Superior IJN training

[Zuikaku]

At the start of hostilities the IJN crews were the most experinced in the world. All the ships/crews were trained for years in harsh conditions to simulate war/battle situations. These crews excelled in nightfighting, gunnery and tactics.
Also, the IJN carrier aircrews were the experts when the war broke out.

Was this taken into consideration during creation of the campaigns? All IJN ships should have higher experience levels at the start.

And also, IJN destroyers and cruisers should have higher naval attack values due to their superior long range, high speed, heavy warhead type 93 "long lance" torpedo they carried. They should also have somewhat lower durability (or higher chance to get "criticall hit" due to hazards with type 93's oxygen fuel (prone to explosion if the carrier ship got damaged or set on fire).

Also, German ground units should also have higher experience levels to simulate their advanced leadership, organisation, unit cooperation and tactics during the opening years of the war. If IJN and Wehrmacht are not going to have higher experience levels from the wery start, they might be too easy to overrun by Allies.

And here we are again with the problem of unit training... Any news on this feature??

[Hullu Hevonen]

There is the maint. & training and salaries that can be adjusted, if I don't remeber wrong, this also affected the combat effectivness of units. Don't remeber though if this is moddable and thus settable as higher for Japan at game start.

Do you have any sorce on this, I would like to read about these things

[Zuikaku]

There is the maint. & training and salaries that can be adjusted, if I don't remeber wrong, this also affected the combat effectivness of units. Don't remeber though if this is moddable and thus settable as higher for Japan at game start.

Do you have any sorce on this, I would like to read about these things

well, you have books:

Shattered sword by Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully

The rising sun by John Toland

and you have some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_93_torpedo

"The Japanese pilot training program was very selective and rigorous, producing a high-quality and long-serving pilot corps, who ruled the air in the Pacific during early World War II. However, the long duration of the training program, combined with a shortage of gasoline for training, did not allow the Navy to rapidly provide qualified replacements in sufficient numbers. Moreover, the Japanese, unlike the U.S. or Britain, proved incapable of altering the program to speed up training of the recruits they got. The resultant decrease in quantity and quality, among other factors, resulted in increasing casualties toward the end of the war."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_J ... ir_Service

In interwar years IJN started ambitious training program for it's surface combat ships. In order to compensate for numerical inferiority in potential war against the USA or UK, the IJN selected to play on superior crew experience, advanced tactic, daring attacks against overwhelming odds , nightfighting, usage of flashless powder and long range torpedo attacks.The resulting military drills and maneuvers were notorious for putting crews and ships in wartime risks and dangers, gunnery and maneuvering excercises during the heavy seas, simulating combat in zero visibility. There were often casualties amongst the IJN crews, ships being damaged due to ramming each other and these drills prowed to be wvery dangerous cause IJN tended to disregard any safety measures that other powers enforced during the training (like the USN or Royal navy). As result of that IJN got higly trained crews at the start of WW2...

[SGTscuba]

I do agree that both Germany and Japan should have higher experience levels at the beginning to represent their higher training levels, especially those unit that were based in China and Manchuria.

I also think though that things like long lance will be put into the stats anyway, as well as the extreme flimsyness of Japanese planes (which tended to ignite when hit by any enemy fire).

[Zuikaku]

I also think though that things like long lance will be put into the stats anyway, as well as the extreme flimsyness of Japanese planes (which tended to ignite when hit by any enemy fire).

Later models did have self sealing fuel tanks and armor....
Earlier models were indeed flimsy but somewhat resource cheap to produce and had some air attack bonuses over contemporary US designs (Wildcat, Buffalo).

[geminif4ucorsair]

I do agree that both Germany and Japan should have higher experience levels at the beginning to represent their higher training levels, especially those unit that were based in China and Manchuria.

I also think though that things like long lance will be put into the stats anyway, as well as the extreme flimsyness of Japanese planes (which tended to ignite when hit by any enemy fire).

It's wasn't that the German's in the early part of the war from Sep 39 were all that great....it was that everyone else was just so poorly led (officer corps, UK and France in particular), that it made the German's look good.

As for Japan, they are the only country with widespread combat experience, but not in 1936 (same goes for Germany). The march into Manchuria in 1931 did not produce much resistance, nor did the following years fighting a few short campaigns in the North China region fighting the warlord armies.

What did give them experience came later: Changkufeng (1938)// forum.axishistory.com › Axis History › Japan at War 1895-1945‎ // and later Khalkhin Gol - Nomanhan // forum.axishistory.com › Axis History › Japan at War 1895-1945‎ //, in northwestern Manchuria against the Russia, where operational art-levels of ground combat ensured. In the end, Japan's Samurai-traditions got trampled by later-Marshal Zhukov's tanks! A lot of good Japanese soldiers died in the marshes and low hills of the area, as well as IJAAF Ki-10 (Perry) and other pilots. It also proved how inadequate were Japanese Army bombers, leading to an order for Italian Fiat BR.20 medium, twin-engine bombers.

So, for 1936, neither army had that much experience, and it would be a year later before the Incident at Marco Polo Bridge (Shanghai) would start the war with China. In the beginning, Chinese resident army units fought well and were simply out-gunned, though some divisions did very well (those trained by German advisers). It was not until 1937 that Japan began its army and Special Naval Landing Force (SNLF) mobilization.

But, as of 1936, the Japanese navy was by far the best trained of the air-land-sea components - but it also had ship design flaws - as they soon learned that year, that required much of the fleet to be dry docked, major modification undertaken, etc. over the next three years.

Germany: There was a rather small component that went to Spain to fight in the Nationalist cause, as an independent force under German command, but did not have what might be called anything close to "army" (or other service)-wide Enhanced Experience.

But, if you have a Campaign begin in 1936, then you don't have enhanced experience in Japan except for the navy and air force (army component), and in Germany: None.

* * LONG LANCE torpedo: this was not the torpedo that fought early in the war, such as the aerial attack on the British task force sunk in Dec 1941 in the South China Sea (KG V and Repulse). They came later (the aerial version that could be adapted to the G4M (Betty) bomber).

If BG adopts my master data base (mdb) ship ratings, the torpedo is calculated in IJN destroyer and cruiser (etc) Naval Attack ratings...but
beware, the historical record shows that no ships were sunk at the very long-range capable of the torpedo, and those ships sunk by torpedoes
of the Type 91 were at rather normal ranges for cruiser-destroyer engagements. The real impact is that it's warhead was more than twice
(2x) those of Allied 533mm (21") torpedoes...so there is some bonus (for you poor soles longing for a fleet of Long Lance-armed DDs!)

[Zuikaku]

But, if you have a Campaign begin in 1936, then you don't have enhanced experience in Japan except for the navy and air force (army component), and in Germany: None.

And I named the thread "Superior IJN training"

* * LONG LANCE torpedo: this was not the torpedo that fought early in the war, such as the aerial attack on the British task force sunk in Dec 1941 in the South China Sea (KG V and Repulse). They came later (the aerial version that could be adapted to the G4M (Betty) bomber).

It was not aerial torpedo and it was never ment to be aerial torpedo. And by the 1941 majority of IJN cruisers and first line destroyers were carrying Type 93 torpedoes as their standard weapon...

but beware, the historical record shows that no ships were sunk at the very long-range capable of the torpedo

In engagements that did happen, type 93 proved to be quite effective. But ,ofcourse, it was very difficult to hit moving ship at 20-30 mile range, especially during the night time.... Nevertheless, type 93 gave IJN quite "longbow" punch...

The real impact is that it's warhead was more than twice
(2x) those of Allied 533mm (21") torpedoes...so there is some bonus (for you poor soles longing for a fleet of Long Lance-armed DDs!)

And speed (less time to target, harder to avoid) and range (engaging enemy that could not respond).


Specification examples of ranges by speeds

22,000 m (24,000 yd) at 48 to 50 kn (89 to 93 km/h; 55 to 58 mph)
33,000 m (36,000 yd) at 37 to 39 kn (69 to 72 km/h; 43 to 45 mph)
40,400 m (44,200 yd) at 33 to 35 kn (61 to 65 km/h; 38 to 40 mph)

Now, give me torpedo with similar performances in WW2. If the IJN could acquire active homing from Germany, than type 93 would be real menace

[Aragos]

The problem is, if you tie experience to equipment type (e.g. Zeroes are always high experience) it becomes massively ahistorical. The IJN, for example, had a serious issue with pilot training after 1942. The losses that year (Coral Sea, Midway, etc.) were exacerbated by a policy of keeping the best in the field as long as possible. The result was that most of them died instead of using them as instructors (the US system) back in the Home Islands.

The best solution would be the units that are on map in a 1941 scenario would have higher experience levels at start than their potential adversaries.

[Zuikaku]

The best solution would be the units that are on map in a 1941 scenario would have higher experience levels at start than their potential adversaries.

And ability (expensive) to train units....

[geminif4ucorsair]

The problem is, if you tie experience to equipment type (e.g. Zeroes are always high experience) it becomes massively ahistorical. The IJN, for example, had a serious issue with pilot training after 1942. The losses that year (Coral Sea, Midway, etc.) were exacerbated by a policy of keeping the best in the field as long as possible. The result was that most of them died instead of using them as instructors (the US system) back in the Home Islands.

The best solution would be the units that are on map in a 1941 scenario would have higher experience levels at start than their potential adversaries.

The mdb that I am working with for aircraft (and other equipment ratings), is done on the basis of specific aircraft performances, and not how well the pilots were trained, and could fly it.

We all know that German and Japanese pilot programs were deficient in the late-years of the war....a process begun due to policies following in the early years of the war....BUT, without a Training Option (as in older SR games), as game players, one simply cannot replicate the events of 1944-45 that showed the failures of German and Japanese elite pilot emphasis, and that bulk numbers counted.

Until BG comes up with this aspect of the SR game....and its not limited to WW 2 (look at what happened in losses to Arab air forces versus the Israeli in most of the Arab-Israeli wars, to understand what 'average' training meant), so that if you begin the game in 1936 and twenty-years later, you are presented with the same Arab-Isreli war situation, where do you stand in that matchup?

The deficiency of Soviet-era training placed emphasis on numbers, not elite members....though some pilots who fought in WW2 and again under the CCP-flaged Mig-15s did quite well over Yalu skies, they were the exception. So, if you want an elite air force (or any other component in Supreme Ruler you should be able to develop it - and pay for it - but so far, BG has indicated it cannot accommodate. Hope that changes.

[Hullu Hevonen]

Can't unit exp be defined in the orbats? if you make a scenario for 1941 or what ever, you could get at the start units with appropriate exp. Also, whybcould we not make a feature that when you dialnup the maint. and training budget that will automatically give newley produced units an higher starting exp.

[Zuikaku]

The mdb that I am working with for aircraft (and other equipment ratings), is done on the basis of specific aircraft performances, and not how well the pilots were trained, and could fly it.

We all know that German and Japanese pilot programs were deficient in the late-years of the war....a process begun due to policies following in the early years of the war....BUT, without a Training Option (as in older SR games), as game players, one simply cannot replicate the events of 1944-45 that showed the failures of German and Japanese elite pilot emphasis, and that bulk numbers counted.

Until BG comes up with this aspect of the SR game....and its not limited to WW 2 (look at what happened in losses to Arab air forces versus the Israeli in most of the Arab-Israeli wars, to understand what 'average' training meant), so that if you begin the game in 1936 and twenty-years later, you are presented with the same Arab-Isreli war situation, where do you stand in that matchup?

The deficiency of Soviet-era training placed emphasis on numbers, not elite members....though some pilots who fought in WW2 and again under the CCP-flaged Mig-15s did quite well over Yalu skies, they were the exception. So, if you want an elite air force (or any other component in Supreme Ruler you should be able to develop it - and pay for it - but so far, BG has indicated it cannot accommodate. Hope that changes.

So, the point is that we need unit training