Matrix Games Forums

I have noticed that the TOE for the Australian and New Zealand Divisions and Brigades include US 37mm AT guns instead of British 2pdr AT guns. Some units, like the two brigades of the 8th in Malaya, have 2pdr but most of the units in Australia/New Zealand have the 37mm.

This does not seem right to me. Can anyone comment??

I am not an expert on the Aussies or New Zealenders, but my sources show 2pdrs and later 6pdrs. 48 was standard for a division but the 2 brigades of the 8th Division had a total of 36 guns.

Mike

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

I am not an expert on the Aussies or New Zealenders, but my sources show 2pdrs and later 6pdrs. 48 was standard for a division but the 2 brigades of the 8th Division had a total of 36 guns.

Mike

To clarify this: British (and all other units using British TOE like Aussies and Kiwis) infantry brigades had 18 AT guns when operating at normal 3 battalion strength ( 6 AT guns in every battalion) as it was the case with the two Aussie brigades in Malaya (thus giving them 36 guns together). Anti-Tank regiments contained 48 AT guns. Thus a division had 102 AT guns when at full strength with 3 brigades and an AT regiment (or 8 more when a divisional recce regiment was present). The AT guns in the battalions tended to be 2pdr guns (later 6pdr guns) while the guns in the AT regiments were of the heavier variant (6pdr and later 17pdr guns) when they were available. AT regiments were upgunned earlier because they always belonged to the artillery and received modern equipment earlier (when available) than the rifle battalions (in British units as well as in Aussie units).

Problem is that later in the war, Australia and NZ received parts of their equipment from the US and may have employed this equipment (37mm and 57mm AT guns) instead of their "original" equipment (but gun numbers and organization were not changed however). But the upgrade paths are not able to reflect this kind of equipment changes.

Also I could be wrong but wasnt the US 57mm gun just a variant of the British ^ Pound AT Gun mass produced for the US Army ?

So they are using th same pievce of kit just produced in a different place

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Also I could be wrong but wasnt the US 57mm gun just a variant of the British ^ Pound AT Gun mass produced for the US Army ?

So they are using th same pievce of kit just produced in a different place

One reason they are represented by different devices is that they have different upgrade paths. take for example CHM devices 515 and 484 are identical even in their names; however, their upgrade paths are different.

Thanks Kereguelen, my knowledge of the Commonwealth armed forces is very limited.
102 AT guns is pretty heavy.

Of course you could have mentioned this 3 months ago. [:D]

The default Matrix scenario shows American divisions with 54 AT guns which is accurate. I have changed the Japanese to a standard 42 AT guns. However the default scenario which we have not changed shows Australian, British etc with only 48 AT guns.
Should they have 102 AT guns?

Looks like they should after a little searching.
Oh well, I will break out the whip and get Don back to work.

Thanks,
Mike

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Also I could be wrong but wasnt the US 57mm gun just a variant of the British 6 Pound AT Gun mass produced for the US Army ?

They were.

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

(snipped)

However the default scenario which we have not changed shows Australian, British etc with only 48 AT guns.
Should they have 102 AT guns?

Looks like they should after a little searching.
Oh well, I will break out the whip and get Don back to work.

Thanks,
Mike

Not too sure if the 102 AT applies to the Pacific. I know the Australian "Tropical Scale" battalion had only 4 AT guns. I think the Matrix numbers might be pretty good for the Pacific.

Oh no, not the whip! Reminds me of the old cartoon with a cow chained to the wall of a dungeon and a torturer standing in front with a whip. Caption: The awful truth about whipped cream.