Manila HASL - Good news, Bad news

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,921
Reaction score
5,110
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
I just looked at the new website. Beautiful mapboard! I have a fondness for monster games. They are not for everyone, of course. The Marines usually prevail over both elite and non elite Japanese in ASL, but the US Army lacks the vigor of their elite counterparts. My friend Don has been consumed in reading accounts of the Pacific War for the last month. He gives the example of this battle where Marine observers of this Army battle were stunned that the Army units would take a position during the daytime and then fall back in the night. In contrast, the Marines would simply dig foxholes and stay there. The Army often would have to take the same position over again after the Japanese simply infiltrated back into their positions during the night!? Tim
Your insinuation here is an insult to the men that fought there. With even the slightest modicum of feeble research you could have found the reasons for such actions and reactions during this and other engagements involving USMC and US Army troops. Where it's quite obvious that a low level USMC personnel would be amazed at the tactics of his US Army is that the basic tactics, unit organization, training and support elements were different is that they would have had very little understanding the differences and to how they approached a tactical problem. To say that the USA troops were of less caliber than their USMC brothers is to spit in their face.

The Marine Rifle company was normally just shy of 1/3rd larger than a standard US Army company in personnel strength for starters and would probably be fleshed out with a plethora of additional weapon systems that would normally be allocated to specialized troops in an Army unit. Even the rank structure, though notionally quite similar, was different in application between the two. A Lance corporal in the USMC was every bit the NCO and team leader as the Gunny whereas in the USA a corporal may only denote a trusted subordinate with limited command responsibilities or perhaps a section leader. In essence the Marines tended to be diversified in command structure where the USA tended to be centralized in their command structure and implementation. The reasons for this were their training and the expected roles that each were expected to face in combat. Attendant to this was the level of support each was expected to receive in a combat situation and their training for such. Whereas the Marines, as branch of the USN, was expected to engage an enemy force with limited direct support (artillery or more accurately artillery of large calibers) after presumably being softened up by Naval gunnery, fires from naval units were not necessarily preferred for a direct support missions because of relative inaccuracies and the large calibers of naval guns not to mention the immediacy of response in many situations. Meanwhile the US Army had trained in the interwar years for engagements heavily supported by a plethora of artillery of all calibers and readily on-call. Their training taught them if an enemy was very resilient, draw back out of danger close for an artillery strike and pound the snot out of the enemy with everything in the artillery's arsenal, an option not usually readily available to the USMC because of their expected engagement types and operational areas to permit such actions.

I have all the repect for the Marines and the roles they were expected and did accomplish, but to denigrate the actions of US Army troops in comparrison as you have done is for me both a professional and personal insult of the highest order.
 
Last edited:

ASLSARGE

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
1,788
Reaction score
1,081
Location
Arizona
Country
llUnited States
Your insinuation here is an insult to the men that fought there. With even the slightest modicum of feeble research you could have found the reasons for such actions and reactions during this and other engagements involving USMC and US Army troops. Where it's quite obvious that a low level USMC personnel would be amazed at the tactics of his US Army is that the basic tactics, unit organization, training and support elements were different is that they would have had very little understanding the differences and to how they approached a tactical problem. To say that the USA troops were of less caliber than their USMC brothers is to spit in their face.

The Marine Rifle company was normally just shy of 1/3rd larger than a standard US Army company in personnel strength for starters and would probably be fleshed out with a plethora of additional weapon systems that would normally be allocated to specialized troops in an Army unit. Even the rank structure, though notionally quite similar, was different in application between the two. A Lance corporal in the USMC was every bit the NCO and team leader as the Gunny whereas in the USA a corporal may only denote a trusted subordinate with limited command responsibilities or perhaps a section leader. In essence the Marines tended to be diversified in command structure where the USA tended to be centralized in their command structure and implementation. The reasons for this were their training and the expected roles that each were expected to face in combat. Attendant to this was the level of support each was expected to receive in a combat situation and their training for such. Whereas the Marines, as branch of the USN, was expected to engage an enemy force with limited direct support (artillery or more accurately artillery of large calibers) after presumably being softened up by Naval gunnery, fires from naval units were not necessarily preferred for a direct support missions because of relative inaccuracies and the large calibers of naval guns not to mention the immediacy of response in many situations. Meanwhile the US Army had trained in the interwar years for engagements heavily supported by a plethora of artillery of all calibers and readily on-call. Their training taught them if an enemy was very resilient, draw back out of danger close for an artillery strike and pound the snot out of the enemy with everything in the artillery's arsenal, an option not usually readily available to the USMC because of their expected engagement types and operational areas to permit such actions.

I have all the repect for the Marines and the roles they were expected and did accomplish, but to denigrate the actions of US Army troops in comparrison as you have done is for me both a professional and personal insult of the highest order.
I've never seen that Marine report either.....however, what I did find was that the Army troops were hesitant about doing nighttime ops in Manila (1st Cavalry did a couple around the University/Hospital complex). What the GIs found was that the Japanese were masters of infiltration even in an urban environment. After a few days in the city the Americans tended to fight all day long, then hunker down in the rubble for the night. The Japanese set up lots of booby traps throughout the city and to move around in the rubble in the dark was just asking for trouble. The Japanese would try to infiltrate the Americans positions all night long, and harass them with sniper fire so they would not get any sleep either. Next day they did it all over again.
 

bprobst

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
2,542
Reaction score
1,452
Location
Melbourne, Australia
First name
Bruce
Country
llAustralia
My life choices are just fine, thank you.
Self-evidently not; you like CH products, that means that you have taken the wrong fork in the road somewhere. It's not a matter of opinion, scientific journals have published articles about this.

You need to re-evaluate your desire to make this personal.
I don't know you from a bar of soap, why would it be personal? The world doesn't revolve around you (or me). History, however, will judge each of us on our actions, and only one of us is claiming that sending money to CH for their "products" is a good thing. I used to do that as well, but I got better. You can too.
 

hongkongwargamer

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
7,213
Reaction score
5,619
Location
Lantern Waste
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Self-evidently not; you like CH products, that means that you have taken the wrong fork in the road somewhere. It's not a matter of opinion, scientific journals have published articles about this.



I don't know you from a bar of soap, why would it be personal? The world doesn't revolve around you (or me). History, however, will judge each of us on our actions, and only one of us is claiming that sending money to CH for their "products" is a good thing. I used to do that as well, but I got better. You can too.
Bruce, on the otherhand, knows me from a bar of soap, I am proud to say.
 

Tim Niesen

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
1,209
Reaction score
146
Country
llUnited States
Your insinuation here is an insult to the men that fought there. With even the slightest modicum of feeble research you could have found the reasons for such actions and reactions during this and other engagements involving USMC and US Army troops. Where it's quite obvious that a low level USMC personnel would be amazed at the tactics of his US Army is that the basic tactics, unit organization, training and support elements were different is that they would have had very little understanding the differences and to how they approached a tactical problem. To say that the USA troops were of less caliber than their USMC brothers is to spit in their face.

The Marine Rifle company was normally just shy of 1/3rd larger than a standard US Army company in personnel strength for starters and would probably be fleshed out with a plethora of additional weapon systems that would normally be allocated to specialized troops in an Army unit. Even the rank structure, though notionally quite similar, was different in application between the two. A Lance corporal in the USMC was every bit the NCO and team leader as the Gunny whereas in the USA a corporal may only denote a trusted subordinate with limited command responsibilities or perhaps a section leader. In essence the Marines tended to be diversified in command structure where the USA tended to be centralized in their command structure and implementation. The reasons for this were their training and the expected roles that each were expected to face in combat. Attendant to this was the level of support each was expected to receive in a combat situation and their training for such. Whereas the Marines, as branch of the USN, was expected to engage an enemy force with limited direct support (artillery or more accurately artillery of large calibers) after presumably being softened up by Naval gunnery, fires from naval units were not necessarily preferred for a direct support missions because of relative inaccuracies and the large calibers of naval guns not to mention the immediacy of response in many situations. Meanwhile the US Army had trained in the interwar years for engagements heavily supported by a plethora of artillery of all calibers and readily on-call. Their training taught them if an enemy was very resilient, draw back out of danger close for an artillery strike and pound the snot out of the enemy with everything in the artillery's arsenal, an option not usually readily available to the USMC because of their expected engagement types and operational areas to permit such actions.

I have all the repect for the Marines and the roles they were expected and did accomplish, but to denigrate the actions of US Army troops in comparrison as you have done is for me both a professional and personal insult of the highest order.
Well, I am simply repeating the criticism of the Marine observers on the ground at the time. The army would pull back several hundred yards every night. On the other hand, the Marines in the same situation would dig Fox holes at the point that their advance stopped at the end of the daylight. Tim
 

Houlie

CEO of HoulieDice (TM)
Joined
Nov 15, 2003
Messages
3,253
Reaction score
1,623
Location
Minnesota, USA
Country
llUnited States
Am curious, how soon after release will the VASL maps be available? I am sure like most folks, VASL is my primary venue for playing nowadays. Plus if there are "two-mapper" scenarios, it just makes them more playable on VASL.

Thanks!
 

Steve H

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
452
Reaction score
547
Location
Ottawa Ontario
Country
llCanada
Self-evidently not; you like CH products, that means that you have taken the wrong fork in the road somewhere. It's not a matter of opinion, scientific journals have published articles about this.



I don't know you from a bar of soap, why would it be personal? The world doesn't revolve around you (or me). History, however, will judge each of us on our actions, and only one of us is claiming that sending money to CH for their "products" is a good thing. I used to do that as well, but I got better. You can too.
Okay then. Well I will end this exchange with you by saying that I just went and bought CH's Australian MMC/SMC countersheet in your honour. I will think about you every time I use them!😁
 

TopT

Elder Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
2,619
Reaction score
1,424
Location
PA
Country
llUnited States
My in-laws are both Marines...met at Paris Island.
My wife is a Marine. I have only met a few that disliked it more than she did.
My daughter joined, served 4 years (1 tour in each Iraq, Afghanistan). I was TAD to Cherry Point, NC, where she was stationed, and I remember her asking me how I could have stayed in for 30 years. In my daughter's defense, if I had worked the hours that she was forced to work (60 - 70+/ every week) I would have been furious. Her MOS had a $36,000 re-enlistment bonus and laughed at them. She got out, earned a BS in finance and is a GS-11 working for the US Navy.
 

TopT

Elder Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
2,619
Reaction score
1,424
Location
PA
Country
llUnited States
Captain Bacchus hopes you are drinking like a man!!🤪🤪🤪
Absinthe.

I remember as a very young Pfc getting obliterated on Absinthe in Japan. I was literally crawling back to my barracks but I did get up and go to work the next day. I was worthless but I was at least present.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,833
Reaction score
5,250
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
Absinthe.

I remember as a very young Pfc getting obliterated on Absinthe in Japan. I was literally crawling back to my barracks but I did get up and go to work the next day. I was worthless but I was at least present.
Lmfao! A very similar experience at Nuclear Power School in Vallejo. The enlisted men's club was across the street from the barracks. Totally wasted I staggered out of the club, crossed the street, fell down an embankment and crawled the 100 yards or so to the barracks. Those were the days!🤮🤮🤮
 

ASLSARGE

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
1,788
Reaction score
1,081
Location
Arizona
Country
llUnited States
Absinthe.

I remember as a very young Pfc getting obliterated on Absinthe in Japan. I was literally crawling back to my barracks but I did get up and go to work the next day. I was worthless but I was at least present.
IIRC wasn't that stuff banned for several years? Seem to recall reading something about that...
I think it was in Europe..
 
Top