Uncle_Duke
Senior Member
I came across this over on reddit, and figured that someone here would find this interesting:
The Dutch 1940 Rifle Platoon
The Dutch 1940 Rifle Platoon
...Most of which are in Dutch, so your mileage may vary.Including sources!
I wonder how the modern feeling is on the caliber of the rifle round, the 6.5x53rimmed? I think that modern armies would be very happy with a 6.5mm intermediate round, and it was the fact that the round was rimmed that caused the problems?This rifle fired the 6.5×53mmR “scherpe patroon No. 1” cartridge, with a 156-grain round-nosed bullet being propelled by 37 grains of powder to a muzzle-velocity of 2336 feet per second. In metric terms, this is equivalent to a 10.1 grams bullet, a 2.4 powder charge, and a muzzle-velocity of 712 metres per second. [xii]
The round, like many others in the 6.5mm calibre, was found to be lacking. Much like the Japanese and Italians, the Dutch realized it was desirable to have a cartridge with a calibre greater than 7mm, and a 1912 commission recommended boring-up all rifles to 7.92mm.
I'm not sure I'd describe 6.5 x 53R as an intermediate cartridge. From the little bit I can find on Wikipedia, it looks like the 6.5 x 53R has performance about half way between 5.56 NATO (itself an intermediate cartridge) and 7.62 x 54R, very much an old school battle rifle round.I wonder how the modern feeling is on the caliber of the rifle round, the 6.5x53rimmed? I think that modern armies would be very happy with a 6.5mm intermediate round, and it was the fact that the round was rimmed that caused the problems?
So much depends on the loading and the projectile and the projectile itself. In any case, differences in rifle cartridges have a negligible affect on the outcome of battles, let alone wars.I'm not sure I'd describe 6.5 x 53R as an intermediate cartridge. From the little bit I can find on Wikipedia, it looks like the 6.5 x 53R has performance about half way between 5.56 NATO (itself an intermediate cartridge) and 7.62 x 54R, very much an old school battle rifle round.
Very true. As I said, I'm hardly an expert. That sort of subtlety might matter in a skirmish level game, but in ASL terms other factors are more important, including:So much depends on the loading and the projectile and the projectile itself. In any case, differences in rifle cartridges have a negligible affect on the outcome of battles, let alone wars.
I would be very interested in reading that, but cannot seem to locate it through this site's search function. Am I correct in assuming that it's more comprehensive than the (excellent) version you've posted here? If so, would you be willing to provide a link?I have previously posted a rough guide as to what seems to be the deciding factors in ASL FP and range.
The my previous posts containing the above were a bit more wordy than what is above, but what you have in post 8 has the gist of it. My previous versions had a bit more explanations and examples but the rules of thumbs were the same. I can't be bothered to find so will give some examples and exceptions here.I would be very interested in reading that, but cannot seem to locate it through this site's search function. Am I correct in assuming that it's more comprehensive than the (excellent) version you've posted here? If so, would you be willing to provide a link?
I'm particularly interested in how this was applied to the Japanese, as the SW Allotment suggested in Chapter H bears no resemblance to the TO&Es I've come across.
Thank you!
The Japanese Platoon should have 3 x LMG squads and a lt. MTR squad. The LMG squad is the standard rifle squad but the lt. MTR squad should have 3 x 50 MTR, while in ASL you only get about 1 x 50 MTR per platoon. A historically based platoon should have 4 x squads, 3 x 50 MTR and maybe an extra LMG. All I can say is that ASL does not accurately reflect that. I suppose the designers decided a SW for nearly each Japanese squad was just too much.
With a few exceptions ASL does not seem too bad in reflecting relative values, in my view. My rules of thumb were generated from looking at what ASL already supplies. They are not what the designers used. I remember when I posted the earliest version, that one of the USMC designers (Steve Swann?) said they simply got the USMC 768 by looking at the existing USA 667 and adding 1 FP for the extra BAR. I just thought some might find my rules of thumb useful while looking at previously uncovered or unusual TO&E/OoB and wanted to translate to ASL.
After I posted that, I had a thought of 3 x squads, 3 x 127 vehicular crews, 3 x 50 MTR and possibly an extra LMG might be better, though less fair for 448 squads. You could use 128 Striped infantry crews with 448 squads instead of 127 vehicular crews, I suppose.The Japanese Platoon should have 3 x LMG squads and a lt. MTR squad. The LMG squad is the standard rifle squad but the lt. MTR squad should have 3 x 50 MTR, while in ASL you only get about 1 x 50 MTR per platoon. A historically based platoon should have 4 x squads, 3 x 50 MTR and maybe an extra LMG.
That's an interesting idea. I'd been throwing around the idea of representing the Grenade Discharger squad as 3x Half Squads with a 50mm MTR each. I think your approach of using crews better represents the inherent firepower of 12 men with Arisakas, the trade off being that in your method, the crews have self-rally capability.After I posted that, I had a thought of 3 x squads, 3 x 127 vehicular crews, 3 x 50 MTR and possibly an extra LMG might be better, though less fair for 448 squads. You could use 128 Striped infantry crews with 448 squads instead of 127 vehicular crews, I suppose.
A fascinating article. Thank you! I think the article explains the casualty figures quite well: "Probably the main reason for the knee mortar’s reputation for deadly effectiveness among Allied soldiers resulted from the sheer numbers of the weapon employed in the field." Sheer numbers, combined with the fact that it could be used for point blank range direct fire (a facet not entirely represented in ASL), meant that it could be of extraordinary utility in jungle where American or British mortars would be useless.I have frequently read that one of the largest causes of casualties in the PTO was the Japanese knee mortar. I don't know whether its fearsomeness is over-stated, or ASL just doesn't do it justice.
I was more thinking about limiting the inherent FP and it prevents HS from recombining to give the Japanese an extra squad. Note that having a Striped 128 crew (in a 448 platoon) as part of your OoB is forbidden by the rules, but that's what SSRs are for . 3 Squads, 2 HS, 3 MTR and a LMG would also work. The advantage of using an AFV crew is that the Japanese player is 'encouraged' to use them to man the MTRs, their self rallying ability and pathetic FP helps in that regard. The downside is: do you really want self rallying units in a normal infantry platoon?That's an interesting idea. I'd been throwing around the idea of representing the Grenade Discharger squad as 3x Half Squads with a 50mm MTR each. I think your approach of using crews better represents the inherent firepower of 12 men with Arisakas, the trade off being that in your method, the crews have self-rally capability.
Machete was standard issue to the British Army - they're useful for clearing brush and chopping roots when digging in, not as a weapon. Come to think of it, we still have machetes for general issue.