RE: Monsoon

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: Monsoon

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Monsoon

Page: << < prev 34 35 [36] 37 38 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Monsoon - 7/25/2010 8:11:04 PM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Oct 23, 42

Surface Combat

Using a destroyer to finish the coastal convoy; much simpler.

Day Time Surface Combat, near Akyab at 54,44, Range 12,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
DD Shiranui

Allied Ships
xAKL Sigli, Shell hits 12, and is sunk
xAKL Silindoeng, Shell hits 15, and is sunk
AM Abraham Crijnssen, Shell hits 18, and is sunk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

In the perfect moonlight (100%) I send some night bombers to Dacca and we destroy a 4E on the ground.
Success!!-)

Night Air attack on Dacca , at 56,38
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 27

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17F Fortress: 1 destroyed on ground

Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
27 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attacks on the "stack" in Burma, we're slowly ID'ing the troops there.

Morning Air attack on 2nd British Division, at 57,44
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 35 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 28
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 27

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 8 damaged

Allied ground losses:
30 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
28 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 10000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

Also attacking 23rd Indian Division ...
Also attacking 2nd British Division ...
Also attacking 23rd Indian Division ...
Also attacking 2nd British Division ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was today's big poodoo

Decided to risk an approach to Colombo with the bombardment fleet after spotting a RN TF.
Approaching without air cover was foolhardy but it has worked before, obviously Andy learned from his mistakes.
- First in the PM turn 9 Albacore's approached; I wasn't overly scared as we easily could shrug of a hit.
What I had forgotten is that these stringbags has a hit probability that makes the Kate's look like amateurs.

9 planes and 4!! hits. The Hyuga shrugged the hit of, almost no damage.
Poor Yamashiro took the remaining 3 torps and is in trouble.

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Koggala at 30,53
Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 17 minutes

Allied aircraft
Albacore I x 10

Allied aircraft losses
Albacore I: 1 destroyed, 8 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Yamashiro, Torpedo hits 3, heavy damage
BB Hyuga, Torpedo hits 1
BB Fuso

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x Albacore I launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Mk XII Torpedo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stingbag strike

Place your bets gentles; will she sink?
Odds are 1-3 that she'll make it.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1051

RE: Monsoon - 7/25/2010 8:21:03 PM

khyberbill

Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline

Your sys damage is low and she will probably make it although I am not sure that going to Pt Blair is your best option. Flt wont get rpaired there, you need a shipyard. In one encounter, I had the Big E with sys of 5 and flt of 90 and she made it to Colombo from Cocos Is.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1052

RE: Monsoon - 7/25/2010 10:02:21 PM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Well, it got worse - a lot worse!
A couple of Brit light carriers obviously is in the area; this was a fact that was lost on me.

34 Albacors and some Swordfish attacked the fleet that was retiring from Ceylon.
Out of 34 Albacores 13 hits are scored and both Fuso and Hyuga sinks while a light cruiser is damaged

- The Stringbags put another torp into the Yamashiro but she refuse to sink.

British TBDs are 99 times more deadly than their US counterparts, even more deadly than the Kates.
This also shows how lethal it is to get close to even a small contingent of LBA.

The battleship area is definetly over!!
Only the Ise remains of the 4 battleships in the Bombardment fleet; lucky us that I switched her with the Kongo and that
she was enroute to Singers when the unfortunate mission sailed.

I'm not too heart broken about the loss of these old ships; my own incompetence got them lost and I pity the crews, that what annoys me the most.
While old BB's are good for bombardments they're too slow to do much else good.

The Kongos are good carrier escorts, the Nagato's and Yamato's can battle the modern US and UK battle fleets.
The Ise and a heavy cruiser squadron will be left at Singapore with another cruiser squadron at Soerabaja.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Oct 24, 42

Air Combat

Destroyers and no CAP over T'ville.
Range was extreme so no torps or hits. Fortunate that no CAP was present, need to reduce range!

Morning Air attack on TF, near Townsville at 92,144

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 6

No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
DD Russell

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x G4M1 Betty bombing from 6000 feet *
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on 2nd British Division, at 57,44
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 34 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 21
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 21

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged

Allied ground losses:
11 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
20 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 10000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Koggala at 32,57
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 11 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
Albacore I x 34
Japanese aircraft losses
No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Albacore I: 8 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Fuso, Torpedo hits 6, and is sunk
BB Hyuga, Torpedo hits 6, and is sunk
CA Furutaka
CL Kinu, Torpedo hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
20 x Albacore I launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Mk XII Torpedo
14 x Albacore I launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Mk XII Torpedo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Koggala at 32,56
Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 15 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Allied aircraft
Swordfish I x 7

Allied aircraft losses
Swordfish I: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Yamashiro, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x Swordfish I launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Mk XII Torpedo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

Still struggling with this Chink corps - they're so much more capable than in RL and
sending them to Burma is a big help to the Alles there.

Ground combat at 61,46
Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 5565 troops, 38 guns, 103 vehicles, Assault Value = 245
Defending force 3338 troops, 39 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 142

Japanese adjusted assault: 136
Allied adjusted defense: 103

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), fatigue(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
42 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
178 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 17 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
5th Tank Regiment
79th Infantry Regiment
62nd Naval Guard Unit

Defending units:
66th Chinese/A Corps
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

A not so good day for the battleships

The damaged cruiser (30 flood) is taking a long detour to Batavia. 36 Zero's and 36 Tojo's have been placed so to give
protection. Just a few fighters is enough to down a handful of stringbags.

The Yamashiro with a flood of 86 is left on her own as a distraction.
If a miracle happens she may still have a minute chance.

The reason I was sailing her to Port Blair was to repair minor flood damage before contuning to Singers.
At Port Blair we got level 5 air fields but only base force capacity for 56 planes. I need an Air HQ here to place torpedo bombers at the base
that can threaten enemy surface / carrier raids.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to khyberbill)

Post #: 1053

RE: Monsoon - 7/25/2010 10:14:07 PM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

An upgrade for the Val SBD is available.
It has better speed and climb, but 1 hex less in range.

Not a great update really; fortunately the Judy isn't too far away.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1054

RE: Monsoon - 7/26/2010 9:35:33 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

The Val D3A2 looks kewler than the D3A1 - that's at least something

We have now traded punches and counter punches for almost a year!
The losses we have suffered are painful but not critical. Second rate carriers and now battleships.
Still, we need to husband our resources carefully in the future.

I have ordered 2 seaplane tenders to return to the Home Islands to convert to light carriers to make up
for the losses we have suffered. This together with the accelerated carrier program and the intact Kido Butai
will make up the backbone of our defense well into 1944 if everything works out.

I've tried very hard to reduce Allied carrier strength; we have hurt almost every single US and UK carrier but
only managed to sink one fleet and one escort carrier. Enemy tanker losses is perhaps what hurts Andy the most.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Oct 25, 42

Surface Combat

Andy does not seem uberly interested in what's going on in Oz anymore.
Townsville's airfields are still open and there's a destroyer squadron present.
I therefore wanted to drop in and surprise them!

A destroyer squadron of 4 DDs and a CL sailed in first.
- I knew the enemy destroyers were present, still the US ships got the drop on us and launched
torps from 8k yards. No hits were scored and only superficial damage inflicted before both TFs withdrew.

The destroyers nevertheless did their job and the bomardment express sailed in and blasted the place.
The Oz Army can't have that many reinforcements in the pools, so any destruction must be good for something.
- A bit dissappointed that we can't handle US destroyers in 10/42; if we can't now then when?

Night Time Surface Combat, near Townsville at 92,144, Range 8,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CL Sendai, Shell hits 1
DD Yugumo, Shell hits 3
DD Akigumo
DD Kazegumo, Shell hits 1
DD Takanami

Allied Ships
DD Gwin
DD Russell, Shell hits 1
DD Helm
DD McCall, Shell hits 1

Improved night sighting under 100% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 100% moonlight: 11,000 yards
Range closes to 20,000 yards...
Range closes to 14,000 yards...
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 8,000 yards
Allies open fire on surprised Japanese ships at 8,000 yards
DD McCall launches Torpedoes at DD Kazegumo at 8,000 yards
DD Helm launches Torpedoes at DD Kazegumo at 8,000 yards
DD Russell launches Torpedoes at DD Kazegumo at 8,000 yards
DD Gwin launches Torpedoes at DD Kazegumo at 8,000 yards
DD McCall launches Torpedoes at DD Yugumo at 8,000 yards
Range closes to 4,000 yards
DD McCall engages DD Yugumo at 4,000 yards
DD Helm engages DD Yugumo at 4,000 yards
DD Russell engages DD Yugumo at 4,000 yards
DD Yugumo engages DD Russell at 4,000 yards
Range closes to 2,000 yards
DD Kazegumo engages DD McCall at 2,000 yards
DD McCall engages DD Takanami at 2,000 yards
DD Russell engages DD Yugumo at 2,000 yards
DD Akigumo engages DD Helm at 2,000 yards
DD Yugumo engages DD Russell at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 6,000 yards
CL Sendai engages DD Helm at 6,000 yards
DD Takanami engages DD Helm at 6,000 yards
DD McCall engages DD Kazegumo at 6,000 yards
DD Kazegumo engages DD Gwin at 6,000 yards
DD Yugumo engages DD McCall at 6,000 yards
Range increases to 11,000 yards
CL Sendai engages DD McCall at 11,000 yards
DD Takanami engages DD Helm at 11,000 yards
DD Kazegumo engages DD McCall at 11,000 yards
DD Akigumo engages DD Gwin at 11,000 yards
DD Yugumo engages DD McCall at 11,000 yards
Task forces break off...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Uzuki cleans out the small convoy to Cox's.
- I forget to remove the "remain on statino" order and the destroyer hangs around
without getting any attention.

Day Time Surface Combat, near Cox's Bazar at 54,43, Range 3,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
DD Uzuki

Allied Ships
xAK Testbank, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AM Oudh, Shell hits 16, and is sunk

Japanese Ships Reported to be Approaching!
Allied TF begins to get underway
Reduced visibility due to Thunderstorms
Maximum visibility in Thunderstorms: 3,000 yards
Range closes to 14,000 yards...
Range closes to 11,000 yards...
Range closes to 9,000 yards...
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
Range closes to 7,000 yards...
Range closes to 6,000 yards...
Range closes to 5,000 yards...
Range closes to 4,000 yards...
Range closes to 3,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 3,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 3,000 yards
DD Uzuki engages AM Oudh at 3,000 yards
Range closes to 2,000 yards
DD Uzuki engages AM Oudh at 2,000 yards
AM Oudh sunk by DD Uzuki at 2,000 yards
DD Uzuki engages xAK Testbank at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 3,000 yards
xAK Testbank sunk by DD Uzuki at 3,000 yards
Combat ends with last Allied ship sunk...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bombardments

Night Naval bombardment of Townsville at 92,144

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
Kittyhawk IA: 1 destroyed on ground
Hurricane XIIb: 1 destroyed on ground
Hudson III (LR): 2 destroyed on ground

Japanese Ships
BB Kirishima
BB Hiei
BB Kongo
CA Mikuma
CA Chokai
CA Maya
DD Makigumo

Allied ground losses:
224 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Non Combat: 15 destroyed, 61 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 47 (13 destroyed, 34 disabled)
Vehicles lost 49 (10 destroyed, 39 disabled)

Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 16
Port hits 4

BB Kirishima firing at Townsville
BB Hiei firing at 1st Australian Division
BB Kongo firing at 21/22 Field Regiment
CA Mikuma firing at 1st Australian Division
CA Chokai firing at 1st Australian Division
CA Maya firing at 1st Australian Division
DD Makigumo firing at 13th Australian Brigade
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Today the 4Es hit Magwe again in severe storms..and suffer no ops losses :-\
Our nightly raids that destroy the occasional B-17 is therefore the only way to ensure
some sort of attrition. When we are rid of the B-17s the slightly less durable B-24's will
at least be a little easier to handle.

Night Air attack on Dacca , at 56,38
Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 27

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 6 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed on ground

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 4

Aircraft Attacking:
27 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

Raid spotted at 17 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Yamashiro is dead in the water and sinking; still she stayed afloat long enough to
absorb another 2 strikes. The enemy light carriers are all but out of torps, but still score
another 3 hits.

Morning Air attack on TF, near Koggala at 32,57
Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 12 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Allied aircraft
Albacore I x 13
Swordfish I x 4

Allied aircraft losses
Albacore I: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Yamashiro, Bomb hits 2, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x Albacore I launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Mk XII Torpedo
4 x Albacore I bombing from 5000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb
4 x Swordfish I bombing from 2000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb
5 x Albacore I bombing from 3000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Koggala at 32,57
Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 19 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
Albacore I x 13
Swordfish I x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Albacore I: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Yamashiro, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x Albacore I launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Mk XII Torpedo
10 x Albacore I bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb
4 x Swordfish I bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47
Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 46 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 26
B-17F Fortress x 15

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 4
Runway hits 19

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-17F Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
9 x B-17F Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
5 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47
Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 38 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 6

No Allied losses

Runway hits 3

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47
Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 33 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk IA x 12
B-17F Fortress x 7

Allied aircraft losses
B-17F Fortress: 1 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x B-17F Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Naval Combat

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1055

RE: Monsoon - 7/26/2010 10:40:23 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

An upgrade for the Val SBD is available.
It has better speed and climb, but 1 hex less in range.

Not a great update really; fortunately the Judy isn't too far away.

With a range of only five for dive bomber attacks (range 6 would mean attacking with useless 60kg bombs) your enemy is now having the range advantage it seems because the US bombers all got 6 hexes normal range. A real bad luck engagement would mean the carriers being 6 hexes from each other, would leave you with "only" Kates but usually they are enough anyway. And not that long until the Judy, which makes the IJN bombers again far superior to the US ones.

_____________________________

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1056

RE: Monsoon - 7/26/2010 11:18:36 AM

veji1

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline

That was poor play on your part PZB, as you say it is not critical, but when you play Japan you can't really afford to lose second rate CVEs and Battleships.. Those CVEs should have been there providing CAP... You were a bit reckless there...

Anyway, keep up the fight, BANZAI

_____________________________

Adieu � Dieu odieux... sign� Adam

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 1057

RE: Monsoon - 7/26/2010 11:41:20 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Yes, and obviously some factories have converted to the upgraded Val type.
Will halt them and only produce the D3A1 - range is much more important thant a slight speed and climb increase.
- Didn't even know there was a D3A2 model, new from WitP to AE I guess.

Indeed veji, that decision to send the bombardment fleet to Ceylon was done after spotting the heavy surface fleet.
Wanted to see if I could force a fight with it. Unfortunately I didn't get any carrier sightings.
Such 'on the go' decisions are often fatal...let this be a lesson!

Andy said he were sending his TF to intercept my bombardments of his bases.
This much I picked up, the punishment for ignoring a handful of stringbags with torps was deadly though.

In this case the CVEs would have been worth their weight in gold.
Problem is that if I bring in a few CVEs they're probably going to meet a couple of full size British carrier and be sent to the bottom too.
- This again becomes a question of whether Jap carrier strength should be separated or kept in the same place for a maximum effort.
After loosing half the mini KB I simply can't afford further carrier losses, but sending a single CVE with 30 Zero's would have been a worthwhile investment.

Still, it's a learning experience in AE just like in RL were you only get one chance, that's what I like about playing scenarios through the first time.
Later games can rely much on learning and hindsight. In this game the sinking of 3 old battleships by only 30-40 obsolete torpedo bombers would have been the defining moment when the carrier fanboys finally won their long ongoing argument with the traditionalists that meant that the battleship still was the most important ships in the fleet.

The Jap heavy cruisers are actually worth almost as much as their battleships (except the Furutaka, Aoba class) while being worth only 1/6 in VP.
What they lack in shell weight they make up for in torpedoes, what they lack in armor they make up for in speed.

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to veji1)

Post #: 1058

RE: Monsoon - 7/26/2010 11:47:11 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

The�Jap heavy cruisers are actually worth almost as much as their battleships (except the Furutaka, Aoba class)�while being worth only 1/6 in VP.
What they lack in shell weight they make up for in torpedoes, what they lack in armor they make up for in speed.

I have to deny that because in AE with the different naval routines to WITP, the battleships became much more important. And what makes the BBs so much more important than the heavy cruisers (not saying the heavy cruisers would be bad)? The BBs are bomb prove, the CAs aren�t. And I can assure you, my PB4Y and B25C and B25D1 with their 70 lownav crews make short process with every Japanese surface combat ship in range - except the BBs because they are bomb prove. The BBs can only be sunk by torpedoes or other BBs gunfire (ok, you can sink them after hitting them with 300 5inch shells or 100 500lb bombs). I would rate every BB three times more important in AE than in WITP. While heavy cruisers can do a good job too, they�re in trouble if ending up in range of my bombers (17 hexes normal range for the PB4Y Liberator for example) or if they meet BBs of course. Needless to say what happens if they end up in 1000lb bomb range of my 70 skilled SBDs, but the 500lb bomb equipped level and attack bombers on 1000ft naval attack are nothing worse, in fact they seem to be even better when you think about their ability to fly through enemy Cap as if it wouldn�t exist when talking about the USN Liberators.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 7/26/2010 11:48:12 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1059

RE: Monsoon - 7/26/2010 11:57:39 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

True enough, but fuel gussling battleships (should) usually only operate together with carriers when challenging enemy zoc in 43-46.
Operating as bomb magnets with the KB is one of their main role; the problem with the Fuso - Ise class is that their low speed makes this difficult.

- The Kongo's is therefore the most valuable carrier escorts while the Nagato's and Yamato's can perform both this role as well as fight Allied battleships and bombardment missions. If I have to brave enemy LBA sending a battleship along with a convoy is an option, but if they meet a handful of stringbags we all know what will happen

One of the lessons Jap players have to absorb is how greatly more efficient Allied LBA is against surface warships in AE than in WitP.
Operating outside of air cover will very likely be punished hard by the above mentioned ac types.

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 1060

RE: Monsoon - 7/26/2010 11:26:49 PM

aprezto

Posts: 824
Joined: 1/29/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

- A bit dissappointed that we can't handle US destroyers in 10/42; if we can't now then when?

Post 10/42 allied DDs become vicious. In a Jap game of mine (yes it has happened!!) I basically couldn't put my DDs up against the allied ones. They fired their EPP 5" rounds so fast and so accurately, that my DDs were slag before they could rebut.

They were almost unhittable with aerial torpedos or bombs (high experience divebombers being the only exception), so I was making cruiser only TFs. The 5" rounds usually bounced giving the cruisers enough time to take a toll. Allied subs then became the problem!

That isn't what you're seeing in this, but I it is a warning.

_____________________________

Image courtesy of Divepac

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1061

RE: Monsoon - 7/27/2010 8:00:23 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Thank you Al, isn't it great to have 4 years of machosistic gameplay to look forward to

Maybe I should switch to War in the East instead when it's out

Looks like Andy has turned his troops north of Swhebo around and is coming back for another round.
No doubt to coordinate a move into the basin with his "stack" of 25 units.

Even before Japan has completed her offensive runs in scen 2 the Allies are able to mount massive counteroffensives
in Burma, Australia as well as major attempt at the Line Islands in the Central Pacific.

I just can't see that the Allies lack neither, fuel, supplies, ships, men or arms.
All Allied players cry about how they lack ac, but there are hundreds of fighters in Burma and Australia and already more than 120 heavy
bombers roaming accross the heavens escorted by numerous Lightnings.

The only thing I can do is to increase the number of Jap fighters produced, create more training schools in the jungle
and wear down Allied numbers while releasing more Manchukuo units.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Oct 26, 42

Sub Attacks

I observe numerous US subs outside of Japan; one attacks a small convoy and scores
a (dud) hit. Need to send out more ASW units to this area.

Sub attack near Torishima at 113,69

Japanese Ships
xAK Yae Maru
xAK Kunitu Maru
PB Yahada Maru

Allied Ships
SS Flying Fish

SS Flying Fish launches 6 torpedoes at xAK Yae Maru
PB Yahada Maru fails to find sub, continues to search...
PB Yahada Maru fails to find sub, continues to search...
PB Yahada Maru fails to find sub, continues to search...
PB Yahada Maru fails to find sub, continues to search...
PB Yahada Maru fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Leaky CAP caused me some problems today. 11 Nicks "leaked" 3 hexes and suffered as they were
swept by 14 Hurries. On the other side 8 Oscars suddenly appeared among some Lysanders and caused havoc.
- When Warhwhawks swept Mandalay they met 42 Tojo's and lost 8 while claiming 4.

Morning Air attack on Shwebo , at 59,45
Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 15 NM, estimated altitude 25,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 11

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIa Trop x 14

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 3 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
1 x Hurricane IIa Trop sweeping at 22000 feet

CAP engaged:
13th Sentai with Ki-45 KAIa Nick (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(42 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 11 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Shwebo , at 59,45
Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 10 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Allied aircraft
Blenheim IV x 54
Hudson I x 6
P-38F Lightning x 14

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim IV: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 5
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Shwebo , at 59,45
Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 21 NM, estimated altitude 21,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 8

Allied aircraft
Lysander II x 12

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Lysander II: 3 destroyed, 3 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x Lysander II bombing from 20000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 100 lb GP Bomb
6 x Lysander II bombing from 20000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 100 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
21st Sentai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (8 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(30 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 30000
Raid is overhead
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Shwebo , at 59,45
Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 10 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 9
P-38F Lightning x 18

No Allied losses

Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 6

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x Hudson I bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suddenly unescorted mediums/heavies appear over Tennant Creek without escorts.
We loose a handful of planes on the ground but the raider suffers heavily, loosing 16 B-26 and a B-24.
That's a loss ratio of something like 27%.

Morning Air attack on Tennant Creek , at 76,137
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 46 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 4
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 34

Allied aircraft
B-24D Liberator x 22
B-26 Marauder x 32
B-26B Marauder x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 damaged
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed on ground
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 15 damaged
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 2 destroyed on ground

Allied aircraft losses
B-24D Liberator: 1 destroyed, 5 damaged
B-26 Marauder: 5 destroyed, 6 damaged
B-26B Marauder: 1 destroyed, 5 damaged

Airbase hits 7
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 21

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 12000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
11 x B-26 Marauder bombing from 12000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 3 x 500 lb GP Bomb
5 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 12000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
10 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 12000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
2 x B-26B Marauder bombing from 12000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 3 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-26B Marauder bombing from 12000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 3 x 500 lb GP Bomb
10 x B-26 Marauder bombing from 12000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 3 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-26 Marauder bombing from 12000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 3 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
Kawai Det with A6M2 Zero (1 airborne, 3 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters to 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 12 minutes
1st Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (5 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters to 25000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 11 minutes
5th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (5 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters to 25000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 11 minutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Mandalay , at 59,46
Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 25 NM, estimated altitude 31,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 42

Allied aircraft
P-40K Warhawk x 18

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-40K Warhawk: 4 destroyed

CAP engaged:
11th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(42 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 42 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 30000
Raid is overhead--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

We drive out the Chinese 1/3 Corps from the Lashio railroad.
- No doubt Andy will keep sending the poor ba$tards back onto the line to be in the way.
Morale would soar immensly is my guess...

Ground combat at 61,46
Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 9198 troops, 64 guns, 103 vehicles, Assault Value = 424
Defending force 3174 troops, 39 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 126

Japanese adjusted assault: 156
Allied adjusted defense: 28

Japanese assault odds: 5 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), disruption(-), fatigue(-)
experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
90 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
1372 casualties reported
Squads: 31 destroyed, 36 disabled
Non Combat: 35 destroyed, 14 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
Units retreated 1

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
79th Infantry Regiment
2nd Tank Regiment
47th Infantry Regiment
5th Tank Regiment
62nd Naval Guard Unit

Defending units:
66th Chinese/A Corps--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hm, interesting. Securing dot islands I come accross a small USN Port detachment at Penrhyn Island.

Ground combat at Penrhyn Island (168,159)
Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 13 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 2
Defending force 320 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1

Japanese adjusted assault: 0
Allied adjusted defense: 4

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 99 (fort level 0)

Combat modifiers
Defender: preparation(-)
Attacker: shock(+), leaders(-)

Assaulting units:
Yokosuka 3rd SNLF /3

Defending units:
A Det USN Port Svc
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Burma Again

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to aprezto)

Post #: 1062

RE: Monsoon - 7/27/2010 10:26:42 AM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

I just can't see that the Allies lack neither, fuel, supplies, ships, men or arms.
All Allied players cry about how they lack ac, but there are hundreds of fighters in Burma and Australia and already more than 120 heavy
bombers roaming accross the heavens escorted by numerous Lightnings.

The only thing I can do is to increase the number of Jap fighters produced, create more training schools in the jungle
and wear down Allied numbers while releasing more Manchukuo units.

Hi PzB,

Have to disagree with you on these points IMO. From being a predominantly Allied Player I can assure you fuel and plane quantities are the bane of an Allied players life in 1942. Fuel is almost always at a premium IF you move your fleets around and a lot of my AK's are used for hauling fuel around as the TK capacity is insufficient for the requirements.

Now on to planes......Alleid replaceemnt rates for Fighters/bobmers in 1942 are VERY low. To say they're not is just not accurate I'm afraid. To give you an idea...to equip the 6 x USN CV's with TBF's will take 3 months production! You receive tiny amounts of Medium bomber replacements - in the region of 4-12 planes per plane model! You think this is a lot compared to what the Japanese can manufacture?

The only reason Andy could have a 'horde' of planes flying at the moment is IF he saved his planes and built up a pool over several months. There's just no way the regular monthly production levels allow or even give the possibility to conduct mass wars of attrition.

I feel very strongly on this point since I'm massively limited/curtailed with LBA replacements and what they allow me to do. As to 4E's....well you get one shot of B17's.....as in they Squadrons arrive with planes and then you get such a tiny amount of replacements they literally are a one shot weapon. B24's come online in July but you get (from memory) 12 a month....12...you just destroyed 3 days worth production in 1 raid in your last turn

I gus it all comes down to perspective and from the Japanese side it feels as though the Allies have masses of stuff (which they should do I might add!) From the Allied side it feels as though the Japanese can out produce the Allies and that the limited replacements the Allies get mean it's frustrating

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1063

RE: Monsoon - 7/27/2010 10:55:35 AM

castor troy

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

Speedy is spot on. Allied bomber replacements are VERY limited until 2/43 (after that, bombers shouldn�t be much of a problem) and the same is true for fighters (those that are competitive) but it takes until 7/43 to have decent replacements, means something like 50 P-47, 30 Corsairs and 40 Lightnings per month. Before that, you have to rely on the 29000ft P-40K which is dead meat in one on one against the Tojo because the Tojo is as fast, more maneuverable, got enough fire power to down a fighter (not a 4E bomber) and can fly 8000ft higher than the P-40K.

Before mid 43, the Japanese can outproduce the Allied in every aspect (except heavy bombers of course because they got none).

_____________________________

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 1064

RE: Monsoon - 7/27/2010 11:11:05 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Of course I know what you say is true!

Still PDU on negates many of these effects; available ac types can be rotated from one continent to another and switched as numbers run low.
P-38's can also deploy in relatively large numbers in the Pacific theatre by October 42.
This combined with a strong force of 4Es negates much of the numerous Tojo effect.

- In AE Allied players hardly place fighters on CAP - they sweep and get their 4Es and mediums to level the opposition.
If they can't achive this they will pull back until the have built their strength to try again.

In this game we agreed on no sweeps above 30k feet as the max altitude sweeps at 35-40k feet isn't very realistic.

Regarding carriers: There are usually only 1 or 2 major carrier engagements in 42-43 and it's therefore possible to replace most ac in between "rounds".
Heavy attrition in 43-44 can be more troublesome.

So despite low production numbers and lack of fuel, it's still possible for Allied players to perform multiple major offensives in 42.

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 1065

RE: Monsoon - 7/27/2010 11:31:55 AM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

Of course I know what you say is true!

Still PDU on negates many of these effects; available ac types can be rotated from one continent to another and switched as numbers run low.
P-38's can also deploy in relatively large numbers in the Pacific theatre by October 42.
This combined with a strong force of 4Es negates much of the numerous Tojo effect.

- In AE Allied players hardly place fighters on CAP - they sweep and get their 4Es and mediums to level the opposition.
If they can't achive this they will pull back until the have built their strength to try again.

In this game we agreed on no sweeps above 30k feet as the max altitude sweeps at 35-40k feet isn't very realistic.

Regarding carriers: There are usually only 1 or 2 major carrier engagements in 42-43 and it's therefore possible to replace most ac in between "rounds".
Heavy attrition in 43-44 can be more troublesome.

So despite low production numbers and lack of fuel, it's still possible for Allied players to perform multiple major offensives in 42.

Hi PzB,

Cool discussion

PDU's - IMO that's not the case. If the Allied player is only receiving 16 x Bombers in total (RAF for example) - 8 x Blenheim and 8 x Wellington then it doesn't matter if they're swapped out. After 1 engagement a months production or more is gone. Poof!

As I say (seriously) without stockpiling of pools you can't run a war of attrition. You might think what Andy is doing to you now is bad - trust me if you put the masses of fighters (that Japan can produce!) in Burma you'll find his stockpiles will have run out of Mediums within a month.

As to 4E - it is tricky in that they are hard to shoot down (as they should be!) but once more you must understand they are a one shot weapon. Every B17 you shoot down is 1 less in the total! With 12 x B24 replacements a month, if they're used extensively over a month Andy could lose that many from Ops losses alone.

P38's - not masses. From memory 25 or 30 a month which more compared to what you can produce on Tojo/Zeroes then it's no contest in numbers AND the maintenance rate of P38's is high. After a mission or 2 they'll have at least 1/3 of planes in maintenance.

As to the Allied players sweeping and then bombing - why wouldn't they? It's the optimum thing to do with their forces - the alternative is a recipe for disaster with the abysmal replacement rates - If they sit back and be on CAP, sure they'll shoot some Jap planes down, but so many planes would be lost/damaged on the ground that losses would mount and they'd run out of their monthly replacements in a week!

CV Battles - this is chicken and egg though. There are 2 main reasons why the Allies won't have CV battles in 1942:

1. is quite simply the power of a combined KB.

2. Is new to AE - the limited number of replacements means it's not until the 2/3 of 1942 that the Allies have all their CV's filled with frontline aircraft! That's 8 months of gameplay to achieve that! This will also dictate if the Allied player is going to come out to play. They surely will not want an engagement with KB if they have Buffalos, non armoured SBD's and crappy TBD's....suicide!

I still standby the fact the Allied player can only conduct offensives in 1942 IF they stockpile planes and material in advance (or the Japanese player messes up bad)! Also an advance in Burma can be made early if the BurCorps forces are not annihilated. I'm in no doubt with you though about the lack of effect of Malaria etc though which has a major impact!

< Message edited by Speedy -- 7/27/2010 11:45:10 AM >

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1066

RE: Monsoon - 7/27/2010 11:45:30 AM

castor troy

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

20!!! P-38 per month.

One time wrong deployed (like running into 50 enemy fighters being higher and diving) and you can easily lose a monthly replacement. Not before mid 43 when you get more P-38H. 20 4Es might be hard to down, 20 Lightnings isn�t that hard to achieve. Take down 20 of them each month and the total number on the map stays what it is. It�s 4/43 in my game and I got 4 squadrons of P-38 but I tried not to engage the enemy when I knew there would be more than a dozen enemy fighters. And I only used them for sweep, guess never for escort and hardly ever for Cap.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 7/27/2010 11:48:03 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 1067

RE: Monsoon - 7/27/2010 11:51:50 AM

veji1

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline

this conversation and the situation in Burma and Oz makes me wonder whether in AE the Jap player should focus on the following :
- Invade northern australia (Port Hedland to Darwin) with a limited amount of troops, just to slow down the build up of Northern OZ and give itself time to build up and fortify the DEI
- invade east India with all you can get as early as you can, even if this means leaving then end of Java for later of going for PI minimally (take as many troops as possible out once the Allies are bottled). You take advantage of the shyness of american CVs (due partly to their lack of planes) and you bring the fight to the british and the RAF, preventing them from building pools and training their troops peacefully...

Basically that way you at least fight in 1942 west of Burma, bag a few troops there and give you time to organise your defense of Burma... I suppose the hard bit is to know how and when to get out of dodge in eastern india.

So after having believed following Cuttlefish and Miller's misadventures that Northern Oz should be the priority, I am now enclined to see it as something fairly simple to do at minimal cost (keep it unambitious, don't go further than Kathrine, don't build up, be ready to evac fast) while your priority should be to hit India as soon as Singapore falls.

Does that make sense ?

_____________________________

Adieu � Dieu odieux... sign� Adam

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 1068

RE: Monsoon - 7/27/2010 12:40:23 PM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

The RAF Bomber Command isn't really the challenge, the Wellington's are ok but the rest is as useless as what Japan got!-)
- I can of course dump loads of fighters into Burma and go for a 1-1 or 1-2 if necessary, war of attrition to get rid of the PITAs.
Since I don't like sending in inferior ac I'm mainly relying on Tojo's and I don't have loads of these available in October 42.
My crack Zero's are not allowed to be chewed up in Burma and the Oscars are hardly usable. Maybe I should send some Oscar rookie squadrons into the fight
to reduce Tojo losses....

I notice the numbers you quote, but I still find myself up against large numbers of enemy ac after shooting them down in droves.
Already over a 100 P-38's have been destroyed by October 42 and I'm being swept by 50-60 of them. So were do they all come from??
In my last report you can see that the first P-38G model was lost and that 91 P-38Es have been destroyed.

I do the same with sweeps and bombing, that's the sensible approach.
It still means that it is very difficult to attrit Allied fighters in Burma; you have to set up large formations of fighters as CAP and then fight it out with the sweepers.
This usually means a 1-2 loss ratio even while employing our best fighter formations.
- I'm getting a bit desperate about the 4Es already and is using night bombing of airfields to claim a few.

Carriers is a potential weak spot with the Allies, but combined with the British armored deck ships with lethal TBDs I still find it more than hazardous to engage even in mid 42.
- If Allies win Japan is on the defensive and defeat will be accelerated as much as a year. If Japan wins a 6-12 month respite will be given until the Hellcat armed Essex and Independence class ships appear in numbers.

In real life Allies were so hopeless in Burma that the Japs had the initiative in 44!! ...and still I'm struggling in this theatre in 10/42 after placing 8 divisions worth of troops and most of Japans tanks there

A strong Jap drive into Burma in 42 is probably a sound investment, getting entangled on the Indian mainland could buy some time but is also potentially dangerous.
Maybe an invasion of Ceylon would be a better way of diverting Allied attention. I don't think any Allied player will launch a major offensive in Burma until Ceylon has been recaptured, what do you Allied players say?

In the game I play against Al I have gone for a invasion of Darwin and Northern Oz, bypassing isolated garrisons at Bandoeng and Bataan.
Still, my main push was against New Caledonia and New Zealand. The strain of suppressing Bandoeng, Bataan, invading Northern Oz, New Caledonia, New Zealand AND Burma is substantial. Would I prefer to not invade New Caledonia and New Zealand in order to push into Burma - India? It's absolutely possible, capture Calcutta and draw a line north there.

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to veji1)

Post #: 1069

RE: Monsoon - 7/27/2010 12:54:12 PM

mike scholl 1

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

In real life Allies were so hopeless in Burma that the Japs had the initiative in 44!! ...and still I'm struggling in this theatre in 10/42 after placing 8 divisions worth of troops and most of Japans tanks there

Actually, in real life, the Japanese only THOUGHT they had the initiative in 1944. In reality they did the Brits an enormous favor by squandering several Divisions in a totally hopeless attempt to re-take the initiative. Meanwhile they were losing ground steadily in both the northeast and southwest.

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1070

RE: Monsoon - 7/27/2010 1:10:03 PM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Whether they thought they had the initiative�and performed a Burma version of the Ardennes offensive or not still does not remove the fact that they did drive on Imphal in 44. It took the Allies most of 43 to build up a somewhat competent jungle army and they first managed to win a decisive victory in 44 mainly because the Jap drive into India.

I'm just asking� the question; why are the Allies so strong in this theatre in 42?

Maybe more Allied units in India should be restricted to India?
- Some can be released using political points, others should be permanently restricted (R).

This is a possible house rule that can be applied if both sides agree on it.

< Message edited by PzB -- 7/27/2010 1:16:20 PM >

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 1071

RE: Monsoon - 7/27/2010 1:31:54 PM

Nomad

Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline

This is well discussed in other threads( not Andys AAR ). In RL the British 18th division was lost at Singapore. about 9,000 replacements were shipped to Singapore and lost. 4 Burma brigades were sent to Rangoon and mostly lost. The player has the option of retaining the 6th and 7th Australian Divisions in India. Plus most Allied players do not make some of the mistakes the the RL commanders made and do not lose as many men or as much equipment. Plus many Allied players remove some units from Malaya and are able to rebuild another 2 or 3 Indian divisions. So you can figure that the Allies can have 4+ divisions in India, all of them unrestricted, that the RL commanders didn't have and they will be micromanaged to have better morale, leadership, experience, and equipment.

< Message edited by Nomad -- 7/27/2010 1:33:17 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1072

RE: Monsoon - 7/27/2010 1:34:22 PM

vettim89

Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

I think there are a number of factors as to why the Allies did not start the Burma offensive in 1943

* There was a severe famine in India throughout WWII. I suspect a lot of supplies AE players use to push the IJA out of Burma were used to keep the populace fed

* There was a lot of political unrest in India. Obviously, there was the Indian National Army fighting for the Japanese. I think the Brits felt that there needed to be a lot more troops in India until 1944. By then, it was obvious that the Allies were going to win so the risk of rebellion had faded. You could say then why not raise the garrison requirements? Well because they are static and cannot model the RL dynamic changes. Although this could be accomplished by inventing fictitious India Constabulory Units that are static and appear in 1944 to thus release the Commonwealth troops for combat ops

* The US was commited to CKS and the Chinese. An enormous amount of effort was being directed at NE India to build the Ledo Road. The Brits saw CKS for who he was and this differnce of opinion led to a lot of tension. Tension = lack of cooperation.

* The Brits were not even that high on recapturing Burma. They wanted to recapture Malaya. Of course the US had a public opionion problem regarding helping the British "resubjugate" their colonies.

All that is very hard to model in game

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1073

RE: Monsoon - 7/27/2010 2:41:09 PM

janh

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline

I would second Nomads analysis. � Any WITP-AE does in comparison to historical outcomes and actions, "suffer" or "differ" in two ways:�

Players play with hindsight and avoid mistakes and learning processes made during the real war.� This is directly linked, or almost equivalent to saying that there is little uncertainty, or true Fog or War with respect to initial force dispositions and capabilities as well as technical capabilities of many platforms.

They now forces dispositions and competence of leaders accurately, they now their capabilities and how well each piece of technique does against a given enemy.� I.e. no learning curves, finding out what the Japanese or Allied are respectively capable of.� Hence, allied players for example don't use their navy and particularly their CVs as much as their historical counterparts (many more small and medium CV battles in 1942 than in a typical AE AAR). They already know to avoid the Zero's as long as they only have warhawks and wildcats.� They know they cannot hold Singapore, Burma or Java and will not commit the forces as they were historically, leading to a much more intact Indian/Australian/British LCU's (such as you face presently).

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 1074

RE: Monsoon - 7/27/2010 2:51:14 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Hi all,

Lots of valid points here.

PzB - I do agree that is is relatively easy for the Allies to counter stronger and earlier in Burma than in RL. Nomad and vettim indicate why that to be so. It's tough/impossible to model? Faber and I have a recent HR whereby no Restricted units are allowed in Burma. It will slow down the Allied buildup if nothing else.

Airforces - If RAF isn't the problem I assume your bug bear is solely with 4E and P38? If so I've mentioned above as to why that isn't 'really' valid IMO - Andy must have stockpiled his P38 production. Bear in mind P38E's etc start production in 4/42 IIRC. There are also some units that arrive on WC that can be downgraded to other planes to release more P38's. These 2 methods has to be what Andy's done. It's the only way. As I say though if you have a war of attrition for a month against the P38's and 4E I can almot guarantee you you'll bleed him dry.

The Japanese can outproduce the Allies in almost every air facet throughout 1942. Personally (OT I know) I find it scandalous that a nation of 1/10 the production of the US can be allwoed to outproduce her...anyhow.

Not sure hat else to say on the airpower bit PzB - I know the replacement rates and it's just IMPOSSIBLE for the Allies to win a war of attrition long term vs Japan (how crazy does that sound?!?

). The only way is if he's been allowed to stockpile for months and transfered out some units to older planes in the US.

CV's - well maybe combined. But that IMO is pretty RL. If you think back to the relative performance of the CV's at Coral Sea, Midway, Santa Cruz etc. Both sides lost CV's in all these engagements....I fidn this to be replicated fairly well in AE in that, unlike Stock, it's now a gamble for either side (slightly favouring Japan) to engage CV's in 1942.

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 1075

RE: Monsoon - 7/27/2010 2:57:11 PM

castor troy

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

I would go with "no restricted units outside of their theatre", because who stops the Japanese to move China command units into Burma or Thailand or Malaya when the Allied aren�t allowed to move restricted units from India to Burma for example?

If CVs engage one on one in aircraft numbers (in 42) then I would rate the IJN at least as twice as dangerous as the Allied ones, pure reason for that: KATE armed with torps. Perhaps it�s 1:1 in 43 when you�ve got Hellcats but I bet not even 250 Hellcats on Cap would have saved me when the KB can easily send a 505 aircraft strike against my fleet (as has happened in my PBEM). You probably would need a 1000 Hellcat Cap and would still lose a couple of ships.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 7/27/2010 3:00:17 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 1076

RE: Monsoon - 7/27/2010 3:00:26 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Understand your point but I think the REAL issue here is stopping the Allies from steam rollering into Burma...have to keep the JFB's happy (joke)

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 1077

RE: Monsoon - 7/27/2010 3:03:06 PM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Understand your point but I think the REAL issue here is stopping the Allies from steam rollering into Burma...have to keep the JFB's happy (joke)

well, I�m a JFB, only playing the Allied at the moment...

seriously, JFB or AFB, a hr like that should be valid for both sides. Can�t be that the Allied player has to pay pps to move units into Burma while the Japanese pays pps to move units into the Pacific and AT THE SAME TIME moves restricted units from China into Burma.

_____________________________

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 1078

RE: Monsoon - 7/27/2010 3:05:22 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

You're a turncoat FB then

Understood. We defo have HR in place preventing Manchukuo units moving without paying PP's....trust me at the mo Faber would NOT want to move units out of China anyhow

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 1079

RE: Monsoon - 7/27/2010 3:20:44 PM

Rapunzel

Posts: 141
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Germany
Status: offline

The Allies are much stronger, because you switched withdraws off. With withdraws on the brit carrieres had allready been withdrawn. Also the avg and several other air units. Some of them are taking theire planes with them. The Allies have many restricted ground units that have to be withdrawn. Now he can dispand these units to increase his pools and so on.

Thx for writing your AAR. Very entertaining read.

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 1080