A Slim Victory

[Patine]

@Krill: What are you spamming about?

[Krill]

Are you Kucis' DL?

Go into the Off Topic Forum or maion forum bit and use the heavy uinterface and take a look.

[Case]

Originally posted by typhoon
Their level of training was neither at militia level

It was in 1941 and 1942 when the Indian Army was mainly a paramilitary force with all it's best officers and units in the Middle East.

[Boco]

One of the challenges for this scenario will be how to portray that period during 42-44 when the Allies were rebuilding to form the army that routed the Japanese. Transforming Allied units from poor to expert jungle fighters is part of this.

There will need to be a fun factor during this buildup. For instance, there should be a reward for a premature Allied offensive, too, given the pressures of the time. Chindits will be a key here, as will be the '44 offensive by the Japanese. Naturally, there'll be some tension caused by unhappy citizens, lack of money, etc.

Tech, thanks for the email. AVI's are welcome, too.

[Case]

Originally posted by Boco
One of the challenges for this scenario will be how to portray that period during 42-44 when the Allies were rebuilding to form the army that routed the Japanese. Transforming Allied units from poor to expert jungle fighters is part of this.

There will need to be a fun factor during this buildup. For instance, there should be a reward for a premature Allied offensive, too, given the pressures of the time.

Yeah, fighting will definetly have to be part of it as the Allies learned from their mistakes. Even the disasterous Arakan Offensive taught valuable lessons (mainly in how *not* to conduct any kind of operation in Burma).

[Boco]

Mac didn't really need the 2AIF, did he?

Had Churchill had his way with the 7th, what would've happened in the SW Pacific? Safe to assume that MacArthur's timetable would have been 6-12 months behind schedule? Would that have delayed the severing of the sea lane between Japan and the East Indies? How much of a direct effect on the Japanese OOB in Burma would a weakened NG campaign have had? I suppose that he would've snagged 1-2 additional US divs, but they would have been green.

[Case]

Re: Mac didn't really need the 2AIF, did he?

Originally posted by Boco
Had Churchill had his way with the 7th, what would've happened in the SW Pacific?

The 7th Division was critical to stopping the Japanese offensive over the Kokoda Track and preventing the critical port and air complex and Port Morseby from falling to the Japanese (though this was a bit of a desperate venture after the Battles of the Coral Sea and Midway). The Division then spearheaded the Allied counteroffensive with a green and, frankly, very poor quality US National Guard Division during the battle of Gona-Buna.

It's worth noting that had the Australian government let Churchill send the 7th to Rangoon it would have arrived without its heavy equipment (which was travelling on another convoy) and probably would have been swiftly destroyed - much like what happened to the Brish 18th Division which was sent to Singapore shortly before its fall at the insistance of the Australian Government.

I should add that the Australian Government lent Churchill two Brigades of the 6th Division for the defence of Ceylon in early 1942 with the remaining brigade and the Divisional HQ being sent to protect Darwin. I don't think that there was any consideration of sending these brigades to Burma after the threat to Ceylon had passed and they were instead sent to New Guniea.

Safe to assume that MacArthur's timetable would have been 6-12 months behind schedule?

Yes, that seems fair.

Would that have delayed the severing of the sea lane between Japan and the East Indies?

No - this was achieved in 1944 by US submarines based at Guam and the Central Pacific offensive which liberated the Marianas was almost totally seperate to MacArthur's SWPA campaign.

How much of a direct effect on the Japanese OOB in Burma would a weakened NG campaign have had?

Burma got first call on the best Army units, with the formations sent to New Guinea being second-rate outfits so the land OOB would have been unchanged. However, the Australian-US offensive in New Guinea and the Solomons was critical in breaking the back of the Japanese Navy and Army's air wings so it would have made a very big diference to the air OOB. The Japanese suffered amazingly high losses over the SWPA and this got the first call on skilled pilots and good aircraft.

I suppose that he would've snagged 1-2 additional US divs, but they would have been green.

Yeah. Roosevelt sent two very green National Guard divisions to Australia in early 1942 in exchange for the Australian 9th Division remaining in North Africa but they weren't of much use until about 1943 when they'd finished their training and weeded out all the bad officers (which was too late for the unfortunate members of the 32nd Division at Gona-Buna). Incidently, Australia later agreed to keep the 9th Division in Africa until after El Alemain in exchange for the 1st USMC Division after it was withdrawn from Guadacanal but this was a bad bargain as the USMC 1st Division was all but destroyed during this campaign and the 9th Division took very heavy casualties during the battle of El Alamain.

[Boco]

Thanks, Case. That's a useful tidbit about the drain of the SWPac on the JAAF

With what was a Field (Jungle) Regiment of the RA equipped? 3.7" Howitzers? [Edit] 3" Mortars? [/Edit]

[Boco]

Umm...never mind. Found this at British Artillery in World War 2: Divisional Organisation

Copyright © 2001 - 2007 Nigel F Evans
Organisationally, Indian divisions were traditionally 1/3 British infantry battalions and all British artillery. In Burma the number of British battalions steadily decreased and Indian field regiments progressively replaced British field regiments in Indian divisions in both Italy and Burma.

In the Far East the changes were rather greater and a period of variously specialised infantry divisions was followed in late 1944 by an 'all purpose' divisional organisation. These divisions generally had three different types of 3 battery regiment: a standard 24 × 25-pdr regiment, a jungle field regiment with 16 × 25-pdr (jury axle) or 16 × 3.7-inch hows and 16 × 3-inch mortars in the third battery, and an Indian mountain regiment with 12 × 3.7-inch hows. However, in some cases the two 24 gun 25-pdr regiments each had one battery of jury axle guns, and there were other variations at various times. LAA and anti-tank were combined in a single regiment having 2 batteries of each until reverting to a 3 battery anti-tank regiment when the Japanese airforce disappeared from the sky.

2 Infantry Division in Burma, the only full strength British division in the theatre was different, first its three field regiments replaced one battery of 25-pdr with 3.7-inch hows, then they each re-equipped another battery with 105- mm M7 Priest SPs and the regiments were renamed 'Assault Field Regiments', finally the Priests were replaced by 25-pdr in 1944 before the Kohima battle. 36 Division, a unique mix of British combat troops and mainly Indian services, underwent similar changes in its two field regiments.

[Case]

If I remember correctly, a while ago you asked what the Australian AT Regiments in the SWPA used. I recently read (I can't remember where) that they seem to have lugged several sets of equipment around and manned 2 pdr and 6 pdr AT guns or 4.2" mortars depending on the situation.

[fairline]

Did they use 2-pdrs after the end of 1942?

[Case]

Yeah, they seem to have been used by infantry battalion AT platoons as late as 1945 - presumably because the 2-pdr could defeat the armour of any Japanese tank or bunker and was easier to move around than the 6-pdr. The AT regiments (or 'tank-attack' regiments as they were called from about 1942 in the Australian Army) seem to have been disbanded by 1944. Australian infantry in the SWPA seem to have been equipped with PIATs but I've never actually read an account of them being used!

[fairline]

I'm not surprised - the PIAT was a pretty silly piece of kit!

[Boco]

Finally started on the map (57x114). Opted for accurate distances and world map, but wide main map.

Was an effective anti-personnel shell available for the 2pdr?

OOB is getting there. Settling down to a unit mix.

May have Chinese Y Force in Yunnan as another Civ.

[fairline]

Originally posted by Boco
Was an effective anti-personnel shell available for the 2pdr?

An HE shell was developed for the 2-pdr, eventually, but it was never used in combat, at least in N. Africa. It was certainly available for use in 1942-43, so there's a fair chance it was used in the Far East. As to whether it was effective, the 2-pdr was a 40mm calibre gun, so probably not very.

The 2-pdr was fitted with a screw-on barrel-extender called the Littlejohn adaptor from late 42 (?) onwards. This massively increased muzzle-velocity and consequently AT effectiveness, but IIRC HE shell couldn't be fired with the adaptor fitted as it reduced the bore of the gun.