German ranks

[wulfir]

chuckfourth said:
Banzai is usually done when ammo is out and is a charge using swords, grenades and bayonet.

hmm..., the Japanese did believe in the offense, it was not until the final battles in the Pacific they abandoned this for a protracted war of attrition meant to bleed US forces as much as possible before perishing.

Following a US landing the Japs would often quickly mount a banzai at night, and get slaughtered, with whatever was left melting into the jungle. Not even at Okinawa were they able to break free from this idea of the one decicive attack and got good parts of the 24th Division and the 44th Mixed Brigade shot up for no gain.

[DRG]

The "no surrender code" is based on nationalities. In the case of the USMC it's only the Japanese they won't surrender to. The Japanese will not surrender to anyone. The game has been this way for over 8 years now and has been noted in the game guide in ever release since then. However sometime in the past 5 years or so the surrender code for the USMC was refined to only not surrender to the Japanese. Previous to that it was everybody.

Don

[narwan]

Ahh, I didn't realise that. Learned something new today about the game, and not for the first time!

[PatG]

Perhaps this needs its own thread. Chuck, I wasn't just referring to the stereotypical last ditch banzai charge but the general tactic of infiltrating the enemies position then charging to get into close combat range. The "easier to kill" idea comes from the Japanese willingness to accept casualties to get into close combat. By the American accounts I have been reading, the Japanese would just keep coming - taking horrendous casualities - but not breaking.

Snipers up trees falls into a similar line of thinking. A sniper who ties himself into a tree has accepted he will die once he opens fire thus is hard to break but has also comitted himself to a fixed firing post that allows him to be easily located and destroyed.

Removal of the 10 supression would be one way to go as would adding the hand to hand bonus. However until I have played a lot more with the Japanese, I will assume that any egregious errors have been caught and the Japanese behave reasonably historically. Note that if we start giving the Japanese a probably deserved bayonet bonus then we might have to do the same for the Brits - the other kings of infantry close combat. What we would then have to do for the Ghurkhas is frightening.

Slow snipers - not really needed. They do not need to maintain cohesion like a full section does and are relatively lightly equipped so the speed bonus is deserved. Now if you want to have sniper sprinting races in enemy line of sight.... As for snipers being deployed in static situaions - I have to disagree. Snipers can be used very agressively and were often used for information gathering and scouting - not shooting- by all sides in WWII. This is even more so in modern conflicts. Their lesser brethren - the marksman - is ideal for simulating small patrols, single sentries and point-men.

[chuckfourth]

Hi Pat

I dont accept that the japanese had "general tactic of infiltrating the enemies position then charging to get into close combat range". or that their tactics made them "easy to kill"
The Japanese were regular infantry and used exactly the same tactics as every other countries infantry in battle, ie based on artillery and machine guns. As for "willingness to accept casualties to get into close combat" Im sure they were just as happy to kill their enemies at long range as at close range. They had no fear of close quarters fighting but didnt abandon normal infantry tactics so they could stab an opponent rather than shoot him.

Unlike the Allies the Japanese had extensive jungle warfare training. They had also had a war going in China for 10 years proir to entering WW2 during wich the troops became battle-hardened and their staffs extremely competent.
Infiltration is a jungle warfare/night fighting method. It is not neccessarily followed by a 'charge' but by whatever infantry type tactics that is deemed neccessary, setting up a MG or a sniper in the enemies rear or slashing the throats of sleeping troops and then retiring to your own lines etc.

If you read accounts of the Japanese in Malaysia, Burma, Dutch East Indies, China, Phillipines etc you will see descriptions of normal infantry combat. However the Japanese were happy to take "horrendous" casualties just like the SS and the Russian infantry. However one doesnt need to model this just run your counters forward without any artillery support, or against a numerically superior opponent.

You missed the Australians from the close quarter fighters.

As for snipers tied to trees this sounds a little like Hollywoods interpretation of the excellent, imaginitive and effective camoflage used by the Japanese. Snipers can be used aggressively but were they in WW2? A sniper obviously gathers information whilst sitting in position but this isnt scouting. It is a waste to use an expensive, trained shot to scout or on point duties they are very likely to get shot, captured or step on a mine, much better to have a sullen recalcitrant trouble maker on point and a normal but alert infantryman as part of a scouting party. I think sentry and patrol are jobs best left to cheaper normal infantry. Just as you wouldnt use engineers as normal infantry or a truck driver to command the company.

I must say I prefered the Japanese infantries with their origional 8 movement points configuration in the earlier versions of the game. When you see pictures of them in action they are always moving at the double and look extremely fit and tireless. It goes some way in modeling there astounding ability to go through "impassable" terrain when flanking defensive positions.
Best Regards Chuck.

[PatG]

chuckfourth said:
Hi Pat

Hi Chuck

I dont accept that the japanese had "general tactic of infiltrating the enemies position then charging to get into close combat range". or that their tactics made them "easy to kill"

<description of normal infantry tactics snipped>

<description of China combat experience snipped>

Infiltration is a jungle warfare/night fighting method. It is not neccessarily followed by a 'charge' but by whatever infantry type tactics that is deemed neccessary, setting up a MG or a sniper in the enemies rear or slashing the throats of sleeping troops and then retiring to your own lines etc.

In their training, the Japanese placed alot of emphasis on the attack, closing with the enemy and on bayonet drill. (CMHI re-publication - name escapes me at the moment) This is not to say that they did not use other tactics.

If you read accounts of the Japanese in Malaysia, Burma, Dutch East Indies, China, Phillipines etc you will see descriptions of normal infantry combat.

Sorry but in my reading I don't see normal infantry combat - I see hit and run, infiltration and of course the massed charge.

However the Japanese were happy to take "horrendous" casualties just like the SS and the Russian infantry. However one doesnt need to model this just run your counters forward without any artillery support, or against a numerically superior opponent.

I disagree - willingness to take casualties is not necessarily the willingness to waste men. One gunjin standing up to draw fire so his mates can pinpoint the enemies positions is not something westerners will easily understand but it is not wasteful.

You missed the Australians from the close quarter fighters.

All the colonials actually - sorry Diggers, Canucks, Kiwis, South Africans, Rhodies....

As for snipers tied to trees this sounds a little like Hollywoods interpretation of the excellent, imaginitive and effective camoflage used by the Japanese.

"Combat Officer: A Memoir of War in the South Pacific" specifically mentions shooting up tree tops and watching the tied in bodies drop.

Snipers can be used aggressively but were they in WW2? A sniper obviously gathers information whilst sitting in position but this isnt scouting.

While recently digging up books to support my daughter's interest in target shooting, I read several histoies of sniping - all mentioned the aggressive use of snipers in WWII and the information gathering techniques. As one example of info gathering, in the First War, because their lives depended on spotting changes in the terrain that could signal a new German sniper post, snipers noticed over several days that a cat was hanging around a presumably abandoned German trench. Figuring that someone was feeding the beast, they reported it up the line and were rewared by an effective fireworks display to their front.

It is a waste to use an expensive, trained shot to scout or on point duties they are very likely to get shot, captured or step on a mine, much better to have a sullen recalcitrant trouble maker on point and a normal but alert infantryman as part of a scouting party.

Not on point - on recce. All you mentioned but by training observant and skilled in camoflage techniques. The aim is to get information not get killed.

I think sentry and patrol are jobs best left to cheaper normal infantry. Just as you wouldnt use engineers as normal infantry or a truck driver to command the company.

Yes. Colonel Fredericks of the SSF (an elite light infantry force)would often penetrate German lines before and assault and watch his attack go in from the enemies point of view...

I must say I prefered the Japanese infantries with their origional 8 movement points configuration in the earlier versions of the game. When you see pictures of them in action they are always moving at the double and look extremely fit and tireless. It goes some way in modeling there astounding ability to go through "impassable" terrain when flanking defensive positions.

Speed and ability to move through rough terrain - the classic marks of a light infantry force.

Best Regards Chuck.

Cheers

[chuckfourth]

posted twice, apologies

[chuckfourth]

Hi Pat
"Sorry but in my reading I don't see normal infantry combat - I see hit and run, infiltration and of course the massed charge." Sorry, no offence intended but perhaps you havn't done enough reading yet? If you are basing your comments on Jap vs Marines engagements these are only a small part of the Japanese war effort and in these engagements the Japanese troops are often in a position where normal infantry tactics aren't feasable. Your "massed charge" is a last ditch measure usually without proper artillery preperation. These acts of desperation happened during the last gasps of isolated Japanese Island garrisons or at the limits of Japanese expansion, Guadal Canal and New Guinea for instance. In these campagns the Japs were at the end of very tenous supply deep in enemy territory and had orders to destroy the beach head or "take the position" with whatever means they had and do it before the well supplied enemy brought in more reinforcements. Result, unsupported infantry attack, your "massed charge". Under "normal" conditions they fought like normal infantry. I have yet to see anything about them using "hit and run", perhaps an example?

Im hoping your not suggesting Japanese infantry/Gunjuns? stood up to draw fire?

Does "Combat Officer: A Memoir of War in the South Pacific" mention which campaign tied up snipers occoured in?

Your sniper scouting example is actually an example of observation not scouting and is the wrong war anyway.

The vast majority of armies dont have specific "scouts" scouting parties are usually made up of regular infantry drawn from the nearest infantry platoon, as such they dont have any special observation or camoflage skills. You may be confusing the current excitement about special forces with the regular infantry/snipers that operated during WW2. The aim may be to get information and not get killed but moving into unknown territory close to the enemy is obviously very likely to get you killed.

Could you define light infantry? I dont think the Japanese qualify. Japanese soldiers AFAIK actually had the heaviest packs of any infantry and had all the same types of weapons and the same organisation as any other countries infantry.
I think you may be placing to much emphasis on the Japanese response to the American Island Hopping campaign at the expense of how they operated on other fronts, Hollywood should also take some of the blame I think.
Best regards Chuck

[PatG]

Start with:
A Historical Perspective on Light Infantry
by Major Scott R. McMichael

(edit)
And
Nomonhan: Japanese-Soviet Tactical Combat 1939
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resour...rea2/drea2.asp

Follow up with:
Out of nowhere : a history of the military sniper / Martin Pegler.

Those will cover the basics of my arguments. If I have the time or inclination to go through the PDFs I have gathered, I will pm or post in a new thread.

This is an off-topic thread - I'm not going into anymore detail at this point.

ps: offence taken.

[chuckfourth]

Hi Pat Sorry for the Offence.
Thanks also for providing the link Ive read it and it is very interesting If you have no further interest in discussing these matters thats fair enough. I would just like to bookmark a few specific points from your links text here to avoid another reading of the link if this topic arises again later.

"As the new conscripts of the 7th Division underwent their advanced infantry training on the dusty plains near Tsitsihar, its members concentrated on the three cardinal drills of the IJA: bayonet practice, firing practice, and maneuver"
"Taking advantage of folds in the ground, sand dunes, and depressions for cover, 5th and 7th Companies employed fire and movement tactics to advance about 1,500 meters. Riflemen would dash forward to the next suitable ground concealment and from there fire at enemy strongpoints to keep Soviet weapons crews pinned down so that other Japanese infantrymen could rush forward"
No Japanese massed charges.
Japanese retreated in good order.
Infiltration and "hit and run"(raids) more common for the soviets than the Japanese.
A soviet sniper did move forward but did so in the company of an infantry platoon.
"They appeared to be an artillery observation squad with an infantry security platoon."
after being shot up
"Sweeping the killing ground, Japanese troops recovered twenty rifles, three light machine guns, a sniper rifle, and twenty pieces of various field telephone equipment."
You may find these links of interest.
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwi...a/chapter9.htm
Best Regards Chuck.