Order of Battle vs historical realities

Order of Battle is a series of operational WW2 games starting with the Pacific War and then on to Europe!

Moderators: Order of Battle Moderators, The Artistocrats

kondi754
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2912
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by kondi754 » Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:29 am

I don't want to correct or criticize developers, I understand that computer games are governed by their laws, mainly market laws. :wink:
In my posts I just want to show how much our favorite game is different than the reality on which they are based.

Japanese tanks and other armoured vehicles during the battle of Imphal (OoB: Burma Road, Imphal scn):

Sōkō Sagyō Ki - well-known from Morning Sun, flamethrower tank and engineering vehicle, used in China (since 1937) and Phillippines (1941-45)
Type 4 Ho-Ro - self-propelled gun, 12 copies were produced, used in Phillippines (1944-45) and Okinawa (1945)
Type 98 Ke-Ni - light tank, 104 copies were produced, his operational records are unknown and most likely they were given to young recruits and kept in the Home Islands
Type 3 Ke-Ri - prototype of light tank, probably only few copies were produced
Type 2 Ho-I - infantry support tank, around 30 copies were apparently manufactured and delivered, these vehicles were allocated to the Japanese home islands defense units
Type 4 Ke-Nu - light tank, 100 copies built, used in Manchuria and Korea (1945), stationed in Okinawa and Kyushu too
Type 1 Chi-He - improved Shinhoto Chi-Ha medium tank, 170 copies built, never left the Home Islands
Type 4 Ha-To - self-propelled gun (heavy mortar on medium tank's chassis), 4 units were produced before the surrender of Japan, but none were used in combat

Historical realities:
The only Japanese armoured unit used in the Imphal battle (as well as all the Burmese campaign) was the 14th Tank Regiment.
In March 1944, he had 66 tanks: Type 95 Ha-Go, Type 97 Chi-Ha, and Stuart tanks (1 company), gained on the retreating British troops in 1942.
Ha-Go and Chi-Ha are old projects from the mid 30's, they were the main tanks of the Japanese army throughout the war.

Sources: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/

In subsequent posts I will describe the battles, units and equipment we can meet by playing OoB.
To be continued... :D

best75
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 386
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:15 am

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by best75 » Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:55 am

What about the tiger tank in imphal?
I am not a history expert but that one was glaring obvious

kondi754
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2912
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by kondi754 » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:16 am

It is obvious that Japan did not use PzKw VI Tiger during the war.

A naval blockade, the distance from Europe and the size and weight of the vehicle made it impossible.
However, Japan has bought 1 Tiger I tank in February 1944. The vehicle was supposed to be disassembled and transported by submarine. :lol:
This Tiger was sent to Bordeaux for shipment to Japan. However common sense prevailed and it was given as a gift to sSS PzAbt 101 instead.
It was used in Normandy (or Belgium, as some sources say).
Attachments
japan_tiger_1.jpg
japan_tiger_1.jpg (73.08 KiB) Viewed 3248 times

kondi754
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2912
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by kondi754 » Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:59 pm

I haven't had the opportunity to write anything for a long time, but now there is such an opportunity.
SU-122 self-propelled guns appeared, which we have to destroy at the beginning of the battle to regain Kharkov in February 1943.
Everything seems ok, because the production of this equipment began in autumn 1942, so theoretically it could appear on the battlefield in the winter at the beginning of the next year.
Unfortunately, he didn't show up in the south of the frontline (where we are :wink: ) but in the north, near Leningrad.
It is a fact that the first two regiments of self-propelled artillery (equipped with 8x SU-122 and 17x SU-76) were used in February (the first) and April (the second) during the battles to break the lap of the city of Lenin and against German counterattack later.
SU-122 was used in the south for the first time in July 1943 (during the Kursk battle).
Attachments
su122.jpg
su122.jpg (190.22 KiB) Viewed 2880 times

sthanno
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:36 am

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by sthanno » Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:28 pm

Hi, I'm curious:

In looking at the two lists above, I can't figure out what the take-home is. It looks like OOB over-represents the Japanese forces versus the historical reality?

kondi754
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2912
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by kondi754 » Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:51 pm

sthanno wrote:Hi, I'm curious:

In looking at the two lists above, I can't figure out what the take-home is. It looks like OOB over-represents the Japanese forces versus the historical reality?
Of course, all the other campaigns are more or less accurate but the Japanese army was in fact so weak (in contrast to the fleet and partly the air force), so the developers had to use all possible prototypes and even projects to preserve the right balance in the game ...
Unfortunately, the vast majority of Japanese funds were spent on the development of the fleet, so land forces were out-dated throughout the war.
It was enough for the Kuomintang in China and the weak British army in Malaya, but in 1945 the Red Army occupied Manchuria within 14 days...

WarHomer
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 301
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:12 pm

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by WarHomer » Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:05 am

I have no problem with units appearing on other fronts than the ones they historically where used first, and in some cases never. We need a diverse and balanced game with as much room for diversity as possible, and its important to remember that it is just that, a game, and not a graphic/interactive history book.

The game wouldn´t be much fun if I had no chance to chance to alter the historical outcome and what really ruined Burma Road for me was that I had soo few units to choose from and in most cases only one specific unit beat out all other choices.

kondi754
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2912
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by kondi754 » Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:29 pm

WarHomer wrote:I have no problem with units appearing on other fronts than the ones they historically where used first, and in some cases never. We need a diverse and balanced game with as much room for diversity as possible, and its important to remember that it is just that, a game, and not a graphic/interactive history book.

The game wouldn´t be much fun if I had no chance to chance to alter the historical outcome and what really ruined Burma Road for me was that I had soo few units to choose from and in most cases only one specific unit beat out all other choices.
@WarHomer
Look at the first sentence in this thread...
Postby kondi754 » 09 Sep 2017 12:29
I don't want to correct or criticize developers, I understand that computer games are governed by their laws, mainly market laws. :wink:
In my posts I just want to show how much our favorite game is different than the reality on which they are based.
This is a thread devoted to historical curiosities.
I am happy if someone reads and comments it, but I want to make it clear - it is not a lobbying for the greater historical compliance of this game.

PS. I plan to create someday "my version" of OoB, where everything will be subordinated to historical accuracy but also playable as hell. :twisted:

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 2920
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by bru888 » Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:30 pm

kondi754 wrote:PS. I plan to create someday "my version" of OoB, where everything will be subordinated to historical accuracy but also playable as hell. :twisted:
This is a good sentiment, including the evil face! Some variance from historical is okay, but not too much.

For example, I usually hesitate to do anything unhistorical in my scenarios but in my latest one, I needed a seaplane tender big enough to handle a Heinkel He59 torpedo bomber that I wanted to include. The Greif is too small and it was a bit too early for the Bussard but I went ahead and included the Bussard anyway. Sure it bothers me a little bit but I did it for the same of the gameplay.

As to what you said about your own version of OOB, kondi, once you know a bit about the scenario editor and how to use OpenOffice to tweak the units.csv file, a whole world of modification opens up to your heart's content. You know this, of course, hence your evil face. :wink:
- Bru

kondi754
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2912
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by kondi754 » Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:38 pm

@Bru
Unfortunately, I know nothing about it and I don't have time at this moment, but I really want to learn, so that's why I write "someday" ... :lol:

Igor1941
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:05 pm

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by Igor1941 » Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:54 pm

kondi754 wrote:
PS. I plan to create someday "my version" of OoB, where everything will be subordinated to historical accuracy but also playable as hell. :twisted:
Winning England, the United States, the USSR is possible?

kondi754
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2912
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by kondi754 » Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:43 pm

Igor1941 wrote:
kondi754 wrote:
PS. I plan to create someday "my version" of OoB, where everything will be subordinated to historical accuracy but also playable as hell. :twisted:
Winning England, the United States, the USSR is possible?
I do not understand, could you explain what you mean?

Igor1941
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:05 pm

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by Igor1941 » Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:46 pm

kondi754 wrote:
Igor1941 wrote:
kondi754 wrote:
PS. I plan to create someday "my version" of OoB, where everything will be subordinated to historical accuracy but also playable as hell. :twisted:
Winning England, the United States, the USSR is possible?
I do not understand, could you explain what you mean?
Victory of Germany

kondi754
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2912
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by kondi754 » Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:57 pm

Ok, I'm sorry
I think that victory of Germany was unrealistic.
The most important was the human, economic/industrial and intellectual potential of the Allies.
The Germans had no chance from the beginning to the end in my opinion.

Igor1941
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:05 pm

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by Igor1941 » Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:30 pm

kondi754 wrote:Ok, I'm sorry
I think that victory of Germany was unrealistic.
The most important was the human, economic/industrial and intellectual potential of the Allies.
The Germans had no chance from the beginning to the end in my opinion.
The history textbook ... is sad, but to win Germany and is proud of yourself ... 5 minutes)))

kondi754
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2912
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by kondi754 » Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:54 pm

Believe me, I read a lot about it and analyzed it thoroughly, the Germans did not have a chance to win because of their central geopolitical position, they will always be doomed to fight on several fronts ...
Even the capture of the Caucasus, Stalingrad, Moscow or Cairo would not do anything to them in the long run, only the war would last for 1-2 years longer
The creation of the atomic bomb at that time (until 1947) was also unrealistic because Germans did not have enough resources for that

Igor1941
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:05 pm

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by Igor1941 » Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:37 pm

kondi754 wrote:Believe me, I read a lot about it and analyzed it thoroughly, the Germans did not have a chance to win because of their central geopolitical position, they will always be doomed to fight on several fronts ...
Even the capture of the Caucasus, Stalingrad, Moscow or Cairo would not do anything to them in the long run, only the war would last for 1-2 years longer
The creation of the atomic bomb at that time (until 1947) was also unrealistic because Germans did not have enough resources for that


The eastern front 1:15 just did not have a chance)))? Or did Lend-Lease help?

kondi754
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2912
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by kondi754 » Sat Jan 06, 2018 4:28 pm

Igor1941 wrote:
kondi754 wrote:Believe me, I read a lot about it and analyzed it thoroughly, the Germans did not have a chance to win because of their central geopolitical position, they will always be doomed to fight on several fronts ...
Even the capture of the Caucasus, Stalingrad, Moscow or Cairo would not do anything to them in the long run, only the war would last for 1-2 years longer
The creation of the atomic bomb at that time (until 1947) was also unrealistic because Germans did not have enough resources for that


The eastern front 1:15 just did not have a chance)))? Or did Lend-Lease help?
Lend lease is a very extensive topic.
The most important was in 1941-43, when the Red Army was short of everything.
The Russians most valued American trucks, jeeps willys, infantry carriers (wheeled and half-trackers), which they had never known before.
When it comes to tanks, they most valued British Valentine, which were in their possession even up to 1945 (several armored brigades participated in the fighting for Vienna).
There were used only British tanks from lend-lease deliveries in the Caucasus in summer and autumn 1942.
The Germans came to the Volga near Stalingrad, so the Caucasus was cut off from supplies of Soviet tanks. The only existing supply route led from Iran.
Russians didn't like American tanks (especially Grants, which they called a "grave for 7 brothers"), despite of that there were several armored corps equipped only with Sherman tanks, which participated in the Bagration operation, battles in Poland and Germany.
Russian pilots loved the American P-39 Airacobra, which worked very well in combat up to 5000 m. Most of the air battles took place on the Eastern Front to such a ceiling.
Especially well-known pilots who used American P-39 were Colonel Aleksandr Pokryshkin (3-time hero of the Soviet Union, second on the Allied Aces list with 59 shot down airplanes) and Colonel Grigorij Rechkalov (former Pokryshkin's winger, 2-time hero of the Soviet Union, 44 ​​shot down airplanes)

Igor1941
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:05 pm

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by Igor1941 » Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:04 pm

kondi754 wrote:
Igor1941 wrote:
kondi754 wrote:Believe me, I read a lot about it and analyzed it thoroughly, the Germans did not have a chance to win because of their central geopolitical position, they will always be doomed to fight on several fronts ...
Even the capture of the Caucasus, Stalingrad, Moscow or Cairo would not do anything to them in the long run, only the war would last for 1-2 years longer
The creation of the atomic bomb at that time (until 1947) was also unrealistic because Germans did not have enough resources for that


The eastern front 1:15 just did not have a chance)))? Or did Lend-Lease help?
Lend lease is a very extensive topic.
The most important was in 1941-43, when the Red Army was short of everything.
The Russians most valued American trucks, jeeps willys, infantry carriers (wheeled and half-trackers), which they had never known before.
When it comes to tanks, they most valued British Valentine, which were in their possession even up to 1945 (several armored brigades participated in the fighting for Vienna).
There were used only British tanks from lend-lease deliveries in the Caucasus in summer and autumn 1942.
The Germans came to the Volga near Stalingrad, so the Caucasus was cut off from supplies of Soviet tanks. The only existing supply route led from Iran.
Russians didn't like American tanks (especially Grants, which they called a "grave for 7 brothers"), despite of that there were several armored corps equipped only with Sherman tanks, which participated in the Bagration operation, battles in Poland and Germany.
Russian pilots loved the American P-39 Airacobra, which worked very well in combat up to 5000 m. Most of the air battles took place on the Eastern Front to such a ceiling.
Especially well-known pilots who used American P-39 were Colonel Aleksandr Pokryshkin (3-time hero of the Soviet Union, second on the Allied Aces list with 59 shot down airplanes) and Colonel Grigorij Rechkalov (former Pokryshkin's winger, 2-time hero of the Soviet Union, 44 ​​shot down airplanes)
Image

Image

kondi754
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2912
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Order of Battle vs historical realities

Post by kondi754 » Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:12 am

What is this button with the word "Chicago"?

Post Reply

Return to “Order of Battle Series”