CHS Pending Change List

[Don Bowen]

Sir

I am going to take exception to your statement.

First, let me say that I am not an expert on Japanese aircraft or airforces. . I have no data to support either the original value nor the changed value nor any other possible value. I accept the input and advice of individuals whose opinions I respect. These folks have earned that respect by repeated proof of their historical knowledge and their ability to integrate it with the game mechanics

I will tell you that I acquired the concept of increasing the Japanese pilot pool from the change list posted with recently released scenarios. I packed this idea and several others, and send them to the CHS Japanese airforce guy for comment. Base on the input from these two people I decided to make the change. I decided not to directly start a thread but instead included the change in the Pending Change list and asked for comments. This is true for a large number of changes in the list.

This does not represent a plot nor does it indicate any type of snub against you or anyone else. It does represent a desire to complete the changes this week.

Also, if you have noticed, changes to the port of Noumea are included in the Change List. I do not recall if it was your initial raising of the point that led to this but the idea was discussed and agreed upon by members of the CHS team.

I would also like to point out that every change made or not made in CHS (or any other scenario) is automatically controversial - someone will disagree in every instance. All I can request is that these disagreements be presented in a civil manner and contain substantiation for the points being made.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Sir

I am going to take exception to your statement.

First, let me say that I am not an expert on Japanese aircraft or airforces. . I have no data to support either the original value nor the changed value nor any other possible value. I accept the input and advice of individuals whose opinions I respect. These folks have earned that respect by repeated proof of their historical knowledge and their ability to integrate it with the game mechanics

I will tell you that I acquired the concept of increasing the Japanese pilot pool from the change list posted with recently released scenarios. I packed this idea and several others, and send them to the CHS Japanese airforce guy for comment. Base on the input from these two people I decided to make the change. I decided not to directly start a thread but instead included the change in the Pending Change list and asked for comments. This is true for a large number of changes in the list.

This does not represent a plot nor does it indicate any type of snub against you or anyone else. It does represent a desire to complete the changes this week.

Also, if you have noticed, changes to the port of Noumea are included in the Change List. I do not recall if it was your initial raising of the point that led to this but the idea was discussed and agreed upon by members of the CHS team.

I would also like to point out that every change made or not made in CHS (or any other scenario) is automatically controversial - someone will disagree in every instance. All I can request is that these disagreements be presented in a civil manner and contain substantiation for the points being made.

Don, you're getting into a lather for no good reason.

No one said it was a plot. As nobody's bothered to discuss this openly, or at least I couldn't find any such discussion, I asked Pry twice why he made this change. He didn't have the courtesy to respond to either one of my two queries to him on this subject. So then I then asked you. You were polite enough to tell me what you told me, which wasn't much, and now I've given you direct feedback based on that limited response. Apparently you take exception to this feedback.

Why?

Where and how have I been rude to you? It's apparent you feel I have been.

Is it rude to question the wisdom of a change like this? Is it rude to question how this change came about? If there's one thing that should be clear about WitP it's that a lot of features were plugged into it without a whole lot of thought, otherwise it would work better than it does, wouldn't it? That being the case, my suggestion would be to not repeat that bad method of development.

My remark re Noumea and Lunga is based on the feedback I received at the time when I first broached the subject, which I believe was over on the CHS alpha AAR thread. Go look for yourself if you're interested. It's around here somewhere. And I was told that changes had to be a matter of consensus opinion for this project. That seems to have changed, or else only some changes need to be based on consensus opinion while others do not. At least that's the way it appears to me.

Has anyone documentation to show this change makes good sense? If not then I would question the wisdom of its inclusion. If so, then perhaps it's a good idea after all. But let's see the basis of this change.

Now that's not meant as an insult, either. To me it's just common sense to know why you're doing what you're doing before you do it.

I seriously doubt anyone can reasonably support this change with anything like good documentation, but maybe they can at that. If so, I'm willing to be convinced. I love to learn new things about World War II. Honest. I would, however, like to see that argument made in public, not behind closed doors, even were I privy to that private conversation.

Also, all changes should not be controversial necessarily. Why would you suppose that? What's controversial about pointing out a factual mistake in the map, say, or an OOB correction based on a sound source?

Anyway, on the one hand you say you invite comment, and on the other hand you blow up when that comment questions what I consider to be a dubious change.

What exactly are you angry about? The fact that this change has been questioned, that it's been questioned by me, that you feel this quetion was posed insultingly? I'd guess both the latter two, but then guesses don't really cut it, do they?

[Hortlund]

Please leave the radars on the Kitikami and Oi.

1) They were there. Which really should be reason enough. But also,
2) The Japs need all the help they can get.

[Kereguelen]

Hi,

just noticed that you put 54 Indian rifle squads in each of the (static) Base Forces. Still does not make sense to me: The standart OOB of British/Indian/CW rifle battalions was always 1 HQ company (with 6 3in Mortars, 6 2pdr ATG and 4 AA-MG(twin)) and 4 rifle companies (each with 3 platoons = 9 rifle squads[?]. Only (as far as I know) the British Army Handbook (George Forty) lists British battalions with only 3 rifle companies, but that seems to be an error because the figures in the graphical OOB's given there don't match his other strength-figures. And I guess that battalions (especially Indian battalions) did mostly have only 6 2pdr ATG (Niehorster gives 8 ATG for British battalions in 1942).

To make my point: I suggest to give a Indian (and British) battalion 36 rifle squads (if staying with the 108 rifle squads TOE for brigades). As somebody else stated in the forum: Sometimes Indian (and British) battalions did contain more than 3 battalions. But the standard OOB was only 3 battalions in every brigade (from 1939-1945, this was never changed). More battalions occured mostly (1) when brigades were used as training formations, (2) when brigade HQ's were responsible for (static) "brigade areas" (this was especially true along the Indian NW frontier), (3) when battalions were understrength (this happened quite often with Indian formations, but due to the regimental system understrength battalions from different regiments (and thus in the Indian Army from different regions, religions and ethnics) did seldom merge; the only notable exception from this rule was in Malaya/Singapore in 1941/42, but this was a somewhat special situation).

I assume that you intended to give the (static) Base Forces a garrison of 2 Bn each, but that should be 72 squads (I'm at work now, but I can give you some more exact information about the strength of garrisons at Karachi, Bombay, Madras etc and of the development of those garrisons later when returning home).

K

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Please leave the radars on the Kitikami and Oi.

1) They were there. Which really should be reason enough. But also,
2) The Japs need all the help they can get.

If you have a source that shows they were there - please share it - the only "source" we can find - we don't think is reliable ... because it doesn't list any source where it is getting the data from ... and we've got several other sources they say they didn't have it. The only "source" we've seen which does say they had it is ...

japanese_radar

One source indicating that type 13 could not have been installed on K&O because it wasn't developed until 1943 was submitted by MARK ( several pages from a book he has ) and is here in the forum under one of the K&O threads that have gone by in the past couple of weeks.

Oh and also we haven't seen any test results indicating the K&O radar does anything anyway ( as was also discussed in the K&O thread about 2 weeks ) ... have you seen these radars do anything - if so what ?
( I tried to get both air defense results and surface engagement assistance results - and got no help at all on air defense - and arguable / margin assistance in surface engagement - now the air tests were done before Pry pointed out the DB was in error and that T13 was coded incorrectly as surface search - he subsequently changed it to be air search - so might be worth a retest - but as I said - thus far we haven't' see any tests results indicating the radars do anything anyway ... )

[pry]

For discussion sake,

The Imperial Japanese Navy, Watts and Gordon (1971) also states that both were fitted with type 13 radar during their 1941 refit (same refit when all the torpedo tubes were mounted) Pages 129-130.

For what it is worth I consider Watts and Gordon a highly reliable source on the Japanese Navy.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
My remark re Noumea and Lunga is based on the feedback I received at the time when I first broached the subject, which I believe was over on the CHS alpha AAR thread. Go look for yourself if you're interested. It's around here somewhere. And I was told that changes had to be a matter of consensus opinion for this project. That seems to have changed, or else only some changes need to be based on consensus opinion while others do not. At least that's the way it appears to me.

Just to clarify something - If I recall correctly, I made the comment regarding consensus that you refer to here, but I was not talking about CHS in particular. I was talking about changes to my map, and any scenarios based upon it (which includes CHS).

Andrew

[Don Bowen]

I apologize if I overreacted. However, I did find statements in your post the I felt were insults to the individuals that recommended the pilot pool changes and to me for accepting them without consulting you.

Let's move on.

I would be very happy to hear any additional input on the Japanese Pilot pool. I have no reference data on this and very little interest. You-all hash it out and let me know what you decide.

On the Oi/Kitakami radar, it seems that various reference works vary (a common problem). Nothing in my library mentions radar on these to ships at all. I'm leaning toward leaving the radar on these two ships based on
Star Games
Martin Favorite is very knowledgeable and his Star Games research team included Japanese with access to Japanese language texts. Also, they're already there and interia is on their side.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

Hi,

just noticed that you put 54 Indian rifle squads in each of the (static) Base Forces. Still does not make sense to me: The standart OOB of British/Indian/CW rifle battalions was always 1 HQ company (with 6 3in Mortars, 6 2pdr ATG and 4 AA-MG(twin)) and 4 rifle companies (each with 3 platoons = 9 rifle squads[?]. Only (as far as I know) the British Army Handbook (George Forty) lists British battalions with only 3 rifle companies, but that seems to be an error because the figures in the graphical OOB's given there don't match his other strength-figures. And I guess that battalions (especially Indian battalions) did mostly have only 6 2pdr ATG (Niehorster gives 8 ATG for British battalions in 1942).

To make my point: I suggest to give a Indian (and British) battalion 36 rifle squads (if staying with the 108 rifle squads TOE for brigades). As somebody else stated in the forum: Sometimes Indian (and British) battalions did contain more than 3 battalions. But the standard OOB was only 3 battalions in every brigade (from 1939-1945, this was never changed). More battalions occured mostly (1) when brigades were used as training formations, (2) when brigade HQ's were responsible for (static) "brigade areas" (this was especially true along the Indian NW frontier), (3) when battalions were understrength (this happened quite often with Indian formations, but due to the regimental system understrength battalions from different regiments (and thus in the Indian Army from different regions, religions and ethnics) did seldom merge; the only notable exception from this rule was in Malaya/Singapore in 1941/42, but this was a somewhat special situation).

I assume that you intended to give the (static) Base Forces a garrison of 2 Bn each, but that should be 72 squads (I'm at work now, but I can give you some more exact information about the strength of garrisons at Karachi, Bombay, Madras etc and of the development of those garrisons later when returning home).

K

Good Point - I was thinking U.S. battalions with 3 companies - 9 squads per. I selected two of these 27 squad battalions 'cause it came out near the 50 squad recommendation. I'm looking forward to your input on actual garrisons and will change the base forces accordingly.

Don

[Bradley7735]

I would be very happy to hear any additional input on the Japanese Pilot pool

Don, regardless of what you end up with, I will probably increase the number of replacements when I play as allies vs AI. I find that when playing the AI, it needs quite a lot more pilots. Otherwise, the allies shoot down japanese planes in droves as early as March or April. I increase the stock scenario to about 20 and 40. I think I'll up that to 30 and 60 when I play CHS.

This is just an FYI to you, because I know you play as allies vs AI.

I personally don't think that 15 (navy) and 30 (army) is bad. I know that there are players who play as Japan who have squadrons in 44 with high experience. I don't think this is bad, as the allied player may not have been playing a war of attrition very well. (training Japanese fighters with allied unescorted bombers isn't a good plan). But, if you have a good allied player and a good Japan player, the Japan player should eventually end up with poor pilots. I don't think 15 is really much more than 0. It's one pilot every other day. That takes about 6 months just to fill out 1 carrier with average pilots. It'd go faster by just training on-map.

I say leave it at 15 and 30 and see what happens with long term play.

[Don Bowen]

After some review I've considering NOT placing the 2nd, 7th, and 8th Chinese Squadrons at Hami. Primarily because this base is way out in the boondocks and not in fighter flying range to any other Chinese Base. Also, my references for placing them there are all much pre-war (Feb 41 back to "early" 1940).

Since we ended up with only one squadron at Kunming, I will probably just place them there.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
My remark re Noumea and Lunga is based on the feedback I received at the time when I first broached the subject, which I believe was over on the CHS alpha AAR thread. Go look for yourself if you're interested. It's around here somewhere. And I was told that changes had to be a matter of consensus opinion for this project. That seems to have changed, or else only some changes need to be based on consensus opinion while others do not. At least that's the way it appears to me.

Just to clarify something - If I recall correctly, I made the comment regarding consensus that you refer to here, but I was not talking about CHS in particular. I was talking about changes to my map, and any scenarios based upon it (which includes CHS).

Andrew

Correct. As it looked like this might get heated I didn't wish to involve you directly in the argument, so I left it intentionally vague.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Please leave the radars on the Kitikami and Oi.

1) They were there. Which really should be reason enough. But also,
2) The Japs need all the help they can get.

If you have a source that shows they were there - please share it - the only "source" we can find - we don't think is reliable ... because it doesn't list any source where it is getting the data from ... and we've got several other sources they say they didn't have it. The only "source" we've seen which does say they had it is ...

japanese_radar

One source indicating that type 13 could not have been installed on K&O because it wasn't developed until 1943 was submitted by MARK ( several pages from a book he has ) and is here in the forum under one of the K&O threads that have gone by in the past couple of weeks.

Oh and also we haven't seen any test results indicating the K&O radar does anything anyway ( as was also discussed in the K&O thread about 2 weeks ) ... have you seen these radars do anything - if so what ?
( I tried to get both air defense results and surface engagement assistance results - and got no help at all on air defense - and arguable / margin assistance in surface engagement - now the air tests were done before Pry pointed out the DB was in error and that T13 was coded incorrectly as surface search - he subsequently changed it to be air search - so might be worth a retest - but as I said - thus far we haven't' see any tests results indicating the radars do anything anyway ... )

For the purpose of surface combat Type 13 wouldn't do anything. Also, even for air search it hasn't been pointed out that the Japanese had developed any doctrine for the use of this experimental gear. Had they in 1941?

I've had Favorite bookmarked for some time. He runs consistently counter to what's given in Conway's, always with the Japanese having more and better earlier, which doesn't mean anything necessarily as Conway's might be wrong and Favorite might be correct. But there is a pattern there, and Conway's is, after all, a respected authority. It also bothers me that Favoriite doesn't tell anyone where he gets his data. Where does he get it? That's always an important item.

Anyway, this radar was experimental and not sophisticated. It was strictly for air search. Also, the two ships given here for installation were old light cruisers turned into torpedo cruisers in 1941, then Kitagami was further changed over into a fast transport in 1942-43, according to Conway's again. So exactly what operational purpose is there for this inclusion of Japanese radar in the game?

Just asking, because it's never been clear to me how the game incorporates this stuff. I'd guess, based on the rest of the model as I understand it, that radar=radar to the engine, so it's a one-size-fits-all situation. Not good if you're comparing experimental radar of an unsophisiticated kind operated by people with little experience and possibly no integrated fleet dcotrine to support its use compared to . . . something else.

[Lemurs!]

Pry, others,

On the radar the sets on Kitikami & Oi was NOT type 13; it was the prototype for a type 13. The prototype for many things exists two years before full production but in a rapidly changing industry that prototype is not as good as the production model two years later.

That is why i feel we should leave it out. Sorry PanzerJaeger.

I will comment on pilot numbers ad nauseum later so Trist can quit annoying Don who deserves no annoyance.

Mike

[Don Bowen]

We've a new base going in at Cox's Bazaar but I have no data for the base - just it's location at 31,26. Does anyone have good data for port, airfield, etc at this base??

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: pry

For discussion sake,

The Imperial Japanese Navy, Watts and Gordon (1971) also states that both were fitted with type 13 radar during their 1941 refit (same refit when all the torpedo tubes were mounted) Pages 129-130.

For what it is worth I consider Watts and Gordon a highly reliable source on the Japanese Navy.

Also for discussion sake - here is one of the several pages MARC posted in the "Japanese Radar" thread a couple of weeks back ... this source indicates the first install of IJN shipborne radar was ISE in 1942 ...

Pry do you think the T13 radar if installed of K&O in the game will DO anything - if so what ?

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Good Point - I was thinking U.S. battalions with 3 companies - 9 squads per. I selected two of these 27 squad battalions 'cause it came out near the 50 squad recommendation. I'm looking forward to your input on actual garrisons and will change the base forces accordingly.

Don

Ok, here's what I have about the garrison strengths on 7th Dec 1941:

Karachi: 4 Battalions (15/10th Baluch Rgt, 4/7th Gurkha Rifles, 25/10th Baluch Rgt, 25/14th Punjab Rgt)

Bombay: 2 Battalions (26/4th Bombay Gren., 27/4th Bombay Gren.; interestingly these Bn. later formed 1st and 2nd Ajmer Rgt)

Hyderabad: 1 Battalion (5/6th Rajputana Rifles; actually at Secunderabad because Hyderabad was a State)

Bangalore: 1 Battalion (9/9th Jat Rgt)

Madras: 2 Battalions (25/9th Jat Rgt, 25/12th Frontier Force Rifles; Baria Rangit Infantry, ISF was also present but I'm not sure if it had any combat value, 25/9th Jat Rgt arrived 14 Dec. 1941)

Calcutta: 1 Battalion (25/11th Sikh Rgt., garrison of the fortress)

Chandpur: 1 Battalion (6/9th Jat Rgt.; actually at Chittagong)

In Assam, no exact locations, LoC-troops, maybe suitable for the base forces there: 4 Battalions (1st Assam Rgt, 1st Bihar Rgt, 5/9th Jat Rgt, 25/18th Royal Garhwal Rifles)

Akyab (yes, I know it's in Burma): 1 Battalion (14/7th Rajput Rgt)

Some explanations:

There were also garrisons at Lahore and Rawalpindi, but I think they should not be included because they were needed there, not vs. the Japanese.

There were two more battalions at Madras (2/3rd and 3/3rd Madras Rgt) but they were soon converted to training and POW guard units and I think they were never combat ready.

Madras is somewhat special in many aspects because it harboured lots of battalions from the 3rd Madras Rgt during the war (the 3rd Madras started forming battalions from territorial troops in Sept 1941, it did not exist before), but I think mostly for training purposes.

All battalions named were regular troops, no territorial stuff.

Of course most of the battalions located to other locations during the war, but mostly they were replaced by other battalions.

Most of this is from "Loyalty & Honour" by Chris Kempton.

K

[Don Bowen]

Thanks - I'll align these with the static base forces and add the appropriate amount of Infantry (36 squads per Bn, right?)

I may go ahead and put the units at Lahore and Rawalpindi as adding them to an immobile base force will tie them down anyway.

Question on Akyab - was the battalion there pre-war??

I have got to win the lottery so I can buy "Loyalty & Honour" by Chris Kempton!

Don

P.S. Any data on Cox's Bazar?? I did find it on a map and noticed the spelling (only one "a" between "z" and "r").

[Iron Duke]

Hi,

Does anybody know which was of greater importance during the war Chandpur or Chittagong? In every map showing the India/Burma theatre I've only ever seen Chittagong on the map - just curious.

cheers

[Andrew Brown]

I may go ahead and put the units at Lahore and Rawalpindi as adding them to an immobile base force will tie them down anyway.

I was thinking the same thing.

Question on Akyab - was the battalion there pre-war??

I have got to win the lottery so I can buy "Loyalty & Honour" by Chris Kempton!

Don

P.S. Any data on Cox's Bazar?? I did find it on a map and noticed the spelling (only one "a" between "z" and "r").

I don't have any data but I will do an online search to see if I can find any info on Cox's. I believe it was a fairly important airbase, and I am guessing it was not much of a port, but that it just a guess. Looks like I might have got the spelling wrong as well!