So you want balance, eh?

[NeuroticFool]

I've seen many people mulling over what to do on account of the poor material used by the IJA. It's a good topic for discussion, but I think we have to look at the facts straight:

-Marines were taller, stronger, more highly trained, and better equipped when compared to almost any IJA trooper. It was foolish for a Japanese regular to engage in hand-to-hand with a Marine, as a Marine was trained in hand-to-hand more effectively, not to mention size and strength/muscle mass comparisons. Because of the Marines being larger and stronger, they are naturally larger, slower targets than the Japanese. Also, give the Arisaka a bayonet out of the gate to counter the Marines' size/strength advantage.

-IJA were ruthless and fearless; the only thing they feared was dishonor. Maybe give them a passive suppression resistance buff.

-The kill rates that the Marines, Aussies/Commonwealth, Russians, and U.S. Army inflicted on the Japanese were ridiculous, the Marines usually came out with a fraction of the dead the Japanese had. The U.S. Army and Filipino Guerrillas lost around 15,000 servicemen in the reclamation of the Philippines; the Japs lost around 340,000. Although, at this point in the war, the Japanese pretty much Banzai charged everything. To compare more realistic statistics, in the Battle of Peleliu, the Marines suffered 2,000 KIA, whereas the Japanese suffered 11,000. Maybe instead of giving the Japanese "home-field advantage" (the land they seized was neither their "home" nor did they have an advantage, and the Marines were just as familiar with the terrain by 1942-ish), just beef up the Japs' reinforcement tickets and lower their spawn timer a bit. The Japs were usually outnumbered by TOTAL COMBATANTS, but on a squad or platoon level, Japs could swarm Marines or Commonwealth soldiers because of their collective numbers.

-The Japanese Arisaka rounds tumbled upon impact. Throw in some extra limb damage.

-Japanese usually didn't bark out directions or orders when under fire, as to not give away their positions. Instead, they were famous for demoralizing taunting. Make their idle chatter or voice commands quieter, except for the "Attack!" or "Taunt" voice-overs. On the other hand, I have two veteran leathernecks in the family that served in the Pacific at Guadalcanal through Iwo, and they loved to swear, cuss, and taunt the Japanese as much as the Japs loved to do it to them.

-The only reason Marines didn't have artillery is because they're not the sodding Army. They were amphibious assault troops and couldn't lug in large amounts of Howitzers or PAK-style guns. Just give the Marines the options of Naval Bombardment or Strafing Run, which would send a pair of Navy Corsairs soaring over and raining down .50 cal or rockets in a tight lane. Give the Japs more arty options with less punch, but shorter refresh periods.

-If you've seen the superb HBO series, The Pacific, on the Guadalcanal episode, Lucky Lecky and Basilone are defending their lines from Japanese encroachments. The Japanese loved night attacks and camouflage, so let them use both. In real life, it kind of didn't do any good, the Japanese loved to bullrush and the Marines were fairly good shots.

-Marines sometimes had "dud" grenades due to poor requisitions quality, a more notorious instance of this happening was during the attempted defense of the Philippines. This happened to my grandfather, who was a Corpsman in the Navy. He was performing triage and applying a tourniquet on a Marine who was shot near his femoral artery when he got into a grenade pitching duel with a Japanese regular who had run out of ammo, it played out like what happened to Charles J. Berry, but he came out of it alive and on top. Speaking of which, being Corpsman for a squad was scary as hell; you were a priority target and were only armed with a pistol with around 3-4 clips and sometimes a few loose rounds.

-"Make Marines more prone to supression, blah, blah" - I can tell you I've met many vet Marines that swear to the fact they weren't that afraid of Japs in firefights because they were told that the Japs were crap shots when they were being inducted into the Corps at Camp Pendleton, and the Japanese were to a certain extent, that is, when compared to the average U.S. Marine, U.S. Soldier, or Commonwealth regular. That doesn't mean the Japanese didn't field excellent riflemen or a good rifle, the Arisaka was deadly accurate in the right hands. Even so, Marines actually and frequently played Rambo, there are several documented accounts (Tony Stein, Charles J. Berry, John Basilone, pretty much ANY Medal of Honor recipient of the Marine Corps or recipient in World War 2, including the Army having had such instances in Europe; Audie Murphy anyone?). Don't give the Marines crap debuffs 'cause you think they'd be scared of bolt actions when they were packing BARs and SMGs. The Japanese were scary, fierce, barbaric warriors. I'd be a lot more scared of a Banzai Charge than a firefight, especially when my squad of Marines is packing M1 Garands, Carbines, BARs, and Tommys.

The point is, don't give the Japanese artificial balance. They were more poorly trained and equipped then their Allied counterparts (that includes Commonwealth). They were simply not on par with almost any modern military at the time, except for the Russians...but the Russians had a volume of man power I can't even fathom, so it's not very comparable. For the Japanese to win their battles, they'd have to play it smart, not rely on "balance". The IJA didn't think "We have Arisakas, right? Then that means the U.S. will only use their Springfield '03s". If you want "realism" then the scale should obviously be tipped in the Marine Corps' favor, but this is a game, not "PTSD Simulator 2", so just put in enough, subtle balance to be fun for the Japanese. Just 'cause they frequently lost doesn't mean that the player base that favors the Japanese or plays them by the luck of the draw should suffer. Just play it as the Japanese did in real life: sneaky, dirty, and silent.

Oh, and STOP suggesting the defense or reclamation of the Philippines. Being half Filipino, I'm of course inclined to know more about this topic than average, and I can tell you with 100% certainty, Marine infantry did not fight in the reclamation and the ONLY Marine Division in the Philippines during its defense in 1942, 4th Marine Regiment, ONLY fought at Bataan and Corregidor. The Marines aren't part of the Army, for the last time.

[MeFirst]

Marines were taller, stronger, more highly trained, and better equipped when compared to almost any IJA trooper.

I doubt that. In fact a lot of the japanese soldiers where trained very well and beside most of the marines a lot of them already had real combat experience and were in fact veterans. Beside that they were more familiar and used to the terrain, the weather and other local conditions.

[NeuroticFool]

Marines went through much more stringent training then, and now. They lifted weights, sparred in hand to hand, and practiced tedious aerobic exercise. ALL Marines were trained to operate support weapons such as mortars or machine guns, as well as the Corps requiring every single Marine know how to shoot a rifle and have a certain amount of hours at the range and undergo marksmanship qualifications to pass basic. That was basic, are you trying to tell me that the IJA trained like that? No, they didn't. They practiced swordsmanship, bayonet training, calisthenics, and Bushido discipline. You're mistaking discipline for training, and that's not a very wise thing to do. I have a brother and a cousin in the Marines, one who is a Drill Instructor. He says the training hasn't changed much since WW2, except for a higher amount of weight training and the inclusion of more forms of martial arts, such as Krav Maga and Brazilian Jujitsu being incorporated into hand-to-hand. I suppose you're also going to tell me the Japs had hardcore Drill Instructors, too? No, because they didn't need them. The Japanese were very well-disciplined, but well-trained they were not.

[Razorneck]

All that training is lost at the business end of a rifle though

[AtheistIII]

except for the Russians...but the Russians had a volume of man power I can't even fathom, so it's not very comparable.

The drawbacks of the Red Army were more their lack of good officers than a lack of trained soldiers afaik, especially in the beginning of the war when the veterans of the winterwar served under the survivors of the political cleansings.
But at least the sowjiets were on par with the germans regarding their equipment in nearly every stage of the war, you cant really say that about the IJA [/OT]

[NeuroticFool]

All that training is lost at the business end of a rifle though

True to an extent, Razorneck. Training only prepares you for real combat, and unfortunately for the Japs, they just weren't trained to stand up to a modern military. But if you or I were given rifles and told to go battle Tojo without proper training and conditioning of inhibitions and reflexes, we'd probably meet a horrible death because we'd probably be too afraid to shoot and too weak to fight. That being said, if we just let untrained vagabonds into the armed forces, we'd have the worst (and funniest) fighting forces in the world (Actually, because of all of the Vietnam Conflict vets that are homeless in the States, we'd have a pretty fieldable army of hobos). However, I digress back to serious matters.

...beside most of the marines a lot of them already had real combat experience and were in fact veterans. Beside that they were more familiar and used to the terrain, the weather and other local conditions.

Nope, sorry. Most Marines already in the Corps during the onset of the war joined for the discipline and job opportunities; that's why my grandfather joined the Navy and began training to be a Corpsman: to hold down a job and get some discipline under his belt.

Also, most of them vets? Hell, no! Marines didn't see combat since WWI and even in WWI, saw scant combat because they were used as storm troopers. Most of the WWI vets from every branch of service from every country involved grew disenfranchised with war, the military, and the status quo. Ever heard of the Lost Generation? Look it up. The age at which men fought at in WWI were from ages 15 (If you lied, which was common) to 40 (Most older men joining for a sense of duty and adventure...boy, trench warfare was ANYTHING but adventurous). The age they'd be at if they were vets would be like, 45-50 in the standing infantry of the Marines. The Marines were barely made up of such vets; most Marines were from, I want to say, 18 to around 30. The Marines barely had ANY veterans in them, that's why the first young ones to see combat were labeled as "The Old Breed", despite being very young.

Lastly, Marines were stationed in places like the interior of China, the bases in the Philippines (which was by no means "modern", but it wasn't Guadalcanal or Bougainville. The reclamation of the Philippines by the U.S. Army mostly involved urban combat handled at medium ranges. I've visited Luzon island to see my family relatives in Pangasinan and Dagupan, as well as Isabella City in Balisan, and it is NOT like the other zones of combat. My grandmother swears to the fact that the infrastructure and modernity of buildings has almost not changed, barring architecture from the '50s and '60s. The Philippines wasn't like the Amazon Rainforest, but it wasn't Bakersfield, either. Other common stations were Honolulu and Camp Pendleton in California, which I live a few cities away from. I shouldn't need to tell you that Hawaii was urbanized. I should tell you that Camp Pendleton in San Diego, is right next to the freaking Mojave Desert. That is nowhere even NEAR a jungle. The only things some Marines were used to were humidity and constant rainfall, but that's essentially all the "experience" they had with their environments prior to combat.

EDIT: I can't decipher your post because of lack of proper punctuation, so I don't know if you meant the Japs or Marines were vets/knew their environment to a fuller extent.

[MeFirst]

Once again wrong. A lot of the 2nd wave of the soviet officers where very creative, motivated and effective.

Pretty much this quote:

All that training is lost at the business end of a rifle though

I dont want to sound silly but a lot of the marines where not that trained well. The entire pacific war is basically what I would call the birth of the U.S. Marines. The Marines back there were in fact not the so called elite unit that is the picture of the modern U.S. Marines. As said the pacific war is pretty much what build the reputation of the u.s. marines. If you take a look at the number of casualties the marines suffered it should be clear that the reinforcements where far from being a elite unit, not in training and not in terms of equipment. A lot of those marines had never seen real combat before while japanese soldiers already got a fair ammount of real combat experience. Maybe they did not recieve formal training but they were in fact trained by real experience.

[NeuroticFool]

I dont want to sound silly but a lot of the marines where not that trained well.

Uh, no. Totally wrong. Not exactly the expert, are you? And yes, you do sound silly, weighing in on something you obviously don't know a thing about. What you're doing is like me giving a Brit military buff a lecture about the Special Air Service. You bring me proof, and not your word that Marines were trained poorly. They were definitely trained to an above average level. I'm sure any of us would be rendered crying babies by their training, then and now:

Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, SC Part 1 HQ - YouTube
"Aye, Sir!" Almost the same as the training the "Old Breed" Marines who were inducted in WW2 received, minus the modern stuff like rappelling or combat mock-ups with blanks or paint. I know their training is similar to the training the Marines received way back because of my cousin being a Drill Sergeant (And knowing such things) and my grandfather having served in the Navy as a Corpsman, rank of Pharmacist's Mate. We visited my cousin in San Diego and my grandfather noted how "they train just like my buddies did, the Quonset huts are still here, too." Modern Marine training is obviously better and more strenuous, of course, but the Marines were NOT slouches when it came to training, especially when compared to other armed forces.

*This Applies to the video below: Here's some actual (and hilarious) Marine training in the WW2 era, which mirrors its modern equivalent to a good degree, in regards to bayonet, rifle, and hand-to-hand drills. The old cinematography is pretty funny and the drill master at around 5:20 was hilarious, but any of those guys could break us like wishbones, just look at 3:00. That large, burly Marine gets taken down by a recruit using jujitsu. Also, at 3:13 and 3:16 - "Yop!"..."Bru-ther!" And they marched to badass harmonica music . There isn't "acting" in the video, and what appears to be acting at around 7:10 is just the Marine Corps Rifle Creed practiced by the reader of the Creed. I love it when he looks down the barrel at 8:25. I laughed so hard at that even though he checked if the gun was loaded, if it had a round chambered, and left the bolt open. It's just that I can imagine him saying "Maybe the bullet's in there!". Even so, the Marine Corps does not endorse such "A Christmas Story" tomfoolery. Also, go to 9:18 for some John Wayne and some FNG 3 week wonder in action.

WWII U S Marines Training - YouTube
The only Marines that didn't go through proper training were the "3 week wonders", but that's because the Marines were a rather small armed force with little reserve strength and mainly relied on the draft for recruits after mid '43. Furthermore, most armed fighting forces' expedited replacements would have poor training if they were in an extremely heated conflict, such as a World War, they'd be like lambs to the slaughter; a good example were the recruits in WW1 and Vietnam: hardly any of them wanted to be there, and they were not prepared to the proper extent to deal with what fresh Hell they were about to face. The average Marine isn't most the hardcore troop (Spetnatz. Their training has a FATALITY rate) or the best trained (S.O.C.O.M. and Tier 1 Operators: like Delta Force, S.E.A.L.s, Marine MARSOC, S.A.S., and Israeli Commandos), but they're damn good fighters.

The entire pacific war is basically what I would call the birth of the U.S. Marines.

Wrong again. The Marines were rated "Storm-Trooper" quality by the Germans at the Battle of Belleau Wood. They also received many commendations by the French for their tenacity, including a renaming of the Wood in their honor, and all Allied combatants received the Croix de Guerr (War Cross/Cross of War, for those who don't speak a Romantic language), but contrary to the legend, Marines were not called "Hellhounds" by the Germans. They were rated of "Storm Trooper" quality by them, as I said before. The Marines stormed the shores of Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico in the Spanish-American war (Not so proud of the U.S. on this one, seeing as how I'm part Spaniard). They also fought in savage wars like the Philippine-American War (Also one I'm not proud of, due to my Filipino heritage), which is also the first time the U.S. found the need for large caliber handguns to take down the Filipino rebels, which is why they created the Colt M1911 (Interesting side-note). They also served in other foreign affairs, such as the Boxer's Rebellion and the Banana Wars. The Marines had an established reputation for their "First to Fight" mantra and for the quality of their service. Also, the Marines were created in 1775 to serve as American officers' chaperons/bodyguards. In either the literal or intended use of "birth", you're wrong.

The Marines back there were in fact not the so called elite unit that is the picture of the modern U.S. Marines.

Almost right, you're getting closer. I never said the Marines were "Elite". I think they are well above average in quality of service. The Corps don't consider their regulars to be "Elite", but the Marines are looked upon with enough good fervor that many consider them to be "Elite" in general. The modern Corps does field very Elite "Special Operator" forces, like MARSOC and Force Recon, on par with the S.E.A.Ls and Rangers, respectively, but I agree that the average Marine wasn't "Elite". However, in WW2 they also fielded "Elite" units: Regiments of Marine Raiders and Para-Marines, who were basically the S.E.A.L. operators of their day. As for equipment, yes they had crap weapons compared to the other branches of the U.S. military or the Germans early on in the war, but that's because they were last in the requisition queue and were expected to make do with their Springfields and Reisings. After 1942 their equipment's quality increased dramatically, when they gained large amounts of M1 Garands, Carbines and Thompson M1928s. Secondly, what U.S. weapons were they supposed to field to be "Elite"? Laser guns? The U.S. did not make niche "Elite" weapons, and the Marines in fact did field the more exotic Johnson firearms early on in the war that were much better than a Springfield or Reising or their non-existent IJA contemporaries. The U.S. wasn't about Mkb. 42s or G41s with ZF4 scopes. Every branch had the standard U.S. array of weaponry, no matter what your rank or occupation was. Elite units did not need TAC scopes or laser/night vision sights, at best they might have had silencers. The only "Elite" weapons that even come to my mind are: Sten Mk. 2 Silenced, DeLisle Carbine; both used by the S.A.S., who at that time were nothing more than well trained saboteurs and they themselves were armed scantily, because of the necessity to be airdropped when the mission called for it. "Elite" doesn't mean that an "Elite" unit uses different weapons than the other, regular tier operators. For example, the S.E.A.L.s still use the M16A4, but so do U.S. Army regulars. I think that you think "Elite" means a whole bunch of people running around with Kevlar and Dragon Skin armed with XM29 OICWs. You definitely don't need full auto weapons to be elite, If the Marines or Army had a regiment armed only with M60s, that wouldn't make them elite. In fact, the elite Marine Raiders, who staged the Makin Island raids only had a knife called the Raider Stiletto to distinguish themselves from the average Marine. Their Stilettos were symbolic of their excellent knife fighting skills and their stature as elite special operators. Being elite isn't all about the quality of gear, it's more so about the quality of the men. Again, the average Marine was NOT elite, but the Marines fielded extremely well trained special forces in WW2. Special Forces need special equipment so they can do their special jobs. The S.A.S. had silenced weaponry; the Marine Raiders had a good fighting knife because they were great in CQB and the Para-Marines had .30 Caliber Automatic Rifles before anyone else so they could be more effective in combat due to having to drop with scant supplies.

If you take a look at the number of casualties the marines suffered it should be clear that the reinforcements where far from being a elite unit, not in training and not in terms of equipment.

Wrong again. The Marines usually suffered a 10% fatality rate, whereas the Japs got slammed by the Marines, Russians and the U.S. Army in almost every instance they fought. The Japanese usually had a 70-90% fatality rate. This is for K.I.A., not wounded, which to me is a more important and valid statistic than "casualties", as casualties incorporates wounded and M.I.A. service members. Look, if you don't know what you're talking about, then simply don't talk about it. It's for this reason I don't go around lecturing people about Quantum Mechanics.

Proof:
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/a/Casualties.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadalcanal_Campaign
http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Peleliu

Hey, look! For comparison, U.S. Army Rangers (One of the best fighting forces in the world) casualty rates at Point Du Hoc: They had a near 50% fatality rate...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointe_du_Hoc

A lot of those marines had never seen real combat before while japanese soldiers already got a fair ammount of real combat experience.

Very true, not disagreeing to that.

Maybe they did not recieve formal training but they were in fact trained by real experience

Their past "experience" involved slaughtering natives and defeating/brutalizing the Chinese. I hardly call savagery "experience". Some might say "the Americans blew the Japaneses' savagery out of proportion". I can with 100% certainty debunk this. My grandmother's family owned a restaurant in Dagupan, Pangasinan and saw the Japanese drag away prisoners to use for bayonet practice, and my grandfather said the Japanese frequently executed those who would disobey them and display the mutilated remains of Filipino men and women in the backs of trucks parked near the city limits, so all those who entered the city could see what punishment awaited them if they disobeyed or rocked the boat. If you watch Ken Burns's film, "The War", you can get a glimpse of this from Japanese war propaganda/footage. Their only credible experience was fighting the Chinese in the Second Cino-Japanese War. Even then, the Rape of Nanjing...I don't need to explain that one. If you go to the countries they occupied and say the Japs weren't brutal, you'd probably get punched out.

Here's a snippet from the infamous "Bataan Death March", where some inhumane treatment is perteprated by the Japanese:

THE WAR | Near Execution | PBS - YouTube
My point is, the Marines were always a step up from the Japanese in terms of efficiency and firepower in terms of modernity, while the Japanese had a crazy amount of sheer determination, tenacity, and brutality. I respect your opinions and your input, but please don't assume you know things because you, yourself trust your opinion or your hypotheses, especially when what you said doesn't have historical validity or corroboration by verifiable sources and is based on opinion. I know about everything I've posted and have a wealth of evidence. Hell, even Wikipedia has valid sources for most of its content noted in their articles footnotes. I, for one, am seeing your insight on this topic less and less credible. You also seem to be the only one to have a problem with my reasoning. I have a somewhat extensive knowledge of the Pacific Theater (nothing great, but definitely above average), and my reasoning is backed up by evidence. Time to give it up, buddy. Saying that you think the Marines weren't as good as they were won't change history; history is based on fact and not opinion, and all I have stated is verified history.

I never said the Japanese didn't have adequate training, I'm saying that their training was inferior to the Marines and most modern branches of armed forces at the time. I'm not disputing the fact that the Japanese could put up a good fight, I'm only pointing out what caused them to lose those fights. Also, we should stop beating around the bush and get back to talking about realistic methods of balance. I've been trying not to be totally rude, but you've forced me to state the facts rather bluntly. There is absolutely no more reason for you to continue arguing with me; I've stated the facts, and they remain facts. Let's get this thread back on topic.

[Gervaise Brook-Hampster]

Isn't this something that is supposed to go to the history forum again?

[Nestor Makhno]

Originally Posted by NeuroticFool

They were simply not on par with almost any modern military at the time, except for the Russians...but the Russians had a volume of man power I can't even fathom, so it's not very comparable.

So much to discuss in that post - but that snippet there is just plain wrong.

At the beginning of the war, Russians had equipment that was technically superior but was not properly supplied or serviced, their mid- to higher-level command was too scared to make any meaningful decisions and they had a crippling lack of experienced officers. The calibre of the soldiers would seem to have been pretty much on a par with most armies of the day, if you factor in those other problems.

Towards the end of the war the Russian military was pretty formidable, and not just because of any 'human-wave-one-rifle-per-two-men-and-zagradchiki-behind-every-charge' BS put forward by captured Nazis trying to curry favour with the Western allies and excuse their own side's behaviour.

Take a look at any military writer whose job (as US army intelligence analysts, for example) meant that they needed an accurate assessment of the Red Army's strengths and weaknesses. Rather than them buying into politically motivated propaganda, you will see that they paint a very different picture from all that 'Enemy at the Gates', 'Blood Red Snow' hogwash. Colonels David Glantz or Richard Armstrong are good examples.

They show that by the end of the war the Red Army was a highly experienced organisation and had perfected operational level offensives - a legacy that made them rightly feared by NATO right up until the collapse of communism.

[NeuroticFool]

So much to discuss in that post - but that snippet there is just plain wrong.

I was comparing the situations of the two. Also, who watches "Hollywood" war movies thinking they'd hold validity, especially when it was directed by a Frenchman who cast Jude Law to play a Russian? It was a gross oversimplification and glorification of a terrible war. Furthermore, I know that the Russians had more than enough firearms to supply to their forces. I'm not dumb, I know not to use such farcical things as a "works cited" source. I also didn't mean to compare their training, experience, or equipment. I was stating, that of all the armed forces of the Allies at the time (who the Japanese did not defeat by 1942, such as the Chinese), the Russians were the most easily comparable because of their similar situation with their lack of preparation to face the Germans, and their high amount of zeal that was frequently spurred on by their leader and propaganda. I know the Russians had millions of automatic weapons, and I know they had a good amount of quality servicemen (they had to, there were MILLIONS of Red Army soldiers), as well as millions of inexperienced draftees, because of the revision of the tally of Soviet war dead standing at a staggering 26.6 million compared to Germany's 5.3 million dead, which signifies their willingness to sacrifice human lives (Were most of the war dead recruits?). I don't know the tally of how many Germans the Russians killed, but I'm sure it's about 60% or more. They were still an inferior fighting force when compared man-per-man to the Germans, but the main (if not only reason) was because they had a sever lack of preparation, but that's not what I'm discussing. I'm not interested in the Eastern Front, nor was I discussing it as a topic. I apologize for the misunderstanding and the fallacy presented by it. I admire the Russians for fighting the Germans by themselves and pushing all the way to Berlin, but I'll always love the Pacific more than any other theater, and the thread was started for the sake of balancing suggestions and I've had to fight off the urge to go off on a further tangent than I've taken this thread. It'd be nice if we could get back on track.

...a legacy that made them rightly feared by NATO right up until the collapse of communism.

The Cold War is a very sensitive topic, hopefully just mentioning it won't cause someone to go on a rant or discuss it on a tangent. I'm sure the CCCP were just as worried by NATO's capabilities, seeing as how multiple countries with excellent troops were members of it, and both the Soviets and NATO had very large nuclear arsenals. I fear that I've steered this thread in the wrong direction, but I await your analysis of my first post with good anticipation. I'd be afraid of the Russians, if I fought them ('Cause they just don't know when to quit).

I'm not a historian on the Eastern Front (obviously), the Japanese (obviously), or the Marines. I just know an above average amount of knowledge regarding the Marine Corps and a few of their operations. I also stand by the stories recounted to me by the Old Breed I visit at the Vet Center to discuss their traumas (Volunteer hours for college). I admit I should have re-worded the part about Marines not fearing a Japanese rifleman; They feared getting shot (as any trooper does), and they feared the Japanese. They just thought that most of the time, the Japanese would probably miss or be killed because there were usually Marines around with far more firepower. It was more that the Marines feared the IJA's tenacity rather than marksmanship ability.
I also forgot to mention that the Japanese also went through Jujitsu/martial arts training similar to the Marines, and of course practiced marksmanship.

I also should have said "The Marine field large amounts of artillery" instead of "They didn't have artillery". They really didn't field heavy arty commonly in an island hopping battle, especially when they hit the beach (Who would do that, seriously? The guns and its assigned crew would just get shot up if they were dropped off, but I know they could drop them off by LVT, yet doing so in the middle of a heated beach landing would be a bad idea). If they had time to set up and take the beach or establish a beachhead, they'd obviously have arty available, but the beaches were usually in ruin, with smashed bunkers and dead bodies strewn about, so I'd imagine that it would be rather difficult to tow in large guns. As far as I know, offshore bombardment was much more convenient and used much more frequently, but resulted in much heavier friendly fire rates than arty would've given. From what I know, the Marines used arty as close fire support rather scantily, barring the combat seen on Iwo Jima. The Marines apparently loved to use mortars as close fire support rather than risk calling in offshore bombardment, which they would use to pepper the beaches before they landed and sometimes as close fire support.

The Japanese really did have a phobia of being dishonored due to their strict Boshido code, that's why officers were required to commit sepuku rather than face defeat or capture, and that's why the IJA practiced the Banzai charge or hand grenade suicides: as messy, last resort attempts to inflict as many casualties as they could, securing the belief that they had fought well. I probably shouldn't have said the "only feared dishonor", as that is plain unrealistic. They feared bullets, bombs, and bayonets as much as the next common man. As for them being quite when operating, I said that because the Japanese loved to operate while camouflaged or during the night, and also loved to set up ambushes and use booby traps to create choke points for ambushes. I DO know that they did love to taunt the Marines, and let me tell you, the Marine veterans I know (humorously enough) curse like sailors, and I know that they used taunting as a means of maintaining their morale, contrary to the Japanese using taunts, battle cries, and shouts to demoralize and distract their opponents in the heat of a firefight.

Bear in mind I had a pretty good head cold going and was up 24 hours prior to posting this thread and my suggestions. For some reason in my delirious state, I was compelled to post something. While most of that post was hasty, the thing about the grenades actually happened, not frequently, but on occasion early on in the war. The Filipino Guerrillas often complained that the grenades dropped to them were duds. Feel free to poke holes in my suggestions, as I made them in a fever-ridden state, drunk on NyQuil and Chicken Soup. You're a mod and I'm not going to argue with you; I trust your opinion enough because of your position within the forums, and because I don't know a shred about the Red Army and you seem to be an expert compared to me .

I value your input, and now I know more about the Red Army. I'm not an expert on the Marines or their mindset, but I'll try to get a hold of the historian at the vets center so he can help me make more reasonable and realistic suggestions in the future. I'm not afraid of being wrong, as I know life is a learning experience, and as with a lot of things, you're gonna be wrong at first, but you'll eventually get it right. I'll wait for your reply and take criticism in stride; I'm not a baby and I'm willing to admit there are probably anachronistic things in my posts.

[Nestor Makhno]

The figure of 26 Million includes civilians, who were the majority. The number of casualties in the Soviet armed forces killed by direct firefights was pretty small.

In descending order of most fatalities, we have:

1) Starvation & Cold (often, but not exclusively, PoWs)
2) Disease
3) Artillery and...
a distant 4) Firefights

Taking figures like that out of context to assemble a 'top trumps' style index of how tough fighters were is a futile effort and pretty much misses the point about why wars are not great things to have happen, m'kay?

Anyway - to return to the original point, you might want to play a game which shows the supposed overwhelming superiority of USMC but you will be in a minority. It is, after all, a video game, and playing a side which is habitually beaten is not going to be a very rewarding experience.

So we have spent an awful lot of time and effort, pitting weapons tech superiority against terrain and various other advantages (which I am not going to announce here) to make sure that the game IS balanced.

No apologies whatsoever for doing that.

[r5cya]

Originally Posted by Nestor Makhno

So we have spent an awful lot of time and effort, pitting weapons tech superiority against terrain and various other advantages (which I am not going to announce here) to make sure that the game IS balanced.

No apologies whatsoever for doing that.

and none needed! this is, after all, a GAME. it has to be fun, first. historicaly accurate, second.

[Coopsta]

Originally Posted by NeuroticFool

-Marines were taller, stronger, more highly trained, and better equipped when compared to almost any IJA trooper. It was foolish for a Japanese regular to engage in hand-to-hand with a Marine, as a Marine was trained in hand-to-hand more effectively...

You never addressed the fact that the Japanese military had been fighting in China since 1937 so there is a large chance that there would be a much larger number of combat veterans on the Japanese side.

Originally Posted by NeuroticFool

Oh, and STOP suggesting the defense or reclamation of the Philippines. Being half Filipino, I'm of course inclined to know more about this topic than average, and I can tell you with 100% certainty, Marine infantry did not fight in the reclamation and the ONLY Marine Division in the Philippines during its defense in 1942, 4th Marine Regiment, ONLY fought at Bataan and Corregidor. The Marines aren't part of the Army, for the last time.

Then why don't we have a Battle of Corregidor map then? You just provided the evidence justifying a Phillipines map yourself! The battle actually sounds like a great scenario for a map.

Originally Posted by NeuroticFool

The point is, don't give the Japanese artificial balance.

Meh, you act like there was actually danger of this. The people associated with the Rising Storm project, whose opinions are the only ones that actually matter, have never once expressed anything other than a desire for completely historically accurate weapons balance.

[Tokugawa77]

Originally Posted by NeuroticFool

-Marines were taller, stronger, more highly trained, and better equipped when compared to almost any IJA trooper. It was foolish for a Japanese regular to engage in hand-to-hand with a Marine, as a Marine was trained in hand-to-hand more effectively, not to mention size and strength/muscle mass comparisons. .

This is 100% incorrect. In fact, there are more innacuracies in this one paragraph than I've seen in the whole forum. The Japanese weren't as well trained? Well, actually the training for IJA soldiers was one of the toughest in history*. They were essentially de-humanized with rigourous and brutal excersizes that pushed them to the limit of physical endurance. Much like the Roman army 2000 years before, the average soldier was taught to fear their officer more than the enemy. Put that on top of five years of war in China, and what you get is one of the best trained, most experienced fighting forces in the world, let down by obsolete weaponry and tactics.

Muscle comparisons? Give me a break. I'd rather be a scrawny high school kid than be on the bussiness end of a bayonet or hell, even a katana. And also, when looking at casualties from pacific battles, you must look at overall CASUALTIES, and not just deaths. The Japanese, when wounded, wouldn't exactly get the best medical treatment, and I imagine many would have just ended it right there. A wounded marine is no better than a dead one, as far as the war is concerned. When you look at it this way, the Japanese suffer a roughly consistent 2x the casulaties that their western oponents do, at least after mid 1942.

*The training for aircrews, for example, was so harsh that by the start of the war, there were only around 2000 crack airmen, and after the loss at Midway and pyhrric victories at the Coral sea and Santa Cruz, they were almost all gone. This is one of the reasons that the IJN ceased to be an effective fighting force.

BTW "jap" is a slur and i would encourgae you to try to stop using it.

[Bluehawk]

I read in Charles H. Walker's Combat Officer that the Japanese treated their leather equipment with a kind of oil that had a distinct smell which Marines could detect if the wind was blowing right.

I demand this feature be added to Rising Sun or I will BOYCOTT IT.

[Ducky]

Originally Posted by Bluehawk

I read in Charles H. Walker's Combat Officer that the Japanese treated their leather equipment with a kind of oil that had a distinct smell which Marines could detect if the wind was blowing right.

I demand this feature be added to Rising Sun or I will BOYCOTT IT.

Rising Sun

Rising Sun is one of EA's MOH games. Last year EA did unplug the central server for that game. Personally I don't have any problems if you boycott that retired EA game

[MeFirst]

This is 100% incorrect. In fact, there are more innacuracies in this one paragraph than I've seen in the whole forum. The Japanese weren't as well trained? Well, actually the training for IJA soldiers was one of the toughest in history*. They were essentially de-humanized with rigourous and brutal excersizes that pushed them to the limit of physical endurance. Much like the Roman army 2000 years before, the average soldier was taught to fear their officer more than the enemy. Put that on top of five years of war in China, and what you get is one of the best trained, most experienced fighting forces in the world, let down by obsolete weaponry and tactics.

Muscle comparisons? Give me a break. I'd rather be a scrawny high school kid than be on the bussiness end of a bayonet or hell, even a katana. And also, when looking at casualties from pacific battles, you must look at overall CASUALTIES, and not just deaths. The Japanese, when wounded, wouldn't exactly get the best medical treatment, and I imagine many would have just ended it right there. A wounded marine is no better than a dead one, as far as the war is concerned. When you look at it this way, the Japanese suffer a roughly consistent 2x the casulaties that their western oponents do, at least after mid 1942.

This is pretty much what I meant. Also it looks like the entire "marines were better, bigger, stronger etc" is something the OP found on wikipedia (you can find the sentence pretty much there). Also I am not a fan of glorification (neither of the marines or other troops). The pacific war is a good example where the winner is writing the history. However back to the toppic. As far as I can tell you this as a beta tester, I dont see problems with the balancing.

[roosterhung]

Originally Posted by Tokugawa77

This is 100% incorrect. In fact, there are more innacuracies in this one paragraph than I've seen in the whole forum. The Japanese weren't as well trained? Well, actually the training for IJA soldiers was one of the toughest in history*. They were essentially de-humanized with rigourous and brutal excersizes that pushed them to the limit of physical endurance. Much like the Roman army 2000 years before, the average soldier was taught to fear their officer more than the enemy. Put that on top of five years of war in China, and what you get is one of the best trained, most experienced fighting forces in the world, let down by obsolete weaponry and tactics.

Muscle comparisons? Give me a break. I'd rather be a scrawny high school kid than be on the bussiness end of a bayonet or hell, even a katana. And also, when looking at casualties from pacific battles, you must look at overall CASUALTIES, and not just deaths. The Japanese, when wounded, wouldn't exactly get the best medical treatment, and I imagine many would have just ended it right there. A wounded marine is no better than a dead one, as far as the war is concerned. When you look at it this way, the Japanese suffer a roughly consistent 2x the casulaties that their western oponents do, at least after mid 1942.

*The training for aircrews, for example, was so harsh that by the start of the war, there were only around 2000 crack airmen, and after the loss at Midway and pyhrric victories at the Coral sea and Santa Cruz, they were almost all gone. This is one of the reasons that the IJN ceased to be an effective fighting force.

BTW "jap" is a slur and i would encourgae you to try to stop using it.

Another thing to add is that in many pacific campaigns, the Japanaese were very badly supplied. This effected their combat effectiveness and many Japanese casualties figure were caused by starvation.

[MeFirst]

The same often applied to the marines aswell.