Anyone working on 1939 Japanese?

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7512
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Anyone working on 1939 Japanese?

Post by Truscott Trotter »

Banzai charge is not really relevant in any area or era IMHO 😊

Neil Todd
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 11:59 pm

Re: Anyone working on 1939 Japanese?

Post by Neil Todd »

I agree TT from my reading not really used a tactic , more a western generalisation popularised by various forms of media over the years

Novista
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:31 am

Re: Anyone working on 1939 Japanese?

Post by Novista »

So, not aggressive in hand to hand? Ah, sorry, the rule is “fixed bayonets”.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7512
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Anyone working on 1939 Japanese?

Post by Truscott Trotter »

Yup aggressive definitely.

Also working on a rule to reflect rheir determination to carry out a mission despite costs.

Banzai was auch a rare event decided not to rule it.woild maybe suitable for a scenarion.

IRL the only time it worked was against Chinese, everyone else just gunned em down ie US on island campaign.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7512
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Anyone working on 1939 Japanese?

Post by Truscott Trotter »

gebhk wrote:
Tue Mar 31, 2020 8:46 am
Truscott Trotter wrote:
Sat Mar 28, 2020 10:05 pm
Hyperwar has all the Japanese OOB in detail and free.
The only flies in the ointment are that (a) only covers a specific period later in the war and not 1939 and earlier and (b) it is the product of US wartime intelligence so not always necessarily accurate. On the flip side, because it is often based on observation of what is rather on what according to documents it should be, it can give a more realistic picture at times.

Blimey, glad I got Rikugun and Kanzghan when they first came out. I can feel my wallet shrivelling just from looking at these prices!
My research sgows little variation in Japanese TO&E from 37 -42 except:
Reduction in section from 15 to 14 then in some div to 13 men
Upgrade of GD and LMG to later models
Addition of 70mm Battalion guns and 37mm upgrade in model.

Most of which happened by 1939 as changes started in 1937.

I have several books but I mentioned the online source as it was slightly cheaper and very detailed. 😉

gebhk
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:21 am

Re: Anyone working on 1939 Japanese?

Post by gebhk »

M
My research sgows little variation in Japanese TO&E from 37 -42
I am not sure Leland Ness would agree. According to him the IJA infantry platoon entered 1937 with a typical organisation of:
Platoon HQ: Officer
3 or 4 rifle squads: NCO, 12 men with rifles
2 LMG squads: NCO, 7 men with 2LMGs and 5 rifles
The word ‘typical’ is used advisedly, because in line with Japanese doctrine there was no TOE below company level: the company commander organised his company as he saw fit, albeit within strict guidelines. These stipulated among others, that there would a company HQ (and what its elements were to be) and 3 equal-sized rifle platoons. Interestingly grenade launchers were not part of official TOEs but proved so useful that they were procured by local commands, so that by 1937 virtually all, if not all, platoons had two of these weapons. Men were siphoned off from the rifle squads to provide a 7-man GL squad in each platoon. Further men were siphoned off to provide runners and stretcher bearers for company and platoon HQs when the company went into action.

In late 1937 a reorganisation was decided upon, but the new organisation was only applied to regular divisions in 1938-39 and special divisions in 1939-41 as equipment became available. For the first time GLs were included officially in the TOE. Typically, the platoon looked like this:
Platoon HQ: Officer, liaison NCO and runner
3x Squad: NCO, 13 men with LMG and 11 rifles
GL squad: NCO, 13 men with 3 GLs and 10 rifles
Because company HQ received an additional 10-12 men and the platoon leader had a small HQ, men would no longer be siphoned off from the rifle squads to provide these services in combat.

I would suggest that the infantry company and platoon of 1937-38 (and still extant albeit in ever-decreasing numbers until 1941) were very different beasts to those that started appearing in 1939.

The mobilisation plan of 1941 brought only very small changes. Again, there was no TOE, but tactical doctrine set out strict guidelines how the CO should organise his company. The platoon HQ acquired an additional 1-2 runners. Rifle and grenadier squads lost one rifleman. In total the company comprised a company commander, 3 platoon commanders and an admin warrant officer plus 185 enlisted. The remaining 17-20 enlisted men were assigned to company HQ where they served as required as runners, porters, medics, guards or even could be detached to other units within the regiment as necessary. The main issue here being that the rifle squads were not routinely drained of manpower to support command and logistics within the company.

It was the 1941 organisation that was broadly to remain fixed for the rest of the war (except for some units in China). However, depending on available manpower the size of the squads could vary dramatically, with rifle squad numbers as low as 7 and grenadier squad numbers as low as 8. It was normal practice for divisional or brigade HQ to raise or lower the number of ENs in each company (often by 10) and to leave it to the company CIO to distribute the gains or losses as they saw fit.

BaronVonWreckedoften
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:28 am

Re: Anyone working on 1939 Japanese?

Post by BaronVonWreckedoften »

Just to check, so the 1941-45 organisation was (theoretically, at least):-
Platoon HQ - officer, senior NCO*, 2-3 runners/admin men
Rifle Squad (x3) - NCO*, 10 riflemen + LMG crew (2 men)
GL Squad (x1) - NCO*, 9 riflemen + 3 GLs (1 man each)

I'm looking at Malaya 1942, so I assume this would apply (question - would it also apply to Imperial Guard formations?). The * is to ask when the NCOs all became armed with SMGs - was this post-Malaya, or did at least the senior platoon NCO have one at that time?
No plan survives first contact with the dice.

gebhk
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:21 am

Re: Anyone working on 1939 Japanese?

Post by gebhk »

That would be my reading. However, I would read the platoon NCO's role somewhat differently to say the platoon sergeant in the British Army. By analogy, his job would have been to maintain communications between the platoon and Company CO. This would likely entail him being absent from the platoon a lot of the time.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7512
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Anyone working on 1939 Japanese?

Post by Truscott Trotter »

That latter may be why Rich made him an inferior SL in his Japanese lists published on the TFL blog.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7512
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Anyone working on 1939 Japanese?

Post by Truscott Trotter »

Sorry I meant post late 37 reorg.
After that it was minor changes in CoC terms but then Ness has a book to fill 😉

Post Reply