Order of Battle vs historical realities

[kondi754]

I don't want to correct or criticize developers, I understand that computer games are governed by their laws, mainly market laws.
In my posts I just want to show how much our favorite game is different than the reality on which they are based.

Japanese tanks and other armoured vehicles during the battle of Imphal (OoB: Burma Road, Imphal scn):

Sōkō Sagyō Ki - well-known from Morning Sun, flamethrower tank and engineering vehicle, used in China (since 1937) and Phillippines (1941-45)
Type 4 Ho-Ro - self-propelled gun, 12 copies were produced, used in Phillippines (1944-45) and Okinawa (1945)
Type 98 Ke-Ni - light tank, 104 copies were produced, his operational records are unknown and most likely they were given to young recruits and kept in the Home Islands
Type 3 Ke-Ri - prototype of light tank, probably only few copies were produced
Type 2 Ho-I - infantry support tank, around 30 copies were apparently manufactured and delivered, these vehicles were allocated to the Japanese home islands defense units
Type 4 Ke-Nu - light tank, 100 copies built, used in Manchuria and Korea (1945), stationed in Okinawa and Kyushu too
Type 1 Chi-He - improved Shinhoto Chi-Ha medium tank, 170 copies built, never left the Home Islands
Type 4 Ha-To - self-propelled gun (heavy mortar on medium tank's chassis), 4 units were produced before the surrender of Japan, but none were used in combat

Historical realities:
The only Japanese armoured unit used in the Imphal battle (as well as all the Burmese campaign) was the 14th Tank Regiment.
In March 1944, he had 66 tanks: Type 95 Ha-Go, Type 97 Chi-Ha, and Stuart tanks (1 company), gained on the retreating British troops in 1942.
Ha-Go and Chi-Ha are old projects from the mid 30's, they were the main tanks of the Japanese army throughout the war.

Sources: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/

In subsequent posts I will describe the battles, units and equipment we can meet by playing OoB.
To be continued...

[best75]

What about the tiger tank in imphal?
I am not a history expert but that one was glaring obvious

[kondi754]

It is obvious that Japan did not use PzKw VI Tiger during the war.

A naval blockade, the distance from Europe and the size and weight of the vehicle made it impossible.
However, Japan has bought 1 Tiger I tank in February 1944. The vehicle was supposed to be disassembled and transported by submarine.
This Tiger was sent to Bordeaux for shipment to Japan. However common sense prevailed and it was given as a gift to sSS PzAbt 101 instead.
It was used in Normandy (or Belgium, as some sources say).

[kondi754]

I haven't had the opportunity to write anything for a long time, but now there is such an opportunity.
SU-122 self-propelled guns appeared, which we have to destroy at the beginning of the battle to regain Kharkov in February 1943.
Everything seems ok, because the production of this equipment began in autumn 1942, so theoretically it could appear on the battlefield in the winter at the beginning of the next year.
Unfortunately, he didn't show up in the south of the frontline (where we are ) but in the north, near Leningrad.
It is a fact that the first two regiments of self-propelled artillery (equipped with 8x SU-122 and 17x SU-76) were used in February (the first) and April (the second) during the battles to break the lap of the city of Lenin and against German counterattack later.
SU-122 was used in the south for the first time in July 1943 (during the Kursk battle).

[sthanno]

Hi, I'm curious:

In looking at the two lists above, I can't figure out what the take-home is. It looks like OOB over-represents the Japanese forces versus the historical reality?

[kondi754]

Hi, I'm curious:

In looking at the two lists above, I can't figure out what the take-home is. It looks like OOB over-represents the Japanese forces versus the historical reality?

Of course, all the other campaigns are more or less accurate but the Japanese army was in fact so weak (in contrast to the fleet and partly the air force), so the developers had to use all possible prototypes and even projects to preserve the right balance in the game ...
Unfortunately, the vast majority of Japanese funds were spent on the development of the fleet, so land forces were out-dated throughout the war.
It was enough for the Kuomintang in China and the weak British army in Malaya, but in 1945 the Red Army occupied Manchuria within 14 days...

[WarHomer]

I have no problem with units appearing on other fronts than the ones they historically where used first, and in some cases never. We need a diverse and balanced game with as much room for diversity as possible, and its important to remember that it is just that, a game, and not a graphic/interactive history book.

The game wouldn´t be much fun if I had no chance to chance to alter the historical outcome and what really ruined Burma Road for me was that I had soo few units to choose from and in most cases only one specific unit beat out all other choices.

[kondi754]

I have no problem with units appearing on other fronts than the ones they historically where used first, and in some cases never. We need a diverse and balanced game with as much room for diversity as possible, and its important to remember that it is just that, a game, and not a graphic/interactive history book.

The game wouldn´t be much fun if I had no chance to chance to alter the historical outcome and what really ruined Burma Road for me was that I had soo few units to choose from and in most cases only one specific unit beat out all other choices.

@WarHomer
Look at the first sentence in this thread...

Postby kondi754 » 09 Sep 2017 12:29
I don't want to correct or criticize developers, I understand that computer games are governed by their laws, mainly market laws.
In my posts I just want to show how much our favorite game is different than the reality on which they are based.

This is a thread devoted to historical curiosities.
I am happy if someone reads and comments it, but I want to make it clear - it is not a lobbying for the greater historical compliance of this game.

PS. I plan to create someday "my version" of OoB, where everything will be subordinated to historical accuracy but also playable as hell.

[bru888]

PS. I plan to create someday "my version" of OoB, where everything will be subordinated to historical accuracy but also playable as hell.

This is a good sentiment, including the evil face! Some variance from historical is okay, but not too much.

For example, I usually hesitate to do anything unhistorical in my scenarios but in my latest one, I needed a seaplane tender big enough to handle a Heinkel He59 torpedo bomber that I wanted to include. The Greif is too small and it was a bit too early for the Bussard but I went ahead and included the Bussard anyway. Sure it bothers me a little bit but I did it for the same of the gameplay.

As to what you said about your own version of OOB, kondi, once you know a bit about the scenario editor and how to use OpenOffice to tweak the units.csv file, a whole world of modification opens up to your heart's content. You know this, of course, hence your evil face.

[kondi754]

@Bru
Unfortunately, I know nothing about it and I don't have time at this moment, but I really want to learn, so that's why I write "someday" ...

[Igor1941]

PS. I plan to create someday "my version" of OoB, where everything will be subordinated to historical accuracy but also playable as hell.

Winning England, the United States, the USSR is possible?

[kondi754]

PS. I plan to create someday "my version" of OoB, where everything will be subordinated to historical accuracy but also playable as hell.

Winning England, the United States, the USSR is possible?

I do not understand, could you explain what you mean?

[Igor1941]

PS. I plan to create someday "my version" of OoB, where everything will be subordinated to historical accuracy but also playable as hell.

Winning England, the United States, the USSR is possible?

I do not understand, could you explain what you mean?

Victory of Germany

[kondi754]

Ok, I'm sorry
I think that victory of Germany was unrealistic.
The most important was the human, economic/industrial and intellectual potential of the Allies.
The Germans had no chance from the beginning to the end in my opinion.

[Igor1941]

Ok, I'm sorry
I think that victory of Germany was unrealistic.
The most important was the human, economic/industrial and intellectual potential of the Allies.
The Germans had no chance from the beginning to the end in my opinion.

The history textbook ... is sad, but to win Germany and is proud of yourself ... 5 minutes)))

[kondi754]

Believe me, I read a lot about it and analyzed it thoroughly, the Germans did not have a chance to win because of their central geopolitical position, they will always be doomed to fight on several fronts ...
Even the capture of the Caucasus, Stalingrad, Moscow or Cairo would not do anything to them in the long run, only the war would last for 1-2 years longer
The creation of the atomic bomb at that time (until 1947) was also unrealistic because Germans did not have enough resources for that

[Igor1941]

Believe me, I read a lot about it and analyzed it thoroughly, the Germans did not have a chance to win because of their central geopolitical position, they will always be doomed to fight on several fronts ...
Even the capture of the Caucasus, Stalingrad, Moscow or Cairo would not do anything to them in the long run, only the war would last for 1-2 years longer
The creation of the atomic bomb at that time (until 1947) was also unrealistic because Germans did not have enough resources for that

The eastern front 1:15 just did not have a chance)))? Or did Lend-Lease help?

[kondi754]

Believe me, I read a lot about it and analyzed it thoroughly, the Germans did not have a chance to win because of their central geopolitical position, they will always be doomed to fight on several fronts ...
Even the capture of the Caucasus, Stalingrad, Moscow or Cairo would not do anything to them in the long run, only the war would last for 1-2 years longer
The creation of the atomic bomb at that time (until 1947) was also unrealistic because Germans did not have enough resources for that

The eastern front 1:15 just did not have a chance)))? Or did Lend-Lease help?

Lend lease is a very extensive topic.
The most important was in 1941-43, when the Red Army was short of everything.
The Russians most valued American trucks, jeeps willys, infantry carriers (wheeled and half-trackers), which they had never known before.
When it comes to tanks, they most valued British Valentine, which were in their possession even up to 1945 (several armored brigades participated in the fighting for Vienna).
There were used only British tanks from lend-lease deliveries in the Caucasus in summer and autumn 1942.
The Germans came to the Volga near Stalingrad, so the Caucasus was cut off from supplies of Soviet tanks. The only existing supply route led from Iran.
Russians didn't like American tanks (especially Grants, which they called a "grave for 7 brothers"), despite of that there were several armored corps equipped only with Sherman tanks, which participated in the Bagration operation, battles in Poland and Germany.
Russian pilots loved the American P-39 Airacobra, which worked very well in combat up to 5000 m. Most of the air battles took place on the Eastern Front to such a ceiling.
Especially well-known pilots who used American P-39 were Colonel Aleksandr Pokryshkin (3-time hero of the Soviet Union, second on the Allied Aces list with 59 shot down airplanes) and Colonel Grigorij Rechkalov (former Pokryshkin's winger, 2-time hero of the Soviet Union, 44 ​​shot down airplanes)

[Igor1941]

Believe me, I read a lot about it and analyzed it thoroughly, the Germans did not have a chance to win because of their central geopolitical position, they will always be doomed to fight on several fronts ...
Even the capture of the Caucasus, Stalingrad, Moscow or Cairo would not do anything to them in the long run, only the war would last for 1-2 years longer
The creation of the atomic bomb at that time (until 1947) was also unrealistic because Germans did not have enough resources for that

The eastern front 1:15 just did not have a chance)))? Or did Lend-Lease help?

Lend lease is a very extensive topic.
The most important was in 1941-43, when the Red Army was short of everything.
The Russians most valued American trucks, jeeps willys, infantry carriers (wheeled and half-trackers), which they had never known before.
When it comes to tanks, they most valued British Valentine, which were in their possession even up to 1945 (several armored brigades participated in the fighting for Vienna).
There were used only British tanks from lend-lease deliveries in the Caucasus in summer and autumn 1942.
The Germans came to the Volga near Stalingrad, so the Caucasus was cut off from supplies of Soviet tanks. The only existing supply route led from Iran.
Russians didn't like American tanks (especially Grants, which they called a "grave for 7 brothers"), despite of that there were several armored corps equipped only with Sherman tanks, which participated in the Bagration operation, battles in Poland and Germany.
Russian pilots loved the American P-39 Airacobra, which worked very well in combat up to 5000 m. Most of the air battles took place on the Eastern Front to such a ceiling.
Especially well-known pilots who used American P-39 were Colonel Aleksandr Pokryshkin (3-time hero of the Soviet Union, second on the Allied Aces list with 59 shot down airplanes) and Colonel Grigorij Rechkalov (former Pokryshkin's winger, 2-time hero of the Soviet Union, 44 ​​shot down airplanes)

[kondi754]

What is this button with the word "Chicago"?