Japan infantry squad organization

[inqistor]

Uuu, discussion!

Page, mentioned earlier. Different chapter:
Abouts SNLF:

The last type of organization noted in the records was of infantry platoons in China having 6 squads of 8 men, three of the squads with LMG the rest pure rifle.

Now, if we consider, that "Island Warfare" reorganization, in fact just divided squads into half-squads, and, according to report from US Field Manual, about SNLFs, also issued additional weapons...
That would give infantry squad additional LMG(9), 4/3 GD (4), and probably, another Rifle Grenade Launcher(1), so:
Soft Attack 25+9+4+1=39. They should, in fact, be divided into half-squads, so Soft Attack 19-20, and weight around 11, but without changes to TOE:
IJA Island Warfare Infantry Squad late 1944 (lets say Peleliu 7-9/44):
H20 S39 W22

Or, maybe GDs number was not doubled to 8, but instead, slightly increased, to 6, to accomodate every squad? In that case:
H20 S35 W20

ORIGINAL: 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.

I am afraid, official TOEs were destroyed. What we currently have, either lacks 300 Rifles, or all GDs. I seriously doubt, they were send into battle, only with pistols.

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.

There was 7000 SMGs made especially for paratroopers. And their in-war actions were pretty rare, so it is hard to actually make some standard TOE.

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.

Indeed, but this is game, which models things, as it currently does. If I do not want to mess with TOE change, the only option is to either do not issue weapon model AT ALL, or issue it for every squad of the same type. There is Soviet SMG squad, and as I see, also Allies Commando units are mostly equipped with SMGs.
Squad production could be cut in numbers, but that creates another problem, where player have to wait several months, before he could actually upgrade unit.

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.

I am expecting both sides to be treated equally. If crappy AT grenade gives US squad 15 Hard Attack, I am expecting similar weapon, to give similar statistics for Japan squad.

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.

I am keeping with current design. It does not model range of engagement, so again, if one side is modelled in such a way, I am expecting other, to be modelled similar.

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.

Indeed, and game simulates it well. No matter of your firepower, you just lose, when sufficiently outnumbered. Now, high firepower for paratroopers, means, that they actually can make succesfull assault against weak enemies. But they will be surely defeated by standard Infantry Brigade.
They just do not have enough staying power.

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

Yet, this is not happening in-game, because Japan players regularly accumulates 150k+ armament points, at the beginning of 1943. And, as a consequence, switch off Armament production.

ORIGINAL: treespider
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.

I am talking only about pure manpower. The explanation of "upgrade" 710 Device squad, is that soldiers were transfered to create core of new units. It is clear, it was simple rotation of experienced cadres, not manpower shortage, so this device should not lose firepower, because of such transfer.
And another point, is that Japan was unable to produce enough equipment. Again, this is not happening in game.

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

This is steel mostly, so probably it went into ship production. That can be simulated by turning off some industries, for using HI points elsewhere.

[inqistor]

Interesting book, about Japan actions.

The 35th Infantry Brigade and other units under the control of the 17th Army were reinforced in order that they might renew the attack against Guadalcanal.

Wording could be "17th Army was reinforced", which would indicate additional units, but The 35th Infantry Brigade and other units under the control could indicate additional equipment.

16 November could indicate, that IJA Infantry should get reorganization at 11-12/42, so month earlier. However:

Although under the operational plan published on 31 December 1942

Could mean, that 1/43 date is perfect.


Anyway, another interesting quote:

During November and December 1942, the ever-increasing requisitions for ships for the Southern Area began to severely affect the national economy, as well as to place a very definite check on the lines of communications to the China Expeditionary Army.

Seems that loses in 1942, and needs for additional transports were enough to use all Japan ships. They were stretched, even before submarine campaign could get effects.

[dwg]

ORIGINAL: inqistor
There was 7000 SMGs made especially for paratroopers.

That doesn't mean they were all issued. The evidence seems to point to Japan putting a fairly low value on the SMG, possibly because combat in China was in a largely open rural environment, emphasising the SMG's weak points wrt rifles, or possibly the traditional concern that people with automatic weapons 'waste' their ammunition. The SNLF Paras have a role that gives more value to the SMG, but that does not mean the rifle would be abandoned.

there is Soviet SMG squad, and as I see, also Allies Commando units are mostly equipped with SMGs

[/quote]

We're getting into questions of doctrine here. Allied commandos were essentially shock-attack units, meant to surprise enemy units and overwhelm them in a close range fight, Soviet SMG squads apparently had two different roles and organisations, as part of a shock-attack company in infantry units, and as tank-riders in armoured units to protect the tanks from infantry close-assault. Japan was fighting a different sort of war to the allies, so 'they have one' isn't really a functional argument, the SNLF paras and the IJA Raiding Regiment are really the only Japanese units with that sort of close-range shock-attack tasking, and just because they have the role doesn't mean they necessarily have the optimum equipment for it given the equipment available.

Squad production could be cut in numbers, but that creates another problem, where player have to wait several months, before he could actually upgrade unit.

I'm not sure why you see that as a problem, it's precisely what was happening with the 6.5mm to 7.7mm rifle transition, which was a rolling programme going on throughout the war.

I am expecting both sides to be treated equally. If crappy AT grenade gives US squad 15 Hard Attack, I am expecting similar weapon, to give similar statistics for Japan squad.

If scales of equipment are comparable, then that is reasonable. But were they equally available? How much use did those US AT grenades actually get? How many rounds did a squad or a platoon carry? How many shots did it typically take to kill a tank? Would it be a more accurate model not to include them, rather than to include them and over-emphasize their effectiveness?

I am keeping with current design. It does not model range of engagement, so again, if one side is modelled in such a way, I am expecting other, to be modelled similar.

If the combat algorithm does not model the range of engagement, then you need to factor the spread of engagement ranges into the values you give the weapons. For typical units the rifle is a low firepower, long-ranged weapon, the SMG is a high-firepower short-ranged weapon. If you believe there is a 50-50 split between short and long range engagement, then you can take both sets of firepower stats at face value, but if you believe there is a disparity between the two, with more combat taking place at ranges greater than the 30m effective range of SMGs, then you have to start discounting the firepower of the SMG, to reflect most combat taking place at ranges where it is ineffective. OTOH, for specialist commando units, where doctrine biases their use to close range engagements, there may be an argument for over-emphasizing the firepower of SMGs.

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.

Indeed, and game simulates it well. No matter of your firepower, you just lose, when sufficiently outnumbered. Now, high firepower for paratroopers, means, that they actually can make succesfull assault against weak enemies. But they will be surely defeated by standard Infantry Brigade.

But Sparrow Force wasn't an infantry brigade, it was a reinforced battalion and at this point was divided into three (2/2 Independent Company in East Timor, a group of about 150 from the depot under the Sparrow Force CO evading independently and 2/40 Infantry Battalion and the rest of the support elements at Usau Ridge, having to keep one of its four companies devoted to a rearguard against the pursuing Japanese forces. So the actual engagement was between roughly equal forces with the Japanese having the advantage of the high ground and close-in firepower and the Australians the advantage of stand-off firepower, and the Aussies emerged victorious, illustrating that you can't simply look at the raw firepower and have to take some account of the tactical usage.

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: dwg

ORIGINAL: inqistor
There was 7000 SMGs made especially for paratroopers.

That doesn't mean they were all issued. The evidence seems to point to Japan putting a fairly low value on the SMG, possibly because combat in China was in a largely open rural environment, emphasising the SMG's weak points wrt rifles, or possibly the traditional concern that people with automatic weapons 'waste' their ammunition. The SNLF Paras have a role that gives more value to the SMG, but that does not mean the rifle would be abandoned.

First report about using SMGs by Japan is exactly from China. Also, there is another report, about using them during amphibious assault, also against China after Pearl Harbor attack.

THIS chart is THE ONLY I have found about Paratroopers organization.
My estimated version of Raider Squad uses 6 SMGs, and have 20 men.
Giretsu uses 11-12, slightly above half men. Overall, probably less, than 1000 SMGs needed to equip all units.

there is Soviet SMG squad, and as I see, also Allies Commando units are mostly equipped with SMGs

We're getting into questions of doctrine here. Allied commandos were essentially shock-attack units, meant to surprise enemy units and overwhelm them in a close range fight, Soviet SMG squads apparently had two different roles and organisations, as part of a shock-attack company in infantry units, and as tank-riders in armoured units to protect the tanks from infantry close-assault. Japan was fighting a different sort of war to the allies, so 'they have one' isn't really a functional argument

I do not discuss doctrine here. Allied units, with THIS number of SMGs have such, and such Soft Attack.
By comparison, Japan units, with given number of SMGs, will have COMPARABLE Soft Attack.

the SNLF paras and the IJA Raiding Regiment are really the only Japanese units with that sort of close-range shock-attack tasking, and just because they have the role doesn't mean they necessarily have the optimum equipment for it given the equipment available.

Actually SNLF were created mainly as shock-attack units. And all imports of SMGs were done by Navy, exactly for SNLFs. Infantry SNLFs, not paras.

Squad production could be cut in numbers, but that creates another problem, where player have to wait several months, before he could actually upgrade unit.

I'm not sure why you see that as a problem, it's precisely what was happening with the 6.5mm to 7.7mm rifle transition, which was a rolling programme going on throughout the war.

The scale. Currently monthly production of SNLF Paras is 2. Unit have 24 squads, so with current production, it will take A YEAR, until unit could upgrade. Quite contrary, considering all it needs is 24 AT Rifles, 5*24 SMGs, and 24 Rifle Grenade Launchers.
Discussion is pointless, because limited production for Japan do not works anyway.

I am expecting both sides to be treated equally. If crappy AT grenade gives US squad 15 Hard Attack, I am expecting similar weapon, to give similar statistics for Japan squad.

If scales of equipment are comparable, then that is reasonable. But were they equally available? How much use did those US AT grenades actually get? How many rounds did a squad or a platoon carry? How many shots did it typically take to kill a tank? Would it be a more accurate model not to include them, rather than to include them and over-emphasize their effectiveness?

Indeed, it would be probably better NOT to include AT grenades. There is currently 2 types of squads:
1) Basic, which is most of "weaker" nations. Including Japan. They have AT power of 5
2) Advanced, which is most of Allies units. They have AT power of 15

Now, when we look closer:
1) Commonwealth uses AT Boys Rifle (which is actually THE ONLY reported weapon used in AT role), "sticky bomb", "thermos" grenade, and AT grenade for Rifle Grenade Launchers
2) THE ONLY early AT weapon, in USA arsenal, I have found, is AT grenade for Rifle Grenade Launchers
Now, why exactly both those nations have identical AT strength?


Japan begin war, with "magnetic mine", which is comparable (actually better), than "sticky bomb", and 20mm AT Rifle, which is IN EVERY ASPECT better, than Boys AT Rifle. Why does it begin war with AT power of 5?
Until 1943, Japan gets Type 2 AT Rifle Grenade, and Type 3 AT grenade. It have now everything, which Commonwealth uses, and in most cases, those are better devices, despite this, their AT power remains at 5.

I am keeping with current design. It does not model range of engagement, so again, if one side is modelled in such a way, I am expecting other, to be modelled similar.

If the combat algorithm does not model the range of engagement, then you need to factor the spread of engagement ranges into the values you give the weapons.

Nope. I need only to stick exactly to current design. And AFAIK it does NOT model ranges for Allied side.
If you have problem with combat model, you should talk with Devs (probably even ORIGINAL Devs, not AE). I am not discussing here engine.

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.

Indeed, and game simulates it well. No matter of your firepower, you just lose, when sufficiently outnumbered. Now, high firepower for paratroopers, means, that they actually can make succesfull assault against weak enemies. But they will be surely defeated by standard Infantry Brigade.

But Sparrow Force wasn't an infantry brigade, it was a reinforced battalion

Again, you are discussing Combat Model. This is not topic of this thread.
Give me strength, and composition of both combatants, and I will analyze it, under current model. What is even more interesting, you can analyze it first, under ORIGINAL unmodified game model. Paras have there 15 Soft Attack. As you can see, they have now, NO firepower advantage of any kind (AIF squad, have around 19 Soft Attack).