Page 24 of 109
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:44 pm
by Cap Mandrake
Wow! The level of detail in the OOB discussions is truly.......ummm........[:D]
It is cool, though, even if much of the minutae gets lost in the land combat routines.
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:29 pm
by Andy Mac
ps did I ever mention how much I hate the Australian Light Horse units and their 1,001 configurations and changes [:D][:D][:D]
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:41 pm
by Andy Mac
OK I am going to ditch the CS version of the Matilda as an uneeded complication CW armour drives me nuts [:@][:@][:@][:@]
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:36 pm
by JeffroK
I dont see the Lee/Grant upgrading to the Matilda II.
Some units changed due to a perceived inability for the Lee/Grant to perform in the Jungles (Though they got some Churchills & Shermans up there!)
So does the game stop the Allies from shipping a better tank just because IRL they thought it couldnt be done? Probably at a higher transport cost.
Do the Aussies loose a tank which could be a better AFV in open (Australia) terrain?
A problem in designing such a game is handling the alternate situations, its easier to say this happened IRL so thats that.
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:52 pm
by Andy Mac
Yeah I agree the upgrade path remains Improvised AFV - Matilda II - Grant - Churchill (I ignored the MH Tank and Vickers Tanks for this purpose as they never saw combat and Matildas arrive early enough to make them not worthwhile) p.s. the Matilda web site link is down so I assumed they start arriving iat end Jan 42
There just werent enough Shermans in Australia to make it worthwhile
Indian and NZ Improvised AFV - Vickers Tankettes - Valentine III - General Lee - General Grant - Sherman V - Churchill VII
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:57 pm
by JeffroK
ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
Yeah I agree the upgrade path remains Improvised AFV - Matilda II - Grant - Churchill (I ignored the MH Tank and Vickers Tanks for this purpose as they never saw combat and Matildas arrive early enough to make them not worthwhile) I would include them in the improvised AFV figures, they have some combat value, and if the wily jap landed in Sydney on 7/12 would have seen combat p.s. the Matilda web site link is down so I assumed they start arriving iat end Jan 42. It worked last night, I'll check the address, maybe I can cut & paste the info
There just werent enough Shermans in Australia to make it worthwhile. There were'nt many more Churchills!
Indian and NZ Improvised AFV - Vickers Tankettes - Valentine III - General Lee - General Grant - Sherman V - Churchill VII
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:03 am
by JeffroK
Try
http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/armourframe.htm
for a lot of works on Aussie armour, Paul Handel has a number of books out.
http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/marmonherringtinph_1.htm
for the left & right handed M-H tanks
http://www.mheaust.com.au/Aust/Research/Matilda/Matdelivery.htm
for the Matilda II
[font=arial]
Matilda Tank Shipments Received by Australia 1942
[/font][font=arial]
Research by Shane Lovell[/font]
[font=arial]
This table lists the number of Matilda tanks received in Australia during each week of 1942. Data for the table was collated from weekly progress reports prepared by the Chiefs of Staff for the Australian Government. Unfortunately the source documents did not identify the mark of Matilda received.[/font]
Weekly Arrivals Cumulative
W/E 31/1/42 0 0
7/2/42 0 0
14/2/42 0 0
21/2/42 0 0
27/2/42 0 0
7/3/42 0 0
14/3/42 0 0
21/3/42 0 0
28/3/42 0 0
4/4/42 12 12
11/4/42 0 12
18/4/42 0 12
25/4/42 8 20
2/5/42 42 62
9/5/42 0 62
16/5/42 0 62
23/5/42 30 92
30/5/42 0 92
6/6/42 4 96
13/6/42 0 96
20/6/42 4 100
27/6/42 3 103
4/7/42 0 103
11/7/42 1 104
18/7/42 17 121
25/7/42 27 148
1/8/42 0 148
8/8/42 15 163
15/8/42 0 163
22/8/42 8 171
29/8/42 20 191
5/9/42 8 199
12/9/42 6 205
19/9/42 0 186 note 1
26/9/42 0 186
3/10/42 10 196
10/10/42 2 198
17/10/42 19 217
24/10/42 10 227
31/10/42 0 227
7/11/42 15 242
14/11/42 4 246
21/11/42 23 269
28/11/42 16 285
5/12/42 4 289
12/12/42 5 294
19/12/42 10 304
26/12/42 0 304
It looks good on the edit page[&:] and may not represent if ant arrived in 1943?
[b[font=arial]
Sources:
AWM227: 34 Weekly Progress Reports of Chiefs of Staff to the Prime Minister.
AWM 113: MH/160 Parts 1-5 Weekly Progress Reports of the Chiefs of Staff to the Prime Minister[/font]
[font=arial]
Note 1:
[/font][font=arial]During the week ending 19 September 1942 the number of Matildas on hand was revised in response to the discovery of double counting[/font]
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:07 am
by Reg
ORIGINAL: JeffK
I dont see the Lee/Grant upgrading to the Matilda II.
Some units changed due to a perceived inability for the Lee/Grant to perform in the Jungles (Though they got some Churchills &
Shermans up there!)
It really depends on your definition of 'upgrade'. I was not saying that the Matilda is better, it's just when you have a close look at the armoured regiment equipment schedules (which I sent to Andy), you will notice that the Matilda is further down the time line. Consequently it is simplier to simulate this by putting the Matilda further down the upgrade path. (though I think Andy might be handling this by upgrading the TOE).
The Stuart/Grant organisation was intended for home defence and by the end of 1943 the need had passed and all the armoured divisions were being disbanded (personnel usually went to landing craft units which were desperately needed for this next phase of the war).
Chronologically speaking, the armoured units were re-equipped with the Matilda for the counter offensive against the Pacific islands. This was a definite policy decision. The remaining home defence units (independent Brigades then Regiments) retained their older TOE. (though to be a pain, one or two reverted to the old TOE when they rotated back to the mainland after time in PNG).
The Shermans were only trial examples where it was found other types did it better.
So does the game stop the Allies from shipping a better tank just because IRL they thought it couldnt be done? Probably at a higher transport cost.
Umm... Whats more important here? The fact that a professional soldier up to his waist in New Guinea mud says it can't be done or that it has a 14 point attack value in the game?
The Australian army did extensive testing (quoted by yourself) and they did not choose to use the Grants (or Shermans or M24 Chaffees either). There must have been a real life reason. Besides even if don't like the Matilda it does upgrade to the Churchill which is a direct successor in the Jungle tank role.
Do the Aussies loose a tank which could be a better AFV in open (Australia) terrain?
This is an issue. However, the issue here is the fact that the Australian Army adapted itself to the changing conditions and if the game plays out in a slightly different way, those historical changes may not be appropriate to the player.
To keep the older vehicles for home defence duties, can't you halt upgrades? Stick with the older TOE??
A problem in designing such a game is handling the alternate situations, its easier to say this happened IRL so thats that.
Gotta agree. I'm happy with whatever you guy decide. I'm just providing some historical info you may not be aware of.
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:23 am
by JeffroK
ORIGINAL: Reg
ORIGINAL: JeffK
I dont see the Lee/Grant upgrading to the Matilda II.
Some units changed due to a perceived inability for the Lee/Grant to perform in the Jungles (Though they got some Churchills &
Shermans up there!)
It really depends on your definition of 'upgrade'. I was not saying that the Matilda is better, it's just when you have a close look at the armoured regiment equipment schedules (which I sent to Andy), you will notice that the Matilda is further down the time line. Consequently it is simplier to simulate this by putting the Matilda further down the upgrade path. (though I think Andy might be handling this by upgrading the TOE).
The Stuart/Grant organisation was intended for home defence and by the end of 1943 the need had passed and all the armoured divisions were being disbanded (personnel usually went to landing craft units which were desperately needed for this next phase of the war).
Chronologically speaking, the armoured units were re-equipped with the Matilda for the counter offensive against the Pacific islands. This was a definite policy decision. The remaining home defence units (independent Brigades then Regiments) retained their older TOE. (though to be a pain, one or two reverted to the old TOE when they rotated back to the mainland after time in PNG).
Thats all assuming that the war in 1943+ is in PNG or the islands, look at the games where the japanese has invaded Australia and needed to be evicted in that time frame, we have to be wary of tying players down to reacting to real life rather than whats going on in the game.
The Shermans were only trial examples where it was found other types did it better.
So does the game stop the Allies from shipping a better tank just because IRL they thought it couldnt be done? Probably at a higher transport cost.
Umm... Whats more important here? The fact that a professional soldier up to his waist in New Guinea mud says it can't be done or that it has a 14 point attack value in the game?
Professional soldiers told Slim that the Lee/Grant couldnt work in the Jungles, 25 Dragoons proved them wrong at the "Admin Box" battles and exploded the myth at Imphal. 14 pts is better than 2, the Matilda was a terrible option for close infantry support.
The Australian army did extensive testing (quoted by yourself) and they did not choose to use the Grants (or Shermans or M24 Chaffees either). There must have been a real life reason. Besides even if don't like the Matilda it does upgrade to the Churchill which is a direct successor in the Jungle tank role.
Do the Aussies loose a tank which could be a better AFV in open (Australia) terrain?
This is an issue. However, the issue here is the fact that the Australian Army adapted itself to the changing conditions and if the game plays out in a slightly different way, those historical changes may not be appropriate to the player.
To keep the older vehicles for home defence duties, can't you halt upgrades? Stick with the older TOE??
A problem in designing such a game is handling the alternate situations, its easier to say this happened IRL so thats that.
Gotta agree. I'm happy with whatever you guy decide. I'm just providing some historical info you may not be aware of.
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:19 am
by Andy Mac
Thanks for all the help guys Australian Light Horse and Armoured upgrades make my head hurt !!!!
I am going with the historical sequence Matilda - Grant (Churchill is in 9/45 so it makes no real difference its a red herring the more important issue is the non appearance of Shermans)
Stuart Light tanks I am dealing with via upgrades to TOE removing over time they will equip Australian forces in early 42 before phasing out on various TOE upgrades and a minor annoyance then Australian Forces will end up using a mix of Armoured Cars for some units primarily the Motor Bdes (1st and 3rd with one disbanding in 43 and independent Ard Car Regts 2/11th primarily) (MH, White or if they are lucky Staghound I's) and either Matilda II's or M3 Lee/Grants as tanks Australia will pretty much have enough of both types to equip their entire armoured force especially after 1st Motor Bde and 3rd Army Tank Bde (Ex 2nd Aus Cav Bde) disbands and 6th Cav Bde disbands
There really is a severe contraction in Aus Armoured forces after from early in 43 which means they will have surplus tanks for those that are left.
Australia will reduce from a peak of 5 Motor/Cav/Ard Bdes and a couple of LH Recce Regts plus the AIF Recce Regts in 6th 7th and 9th Div plus the AIF Ard Regts 2/4 - 2/11.
Australia by 43 will end up
1 x Motor Bde a mixed force of an MG Bn, 2 Motor Bns with attached sqns of armoured cars and an Arty Regt (no heavy tanks)
4th Armoured Bde broadly 3 Heavy Armoured Regts and about 7 Independent Armoured Regts/Bns
And then in 44 more are cannibalised for Infantry and Landing Craft replacements the strongest Australian Armour is in the whole war in late 1942 !!!!
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:21 am
by Andy Mac
By 44 I reckon off the cuff Australia will have units and manpower to run less than 250 Heavy tanks mostly in 4th Armoured Bde but will have recieved 1,200 Matildas and Grants its weird how it goes
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:47 am
by JeffroK
Sounds about right, by the end of '42 tha japanese had been pushed back over the Owen Stanley's and apart from a scare on the west coast in 43 or 44 the threat of invasion was over, most of the AFV ended up in training plus many that went u/s were cannibilised for parts.
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:17 am
by Reg
[/quote]
14 pts is better than 2, the Matilda was a terrible option for close infantry support.
So this is the bottom line. The Grant is an upgrade because it is more effective in game terms.
However, looking at the device stats I can see where this impression came from and I don't agree with it at all.
Code: Select all
Matilda II Grant
Effect 3 12
Armour 120 65
AntiArmour 75 110
AntiSoft 11 31
First of all, One in three Matildas was a 3" howitzer armed CS version which should have stats similar to other 75mm tank (Grant/Sherman etc) which had a similar weapon (I can't see a 3" howitzer on the device list to compare). The Grant's 75mm was a low velocity model so shouldn't be too much superior in the anti-soft case.
Something else to be considered is that the Australian 2lb gun as fitted to the Matilda gun tanks was supplied with and fired HE ammunition!! I feel that the low effect and antisoft values listed above only consider the AP ammunition used in Europe (which was a doctrinal rather than technical decision BTW). There were no Tiger tanks to deal with in the Pacific and machine guns were quite adeqate to deal with most of the enemy infantry units encountered. There was also no vehicle technology race in progress to render existing designs obsolete.
The Matilda's low speed rather than being a disadvantage was actually an asset for infantry support (see the Tank Comparative Trials reports on the internet references in previous posts).
The only issue seems to be that the game does not reflect this. I think if you beef up the Matilda's effect and antisoft values to reflect HE ammunition and I think (with it's high armour), the Matilda will demonstrate a more of its historical performance in game terms. You could average these figures 2:1 with the CS version if you don't want to track this version separately (I believe this is viable in a game of this scale).
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:59 pm
by Andy Mac
Yup thats what I am doing I took out the specific matilda CS as it was too hard and I averaged on a ration of 1 CS to 3 normal the soft attacks (2:1 was per regt structure but the Motor Bdes were different and the HQ's tended to be normal II's hence 3:1 not 2:1)
Matilda ends up with soft attack of 20
However I am sticking with Matilda - Grant as the upgrade option and not Grant - Matilda if you dont like it change it [:D][:D]
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:56 am
by Reg
Cool [8D] I'm happy with that. Thanks for listening to our input.
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:47 pm
by Chad Harrison
Just wanted to throw two quick questions in:
1. Will late war US Marine divisions include the Marine armour or will it be separate as a Tank Bn?
2. It was mentioned earlier, but I think it would make a lot more sense for an individual squad type to simply 'upgrade' to a new unit type rather than have to have the new squad type built. You are not replacing the men, only getting them new(er) weapons. I can not imagine that the US in 1944 had a hard time getting the existing marine squads newer weapons, flamethrowers, bazookas, ect. The real strain was for actual marines, not their personal, squad/platoon equipment. In the current system (as far as I understand it correctly), you need to replace existing Marine 41 Squads with Marine 44 Squads. The device built squads logically represent replacing total lost units; replacing both the men (limited) and the equipment (not limited). This would obviously not apply to devise driven equipment like artillery, AAA, tanks, ect.
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:26 am
by Andy Mac
1. Ask Joel
2. I agree its one of the solutions we are playing with but it depends on prioritisation
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:50 am
by Chad Harrison
Per Andy, Joel?
ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison
Just wanted to throw two quick questions in:
1. Will late war US Marine divisions include the Marine armour or will it be separate as a Tank Bn?
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:00 am
by Chad Harrison
ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
2. I agree its one of the solutions we are playing with but it depends on prioritisation
Just did some quick numbers all based on Stock, Scenario 15 to prove my point. Obviously all these values and dates are going to change w/ AE, but if left unchanged, the problem will still exist.
The last version of the USMC Rifle and Engineer Squads show up in December of 1943 (again this is stock). If you assume that both the 5th and 6th Marine Divisions which arrive after that point use the most current squad types, that means that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Marine Divisions will need to upgrade to the new squad types. Stock TO&E puts a full strength Marine division at 297 rifle and 121 engineer squads. The build rate for Dec 43 Marine rifle squad is 54, and for Dec 43 Marine Engineer squad is 21.
That means that it will take 23 MONTHS TO UPDATE THE CURRENT MARINE DIVISIONS TO THE NEW TYPE!!! [X(] And this is assuming no losses during this time. They will all complete upgrading right before the war ends.
Math - 4 Marine divisions
297 Rifle * 4 = 1188 rifle squads / 54 rifle squads/month = 22 months
121 Engineer * 4 = 484 engineer squads / 21 engineer squads/month = 23 months
As I stated above, that does not make sense. This makes sense if you were
rebuilding four full strength Marine divisions. But all you are doing is issuing new weapons, not new men. This is obviously not the case with devise driven material such as tanks, AAA guns, CD guns, artillery and so on.
Marines were limited. Thier small arms were not.
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:13 am
by Blackhorse
ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison
1. Will late war US Marine divisions include the Marine armour or will it be separate as a Tank Bn?
Each USMC Division includes a tank battalion. The tank battalions are first formed with 72 light tanks (a mix of M2A4s and M3 Stuarts), then a combination of Stuarts and M4 Shermans, and eventually upgrade to 46 Sherman medium tanks.
A separate medium tank battalion makes an appearance, but is later disbanded (the tanks were used to upgrade the divisional tank battalions).
US Army divisions do not have armor in their TO&E until the Summer, 1945 upgrade to prepare for the invasion of Japan. Then each infantry division gains 54 tanks, evenly split between M26 Pershings, and M4 Shermans (105mm Close Support).
The US Army also gets a couple of battalions of flamethrower tanks. [Only tanks with main-gun flamethrowers were counted. The field-modded tanks that sported a very short-range F/T in place of a bow machinegun were not very effective. They are included, but only as 'standard' tanks of their type.]