Pacific CGs without USMC

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
1,200
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
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.
This would be amusing if I didn't think you were serious.

The Sand Pebbles is certainly one of my favorite films, however the BAR-wielding fictional character of Petty Officer Holman should not in any way be perceived as being an infantryman, nor as an example of your claim as to the exceptional infantry skills of 'China Gunboat' sailors.
 

Perry

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
1,810
Reaction score
2,762
Location
Baltimore, MD
Country
llUnited States
I am supremely confident that if someone designed a full CG for the Kakazu Ridge materials already published (twice now), and submitted a finished and playtested, proofed and re-proofed, errata corrected CG to Perry or Chas at MMP, such a submission would receive nothing but a positive response from those 2 ASLrs at MMP.

:D
It wouldn't even have to be re-proofed and completely finished. ;)
 

Tim Niesen

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
1,209
Reaction score
146
Country
llUnited States
Not been smoking anything? I think that the sailors on the gunboats were very experienced in small unit combat. They may not be Marines but they functioned in that capacity. Many of them were lifers. I think the China Marines had gotten substantial experience in their role in the Shanghai District. Having numerous confrontations if not combat with their Japanese opponents there. Matter of opinion, of course. And I only refer to their experience status at the start of the war in contrast with other Marines stationed in more peaceful areas. Did they not perform very well in combat in the Philippines? Tim
 

ASLSARGE

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
1,786
Reaction score
1,053
Location
Arizona
Country
llUnited States
So, I am confused. Help me out here. You are using a fictional movie character and a single published source as the basis for the assumptions you are presenting? Just to provide some basis for my following comments....in researching Corregidor I used more than twenty five published sources including "official" ones. I also used almost twenty online sources in gathering research data to justify my decisions and I had access to many sources in the Philippines not available to non-Filipinos due to having relatives living there. Those all gave me a good solid base to work from.
The 4th Marine Regiment (China Marines) was an exceptional force with a good deal of fighting experience. The crews of the naval gunboats could fire small arms, but they were naval personnel. They had no formal training in ground combat. They proved resourceful and aggressive in ground combat on Corregidor but they did so in very small unit actions.....seldom more than one or two squads in size. They knew nothing about larger unit maneuver or coordinating attacks with other units. If the 1942 battle on Corregidor had lasted, say, a couple of weeks, the deficiencies inherent with the Naval Battalion would have been revealed repeatedly and their general weakness in ground combat exploited by more experienced and better trained enemy forces. When the Japanese made their big push on Corregidor, they hit the section of the line partly held by the Naval Battalion and Filipino volunteers. They were overwhelmed and many broke and ran to the rear. Not exactly a stalwart ground unit.
Perhaps a case could be made for using 347's instead of 447's for these naval units. Since MMP did not issue any US 347 counters, and to help limit costs, we went with what was available already in the system.....and the grand tome does state that the 447's represent early war US forces. Simply adjusted the number of MMC used to balance the scenario using the Naval units. Playtesting validated my decisions.
Not really criticizing your views. I just wondered why you felt that a movie and one source was valid,, or enough, to support what you presented? Even using several sources I found conflicting data, possibly skewed by the author's bias or lack of in depth research. Happens all the time. That is why I always try to get multiple sources to achieve a "consensus" view, and work from that. If anyone questions my assumptions I can back it up by saying " I used such and such as sources for this". The more sources, the better. Good discussion.
 

ASLSARGE

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
1,786
Reaction score
1,053
Location
Arizona
Country
llUnited States
I strongly object to these words and believe you owe the BFP crew an apology.
Thank you.
I thank you for "having my back". Very much appreciated. However, Tim is entitled to his opinion as is everyone else. If he can provide multiple sources of verifiable documentation that supports his view that Corregidor may not be authentic then I am more than willing to consider his POV. Otherwise, his statement is an opinion, nothing more. I stand by my years of work and numerous sources of research in supporting what has become BFP's Corregidor module.
 

Tim Niesen

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
1,209
Reaction score
146
Country
llUnited States
I am merely a parrot of John Gordon in regard to the skills of the sailors aboard the China gunboats. He compared them to Steve McQueen in a lecture I attended in Lancaster, PA, just before his book was published. The opinion about the relative skills of the China Marines are my own. That may not be true. The period of time spent confronting the Japanese in the district in China may or may not have made them better than the rest of the Marines in peaceful areas. It is subjective, but the Marine officers transfered to the naval unit performed well. Tim
 

hongkongwargamer

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
7,180
Reaction score
5,569
Location
Lantern Waste
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I am merely a parrot of John Gordon in regard to the skills of the sailors aboard the China gunboats. He compared them to Steve McQueen in a lecture I attended in Lancaster, PA, just before his book was published. The opinion about the relative skills of the China Marines are my own. That may not be true. The period of time spent confronting the Japanese in the district in China may or may not have made them better than the rest of the Marines in peaceful areas. It is subjective, but the Marine officers transfered to the naval unit performed well. Tim
I am not sure if the China Marines actually confronted the Japanese in China. The Second Sino Japanese War broke out in 1937, most of them were withdrawn Nov 1941 and Pearl Harbour didn’t happen til Dec 1941 and there was no war between the US & Japan til then.

Just sayin’ .. looking at the dates.
 

djohannsen

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
762
Reaction score
620
Location
Within 800 meters.
Country
llUnited States
in researching Corregidor I used more than twenty five published sources including "official" ones. I also used almost twenty online sources in gathering research data to justify my decisions and I had access to many sources in the Philippines not available to non-Filipinos due to having relatives living there.
Darn it! Now I may need to get this module. Oh well, it's only money...

Really, thank you for the work that you put in on this module.
 

HansK

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2013
Messages
592
Reaction score
146
Location
Hoorn
Country
llNetherlands
Maybe this will generate some more PTO US Army scenarios:


"Fire and Fortitude - The US Army in the Pacific War, 1941-1943" the first of two volumes.
 

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
9,100
Reaction score
2,254
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
I am not sure if the China Marines actually confronted the Japanese in China. The Second Sino Japanese War broke out in 1937, most of them were withdrawn Nov 1941 and Pearl Harbour didn’t happen til Dec 1941 and there was no war between the US & Japan til then.

Just sayin’ .. looking at the dates.
you seem to be correct in that respect.

Anyone with questions on the 4th Marines actions before Dec 7th, 1941 may find this a useful resource:

7631
 

Tim Niesen

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
1,209
Reaction score
146
Country
llUnited States
And my advocation of the naval infantry being 347s rather than 447s is based upon John Gordon's telling us that many of these naval personal had never shot a weapon for a considerable amount of time. Many of them were workers in the warehouses of the bombed out naval base. Others were sailors from the merchant ships stranded in the harbor. And finally John example of the squad's inability to suppress the combatants aboard a stranded Japanese landing barge despite shooting at them for hours. Yet they were very brave despite their inexperience. This is reflexed in both the Japanese and American accounts of their combat capacity. They could be considered for being lax as well. In contrast, their leaders, according to John Gordon, stand out as very skilled. Both at the noncoms level as well as the officer level. The exception to this was the naval noncoms, who were largely incompetent, according to John Gordon. I do not understand the criticism of John's using a translator for reading the Japanes HVe Official History of the War. Is this not a valid research source, which is usually ignored? Tim
 

Tim Niesen

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
1,209
Reaction score
146
Country
llUnited States
I am not asserting that the China Marines engaged in combat with the Japanese Army in China. But they certainly had various confrontations with them at various times in the Shanghai Enclave. Whether this is the equivalent of combat is debatable. Perhaps my point is not valid. Tim
 

hongkongwargamer

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
7,180
Reaction score
5,569
Location
Lantern Waste
Country
llUnited Kingdom
And my advocation of the naval infantry being 347s rather than 447s is based upon John Gordon's telling us that many of these naval personal had never shot a weapon for a considerable amount of time. Many of them were workers in the warehouses of the bombed out naval base. Others were sailors from the merchant ships stranded in the harbor. And finally John example of the squad's inability to suppress the combatants aboard a stranded Japanese landing barge despite shooting at them for hours. Yet they were very brave despite their inexperience. This is reflexed in both the Japanese and American accounts of their combat capacity. They could be considered for being lax as well. In contrast, their leaders, according to John Gordon, stand out as very skilled. Both at the noncoms level as well as the officer level. The exception to this was the naval noncoms, who were largely incompetent, according to John Gordon. I do not understand the criticism of John's using a translator for reading the Japanes HVe Official History of the War. Is this not a valid research source, which is usually ignored? Tim
I get it. It’s all John Gordon’s fault.

The designer did say he based his research on 25 sources and not just one.

Is that not a valid approach, or do you insist on using just one? Especially when the poor chap is not present in this conversation?
 

hongkongwargamer

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
7,180
Reaction score
5,569
Location
Lantern Waste
Country
llUnited Kingdom
And my advocation of the naval infantry being 347s rather than 447s is based upon John Gordon's telling us that many of these naval personal had never shot a weapon for a considerable amount of time. Many of them were workers in the warehouses of the bombed out naval base. Others were sailors from the merchant ships stranded in the harbor. And finally John example of the squad's inability to suppress the combatants aboard a stranded Japanese landing barge despite shooting at them for hours. Yet they were very brave despite their inexperience. This is reflexed in both the Japanese and American accounts of their combat capacity. They could be considered for being lax as well. In contrast, their leaders, according to John Gordon, stand out as very skilled. Both at the noncoms level as well as the officer level. The exception to this was the naval noncoms, who were largely incompetent, according to John Gordon. I do not understand the criticism of John's using a translator for reading the Japanes HVe Official History of the War. Is this not a valid research source, which is usually ignored? Tim
Note that John Gordon didn’t come out here and imply that the Corregidor design is not authentic. You did.
 

Tim Niesen

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
1,209
Reaction score
146
Country
llUnited States
I am not attacking the module. I suspect that it is fine like most of the products from this excellent company. I just think that the naval infantry would have been better represented by 347s with a greater percentage of high quality leaders than normal. John Gordon is a scholar. He knows what he is talking about in regard to the Bataan campaign in general and these two particular unique naval infantry units in particular. Tim
 

mi80j

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2015
Messages
332
Reaction score
110
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
I am not attacking the module. I suspect that it is fine like most of the products from this excellent company.
Just curious... do you own any of BFP's products (I own everything BFP has published)?
 

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
9,100
Reaction score
2,254
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
Just curious... do you own any of BFP's products (I own everything BFP has published)?
I think the telling phrase is that he "...suspects that it is fine...". I wonder if he even owns C:tR at all, and if he does, has he opened it? played anything form it? read any of the materials or rules for it?

If I examined an item closely, I wouldn't "suspect" anything - I'd know, one way or the other.

Just saying. YMMV of course.
 
Top