German ranks

[narwan]

Light infantry has nothing to do with the amount of 'weight' a trooper carries into battle but refers to the TO&E and the organisation of the larger formation. Light formations have fewer heavy equipment and what they do have is often of a different kind. The 70mm howtizers you mentioned are a good example. They are much lighter than what one usually finds in a comparable infantry formation and can be carried in parts by mule. The example you gave that the japanese had some arty at Kokoda only illustrates why light infantry (the japanese) is sometimes better than regular (or heavy) infantry (the Australian CMF troops); their lighter equipment can go where the heavier equipment of the normal formations can't (or not in time at least).

[Marek_Tucan]

I dare guess light infantry troops in fact do hump more on their backs than regular infantry - they're light because they have a light rear - less trucks, less and lighter guns and so on... On some case it enables them to do as Japanese during their advance to Port Moresby (or to Singapore or whatever), sometimes it turns against them (Guadalcanal, Milne Bay, almost any place where the Allies have already learned "how to"...).

[chuckfourth]

Hi Marek
Please see my previous post but the Japs had just as much artillery as everyone else. German infantry divisions didnt have any trucks they used horses but you dont call them light?
The problem for Japan at Milne Bay and guadalcanal wasnt the TOE of Japanese infantry divisions it was supply. The Americans controlled the sea and the Japanese had to make do with whatever didnt get sunk. Mine bay was attacked by litle more than a battalion there were 4500 australians there already, and at guadalcanal the Japanese never got much past regimental size attacking a division. In both cases they were attacking a well supplied numerically superior enemy, these were both battles of supply (The Japs had none) not of "how to".
Best Regards Chuck.

[PatG]

Mods: Can we move these Japanese posts to another thread please? Thanks.

Chuck - I select my sources carefully and was offended by your Hollywood comment.

Light infantry: There are two different but not exclusive definitions of light infantry. The first is infantry that fights much like any other infantry but is optimized for rapid deployment thus uses less and lighter equipment overall - think rapid deployment forces. The second is an infantry force that (among other things): emphasizes the ability to move through difficult terrain, places more control at lower command levels, and emphasizes training, mindset and tactics over materiel. McMichael, mentioned earlier, goes into a lot more detail.

By this definition German mountain troops are light troops but horse drawn artillery isn't - the horses are simply a different form of truck for towing the arty.

Turning to the arty, By rough numbers (all sources vary) the Type 92 70mm gun clocks in at 212 kg, the German leIG 18 comes in at 400 kg and the American 75mm pack howitzer at 1060 kg. For comparison, the Type 11 37mm popgun weighs 93 kg (its French ancestor with shield at 103 kg). It is readily apparant that the Type 92 is a very different beast even from other infantry guns. While a mortar would be even lighter, the direct fire capability may offset the extra weight.

Supply - I agree that supplies or lack there of was the downfall of the Japanese. Even Yamamoto-sama knew that before Japan attacked the Allies. Sadly, there is no way in the campaign game of depicting this so we are forced to use fully supplied, full strength units. ;(

Finally, in some very rough tests for the long Japanese campaign I am playing, I have found that regular German or Allied infantry force can put up a fight against a Chinese horde attack but a points equivalent Japanese force cannot - at least not using conventional tactics. The Japanese oob feels "different" from any of the Western or Russian forces. Not scientific but there ya go.

[chuckfourth]

Hi Pat
Glad to see you are back.
Light infantry is a post war "concept" which when applied to WWII obviously causes some confussion. Rapid deployment forces were called paratroopers in WWII.
The Japanese preffered the 70mm howitzer to a mortar as the battalion support weapon because it outranged the opponents mortars. Its very high elevation also meant that it could still produce "plunging" fire 'a la mortar'. All Japanese howitzers are much lighter than their Allied equivalents, concessions to being horse drawn and the general staffs belief that they would very likely be deployed in jungles. Wether or not this 'light' artillery makes Japanese infantry divisions "light" is hair splitting as their OOB was the same as everyone elses "heavy" infantry.

Thus I think McMichael assertion that light infantry emphasizes "mindset and tactics over material" is not relevant to the Japanese as they had a full set of Equipment ie they were "Heavy" infantry.
The link you supplied originally also stresses this point for the Japanese infantry but none of the combat examples given support it. In fact just the opposite for example one commander was very worried to lose his AT guns, he didnt think no problem I'll just use "mindset and tactics".
ie the Japanese did have a mindset and did have tactics but not because they lacked equipment they just thought they were better soldiers than everybody else and its arguable that they were. Again in WWII the French general staff believed that "elan" would win the day, the troops knew better.
Best Regards Chuck.

[PatG]

Arrrgh! No! light infantry is a concept dating back to the Pharonic armies and probably before that too. Think of screening your Hastati / Princeps line with Velites or using Pictish archers to attack from rough ground while the enemy goes after your spear line. The "modern" light infantry concept goes back to the Voltigeurs, Rifle Regiments, Minute Men and Jaegers of the Napoleonic period. Agile forces deployed in loose formation capable of independant action.
The "modern-modern" (and American) concept is that of a rapid deployment force - and I would go with gliders over airborne to draw a WWII comparison not Airborne which although light are also elite.

I never suggested that the inclusion of the 70mm makes a unit light - that's an absurd line of reasoning. It is a very different piece of kit even from other IGs -you can break it down and man pack it if you have to and the Japanese did so - who needs horses? And of course it produces the same plunging fire as a mortar - It's-A-Howitzer. What it can do that 99.9% of mortars can't is fire horizontally.

I dunno about McMichael either - I mean he's only an army officer involved in the study of light infantry I doubt he knows sh*t.

As for the Japanese planning to deploy into jungle look at
Behind the myth of the jungle superman: a tactical examination of the Japanese Army’s Centrifugal Offensive, 7 December 1941 to 20 May 1942.

http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/show...lename=528.pdf

To quote from the abstract:

While the IJA’s equipment was usually ill suited for battle against the Soviets, Japanese emphasis on light weight unintentionally made the IJA’s standard issue items eminently suitable for jungle operations. Likewise, the IJA’s doctrine was ideal for a short, offensive jungle campaign.

But of course Major Howard - possibly Light Colonel if his promo went through - is also only an officer who reads Japanese and quotes from primary source texts so I doubt he knows sh*t either. It's not like his paper won the Arter-Darby Military History Writing Award - Oh wait it did.

Chuck, I have never seen the need to question your knowledge of WWII German kit and TO&Es and I will never question your tenacity but on this one you have to at least buy a vowel if not a whole clue.

[Marek_Tucan]

Earlier there was a question whether mountain troops are to be considered light infantry - you bet they are

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
10TH MOUNTAIN DIVISION
(LIGHT INFANTRY)

They fulfill every criterion, be it 10th Mountain, Chasseurs Alpins, Alpinis or Gebirgsjäger... They use lightened rear, many special tools (for example mules instead of horses and trucks in the history), special weapons made to be lightweight and preferably easy to break up for transport (OTO 105mm M56 howitzer, 75mm IG-36...) and they usually hump on their backs more of their kit than regular grunts do.

[wulfir]

PatG said:
As for the Japanese planning to deploy into jungle look at
Behind the myth of the jungle superman: a tactical examination of the Japanese Army’s Centrifugal Offensive, 7 December 1941 to 20 May 1942.

A little tip for those interested:

Eric Bergerud's Touched with Fire have some interesting comparisons between Australian, American and Japanese ground forces during the fighting in the South Pacific.

Book Link

[chuckfourth]

Hi Pat
Sorry I should have said -relevant to this discussion- light infantry.
Mortars typically have an elevation of between 45 to 85 degrees, but Howitzers often have a maximum elevation of 45 degrees or so and a few get to 70 degrees or a little less. Point being that in general mortars bombs can have a steeper angle of attack than howitzer shells ie what Ive called 'plunging fire'.
You may be right about McMicheal and CP Howard
McMicheal Generalisations are not supported by his examples, and Howards Referencing is so poor as to be useless.
If either were submitted to me as a PHD thesis which is what they appear to be, I would fail both.
Best Regards Chuck.

[chuckfourth]

Hi Narwan
The 70mm is a good and a bad example at battalion level it was heavier than the equivelent in other armies, a mortar. At divisional level it was lighter than the usual 105mm (though the Japanese did have a 105 and 150mm howitzers in common usage). The British had the 88mm (25pounder) as the standard infantry divisions divisional gun. But nobody would call the English light infantry.
So... the Japanese infantry divisions had just as much artillery as any other countries sometimes more, ie the standard 3 battalions per division but also their regimental guns, missing in most other countries TOE.
They had engineers and Recon, antitank and antiaircraft assets and sometimes tanks.
So So they dont have "fewer heavy equipment" other than that their artillery was lighter than the equivelent calibre in other countries. By your definition Mountain troops must also light infantry?
check the Japanese OOBs at this site
http://www.fireandfury.com/extra/ordersofbattle.shtml
http://www.fireandfury.com/pacificinfo/japanese.pdf
http://www.fireandfury.com/pacificin...anjapanese.pdf
http://www.fireandfury.com/pacificin..._jpn109div.pdf
http://www.fireandfury.com/pacificin...aneseburma.pdf
Best Regards Chuck.