Japan infantry squad organization

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Well, every point of Soft Attack, will increase Allied loses by 2-4%, so it will slower overall game tempo, which is too fast currently.
Just remember, that most of IJA forces, start war without AT Rifles. I also think, that Hard Attack should be at least 20, for 1943 upgrade, but Commonwealth had more toys, than Japan in 1941, so if Japan gets 15, Commonwealth should get even more, and they have like SIX nations! It would be simpler to lower initial US statistics, and give Japan something in the middle.

The LCU combat engine is highly unrealistic in its outputs--especially in armoured warfare--so why do you harp on the need for detailed realism in its inputs?

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: herwin
The LCU combat engine is highly unrealistic in its outputs--especially in armoured warfare--so why do you harp on the need for detailed realism in its inputs?

Considering US doctrine, and terrain, tanks could be used, in most instances, only as mobile artillery. Now, if Japan would invade Australia, it could be different, but there is probably not enough clear terrain on map, to make separate routines.
Also, remember that it is always matter of the scale. On every battle model, you should first check, if overall global situation goes with research (thats why there are wildly weird things incorporated in games, like railtracks conversion in WIR).
And, since I am not going to change algorithms, I am expecting for all sides to be treated equally, in model.

More data:
I firstly considered it curiosity, but it seems "Barrage Mortar" was pretty common device. I do not think it was actually used against aircrafts, but considering psychological effect, it could be pretty useful in getting enemy out of trenches.
Anyway, as I understand this report, there was some modified equipment recovered at Attu (including "Barrage Mortar"), and since blockade of island was in effect since mid-March, that would mean, Japan should get reorganization before that date.

I got a look at some earlier data. I am actually to lazy, to install WITP again, but I believe those statistics are directly from WITP. WITPAE Scenario 1:
Dev...........name......................statistics
258 IJA Cavalry squad........15 21 24 (15 hard attack!)
261 IJA Motorized squad...5 22 17 (stronger by 1 point, from infantry. Same as my version)
264 IJA infantry squad.......5 21 17
268 SNLF squad...................10 27 13 (better Hard Attack, much stronger, than infantry, and much smaller. So it seems in WITP they also used 2 LMGs)
269 SNLF squad 42?...........15 28 13 (and, afer upgrade, also Hard Attack upgrades. It seems to represent AT Rifle Grenade Launcher, after all)

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: inqistor

ORIGINAL: herwin
The LCU combat engine is highly unrealistic in its outputs--especially in armoured warfare--so why do you harp on the need for detailed realism in its inputs?

Considering US doctrine, and terrain, tanks could be used, in most instances, only as mobile artillery. Now, if Japan would invade Australia, it could be different, but there is probably not enough clear terrain on map, to make separate routines.
Also, remember that it is always matter of the scale. On every battle model, you should first check, if overall global situation goes with research (thats why there are wildly weird things incorporated in games, like railtracks conversion in WIR).
And, since I am not going to change algorithms, I am expecting for all sides to be treated equally, in model.

More data:
I firstly considered it curiosity, but it seems "Barrage Mortar" was pretty common device. I do not think it was actually used against aircrafts, but considering psychological effect, it could be pretty useful in getting enemy out of trenches.
Anyway, as I understand this report, there was some modified equipment recovered at Attu (including "Barrage Mortar"), and since blockade of island was in effect since mid-March, that would mean, Japan should get reorganization before that date.

I got a look at some earlier data. I am actually to lazy, to install WITP again, but I believe those statistics are directly from WITP. WITPAE Scenario 1:
Dev...........name......................statistics
258 IJA Cavalry squad........15 21 24 (15 hard attack!)
261 IJA Motorized squad...5 22 17 (stronger by 1 point, from infantry. Same as my version)
264 IJA infantry squad.......5 21 17
268 SNLF squad...................10 27 13 (better Hard Attack, much stronger, than infantry, and much smaller. So it seems in WITP they also used 2 LMGs)
269 SNLF squad 42?...........15 28 13 (and, afer upgrade, also Hard Attack upgrades. It seems to represent AT Rifle Grenade Launcher, after all)

It sounds like you haven't used armoured units in the game. [8D]

I should point out that armoured, self-propelled artillery is extremely useful in close terrain. If you can protect it, acquire targets for it, and provide the engineering support it needs, it will give you firepower superiority all by itself, allowing all your infantry to keep moving. That's the difference between advancing a kilometre a day and five kilometres a day. [8D]

The game doesn't model armour's need for infantry support. [:(]

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: herwin
It sounds like you haven't used armoured units in the game. [8D]

Well, IIRC in WITP they had no extra function. Now they at least can chase retreating enemy, but it is probably because unit being "mechanized" nort anything in its composition.

I should point out that armoured, self-propelled artillery is extremely useful in close terrain. If you can protect it, acquire targets for it, and provide the engineering support it needs, it will give you firepower superiority all by itself, allowing all your infantry to keep moving. That's the difference between advancing a kilometre a day and five kilometres a day. [8D]

This is nice theory, but only Germans really trained in that tactics.
Well, there were Russian fusiliers, but they had, like 60% casualities in every battle.
If you really want Close Support tank, you should use machines designed exactly for this task (Infantry Tank, or Assault gun), like Churchill, or StuG.
Also, the closer you are to enemy, the greater penetration his AT shells have.
In most cases, when there are not roofed defences (like bunkers), mortars would be enough for support.
I do not know, how exactly land combat model works, but if target acquisition is based on device rank, tanks in fact could behave, as they are protecting other device types, since they have strong enough armour to absorb several hits. Of course that works only one way, because Japan tanks are underarmoured, and even mid-war Allies AT strength is strong enough to eliminate them in one shot.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: inqistor

ORIGINAL: herwin
It sounds like you haven't used armoured units in the game. [8D]

Well, IIRC in WITP they had no extra function. Now they at least can chase retreating enemy, but it is probably because unit being "mechanized" nort anything in its composition.

My experience with low quality allied infantry is that Japanese tanks are essentially invulnerable to their fire.

I should point out that armoured, self-propelled artillery is extremely useful in close terrain. If you can protect it, acquire targets for it, and provide the engineering support it needs, it will give you firepower superiority all by itself, allowing all your infantry to keep moving. That's the difference between advancing a kilometre a day and five kilometres a day. [8D]

This is nice theory, but only Germans really trained in that tactics.
Well, there were Russian fusiliers, but they had, like 60% casualities in every battle.
If you really want Close Support tank, you should use machines designed exactly for this task (Infantry Tank, or Assault gun), like Churchill, or StuG.
Also, the closer you are to enemy, the greater penetration his AT shells have.
In most cases, when there are not roofed defences (like bunkers), mortars would be enough for support.
I do not know, how exactly land combat model works, but if target acquisition is based on device rank, tanks in fact could behave, as they are protecting other device types, since they have strong enough armour to absorb several hits. Of course that works only one way, because Japan tanks are underarmoured, and even mid-war Allies AT strength is strong enough to eliminate them in one shot.

Tank-infantry cooperation was practiced by all the major combatants. Richard Simpkin discusses how it worked in his books.

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: herwin
My experience with low quality allied infantry is that Japanese tanks are essentially invulnerable to their fire.

If "low quality" means US 1941 squad that is good. At least Japan tanks have some use initially. In 1943 US gets IIRC 45 AT strength, while at game start it is 15.

Tank-infantry cooperation was practiced by all the major combatants. Richard Simpkin discusses how it worked in his books.

Well, that is "in theory" what tanks were developed for. There is whole chapter in "Achtung Panzer!" analyzing WWI engagements, and how lack of cooperation (despite initial plans) ended sadly for tanks, and whole assault (or not, because of initial extensive cooperation training).
There is difference, between having organic assault guns battalion in Division, and getting tank battalion temporarily attached every three months. The sadest thing is that, even when there was only Tank Destroyers as support, they were used anyway. Not, that commanders had any choice.


Anyway, I think I will go with January upgrade. That should help with early British Burma intrusion, which I understand is currently serious problem. There is such device, as Japanese 70mm mortar, but I do not see it used anywhere. So if I add it virtually to IJA Engineer squad, that should increase its Soft Attack enough, to explain the upgrade.

[inqistor]

Currently in-game Device 709 get "reorganization" at 1/43. I have not seen anything about that transfers, not that actually I have seeking for it specifically. That would mean, that Japan began reorganization at 1/43. I will stick to this.
What is more interesting, I think I can nail exact dates for final upgrades:
Giretsu Kuteitai was formed at 11/44. It seems they were equipped mostly with SMGs. I think I will get rid of Type 97 20mm AT Rifle, and exchange it for Type 4 70 mm AT Rocket Launcher. Not, that there is any indication of using it operationally, but since there were plans, to give Paras even bigger Rocket Launchers, that seems to be logical. So, 3-4 guys for GDs, another 2-3 for LMG, another 2-3 for Rocket Launcher, that leaves 10-13 men in squad. 6 already have SMGs, so another 5-6 seems OK. Type 4 had 80mm penetration, so I will lower my earlier assumption, and give it only 45 Hard Attack.
Giretsu squad 12/44:
H45 S49-53 (Now, THIS is ASSAULT SQUAD!) W20

Another curiosity:
Several experimental semi-automatic rifle models were delivered to Army schools, such as the Tank School. Just before the end of the War in 1945 all surplus weapons of this type were gathered and transferred to newly-organized troops bound for Okinawa. It is possible that many of these weapons were lost at sea enroute.
Japan supposedly constructed 250 Type 4 Rifles, but they should also posses over 1000 captured Garands. It seems logical, to give it to SNLF troops, as last-ditch weapons. I do not know, when those troops for Okinawa were formed, but lets go with last month of Okinawa battle.
4/3 GD per squad needs at least 3 men. Another 2 for LMG, and one have SMG, that leaves 5 armed with Semi-Automatic weapons. They are probably worth 1, .5 more, than Rifles, so that will increase Soft Attack by 2.5.
SNLF Okinawa squad 6/45, with Type 4 70 mm AT Rocket Launcher:
H45 S25+ W12

And, of course, last IJA squad upgrade, with all those Type 4 70 mm AT Rocket Launcher, and Type 100/44 SMGs kept exactly for occasion of Allied Japan invasion.
IJA Fumetsu squad 9/45:
H45 S27+ W20

[inqistor]

IJA Engineer squad have this statistics:
H25 S34 W18
It seems to be similar to old WITP version, so probably no one can explain, why it have those numbers. I do not want to make YET ANOTHER computation, so lets just use it for future upgrade. Firstly I thought, that there was only NAVY units at ATTU, but I see, there was, at least, 303rd Independent Infantry Battalion. NAVY would posses a problem, because if I want to include "barrage mortar" into unit, I would have to increase SNLF statistics even more. But in this case, I can "magically" give it to Combat Engineers. 70mm mortar have 10 Soft Attack, lets take away crew with Rifles (so, it leaves around 8), and since it shot really weird things, I will halve it, to 4. 2 extra Rifle Grenade Launchers seems reasonable for Engineer squad, and since TYPE 3 AT Grenade had 70mm penetration:
IJA Engineer squad 1/43:
H35 S40 W18

I actually wanted to make this upgrade somewhat later in 1943, but the greater time gap, between Commonwealth, and Japan upgrades, the tougher it will be in Burma.
Here are all final statistics:

[inqistor]

Topic, is beyond this project scope, but anyway, it is worth a look: ISLAND WARFARE DIVISION. It would indicates, that Japan get serious reorganization during 1944.

Except of extra 81mm mortars (BTW I think, in-game none of the Japan Divisions actually upgrades TOE, so none of it gets those extra mortars), it looks like, this whole "reorganization" was just pushing heavier weapon down the command-chain. There is no overall TOE, but I am guessing number of weapons remains THE SAME in Division.
On the first sight, it seems, that there is more infantry squads, as there are 4 in platoon, while earlier Divisions had 3, but looking closer, it is evident, that number of Rifle Companies was reduced. So earlier there was: 4 Companies * 3 Platoons * 3 Squads = 36 squads in Battalion, while now, there is: 3 Companies * 3 Platoons * 4 Squads = 36. Exactly THE SAME, while number of men in squads is HALVED. How it is supposed to increase firepower, when in fact, there is less men in trench-strength?

Anyone have any explanation for this?

[anarchyintheuk]

Just going from the AE oob the IJA expands tremendously during 44. The reorganization listed above uses a 1/4 less junior grade officers. The IJA may have been feeling a pinch in officer candidates. I'm not familiar w/ their system for officer procurement or staffing however.

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
Just going from the AE oob the IJA expands tremendously during 44. The reorganization listed above uses a 1/4 less junior grade officers. The IJA may have been feeling a pinch in officer candidates. I'm not familiar w/ their system for officer procurement or staffing however.

Interesting, I have not checked this from WO/NCO point of view. Where are those shortages exactly? I think, I read somewhere, that there was no officers below platoon formation (at least in infantry).
I would guess ISLANDS DIVISIONS would get priority in replacements, but it is possible, that there was decline in specialists cadre. However, in 1945 Japan formed, like 40 new Divisions, of which they could not equip IIRC at least 50%.


PS. Here is topic in Scenario forum, for implementation of all this data

[anarchyintheuk]

Assuming that your 44 IJA ID reorganization is correct in post #129 and that no officers are below platoon level . . .

Pre 44 ID: company level officers in a battalion:

Company Co. x 4 (4) + Platoon CO x 4 [12] = 16 officers

44 ID company level officers in a battalion:

Company CO x 3 (3) + Platoon CO x 3(3) [9] = 12 officers

The reorganization allows for a pretty significant reduction in 1st and 2nd Lts (using USArmy ranks) while keeping, in effect, the same number of riflemen. I can only assume that the IJA did this due to staffing issues. Don't know enough about how the IJA procured their officers but I would guess that the number graduating from whatever the IJA's equivalent of Etajima was insufficient to fill the openings in the new divisions and that there were few other sources of junior grade officers (i.e. no ROTC, battlefield commission, etc.).

Just another thing on the list to look up in my spare time. [;)]

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Topic, is beyond this project scope, but anyway, it is worth a look: ISLAND WARFARE DIVISION. It would indicates, that Japan get serious reorganization during 1944.

Except of extra 81mm mortars (BTW I think, in-game none of the Japan Divisions actually upgrades TOE, so none of it gets those extra mortars), it looks like, this whole "reorganization" was just pushing heavier weapon down the command-chain. There is no overall TOE, but I am guessing number of weapons remains THE SAME in Division.
On the first sight, it seems, that there is more infantry squads, as there are 4 in platoon, while earlier Divisions had 3, but looking closer, it is evident, that number of Rifle Companies was reduced. So earlier there was: 4 Companies * 3 Platoons * 3 Squads = 36 squads in Battalion, while now, there is: 3 Companies * 3 Platoons * 4 Squads = 36. Exactly THE SAME, while number of men in squads is HALVED. How it is supposed to increase firepower, when in fact, there is less men in trench-strength?

Anyone have any explanation for this?

The 81mm mortars were no extra weapons but sometimes issued instead of 70mm Battalion Guns.

And yes, otherwise it seems that the Japanese Ocean Divisions ("Island Warfare Divisions") just changed their internal organization (and added divisional 'Sea Transport Units' with Daihatsus). And this is exactly the reason why they did not get a TOE upgrade in the AE (would have been pointless within the game system. Main real-life change (main actually confirmed change!) was the disbanding of the field artillery regiments and attachment of their subordinate field artillery battalions to the infantry regiments in the Ocean Divisions (which you can do by simply splitting full divisions into their A-C parts in the AE).

The reduction of manpower in Japanese infantry regiments was mainly implemented (but not implemented in all divisions, it seems) because those soldiers were needed to provide experienced cadres for newly formed divisions and Independent Mixed Brigades.

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
Assuming that your 44 IJA ID reorganization is correct in post #129 and that no officers are below platoon level . . .

Pre 44 ID: company level officers in a battalion:

Company Co. x 4 (4) + Platoon CO x 4 [12] = 16 officers

44 ID company level officers in a battalion:

Company CO x 3 (3) + Platoon CO x 3(3) [9] = 12 officers

HEY! You are right! Even extra men in mortar units do not compensate for this loss! However I do not see logic (this feature frequently miss, when dealing with WWII Japan wartime decisions) in reducing number of Officers at front, when there is plenty in the rear (Manchuria, Japan, DEI, and most of China). Also, how this Division is supposed to be better prepared for fighting on island, while it is weaker in every aspect? It have even less flexibility, because of lack of officers!

The reorganization allows for a pretty significant reduction in 1st and 2nd Lts (using USArmy ranks) while keeping, in effect, the same number of riflemen. I can only assume that the IJA did this due to staffing issues. Don't know enough about how the IJA procured their officers but I would guess that the number graduating from whatever the IJA's equivalent of Etajima was insufficient to fill the openings in the new divisions and that there were few other sources of junior grade officers (i.e. no ROTC, battlefield commission, etc.).

Just another thing on the list to look up in my spare time. [;)]

There are some chapters on this topic in FM, but I have never took a look at them.
I actually have found, in few sources, that officers were required to buy themselves, both uniforms, and weapons.

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
The 81mm mortars were no extra weapons but sometimes issued instead of 70mm Battalion Guns.

What about 70mm mortars?

And yes, otherwise it seems that the Japanese Ocean Divisions ("Island Warfare Divisions") just changed their internal organization (and added divisional 'Sea Transport Units' with Daihatsus). And this is exactly the reason why they did not get a TOE upgrade in the AE (would have been pointless within the game system.

Well, first thing I see is:
Machine Cannon Company - with six 20-mm automatic guns in three Platoons of two guns each.

And, since both AA, and AT Japan Division power sucks, it should help considerably.
Also, within "game system" yours "upgrade" of 709 Device have exact opposite working toward what happened IRL.

Main real-life change (main actually confirmed change!)...
The reduction of manpower in Japanese infantry regiments was mainly implemented (but not implemented in all divisions, it seems) because those soldiers were needed to provide experienced cadres for newly formed divisions and Independent Mixed Brigades.

Speaking of which, what are your sources for this reorganization? You are sure, those experienced soldiers were not exchanged for fresh troops? After all, Japan did not have manpower shortages. Were they removed from front units? Have they also take their equipment with them?

[inqistor]

An interesting post at AXISHISTORY forum:

the attack party had 9 groups of 13 men formations. wich made up 5 platoons. the remaining 9 men were the "independant squad" wich was the "enemy headquarters attack party." of the 13 man groups they were further broken down into teams of: one 4 man team, three 3 man teams.

equipment of the attack group:

1. 4 man team
*3 type 94 handguns
*1 type 99 rifle
*2 type 100 smgs
*2 "two kilometer handle attaching depth charge"
*4 type 99 mine
*2 "One kilometer explosive can"
*2 type 3 AT grenade
*100 "tenaka" type bullets
*15 grenades

2. 3 man team
*2 type 94 handguns
*1 type 99 rifle
*1 type 99 mg
*1 "two kilometer handle attaching depth charge"
*4 type 99 mines
*1 "One kilometer explosive can"
*100 "tenaka" type bullets
*10 grenades

3. 3 man team
*1 type 94 handgun
*1 type 99 rifle
*1 type 100 smg
*1 "two kilometer handle attaching depth charge"
*4 type 99 mines
*1 "One kilometer explosive can"
*100 "tenaka" type bullets
*15 grenades

4. 3 man team
*1 type 94 handgun
*1 type 99 rifle
*1 type 89 mortar
*1 "two kilometer handle attaching depth charge"
*4 type 99 mines
*1 "One kilometer explosive can"
*1 type 3 AT grenade
*100 "tenaka" type bullets
*15 grenades

That would mean, that Giretsu squad had 13 men (14 including independent squad, 15 including HQ), and this equipment:
7(8+) Pistols, 4 Rifles, 1 LMG, 1 GD, 3(3.5) SMGs
That should give 21+ Soft Attack

Looks like automatic translation, so I am guessing DC is not "Depth Charge", but wireless short-wave radio set.
"One kilometer explosive can" - long range detonation device, or Rifle Grenade Launcher?

[inqistor]

Mentioned earlier book:

Palembang:

They were armed with rifles, pistols, submachine guns, and light machine guns. In addition to rations they carried cigarettes, money, and water.

The attack on Koepang in Timor came 21 February 1942:

Heavy bombing and strafing of ground defense installations were conducted from low level until the paratroopers hit the ground, and the paratroopers fired sub-machine guns while descending in a further effort to pin down or liquidate defending personnel.

Most were armed with submachine guns or light machine guns.

Same, as I estimated. Sub-machine guns fire, during descending. Now, most means over 50%, I did it only with last upgrade, into Giretsu.

Menado:

The troopers, in addition to rifles, were armed with sub-machine guns, light and heavy machine guns, and 50-mm grenade dischargers.

Also:

The arm band reported worn by Army paratroops is as shown in Figure 32. It was instituted on 10 September 1942 for "the Raiding Force commander and officers and their subordinates who are attached to a Raiding Force and have been appointed as parachutists."

I actually make upgrade on November, but this is just simulation of arming paratroopers with AT grenades for Rifle Grenade Launchers. However, it seems, that indeed they were reorganized in mid-September!

[inqistor]

Another site:

Total production figures for the artillery establishment of the imperial Japanese Army between 1941 and 1945 was as follows: Mortars of all types, 2,073 tubes were manufactured. Artillery in the calibers between 70mm and 105mm, 6,512 were manufactured. In calibers of 106mm and larger the Japanese produced only 604 tubes. On hand pre-war stocks of artillery were exhausted in 1943.

Production figures for 1943 were as follows:
ADA- 75mm = 1,053, 80mm = 200, 120mm = 21.
Pack Artillery and Field guns - Lt pack artillery = 300, M90 75mm Fld gun = 50 (down from 250 in 1942)
Artillery under 70mm - 2,510
75mm to 105mm - 1,541 (down from 2,130 in 1942)
105mm - 110 (down from 240 in 1942)
106mm and up - 90 pieces total

I was actually thinking, about putting default production of 21 T90 75mm guns per month, but it would fill an average Division in 1-2 months, so when things really get hot, in mid-1943, already most front Divisions will be fully converted. So no much difference.
Also, serious reduction could mean, that IRL Japan in reality TURNED OFF some of "Armament Factories", but we should remember, that they captured LOTS of equipment in DEI.

Production figures for 1944 were as follows:
ADA- 75mm = 500, 80mm = 200, 120mm = 96.
Pack Artillery and Field guns - Lt pack artillery = 120, M90 75mm Fld gun = 0
Artillery under 70mm - 1,280
75mm to 105mm - 0
105mm - 0
106mm and up - 0

Serious reduction, but 120mm mortars have production increased by almost 400%. It could again suggest, that even more factories were "turned off", but we must remember, about Allies bombardments, and raw material transport interdiction.

The material deficiency initially in 1941 on the surface did not perhaps seem as dire as it really was. In 1941 the Imperial Japanese Army field 89 Division sized equivalent units. 51 of these units were actual divisions and the rest comprised 59 independent brigades. For these 89 divisional equivalents the Japanese had on had 103 divisional sets of weapons and equipment. This provided a small reserve to cover losses and expansion on a moderate scale.

The numbers of troops called up and lost fluctuated over the next few years though it tended to rise in the total numbers of men enlisted. In 1943 Japan produced a total of 24 divisional sets of equipment against the loss of 11 divisional sets.

So yearly production was 24 sets of Divisional equipment (or more in 1942).

In 1944 the situation began to decline as losses occurred at a faster rate then production. In 1944 the Imperial Japanese Army began the year with 123 sets of equipment. They managed to produce 22 new sets but consumed 36 complete sets of divisional equipment. They ended 1944 at a gain in manpower but a loss in the ability to equip and arm that new influx as they showed only 109 sets on inventory.

Well, 22 sets is only 10% worse, than 24 of 1943, so obviously factories were working at similar rate.
123 sets at the 1944 beginning - 13 sets gained in 1943 - 103 at beginning of war = 7 sets were gained in 1942. Hardly overproduction of 1943/1944. It seems, that Japan either began war, with half of factories "turned off", or they expanded at the beginning of 1943.

1945, the final year of the conflict saw no let up in the worsening situation. In August of that year they fielded 171 divisional equivalents but were only able to equip 104 of them. So dramatic was the drop off that in 1945 steel helmets were being issued only to front line troops. Canteens and mess kits were issued on the scale of one for every two soldiers.

So, how many Divisions were created in 1945? 50?

[dwg]

ORIGINAL: inqistor
Now, most means over 50%,

It just means it seemed that way to the guy being fired at. You need to look at offical TOEs, not try to interpolate from AARs, particularly if you want something that's generally applicable, not a one-off. Equally, remember that at the point of the war you're discussing the Japanese had a grand total of about 2500 SNLF paratroops or less, who had never been used in combat prior to that. Being able to arm one unit in a particular fashion for a single assault does not mean you can sustain that scale of issue over a larger number of units or for that unit for a longer period of time. Maybe you can, maybe you can't, but the answer won't be in an AAR.

Equally, being able to equip units with a particular weapon does not mean that the logistics are there to support the use of that weapon in sustained combat to the utmost limits of its capability -- for instance, the Vickers gun could quite happily fire continuously for literally days at a time (allowing for barrel and belt changes) and did so on occasion in WWI, but that required a considerable logistics tail dedicated solely to the support of the firing guns that just couldn't be done in normal operations. More prosaically, AT rifle grenades won't make much of a difference if the scale of issue is only one or two grenades per platoon.

Nor is greater absolute power necessarily tactically useful, you mentioned the switch from 6.5mm to 7.7mm back at the start of the thread assuming that was a good thing and would increase the squad's combat power, but, as an intermediate power cartridge, modern thinking would be that the 6.5mm is clearly superior to 7.7mm except in very open terrain. Equally SMGs are very useful close in, but because they're firing pistol ammunition they suffer a very rapid fall off in effectiveness once the range increases that means units solely equipped with them can be shot to pieces by a slower-firing, but longer ranged bolt-action rifle-equipped unit unless they can close with them.

And going back to the 3rd Yokosuka SNLF paras on Timor, we see precisely that. No matter how good their scale of equipment may or may not have been, they were still utterly destroyed as a combat unit at Usua ridge by Sparrow Force with its SMLEs, occasional Bren and mortars, despite being entrenched on a ridge. The low end of the number of SNLF engaged is 300 (and as that's the number reported by the man who spotted them I'm inclined to go with him), and there were reportedly 78 left at the end of the campaign, indicating they suffered at least 75% casualties.

It seems, that Japan either began war, with half of factories "turned off", or they expanded at the beginning of 1943.

Japanese wartime production saw both expansion of existing factories and the switching of non-essential factories to military goods, particularly during the late-44/45 dispersal programme, but AFAIK they never managed a systematic national industrial mobilisation in the way that the Allies did. The opportunity to do more was there, but the organisation, the support infrastructure and the raw materials were much less certain. (Lots of people speculate what would have happened had the Germans managed to transfer weapon X or Y to the Japanese, I wonder what would have happened if they had sent Albert Speer).

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: inqistor

It seems, that Japan either began war, with half of factories "turned off", or they expanded at the beginning of 1943.

What actually occurred was "rationalization" and a considerable reduction of the military's control over the means of production. Same thing that happened under Speer in Germany. In both cases, without the military's control, there never would have been a war..., but with it there could never be a victory. [8|]

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: inqistor

The material deficiency initially in 1941 on the surface did not perhaps seem as dire as it really was. In 1941 the Imperial Japanese Army field 89 Division sized equivalent units. 51 of these units were actual divisions and the rest comprised 59 independent brigades. For these 89 divisional equivalents the Japanese had on had 103 divisional sets of weapons and equipment. This provided a small reserve to cover losses and expansion on a moderate scale.

The numbers of troops called up and lost fluctuated over the next few years though it tended to rise in the total numbers of men enlisted. In 1943 Japan produced a total of 24 divisional sets of equipment against the loss of 11 divisional sets.

So yearly production was 24 sets of Divisional equipment (or more in 1942).

In 1944 the situation began to decline as losses occurred at a faster rate then production. In 1944 the Imperial Japanese Army began the year with 123 sets of equipment. They managed to produce 22 new sets but consumed 36 complete sets of divisional equipment. They ended 1944 at a gain in manpower but a loss in the ability to equip and arm that new influx as they showed only 109 sets on inventory.

Well, 22 sets is only 10% worse, than 24 of 1943, so obviously factories were working at similar rate.
123 sets at the 1944 beginning - 13 sets gained in 1943 - 103 at beginning of war = 7 sets were gained in 1942. Hardly overproduction of 1943/1944. It seems, that Japan either began war, with half of factories "turned off", or they expanded at the beginning of 1943.

1945, the final year of the conflict saw no let up in the worsening situation. In August of that year they fielded 171 divisional equivalents but were only able to equip 104 of them. So dramatic was the drop off that in 1945 steel helmets were being issued only to front line troops. Canteens and mess kits were issued on the scale of one for every two soldiers.

So, how many Divisions were created in 1945? 50?

Per above -

At War's Start the Japanese had 103 Div Equiv Sets

1943 saw the Japanese add 24 Div Equiv sets, HOWEVER they also lost 11 Div Equiv Sets. A net gain of 13 Div Equiv.

13 plus 103 (At Start) = 116 Div Equiv.

HOWEVER 1944 saw 123 Div Equiv. At Start of the year. 123 - 116 = 7.

So presumably the Japanese added a net of 7 Div Equivalents in 1942 versus a net of 13 in 1943. Not sure the of the gross addition or gross loss...but the net would have been 7.

Not sure where you came up with 50 div equiv in 1945. The text cites 104 Div Equiv of equipment with manpower for 171 in Aug 45. However the previous paragraph says that the Japanese ended 1944 with 109. 109 - 104 = a 5 Div Equiv lost by August 1945. Considering production/ resource/material constraints in 1945 I find it HIGHLY unlikely that the Japanese more than doubled their best year of output from 1943.

Total production figures for the artillery establishment of the imperial Japanese Army between 1941 and 1945 was as follows: Mortars of all types, 2,073 tubes were manufactured. Artillery in the calibers between 70mm and 105mm, 6,512 were manufactured. In calibers of 106mm and larger the Japanese produced only 604 tubes. On hand pre-war stocks of artillery were exhausted in 1943.

Production figures for 1943 were as follows:
ADA- 75mm = 1,053, 80mm = 200, 120mm = 21.
Pack Artillery and Field guns - Lt pack artillery = 300, M90 75mm Fld gun = 50 (down from 250 in 1942)
Artillery under 70mm - 2,510
75mm to 105mm - 1,541 (down from 2,130 in 1942)
105mm - 110 (down from 240 in 1942)
106mm and up - 90 pieces total

I was actually thinking, about putting default production of 21 T90 75mm guns per month, but it would fill an average Division in 1-2 months, so when things really get hot, in mid-1943, already most front Divisions will be fully converted. So no much difference.
Also, serious reduction could mean, that IRL Japan in reality TURNED OFF some of "Armament Factories", but we should remember, that they captured LOTS of equipment in DEI.

Production figures for 1944 were as follows:
ADA- 75mm = 500, 80mm = 200, 120mm = 96.
Pack Artillery and Field guns - Lt pack artillery = 120, M90 75mm Fld gun = 0
Artillery under 70mm - 1,280
75mm to 105mm - 0
105mm - 0
106mm and up - 0

Serious reduction, but 120mm mortars have production increased by almost 400%. It could again suggest, that even more factories were "turned off", but we must remember, about Allies bombardments, and raw material transport interdiction.

[/quote]


Raw material shortages compelled the Japanese to divert materials from the armamaments and vehicle industry to the aircraft industry to increase aircraft production.