M91 Moisin-Nagant vs. Original Hanyang 88 in ASL Terms

[Srynerson]

Other than the quality of training for the troops involved, would there be any reason in ASL terms for a squad equipped with the M91 version of the Moisin-Nagant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosin–Nagant), i.e. the one that predated the M91/30 variant that WWII Soviet rifle squads were generally armed with, to have any difference in firepower or range from a squad equipped with the original Hanyang 88, i.e., the one based on the Mauser Gewehr 88 and chambered for the older 7.92x57mm round (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanyang_88#Design)? My best guess is "no" from what I've been finding on-line (their performance seems fairly similar), but I'm not much of an expert on firearms.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

I suppose a US citizen, with their love of firearms, could answer better, but my guess is a strong no. The Russian/Soviet 7.62x54R was pretty much the same as the German 7.92x57mm. Both rounds survived until the end of WW2 and beyond. The Soviet round is still used in MGs and the Dragunov SVD sniper rifle. The German round has died out due to the adoption of 7.62x51mm NATO, not because of any problem with it per se.

Their use by Chinese troops could be less than optimal due to limited training (including economically restricted range firing training), limited logistics, less than European standards of technical education (maintenance). Another thing to consider is smaller '30-'40s stature due to malnutrition which means that such full power rifles were more of a handful to handle and fire. The British had a similar problem in the lead up to WW1 with badly malnourished working class volunteers. The Japanese long used 6.5x50mmSR, a bit less powerful than their allies/enemies, I believe partly to better suit their then slighter build. However such many problems would apply equally to either the 7.62 and 7.92 rounds.

A few years ago I did a comparison of the existing squad types in ASL (http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?111383-Paul-s-Ponderous-Pompous-Pedantic-Proclamations-Patter-and-Platitudes, post #13). What I figured out was that with a squad with a single LMG and the rest rifles, a 4-X-Y, that 1 FP was due to the LMG and the other 3 was simply any form of fire, more psychological effect of someone shooting at you than effective fire. After that deduce 1 FP for poor quality or motivated and maybe add 1 for extra elite troops.

ASL does not distinguish much between squads, only the number of LMG, the standardisation on semi-automatic rifles like the M1 Garand or not, the proportion of full automatic weapons and troop quality seem to matter. ASL treats a Bren and a Bar the same, even a MG-34/42 only adds spraying fire, not extra FP. With regards to rifles only the semi-auto M1 Garand makes a difference. (StG 44 seem to be treated just as longer ranged SMG.) A PPSh, Thompson, Sten and MP-38/40 are all the same in ASL, only the percentage equipping a squad matter.

 

[Srynerson]

Thank you, Paul, and I appreciate your link back to the earlier analysis. I suspected that there would not be much justification for treating squads differently in ASL terms based on the rifle type in this instance, but I was motivated to ask based on a combat account in which Lee-Enfield rifles (presumably the Pattern 1913 model based on the date and other descriptions) were credited with having materially greater range than the original Hanyang 88 design, such that I think under design-for-effect principles a squad equipped with the former would merit a "4" range versus a "3" range for the latter.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

My approach is that more performance is due to ability, whether instilled in military training or late childhood/early-teen experience in hunting as well as naturally better eyesight and patience. I get the impression that there were, prior to X/Y force, 2 distinct levels in the NRA, the German trained divisions and the rest and they were a good distance apart in terms of quality and ability. Most other armies, including the German had quality ranging from elite to truly dreadful with all shades between. Now combat experience would have smoothed things out a bit but adding continued favouritism in equipment and training would still have favoured "The Generalissimo's Own".

Most troops from any nation would have been incapable of getting more than 70-80% of the capability of their weapons. I would guess that those NRA troops who had enough skill to prefer one decent rifle over another decent rifle would be good enough to rate as 447 anyway.

I hope that you don't think my comments about 'small stature' was a simple stereotype. I remember raising an eyebrow or two when reading about the British Army during the Boer War and right up to WW1 (and a lesser extent in WW2), that the first 2 months or so were mainly spent feeding their malnourished and underweight volunteers. For that period only light physical training was done along with the usual arms and military guff. Not that I was surprised that the British working class were treated badly, but that it was severe enough for the British elite to notice and do something about and they followed Bismark's lead in instituting early social security measures. Given that the British experience was in an uninvaded country, I can only barely begin to imagine how bad it must have been in '30s China.

 

[Khill]

mosin is better overall than the 88 in my opinion. but in ASL terms: same, same

i'm no expert but in my opinion the mosin is a fine piece. a skilled hand can really reach out and touch something. but it is also wicked heavy, bit over 10lbs. 7.62x54R is a big round and heavy too. i thought it interesting Paul's note on the size and strength of those soldiers. it is fun on the range and effective in a tree stand but i'm getting too old to hike that cannon through the woods anymore. the safety mechanism is the least desirable feature of the mosin in my opinion. it is a difficult and awkward bolt lock mechanism. the mosin design was produced by many nations and continued in service well into the '60's. in my opinion the finest example of the mosin design is the Finland M39 model

 

[Chuck2112]

I have shot Mosins, Enfields, 1903's, K98's, and M1's in competition at Camp Perry. In my experience, the Mosin is the hardest of the bolt actions to use. The straight bolt handle of the Mosin is not as smooth as the turned down bolt handles of the other rifles. They all kick like a mule (except the Garand) and the Mosin is harder to take the follow up shots with after working the bolt.

Chuck

 

[Chuck2112]

I have shot Mosins, Enfields, 1903's, K98's, and M1's in competition at Camp Perry. In my experience, the Mosin is the hardest of the bolt actions to use. The straight bolt handle of the Mosin is not as smooth as the turned down bolt handles of the other rifles. They all kick like a mule (except the Garand) and the Mosin is harder to take the follow up shots with after working the bolt.

Chuck

 

[Srynerson]

Thanks for the additional thoughts, Khill and Chuck!

 

[Srynerson]

I get the impression that there were, prior to X/Y force, 2 distinct levels in the NRA, the German trained divisions and the rest and they were a good distance apart in terms of quality and ability. Most other armies, including the German had quality ranging from elite to truly dreadful with all shades between. Now combat experience would have smoothed things out a bit but adding continued favouritism in equipment and training would still have favoured "The Generalissimo's Own".

Most troops from any nation would have been incapable of getting more than 70-80% of the capability of their weapons. I would guess that those NRA troops who had enough skill to prefer one decent rifle over another decent rifle would be good enough to rate as 447 anyway.

Well, that's the tricky thing -- ASL doesn't contemplate any Chinese forces other than GMD regulars and Red Army guerrillas. I'm looking deeper at various warlord engagements, and trying to come up with squad attributes. Sources always tout how the Army of the Northwest (under Feng Yuxiang) and the Army of the Northeast (under Zhang père ét fils) were generally both better armed and trained than other Chinese forces, which implies that they should have superior squad values to the GMD 3-3-7 first line squad. However those same forces don't seem to have really had units that properly fit the ASL definition of "Elite" (i.e., troops who are specially trained to be superior to their fellow soldiers) so I'm trying to decide how that should be treated and how much of their superiority was the result of their equipment versus training. Given what we've discussed about weapons so far, I'm leaning toward saying that for those forces it would make sense to include second line squad types, but no elite squads. Maybe ELR progression of 3-4-7 --> 3-3-7 --> 3-3-6, with the 3-4-7 being a first line squad. (Edited because I was thinking a 4-4-7 first line squad, but that's difficult to reconcile with the performance of the Army of the Northeast versus Soviet and Japanese forces.)

 

[Paul M. Weir]

Interesting thoughts about the warlord armies.

For what my ever my opinion is worth, I view ASL in terms of relative abilities. To illustrate, most 1st line rifle squads represent a LMG, maybe a SMG and the rest rifles. ASL really has little to say about the absolute number of troops (maybe to some extent the fraction of SMG in absolute or proportional terms). WW2 squads in general dropped from roughly 12-14 to 8-10 as the war progressed, as low as 6-8 for the British at times, yet we still use the same counters. Not absolutely true about the drop, the USA squad numbers remained stable, the USMC increased, but most others dropped. The important thing is that for most opponents the relative size and firepower stayed about the same.

Ignore for the moment the question of what the real world would regard as Elite; SEALs, Spetsnaz, Commandos, etc. In ASL terms Elite mainly means, compared to 1st line, FT & DC usage and higher equivalence for SW and leaders. Otherwise they are in principle little different from 1st and 2nd, in some cases an extra FP or hex of range and often but not always higher morale.

Relating to historical troops, ASL Elite may have had more complete and longer training, longer and more successful battle experience and sometimes better or more equipment. I would disagree that Elite in general (glider, paratroop or commando/ranger excepted) would represent troops that would have had particularly unusual or specialist training (excluding mission specific like for the D-Day landings that would be give to most). Sometimes Espirit de Corps/reputation helps, good leadership and more complete training helps but I feel actual success in battle will do as much for the extra confidence. A better replacement policy and time for the rookies to blend in would help maintain quality.

If both sides have mediocre but not dreadful troops, then the better of the bunch should get some E class. Centenarian Volkssturm vs the Stalin Kindergarten is another matter. To me ASL Elite means a notch or two above the masses, not necessarily Supermen.

Have you thought about using Axis or Allied Minors, given that you regard them as sufficiently different?

 

[Khill]

I have shot Mosins, Enfields, 1903's, K98's, and M1's in competition at Camp Perry. In my experience, the Mosin is the hardest of the bolt actions to use. The straight bolt handle of the Mosin is not as smooth as the turned down bolt handles of the other rifles. They all kick like a mule (except the Garand) and the Mosin is harder to take the follow up shots with after working the bolt. Chuck

i'm left handed: all old military bolts mack with me

the 'ol M39 has pretty good action. besides i work the action overhand with my left hand

 

[Chuck2112]

A good friend of mine who has since passed away told me a great story about when he was in basic training. He, like yourself was left handed. He said he was at the range learning how to shoot the 1903 Springfield. He gets in the prone position and shoulders the rifle on his left shoulder as any left hander would do. He then said he felt a boot on the back of his neck. The DI asked him "just what do you think you are doing?" He replied "Learning to shoot my rifle". The DI said "Why is your rifle on your left side?" Ralph replied "I'm left handed!". The DI said "Not any more your not, get that rifle on your right shoulder!" From that day forward he always shot right handed.

Chuck

 

[Srynerson]

Interesting thoughts about the warlord armies.

For what my ever my opinion is worth, I view ASL in terms of relative abilities. To illustrate, most 1st line rifle squads represent a LMG, maybe a SMG and the rest rifles. ASL really has little to say about the absolute number of troops (maybe to some extent the fraction of SMG in absolute or proportional terms). WW2 squads in general dropped from roughly 12-14 to 8-10 as the war progressed, as low as 6-8 for the British at times, yet we still use the same counters. Not absolutely true about the drop, the USA squad numbers remained stable, the USMC increased, but most others dropped. The important thing is that for most opponents the relative size and firepower stayed about the same.

Ignore for the moment the question of what the real world would regard as Elite; SEALs, Spetsnaz, Commandos, etc. In ASL terms Elite mainly means, compared to 1st line, FT & DC usage and higher equivalence for SW and leaders. Otherwise they are in principle little different from 1st and 2nd, in some cases an extra FP or hex of range and often but not always higher morale.

Relating to historical troops, ASL Elite may have had more complete and longer training, longer and more successful battle experience and sometimes better or more equipment. I would disagree that Elite in general (glider, paratroop or commando/ranger excepted) would represent troops that would have had particularly unusual or specialist training (excluding mission specific like for the D-Day landings that would be give to most). Sometimes Espirit de Corps/reputation helps, good leadership and more complete training helps but I feel actual success in battle will do as much for the extra confidence. A better replacement policy and time for the rookies to blend in would help maintain quality.

If both sides have mediocre but not dreadful troops, then the better of the bunch should get some E class. Centenarian Volkssturm vs the Stalin Kindergarten is another matter. To me ASL Elite means a notch or two above the masses, not necessarily Supermen.

Have you thought about using Axis or Allied Minors, given that you regard them as sufficiently different?

Paul, I agree with most of your points here. My focus on ASL's definition of "Elite" in this context is more limited to how Chapter G treats "Elite" forces in GMD service, i.e., GMD "Elite" squads are those that are particularly trained and equipped to a higher degree than other GMD units (the 5-3-7 being armed and trained by Americans, the 4-4-7 being armed and trained by Germans). However, based on the sources I've come across, most warlord factions deliberately did not create "Elite" forces in those terms because of being afraid that units of exceptional quality would turn against their own creators or otherwise be induced to break away to a different faction.

That said, I had thought about simply using existing ASL nationalities with name changes (effectively "recalibrating" all squad values to represent the various faction's relative capabilities), but that gets into the problem of what to do in scenarios where those same forces interact with "outside" ASL nationalities. For example, the Army of the Northeast was considered very good in terms of training and equipment among warlord forces, so a first line squad of that force should probably be classed as at least a 4-5-7 squad relative to other warlord forces. But the Army of the Northeast also fought the Soviets and the Japanese, where its performance was much worse. That can be dealt with by using Axis Minors or Italians for the Army of the Northeast in those scenarios, but I don't know how receptive people would be to using different nationalities to represent the same force in a series of scenarios.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

I for one would have no problem with using existing nationalities to represent nations or factions not covered by ASL. What those would or should be be is really up to you. I have only the vaguest idea about the various factions in the 4 to 7 cornered fight that was China and none about their relative ability.

I understand your caution. I recognise that the NRA/GMD had 2, later 3 levels of training, equipment and favouritism and ASL recognises such distinctions by restricting the use of 537/447. However we are not talking NRA here, so such distinctions and restrictiions don't apply, in my view. Rather than an E class warlord squad representing a part of a Praetorian unit, I would suggest that it is just a better squad amongst a continuum of ability, The Good (E), The Bad (1/2) and The Ugly (C). Look at many scenarios and you will see a mix on one or both sides, eg an early Soviet battalion from, say, ASL 128 with 5x628, 24x447 and 12x426.

Just as the CWaPRA/PLA has its own 'rules' then don't hesitate to use what combination of module specific rules and counters that you feel best suits you. As for the quality, if AotNE is fighting against another warlord army then a good sprinkling of AxMi/It 447 in with 347 against NRA 337 might be best but against Japanese or Soviets then use 347 with some 336. I think it is quite legitimate to tailor your forces to reflect relative abilities. The prospect of facing the IJA or RKKA would, I imagine, be a very different prospect than beating up on ill-armed and disciplined rivals from the next county or province. You might take liberties with the latter but not the former two. As well we have to recognise that the lions of one CG date might be reduced to burnt out husks of the next CG or visa-versa.

I severely doubt that many scenarios accurately reflect the historical balance of forces (British in PB and Germans in LFT's KGS excepted), few would be anywhere near game balanced if they were. Within reason (No, No! No SS squads representing AotNE, naughty, naughty boy!) as a designer you are free to utilise whatever you feels best represents a new force in relation to the existing nationalities. We have already seen NRA counters in the guise of Korean labour troops in BRT, AxMi as Thai, BIA/BNA, IRA and INA, so AxMi as AotNE is not outrageous. The only problem with using Italian troops are their dreadful LMG.