ( presumably this is the M1 Garand)


...................

What I dont get is:

1) What's imbuing the higher Anti-armor values in the Allied squads. I'm guessing the ubiquitous presence of PIAT's and Bazooka's. The Japs really didn't deploy anything comparable.

2) Why with almost 50% more men and a LMG and a mortar are the Japanese more or less equilevent to the allied squads with bolt action rifles?

Springfield- Right, all I am saying is that the lower value US rifle squad type is I Beleave intended to represent the type equiped with the springfield, also not all US troops deployed to the pacific were equiped with the garand, but most were certainly espichaly later on.

Bazoka/Piat- Yes of course that why we see their anti armor values skyrocket later in the war, but I am again refering to the early war squad types that would not have a bazoka or Piat present, as they were not in service yet.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Brady
The weapons platoon is represented in the TOE as such, the MG squads for all nations,other than the squad afik.

Hi Brady. Sort of, but not exactly. A noun is only the name of a thing, it is not the thing itself. So a “squad” is a squad but is factored.

So far as MGs go, all LMGs are supposed to be incorporated into squads, and only “MMGs” and “HMGs” are separated out into Sections (of 2 guns). However there were some actual separate LMG units (i.e., the Brit carrier platoons) that compelled definition of Bren Sections that model these. Otherwise, ALL LMGs are supposed to go into squads. So the M1919s of weapons platoon get folded into the squad, as do the 60mm mortars, and as do the Bren team and the 2” mortars of the Brit HQ company echelon – men and firepower proportionally distributed.

In the AE world, the Japanese T-92 isn’t a HMG, it is a MMG. The MMG is a .30 cal with a sustained rate of fire: represented by the water cooled, belt fed, Vickers and M1917. The T-92 was strip fed, aircooled, but had a decent mount, so frankly I gave it a gift and made it a MMG – a mag-fed MMG, and a teensy skoosh more effective than a belt-fed LMG but a MMG nevertheless.

In the AE world, at least the way I originally set it up, only MMGs and HMGs (.50 cal things like M2HBs and 13.2s) get collected into MG Sections (squads), with the exception, of course, of the separate Bren units (Brits always have to be different).

So squads … The US squad gets a proportion of the men and the firepower of the 2 M1919s and the 3 60mm mortar teams from weapons platoon. The Japanese don’t, because their weapons platoon T-92s are affirmatively included as separate MMG Sections. Proportionality is everything – a place for everything, and everything in its place. Everything is included, in one way or another. And don’t forget you have to account for the Support Squads, so that’s where the ammo platoon, the gun humpers, etc.. get accounted for.

Basically, it’s a three way solution. Getting the TOTAL number of men right, in a unit, for transport purposes, and then getting the RELATIVE number of squads right for AV purposes and then getting the RELATIVE firepower values per squad right. And so we end up with everybody’s divisions having the troop count they actually did, and differentially load onto transports like the actually did, and Japanese units have about 20% higher AV than an equivalent Allied unit, as they actually did, and Allied units have anywhere from –5% to 50% more firepower than an equivalent Japanese unit, as they actually did.

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Brady
The weapons platoon is represented in the TOE as such, the MG squads for all nations,other than the squad afik.

Hi Brady. Sort of, but not exactly. A noun is only the name of a thing, it is not the thing itself. So a “squad” is a squad but is factored.

So far as MGs go, all LMGs are supposed to be incorporated into squads, and only “MMGs” and “HMGs” are separated out into Sections (of 2 guns). However there were some actual separate LMG units (i.e., the Brit carrier platoons) that compelled definition of Bren Sections that model these. Otherwise, ALL LMGs are supposed to go into squads. So the M1919s of weapons platoon get folded into the squad, as do the 60mm mortars, and as do the Bren team and the 2” mortars of the Brit HQ company echelon – men and firepower proportionally distributed.

In the AE world, the Japanese T-92 isn’t a HMG, it is a MMG. The MMG is a .30 cal with a sustained rate of fire: represented by the water cooled, belt fed, Vickers and M1917. The T-92 was strip fed, aircooled, but had a decent mount, so frankly I gave it a gift and made it a MMG – a mag-fed MMG, and a teensy skoosh more effective than a belt-fed LMG but a MMG nevertheless.

In the AE world, at least the way I originally set it up, only MMGs and HMGs (.50 cal things like M2HBs and 13.2s) get collected into MG Sections (squads), with the exception, of course, of the separate Bren units (Brits always have to be different).

So squads … The US squad gets a proportion of the men and the firepower of the 2 M1919s and the 3 60mm mortar teams from weapons platoon. The Japanese don’t, because their weapons platoon T-92s are affirmatively included as separate MMG Sections. Proportionality is everything – a place for everything, and everything in its place. Everything is included, in one way or another. And don’t forget you have to account for the Support Squads, so that’s where the ammo platoon, the gun humpers, etc.. get accounted for.

Basically, it’s a three way solution. Getting the TOTAL number of men right, in a unit, for transport purposes, and then getting the RELATIVE number of squads right for AV purposes and then getting the RELATIVE firepower values per squad right. And so we end up with everybody’s divisions having the troop count they actually did, and differentially load onto transports like the actually did, and Japanese units have about 20% higher AV than an equivalent Allied unit, as they actually did, and Allied units have anywhere from –5% to 50% more firepower than an equivalent Japanese unit, as they actually did.

As usual thanks for the explanation JWE.

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: herwin
I'm curious about your statement that the M1 didn't have a grenade launcher.

Not really my area, I am guessing it was early war problem with lack of proper equipment, or low initial production.

I was serious about needing professionally trained soldiers to get 20 rpm from a bolt-action rifle. The British could do it in 1914, but nobody else had the time or ammo to train the troops.

Few nights at Bloody Ridge or something similar, and you would probably learn yourself quick firing. Or die.

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Sorry for hijacking the thread here but this brings up a point I have always wondered about. Why was the basic unit of infantry for a strategic game that covers over half the Earth a 10-15 man squad?

If you are using computer for tedious counting, it is always better to have smallest possible units. That would minimise the problem, where attacks do not cause any loses. For example, in large scale boardgames, you constantly get either no loses for both sides, or "flip", and massacre of half of Army/Division.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Yakface

When WITP II comes out I expect each rifleman to be named and have at least as many skill stats as each pilot does currently.

and you'll have to manage their training....

Oh yeah? Wanna additional skills? Just see Commanders statistics. Now check your transport ships, especially TKs, and AOs. They tend to keep real Grognards. In the 60s/70s. Now, micromanage this [:D]

ORIGINAL: Brady
What I dont get is:

1) Whats imbuing the higher Anti armor values in the Allied squads.

Well, for Commonwealth, that would be Boyse AT Rifle, and few types of AT grenades. For US, no Boise, and... M9 is the only AT grenade I found. Overall, nothing, which Japan do not acquire until 1943.

2) Why with almost 50% more men and a LMG and a mortar are the Japanese more or less equilevent to the allied squads with bolt action rifels?

Units are averaged by available support at Battalion (maybe higher) level. Allies generally have some spare LMGs there (PIAT/Bazooka are also at those levels). Still, that leaves Type 97 20mm AT Rifle unaccounted for. If it was, it should be 2 Rifles per Company.


Looks like whole modelling was done using standard H5 S20 W17 IJA squad as basic unit. So I am guessing Allied statistics are roughly right, and better not mess with basics.

It seems that there were two types of IJA squads at war beginning:
(a) Standard, with 1 GD per squad
(b) Strenghtened, with 4/3rd GDs per squad (4 GDs in platoon), and 2/9th 20mm AT Rifle per squad (2 20mm Rifles in Company). That seems to be device 709, as this adds, on average, 2-3 soldiers, but still, Hard Attack is, strangely, unchanged.

What I am trying to conclude are Japan upgrades, and non-standard equipment.

Take for example Type 97 20mm AT Rifle. There was 72 such devices in Type A Division. "Western Allies" did not fought such Division, so it would mean, they mostly stationed in Manchuria, but:
(a) in game, player can buy out Divisions from Manchuria, and Soviets would eventually encounter them, after activation
(b) it is hard to find Island Defence references, where such weapon is NOT mentioned. So that would mean, that Japan units indeed got some form of reorganization

Since IJA squads never upgrade, and 20mm AT Rifle is not present, as a separate device, keeping Hard Attack of 5 for a whole war, for IJA squad is gravely unhistorical.

Also, take a look at Parachute Unit chart. It claims, that 20 person section, is divided into a Rifle Squad (6 soldiers), and AT Squad (7 soldiers).

b. Timor. On Timor Island, in June 1942, parachute troops were employed by the Japanese on two successive days, during sea borne landings, to cut the communication lines of the defending forces. The operation is described as follows: Twenty to 25 troop carriers came in supported by bombers and fighters. The bombers operated in groups of 9, in arrow formation. It was estimated that each carrier contained from 15 to 25 troops, which were dropped in groups of 6 to 8.

Supports those claims (end of page)

Account of Captain Fumio Ohmura, the commander of the Heavy Weapon Company of 4th Raiding Regiment on Leyte writes:

The next morning, I deployed the HMG platoon and anti-tank attack unit in the front of the HQ.

So it means, there was an AT unit in Para squad. Keeping their HA statistics at 5 is again, wrong.
Also we can see in the text:

Japanese paratroops landed from a low altitude, estimated to be 300 feet. During descent automatic weapons were fired, and considerable noise was made.

Now, shooting from LMG during descending is virtually impossible, so the ONLY explanation would be, that they in fact were armed with SMGs.

Captain Fumio Ohmura again:

On Dec. 25th, suddenly I heard the sound of gunfires. It was an attack of guerrillas. The HMG platoon which just caught up with us, fired to the enemy. Paratroopers armed with a sub-machine gun dushed towards the enemy in the jungle and killed some guerrillas.

Support further this claim.
If we take chart, as a foundation, I would say Para squad was organized like this:
7 soldiers in HQ Section. 1 LMG, 1 GD, 6 Rifles
6 Soldiers in Assault (Rifle) Section. 6 SMGs
7 soldiers in AT section. 1 Type 97 20mm AT Rifle, 6 Rifles, probably some AT devices

[Kereguelen]

(1) The Western Allies did not encounter Japanese A-Type divisions because the IJA did not form any A-Type divisions. However, they did form reinforced B-Type (B-Type = standard organization) which were encountered by the Allies (for example, 2nd Division, encountered at Guadalcanal was such a division).

Allied wartime intelligence (and the 'Japanese Army Handbook' is based on US wartime sources) was neither precise nor (in many cases) correct when it came to the IJA.

(2) Captain Ohmura (in your link) is referring to his 37mm Anti-tank Guns and not to anti-tank rifles.

[Brady]

AT-

Japan did have an AT Magnatic mine in service in 1939 and other weapons for AT use as the war went on Lunge mines and thrond shaped charge weapons, including some chemical weapons used on tanks in Burma.

Also as mentioned above they did have the Type 97 20mm AT rifle in the weapons platoon of the Type A Rifle Company.

So this is why I am woundering why the Japanese are at a 5 and the US is at a 15 when for the life of me I cant see what the US had the Japanese did not have, when in fact it looks like the Japanese were actualy beter equiped than the US was out of the gate.

Now when I look again at TME 30-480 it shows the presence of the 20mm At rifles at various levals withen the batalion, and these are not showing up in the TOE? If thats so then they must (should) be considered part of the squads?

............................................................

Kereguelen- I asked Taki about the squad size as I was not of the openion that the info in TM-E 30-480 was reliable, he did confirm the squad size at 15 men including a LMG and a Knee mortar to be standard.

...................

MMG- The Japanese haeveys the Type 92 were strip fed, the strips ataching on to the end of the one loaded, so one never nead stop and reload, just add on another strip... Interestingly when one looks at ROF's of the various weapons they are farily similar across the board, US weapons not be noted for high rates of fire were not realy that much better than their Japanese counterparts.

I agree howeaver that in game terms the term HMG should not aply to 7mm'ish weapons howeaver.

.....................

I gues I still dont see how the Japanese Company with 9 LMG and 12 Kneee mortars.

Thats one LMG per squad and more than one Knee mortar per squad, with around 15 men in the squad+ the men for the LMG and Knee mortar. (so it could be pused to over 15 men, 18-20)

Is rated as comperable to The early war US squad in firpower when the rifle company has ony 3 mortars and two extra LMG's. Each Squad has a BAR of course but still, the Japanese have 4 times as many mortars, more men and their brandishing real LMG's not BAR's.

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

(1) The Western Allies did not encounter Japanese A-Type divisions because the IJA did not form any A-Type divisions. However, they did form reinforced B-Type (B-Type = standard organization) which were encountered by the Allies (for example, 2nd Division, encountered at Guadalcanal was such a division).

Is it this one? It still have AT Rifles. Even more.

Allied wartime intelligence (and the 'Japanese Army Handbook' is based on US wartime sources) was neither precise nor (in many cases) correct when it came to the IJA.

They, for example forgot to mention about SMGs, and AT grenades [8D]

(2) Captain Ohmura (in your link) is referring to his 37mm Anti-tank Guns and not to anti-tank rifles.

Why do you think so? There is no mention about any gun. Especially in their planes.

ORIGINAL: Brady

AT-

Japan did have an AT Magnatic mine in service in 1939 and other weapons for AT use as the war went on Lunge mines and thrond shaped charge weapons, including some chemical weapons used on tanks in Burma.

Also as mentioned above they did have the Type 97 20mm AT rifle in the weapons platoon of the Type A Rifle Company.

So this is why I am woundering why the Japanese are at a 5 and the US is at a 15 when for the life of me I cant see what the US had the Japanese did not have, when in fact it looks like the Japanese were actualy beter equiped than the US was out of the gate.

But US could fire their M9 from Rifle Grenade Launcher, while Japan have to get such model from Germany first. And 20mm AT Rifle is not mentioned as standard equipment in normal Divisions, so they could have 5 in most units. But this surely should rise to at least 15 around 1943.

Now when I look again at TME 30-480 it shows the presence of the 20mm At rifles at various levals withen the batalion, and these are not showing up in the TOE? If thats so then they must (should) be considered part of the squads?

It seems to be present only in strenghtened Divisions, and in Scout Cavalry. But there is no such device in WITPAE, as Light Mortar, Boise AT Rifle, or 20mm AT Rifle. They are (or should be) incorporated into squad statistics.

I gues I still dont see how the Japanese Company with 9 LMG and 12 Kneee mortars.

Thats one LMG per squad and more than one Knee mortar per squad, with around 15 men in the squad+ the men for the LMG and Knee mortar. (so it could be pused to over 15 men, 18-20)

Is rated as comperable to The early war US squad in firpower when the rifle company has ony 3 mortars and two extra LMG's. Each Squad has a BAR of course but still, the Japanese have 4 times as many mortars, more men and their brandishing real LMG's not BAR's.

In most cases that would be 9 LMG, and 9 GDs. Squad already have men for LMG, so it adds only GD crew, of 3. 15 probably already incorporates them (there should be 13 per squad, without GD). This, with 12 GDs is device 709, and have 22 Soft Attack.
In US squad, you have semi-automatic rifles, and Rifle Grenade Launcher.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Brady
AT- Japan did have an AT Magnatic mine in service in 1939 and other weapons for AT use as the war went on Lunge mines and thrond shaped charge weapons, including some chemical weapons used on tanks in Burma.

Also as mentioned above they did have the Type 97 20mm AT rifle in the weapons platoon of the Type A Rifle Company.

So this is why I am woundering why the Japanese are at a 5 and the US is at a 15 when for the life of me I cant see what the US had the Japanese did not have, when in fact it looks like the Japanese were actualy beter equiped than the US was out of the gate.

Now when I look again at TME 30-480 it shows the presence of the 20mm At rifles at various levals withen the batalion, and these are not showing up in the TOE? If thats so then they must (should) be considered part of the squads?

Yes, and that's a fair comment. But looking at the Anti-Armor values v AFV "Armor" values and knowing how the engine works with these, it's pretty irrelevant because, in game terms, everybody gets a shot at it. 1000 squads at 5 will get 1000 shots at it and get a bunch of kills. 1000 squads at 2,774,322 will get 1000 shots at it and get more (maybe even up to 999) but it's math driven, so life happens. Given that it's so irrelevant, we didn't really care, except we did give Japan an anti-armor of 15 in DaBabes just to preclude these sorts of complaints.

Kereguelen- I asked Taki about the squad size as I was not of the openion that the info in TM-E 30-480 was reliable, he did confirm the squad size at 15 men including a LMG and a Knee mortar to be standard.

Yes, but even Taki is not dispositive. Please refer to pm sent to you, this date and info posted on the dev forum regarding this specific issue.

MMG- The Japanese haeveys the Type 92 were strip fed, the strips ataching on to the end of the one loaded, so one never nead stop and reload, just add on another strip... Interestingly when one looks at ROF's of the various weapons they are farily similar across the board, US weapons not be noted for high rates of fire were not realy that much better than their Japanese counterparts.

Rat vomit, pal. An MMG in the AE world is a belt fed, water cooled, MG with a high sustained RoF. Forget that cyclic crap - it's sustained RoF. The T-92 bit the mighty wazoo. We gave it a freakin gift and made it a MMG, when it should have been an LMG in terms of 'effectivity'. The Chinese, who used it in Korea, thought it was 'totally worthless' and made concerted efforts to rid their front line units of these 'popguns' - their term, not mine. We are giving significant gifts to the Japanese with this stuff, so maybe it's time to back off the technicalities, unless you really want the technicalities, in which case you will not be pleased at how these guns were actually rated.[/quote]

I agree howeaver that in game terms the term HMG should not aply to 7mm'ish weapons howeaver.

In game terms, the term MMG and HMG, apply to what we wish them to apply to. A MMG is a belt fed, water cooled, maching gun with a very high sustained rate of fire. A HMG is any machine gun with a round caliber in the neighborhood of .5". That is what we wish in terms of the game. It matters not what other's wish. What matters is what the game does.[/quote]

I gues I still dont see how the Japanese Company with 9 LMG and 12 Kneee mortars.
Thats one LMG per squad and more than one Knee mortar per squad, with around 15 men in the squad+ the men for the LMG and Knee mortar. (so it could be pused to over 15 men, 18-20)
Is rated as comperable to The early war US squad in firpower when the rifle company has ony 3 mortars and two extra LMG's. Each Squad has a BAR of course but still, the Japanese have 4 times as many mortars, more men and their brandishing real LMG's not BAR's.

Posted the how-to stuff on the dev forum. Think you will see just exactly how it was done.

[Brady]

 
Captain Ohmura - Taki's book Japanese paratroop Forces in WW2 notes that the TOE of the 44 includes 4 3.7cm AT guns /  8cm mortars.
 
In 42 they included either a 3.7cm AT gun or a 2cm AT gun or a 3.7cm infentry gun
 
Also listed is an Enginer company with demo chages and flamethrowers. (page 10)
 
 
...............
 
At- Still the Japanese had the ATM and from what I can tell from the Handbook their were AT rifels present up the chain from the company leval in the non strenghend divishions, Also my starting point is the springfield aremd US forces did they have a AT grenade?
 
 Though as mentioned above the Japanese did get more and more squad leval AT weaponary as the war goes on but their AT value remains the same throught the war.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[JWE]

yeah, well I just got a Springer Spaniel to foster from ESRA, and that's about a hundred thousand times more important than any weenie squad horse maunre that some some little winkie comes up with.

So I'll leave ya'll with this. It works within the game context. It ain't never gonna change in stock. So ya'll can natter about ya'lls mods all you want. I might look back in, in March after I get Delia to keep from peeing on my feet while she licks my face. Till then, have a wonderful day.

Ciao.

[Big B]

Not going to weigh in on any side in this thread, but has anyone looked here: http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Jap ... e_army.htm
    for info?

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: Brady
 
Captain Ohmura - Taki's book Japanese paratroop Forces in WW2 notes that the TOE of the 44 includes 4 3.7cm AT guns /  8cm mortars.

Oh yeah, Para mortars, I am gonna mention them later [:)]
Yes, in overall TOE, but here we read about some last drop:
35 men from the commanding section, HMG platoon and five regimental HQ staff
And later:
One squad of 3rd Company and one infantry mortar squad joined us.

So, it is mentioning of mortars, but no AT guns.

Later:
The next morning, I deployed the HMG platoon and anti-tank attack unit in the front of the HQ.

Now, it could be error in translation, but used phrase is HMG platoon, but no AT platoon, or AT gun, but very strange anti-tank attack unit. Unit? Anti-tank ATTACK?

Hey, if you DO have a book, check what it says about SMGs, and AT Rifles. Maybe there is even organization of Para squad? They seems large (20 soldiers).

At- Still the Japanese had the ATM and from what I can tell from the Handbook their were AT rifels present up the chain from the company leval in the non strenghend divishions,

Well, in that case we have serious problem. What did they say about SNLF? Does they also have AT Rifle in TOE? I actually accidentally found reference of Tankbuks M.38. Does Dutch troops have 15 HA?

Also my starting point is the springfield aremd US forces did they have a AT grenade?

No idea [:)]
It seems to be produced from 1940, so probably there was enough to equip. Still it was badly designed, and new version showed in 1942, so US should probably be weaker in AT, like maybe 10?
I am actually wondering, what was the REAL AT equipment of units in PTO at war beginning? Was not everything thrown against Germany then?

ORIGINAL: Big B

Not going to weigh in on any side in this thread, but has anyone looked here: http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Jap ... e_army.htm
for info?

Oh yeah, Island Warfare Division. Well, that complicate matters. Squads are kinda small, and there are extra mortar unit, so only way to incorporate this is upgrade of TOE of some Divisions. Still, clear proof, that AT Rifles were used later.



SNLF, another curiosity:

5. As a result of early Japanese successes in the present war, various United States, Dutch, and British weapons are found in use by the Japanese. In one or two cases the Japanese have copied captured weapons exactly. In others, they have manufactured ammunition to use in the captured artillery.

Same document, but better divided:

(2) Submachine guns. No submachine gun of Japanese manufacture, comparable to the Thompson, M3 or Reising has been found, although several German Solothurn 7.63-mm (.30 cal.) and 9-mm (.35 cal.) SMGs and Schmeisser MP 28II, SMGs have been recovered.

Clearly, since SNLF unit used SMGs earlier in China, they should also use those weapons later in PTO.

Now, SNLF squad is supposed to be similar to IJA squad.
Chart of Yokosuka 7th Special Landing Force (As Original Organized) seems to roughly support that:
There is ONE Rifle Company, with 189 men, 6 LMGs, 4 HMGs, and 9 GDs. Now, 9 GDs suggest, that there are 3 platoons, but only 6 LMGs would result in 2-squads per platoon. Maybe HMG platoon also have GD squad? Or maybe, there are actually only 2 platoons, with 3 Rifle squads, and number of GDs is actually 8, which gives 2*4=exactly what is needed for Strenghtened Company.

Now, take a look at Yokosuka 7th Special Landing Force (As Reinforced):
Things get complicated.
There is Second Company added. 258 men, 18 LMGs, 8 HMGs, 33 GDs. Accompany text says:

As first organized, the Yokosuka 7th was deficient in infantry troops and infantry weapons for defense, but later it was reinforced by a second rifle company. This new company consisted of 3 rifle platoons of 1 officer and 48 enlisted men each (3 light-machine-gun squads and 1 grenade-discharger squad), and a heavy-machine-gun platoon of 1 officer, 58 enlisted men, and 8 heavy machine guns.

When we remove 59 men from HMG platoon, we will remain with 199 men. 199/18=no way it would fit 13 people per squad, and that not even counting GD crews. Text says, there was 3 platoons with 3 Rifle squads, but there is 18 LMGs, not 9, the only explanation is that SNLF were reorganized into 2 LMGs per squad! But as text says, there should be 3 GD squads (there are 3 platoons), that will give us 33/3=11 GDs per squad. How to fit that?


Another oddity:

Take a look at chart (Maizuru No. 2 Special Landing Force: Organization as of 19 November 1941, so organization BEFORE war):

Number of soldiers is comparable to Infantry Battalion (1069), yet there are only 2 Companies (there are 4 in infantry), each of 4 platoons (3 in infantry), and HMG platoon (only in infantry of Strenghtened Division). What is more interesting there are 55 LMGs as equipment, but there should be (3 squads*4 platoons=12 per infantry company) 24 in similar infantry organization. Number of "knee mortars" should be (3 per platoon*4 platoons in company=12) 24, but here is 33. So, more than twice number of LMGs, and 50% more light mortars. That would suggest either smaller squads, or at least 2 LMG per squad, and more mortars in platoon (4 per platoon, as in Strenghtened Divisions, gives 2 Companies*4 platoons*4 GDs per squad=32, fits almost perfectly).

Conclusion:
SNLF Squads had 2 LMGs, and more than 1 GD per squad. There are even 7 unallocated LMGs in Maizuru No. 2, which is supposed to be standard pre-war organization:

Other special naval landing forces probably started with an organization similar to that of the Maizuru 2nd

I see, that in game there are sometimes 7 extra 7mm AA MGs, so that would fit those extra 7, still, SNLF squads have the same statistics, as normal IJA squad, despite being strenghtened (or even more GDs), and equipped with 2, not 1 LMG.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

(1) The Western Allies did not encounter Japanese A-Type divisions because the IJA did not form any A-Type divisions. However, they did form reinforced B-Type (B-Type = standard organization) which were encountered by the Allies (for example, 2nd Division, encountered at Guadalcanal was such a division).

Allied wartime intelligence (and the 'Japanese Army Handbook' is based on US wartime sources) was neither precise nor (in many cases) correct when it came to the IJA.

(2) Captain Ohmura (in your link) is referring to his 37mm Anti-tank Guns and not to anti-tank rifles.

One thing to remember about Guadalcanal is that the army units the Allies faced were not completely outfitted units with regular ammo allotments. Priority was given to shipping men and there was little room for heavy weapons much less arty....given that the soldiers were required to slog miles through nearly impenetrable jungle first. Recall the axim of some soliders having to lug a single light shell on their back and overall very limited supply.

Just a point of thought given that Lunga is often used as a measuring stick in the firepower game.

as for JWE's comments....all i can say is....abaduh! ( [:D] )

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: Brady

 
At- Still the Japanese had the ATM and from what I can tell from the Handbook their were AT rifels present up the chain from the company leval in the non strenghend divishions, Also my starting point is the springfield aremd US forces did they have a AT grenade?

Brady,

Yes, US forces did have anti-tank rifle grenades available for the M1903 rifle at the start of the war (details below). I don't know how widely they were distributed, tho.


Grenade, Rifle, Antitank, M9 introduced in 1941, this type of Rifle Grenade consisted of an explosive charge packed in a sheet metal body, with rounded ogive, stabilizer tube and fin assembly . The warhead contained a ¼ lb shaped TNT charge and an impact detonating fuze, while the stabilizer held a blank cartridge used to propel the grenade . This grenade will normally detonate upon impact with a hard resistant body or surface . Range is about 75 yards, armor penetration almost 2 inches . Used with M1 (Rifle M1903A1) and M2 Grenade Launchers (Rifle M1917) . A special cartridge, i.e. Cartridge, Rifle Grenade, M3 must be used for projecting this grenade . Basic color; yellow with black markings, replaced by olive drab color + yellow markings in 1942 . M9 and M9A1 Antitank Rifle Grenades are packed in kits of 10 grenades, a launcher for either rifle version, sights and a recoil boot, a special cartridge is packed with each grenade in a cellophane wrapper (inserted in grenade tube) .

Grenade, Rifle, Antitank, M9A1 : improved type of Rifle Grenade introduced in 1942, this model became the std. Antitank Rifle Grenade throughout WWII . It was lighter, had a better aerodynamic shape, its fuze and detonator were relocated, while armor penetration was increased to 4 inches . The fuze is more sensitive and will function upon impact with soft earth ! Range was now 250 yards . At first, color was yellow with black markings, later replaced by olive drab + yellow markings . Used with M1 (Rifle M1903A1-M1903A3) M7 (Rifle M1) and M8 Launchers (Carbine M1) . Although primarily intended for use against armored vehicles, also most effective against enemy personnel and pillboxes .

NB: Some sources say the M9A1 wasn't fielded until 1943.