USMC Early Pacific Army List Type D v6

[john de terre neuve]

It was a mistake to call the last version the last draft, so I will just call this version the next draft. ( I already see that the springfield was mislabelled 1909 rather then 1903)
Changes:
unitary squads
JL's with M1903
added weapons to list 1
removed some incorrect support options
expanded on support weapons
fixed master arsenal table
adjusted Force Rating

[Arlequín]

I would have kept it in the same thread to keep everything together. There were several drafts of the SCW lists and two versions, and I'm just beginning to begin on V3, so I know the effort involved. It's worth it in the end though.


Anyhoo... It's "M1 Garand" and not M1's Garand (line 6). I won't even try to explain to yet another American that 'organisation' is spelled with an 's'.

I like the special rules, but while the Marines emphasised individual marksmanship to a higher level than the U.S Army, it has always been emphasised with the British Army in the same way too. So it would be incongruous to allow it 'just' for the USMC. Classing the USMC as 'Regular' and the U.S. Army as 'Green' at this point in time, might be better perhaps?

With the addition of the 'Sgt Guide' SL option, you also have the ability to draw out your squad scouts to create a scout team. I would be inclined to assume the Sgt would 'pick his men', or that the scouts themselves were the best men in the squads... so an upgrade to veteran might be in order for a such a group if used. You could of course add in the BAR option if you don't choose to beef-up the BAR squad with it, so effectively you have now added a fifth squad to the force, but reduced the other three rifle squads by two men.

As is the way with squads formed for a task, their ability to acquire what they need is common. You could justify adding SMGs and/or M1 Carbines (and eventually Garands) before they became common issue items across the board. Effectively they would replace the Raiders in your list, while still being part of the platoon, which I think might make the list more 'inclusive'.

The Guide eventually became the 'demolitions corporal' in the 'E' organisation and I would presume the Sgt Guide was also trained in such things before that. When the Bazookas and Flame-throwers appeared from Late-'42, Engineers in teams with them were backed up by Marines... and I expect that a 'scout team' would be ideal for such a role.

I'm all for keeping the 'Scout Special Rule', it just needs some slight editing to reflect the changes you've made and the above notes if you take them on-board.

From what I have read of the raiders themselves (Rottman iirc), their squads were three teams of three: two SMGs and a rifle in each team, with one team replacing one SMG with a BAR; as opposed to all three teams having them. I would prefer a separate 'Raider List' myself, but you're the guy driving this John.

Talking about Bazookas and Flame-throwers, I'd suggest adding a note regarding when they were introduced; a good article on this is http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/ ... t/ch14.htm

As the squad is now one 'team', there is not much point having 'two crew' for the BAR. In reality the No. 2 carried spare mags etc, but the gunner hefted and fired the weapon alone. In CoC the BAR doesn't lose fire dice for only having one crew, but by making it a two-man team you are chopping a rifle from the squad as a whole. As the squad is 'one team' (unless the player detaches some men and forms another team), the BAR will always be assumed to be picked up if the gunner is KIA (P.38) until there are no men left.

I suggest you change "Each of the rifle squads have one M1 rifle grenade" in Personal Weapons, to "One man in each squad was equipped with M1 rifle grenade adaptors".

The device was fitted to a normal grenade and fired with a blank cartridge, the adaptor sheared off when the weapon fired, allowing the grenade lever to disengage and arm it. Limits on firing depended on how many adaptors were carried by the 'grenadier' and the supply of ordinary frag grenades carried by the squad. The normal rifle grenade 1 CI 'cost' (P.40) will limit the numbers which can be fired, so no worries about a 'squad grenade barrage' happening.

As the Marines mostly carried their support weapons, their actual strength could be quite large. The company M1917s had 5 crew each as you say, while the 60mm Mortars had six per team. Battle/sickness casualties could certainly reduce these, so one man on a mortar team is not a big deal.

The Weapons Company had a lot of guys though. Each M1917 team had nine guys and two handcarts and each of the two AT weapons (.50 or 37mm) had ten guys and two handcarts. Again attrition could reduce these, but the option to field full strength teams makes them much more durable in combat. You might think about a support option which allows this, then people can take it or leave it as they choose. There was a pool of extra M1917s in each battalion, so having four or five men teams for them is fine too though.

Some of the suggestions and comments might seem to be nit-picking, but in the end will provide a very flexible list, which is actually quite historically correct. The USMC was very flexible operationally, despite being very 'by the book' on dress standards and other matters. Their constant changes in organisation throughout WWII is testament to this. A Marine platoon leader was then, as now, given a pretty free hand in how he wielded his men and was only taken to task if he screwed up.

If you want to 'get inside the head' of a platoon leader c.1942, this might be worth a read: http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publi ... Manual.pdf

Obviously experience of a 'big war' would change some of the lessons offered, but the guys leading men in the Solomons would come from the school where the above book was 'the Marine Bible'.

[Seret]

How many Garands does that List 1 option get you?

[john de terre neuve]

Thanks for you in depth discussion. I will respond when I research all your points but I laughed when I read your comment about the spelling of organisation. I just had to respond immediately.

You should never assume anything, I could have assumed you are Spanish as you live in Spain but I did not. I am actually British but raised in Britain's oldest colony Newfoundland. Please also realize or is it realise that Newfoundland English is not Canadian English, it maintains spellings like colour and grey etc. I do live in the US now but only for the last 15 years and I am almost 60 so I doubt if I will ever become Americanized or is it Americanised! I still live part of the time in Montreal but maybe that is not really English.

As I read English and Classics in the university as a young man, spelling has long fascinated me. The use of "s" vs "z" is really one of the more interesting areas. Here is the grammarist's analysis, he actually has a section on organize vs organize but the one on realize is more expansive:

Realise and realize are different spellings of the same word, and both are used to varying degrees throughout the English-speaking world. Realize is the preferred spelling in American and Canadian English, and realise is preferred outside North America. The spelling distinction extends to all derivatives of the verb, including realised/realized, realising/realizing, and realisation/realization.

Although realize is now regarded by many in the U.K. and Australasia as the American spelling, it is not an Americanism. In fact, the -ize spelling variant is older than –ise—realize predates the United States and Canada by nearly two centuries—and has been the preferred spelling throughout most of the word’s history in English. If we can believe the ngram below, which graphs the use of realize and realise in British books and journals published between 1800 and 2000, realise had a brief ascendancy in British English from the late 19th century through the early 20th, but realize was preferred before around 1875 and is again preferred today—perhaps because of the influence of dictionaries like Oxford, Cambridge, and Collins, which encourage -ize over -ise. But the British preference for realize is not in evidence when we search for the two spellings in 21st-century British news publications, where realise is about ten times as common as realize. We have trouble explaining this, but perhaps it’s simply that a few influential British news organizations have collectively adopted the newer spelling, while most of the publishers of books and journals (including prestigious British scientific periodicals such as Nature and The Lancet) in Google’s Books index have kept –ize. The favoring of -ise may also have something to do with a decline in classical education; with Latin and Greek no longer mainstays of British schooling, their influence on English is weakening (-ize has its origins in Ancient Greek).1

As the –ise spelling grows in popularity, realize is increasingly associated with North American writing, giving rise to the belief that it is an Americanism and hence to be avoided. There is no doubt, however, that both -ize and -ise are acceptable in British, Australian and New Zealand English, and writers in those varieties should not feel obliged to shun -ize, nor should they abandon -ise if they prefer it. The caveat on this advice is the -ize suffix does risk distracting non-American readers with what is (mistakenly) perceived to be a Americanism.

Whichever suffix you use, it is wise to use that one consistently throughout any given text. Note too that, for etymological reasons, some words are never spelled with a z in any variety of English, e.g. surmise, improvisation, televise, surprise, etc.

So I actually believe you are quite wrong that in your statement: I won't even try to explain to yet another American that 'organisation' is spelled with an 's'. . Spelling "organization" without a "z" is actually not an Americanism.

If you go back to my early list you will note that I did use the spelling "organisation" but have corrected it the later versions but not so much because of some linguistic snobbery, but more so because it is after all the USMC!

I suppose I could use the Americanism "gotcha" but I am sure you realize that this is all in fun and I will respond shortly to your excellent discussion about the early USMC organisation.

John

[batesmotel34]

The V3 organization should make it clear that each section/squad is composed of a single team versus being a monolithic squad. For example see how the US Armoured Infantry is listed in the rules versus the Soviet infantry.

I think keeping the marksmanship rule for the USMC versus the US Army is appropriate. The USMC seems to have a tradition of teaching the marine that he is his rifle that isn't present in the US army. The delayed transition of the USMC in replacing the M1903 Springfield with the M1 Garand and after this period, the M14 semi-auto rifle with the fully auto M16 is in part due to the emphasis on the rifle and marksmanship.

For the Rifle Grenade I don't think Rich normally goes down to the level of detail of how many grenades or dischargers a section has. Just leaving it at one per section should have the right effect. In the US case, I beleive that while using the discharger did impose additional strain on the rifle, that the rifle should still be usable as a rifle when not used to launch a rifle grenade.

I believe Rich has indicated that he intends to change the BAR to be one crew in the updated organizations he is working on, along with changing the German MG34/42 to have three crew. So for the BAR having one or two crew depends on whether you want to be consistent with the current list or the updated. Maybe list it as 2 crew now but indicate it should change to 1 crew when using the updated lists?

Chris

[Arlequín]

I suppose I could use the Americanism "gotcha" but I am sure you realize that this is all in fun and I will respond shortly to your excellent discussion about the early USMC organisation.
John

You have me sir! I'm from near Wolverhampton where we say 'realize' but write realise and say 'buzz' when we mean bus. Pity my students who have to learn English from me.

In the US case, I beleive that while using the discharger did impose additional strain on the rifle, that the rifle should still be usable as a rifle when not used to launch a rifle grenade.

No, it wasn't like the older rod-type grenades which ruined bores, it just took a little preparation time that is quite negligible in game terms. It most certainly can be used as rifle or grenade launcher without any undue effects in either mode.

[john de terre neuve]

Thanks again Chris and Jim, I have to say when I took on this project I had no idea how much work it would be. Being a neophyte to WWII gaming is also a challenge. I have to admit I rather be gaming or painting, but I have to say this has been a really interesting exercise. So let me go through each of your points.

Seret:

How many Garands does that List 1 option get you?

From looking at the CoCulator, I think this is a whole squad but I am not sure if it is list 1 or 2.

Arlequin

I would have kept it in the same thread to keep everything together. There were several drafts of the SCW lists and two versions, and I'm just beginning to begin on V3, so I know the effort involved. It's worth it in the end though.

I agree so I will just change the title of the same chain when I add another version. This is the great thing about the forum vs the yahoo group.

I like the special rules, but while the Marines emphasised individual marksmanship to a higher level than the U.S Army, it has always been emphasised with the British Army in the same way too. So it would be incongruous to allow it 'just' for the USMC. Classing the USMC as 'Regular' and the U.S. Army as 'Green' at this point in time, might be better perhaps?

I think in the short term this works for this list and after all no one has offered an alternative. I really can not go back and change someone else's list.

With the addition of the 'Sgt Guide' SL option, you also have the ability to draw out your squad scouts to create a scout team. I would be inclined to assume the Sgt would 'pick his men', or that the scouts themselves were the best men in the squads... so an upgrade to veteran might be in order for a such a group if used. You could of course add in the BAR option if you don't choose to beef-up the BAR squad with it, so effectively you have now added a fifth squad to the force, but reduced the other three rifle squads by two men.
The Guide eventually became the 'demolitions corporal' in the 'E' organisation and I would presume the Sgt Guide was also trained in such things before that. When the Bazookas and Flame-throwers appeared from Late-'42, Engineers in teams with them were backed up by Marines... and I expect that a 'scout team' would be ideal for such a role.
I'm all for keeping the 'Scout Special Rule', it just needs some slight editing to reflect the changes you've made and the above notes if you take them on-board.

I actually think that this is a nice idea, Is it that you envision the Sgt Guide as being taken as a list two option (I forgot to put this in) and taking the 1 excess BAR from the list one option and then removing some riflemen from other squads to beef up the team. I like it, I see no reason though to specify how many riflemen one would take, leave it up to the player. If you want to write the text for this I am happy to have a look. As I have said multiple times in my posts, I am all for historically accuracy but I do not believe it prudent to sacrifice accuracy for gameability sp.

From what I have read of the raiders themselves (Rottman iirc), their squads were three teams of three: two SMGs and a rifle in each team, with one team replacing one SMG with a BAR; as opposed to all three teams having them. I would prefer a separate 'Raider List' myself, but you're the guy driving this John.

For Carlson's Raider battalion I believe what I have specified is correct. Maybe with time I will add a Parachute platoon and full Raider platoon to the army list but not now, I really just want to get on with acquiring the troops, painting them and getting in some gaming. I started this whole exercise as I did not know what figures I needed!

As the squad is now one 'team', there is not much point having 'two crew' for the BAR. In reality the No. 2 carried spare mags etc, but the gunner hefted and fired the weapon alone. In CoC the BAR doesn't lose fire dice for only having one crew, but by making it a two-man team you are chopping a rifle from the squad as a whole. As the squad is 'one team' (unless the player detaches some men and forms another team), the BAR will always be assumed to be picked up if the gunner is KIA (P.38) until there are no men left.

In the short term I am going to agree with Chris here and leave it as is: i.e. each BAR requires 2 crew. This is how it is done in the other lists, if there is a change by Rich I will adjust it. I do want to add a Scout team option as you discuss, but maybe you can see why I would like to keep the number of riflemen flexible.

I suggest you change "Each of the rifle squads have one M1 rifle grenade" in Personal Weapons, to "One man in each squad was equipped with M1 rifle grenade adaptors".

easily done.

As the Marines mostly carried their support weapons, their actual strength could be quite large. The company M1917s had 5 crew each as you say, while the 60mm Mortars had six per team. Battle/sickness casualties could certainly reduce these, so one man on a mortar team is not a big deal.
The Weapons Company had a lot of guys though. Each M1917 team had nine guys and two handcarts and each of the two AT weapons (.50 or 37mm) had ten guys and two handcarts. Again attrition could reduce these, but the option to field full strength teams makes them much more durable in combat. You might think about a support option which allows this, then people can take it or leave it as they choose. There was a pool of extra M1917s in each battalion, so having four or five men teams for them is fine too though.

For simplicity, I think I will keep it as is.

Chris:

The V3 organization should make it clear that each section/squad is composed of a single team versus being a monolithic squad. For example see how the US Armoured Infantry is listed in the rules versus the Soviet infantry.

I have modeled it after the armoured infantry, I am not sure how to improve the text but I will have another look.

I think keeping the marksmanship rule for the USMC versus the US Army is appropriate. The USMC seems to have a tradition of teaching the marine that he is his rifle that isn't present in the US army. The delayed transition of the USMC in replacing the M1903 Springfield with the M1 Garand and after this period, the M14 semi-auto rifle with the fully auto M16 is in part due to the emphasis on the rifle and marksmanship.

I agree.

For the Rifle Grenade I don't think Rich normally goes down to the level of detail of how many grenades or dischargers a section has. Just leaving it at one per section should have the right effect. In the US case, I beleive that while using the discharger did impose additional strain on the rifle, that the rifle should still be usable as a rifle when not used to launch a rifle grenade.

Yes I agree but if you look at the CoCalculater, it is 2 pts for each rifle grenade, so I put it in.

I believe Rich has indicated that he intends to change the BAR to be one crew in the updated organizations he is working on, along with changing the German MG34/42 to have three crew. So for the BAR having one or two crew depends on whether you want to be consistent with the current list or the updated. Maybe list it as 2 crew now but indicate it should change to 1 crew when using the updated lists?

I agree as above.

Again thank you both for going through things in such detail.

A couple of other things that are not clear in my list. The SL's are equipped with M1 Carbines, not the M1 Garand. As you know however they are treated the same in CoC, they are not assault rifles, and their only plus is an ability to re roll ones.
I think that the Force Rating is wrong, I have not done it yet but I predict it might be a -1 or 0, the Japanese for the period are a +1.

In respect to force ratings, I am using this CoCulator https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByQYXL ... NpcTg/view which I believe is the newest. I believe that a semi automatic Rifle like the M1 Garand or Carbine should add no cost for the two SL's to have them. But in reference to Seret's point re the M1 addition upgrade to a squad, it appears that it is +1 point for up to 8 men and +2 for 9-16 men. I am not sure as stated above what the list cost would be?

I hope we are getting close to completion!

John

[Arlequín]

Yes, it's surprising how easy 'knocking up a list' turns into a full-time project, but the results are all the better for it... take Pat G's 'Home Guard' list as an exemplar and compare it to the generic lists, which of course are not exactly five-minute jobs themselves.

Another hand-up for 'historicisity' (might be a real word?) here, but we sometimes don't credit forces with their full capabilities. They might be primitive by today's standards, but these forces often displayed a flexibility and innovative spirit which is usually lost in the 'big picture' histories, which is why I tend to look for the training manuals. The Small Wars Guide was printed in 1940... I believe it is still required reading in today's USMC. A big no to 'gamey' here, but we are skirmish gamers and should be allowing the tactics that were used to be be mimicked on the table-top!

This is U.S. Army from 1943, but the principles expressed themselves are transferable across to the Marines: http://www.hardscrabblefarm.com/ww2/off ... combat.htm

What does seem apparent is that the U.S. squads were meant to break down into a BAR team and a manoeuvre team, but rushed training, the 'repple-depple' replacement system and lack of action seen by fresh units, made this very difficult to do. The 'assistant squad leader' around 1941 might very well have been an experienced man, but as time went by he might just be the best recruit, or indeed the replacement who had just managed not to get shot, stabbed, killed or hurt longest. With NCOs correspondingly less experienced themselves, it was apparently easier to mother the squad as a whole from close-to, rather than its constituent elements at a distance. That the squad leader rank changed from corporal to sergeant speaks volumes to me.

I didn't express what I meant re the grenade attachment too well... I meant to imply that there was more than '1 M1 grenade', rather than that one man should be designated as the grenadier. Of course it is assumed that the squads can fire 'a rifle grenade' whenever 1 CI is expended for that purpose, however often they like.

Points taken re the 'marksmanship'. The enemy is going to be the Japanese and the comparison will be the U.S. Army, so I don't see any difficulty in giving the Marines a firing boost in such a small pool.

Okay here's the wordage for the Guide, Scouts and 'Platoon BAR'. Feel free to swap, scratch and change to suit. I didn't go for 'veteran' status in the end as I felt that was a bit cliched... I would imagine the role of 'scout' was rotated in the same way as 'point man' would be at a later date. It seems a bit too good to be true that every squad would have their vets available for this duty all at the same time.

I also went for scouts activating like any detached team, but as if they also had JL with them (activate on a 1 or 2) although not actually allowing them the shock removal advantage of actually having one. I would imagine that scouts would fall back on the platoon or go to ground if fired on, unless solid leadership was provided. That leadership will come from any SL, but the ideal is to select the Guide from the support list, rather than tie-up the Lt or Platoon Sgt.

Platoon Guide

If the Platoon Sergeant is seen as the assistant platoon commander, the Platoon Guide was the 'assistant platoon sergeant', ranking above the squad leaders. Besides the 'beans, bullets and bandages' supply role, he also had a command function which encompassed anything he was detailed to do. His existence was dependent on numbers however and he is offered as a support choice to provide an additional Senior Leader for the platoon.

Scouts

Each rifle squad notionally had two men detailed and trained as scouts. These were typically experienced men, or those who otherwise displayed an aptitude for the role. They could be detached as a two man team operating at distance from their squad, they could be combined with the scouts of other squads to create an additional 'Scout Squad', or they could remain with their own squad, as the situation demanded.

Players may detach none, one, or two men from each, any, or all of their rifle squads (but not the BAR Squad), to act as scouts. A Scout Team activates on a roll of 1 or 2 and may adopt a tactical stance when their movement is completed. Any or all Scout teams may be combined to form a 'Scout Squad', to which the same rule applies. While the teams or squad do not have a junior leader of their own, they could be led by any of the Platoon's Senior Leaders.

The additional BAR on the Support List may be given to any scout. Platoon Scouts may be armed with M1 Garand Rifles/M1 Carbines, Thompson SMGs, or any combination of these weapons, if that option is selected from the support list.

Platoon BAR

Besides the squad BARs a Marine Rifle Platoon had an additional BAR to be issued at the Platoon Leader's discretion. The weapon is provided without any crew and replaces the rifle or other main arm of the figure selected as its gunner. An additional figure is nominated as the gunner's assistant.

Most commonly the weapon appears to have been added as a third weapon to the BAR Squad, but the player is free to add the weapon to any squad, including a Scout Squad if he chooses to form one.

[Seret]

Yes I agree but if you look at the CoCalculater, it is 2 pts for each rifle grenade, so I put it in.

It's 3 points for a grenade discharger, but this seems to be intended only for troops where the grenade discharger is their primary weapon, such as in the French and Japanese platoons. In a normal rifle section where rifle grenades will only be very infrequently used you don't pay for them.

[batesmotel34]

To make the one team per section, just add a team subheader between the JL line and the lines for the rest of the section. Call it rifle team or whatever you want.

Chris