Pacific CGs without USMC

Mike205

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2017
Messages
57
Reaction score
53
Country
llUnited States
How about PTO HASL without Marines?

Proper PTO for me is British Commonwealth (Gurkhas, Aussies, Indians), Kachin Rangers + Chinese and all.

Jaegersoft made a solid HASL set in Burma '42:

 

Mike205

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2017
Messages
57
Reaction score
53
Country
llUnited States
Interesting comments. Lots of interesting things in this battle.

I agree that preparing a HASL for Kakazu Ridge is very do-able. Not sure how MMP would choose to handle this if at all, but my view would be the choice of 1) as a new HASL with map, new counters and rules, 2) just the new CG rules (2 different choices). I suspect many don't have the J2 release and would welcome having all this, while the guys with J2 in hand would only need the CG rules.

This was something I'd thought about too. From a marketing standpoint for MMP I'm sure that it would make more sense to re-release it as its own HASL rather than just a set of rules.
 

HansK

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2013
Messages
578
Reaction score
135
Location
Hoorn
Country
llNetherlands
Well, there is something more behind this:

I have read in many books that Japanese and Allied forces could detect their opponents by the way they smelled. The underlying fact seems to be that the body odor of Europeans (counting the Americans among them for being decendants) differs from those of people from the Far East.



Demographics


World map of the distribution of the A allele of the single nucleotide polymorphism rs17822931 in the ABCC11 gene. The proportion of A alleles in each population is represented by the white area in each circle.

The history of the migration of humans can be traced back using the ABCC11 gene alleles. The variation between ear wax and body odor in ethnicities around the world are specifically due to the ABCC11 gene alleles.[7] It is hypothesized that 40,000 years ago, an ancient Mongoloid tribe evolved the dry ear wax phenotype that followed a spread of the dry ear wax allele to other regions of Asia via migration of the ancient tribe.[10] The gene spread as a result of it being a beneficial adaption or through an evolutionary neutral mutation mechanism that went through genetic drift events.[10]
The frequency of alleles for dry ear wax and odorless sweat is most concentrated in East- and Northeast Asia, most notably Korea, China, Mongolia, and western Japan.[7] Conversely the frequency of the allele for wet ear wax and odored sweat are highest in African-American and sub-saharan populations.[7] A downward gradient of dry ear wax allele phenotypes can be drawn from northern China to southern Asia and an east–west gradient can also be drawn from eastern Siberia to western Europe.[7] The allele frequencies within ethnicities continued to be maintained because the ABCC11 gene is inherited as a haplotype, a group of genes or alleles that tend to be inherited as a single unit[7][11]
The amount of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in ear wax was found to be related to variation in ABCC11 genotype, which in turn is dependent on ethnic origin. In particular, the rs17822931 genotype, which is especially prevalent in East Asians, is correlated with lower VOC levels.
[12]


So, while soldiers in the field subject to low hygiene will smell bad in any case, they will apparently still smell different due to their ethnic gene alleles in such a way that this was percieved by the soldiers in PTO of both sides. So facts rather than urban legend behind this.

von Marwitz
Wonder who the first person will be we see sniffing at the counters at an ASL tournament...
 

Tim Niesen

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
91
Country
llUnited States
If the Corridor module is authentic, then at least the officers if not the noncoms in the naval infantry had China Marines. The noncoms in this very usual unit were mainly from the Chinese riverine gunboats (think Steve McQueen). The inferior ones had been naval petty officers, mainly from the bombed out base. Not sure if this means anything in ASL terms, however.
 

hongkongwargamer

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
5,442
Reaction score
2,482
Location
17 hexes
Country
llGibraltar
If the Corridor module is authentic, then at least the officers if not the noncoms in the naval infantry had China Marines. The noncoms in this very usual unit were mainly from the Chinese riverine gunboats (think Steve McQueen). The inferior ones had been naval petty officers, mainly from the bombed out base. Not sure if this means anything in ASL terms, however.
Aren't China Marines real Marines as well? Why would they be inferior?
 

ASLSARGE

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
1,460
Reaction score
297
Location
Arizona
Country
llUnited States
Aren't China Marines real Marines as well? Why would they be inferior?
Not inferior at all. The 4th Marine Regiment was one of the more experienced units in the U.S. military and they had peacekeeping duties in Shanghai to protect the European and American sectors even while the Japanese were fighting in other parts of the city. They were transferred to Corregidor in late1941 when it became obvious they were at extreme risk if they remained. What Tim is talking about is the special Naval Battalion on Corregidor. It was comprised of former ship's crews, cooks, stewards, and Filipino volunteers. They had no ground combat training or experience, but they gave as much as they got in fighting the Japanese on Bottomside.
 

ASLSARGE

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
1,460
Reaction score
297
Location
Arizona
Country
llUnited States
If the Corridor module is authentic, then at least the officers if not the noncoms in the naval infantry had China Marines. The noncoms in this very usual unit were mainly from the Chinese riverine gunboats (think Steve McQueen). The inferior ones had been naval petty officers, mainly from the bombed out base. Not sure if this means anything in ASL terms, however.
Why would you think it to be not authentic? BTW - it is Corregidor, not Corridor. :)
 

Tim Niesen

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
91
Country
llUnited States
I think that the China Marines were superior to the other Marines in the Pacific because of their experiences in China. The crews of the American gunboats may have been even better. Many were 15 to 20 year veterans, having fought small squad unit actions up and down their riverine base of operations. Steve McQueen character was quite representative of their combat ability. Fighting for decades Chinese bandits, Chinese Warlords, and Communists, they were among the best fighting men in the world. These two odd naval unit produced more American Medal of Honor winners than any other unit in WW2. And the medal winners were the officers and noncoms not the sailors. And because they were supplied by the Navy instead of the Army they were better feed than most American units there. The U.S. Navy started shipping supplies just as soon as the Japanese invaded. Unlike their Army counterparts. I told you people to read John Gordon book on these two units. Tim
 

Tim Niesen

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
91
Country
llUnited States
The Japanese Official History of the campaign, which has never been translated into English, observed that the men of these units were very brave but had odd fighting skills. Few of the sailor enlisted men had shot a weapon since basic training. John Gordon paid his Japanese secretary at Rand to translate the relevant portions of the Japanese Official History concerning the campaign. Tim
 

Tim Niesen

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
91
Country
llUnited States
Although the designers of the module have decided to make their infantry 447s, I think that a 347 might be more accurate. John Gordon gave an example in the book of a squad size unit failing to eliminate a Japanese unit in a beached landing craft despite shooting at them for hours. until a medium machine was brought to bear. These two naval unit's leaders should be superior to most units in contrast. Tim
 

hongkongwargamer

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
5,442
Reaction score
2,482
Location
17 hexes
Country
llGibraltar
I am trying to wrap my head around your posts.

I think that the China Marines were superior to the other Marines in the Pacific because of their experiences in China. The crews of the American gunboats may have been even better. Many were 15 to 20 year veterans, having fought small squad unit actions up and down their riverine base of operations. Steve McQueen character was quite representative of their combat ability. Fighting for decades Chinese bandits, Chinese Warlords, and Communists, they were among the best fighting men in the world. These two odd naval unit produced more American Medal of Honor winners than any other unit in WW2. And the medal winners were the officers and noncoms not the sailors. And because they were supplied by the Navy instead of the Army they were better feed than most American units there. The U.S. Navy started shipping supplies just as soon as the Japanese invaded. Unlike their Army counterparts. I told you people to read John Gordon book on these two units. Tim
The Japanese Official History of the campaign, which has never been translated into English, observed that the men of these units were very brave but had odd fighting skills. Few of the sailor enlisted men had shot a weapon since basic training. John Gordon paid his Japanese secretary at Rand to translate the relevant portions of the Japanese Official History concerning the campaign. Tim
Although the designers of the module have decided to make their infantry 447s, I think that a 347 might be more accurate. John Gordon gave an example in the book of a squad size unit failing to eliminate a Japanese unit in a beached landing craft despite shooting at them for hours. until a medium machine was brought to bear. These two naval unit's leaders should be superior to most units in contrast. Tim
So are you saying ...
  • Many of the Gunboat crews are 15 to 20 year veterans (there's gotta be a lot of enlisted men right?)
  • More Medal of Honor winners than any other units .. but most winners are officers and noncoms (are we saying subsequently that non MoH winners are "substandard"?)
  • The men were brave but had odd fighting skills. Few of the sailor enlisted men had shot a weapon since basic training. (So how did the MoH winners win their medals .. and what did they do in the last 15 to 20 years? Are the only folks fighting in the last 15 to 20 years officers and noncoms?)
  • The infantry should be 347 and not 447. (ASL do NOT give a leader counter for every officer and noncom though, ASL only gives leader counters for the more impactful ones .. ie .. officers and noncoms (read: MoH winners) are imbedded in MMC counters.)
If you are suggesting that the China Marines had superior officers than the rest .. but with inferior fighting men, I can't see how that's possible especially since the Marines advocate every men knowing the jobs of all those above him?

How's it possible to have more MoH winners amongst the noncomms and officers together with enlisted men that "few" had shot a weapon since basic training?
 
Last edited:

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
3,433
Reaction score
1,159
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
I think that the China Marines were superior to the other Marines in the Pacific because of their experiences in China. The crews of the American gunboats may have been even better. Many were 15 to 20 year veterans, having fought small squad unit actions up and down their riverine base of operations. Steve McQueen character was quite representative of their combat ability. Fighting for decades Chinese bandits, Chinese Warlords, and Communists, they were among the best fighting men in the world. These two odd naval unit produced more American Medal of Honor winners than any other unit in WW2. And the medal winners were the officers and noncoms not the sailors. And because they were supplied by the Navy instead of the Army they were better feed than most American units there. The U.S. Navy started shipping supplies just as soon as the Japanese invaded. Unlike their Army counterparts. I told you people to read John Gordon book on these two units. Tim
One small note: NO ONE is a Medal of Honor winner! It is not an honor that can be awarded for a specific action or set of actions and is NOT a prize to be pursued! One is a Medal of Honor recipient, an honor bestowed upon them by their comrades and approved by higher authority on behalf of the President of the United States as Commander in Chief. Often misnamed the Congressional Medal of Honor, it has nothing to do with Congressional approval except that they voted on the parameters that established the award. It may seem like a small matter, but to those of us that know it's a big deal! You can be forgiven for a common misconception and oft misused terminology to this point, but it is advisable (especially with those you play ASL with) that you become aware of the depth of feeling about the matter. :)
 

Tim Niesen

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
91
Country
llUnited States
John Gordon is the source for all of this, including getting the metals. The designers accepted in an earlier post a list he provided of some of the outstanding leaders. The sailors from the gunboats arriving with the China Marines. Early in December 1941 some of them became many of good leaders for these two unusual units. Most of the poorer leaders came from the naval petty officers. The gunboats first engaged in naval combat in Manila Harbor. The officers for the 2,000 plus sailors left after the Japanese bombed Cavite Bay were transferred from the Chinese Marines. Others were recruited from ships stranded there. Tim
 

Tim Niesen

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
91
Country
llUnited States
I can think of only two instances where sailors became infantry in American history. First, the successful burning of the captured US Philadelphia. 1804? Second, Commodore Stockton's Horse Marines in 1847 in Alta California. Any other suggestions? Tim
 

Tim Niesen

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
91
Country
llUnited States
I apologise about the issue of the awards. News to me. Tim
 

Tim Niesen

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
91
Country
llUnited States
The official Japanese history of WW2 is ten volumes long. It has been never translated. Heretofore, lack of interest by American historians. Few of whom read Japanese. John Gordon should be praised for using this important primary source through translation. He is a retired American officer from the American Army. His book on the Phillipine campaign is well written and researched. He started interviewing American veterans of the campaign in the 1970s. Tim
 

witchbottles

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
8,807
Reaction score
1,862
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
The official Japanese history of WW2 is ten volumes long. It has been never translated. Heretofore, lack of interest by American historians. Few of whom read Japanese. John Gordon should be praised for using this important primary source through translation. He is a retired American officer from the American Army. His book on the Phillipine campaign is well written and researched. He started interviewing American veterans of the campaign in the 1970s. Tim
A few important observations on your commentary (aside from the others already noted by others):

1. Know Your Source. Dr. John Gordon IV is employed full-time by the RAND Corporation as an International Relations Analyst. The vast majority of his anthology is focused on the more modern aspects of trade and the economic impacts of military operations on modern regional societies. His anthology is quite small on World War Two-based information, remaining mostly focused again, on the supply examples of 1941/1942 Philippines and those of Guam, Wake and Midway Islands (in academic journal articles). He does not purport to be or represent as, a solid historian of the period. (He is the author of the book you keep referring to.)

2. Primary sources are valuable tools for historical analysis. They do, however, represent a singular challenge to a researcher. They impart, based completely on the timeliness and immediacy of their own creation as written or recorded documents strongly felt emotional opinions and desires of the author(s) of that period, rather than a clear objective view of events after they have transpired. We need the distance of hindsight to obtain objectivity.

I am all for using primary sources to support a historical analysis, in fact, I encourage it. But I do not and would not build an entire thesis on the basis of a paid translation of documents created by a foreign entity that was recording their own opinions of the historical record for a purpose of maintaining a record of their own views at the time.

I think after we have seen the massive differences in the record from the widely-understood and prevailing German ources as compared to the formerly classified but now available Soviet records, that basing a thesis on such a platform is shaky ground, at best, fro ma historian's perspective. The prevailing 20th century literature on Kursk as compared to "Demolishing the Myth", is but one of many prime examples of what occurs when a thesis is based on a paid translation of a sourece with an obvious opinion motive.

3. Beware of forming suppositions or assertions or inferences based primarily on a single source, regardless of that sources provenance, its perceived validity, or its observed record of a lack of aspersions cast upon it. The best inferences drawn from historical record are rooted on a variety of widely supportive primary sources, backed up well by significant and plentiful scondary source analysis and thesis arguments, and analyzed into an effective and well-supported assertion.

I personally see Dr. Gordon IV's ocerall work as lacking significantly in this respect. I am not alone, academic reviews of his anthology aupport this assertion as well. His general trend is to build from a shaky platform of a single (to him significant) source, then attempt to upport it. When writing about history, one should always seek to "stand on the shoulders of giants", rather than "build one's house upon a hill of sand".

As wth any academic review, YMMV. A large concern for me in his work is his limite anthology, despite having been lecturing regularly since 2010. Academics are expected to maintain proficiency in their field by repeated publication of their research. I don't see this in Dr. Gordon IV's case.

I am entirely dubious of any claim that the 4th Marines in the Philippines in 1942 were awarded more Medals of Honor than any other unit during the war, for wartime service dating 1941-1945.
 

Tim Niesen

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
91
Country
llUnited States
John is a friend and his book has been well received. Generally. I may be misquoting him here about the number of emails awarded. My point is that few American historians have used the Japanese Official History. This Japanese source states that these naval units fought well. Of course, John interviewed American veterans and American records as well. Where do you find flaws in his methodology of research? Tim
 

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
1,652
Reaction score
596
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
I think that the China Marines were superior to the other Marines in the Pacific because of their experiences in China.

These two odd naval unit produced more American Medal of Honor winners than any other unit in WW2. And the medal winners were the officers and noncoms not the sailors.
What have you been smoking?

After reading your claims, I reviewed several sources regarding Medals Of Honor awarded during WWII and I discovered the following.

During the time frame of the fall of the Philippines/Corregidor (1941-42) exactly ONE Medal Of Honor was awarded to a member of the U.S. Navy, the recipient being Lt. Commander John D. Bulkeley, for his actions while in command of Torpedo Boat Squadron 3.

In regards to 'more Medals Of Honor than any other unit in World War Two ';

Congressional Medals Of Honor awarded:

U.S.Navy at Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7, 1941: 14

USMC Guadalcanal (I may have missed a few aviators): 9
USMC Tarawa: 4
USMC Saipan/Tinian: 6
USMC/U.S. Navy Corpsmen Iwo Jima: 27

U.S. Army 442nd Regimental Combat Team: 21

I may be off by one or two numbers in a few cases of the aforementioned stats, yet I would submit that the numbers would tend to refute the assertion that 'China Gunboat' personnel or 'China Marines' were in any way "superior" to the other USMC or U.S.Navy forces which served in the Pacific war.
 
Last edited:
Top