Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Future Allied attack paths.

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Future Allied attack paths. Page: <<   < prev  29 30 [31] 32 33   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Future Allied attack paths. - 6/20/2006 7:46:34 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		well... There was the ;) though....

An anyway if I were the Japs I'd be happy to have 4/3 of the CEA.....:)

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 901
RE: convoy intercepted - 6/20/2006 8:04:59 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		it is easy
i have 25-30 big units that are not used for garrison duties in china i think 6-8 units will go sooner or later
i need to move 10 to india/burma - i estimate that 15 division as long as covered from air and with strong tank component will be ok - 5 division will be from burma army - tanks from southern army

about 6-8 will be needed to reinforce coastal cities - these one will be taken from reinforcements

i think that southern army - majority + 3-4 ex- chinase div will be enough for pacific + dei especially 4th fleet will get equivalent of 3-4 big units - many of them soon - it will be over 20 big units total ( from memory)
15-20 divsions left
1-2 to kuriles - it is possible that these units will be taken from home Isl
up to 5 as strategic reserve and rest to russia
it means some 5k AV + kwantung will get quite a lot of new units - question is if I have enough equipment in pools to fill them
but i think answer is positive
i would not be surprised if i will have 15k AV in fresh units and next 5K in forming up ones - behind lvl 9 forts they should stand as long as supplied
it is air power about which i'm worried
number of units and vastness of russian pools means i will be unable to cover this front from air
so LCU will not be a problem




< Message edited by Sneer -- 6/20/2006 8:10:01 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Arstavidios)
Post #: 902
RE: Future Allied attack paths. - 6/20/2006 8:07:17 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		it is how i see next 6 moths
red - certain fight of high intesivity and most probable enemy assault axis

yellow - risk areas where surprise attack is possible and where mostly fleet is expected to maintain security





Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 903
RE: Future Allied attack paths. - 6/21/2006 1:13:25 AM   
BrucePowers


Posts: 12094
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline 		Raver can very very tricky.

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 904
RE: Future Allied attack paths. - 6/21/2006 6:04:23 AM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		Apart from India....Sneer has it mostly right.   The British army will not be in anyway ready to go toe-to-toe until at least mid'44.  Untill then it is going to be airwarfare.  I want to try and make him bleed aircraft and pilots over India....but that will not happen until I get better fighters with longer range.

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to BrucePowers)
Post #: 905
RE: Future Allied attack paths. - 6/21/2006 6:07:59 AM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		Sneer and I did very well last night with 10 turns done over 7 hours.  We hope to try and do the same again tonight.

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 906
RE: Future Allied attack paths. - 6/21/2006 10:40:50 AM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		well this is good, but we need a proof to believe you, hence 7 combat reports are to be posted very soon. 

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 907
RE: Future Allied attack paths. - 6/21/2006 10:50:07 AM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		nothing really happen
usual japanese helens over chungking and allied 4e over timor
some subs moving
logistics
building up R&D factories
raising HI (to15.5k)
repair shipyard visiting  - Hiyo finished upgrade - 2 months ago this ship had  38 sys  dmg
planning sth nasty for Raverdave - i need to be always one step ahead of him if i want to surprise him  and catch some of his assets
1st action of night fighters over jamshedpur - no result
hard thinking why my LCU at chungking are always few points of suppliue below their req.

_____________________________


(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 908
RE: Future Allied attack paths. - 6/21/2006 11:14:36 AM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		Actually, i have never been far away in game to know what to do with them... What's the use of the Irving, the Randy, the KAI Dinah etc ?

I guess you can use them to defend bases behind the front line ?

Are they good against B29 for instances ?

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 909
RE: Future Allied attack paths. - 6/21/2006 11:40:47 AM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		we are far from B29 at this moment
i have ki45 introduced - FB and NF version but not many planes in service - there is no possibility to upgrade fighter sqn to them so 2 NF and 1NF sqn at the moment
NF are in need as Raverdave do not want to see my fighters in daylight and found 4e losses too high in normal action
FB - I don't find big use of ki 45 FB - if they had bigger range they would be nice killers of smaller ships - barges ,Pts etc but with current there is little to do
Randy is a plane from 44 so long time to go , kai dinah i think too
soon i will have Irving as night fighter - daitai is organising currently - its effectivness will be checked soon
there are quite a lot of them in reinforcements - unfortunately it is navy plane so no ability to streamline production with army ki 45
from new planes Jacks are great - it is best JAF fighter and i can send them easily against p 38
george is 8 months away and zeke 5 months away
i don't remeber when franks are expected but i think early 44 too
so no revolution  - old toys


_____________________________


(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 910
RE: Future Allied attack paths. - 6/21/2006 12:18:16 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		I have nodoubt that Sneer is planning something nasty......a spoiling attack against Noumea or in that area is the most logical point to hit.  Most other places I am well covered by my air umbrella.   He could also try a raid on the Aussie northeast coast....but there is not much there to be had.  Hitting one of the remote aussie towns such as Durby or Broome might be interesting.    Either way I feel that I am ready for him.    This last month has shown that Sneer does not like being on the defensive, and as the IJN player if he sticks his neck out too far at this stage of the game he will get it lopped off. 

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 911
RE: Future Allied attack paths. - 6/21/2006 12:20:12 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		Regarding B29, i Meant that maybe from experience you  knew if NF and FB where efficient against them, even though in this specific game they are quite far away...

Are these planes any good against unescorted bombers on rear bases ?

I know the fact that this is a joint AAR prevents you from giving to much info away, but concerning your airforce, how do you plan on working ? keeping lots of frontline units, or rather using frontline units as a picket line and having second echelon concentrations ready to be brought forward when it heats up ?

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 912
RE: Future Allied attack paths. - 6/21/2006 12:31:55 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		whole southern Pac is like allied highway
i get so many info about shipping that i'm confused what to do
veiji1 - no more unescorted bombers going to rear bases :-) - it was too painful to Raverdave
 
as far as my statement about Jacks
Raverdave checked forum and decide to test it at Asanol

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 04/15/43
Day Air attack on Asansol , at 31,21

Japanese aircraft
J2M Jack x 19
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 62

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 62

Japanese aircraft losses
J2M Jack: 2 destroyed
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 9 destroyed, 3 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-38G Lightning: 29 destroyed, 4 damaged

nothing to comment

_____________________________


(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 913
RE: Future Allied attack paths. - 6/21/2006 12:38:23 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		Looks like he is building there exp the hard way :

Send 70 pilots with 50 exp in harms way, 35 come back with exp 55... Rinse and repeat until you get a unit with a good core of high exp pilots... Thing is this training method is frame and pilot consuming :)

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 914
RE: Future Allied attack paths. - 6/21/2006 12:42:31 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		as far as stickig head too far
light forces duties is small combat action and enemy harassment
if enemy moves unguarded and light forces are not active it is close to war crime
also bigger units need to be seen and relocate - this way enemy must spend time and fear + never know where fleet main body stays
during last month i had KB split to 3 TFs staying in diffrent places. does it mean it is a risk - yes - but my enemy fear combined KB so no active partols from him
what if he try to catch me ?- :-) he never knows when it will be combined again
similar with bigger units
reading PZB AAR shows that 44 will be a year of limited options

Allied player gains strenght fast and i can't really hurt him at this stage of war - not unless i want to atritt myself too and losses 1:1 are real defeat to me
i need to gain 2:1 to say that everything works fine
my fleet is strong and this opened possibilities to me
i have strong doubts if Raverdave would be able to hold a CENPAC base taken by surprise if i decide to press it with my fleet and reserves
i'm focused currently on building stockpiles of fuel in critical locations 
looks like last 3-5 months fleet action resulted in net balance of sth like -800k of fuel
i can keep activity but it would lower it to critical levels within 6 month - time when allied fleet will raise heads again
BTW if allied moved too fast and put their head too far - like it was few months ago it will be cut too

< Message edited by Sneer -- 6/21/2006 12:55:51 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 915
RE: Future Allied attack paths. - 6/21/2006 12:59:50 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		I lost 20 not 29 P-38s.  Exp now upto 63 from 61. 

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 916
RE: Future Allied attack paths. - 6/21/2006 12:59:59 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		Boy, PZB's AAR really is full of lessons for late jap players, the way he involved KB too early, depriving himself of a hammer with which he could have caught allies blocked by steep resistance in one of their invasions...

Main use of KB in late war is to force allies to commit fully to one offensive, because they cannot risk facing KB without being properly covered... Then as we've seen in PZB's AAR, force the allies to keep their navy concentrated, and fight for small victories around there main force, attacking convoys, escorts, and all the logistic line behind the main push... An be patient and wait for the one or two occasion were you'll have a chance to strike at his fleet when low on ordinance or after his done a mistake, or after he's been tricked by decoy CVEs or something like this...

Even though most of PZBs attempts were foiled, you learn so many nasty tricks from his AAR that you can apply later on...

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 917
RE: Future Allied attack paths. - 6/21/2006 1:01:23 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

I lost 20 not 29 P-38s.  Exp now upto 63 from 61. 

29 were in air losses report - as far as I remember but can be wrong

< Message edited by Sneer -- 6/21/2006 1:04:02 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 918
RE: Future Allied attack paths. - 6/21/2006 1:03:41 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		options are limited in 44
fleet in being is best of them but can't be played as only one otherwise it will loose its value

_____________________________


(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 919
RE: Future Allied attack paths. - 6/21/2006 1:20:47 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		well actually options in 1944 are illimited me thinks, it is just that all you do will only bring tiny results, so you actually have to try to achieve them committing the lest forces that you can... ie better to sink 2DDs and 4AKs with a light surface group than with the whole KB...

In a way I guess operating lone CVs and CVLs in small TFS for buccaneering purposes behind his lines is a good way to go, it will force him to create bigger convoys, to assign part of his CVEs and CVLs to these... I meen using the 53 planes CVs and the CVLs this way is better then using them as meat fodders... The only problem will be the lack of escorts... I hope you haven't lost too many of them...

And with 1.801 Subs are really going to be a tool in your defensive strategy, as PZB's AAR showed, Putting a fish in a BB or a CV during one big allied invasion can create an awfull mess for the allies from which you can take advantage...

I guess the whole thing is to keep trying sneaky low cost attacks to try to disrupt his effort, and if and once you manage to mess his plans a bit, hit where it hurts... And run away...

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 920
RE: Future Allied attack paths. - 6/21/2006 2:19:27 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		subs must fight hard to survive but to some extent it is true - my sub program is next after carriers


_____________________________


(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 921
corsairs and punishment - 6/21/2006 5:08:01 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 04/19/43

i decided to harass luganville
light forces and 2 carriers were assigned
planes got into corsair circus and 20 of them were lost
they were of lowest exp in the fleet ( 64) but had best planes - zekes
looks like allied bases are magically protected
good my planes noticed swarms of PT boats so I recalled my light forces

slightly irritating that so small strike went divided


Day Air attack on TF, near Luganville at 72,107

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 8
D4Y Judy x 26
A6M3a Zero x 9
B5N Kate x 24

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 15

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zeke: 5 destroyed
D4Y Judy: 3 destroyed, 1 damaged
A6M3a Zero: 3 destroyed
B5N Kate: 5 destroyed


Allied Ships
AK Dashing Wave, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AK Herstein, Bomb hits 1
AK Dukat
AK Proteus, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AK Hřegh Merchant
AK Vitorlock
AK William Williams
AK Liberty

-----------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Luganville at 72,107

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 8
B5N Kate x 14

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 17

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 4 destroyed
B5N Kate: 3 destroyed


Allied Ships
AK Algorab
AK Mabella






Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 922
RE: Future Allied attack paths.corsairs and punishment - 6/21/2006 5:14:27 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		this 55 PTs there !!!!

Is this a lunacy game or do you have house rules ? Because this seems a wee bit excessive to me... I mean I don't know what happened in history, but I guess there were less than that...

Well You have reached a date where you can't port attack anymore with your planes, except with enormous numerical superiority... You have to settle with attacking ships at sea..

Anyway, this is really like an army of ants...

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 923
RE: Future Allied attack paths.corsairs and punishment - 6/21/2006 5:19:14 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		turning point ?
maybe to early and too small ........but sth really changes ... I feel it in the air
hopefully i still have some nice ideas to do


_____________________________


(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 924
RE: Future Allied attack paths.corsairs and punishment - 6/21/2006 5:23:05 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		Yes the change has come..................it is your doom.

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 925
I hate PTs - 6/21/2006 7:34:17 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		there is no diffrence for PTs what the sea state is
PT are always on station
like in Andy vs PZB they will guard every port like much bigger ships

with todays record i killed total of 40 PTs

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 04/20/43

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Chandpur , at 30,25
 
 
Allied aircraft
B-24D Liberator x 15
 
 
Allied aircraft losses
B-24D Liberator: 6 damaged
 
Aircraft Attacking:
15 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 10000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Diamond Harbor , at 28,23
 
Japanese aircraft
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 26
 
Allied aircraft
Beaufighter VIC x 4
 
No Japanese losses
 
Allied aircraft losses
Beaufighter VIC: 1 damaged
 
Aircraft Attacking:
 4 x Beaufighter VIC bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Calcutta , at 29,23
 
Japanese aircraft
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 19
 
Allied aircraft
Beaufighter VIF x 5
Wellington III x 28
Liberator VI x 6
B-25C Mitchell x 20
 
Japanese aircraft losses
No Japanese losses
 
Allied aircraft losses
Wellington III: 1 damaged
 
Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 2
 
Aircraft Attacking:
 3 x Wellington III bombing at 10000 feet
 4 x Wellington III bombing at 10000 feet
 3 x Wellington III bombing at 10000 feet
 6 x Wellington III bombing at 10000 feet
 6 x Wellington III bombing at 10000 feet
 6 x Liberator VI bombing at 10000 feet
 3 x Wellington III bombing at 10000 feet
 5 x Beaufighter VIF bombing at 2000 feet
 3 x Wellington III bombing at 10000 feet
20 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Tenimbar at 36,81
 
Japanese Ships
CL Isuzu
DD Shiratsuyu, Torpedo hits 1,  on fire,  heavy damage
DD Shigure, Shell hits 1,  on fire
DD Murasame
DD Yudachi
DD Samidare
DD Yamakaze
DD Hatsushima
DD Wakaba
DD Yugure
DD Ariake
DD Fubuki
DD Kasasagi
DD Hayabusa
 
Allied Ships
PT PT-103
PT PT-105, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
PT PT-106, Shell hits 5, and is sunk
PT PT-108
PT PT-236, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
PT PT-241, Shell hits 2, and is sunk
PT PT-243
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Tenimbar at 36,81
 
Japanese Ships
CL Isuzu
DD Shiratsuyu, Shell hits 1,  on fire,  heavy damage
DD Shigure,  on fire
DD Murasame
DD Yudachi
DD Samidare
DD Yamakaze
DD Hatsushima
DD Wakaba
DD Yugure
DD Ariake
DD Fubuki
DD Kasasagi
DD Hayabusa
 
Allied Ships
PT PT-111, Shell hits 10, and is sunk
PT PT-113, Shell hits 9, and is sunk


Day Air attack on TF at 36,79
 
 
Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk I x 4
Beaufighter Mk 21 x 15
P-40E Warhawk x 13
 
 
No Allied losses
 
Japanese Ships
DD Shiratsuyu,  on fire,  heavy damage
 
Aircraft Attacking:
 1 x Beaufighter Mk 21 bombing at 2000 feet
 2 x Beaufighter Mk 21 bombing at 2000 feet
 4 x Beaufighter Mk 21 bombing at 2000 feet
 4 x Beaufighter Mk 21 bombing at 2000 feet
 4 x Beaufighter Mk 21 bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 36,79
 
Allied Ships
SS Argonaut
 




_____________________________


(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 926
RE: I hate PTs - 6/21/2006 8:14:57 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		yeah but 55 of them for one port is a lot !!!

Shouldn't there be a limit in house rules, sort of like :
port 1-3 : 1 tf of 10
port 4-6 : 2 tfs of 10
Port 6-9 : 3 tfs of 10

?

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 927
RE: I hate PTs - 6/21/2006 8:21:08 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

yeah but 55 of them for one port is a lot !!!

Shouldn't there be a limit in house rules, sort of like :
port 1-3 : 1 tf of 10
port 4-6 : 2 tfs of 10
Port 6-9 : 3 tfs of 10

?



As long as there is this bug (out of sync) that force you not to strafe PTs there should be a house rule with numbers far lower. Unfortunately I don´t have a house rule on that in any of my PBEMs.

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 928
RE: I hate PTs - 6/21/2006 10:25:03 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		they were more numerous in the area as 3 sunk on old mines and at least 5-6 were sunk by strafing fighters from my carriers 2 weaks ago
plus there are many PTs in Nomuea + they guard Darwin from my capitals

All my info about PT is that they were low reliability weapon - very sensitive on sea state- often it was very difficult for them to get to good launch position
in Witp they almost always shoot torpedos and with such numbers they always hit sth
Apart from smallest MSW there is no spare ship type to fight with them as even small PC type are hit often

I know PTs were used in Salomons but I can't remember them doing harm to Japan Navy
also in Surigato strait they achieved suprisingly low at least comparing to opprotunities and their number

strange situation - i don't fear enemy surface TF because i know i can inflict losses to allies
but almost all combat with PT is loose situation. so with hundreds of US PT boats number of night raids will go down dramaticly - looks like we will go back to boring turns from late 42.




< Message edited by Sneer -- 6/21/2006 10:31:14 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 929
RE: I hate PTs - 6/21/2006 10:52:17 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Don't worry about the sync bug as it only effects the Allied players combat replay. Strafe the crap out of them but send a copy of your combat report. If he does not like it tell him to complain to the guy responsible for bugging the program.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 930
Page:   <<   < prev  29 30 [31] 32 33   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Future Allied attack paths. Page: <<   < prev  29 30 [31] 32 33   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.641