OOB 324

[P.Hausser]

Why is there 324 Squads in Japanese, Soviet and Commonwealth Divisions ?? Did they not have slightly different squad numbers as standard.. did they really have identical number of squads in all 3 Army's military set up's ?

[Barb]

IJA: you have 3 squads per platoon, 3 platoons per company, 4 companies per battalion, 3 battalions per regiment and 3 regiments per division = 3x3x4x3x3 = 324

UK: 3 sq. per platoon, 3 plts per company, 4 Cos per battalion, 3 bns per brigade, 3 bdes per division = 3x3x4x3x3 = 324

USSR: 3sq per platoon, 3 plts per company, 3 Cos per battalion, 3 bns per regiment, 3 rgts per division = 3x3x3x3x3 = 243 (this is TOE for 1944 Rifle division. I dont know about 1942 TOE - but maybe devs counted 4 squads per platoon in Soviet Divisions or counted Hwy Wpns Co as regular infantry)

USA: 3sq per platoon, 3 plts per comapany, 3 Cos per battalion, 3bns per regiment, 3rgts per division = 3x3x3x3x3 = 243 (for 1944 Infantry division - maybe devs counted 4 squads per platoon or counted Hwy Wpns Co as regular infantry)

Basic TOE is almost the same for each army, differences are mainly in supporting weapons (heavy weapons company, battalion guns, AT platoons and companies, artillery brigade/regiment, scouts and other attached units).

[Central Blue]

ORIGINAL: P.Hausser

Why is there 324 Squads in Japanese, Soviet and Commonwealth Divisions ?? Did they not have slightly different squad numbers as standard.. did they really have identical number of squads in all 3 Army's military set up's ?

For the Soviets it would depend on whether they were maintaining pre-war TOE's in the east after the German invasion. Per The Red Army Handbook, by Zaloga and Ness,they featured four squads per platoon, then triangular from there, so that would get you to 324.

The Handbook on Japanese Military Forces has now been transcribed online at ibiblio:

http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/IJA/H ... html#index

And it seems that the most usual division was organized on British lines with four companies per battalion. So again, 324.

So given their specificity in that case, I scratch my head regarding what they have done with US Army divisions (273) and regiments (91). They should be 81 and 243. I have no idea what those extra rifle squads represent.

[P.Hausser]

ORIGINAL: Central Blue

So given their specificity in that case, I scratch my head regarding what they have done with US Army divisions (273) and regiments (91). They should be 81 and 243. I have no idea what those extra rifle squads represent.

It would be interesting to get a OOB man's anwser on that..

[Barb]

Maybe they counted parts of Heavy weapons companies into the number.

[Central Blue]

ORIGINAL: Barb

Maybe they counted parts of Heavy weapons companies into the number.

Yes I suppose, but which parts? And why not do that for the other countries?

[ckammp]

Each US Army rifle company included a weapons platoon. These platoons were in addition to the battalion heavy weapons company.This might be how the devs counted the extra squads.  

[Central Blue]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

Each US Army rifle company included a weapons platoon. These platoons were in addition to the battalion heavy weapons company.This might be how the devs counted the extra squads.  

If that is the case, then they are replacing the firepower of 27 60mm mortars and 18 M1919 machine guns with ten squads at the regimental level. Why ten rather than a higher or lower number?

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: Central Blue

ORIGINAL: ckammp

Each US Army rifle company included a weapons platoon. These platoons were in addition to the battalion heavy weapons company.This might be how the devs counted the extra squads.  

If that is the case, then they are replacing the firepower of 27 60mm mortars and 18 M1919 machine guns with ten squads at the regimental level. Why ten rather than a higher or lower number?

The 60mm mortar and the .30-cal LMG M1919A4 are not separate devices in the game; counting their firepower as rifle squads seems to be a reasonable way to include them.

As for why 91 squads per regiment:

Rifle squads - 81
Weapon squads - 9
Recon squads - 1
Total - 91

3 regiments per division = 273 squads per division.

[P.Hausser]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: Central Blue

ORIGINAL: ckammp

Each US Army rifle company included a weapons platoon. These platoons were in addition to the battalion heavy weapons company.This might be how the devs counted the extra squads.  

If that is the case, then they are replacing the firepower of 27 60mm mortars and 18 M1919 machine guns with ten squads at the regimental level. Why ten rather than a higher or lower number?

The 60mm mortar and the .30-cal LMG M1919A4 are not separate devices in the game; counting their firepower as rifle squads seems to be a reasonable way to include them.

As for why 91 squads per regiment:

Rifle squads - 81
Weapon squads - 9
Recon squads - 1
Total - 91

3 regiments per division = 273 squads per division.

Those can be represented already by being a part of a reguler rifle squad ?

[Central Blue]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: Central Blue

ORIGINAL: ckammp

Each US Army rifle company included a weapons platoon. These platoons were in addition to the battalion heavy weapons company.This might be how the devs counted the extra squads.  

If that is the case, then they are replacing the firepower of 27 60mm mortars and 18 M1919 machine guns with ten squads at the regimental level. Why ten rather than a higher or lower number?

The 60mm mortar and the .30-cal LMG M1919A4 are not separate devices in the game; counting their firepower as rifle squads seems to be a reasonable way to include them.

As for why 91 squads per regiment:

Rifle squads - 81
Weapon squads - 9
Recon squads - 1
Total - 91

3 regiments per division = 273 squads per division.

So the regimental intelligence and recon platoon is a rifle squad? And the firepower of those 9 weapons platoons is equivalent to 9 rifle squads? I have to wonder why they carried the stuff around. Once down this road, why not count all those 2" mortars. ATR's, and carrier section drivers in British battalions as good for an extra squad or two?

I prefer Hausser's suggestion to abstract the missing devices into an historical number of squads rather than end up with kludgie numbers.

[JWE]

It all has to do with relativity. There’s the number of support squads required, there’s total load costs, there’s relative firepower during combat, there relative AV strengths during assault odds calculations. So the number of Japanese squads was reduced, the number of Allied squads was increased, all in a rational fashion so everybody can play together in the different algorithms.

There were 4 squads in an IJA platoon: three 13 man gun squads and one 13 man GD squad. These were aggregated (summation of men and firepower, i.e., folding the GDs into the gun squads) into three 17 man infantry squads. The alternative would result in 25% more squads, 25% more support squads, 28% higher AV, pathetic firepower, and impossibly bloated load costs; very bad.

A standard US Army company has nine 12 man infantry squads in the infantry platoons, two 5 man M1919 teams, and three 5 man 60mm mortar teams in the weapons platoon. Add everything up and you get 133 troops, 225 firepower, allowing for three possible configurations:
11 Inf. Squads; each 12 men @ 20 firepower, or
10 Inf. Squads; each 13 men @ 23 firepower, or
9 Inf. Squads; each 15 men @ 25 firepower
Analysis of respective AV, firepower, support, and load cost values, evaluated against the Japanese 17 man squad standard for the respective LCUs, indicated configuration 2 as the most appropriate.

This is very important for AV calculations. Ignoring the MMG sections, it sets 324 J squads facing 270 A squads, for odds calculations. Otherwise it would be 432 J squads, facing 243 A squads; very bad. Also important for respective, relative support squad requirements and load costs.

Everything is indeed (hopefully) accounted for and subsumed within aggregated values. Remember, the editor data fields are not there to promote some arbitrary ideal of what an OOB should look like. Rather they are there to present OOB information in a form that comports with the game algorithms requirements.

[Central Blue]

ORIGINAL: JWE

It all has to do with relativity. There’s the number of support squads required, there’s total load costs, there’s relative firepower during combat, there relative AV strengths during assault odds calculations. So the number of Japanese squads was reduced, the number of Allied squads was increased, all in a rational fashion so everybody can play together in the different algorithms.

There were 4 squads in an IJA platoon: three 13 man gun squads and one 13 man GD squad. These were aggregated (summation of men and firepower, i.e., folding the GDs into the gun squads) into three 17 man infantry squads. The alternative would result in 25% more squads, 25% more support squads, 28% higher AV, pathetic firepower, and impossibly bloated load costs; very bad.

A standard US Army company has nine 12 man infantry squads in the infantry platoons, two 5 man M1919 teams, and three 5 man 60mm mortar teams in the weapons platoon. Add everything up and you get 133 troops, 225 firepower, allowing for three possible configurations:
11 Inf. Squads; each 12 men @ 20 firepower, or
10 Inf. Squads; each 13 men @ 23 firepower, or
9 Inf. Squads; each 15 men @ 25 firepower
Analysis of respective AV, firepower, support, and load cost values, evaluated against the Japanese 17 man squad standard for the respective LCUs, indicated configuration 2 as the most appropriate.

This is very important for AV calculations. Ignoring the MMG sections, it sets 324 J squads facing 270 A squads, for odds calculations. Otherwise it would be 432 J squads, facing 243 A squads; very bad. Also important for respective, relative support squad requirements and load costs.

Everything is indeed (hopefully) accounted for and subsumed within aggregated values. Remember, the editor data fields are not there to promote some arbitrary ideal of what an OOB should look like. Rather they are there to present OOB information in a form that comports with the game algorithms requirements.

Per your last graf.... this has always been more of a game about individual ships or squadrons of planes than it has been about the land side. And that's fine given the hex size. It's been a heck of a game since Pac War.

Thank you for the peak behind the scenes. I have always wondered how such things were calculated on the land side, I thought squad size might have something to do with it.

I don't know how practical the following would be, and perhaps you have heard it before, but have you ever thought of evaluating the effectiveness of land units and devices according to the weight of their effective rate of fire over some time period conducive to all of the code in this game that no one in their right minds wants to mess with?

Just because there are seventeen men in some Japanese squad, what amount of metal (not counting bayonet charges) are they putting in the air compared to other squads or devices?

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
I don't know how practical the following would be, and perhaps you have heard it before, but have you ever thought of evaluating the effectiveness of land units and devices according to the weight of their effective rate of fire over some time period conducive to all of the code in this game that no one in their right minds wants to mess with?

That’s fairly close to how it was actually done. Reviewed US, Belgian, ChiCom, Sovies weapons effectiveness studies done in the 50s and 60s. Then reviewed weapon effectiveness studies for various sizes of artillery tubes. Normalized the two so everything falls on the same curve; so the proportional firepower of an infantry squad is rationally related to the firepower of a 105mm howitzer.

Effective rate of fire, of course, was a factor in the studies’ parameters. However is was not the end-all-be-all as is commonly assumed. But it is, of course included in the calculations in accord with its appropriate factor weight.

Just because there are seventeen men in some Japanese squad, what amount of metal (not counting bayonet charges) are they putting in the air compared to other squads or devices?

For various amounts of metal, the firepower values are reflected in the Anti-Soft parameter. The number of men in a squad is reflected in its load cost. The editor has all this, for everybody.

Some (many) of the squad values are right in line with the calculated values. Others are not. The land people may have some reason for this departure; I suspect it is an AI thing, but they will have to explain, since I have no clue.

That’s about it.

[stuman]

Thanks JWE

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Some (many) of the squad values are right in line with the calculated values. Others are not. The land people may have some reason for this departure; I suspect it is an AI thing, but they will have to explain, since I have no clue.

Breakdown for IJA Infantry Squad (Device 707) per design is:

17 Soldiers = Load Cost 17

Represents:

1 Rifle/LMG Section: 13 Soldiers with 1x LMG (Type 96 or Type 99) and 11x Rifle
1 Grenade Discharger Section: 4 Soldiers with 1x 50mm Grenade Discharger and 3x Rifle

LMG: Anti-Soft Rating = 10
50mm Grenade Discharger: Anti-Soft Rating = 3.2
Rifle: Anti-Soft Rating = 0,5 (x14 = 7)

Anti-Soft Rating for IJA Infantry Squad = 20 (20.2; rounded down)



Anti-Armor Rating = 5 (calculated differently, means armor penetration 5mm; handgrenades etc.).

The IJA did not regulary deploy anti-tank rifles. They had one fairly useless 20mm ATR (Type 97; probably worse than even the British Boys ATR) in their inventory but I've seen no confirmation that it was ever deployed in the field (it is part of official Japanese LCU TOE's but if it was issued than definitely not to Infantry Sections - possible that some machine gun and recce units received some).

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
Breakdown for IJA Infantry Squad (Device 707) per design is:

17 Soldiers = Load Cost 17

Represents:

1 Rifle/LMG Section: 13 Soldiers with 1x LMG (Type 96 or Type 99) and 11x Rifle
1 Grenade Discharger Section: 4 Soldiers with 1x 50mm Grenade Discharger and 3x Rifle

LMG: Anti-Soft Rating = 10
50mm Grenade Discharger: Anti-Soft Rating = 3.2
Rifle: Anti-Soft Rating = 0,5 (x14 = 7)

Anti-Soft Rating for IJA Infantry Squad = 20 (20.2; rounded down)

Anti-Armor Rating = 5 (calculated differently, means armor penetration 5mm; handgrenades etc.).

The IJA did not regulary deploy anti-tank rifles. They had one fairly useless 20mm ATR (Type 97; probably worse than even the British Boys ATR) in their inventory but I've seen no confirmation that it was ever deployed in the field (it is part of official Japanese LCU TOE's but if it was issued than definitely not to Infantry Sections - possible that some machine gun and recce units received some).

Kereguelen has been my perfect partner for all this stuff over a couple years. A source that I consider dispositive on so many issues. He is precisely right on the Japanese calculations. Thanks K for weighing in. As you note, the Japanese are wired in correctly. John

[P.Hausser]

In the game many US divisions has 18000 men,  and British ones often arround 20 000 men...   the Jap ones often only has  15 500...      Should not the Jap ones be far bigger if they have more men pr platoon, company and battalion... and more battalions and so on.. ??  (PS: Late war numbers, check Ground Reinforcement's and sort by Assult Value to get a good late war avv.)
 
 

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: P.Hausser

In the game many US divisions has 18000 men,  and British ones often arround 20 000 men...   the Jap ones often only has  15 500...      Should not the Jap ones be far bigger if they have more men pr platoon, company and battalion... and more battalions and so on.. ??  (PS: Late war numbers, check Ground Reinforcement's and sort by Assult Value to get a good late war avv.)

If you look closer, you'll notice that some Japanese divisions are bigger than others.

But Japanese divisions (generally) have far less organic support than comparable US or British/British Empire divisions.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: P.Hausser
In the game many US divisions has 18000 men,  and British ones often arround 20 000 men...   the Jap ones often only has  15 500...      Should not the Jap ones be far bigger if they have more men pr platoon, company and battalion... and more battalions and so on.. ??  (PS: Late war numbers, check Ground Reinforcement's and sort by Assult Value to get a good late war avv.)

The whole point to the frikkin thing is to have things work. If that upsets your little ideas as to how the OOB s should be arranged, why, that's what the eidtor is for.

You go, boy.