US Marine units-experience 80-90??

[canuck64]

Hey folks, submitting this question as a curiosity as I play with the editor. I'm trying to allow for what I believe were some inconsistencies with the currently rated units and some of the database changes for IJN and US Navies among others...
What I'm curious about is that some of the USMC base and Marine divisions are starting the game with 80/80 experience and morale, some follow on replacements are rated as high as 90/90.
Far as I know, without doing a disservice to any ex or current Marines, the Marines, while certainly benefiting from the gung-ho attitude we've all heard about, were hardly, in 41-42, experienced units. Not in the slightest. I'm curious to know where in god's name the justification for the experience would come from? Is it not sufficient to establish a unit as better/more functional (I don't know that 41-42 USMC units can necessarily all be called elite) by upping their morale?

Frankly, the game's 'experiential quanta' make little sense to me. Japan's ability to produce qualitative (though rigid) soldiers remained, so far as I know, pretty constant. I thought there was a gentle and gradual improvement on the part of the USA to get to where other professional standing armies were. I'd appreciate some input from others....thx[&:]

[2ndACR]

The Marines in 41-42 had alot of very experienced vets in it. Old style Marines, vets of WW1, the Banana wars, Phillipines, China marines etc.

80/80 is not to unbelievable for 41-42.

my .02 cents

[canuck64]

Point taken, 2nd ACR-

I just thought those individuals/veterans you mentioned would be, at the very BEST, trainers. (Hence why I thought perhaps their morale would be high, to reflect the somewhat-established tradition)

I don't recall the marine divisions coming on at the outset of WW2 being laden with veterans of much of anything. I could be wrong, but I'm thinking the average age of the recruit to even USMC might be between 18-30-which might mean a sprinkling of vets still around to say what being under fire was like-but certainly NOTHING to prepare them for storming atolls and fanatical defenders...Anyone else care to comment, or differ?

Thanks for your 2 cents

[Dr. Foo]

Perhaps this is the only way they could model units with low experience that fought remarkably well for there first time in combat. The Marine on Wake fought very well, despite their apparent lack of combat experience, against a large determined invasion force.

Therefore, (maybe) it is more of a reflection of how Marine units performed regardless of experience.

Do not know, just guessing.

[canuck64]

Foo-
As am I-as am I. When I said I didn't understand the ratings, I meant it. If I rate the USMC by and large in 41 as being between 65-75 as experience, that makes them a little bit better than the armies with professional soldiery (britain, commonwealth nations, etc)-I thought the idea was to let history unfold-be it somewhat 'a'historically or not.

So the units in the Japanese Imperial Army might be what I'd term experienced, and benefiting of a seriously (warped) but high-minded system. I thought if I tinker with the editor to show US marines as gung-ho(high morale) but low experience troops, not only would it reflect what historically took place, but might allow for some variance-like say, WHAT IF the marines at wake DIDN't fight well....or did but not as well as history has them...

I'm not bashing the USMC, far from it. I just thought the Pacific was their first mass entry (not alone there by any means) into all-out conflict. As such, by far-I thought they experienced a rather dramatic learning curve on Guadalcanal and the like. Wake is a postage stamp, I think if my history book is right, the sheer number of US service personnel of all stripes made Wake something of a problem for the Japanese (especially the few coastal guns)....
[&o]

[canuck64]

Just a further note-food for thought. I've got US marines coming on in 41/42 rated as 80-80. Even large formations (like 2nd Div I'm thinking) carry these really high ratings.
Against this, I've got Japanese ground troops that have been at war with various and sundry, storming and landing at islands under fire (and not under fire, but collaborating and developping fire procedure) for 5+ years and the 80-80 rated Japanese formation is something of a rarity (SNLF units aside).
I dunno, I know it's popular wisdom that the Marines have high morale, but then I've had this same discussion about 'elite' formations before-the Waffen SS had its share of cranks and poor soldiering. I can't but think the Marines made a lot of mistakes when the island-hopping began...[&o]

[2ndACR]

The USMC did make alot of mistakes during the war.
The average age was 27 in the USMC at wars start. Most of those very experienced guys I mentioned, became NCO's and some became officers.

I do agree that some of the Aus and Brit units should be higher experience. Like the units that had fought in Africa. I have noticed that it takes quite awhile for IJA formations to gain a 70+ experience level and maintain it.

The only Marine units I can see having 90/90 ratings are the Para BNs. All others should be about 75/75 or so.

[Captain Cruft]

Experience is IMHO mis-named, it should be something like "combat efficiency". As to why units are rated how they are, I think this is mainly to do with being able to replicate historical battles successfully against the Japanese AI. Which is the purpose the stock scenarios are designed for.

[Twotribes]

The Marines before the start of WW2 had a LOT of combat experience, all over the world. In China, in Central America for example. All through the 30's the Marines fougnt in these places.

The Marines also took experienced Marines and used to them to start a new Unit. So the leadership of a new Division is not green it is combat experienced. Making the troops better lead, makes them better in combat.

[Hipper]

it all depends on what you meen by combat efficency

all those 45 / 50 Indian brigades were commanded by officers who had spent years fighting against such colourfull characters as the Faquir of Ipi (I may have that name a bit wrong) a wily oriental gentleman from the Afgan border in multi brigade operations with air and tank support. read john masters "bugles and a tiger"

now the Indain army was expaning furiously which did lead to a drop in quality but I believe that the US marines did a bit of expanding in 1942 as well

however one countries soldiers are better than another arguments are never going to be resolved to everyone's (anyones) satisfaction

the best idea might be to establish guidelines with ranges for varying levels of experience

ie war experienced unit 65 - 85
regular troops 55 - 75
newly raised troops 45 - 65

for example

modified by units historical record... of course thats probably what matrix have done...

still the marines are probably a little high

[canuck64]

Solid points, all.

I think the ratings Hipper threw out make for a far more realistic game. I wasn't trying to make the USMC out to be not the "assault corps" that it's come to be relied upon. What I was trying to determine is why units trained stateside, be it from veterans of previous wars or not, could somehow enter into combat with the efficacy of blooded Japanese, Aussie/Kiwi, British units (some of whom had been in Manchuria, China, Burma SUVA etc etc) or BETTER....

What about the poor Chinese, at war for 10 years already with the Japanese. Poorly trained? possibly. Great numbers-absolutely. But does that translate to EVERY Chinese formation being rated no higher than 50? Seems almost a trifle...ugh..skewed is the polite word.

I, for one, enjoy making a relationship between strategies, contingencies, and watching units earn their 'stripes'. The USMC supermen just don't have that going for them at all. It's like unleashing four aces all the time at a poker game. And I definitely didn't buy WITP to re-enact ww2. Good god, the time I've wasted -I could watch a documentary!! [8D]

[Lemurs!]

One thing to remember is that exp is also representing doctrine, national characteristics etc.

The Marines were by far the best infantry force of WW2 only being challenged by the ANZAC infantry and the early Landser. One Marine advantage was that every Marine actually new how to shoot a rifle and hit something and that they had trained and planned for off road activity.
The US Army in '41 was a mess; they refused to detruck, which of course limited them to roads, they had removed most long distance march drill, and except for a few specialists, the average soldier did not practice much shooting.

The British, Indian and Burmese forces had the majority of these problems as well. I was very surprised to find that the Burmese Rifles were almost impossible to get off their trucks and into cover.

The Chinese had a plethora of problems, not least of which was the 50% yearly loss rate to disease, malnutrition and desertion. That is not conducive to training a long service army. Also, there was virtually no officers school, and no NCO training, or NCO's for that matter!
The Chinese had no clue what to do with artillery, their pilots were of the upper class and felt that dying is what peasants are for, so they never fought very hard. Their soldiers received 3 weeks training if they were lucky, and the Chinese culture at the time was very adverse to actual drag down knock out fighting. They wanted to out wait the Japs, not fight them.

The Marines are probably a hair over rated especially 3rd,4th,5th,6th Marines as they did not have the hard core of Veterans that 1st and 2nd had.

Mike

[Twotribes]

Actually the new divisions DID have a hard core of veterans, the serving divisions lost men to them to make them more experienced. The Commanders and Senior NCOs were for the most part combat veterans that then trained their men.

[doktorblood]

Perhaps the later Marine units are rated higher because they would come equiped with the M-1 Garand ... a major upgrade from the starting Marine units which were equiped with the 30-06 Springfield rifle of about the same vintage as their Japanese counterparts.

[Captain Cruft]

The different rifles and whatnot are accounted for by differently rated squads in the device table.

As I said before, it seems like the values in the game are not designed to reflect reality but rather to get the desired result in various battles against the AI.

[Lemurs!]

Twotribes,

Yes, the 3-6th did have a core of experienced NCO's/Officers, but the 1st and 2nd had a decent percentage of their privates with long term experience.

Mike

[Adnan Meshuggi]

the problem as i see it is that Exp. is not Exp....

also, you have a unit with 70% losses, but gained EXP 86... after refreshing it has still 86%....

so you just need to attack and attack and attack and gain exp. and later on you have undefeatable troops... this should be fixed.

The quality of ANY troops is very difficulty to show in a game... some troops have a high attack value but also stupid officer and high losses, others have a low attack value but avoid losses... others have "the feeling" about the right time and right force... mainly cause of their officers... but we can´t simulate any sarge or officer... that is the problem.

US Marines should have lower Exp. rates, esp. if they have NO experience... but they should have a High training level, so they could learn combat experience better as bad trained troops... also Marines should be in better health conditions as for example Volkssturm... they are in the best soldier age, were trained to be mad killing machines and have the knowledge to use their weapons... but still no combat experience mean that they still never had the "first blood" effect - you can´t train this. Any halfway trained battallion that experienced the real life war has a much higher COMBAT experience... but still could get kicked out by a bat. marines, cause they have better weapons, better support, better health, better food and a very high "mad killer" instinct... so we should need much more modifications, like Trainingstatus 0-100), Combatexperience (0-400), Moral factor (0-100)...
this number should be added and then multiplicated with Health and fatigue-level (each from 0.1-1)... so the very experienced japanese elite unit with Training 90, combat 300, moral 100 (=490) will be kicked cause it has a fat of 0,2 and a health (near starving) of 0,2 (490 x,04 = 196) compared with the well feed and rested marine troop with 90T+20C+80M, health 0,95 and fat ,9 (=190x1,85 =351,5) this lead nearly to a 2:1... with the weapon multiplicator the marine bat. kick the japanese unit into hell....

i think such methods should be used. New troops have zero combat experience. They ain by combats, bombards, melee, etc... and this can improve the situation, but allways the fat/supply level is important... a starving troop that had to run 60 miles in 2 days could have exp. 1000, but no real chance to win the battle. So everybody would be pleased... more realisitc results (if you attack the japanese troops in supply you will be wipped out (490*(,85+,95)=882 !) and you need a more realistic way to win the battles... if you have the enemy cut off, it is far better... so you can avoid unrealistic behaviour with ease... the numbers were just an example....

is there any chance of implementing such structures ?

[Hipper]

I suspect a lot of the supply/ health issues are taken care of in the game as fatigue / disabled squads / supply needs

however what it would be good to have is a drop in experience levels if units take on lots of replacements and to have replacement squads coming in at different experience levels just like pilots I know the allied armies in WW2 did have a bad "green" replacements problem as the war went on and were doing things like retraining anti aircraft gunners as infantrymen to cope with shortages.

also in my opinion it would be nice to have the disband units issue apply to land units as well as aircraft ie transfer their men & equipment to another unit, this was exactly the sort of thing that went on.


cheers

[Twotribes]

Once again, the Marine Divisions HAD experienced Officers and NCO's, all of them, in fact combat troops were put into new divisions from disbanded units and from current units. The 4 Raider Bns and the 4 Parachute Bns for example were disbanded into the 5th and 6th Marines I believe.

And the Marine Corps made a habit of saving at least one experienced Regiment per Division from a fight ( except the multi division fights where one saved was usually all they managed.) so that the next invasion had a combat hardened regiment for use in primary assault.

Returning wounded and healed marines were shifted to forming Divisions as well. he Army on the other hand tended to take green units and send them in with what ever training they had stateside and locally.

[canuck64]

Hey guys-I don't want to get off on a rant here-so I won't-but

Aw hell-why not?


Be a big help to me all, since I started this can of worms, if someone could point me to some reference work or ad lib, as quick as a cat, the history of the Marines prior to 41.
Tell the truth, and I'm always learning- before I get jumped from the bushes for so saying, I haven't got a clue where these "combat veterans" would be coming from for USMC in 41. Tribes seems quite sure of it, so I'll take his word for it. My knowledge of history where the USMC is concerned is 50000 foot level.
I honestly, off the top of my head, can't think of but a couple of regional, watered-down (no offense to those who might have gone-but watered down compared to fighting fanatical Japanese let's say in full force conflict) conflicts that a couple of Marine Regiments or Battalions might have been involved in. No offense meant again-if I err, chalk it up to needing to refine my education.

Ignorance is curable, stupidity stays with ya, so my dad used to say.

Look guys, I'm fascinated with the Pacific, but it's not my strongest field-I have been a western front fanboy all my life. I can't know how the USMC would have fared against SS troops (who in the 42-43 campaigns would have to be considered elite, bar none)....MY POINT THO-

Yet I've stumbled across games and games where an SS unit, because it's so designated, would get ridiculously high ratings. The SS was a hodgepodge of criminals and unworthy types not fit for military service, (far more the norm by the way) inasmuch as it had a small and very elite Combat dedication.
Yet, I've seen EVERY game released in recent memory rate them as the top troops on the field, be it a Sonderkommando unit used for racial progroms or an actual Waffen SS unit diluded by combat...

So you'll forgive me for opening this mess by being skeptical that USMC units AS A RULE, bear these kind of ratings....
And Tribes, the use of a 3rd of a combat unit as being 'veteran' had been around a looooong time prior to USMC-I'm thinking maybe Napoleon blooded out fresh troops with vets on all levels. I also suspect EVERY military establishment tries to do this. The question is, does the USMC in 41 have the kind of direct combat experience to merit these kinds of elevated ratings?
Not should they have elevated ratings, but 90/90? I'm picturing waves of Navy Seal-trained, fanatical, willing-to-die-for-democracy types, throwing themselves at the enemy.
For god's sake-the Japanese CIVILIANS at Okinawa and Saipan threw themselves off cliffs because of the army's shame. Do you really think that level of.....belief system COULD EVER be 'trained' into you in a 3-month period, no matter how long you're a marine thereafter?
We're doing a great deal more than simply evaluating combat troops-because pound for pound, what "military mind" would have prompted Nippon to go to war with the US? Yamamoto is held to have believed THE NIGHT OF PH, that the war was lost....
So I'm thinking this might really be more of a reflection of 2000 years of Samurai/Code of Bushido stuff as compared to New Deal individualism, highly trained, perhaps-but that might be a bit too deep...

Let the spanking begin.....[X(]