Post Map and OOB Comments Here

[Mr.Frag]

The Java class Light crusiers CL are listed as having 59in/50 QF Guns Wow!

So *thats* why they always sink ... one shot and the ship falls apart from the shock wave. (good thing the text has nothing to do with the effect)

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: akbrown

For those mad enough to consider adding the German U Boats that operated in the far east into the game, here is a list of the boats with their arrival date in East Asia (usually Penang), type and CO:

Code: Select all

 Date      U-Boat  Type             Commander       Notes
 ----      ------  ----             ---------      --------
 ??/7/43   UIT23   Generale Liuzzi  H Schäfer      (Ex Reginaldo Giuliani)
 11/7/43   UIT24   Marcello/Marconi H Pahls        (Ex Com. Alfredo Cappelini)
 21/7/43   U511    IXC              F Schneewind   (Became RO-500)
 30/8/43   UIT25   Mercello/Marconi W Striegler    (Ex Luigi Torelli, became I-504)
 2/11/43   U183    IXC/40           H Schafer
 2/11/43   U532    IXC/40           O Junker
 11/11/43  U168    IXC/40           H Pich
 5/4/44    U510    IXC              A Eick
 13/6/44   U843    IXC/40           O Herwartz
 2/8/44    U537    IXC/40           P Schrewe
 8/8/44    U181    IXD2             K Freiwald     (Became I-501)
 10/8/44   U196    IXD2             F Kentrat
 9/9/44    U862    IXD2             H Timm         (Became I-502)
 28/12/44  U195    IXD1             F Steinfeld    (Became I-506)
 

(Aust style dates)

This is a shortened list, as some of the boats did not stay long in the East before leaving for Europe again. I haven't yet figured out how the editor works, so I have no idea whether these can be added into the game. A few new submarine classes need to be added (with artwork), as well as the boats themselves.

It also seems that there was an Italian naval vessel acting as a type of submarine tender as well. See this website: http://www.regiamarina.net/others/farea ... ast_us.htm


[font="Courier New"][/font]

Italian and French subs operated there too. Too complicated, short term (no withdrawl) and, due to much of IO not depicted, unfair (many British units not in as a result) to bother with officially.

[Brady]

"Italian and French subs operated there too. Too complicated, short term (no withdrawl) and, due to much of IO not depicted, unfair (many British units not in as a result) to bother with officially. "


Ya, if Madagasscar(sp?) were modeled/included on the map, this would seam off hand to be better represented, howeaver the fact that the Japanese merchant fleat is only realy particaly represented, I beelave somewhear arounf 50% of all tonage is in the game and all that hunted them are represented (Allied Subs, planes,ect) the question of what is fair is kinda interesting to consider......It is OK for this seming inequiety to exist in the allies favor howeaer a handfull of extra Axis subs is Not Ok for the reasion of fairness....lol, the pain in the pooper to add angle would seam to have more merit.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Brady

"Italian and French subs operated there too. Too complicated, short term (no withdrawl) and, due to much of IO not depicted, unfair (many British units not in as a result) to bother with officially. "


Ya, if Madagasscar(sp?) were modeled/included on the map, this would seam off hand to be better represented, howeaver the fact that the Japanese merchant fleat is only realy particaly represented, I beelave somewhear arounf 50% of all tonage is in the game and all that hunted them are represented (Allied Subs, planes,ect) the question of what is fair is kinda interesting to consider......It is OK for this seming inequiety to exist in the allies favor howeaer a handfull of extra Axis subs is Not Ok for the reasion of fairness....lol, the pain in the pooper to add angle would seam to have more merit.

Brady. I may be an allied fanboy, but not to this level.[:D] There are literally hundreds of allied merchant ships not in OOB, and I'm talking 10,000 ton jobs, not the wee ones you referred to in the merchie post awhile back. For example...about a third of the Canadian merchant marine operated in the Pacific and the Fort and Park class ships which were a large part of Canada's MM ran supplies/cargo to OZ, India, New Zealand. I think this evens out any merchant discrepancies.

As for having a few uboats and other nationalities which accounted for a very few patrols in IO, I countered with the fact that much of the Allied escort forces which operated against these very subs are not in OOB either as the main area of their operations and bases are not on map.

There is only so much one can do with the OOB in a game which has Japanese ships all in theatre and literally thousands of Allied ships which entered and withdrew depending on their particular deployment/withdrawal/redeployment dates.

[Brady]

I would in general agree that the line neaded to be drawn somewhear, howeaver still feal that the present system does tend to favor the allies in terms of hunting the Japanese merchants, the areas in which they can be hunted are far more confined in the game as well, since historicaly areas whear Japanese ships were found were far wider than they will be in WiTP, this added to the unreduced number of Subs as mentioned above is realy a clear allied advantage.

Of course this thread is not realy the place to get into this,and this has been beaten to detah in the past so.........

Please excuse me for going off track[:)]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Brady

I would in general agree that the line neaded to be drawn somewhear, howeaver still feal that the present system does tend to favor the allies in terms of hunting the Japanese merchants, the areas in which they can be hunted are far more confined in the game as well, since historicaly areas whear Japanese ships were found were far wider than they will be in WiTP, this added to the unreduced number of Subs as mentioned above is realy a clear allied advantage.

Please excuse me for going off track[:)]

Gotta bite![:)]

"Far wider than in WITP"? What do ya mean?

[Brady]

In war in the Pacific, the Japanese merchant fleats are largely confined to conveying materials just from the SRA to Japan, areas that were fertail hunting grounds like the Yellow sea, and the Sea of Okatausk, are not likely to prove to be so in WITP. What I am geting at is while the US sub force is efectivealy doubled in efect do to the halving of the Japanese merchant fleat in the Game, it is further increased in efectivenss by the confining of that fleat to a much small barel in which to shoot it in.

Also as noted before in one of my other long rambeling and mindnumbingly badly spelled postings the Number of Hulls represented in the Japanese merchant fleat is indead, far less than the tonage reduction would indicate, since most of the unrepresented tonage is in the Smaller sized ships, so with the Biger Hulls you actualy are agin compounding the problems above, while easer to manage you have far fewer targets for all those torps. If you look at the post I linked above it shows for example hundreds of the Smaller Standaradised types which are not represented in the game.

[McNaughton]

ORIGINAL: Brady

In war in the Pacific, the Japanese merchant fleats are largely confined to conveying materials just from the SRA to Japan, areas that were fertail hunting grounds like the Yellow sea, and the Sea of Okatausk, are not likely to prove to be so in WITP. What I am geting at is while the US sub force is efectivealy doubled in efect do to the halving of the Japanese merchant fleat in the Game, it is further increased in efectivenss by the confining of that fleat to a much small barel in which to shoot it in.

Also as noted before in one of my other long rambeling and mindnumbingly badly spelled postings the Number of Hulls represented in the Japanese merchant fleat is indead, far less than the tonage reduction would indicate, since most of the unrepresented tonage is in the Smaller sized ships, so with the Biger Hulls you actualy are agin compounding the problems above, while easer to manage you have far fewer targets for all those torps. If you look at the post I linked above it shows for example hundreds of the Smaller Standaradised types which are not represented in the game.

The geography actually favours the IJN, rather than hindering it. The confines seazones that you speak of are all fairly far from US bases (until the US starts taking the central pacific). Also, the Japanese player will be able to easily predict where the US will have their subs. Also, there are some big land masses all along the shipping route, which make spectacular ASW patrol bases.

The geography can work for and against you, depending on how you work with it. You may think the Allies have it easy, but, the Japanese are working on an Inside-Out system, while the Allied supply route is skirting Japanese territory. The Allied convoy routes can be very far from bases, which means that LBA cannot hunt subs.

As was already mentioned, all sides are missing significant numbers of ships. Given time, and input, I am pretty sure that a bunch of them will be added into the game.

[McNaughton]

Reading up on Ghurkas, there were a few units which were all or mostly Ghurka.

16th Indian Brigade
48th Indian Brigade (17th Division)
28th Indian Brigade

Also, many Indian Divisions and Brigades had substantial British formations.

In Malay, of the 22 Battalions in Indian Brigades, 3 of them were British (as the war went on, the ratio of Indian to British changed so that a significant amount were British).

Of the two Malayan Brigades 6 Battalions, 2 were Malayan, 1 was Indian, 3 were British (currently all squads are Commonwealth).

The standard TOE of Indian Divisions in 1944 was almost totally 1/3 British (1 battalion per brigade being British)

First, Ghurka troops should be increased in stats (their stats match Commonwealth Squads), when they were known for their high quality. A Ghurka Brigade formation should be created, and at least the three above mentioned Brigades should be equipped with Ghurka Squads, not Indian.

Second, the Commonwealth didn't exist, it was still called the British Empire, so instead of Commonweatlh Squads, they should be Empire Squads (this might be a bonus, as you could attract some Star Wars fanatics!).

Third, there should be a consideration about modifying the Indian Division and Brigade TOE to have about 1/3 of the forces being British.

[vonmoltke]

ORIGINAL: pad152

The Java class Light crusiers CL are listed as having 59in/50 QF Guns Wow!

59in Gun!!! I think this should be 5.9in/50 QF Gun!

I think it does say 5.9; the font just sucks. [:'(]

Compare the number in the main gun armament to the ship's manuever value, which is 59. There is a spacing difference. The point in 5.9 ran onto the nine.

Also note that every ship with 5.9" guns looks this way. A similar phenomenon happens with the 5.5" guns; look at the French destroyer.

[elcid]

The Japanese bases in the Mandated Islands (Carolines, etc.) were unfortified when WWII began. While it is widely reported Japan "illegally" fortified them during the 1930s, this is not true. The decision to fortify was taken after the Makin Island raid. See University of Hawaii Press book Nanyo (the Japanese word for these islands). Japan then studied the US defense of Wake and concluded that coast guns were the key. But these fortifications were all build during the midwar period.

[Brady]

"The geography actually favours the IJN, rather than hindering it. The confines seazones that you speak of are all fairly far from US bases (until the US starts taking the central pacific). Also, the Japanese player will be able to easily predict where the US will have their subs. Also, there are some big land masses all along the shipping route, which make spectacular ASW patrol bases. "

The primary tool for the alies to wield aganst the Japanese Shiping is the Submarine, which can easly reach any area on the map, right from the start, in December in the Big one I have already sank ships right off Japan with US sub's. Part of the predection problem is that even if they can determine the likely areas for the subs to be in that does not mean that they will efective in hunting them, what with the restrictions placed on Japanese ASW forces. You still hvae as mentioned several compounding advantages for the alies that are not at all offset by this in the least.




"The geography can work for and against you, depending on how you work with it. You may think the Allies have it easy, but, the Japanese are working on an Inside-Out system, while the Allied supply route is skirting Japanese territory. The Allied convoy routes can be very far from bases, which means that LBA cannot hunt subs. "

The long way around is realy no big deal, and will get easer in Time, I have found that suply is realy no problem at all for the Alies in the first couple months of the war, in fact I am more concerned with over stocking bases with suplies. The Japanese ecenomy is unlike the Allied one subject to influence, so the balance in merchants for them is more tenious, the alies can aford to lose goobs of merchant ships, the Japanese cannnot. Howeaver as you say this will depended greatly on how a player in a PBEM game adreases a varity of issues.

"As was already mentioned, all sides are missing significant numbers of ships. Given time, and input, I am pretty sure that a bunch of them will be added into the game"

Well I am shure some isues will be adreased howeaver many isues being discused hear have already been mentioned, and long ago, so it will be interesting to see what does get adreased.

[bradfordkay]

checking here ... does the units move get reset to none each turn?

Sorry, Frag, I had to go to work after my last post. I just got home. I will check tonight to see if it will accept the orders, but my recollection was that it would not allow me to set the next hex across as a destination.

EDIT: I just tried it again. I have two Burmese brigades (1st and 2d, I believe - the ones who started in Tavoy and Moulmein) in the RR junction hex NE of Rangoon (29,33). I try to give them orders to cross the river to their NW and I cannot choose that hex as a destination (I get the screen text "NOT ALLOWED"). The same occurs if I try to choose the trail hex on the north side of the Irrawaddy River as a destination. If you hit the F6 key, it shows those hexsides as passable only to naval units, but there is clearly a highway/railroad crossing those rivers on the map (whether they existed IRL, I haven't the sources here to tell you).

[strawbuk]

Adding to McNaughton::

I agree with lots of this. More power to the Empire I say.

1. 'Indian' bgds often having a Brit btn in them (leftover fears of The Mutiny and all that). Some sample OOBs below to show point. NOTE that is was common to have FOUR Btn bgds in Indian formations, not the three many may be used to in other times/theatres

26 INDIAN DIVISION 1944 ish
4 BDE: 1 Wiltshire, 2/13 Frontier Force, 2/17 Rajputana
36 BDE: 1st Btn North Staffordshire Regt 8/13 Frontier Force, 5/16 Punjab, 1/8 Ghurkha
71 BDE: 1 Lincolns, 5/1 Punjabs, 1/18 Royal Garwalhi Rifles

71st Indian Infantry Brigade:
1st Btn The Lincolnshire Regt
5th Btn 1st Punjab Regt
7th Btn 15th Punjab Regt
1st Btn 18th Royal Garhwal Rifles

Of course btns come and go but you see the point.

2.. Ghurkha experience should be higher as best proxy we have for their strong fighting abilities - but lets us be careful there. There fighting skills were strong at the micro tactical sharp end, many a VC and all that. As Btn/Bgd units (with Brit officers) they could still be badly handled and (pre Slim) just as vulnerable to 'rearitus' eg not happy when Japanese cut supply/retreat routes. .

3. The relationship between and different nature of the Indian Army and the British Army is long and complex. The Indian Army was not just Brit TOEs/OOB manned by Indians. And you had Ghurkha units in the Indian Army and Ghurkha units in the British Army. All interesting stuff BUT it seems that generally Indian Army units had less equipment by TOE or by default/lack of priority eg less mortars, less Bren (LMG). The Indian Army units officer and staffs would also not have benefited from any of the harsh experience of modern war in Europe/N.Africa (air power, mobility) - even units NOT in France/Norway in British army had their training changed to reflect this.

So I suggest (allowing for scope of game mechanisms)

Indian army bgds should be mix of Brit/Anzac and Indian squads

Indian squads might have slightly lower TOE/firepower as proxy for less MGs etc. Keep experience low too

Indian (or indeed Brit...) units which are Ghurkhas should have higher 'experience'.

Sources;
Defeat into Victory
The Unforgettable Army

[highblooded]

Can more slots be added for all units? With a game this large I don't see why there is a limitation in slot numbers(especially cv air units).

Will ALL these aformentioned changes be implemented if reasonable documentation is provided?

My largest concerns deal with the map issues ( namely missing islands - SE pacific and Indian ocean) According to sources I've seen many of the roads and rail do not belong ( Australia, Burma, Malaya) and many should be added ( china ). Many bases need to be removed from the map in Pacific.

It would seem to me that Singapore should be a size 9 port to facilitate Minelayers (Soerabaja as well?) Did Minelayer Depot Ships exist?

Too many starting Allied Units seem to begin with much to high levels of disabled units. Unless a unit is still forming/training they should be mostly operational. It seems that a high(90%) disruption level would be more appropriate.

Russian Troops are far too experienced (65) and morale far too high(65) with training maxing at 60( As well known The far east had been gutted to supply troops for Moscow- the leftovers were lower quality reservists with 2nd rate equipment) There are also too few russian divisions ( there should be around 30- total troops equaling 1,343,000) and too few armored vehicles (2,100 needed according to my sources- mostly AC, t26 and bt5/7 very few if any t34) and 3,100 COMBAT aircraft ( mostly low quality obsolete types)

Is there anyway to give troops in nonbase hexes fortification values at start of game? None seem to have this? Can it be added?

Chinese Leaders are pitiful, they deserve better. Shame shame.

Philipino troops deserve better ratings as well.

I noticed that the 2nd USMC is a bit on the high side(90/95) making them tied with the Japanese 5th ID for best unit in the game. With no combat Experience don't you think this is a little ridiculous?

Late war Japanese aircraft( some early war as well) seem pathetic in manuver ratings( p47d "JUG" is better ) from what i've heard about combat calculations speed is number one with agility far down the list. Shouldn't the Japanese at least get high manuver ratings to which they were highly acclaimed. It won't help since it isn't a major factor in calculations but they deserve it anyway. KI 84 and KI100 were supposed to be than p51( 'b' model i believe). The Low quality alloy and rushed production problems should not be presumed since Japan may not be getting their butts wiped.

Thats all for now must go to work.

[guke]

A few errors regarding SE asian location names:

Krung Thep is the Thai name for Bangkok (actually only the first part of a rather long name). On the map Krung Thep and Bangkok are separate locations which is wrong, I think.
Contrary to someone elses post it should be Songkhla and not Songkhia.
The base Siemrem Reap should be Siem Reap, Siem Reab or Siemreab (I've seen all three spellings)

[Brady]

"Late war Japanese aircraft( some early war as well) seem pathetic in manuver ratings( p47d "JUG" is better ) from what i've heard about combat calculations speed is number one with agility far down the list. Shouldn't the Japanese at least get high manuver ratings to which they were highly acclaimed. It won't help since it isn't a major factor in calculations but they deserve it anyway. KI 84 and KI100 were supposed to be than p51( 'b' model i believe). The Low quality alloy and rushed production problems should not be presumed since Japan may not be getting their butts wiped. "

I havent checked this, The Ki-84 and Ki-100 were far more manuaverable aircraft than All the US fighters except the Wildcat, the Ki-100 was not a spead deamon howeaver, realy it was a bit slower (just) than an early model Ki-61, howeaver it was reliable and was more manuaverable, the NiK2's were very manuaverable when compared to all the allied types, though not quiet as good as a Wildcat, The Gracewas reportedly as good manuaveability wise as the Zero's were, and the A7M was suposed to be as well. What may be going on hear, is that while the Japanese aircraft were considerably more manuaverable on the whole, the US planese were often better at High spead manuavers, again this depends on the plane types in question and the altitudes, ect, but it shold be noted that this is kinda of a mute point because the Japanese planes would not be maunavering with them at High spead anyway. Spead I beleave is the Bigest determiner in WiTP(that and or piolet skill), look at the F4U's preformance, this plane is a compleat pig manuaver wise, and yet it is a kiling machine.

[Iron Duke]

Hi,

A few observations on the RAAF OOB

12 RAAF Sqd upgrades to Boomerrang ------------should upgrade to Vengeance I
13 RAAF Sqd upgrades to Beaufort -------------should upgrade to PV-1 Ventura
15 RAAF Sqd arrives Townsville ---------------------should arrive Sydney
18 RAAF Sqd arrrives Darwin -----------------------should arrive Canberra
21 RAAF Sqd upgrades to Hurricane II -------------Should upgrade to Vengeance I
22 RAAF Sqd upgrades to Boomerrang -------------should upgrade to A20 Boston
23 RAAF Sqd upgrades to Boomerrang -------------should upgrade to Vengeance I
24 RAAF Sqd upgrades to Boomerrang -------------should upgrade to Vengeance I
25 RAAF Sqd upgrades to Boomerrang -------------should upgrade to Vengeance I
30 RAAF Sqd arrives w/Beaufighter Mk 21 ----------should be Beaufighter VIF or VIC
31 RAAF Sqd arrives w/Beaufighter Mk 21 ----------should be Beaufighter VIF or VIC
32 RAAF Sqd arrives Sydney -------------------------should be Port Moresby
33 RAAF Sqd arrives Melbourne ---------------------should be Townsville
and upgrade to Dakota I
38 RAAF Sqd arrives Melbourne w/Dakotas --------should arrive Sydney w/Hudsons
upgrades to Dakotas
41 RAAF Sqd arrives Melbourne ---------------------should arrive Townsville
upgrades to PBM Mariner
84 RAAF Sqd arrives w/Kittyhawks ------------------should arrive w/Boomerrangs
upgrades to Kittyhawks

54 RAAF Sqd should be deleted , it is being confused with 54 RAF Sqd which is already in the RAF OOB

8 RAAF Sqd is duplicated , the later one arriving with Beauforts should be deleted.

Missing Sqd's:-

92 RAAF Sqd Beaufighters Mk 21 arriving 25/5/45 at Brisbane
93 RAAF Sqd Beaufighters Mk 21 arriving 22/1/45 at Brisbane
94 RAAF Sqd Mosquito FB arriving 30/5/45 at Sydney
37 RAAF Sqd Lodestar arriving 15/7/43 at Melbourne

ref:-
Fling Squadrons of the Australian Defence Force -- Steve Eather
Royal Australian Air Force 1939-1942 -- Douglas Gillison
Air War Against Japan 1943-1945 -- George Odgers

Cheers

[Iron Duke]

Hi

Observations on the RNZAF

No.1,2,3,4,9 RNZAF Hudson Sqd's should upgrade to PV-1 Venturas

No 5 RNZAF Hudson Sqd should upgrade to Catalina

No. 14,15,16,17,18,19,20,24 RNZAF Kittyhawk Sqd's shoulds upgrade to F4u-1 Corsairs

no. 25 RNZAF Sqd should arrive w/SBD Dauntless and upgrade to F4U-1 Corsairs

No. 30,31 RNZAF Sqd's arrive w/TBM Avengers should arrive with TBF Avengers

Missing Sqd's

No. 8 RNZAF Sqd arrives w/ PV-1 Venturas 10/44
No. 6 RNZAF Sqd arrives w/ Catalinas ??/??

Ref:-
Various Osprey books

Cheers

[McNaughton]

Looking at the power of squads, I think that they could be revised.

Possibly each individual weapon should be given a point rating, so we are aware that if X many Y-Type Rifles were in a squad, then firepower would be Z.

US Weaponry at the time was...

RIFLE
1903 Springfield Rifle (an old bolt-rifle, not comparable to updated and improved European versions like the Enfield, MAS, or Mauser)
+1.5 Soft Attack/gun
M1 Garand Rifle (a semi-automatic rifle, good rate of fire and accuracy)
+2.5 Soft Attack/gun
M1 Carbine (a rifle firing pistol ammunition, very useful in close combat where bullet power is less important to rate of fire)
+2.5 Soft Attack/gun

LMG
Browning Automatic Rifle (It was a good semi-automatic rifle, but a poor LMG)
+3 Soft Attack/gun
Browning LMG (this was technically a MMG, heavier than most LMGs, but greater rate of fire)
+6 Soft Attack/gun

SMG
Thompson Submachine Gun (very reliable, but kind of heavy, SMGs very useful in Pacific Terrain)
+4 Soft Attack/gun


The firepower of a 1941 US squad was actually very minimal. For an entire platoon, there were 34 rifles and 2 BAR between 4 squads (3 rifle squads 1 BAR squad). A soft firepower rating of 22 is just way too high for such a small number of soldiers, armed with an elderly bolt rifle (the Springfield was not updated, like the Enfield was), and a limited support weapon (the BAR never matched the firepower of a true LMG). There was a MG platoon in the battalion, with 4 guns per battalion, but this wouldn't affect squad firepower that much. Also, there was absolutely no Anti-Tank weaponry (possibly a few rifle grenades, but these were only issued generally when the M1 was issued). Each squad would have 12 men, equipped with 11.5 rifles, and 0.5 BAR.

1941 US squads, and Philippine Scout squads
Anti-Armour: 0-5 (no Anti-Tank weaponry, except for what they could scrounge up, or grenades they can assault a tank with)
Anti-Soft: 18 (with only old rifles, and limited use of a BAR whose support firepower was very low)


By 1942 the Army was starting to get the M1 issued, and squad composition changed. Now a Platoon had 44 rifles (M1) and 3 BAR. Individually the M1 was drastically superior to the 1903 Springfield, and each squad now had access to a BAR. Firepower was effectively doubled. The issuing of rifle grenades was the squads only anti-tank defense. Each squad had 11 rifles and 1 BAR.

1942 Squad
Anti-Armour: 5 (rifle grenades had limited effect against tanks)
Anti-Soft: 31 (Each gun was better, with squads having their own support weapon, albiet a bad one)


By 1943 SMGs were starting to be issued, as well as Bazookas making their appearance into the battalion's inventory. Soft firepower was slightly increased, but the anti-tank value shot up with an actual infantry anti-tank weapon.

Early 1943 Squad
Anti-Armour: 55
Anti-Soft: 32


By late 1943 more SMGs and BARs were added to the squad's inventory. The US never developed an improved anti-tank infantry weapon (relied on the same bazooka) so their Anti-tank firepower really didn't increase.

Late 1943 Squad
Anti-Armour: 55
Anti-Soft: 34 (replacing more M1s for SMGs and BARs)


----------

The US Marines were similarly sized (9 men per squad in 1941), but with some differences. They had a BAR issued per squad, which meant that their automatic firepower per platoon was 5 guns (compared to an Army platoon of 2 since the Marines also had a BAR squad of 2 guns). Yet, since the number of soldiers was lower (they had 7 rifles, 1 SMG, and 1.5 BAR when the BAR squad was factored in) their firewpower was probalby only slightly better than an Army squad (currently it is close to a British squad, which had more rifles and an actual LMG). Like US army squads, there was no organic anti-tank beyond whatever they could scrounge or create. Plus it was noted that a SMG (Thompson) was an organic squad weapon (each squad had one).

1941 Squad
Anti-Armour: 0-5
Anti-Soft: 19 (better firepower than a US squad per soldier, but they had two fewer men)


In 1942, the 1903 Springfield was replaced (at a slower rate than the army, which had priority) by the M1. Also, company HQ always had a large amount of BAR's to be deployed to increase squad firepower at notice, so BAR support increased even though numbers stayed the same.

1942 Squad
Anti-Armour: 5 (like their army counterparts, Rifle Grenades were the only AT defense)
Anti-Soft: 26 (US Army squads had greater firepower due to greater numbers)


In 1943 marines, like the Army, got rid of their BAR platoon and changed the squads to 10 men. I assume that SMGs found their way into the squad, but from all accounts it appears that weapons were mainly the M1 and BAR. This setup left a Marine Squad with 8 M1 Rifles and 2 BAR. Bazookas were not yet included in Marine Squads.

1943 Squad
Anti-Armour: 15 (more rifle grenades were added, but no Bazookas)
Anti-Soft: 26 (greater individual Firepower than an Army squad, but fewer soldiers)


Currently not included, but the 1944 Marine Squad featured an immense increase in firepower. Now a 12 man squad, divided into three fire teams (each with 1 M1 Carbine, 2 M1 Rifles, 1 BAR) for a total of 3 Carbines, 6 Rifles, 3 BAR. Each squad also had access to a Flamethrower and demolitions, plus the platoon could get Bazooka protection.

1944 Squad
Anti-Armour: 55
Anti-Soft: 38 (more total firepower than a regular Army Squad)

----------

USMC Raider squads. Day one these squads were equipped with M1 Rifles, 5 of them, plus 2 BAR, and 1 Springfield 1903.

1941 Squad
Anti-Armour: 5
Anti-Soft: 20


In 1942 the squad was changed to field a 9 man squad, divided into teams of three for a total of 3 M1 Rifles, 1 BAR, and 5 SMGs. It sacrificed range for close shock (ideal for jungle fighting), yet had little more than Rifle Grenades for anti-tank support. Its firepower is lower becuase it had 3 fewer men than most squads

1942 Squad:
Anti-Armour: 5
Anti-Soft: 31

----------

Parachute units in 1942 started off in 12 man squads. Each squad had 10 M1s, 1 SMG and initially 1 BAR (later replaced by a Browning LMG).

1941 Squad:
Anti-Armour: 5 (Still only used rifle grenades)
Anti-Soft: 32

In 1943 the Browning MMGs were issued (designed to be fired from a bipod)

1943 Squad:
Anti-Armour: 55
Anti-Soft: 35

----------

I haven't been able to address engineer squads, but some might need to be toned down or increased in some cases.