Naval Plans for the World's Naval Powers

[Secret Master]

Now, the real question is: Does France have enough IC to complete its historical OOB before its historical surrender date? France built a LOT of ships in the pre-war years, and when I tried to do the same I didn't have anywhere near enough IC to build even the light cruisers, let alone the battleships and other things France built.

The challenge could be extended to other countries as well, namely the UK, Italy, and Japan. Italy is do-able if you focus on the navy; its starting army is large enough for what you need it to do so you really only need to reorganize it rather than expand it (note I don't know what Italy's actual ground and air production was). I think Japan and the UK might not have enough for them to build what they really built, which might be due to low starting practicals too.

France is triple screwed, actually. They have insufficient IC at the start. But their starting army is also not nearly big enough (unless I misread their OOB). They are also short manpower, so even if you had the IC, you'd not be able to conscript enough men to staff the divisions they don't even have.

I've run France a number of times, but I can barely scrape by when put the entire IC of the country into the army. A navy too? Nah, that ain't happening.

Regarding Japan: I can do some interesting things with Japan, but they all assume that I completely conquer Nat. China within 24 months (usually sooner). I also always assume that a substantial portion of Japan's OOB is composed of MIL. I might have a 50,000 men sitting at Truk, but they aren't all Marines. Depending on how you work the army OOB, you might be able to get the historical ships in the water. If you can do the bare minimum and protect your shipping lanes, I see no reason your HOI3 Japan has to suffer resource deficits that cause IC collapse later in the war, either.

I guess testing Japan would require determining just what the IJA looked like at various points in the war and building that. The problem is that, unlike the USA, I can't really isolate Japan for testing purposes. China is sitting right there. I suppose you could just seize the coast, but that doesn't make for a good test, either, because the IJA won't suffer damage that must be reinforced. And the campaign in China was a serious drain on Japanese resources.

As for the UK, testing would be easier. The practicals might get you in the long run, but I suspect that 1945 production targets could be met. You wouldn't have the right assets in place for 1939, though. I am 99% certain of that.

 

[misterbean]

France is triple screwed, actually. They have insufficient IC at the start. But their starting army is also not nearly big enough (unless I misread their OOB). They are also short manpower, so even if you had the IC, you'd not be able to conscript enough men to staff the divisions they don't even have.

I've run France a number of times, but I can barely scrape by when put the entire IC of the country into the army. A navy too? Nah, that ain't happening.

Regarding Japan: I can do some interesting things with Japan, but they all assume that I completely conquer Nat. China within 24 months (usually sooner). I also always assume that a substantial portion of Japan's OOB is composed of MIL. I might have a 50,000 men sitting at Truk, but they aren't all Marines. Depending on how you work the army OOB, you might be able to get the historical ships in the water. If you can do the bare minimum and protect your shipping lanes, I see no reason your HOI3 Japan has to suffer resource deficits that cause IC collapse later in the war, either.

I guess testing Japan would require determining just what the IJA looked like at various points in the war and building that. The problem is that, unlike the USA, I can't really isolate Japan for testing purposes. China is sitting right there. I suppose you could just seize the coast, but that doesn't make for a good test, either, because the IJA won't suffer damage that must be reinforced. And the campaign in China was a serious drain on Japanese resources.

As for the UK, testing would be easier. The practicals might get you in the long run, but I suspect that 1945 production targets could be met. You wouldn't have the right assets in place for 1939, though. I am 99% certain of that.

Japan's naval assets are in this very thread, but their army OOB is really confusing. In preparation for my AAR (and prompted by Nicegil's historical Germany AAR), I sifted through some of the rubble. Binary divisions, triangular ones,...
They really did look like they do when you start up the game. Part of it is that they never had a trench warfare like the one that wrecked Europe. This has left them with a pre-Great War mindset. The main problem with Japan is that I can find very little about their air force.

 

[Surt]

According to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease) 17% of all US expenditure was LL.
Other statistics tell that in '45 ~50% of the worlds production was US based, a large amount of that from huge practical bonus (ie. effective production methodes). This covers huge spans in effectiveness, like one company producing 100000 sherman's which couldn't all be supplied at the front, but there were there if needed, another company didn't produce anything at all due to internal and external conflicts.

Edit: a part of the US production seems to be incorporated into the other nations from start to make up for the huge production the US had historically.

 

[TheBromgrev]

Japan's naval assets are in this very thread, but their army OOB is really confusing. In preparation for my AAR (and prompted by Nicegil's historical Germany AAR), I sifted through some of the rubble. Binary divisions, triangular ones,...
They really did look like they do when you start up the game. Part of it is that they never had a trench warfare like the one that wrecked Europe. This has left them with a pre-Great War mindset. The main problem with Japan is that I can find very little about their air force.

Japan's OOB was a mess. For starters, their command structure was completely different from what everyone else used. Their "army" would be a corps by western standards, but their divisions were huge prior to 1938, with the equivalent of at least 4 in-game infantry brigades per division. Later their divisions were split from square to triangular in China, but dropped to triangular and binary outside of China due to logistical, strategical, and manpower constraints. 80% of Japan's army was in China during the entire war. All of that makes translating the real OOB to HOI3 difficult.

The air force is hard to find info on, because it was split between the navy and army, and the army wasn't really under Tokyo's full control so not everything was documented. It can be argued that Korea and Manchukuo was the IJA's personal fiefdom, and most of the IJA's equipment was made in Manchukuo because the factories back in Japan were building weapons and equipment for the navy. For the most part, the IJA's aircraft were largely bombers, transports, and a few interceptors while the navy's aircraft would be transports and CAGs.

One person who might know more is TZoli, the HPP mod's and (I think) East vs West's OOB guru.

 

[Secret Master]

And how often does anyone leave 80% of their army in China while also not winning?

When I build up Japan's army, I tend to save IC by building substantial MIL so I can put 4 divisions on every port in China, Korea, Manchuria, Japan proper, Taiwan, and major naval bases across the Pacific (plus garrisons for occupied Pacific ports and so on). I also build a significant number MTN for use in China and Manchuria, along with the requisite MAR. (All those hills, mountains, and forests are the kinds of provinces MTN excels in.)

What I'm wondering is whether IJA was closer to INF or MIL in their main units. I know they had some elite units, but my knowledge of the Pacific War (which is limited in some crucial areas and influenced by a US education that has no desire to show Japan in a favorable light) makes me think that they had a lot of units with plenty of troops, but they weren't necessarily INF quality.

I bring it up in this context because trying to reach Japan's production targets is heavily modified by the amount of IC you have to spend on ground forces and land-based air forces committed to Manchuria/China. Getting a large army of INF, versus a large army of MIL, is going to tie up tons of IC, regardless of officer cost (a whole other thing).

 

[TheBromgrev]

And how often does anyone leave 80% of their army in China while also not winning?

No one, and that's part of the problem

When I build up Japan's army, I tend to save IC by building substantial MIL so I can put 4 divisions on every port in China, Korea, Manchuria, Japan proper, Taiwan, and major naval bases across the Pacific (plus garrisons for occupied Pacific ports and so on). I also build a significant number MTN for use in China and Manchuria, along with the requisite MAR. (All those hills, mountains, and forests are the kinds of provinces MTN excels in.)

Depends on what you feel an infantry brigade "contains". Japan had no problem supplying field artillery to its divisions, but almost completely lacked heavy artillery. In contrast, Chinese units were lucky to have 1800s era small artillery pieces. IMO, militia are units that lack mortars and field artillery, infantry contain field artillery, and the ART unit represents the heavy stuff that couldn't be moved without horse or motorized help. Think of field anti-aircraft as being this (Chinese AA gun):

Field artillery as being this (again, Chinese):

and heavy anti-air guns as being this (the pic below is the famous Flak 88):

Hopefully the images make clear what I'm talking about. The Flak 88 is without a doubt an AA unit in-game. However, ask yourself "how the heck do I move that thing?" and you can determine the difference between regular infantry and infantry with support brigades. The game treats equipment like the flak 88 very poorly, because the vanilla system means your infantry are ONLY supported by Flak 88, by the German 2.8 cm sPzB 41 anti-tank gun(see below), or the British BL55 140mm artillery (below the AT gun).

What I'm wondering is whether IJA was closer to INF or MIL in their main units. I know they had some elite units, but my knowledge of the Pacific War (which is limited in some crucial areas and influenced by a US education that has no desire to show Japan in a favorable light) makes me think that they had a lot of units with plenty of troops, but they weren't necessarily INF quality.

Pre-1944 Japanese infantry were most definitely of INF-quality. Their small arms were poor due to having only fought extremely poorly equipped Russians, Chinese, and under-supplied Brits prior to the Americans coming into play. After the US joined the war, Japan's troops in the Pacific were suffering from SEVERE logistical problems. Pretty much every Japanese campaign outside of China suffered from a severe lack of ammo, medicine, and food. The Kokoda Track campaign (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokoda_Track_campaign) was lost by Japan almost entirely because of lack of food and men killed by disease rather than American and Australian resilience, for example. Japan's troops gave the USMC hell, but their downfall was the lack of supplies caused by USN superiority.

 

[misterbean]

your remarks about support brigades is dead on. If you look at the standard European model, they all had some kind of AA, AT and art in their divisions. Sometimes just a detachment, but it was there. That's another thing I like about HPP: you get everything in the support units you build. you just have to decide whether they're horse- or truck-towed (and later on self-propelled).

I've seen an interview with a British survivor of Slim's "forgotten" army (not sure what number that was), and from what he said, the Japanese soldier was trained to the highest standards. At least early on, when they were winning and had the time and resources to do it properly.

 

[21oliver]

What I'm wondering is whether IJA was closer to INF or MIL in their main units. I know they had some elite units, but my knowledge of the Pacific War (which is limited in some crucial areas and influenced by a US education that has no desire to show Japan in a favorable light) makes me think that they had a lot of units with plenty of troops, but they weren't necessarily INF quality.

I think we in game tend to over rate Militia. IMO Militia at best is National Guard at worst say equivalent to the Infantry of Turkey or some other real minor. IMO (and its just my opinion!) That Japan and most Majors would produce better quality Infantry divisions then Militia, unless if we are talking about say Germany in 1945 with boys and old men. Even the most basic training and equipment, with the leadership provided imo would make most majors (Japan included) better then what i consider Militia. Now...there easily could be different quality of Infantry divisions, for example if you turn off upgrades this would be reflected in game (how many do that?). Just my thoughts.

 

[misterbean]

I think we in game tend to over rate Militia. IMO Militia at best is National Guard at worst say equivalent to the Infantry of Turkey or some other real minor. IMO (and its just my opinion!) That Japan and most Majors would produce better quality Infantry divisions then Militia, unless if we are talking about say Germany in 1945 with boys and old men. Even the most basic training and equipment, with the leadership provided imo would make most majors (Japan included) better then what i consider Militia. Now...there easily could be different quality of Infantry divisions, for example if you turn off upgrades this would be reflected in game (how many do that?). Just my thoughts.

The soviets definitely had militia after Barbarossa. Pick a man off the street, give him a gun or some ammo and point him to the nearest frontline. Now that's militia for you.

 

[21oliver]

Yeah i wasnt thinking, the Soviet Military structure wasnt typical. The rest of the Majors regardless of quality (hello Italy! and perhaps France?) tended to try and conform to the typical Military Army (training, equipment, officers etc...).

 

[Meglok]

Japan's land OOB is difficult to determine, Japan had a tendency to create independent mixed brigades at the drop of a hat, usually splitting off a brigade here and a battalion there to do a job. The HOI3 Japanese OOB is really off in many areas, especially when you look at anything other than the 1936 scenario. If you want to take a look at her land units, below are several links to sites with info.

http://www.rikugun.org/order/main.php
http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p4013coll11/id/1277/filename/1278.pdf The Combined Arms Research Library site is very useful, and Nafziger's work is outstanding
http://books.google.com/books?id=-nzfAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=japanese+border+garrison+unit&source=bl&ots=HAJeqyuh32&sig=yVs_NFqPO2gAJ-EKohaUZJ9QTCQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4RomUpL4HeausAS57YGADQ&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=japanese%20border%20garrison%20unit&f=false
http://niehorster.orbat.com/

Japan's navy is fairly easy to research:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/
http://navypedia.org/page/index
plus a host of others. Also this book, Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy, Paul Dull, Naval Institute Press, if you can find it in a big library

The best site I have found for the Japanese air units is this:
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/oob/jap_1.htm It at least gives you an OOB for what was where on 12/7/1941.

Nafziger and of course F Victor Madej are probably the best place to look for OOBs as a start.

If you still can't find something, send me a PM. I may have a link or a book on it. I have done a ton of work on Japan and naval units in particular.

 

[Meglok]

And how often does anyone leave 80% of their army in China while also not winning?

When I build up Japan's army, I tend to save IC by building substantial MIL so I can put 4 divisions on every port in China, Korea, Manchuria, Japan proper, Taiwan, and major naval bases across the Pacific (plus garrisons for occupied Pacific ports and so on). I also build a significant number MTN for use in China and Manchuria, along with the requisite MAR. (All those hills, mountains, and forests are the kinds of provinces MTN excels in.)

What I'm wondering is whether IJA was closer to INF or MIL in their main units. I know they had some elite units, but my knowledge of the Pacific War (which is limited in some crucial areas and influenced by a US education that has no desire to show Japan in a favorable light) makes me think that they had a lot of units with plenty of troops, but they weren't necessarily INF quality.

I bring it up in this context because trying to reach Japan's production targets is heavily modified by the amount of IC you have to spend on ground forces and land-based air forces committed to Manchuria/China. Getting a large army of INF, versus a large army of MIL, is going to tie up tons of IC, regardless of officer cost (a whole other thing).

Japanese issued equipment tended to be good for 1930's standards and they certainly researched some decent advanced equipment. Their problem was getting it mass produced and issued to units once they were in the main war. Their combat philosophy was based upon mass infantry, superior morale and training, supported by artillery, the pretty standard WWI and 1930's concepts. They never had any reason to change facing the Chinese or Russians, at least not until the Battles of Lake Khasan and Khalkhin Gol. Those disasters scared the Japanese silly of the Russians and they did everything possible from that point on not to offend Russia. By that time it was late into 1939 and there were other pressing needs for Japan's limited resources, so they just continued with researching and testing new weapons while building their navy and air force.

The usual Japanese "B" grade infantry division would have about half the artillery of a western unit, figure 36-72 light howitzers, along with fewer support weapons and almost no infantry anti-tank weapons. A typical Japanese infantry brigade consisted of 3 regiments, and each regiment had an integral anti-tank company with either 12 of 37mm or 47mm guns. That was it as far as anti-tank weapons, other than improvised things like molotovs, dynamite, and a guy buried along a path with a hammer and an artillery shell . Usually their ToE artillery was of older designs with less range and power of comparable Western or Russian designs. While their tech base allowed them to research or copy modern designs, they just didn't have the industrial base or raw material supplies to both build modern artillery, modern armor, modern aircraft, and a modern navy.

The Japanese "B" grade infantry division was their basic division. An "A" grade division would have more attachments like heavy artillery, mortar companies, tank companies, etc. A "C" grade division would be a basic infantry division without attachments or almost any artillery and was generally used as garrison units. A "C" division is probably the closest thing to a militia division. The status of a division could and did change depending on what it was assigned to do. And then of course you had the Independent Mixed Brigades, Independent Infantry Units, Border Garrison Brigades, Independent Garrison Units, Independent Tank Regiments, Independent Engineer Regiments, etc. The Japanese were great at creating ad hoc units for a specific purpose. If only their organizational skills and attention to detail were as great as the Germans so historian could keep track of what they did.

Does that help any?

 

[Secret Master]

I think we in game tend to over rate Militia. IMO Militia at best is National Guard at worst say equivalent to the Infantry of Turkey or some other real minor. IMO (and its just my opinion!) That Japan and most Majors would produce better quality Infantry divisions then Militia, unless if we are talking about say Germany in 1945 with boys and old men. Even the most basic training and equipment, with the leadership provided imo would make most majors (Japan included) better then what i consider Militia. Now...there easily could be different quality of Infantry divisions, for example if you turn off upgrades this would be reflected in game (how many do that?). Just my thoughts.

The soviets definitely had militia after Barbarossa. Pick a man off the street, give him a gun or some ammo and point him to the nearest frontline. Now that's militia for you.

The problem with MIL in the game is that if you look at the doctrines, it actually represents multiple kinds of formations. Go look at the doctrines in that category and think about it for a moment.

On the one hand, MIL represents "People's Army" units. Minimal training, minimal leadership, decent equipment at the rifleman level, but absolute crap in terms of supporting arms. The Soviets, Germans (Volksturm), Chinese, and even Japanese (home islands defense troops in 45) had these at some points. This kind of unit is "we have the manpower, but not the time or IC to make good use of it." If you don't believe me, just look at the doctrines called... you guessed it, People's Army.

But they can also represent asymmetrical warfare units. The Guerilla Warfare doctrine is under that tab for a reason. You can easily imagine MIL brigades avoiding stand up fights and practicing other kinds of warfare. Their low ORG, low officer ratio, and low speed is a good representation of this kind of fighting; their lousy anti-tank capabilities cement this view. MIL used in this way acts as a quagmire into which other units get suckered into fighting; the enemy can break free, but only by applying sufficient force into the equation.

But I've also suspected that MIL (GAR as well in some cases) represent WWI style warfare (prior to stormtroopers, infiltration tactics, and so on). They have the Large Front, Unit Cooperation, and Human Wave doctrines. Put some ART with your MIL brigades and you have good early WWI units. The low officer cost doesn't have to represent just commissioned officers. If you accept, as I do, that officer ratio includes NCO leadership, then brigades with low officer costs also lack well trained (by more contemporary standards) and educated NCOs.

The dilemma facing the game is that MIL can do more than one thing, especially if you stack support brigades with it (which I don't do very often in TFH). It sounds like Japanese forces don't really fall into these categories early in the war.

 

[Opanashc]

The soviets definitely had militia after Barbarossa. Pick a man off the street, give him a gun or some ammo and point him to the nearest frontline. Now that's militia for you.

Soviet Militia (Divizya Narodnogo Opolcheniya) were formed in July and October 1941 on Party line organization. July formations were converted to regular army units and entered combat in September, October units were converted and saw combat in November. There were local militia raised groups (such as Stalingrad factory workers in 1942), but the Red Army was definitely INF quality. How else would you explain Wehrmacht (no SS, Kreigsmarine or Luftwaffe) losses of dead and missing on average of 160,000 monthly after 22 June 1941?

 

[Secret Master]

Soviet Militia (Divizya Narodnogo Opolcheniya) were formed in July and October 1941 on Party line organization. July formations were converted to regular army units and entered combat in September, October units were converted and saw combat in November. There were local militia raised groups (such as Stalingrad factory workers in 1942), but the Red Army was definitely INF quality. How else would you explain Wehrmacht (no SS, Kreigsmarine or Luftwaffe) losses of dead and missing on average of 160,000 monthly after 22 June 1941?

I don't think he is saying that they only had MIL. I think he means that there was some.

 

[misterbean]

I don't think he is saying that they only had MIL. I think he means that there was some.

indeed. They had regular army (as in infantry), but after losing so many in those German encirclements (battle of Kiev, I think it was where the Soviets basically lost an entire army group or "Front"), they were desperate to stop the invasion. By any means possible. The Soviet government basically did what I said.
"Able-bodied man? check"
"can distinguish between the stock and the barrel of a gun? check"
"go get him."

Of course, where reality and HOI3 clash, is the simple fact that anyone who survives the carnage for 2 days, is no longer a "militia", but an "infantry" in the game.

 

[Secret Master]

Of course, where reality and HOI3 clash, is the simple fact that anyone who survives the carnage for 2 days, is no longer a "militia", but an "infantry" in the game.

Again, that depends on what you think INF and MIL are.

If you argue that MIL is primarily a distinction of doctrines, not equipment or level of training, then no amount of experience any individual soldier will have will "promote" the unit to INF.

INF and MIL might not even be primarily distinguished by training. A MIL division that survives a hundred combats might just have gotten very good as asymmetrical warfare, but still suck at utilizing artillery to sustain combined arms operations. Or the MIL division has gotten very good at organizing WWI style human wave assaults, and the survivors have learned some stuff about taking cover, but the 5 officers that run the brigade still march them off to the meat grinder.

 

[unmerged(48659)]

I'm late to make these points on IJN thinking but here it goes. SH BB concept. 1st machine to shoot a projectile over the horizon. That's over 25 miles I guess. They were made large on purpose because they didn't want the USA to be able to counter them and use the Panama canal. It was star wars technology of the time. Fast for their size because of bulb innovation at bottom of bow. It could shoot you without you knowing where they are. Once in range u were stuck in kill zone for a long time. Kongo class BB were designed to help spot arty rounds for the SH BB line. All bomb and torpedo hits were directed to one side of ship to bring them down. Airplanes were not seen as the threat but rather the eyes and spotters of the fleet. Japan nearly went bankrupt building them. SH BB didn't get to fight their war.

 

[unmerged(48659)]

....and like the Bismarck class was built wide and fat looking for, u gusssed it, accuracy. Muiti million dollar, geared, computing machines

 

[TheBromgrev]

The Yamato-class ships are what happens when you have totally divergent competing schools of thought, limited resources, and also lack the willpower to say NO to one side.