Pacific campaign Lists?

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

Magpie
Posts: 558
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:29 pm
Location: Cairns, Australia

Re: Pacific campaign Lists?

Post by Magpie »

Australian platoon by 1945 wasn't really all that different to early on.

Obviously you'd only be looking at MMG's and Matildas along with the infantry support list items
CoC Calculator (Excel spreadsheet to calc platoon and list levels)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uvpypn0mi75y7 ... .xlsx?dl=0

Post additions/corrections to the CoC Calcualtor
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=4423

Len Tracey
Posts: 226
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:33 am

Re: Pacific campaign Lists?

Post by Len Tracey »

G'day Ysambart,
Reference the Australian forces in the Pacific in 1945. By the late stage of the Pacific war the Australian Army had completely re-trained and reorganised itself for jungle warfare. This was done over 1943 up in north Qld. This re-focus from desert to jungle had some notable impacts on small unit organisation. The ones I'm aware of are as follows:

Uniforms were changed to cotton long-sleeve shirt and trousers, jungle green in colour, along with cleated boots and gaiters. Webbing was dyed a darker green as well.
Section remained at 10 men but was divided into a Command/Scout group of two scouts and the Section commander (Corporal), a Gun group of three with the Bren LMG (2 men) and Section 2IC (Lance Corporal), and a Rifle group of four riflemen.
Scouts and commander were armed with Owen SMG as much as possible (up to three per Section but two was the norm). Everyone else had Lee-Enfields apart from the Bren gunner.
The platoon remained at three Sections plus a HQ. The PHQ seems to have ditched the ATR/PIAT due to lack of tank threat and there is little evidence the 50mm mortar was employed much either. Command remained a Lieutenant and SGT (both with Owen SMG) along with radio operator and runners to facilitate dispersed operations.
Tactically there was a deliberate decision to increase the amount of automatic weapons available, hence the proliferation of Owen SMG. This was a 9mm weapon with a vertical magazine to facilitate firing while prone. The Thompson SMG had largely (although not completely) been withdrawn to facilitate ammunition commonality.
Support choices would vary with campaign, but Vickers MMG and 3" Mortars were key battalion weapons and used in all battles. Sniping was also employed, although specialists snipers were not really developed to any degree.
Two books I recommend strongly for research are Jungle Warriors by Dr Adrian Threlfall and Hells Battlefield by Phillip Bradley. The first examines how Australia developed its jungle warfare doctrine and expertise during WW2 and the second covers Australia's jungle battles in detail at the small unit level.
Hope this helps. Cheers.

Ysambart
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:11 pm
Location: Canberra, Australia

Re: Pacific campaign Lists?

Post by Ysambart »

Thank you so much! Now I need to decide how to take in this infor, maybe allow a 'general' force with back of the book, and a 'jungle' force.

Len Tracey
Posts: 226
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:33 am

Re: Pacific campaign Lists?

Post by Len Tracey »

As a follow-on to the above; Australian forces employed the M3 Stuart and Matilda 2 tanks in the Pacific.
By late war the Stuart had pretty much been withdrawn as it was too light and vulnerable to Japanese AT weapons.
The Matilda 2 was the tank of choice as it was heavily armoured and pretty much immune to Japanese AT attacks. Its narrow width facilitated movement on jungle tracks and its track guards protected its suspension from both natural and enemy hazards. Its slow speed was not an issue in the jungle and it proved well able to negotiate all but the steepest terrain.
The only real problem with the Matilda 2 was its 2 pounder gun which had limited HE capability. This was solved by developing the Matilda "Frog"; where the main gun was replaced with a big flamethrower and the fuel was placed under armour. The weapon's short range suited the jungle and it had devastating effects on the Japanese when employed.
There are also pictures claiming to show some Matildas having been up-gunned with a 75mm howitzer, although I don't have any details on this.
These tanks were all used as Infantry support platforms, often deployed individually down to platoon level.
Artillery and naval gunfire also became readily available in late war, so pre-game barrages would be a valid support choice for Australian platoons.
Cheers.

Magpie
Posts: 558
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:29 pm
Location: Cairns, Australia

Re: Pacific campaign Lists?

Post by Magpie »

Quite a few of the Aussie Matilda's were the CS version which had the 76mm/3" howitzer.

Some good data here http://www.mheaust.com.au/Aust/Research ... tilda1.htm

Some stuff on the M3 too http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armour ... onph_1.htm
CoC Calculator (Excel spreadsheet to calc platoon and list levels)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uvpypn0mi75y7 ... .xlsx?dl=0

Post additions/corrections to the CoC Calcualtor
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=4423

Ysambart
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:11 pm
Location: Canberra, Australia

Re: Pacific campaign Lists?

Post by Ysambart »

Len Tracey wrote:As a follow-on to the above; Australian forces employed the M3 Stuart and Matilda 2 tanks in the Pacific.
Thank You so much, Len.

sackatatties
Posts: 456
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:50 am
Location: Dunfermline, Scotland

Re: Pacific campaign Lists?

Post by sackatatties »

This would have been a nice Aussie addition to their arsenal however it was never use operationally :).

"Officially known as the 'Matilda Projector, Hedgehog, No. 1 Mark I, this fitted a Hedgehog 7-chambered spigot mortar in an armoured box on the rear hull of several Australian Matilda tanks. The projector was elevated by hydraulics adapted from the Logan traversing mechanism used in M3 Medium tank turrets and electrically fired either individually or in a salvo of six, from the 12 o'clock position;] the fifth tube could not be fired until the turret was traversed to 1 o'clock, to move the radio antenna out of the bomb's flightpath. Each bomb weighed 65 lb (29 kg) and contained 30 to 35 lb (14 to 16 kg) of high explosive. The range was up to 400 m (440 yd). Aiming was accomplished by pointing the entire tank; the mounting had no independent traverse, so accuracy was not spectacular, but adequate for the task.[40] Trials at Southport, Queensland, in May 1945 were pronounced complete success, and the Projector would have been impressive against enemy bunkers, but the war ended before it was used operationally."

Groupe_Franc
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: Pacific campaign Lists?

Post by Groupe_Franc »

What of the U.S. Army? Are the ETO lists usable? Or were there modifications? I guess the Support options would need to be reduced in number. Did infantry units use the M8 Scott?
Somewhere I stumbled across a vendor who offers GI's in light kit suitable for the 6th Rangers but now don't recall where. Any pointers?
TIA

User avatar
genew49
Posts: 286
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:10 am
Location: Marion County, Florida

Re: Pacific campaign Lists?

Post by genew49 »


Post Reply