New Mod Leister - Scenario 28 full Pacific War

[hades1001]

British, Indian, Aussie, NZ and Canada rifle squads are all using Lee enfield rifles(20 rounds aimed shot per minute), less than Jap rifles, but their also equipped with sub machines guns etc. Which compensate the disadvantage of rifles. That's why you can see their rifle squads have a anti-soft value close to Japanese.

I think the the anti-soft and anti-armor values are set up properly and should not be changed to much in the MOD.

[xlegendre]

Hi Hades1001,

I disagree with your data and conclusion. My sources indicates a rythm of fire of 30 for M1 Garand. We must not consider the fact that it was in trained hand or not, experience of units is already taken into account into my point of view. Same for the Lee Enfield Rifle, with a ROF of 15.

Please tell the source you use as it may be interesting to share technical data.

About MG, submachinegun and support weapons, all has been taken into account in the calculation of soft and hard attack, based on very detailed informations on squad organization and weaponry attached.

I still think soft & hard AV hard disproportioned for US troops. Marines troops were better equiped through the war with D, E, F and then G types, and this is reflected with an important increase in AV. But this is not true at all for US land army, until July 44 after Normandy landing. Still US army squad begin with important value in soft attack, compared to IJA, with proportionally less men in a squad.

About commonwealth troops (brit, indian, aussies, new zealand...), squad were quite small : 10 men in a squad, for 13 in IJA ; a 30% difference, and I think this makes difference and should be reflected. As well as the fact that individual weapons had a lower ROF.

This is why at all I would be interested in the methods used by Matrix team to define combat value, as expressed before.

PS : sorry for mistakes, french guy, long time since I wrote English.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: hades1001

British, Indian, Aussie, NZ and Canada rifle squads are all using Lee enfield rifles(20 rounds aimed shot per minute), less than Jap rifles, but their also equipped with sub machines guns etc. Which compensate the disadvantage of rifles. That's why you can see their rifle squads have a anti-soft value close to Japanese.

Where did you ever come up with that idea? The SMLE was the finest bolt-action military rifle ever, the Arisaka (in either calibre) was a piece of junk. When you fire one, you get the idea it was designed as much as a bayonet carrier as a rifle.

[JWE]

I will not post the individual results of weapons analysis that were used. Ever. Period.

I¡¯m the person who did them. The individual results are from very intensive studies of infantry weapon effectiveness carried out by the 2nd Directorate (GRU) of the Soviet General Staff, summarized in several articles and papers (Voienskaya Moesli, among many others), which were read, understood, copied, reproduced and verified by contemporary US (and other Western) military organizations. The articles begin in 1953, after the Korean conflict, in which every single weapon used in the Pacific Theater in War II by the US, Japan and the UK, was evaluated by Zh¨­nggu¨® R¨¦nm¨ªn Jif¨¤ngj¨±n Z¨¯ngc¨¡nm¨®ub¨´ in cooperation with the 2nd Directorate/GRU; Voyenezdat, 1953. All these articles are now publically available, some even translated into English. I worked for a number of years for an organization whose job was to analyse these sorts of things. So I recalled my youth, remembered my Russian, and there you have it.

Individual weapon effectiveness values are utterly useless, in-game, unless they are alligned with other firepower elements, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GAME COMBAT ENGINE REQUIREMENTS.

Mostly the artillery stuff, which is based a lot on Nigel Evan¡¯s effectiveness studies. Using arty as a basis, and a combination of the 25 pounder the the 105 as a standard, the rest of the arty was arrayed accordingly. Arty anti-soft is NOT the shell weight anymore.

Given the arty values, IN THE GAME ALGORITHM, the anti-soft values of the integrated sum of their infantry weapons needed to be adjusted (uniformly, and consistently for both sides) such that an infantry squad had rationally related anti-personnel value with respect to an artillery battalion. Once this was done, it was a simple matter to reduce the RAW weapon effectiveness numbers to values suitable for use in a squad anti-soft evaluation. THIS IS HOW THE GAME ENGINE IS DEVISED TO FUNCTION.

Wargamers love their RoF numbers, and think it¡¯s really important because that¡¯s all their websites talk about. In fact RoF is in the middle of the list of weapon effectiveness parameters. Wargamers love their SMGs but the three largest users of SMGs (Sovs, Germans, Chinese) all agreed they were operationally useless and went to great lengths to remove, recover, and eradicate, all SMGs from nominal forces. So forget SMGs. The Sovs thought them worth about 0.4% the nominal tactical effectiveness of an SVT; the US rated the Thomson at 0.7% of a Garand (nominal effectiveness ratings were a bit different between the two National standards).

The Sovs did six months of articles, including those lovely graphs and statistics that they do so well, to show exactly why they withdrew every single SMG from every single operational unit, and replaced them in 20% of cases with bolt action rifles and went into excrutiating detail way they did so and the tactical advantages of doing so: admittedly as placeholders for SVTs, but it was thought that the tactical touch of Ventovka Mosena would train the troops better for tactical firepower utilization, GRU, 06-11, 1951, Voyenezdat, Moscow.

Anyway, there¡¯s a lot more going on than just little website RoF things. One, of course may think or do what they wish.

There¡¯s another simple page, or two, bigger than this one, that describes how firepower/AV/squad size and bears, oh my !! are evaluated with respect to one another in order to provide a rationally related confrontational environment. I doubt fanbois are interested since it butts up against their most dearly held beliefs, and I am not inclined to change anything. This is a description of what is, why it is, and why it will never change. But if anyone wants to know more, I¡¯ll be glad to tell them.