A Slim Victory

[Case]

That all looks pretty good Dave. The only thing I see missing is that the British should have a Burmese guerilla unit.

I suspect that battalions would work better than brigades.

[fairline]

Re: 1st lists

Originally posted by Boco
For guys who measure caliber by shell weight, you're pretty good. Thanks!

I have a 25-pdr hat size

Talkng of calibre(/er)s, how is it you Americans cling on to the old Imperial system of weights and measures but then go and measure gun calibres in SI units?

Your list looks good. Weren't there Gurkha Bns in the Chindits, just to confuse things?

[McMonkey]

Big theatre = Big map

I am not a fan of small maps with cities really close together. The only disadvantage of a big map is getting the AI to respond intelligently. I am sure with clever use of events, especially GO TO, this can be compensated for.

IMHO shell weight is more informative than calibre. The heavier the shell the bigger the bang...right?

[fairline]

You'd think, wouldn't you, but the calibre by weight system is based on the diameter of equivalent round shot (preumably cast-iron), so has little bearing on the true weight of shells.

[McMonkey]

Well its true, you learn something new every day!

What an arcane system! I always assumed the 25pdr gun fired a 25 ld shell.

I have just had a look in a reference book about weapons of WWII and it says the Ordnance, Q.F., 25-pdr has a calibre of 87.6mm (3.45in) and a shell weight of 11.43 kg (25 lb). The US M2A1 105mm has a calibre of 105mm (4.134 in) and a shell weighing 14.97kg (33 lb).

Another book says the 25 Pounder Field Gun fires HE (wt 11.34kg).

Are the authors just assuming as I am that the weigh of the shell is 25lb or am I missing something? (Quite possible ).

I'm off to the Army Surplus shop tomorrow with a pair of scales to weigh me a shell. I guess the explosives may have been removed though!?!

[Boco]

Re: Re: 1st lists

Guerrillas will be in there, Case.

Originally posted by LeadHead
I have a 25-pdr hat size

Talking of calibre(/er)s, how is it you Americans cling on to the old Imperial system of weights and measures but then go and measure gun calibres in SI units?

Your list looks good. Weren't there Gurkha Bns in the Chindits, just to confuse things?

[Utter BS] It is a measure of our caliber that attests to our mongrel origins that we can use both systems.[/Utter BS] Have to say I was surprised (and envious) that the Brits adopted the SI system. LOL, I still remember weighing myself in stones during my London days.

African chindits, too. Since I am easily confused, I'll call 'em Chindits regardless of origin. Makes events easier.

Originally posted by McMonkey
I guess the explosives may have been removed though!?!

It seems you can't always assume that.

Quahog.org > Attractions > Rhode Island State House
For a time the gun was placed on display in Washington, DC, where it served as witness to the ferocity of the Battle of Gettysburg. In 1874 the cannon was returned to the State of Rhode Island at the request of Battery B veterans. The 12-pounder traveled once more in 1988, under the aegis of a recreated Civil War Battery B unit, when it joined in a re-enactment of the Battle of Gettysburg in Pennsylvania.

In 1962 someone realized that since the cannonball had never been removed from the muzzle of the gun, two-and-a-half pounds of black gunpowder must still be inside the barrel. Members of the Rhode Island National Guard's Army Corps of Engineers drilled holes in the barrel and submerged it in water so that the powder could be removed safely. Thus, tourists like yourself are now safe from the trauma of surprise cannonballs to the face.

[Edit] Found in S&T 246 [/Edit]

[Case]

I bought Max Hasting's brand-new book 'Nemesis' yesterday, and its chapters on the last phase on the war in Burma look very interesting - I've only skimmed them so far though.

Hasting's chapter on Australia in the last year of the war in the Pacific looks a bit questionable though - especially the claim that the country was divided and the government hopelessly weak, which flies in the face of Australian histories and the relevant election results.

[Boco]

Divisional support doctrine?

I'm ignorant about that book. I'll check up on it. AFAIK, the Aussies weren't enthused about their role in '45, but weak and divided seems an exagerration.

Did Commonwealth divs in CBI split the divisional mg, at, and other support bns evenly among the inf bns in permanent arrangements, were they kept intact, or something in between?

[Boco]

This is unusual!

Nemesis: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45 (Hardcover) by Max Hastings (Amazon.uk)

Retribution: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45 (Hardcover) by Max Hastings (Amazon.com)



Either one looks worth reading. Keep us posted!

[Boco]

Re: Divisional support doctrine?

Originally posted by Boco
Did Commonwealth divs in CBI split the divisional mg, at, and other support bns evenly among the inf bns in permanent arrangements, were they kept intact, or something in between?

Should I have a slot for a divisional MG bn?

[Case]

Re: Divisional support doctrine?

Originally posted by Boco
Did Commonwealth divs in CBI split the divisional mg, at, and other support bns evenly among the inf bns in permanent arrangements, were they kept intact, or something in between?

Not sure. The Australian Army seems to have routinely allocated a MG company from the 'divisional'* battalion to each brigade, but I'm not sure whether a platoon was then attached to each battalion. The Australian battalions had their own MG platoons by 1943 so I suspect that the MG platoons were parceled out as needed.

so...

Originally posted by Boco

Should I have a slot for a divisional MG bn?

No, I don't think that you should as the MGs were normally used in dirrect support of the infantry and independent barrage fire by MG battalions was rare.


* The Australian Army's MG battalions were technically corps-level units, but each AIF division seems to have always had an attached MG battalion.

[Case]

Re: This is unusual!

Originally posted by Boco
Nemesis: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45 (Hardcover) by Max Hastings (Amazon.uk)

Retribution: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45 (Hardcover) by Max Hastings (Amazon.com)



Either one looks worth reading. Keep us posted!

I'm about half-way through Nemesis and am finding it excellent. The book is focused on the American campaign in the Pacific, so it's not worth buying for the CBI chapters alone, but they are very good.

Hastings rates the five American-equipped Chinese divisions in northern Burma in late 1944 as being roughly as effective as two US divisions and doesn't seem to have a high opinion of the African divisions (though they seem to be below-average for the 14th Army rather than ineffective). On the flip side, he's scathing about the performance of the Japanese Army in Burma and dismisses the Indian National Army in two sentances (fair enough IMO).

[fairline]

I've read Hastings' book on D-Day and it's very good. His writing as a journalist in the Falklands War was worth reading at the time as well. Shame that he is a former editor of the Daily Torygraph and Daily Mail, though...

[fairline]

Re: Re: Re: 1st lists

Originally posted by Boco
Have to say I was surprised (and envious) that the Brits adopted the SI system. LOL, I still remember weighing myself in stones during my London days.

We haven't really I still walk half a mile to drink a pint in the local pub. Damn those new-fangled kilometres and litres!

[Boco]

All you need to do is convince your pub to sell half liters at the same price as a pint!

Were Aussie recce bns from Jungle divs mounted on Jeeps (or anything)? I'm actually interested in figuring out how to handle Indian recce bns for inf divs, which were converted infantry bns.