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  35 36 [37] 38 39   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Monsoon - 7/27/2010 3:23:37 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Good point too Rapunzel. Forgot that was turned off. Makes a big difference for the Allies in Burma - especially with CV's and as you say air units - several of which are normally withdrawn

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Rapunzel)
Post #: 1081
RE: Monsoon - 7/27/2010 3:34:27 PM   
vettim89


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
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.


Interesting that this set of posts highlight my two biggest problems with AE. The first being the ease at which the Allies can conduct a counteroffensive in the CBI. I think there are a number of factors missing here. I highlighted some of them above but another is that Monsson is not nearly as devastating as it should be. The Bengal area is the part of India most affected by the Southwest Monsoon. Basically little if any air ops should be possible including transport. Second is that while Monsoon officially lasts from June through September, it takes at least a month for the ground to dry out. Movement of troops AND SUPPLIES should be about impossible during the Monsoon and until at least October. Troops outside of bases and in poor supply should have severe morale and disruption penalties.

The second thing I have have qualms about are some aspects of air combat. I am not saying the system is wrong or borked just that some of the results we see are a little off the historical mark.

Consider this:

The last USN carrier hit by an airborne torpedo was USS Hornet in late 1942

The only USN capital ship sunk by Nell/Betty launched torpedoes was USS Chicago (In what I consider to be a perfectly planned and executed attack that rivals PH)

Do we see this in AE? Obviously the answer is no. Now all that really means is that players have to adapt to what the game gives you. Still it does dampen the glow of an amazing game when you see the warts

_____________________________

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

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1082
RE: Monsoon - 7/27/2010 3:41:39 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
I agree with Nomad's analysis on Burma, and that is also how I read the several separate Burma threads as well.  That's all hindsight now for you, but a clear learning lesson for future games: IJ has to kill those Brit units early in the game.

As for the Allied air situation: do not overlook the large number of new units coming in.  While replacements rates are not high, total production when including new units coming in fully equipped is surprisingly large.  I'm not suggesting that the Allies have unlimited ac, but they have far more than simply the replacement ac.

This is historically accurate.  The US in particular focused on rotating complete units in and out.  So yes, the US only gets 35 P-40's and 25 P-39's early in the war, but she also picks up quite a few new squadrons.  Allied players typically disband units early to keep a stockpile of ac available for their frontline ac.  What this means is that in 42, the US cannot fight on all fronts.  The player has to pick and choose.  With Burma/India as it stands, and OZ as well, it would suggest to me that CENTPAC and NORPAC have to be pretty lightly defended with ac at this time.  The allies don't have the squadrons or ac to equip them to be strong everywhere until mid/late 43.

EDIT: And I think that also says where the USN CV's have to be. He's got to be using them in place of LBA for CENTPAC and NORPAC.

Just my observations.

BTW: I think you're doing pretty dang well.  Your exodus from OZ was really well done, and your losses there quite acceptable.  You read the situation quite well and timed things (and taught us all about that move "feature").   Keep it up!

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 7/27/2010 3:43:14 PM >


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 1083
RE: Monsoon - 7/27/2010 5:26:08 PM   
castor troy


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

_____________________________


(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 1084
RE: Monsoon - 7/28/2010 1:18:37 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
Nice to see so many new posters here, also a good discussion

How are things going Ken, still fighting these multiple player games I see! The challenge with these games is they are soo hard to complete when there are 3-5 players.

Withdrawals OFF was my big FUBAR before even starting the game, I thought this feature was ON as default.
Had already started the game with Andy before I figured out that it was OFF.... Probably the most costly mistake I'm going to make in AE and of course it can't be turned ON again Those British carriers alone has cost me the bulk of all serious losses in this game so far.

So yes, the lack of withdrawals, Allied hindsight and better troop preservation will enable the Allied to put up a better fight in Burma already from 1942.
But you should see the stacks of troops that Andy got in his bases or marching through the jungle, we're talking about 80-100 units.

I have never moved troops from China into Burma, so maybe a joing house rule demaning PPs for moving Indian and Japanese trrops in China to Burma would be a good house
rule for future games. It's a high tide and to late to implement in my games, but other players should evaluate what kind of game they want.
- I don't want a game that is decided in China, Manchukuo or Burma.

Hopefully jungle fever, malaria and general troop disruption and fatigue will be increased in future patches.
Allied troops should suffer higher jungle penalties in 42-43 than the Japanese and then evening out and improving in 44-46.
- What I'm thinking about here is e.g. that a British inf division marching through jungle outside a base hex during in 42-43 will gain 1 disruption and 1 fatigue point for each turn.
This can then be doubled during the monsoon. For Japan these values can e.g. be less sever (50% less?) in 42-43.
- Air operations during the monsoon should also be penalized with increased op losses and decreased coordination and strike efficiency.

No doubt I can attrit Andy severly in Burma, but it still doesn't feel right because this is not how I think this theatre should be modelled.

Thx PaxMondon, we don't win wars with great evacuations, but as in Dunkirk they are good for morale and troop preservation
I never felt I could simply abandon SE Australia, a fighting withdrawal to gain time and inflict casualties on the Allies was therefore a must!



_____________________________



"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 #: 1085
RE: Monsoon - 7/28/2010 2:59:45 PM   
janh

 

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

ORIGINAL: PzB
So yes, the lack of withdrawals, Allied hindsight and better troop preservation will enable the Allied to put up a better fight in Burma already from 1942.
But you should see the stacks of troops that Andy got in his bases or marching through the jungle, we're talking about 80-100 units.
...
Hopefully jungle fever, malaria and general troop disruption and fatigue will be increased in future patches.
Allied troops should suffer higher jungle penalties in 42-43 than the Japanese and then evening out and improving in 44-46.
- What I'm thinking about here is e.g. that a British inf division marching through jungle outside a base hex during in 42-43 will gain 1 disruption and 1 fatigue point for each turn. This can then be doubled during the monsoon. For Japan these values can e.g. be less sever (50% less?) in 42-43.
- Air operations during the monsoon should also be penalized with increased op losses and decreased coordination and strike efficiency.
...
No doubt I can attrit Andy severly in Burma, but it still doesn't feel right because this is not how I think this theatre should be modelled.


Admittedly, this dilemma is particularly bad for Japan, since they started the war as a surprise action, relying heavily on the unpreparedness, and secrecy regarding troop movements, strengths, and technical capabilities that of course "today's history students" playing AE can't be fooled with anymore -- everyone knows pretty much what Japan can do where and when. Under such circumstances, the war probably would never have been attempted by the Japanese. The uncertainty comes back partially for both player with time, and with deviation from history, but only to a limited degree.

I think your suggestions would unfortunately be jimmy-rigging a fix for the symptoms, rather than for the problem. If you increase any of "jungle fever, malaria and general troop disruption and fatigue", then the Burma theater will be off for Allied players that decide not to make use of hindsight and play fairly historically, i.e. loosing lots if Indian and British LCU in Singapore and Rangoon early on. Those players would be at a significant disadvantage then.

I am afraid, the only way to avoid the allied player to save so many units and prevent him from building up the India-Burma theater with those units to massive strength in 1942/43 would be disallowing him to withdraw forces so early, or at all. I.e. find a way to force allied players to keep up the fight for Singapore and Rangoon with the historical forces, perhaps by PP cost for their evacuation, or PP losses for not "garrisoning" these cities until the Jap player takes them.

Sort of mimicking the political level of consequences, if he doesn't help his colonies withstand the Jap onslaught. And mimicking the Allied believe, that Japanese aren't actually so strong and can be stopped, i.e. "reinfuse" "uncertainty" into the allied decisions. However, if you would drive that idea to the limit (and apply it to the whole game), of course you would end up forcing the allied players and Japanese players to play exactly historically, depriving "the game component" of the possibility of doing exactly what players try today: play with hindsight and the accumulated historical and technical knowledge we have today, and test what could have happened if....

One crucial ingredient gets lost when you use a historical force setup, and historical strengths/technical capabilities, and that is uncertainty, and the possibility to be surprised and make many mistakes. One could think about randomizing the initial force setups and positions for both players air/naval platforms and LCUs, that would probably already add a lot more "tension" to the first year war of the virtual war. One could even think about randomizing technical parameters of weapons, ships, tanks, planes within a small interval, say +/-5 or 10% for all armor values, speed, climbrate, max alt etc. That would lead to -- of course -- less historical, but more dynamical scenarios.

Maybe both could be done with an external editor, if one would find the time to write it. But then you'd run again into the problem that the AI for the scenarios gets messed up, because it requires definite force setups rather on relying on dynamic functions that could determine which forces are actually available and ready at a base/in a theater and fire scripts with that (or not, if not enough). I don't know, maybe scenarios for PBEM don't require any scripts -- in that case one could really build such an editor to export "randomized" scenario start files?

I think the only way to fix such "problems" (if those are true problems?) would be finding a way to bring back uncertainty and the related human failures. Else, this is just a feature that both sides have to deal with.






< Message edited by janh -- 7/28/2010 3:05:52 PM >

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1086
RE: Monsoon - 7/29/2010 2:43:35 AM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3890
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
I would pay good money to have a "set up phase" where units could be placed as desired before turn one (provided that restricted units must be placed in their assigned theaters unless PPs are paid). Half of my confusion is figuring out where everything is, if I set it up myself I know and can alter my objectives more substantially. Think of the set up of old Avalon Hill board games in the 80s.

I also think an essential house rule is that both sides must pay PPs for restricted command units to cross national borders.


_____________________________


(in reply to janh)
Post #: 1087
RE: Monsoon - 7/29/2010 7:36:56 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
I think you are onto something here!

As I see it each game must be prepped according to players preferences.
Options are limited to some switches and house rules in this regard.

What I think reality fans often fails to realize is that it's impossible to simulate WWII in the Pacific.
- Without the uncertainty and knowledge about the opposing side and with the benefit of hindsight any game will be a rather dull recreation and colorless simulation.
Only by recreating the game setup with new and undefinable variables will the players get a feel for what the commanders experienced during the war.

Now we research airplanes based on know how that only became available after research and development of these models had been completed.
All games are thus greatly opportunistic and flawed if you consider them from a historical perspective.

Unfortunately this is outside of the scope of most games, so unless we play Civilization we have to rely on the options available to us.
Just the fact that I unwanting selected "Withdrawals OFF" included new and unfamiliar ground into this game. How many carriers don't you think the Japs thought they had
sunk by the end of 42? Their commanders reported more sinkings than the Americans actually had.

Because of the added strains caused by "Withdrawals OFF" I need to come up with a counter, something Andy does not expect and that will tax him as his early Burma offensive taxes me...! Will consider what this can be

_____________________________



"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 Cribtop)
Post #: 1088
RE: Monsoon - 7/29/2010 7:55:18 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
Andy stands down all his ac in Oz and Burma today!

I've performed a time consuming review off engine - airframe production and adjusted.
Most production numbers were ok but I found one serious flaw. Engine production to Dinha II and several minor ac types like the Alf
was 10 units!! Not sure what has happened here but the solution is rather simple. An increase in engine production, but only a slight one.
- In 01/43 the Dinah III becomes available and this ac uses another engine than the Dinah II. I will therefore prepare for mass production of the Dinah III while
accepting a relative low replacement rate for the Dinah II over the next coupld of months.

Somehow I've already produced 750 engines for the new Judy dive bomber that becomes available from 01/43, so I switched production of this engine off completely.
Production of many ac types have also been switched off as we have enough reserves in the pools, while production of others like the Helen II has been further increased.

I noticed that I now produce more Emily's than Mavis flying boats and need to replace some of the Mavis units. The Emily got a horrible service rating and is rather unsuitable
for smaller bases, it should mostly be operated from size 5 and larger bases.

Production of the Topsy has also been stopped and we're switching to the Thalia. Should have done this earlier, but this review of engine production finally completed this process.

The next choice I have to make is whether I should the heavy research I'm doing on the Tony directly to the Jack or George fighter or try to accelerate production of the Judy and Jills first.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Oct 27, 42

Andy sends out strong ASW units north of PH, but I-160 simply plays with them all
and tops it of by sending one of the hunters to Davy Jones locker! Well done I-160!!
- Those 8 tube launchers are great.

Sub - ASW Attacks

ASW attack near Niihau at 176,106

Japanese Ships
SS I-160

Allied Ships
DD Lansdowne, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
DD Laffey
DD Duncan

SS I-160 launches 8 torpedoes at DD Lansdowne
I-160 diving deep ....
DD Duncan fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Duncan fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Duncan fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Duncan fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Duncan fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Niihau at 176,106

Japanese Ships
SS I-160

Allied Ships
DD Buchanan

SS I-160 is sighted by escort
I-160 diving deep ....
DD Buchanan fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Buchanan fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Buchanan fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Buchanan fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Buchanan fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Niihau at 176,106

Japanese Ships
SS I-160

Allied Ships
DD Lansdowne, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Buchanan

SS I-160 launches 8 torpedoes at DD Lansdowne
I-160 diving deep ....
DD Buchanan fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Buchanan fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Buchanan attacking submerged sub ....
DD Buchanan attacking submerged sub ....
DD Buchanan fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Niihau at 175,103
Japanese Ships
SS I-160

Allied Ships
DD Ralph Talbot
DD Hughes
DD Arunta

SS I-160 is located by DD Ralph Talbot
DD Arunta fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Ralph Talbot fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Arunta fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Ralph Talbot fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Ralph Talbot fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Niihau at 175,103

Japanese Ships
SS I-160

Allied Ships
DD Hull
DD Monssen
DD Lang

SS I-160 is located by DD Hull
DD Hull fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Lang fails to find sub and abandons search
Escort abandons search for sub

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Today we bomb Nanning as always and 50 bombers also hit the "stack" in Burma.
While in the jungle casualties are low though, so these are mostly nuisance attacks to
increase disruption (since they don't get any by walking through the jungle...)

Morning Air attack on 73rd Motorised Brigade, at 57,44
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 26 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 9
Ki-48-IIa Lily x 23

Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk IA x 1
P-40E Warhawk x 1

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-48-IIa Lily: 1 destroyed, 5 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
22 x Ki-48-IIa Lily bombing from 11000 feet *
Ground Attack: 2 x 100 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
AVG/3rd Sqn with P-40E Warhawk (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 29000
Raid is overhead
No.453 Sqn RAF with Kittyhawk IA (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 29000
Raid is overhead

Also attacking 23rd Indian Division ...
Also attacking 73rd Motorised Brigade ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 7th Australian Division, at 57,44
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 36 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 29

Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk IA x 1

No Japanese losses
No Allied losses

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

Aircraft Attacking:
29 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 11000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
No.453 Sqn RAF with Kittyhawk IA (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 1 scrambling)
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 57 minutes

Also attacking 2nd British Division ...
Also attacking 7th Australian Division ...
Also attacking 2nd British Division ...
Also attacking 7th Australian Division ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Hunter is hunted by hunters and one of the hunters is sunk!




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 #: 1089
RE: Monsoon - 7/29/2010 8:09:03 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
lol, looks like I-160 is a war winner...

_____________________________


(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1090
RE: Monsoon - 7/29/2010 8:11:22 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
A little nuisance attack tomorrow:

2 teams from 2 different Para units will drop on 2 dot bases to disrupt rail traffic.
- Not sure if this will have any effect on the supply flow in the area, but it's worth a try.

If Andy does not take out the raiders they will blow up more of his railway so it should be worth a minute effort.
Maybe this will force him to deploy more garrison units in the area as well.




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 #: 1091
RE: Monsoon - 7/29/2010 8:17:52 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
PS! It has been very difficult to draw supplies into Shwebo.
Even after unloading 150k supplies into Rangoon supplies fails to distribute.
- Supplies quickly spilled out of Rangoon to other unknown locations and purposes, cause only 38k supplies remain and pulling supplies into Rangoon
has the effect of reducing supplies to other bases in the basin

_____________________________



"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 #: 1092
RE: Monsoon - 7/29/2010 9:32:50 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
Hmmh, interesting that Andy stands down in both theaters.  I can understand AUS, although I would assume that if he already would get enough aircraft replacements and good new pilots, he would keep a campaign of attrition up against you from now on everywhere.  But now he takes a break in Burma?  What is his army doing?  If it keeps advancing, then he must have problems with putting up a continuous air effort.  If it is retreating, he might call the theater a day? 

John, what are your present plans and locations of your carriers?  Do you specific plans?  What are your plans with dealing with the RN in the Indian ocean?  I think those should be taken out to silence his efforts from this region in the future...

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1093
RE: Monsoon - 7/29/2010 6:35:19 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

A little nuisance attack tomorrow:

2 teams from 2 different Para units will drop on 2 dot bases to disrupt rail traffic.
- Not sure if this will have any effect on the supply flow in the area, but it's worth a try.

If Andy does not take out the raiders they will blow up more of his railway so it should be worth a minute effort.
Maybe this will force him to deploy more garrison units in the area as well.



I suspect that it will.

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1094
RE: Monsoon - 7/29/2010 6:45:42 PM   
Rainer79

 

Posts: 603
Joined: 10/31/2008
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

PS! It has been very difficult to draw supplies into Shwebo.
Even after unloading 150k supplies into Rangoon supplies fails to distribute.
- Supplies quickly spilled out of Rangoon to other unknown locations and purposes, cause only 38k supplies remain and pulling supplies into Rangoon
has the effect of reducing supplies to other bases in the basin


Do you have the Southern Area Army HQ stationed across the border from Rangoon? It has been my experience that it will steal most excess supplies right out of Burma if it is reasonably close (i.e. Bangkok, Saigon or even Singapore).

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1095
RE: Monsoon - 7/29/2010 7:46:10 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
Most likely reason is that Andy is resting his men and machines before another major effort in both Oz and Burma
The army marching through the jungle has a pace of 2 miles per turn....and he's using Skytrains to supply them.

My plan to deal with the RN lies at the bottom of the Indian Ocean right now after their grandious sortie.
The carriers are resting while my tankers refill and bring in more fuel to bases that have been run almost dry.

Southern Area HQ is in Singapore. Think I need a major sized HQ to place in Rangoon, but none is forthcoming soon.
I can nick one from the Solomons if necessary.




_____________________________



"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 Rainer79)
Post #: 1096
RE: Monsoon - 7/29/2010 9:17:31 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

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.



Yes but unlike WITP night conditions are critical and a cruiser DD TF can eat up a BB TF in low moonlight conditions. I am learning to pay attention to this. You send your BBs out at night with no radar and low moonlight and you can end up eating torpedoes and getting no hits in return. It is more complicated now, but BBs can be defeated. Even PT boats in low moonlight can be very deadly. This is the way it should be as the old BBs on both sides were unsuited for night action due to slow turrets, rate of fire and older fire control systems.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1097
RE: Monsoon - 7/30/2010 8:01:38 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
That's true crsutton, battleships are for bombardment, escort duties and fighting other battleships and heavy cruisers now!

We're nearing the end of October and 2 seaplane tenders are almost in Tokyo to begin their conversion to light carriers.
Air units are transferred ashore and one Rufe seaplane fighter unit is increased in size to 24. Still waiting for the Musashi to be completed so I can accelerate
the Shinano (a Taiho class carrier in scen 2) and perhaps another late war carrier. The next fleet carrier to arrive is the Taiho around mid 43. 2 Katsuragi's will then follow on the next few months with the Shinano arriving around end 43 according to plans.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Oct 28, 42

Night Air Attacks

A few night air attacks from both sides with little result to show for!

Night Air attack on Chittagong , at 55,41
Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 17

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses

Runway hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
17 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 11000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb

Raid spotted at 27 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47
Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Allied aircraft
Wellington Ic x 10

Allied aircraft losses
Wellington Ic: 1 damaged

Runway hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x Wellington Ic bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
4 x Wellington Ic bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

Raid spotted at 47 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 18 minutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47
Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Allied aircraft
Wellington Ic x 12

No Allied losses

Airbase supply hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x Wellington Ic bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

Raid spotted at 44 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 16 minutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Dacca , at 56,38
Weather in hex: Severe storms

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 20

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 1 destroyed, 9 damaged

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

Raid spotted at 24 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Some attacks and sweeps, but nothing major.

Morning Air attack on 46th Indian Brigade, at 60,44
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 41 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 16

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
16 x Ki-43-Ic Oscar sweeping at 15000 feet *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 46th Indian Brigade, at 60,44
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 47 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6
Ki-48-IIa Lily x 25

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-48-IIa Lily: 2 damaged

Allied ground losses:
58 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
25 x Ki-48-IIa Lily bombing from 11000 feet *
Ground Attack: 2 x 100 kg GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Shwebo , at 59,45
Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 29 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Allied aircraft
Blenheim IV x 30
Hudson I x 27

Allied aircraft losses
Hudson I: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
4 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Airbase hits 4
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 35

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x Hudson I bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
12 x Hudson I bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
3 x Blenheim IV bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
15 x Blenheim IV bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
6 x Blenheim IV bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
3 x Hudson I bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
3 x Blenheim IV bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
3 x Blenheim IV bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Shwebo , at 59,45
Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 25 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Allied aircraft
Blenheim IV x 29

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 9

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x Blenheim IV bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
9 x Blenheim IV bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
12 x Blenheim IV bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Shwebo , at 59,45
Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 15 NM, estimated altitude 21,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 30
P-38G Lightning x 4

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
6 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 13

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

We capture only one of the dot bases in India as the other holds a weak construction unit.
I will not follow up to knock it out as all troops dropped here will be lost.

Ground combat at Rangpur (58,34)
Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 53 troops, 1 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 4
Defending force 0 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 0

Japanese adjusted assault: 5
Allied adjusted defense: 1

Japanese assault odds: 5 to 1 (fort level 3)
Japanese forces CAPTURE Rangpur !!!

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

Assaulting units:
3rd Raiding Rgt /1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Tezpur (60,36)
Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 19 troops, 1 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 3
Defending force 472 troops, 0 guns, 6 vehicles, Assault Value = 1

Japanese adjusted assault: 2
Allied adjusted defense: 5

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 1)

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

Assaulting units:
Yokosuka 1st SNLF /1

Defending units:
1st Bengal Construction Battalion

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_____________________________



"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 crsutton)
Post #: 1098
RE: Monsoon - 7/30/2010 8:02:50 AM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

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.



Yes but unlike WITP night conditions are critical and a cruiser DD TF can eat up a BB TF in low moonlight conditions. I am learning to pay attention to this. You send your BBs out at night with no radar and low moonlight and you can end up eating torpedoes and getting no hits in return. It is more complicated now, but BBs can be defeated. Even PT boats in low moonlight can be very deadly. This is the way it should be as the old BBs on both sides were unsuited for night action due to slow turrets, rate of fire and older fire control systems.



of course BBs can be defeated but... a) none of my Allied BB TFs got no radar, in fact, I guess each of my TF that includes a BB got something like two dozen radar sets and in most times more, very unlikely to be surprised and b) my lownav attacks with medium USAAF and USN heavy bombers are so devastating (even against agile DDs) that I wouldn´t move my heavy cruisers in range of a couple dozen PB4Y if I can´t provide 250 fighters on Cap for them. The BBs at least would survive the bomb hits, the CAs won´t.

In WITP as the Allied player I had nothing comparable to the Betty, in AE, the devs gave me PB4Y Liberators for lownav attacks... I´m fearing my enemy´s BBs but since I´ve got long range killer bombers I don´t fear his CAs or anything smaller anymore because the chances to move in and out unseen into an area I´m covering with my B-25D1 and PB4Y is like playing Russian roulette. Date is 4/43. And the PB4Y got a normal range of 17 so you can imagine that I´m able to cover quite an area with them, should be very rare to move forward without being in range of these babies. Of course, bad weather could ground them.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 7/30/2010 8:06:41 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 1099
RE: Monsoon - 7/30/2010 8:15:08 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
PzB, hope you don´t mind if I spam your AAR.

Just want to show and warn you about the lethality of Allied lownav attacks, move in range of the bombers and lose ships, that´s the way it is in my PBEM. Of course I´ve spent months for training the crews in lownav attacks (after spending months training navbomb to find out they couldn´t hit anything from 6000-10000ft). Now I´m employing medium USAAF bombers at 1000ft (attack bombers attack at 100ft and drop their FULL bomb load) and USN heavy bombers at 1000ft. The USN bomber numbers are still limited but three or four dozen in one area means muchos trouble for the IJN if the enemy decides to move in range. Fighters? My heavy bombers don´t care about fighters, at least not if they´re "only" facing up to 40-50.


Posting below what has happened just recently in my PBEM, an enemy CL with more than halve a dozen DDs ended up in range of my bombers. Say good bye... the CL and probably five or six DDs were sunk. The combat reports are all from the same day, had three PB4Y and one B-25C squadron in range. The same would have happened to CA because those would be even easier hit than a DD and most bombers would have focussed on the heavy cruisers.

Morning Air attack on TF, near Hollandia at 93,116

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 49 NM, estimated altitude 4,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 16 minutes


Allied aircraft
B-17F Fortress x 4
PB4Y-1 Liberator x 17


Allied aircraft losses
PB4Y-1 Liberator: 1 destroyed, 11 damaged

Japanese Ships
DD Hatsukaze, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CL Kuma, Bomb hits 4, on fire
DD Takanami
DD Yugumo, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Natsushio



Aircraft Attacking:
3 x PB4Y-1 Liberator bombing from 1000 feet
Naval Attack: 5 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
7 x PB4Y-1 Liberator bombing from 1000 feet
Naval Attack: 5 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
7 x PB4Y-1 Liberator bombing from 1000 feet
Naval Attack: 5 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
4 x B-17F Fortress bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

----------------------------------------------------------------


Morning Air attack on TF, near Hollandia at 93,116

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 12 NM, estimated altitude 6,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes


Allied aircraft
Mitchell II x 6


Allied aircraft losses
Mitchell II: 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
DD Natsushio, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CL Kuma, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage



Aircraft Attacking:
6 x Mitchell II bombing from 1000 feet
Naval Attack: 3 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

---------------------------------------------------------------------


Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Hollandia at 93,116

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 43 NM, estimated altitude 4,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes


Allied aircraft
Mitchell II x 11
PB4Y-1 Liberator x 20


Allied aircraft losses
Mitchell II: 3 damaged
PB4Y-1 Liberator: 7 damaged

Japanese Ships
DD Takanami, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Natsushio, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Kuma, Bomb hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Tokitsukaze, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage



Aircraft Attacking:
7 x PB4Y-1 Liberator bombing from 1000 feet
Naval Attack: 5 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
7 x PB4Y-1 Liberator bombing from 1000 feet
Naval Attack: 5 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
6 x PB4Y-1 Liberator bombing from 1000 feet
Naval Attack: 5 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
11 x Mitchell II bombing from 1000 feet
Naval Attack: 3 x 500 lb SAP Bomb


------------------------------------------------------------------------



_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1100
RE: Monsoon - 7/30/2010 8:38:19 AM   
PzB74


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

Sorry to say so but low level heavy bomber attacks against ships is a joke and I would never play a game were hundreds of B-24's were used in this fashion.

If you want a challenging game as Allies against Japan you play scenario 2 - but if you implement unrestricted use of e.g. heavy bombers in a low level ship bombing role the game will be all but ruined. What is the meaning of nuking half the Jap navy with an uber weapon? Japan is the underdog and the uberdog don't need these tools to defeat Japan, in my opinion it ruins the game. That's my 2C and you won't see 4Es used in this fashion in this game.

Interesting turn today! Andy sends his mediums to bomb our para raiders.
We concentrate on hitting Chittagong, recon indicates large number of bombers and transports there.

The sweeps against Chittagong were very successful as we find Warhawks and Kitthyhawks in the air there.
15 P-40's and 6 Kittyhawks are claimed shot down. When a 20+ strong escort of Oscar's encounters 5 Mohawks we loose
5 Oscars without claiming a single Mohawk. To me it seems like the Air dev team has failed to make the Oscar the fighter is really was in 42.
- The Tojo is too good and the Oscar is useless.

On the ground we destroy 13 C-47 Skytrains and a P-39 Aircobra, but I've never encountered such a strong flak before!!
You said it was useless CT? I lost 10 Sally's bombing from 11k feet to flak today.

- Andy was very jubilant over his AA efforts and while surprisingly efficient today I think the sinking of a tanker is more serious than the loss of 10 Sally's.
The lessons must be that I increase attack height to 15k against Chittagong were Andy no doubt has brought in a lot of heavy artillery....

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Oct 29, 42

Sub Attacks

We sink a large tanker on the surface. Didn't it have an escort?
Love to sink these prime targets.

More and more US sub sightings and some attacks, but usually no hits or at best a dud hit.

Submarine attack near San Francisco at 210,86

Japanese Ships
SS I-36

Allied Ships
TK William H. Berg, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

TK William H. Berg is sighted by SS I-36
SS I-36 attacking TK William H. Berg on the surface
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Amami Oshima at 101,66

Japanese Ships
xAK Kagu Maru
E Saga
DMS Taboko
AK Kyushu Maru
xAP Teison Maru
xAK Atutasan Maru
xAK Tacoma Maru
DD Kosugiri
DD Suresushio

Allied Ships
SS Wahoo

SS Wahoo launches 6 torpedoes at xAK Kagu Maru
DD Kosugiri fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Suresushio fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Kosugiri fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Kosugiri fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Kosugiri fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Kosugiri fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Aogashima at 112,67

Japanese Ships
CS Chitose
DD Akebono
DD Urakaze
DD Ushio

Allied Ships
SS Flying Fish

SS Flying Fish is sighted by escort
DD Ushio fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Ushio fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Ushio fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Ushio fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Ushio fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Pearl Harbor at 176,115

Japanese Ships
SS I-160

Allied Ships
DD Monssen
DD Hull
DD Lang

SS I-160 is located by DD Monssen
DD Hull fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Lang fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Kona at 176,121

Japanese Ships
SS I-160, hits 1

Allied Ships
DD Farenholt
DD Tucker

SS I-160 is sighted by escort
DD Tucker attacking submerged sub ....
DD Tucker cannot establish contact with SS I-160
DD Tucker loses contact with SS I-160
SS I-160 eludes DD Tucker by diving deep
SS I-160 eludes DD Tucker by diving deep
DD Tucker fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Tucker fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Tucker fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Tucker fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Kona at 176,121

Japanese Ships
SS I-160, hits 1

Allied Ships
DD Hughes
DD Arunta
DD Ralph Talbot

SS I-160 is sighted by escort
I-160 diving deep ....
DD Arunta attacking submerged sub ....
DD Arunta is out of ASW ammo
DD Arunta is out of ASW ammo
DD Arunta is out of ASW ammo
DD Ralph Talbot fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Arunta fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Arunta fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Arunta fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Arunta fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Morning Air attack on Chittagong , at 55,41
Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 15 NM, estimated altitude 36,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 42

Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk IA x 9
P-40E Warhawk x 16

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Kittyhawk IA: 3 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 7 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
37 x Ki-44-IIa Tojo sweeping at 30000 feet *

CAP engaged:
AVG/3rd Sqn with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 7 on standby, 0 scrambling)
7 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 9 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes
No.453 Sqn RAF with Kittyhawk IA (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 41 minutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Chittagong , at 55,41

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 52
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 27
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 42

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 3 destroyed, 17 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
C-47 Skytrain: 5 destroyed on ground
P-39D Airacobra: 1 destroyed on ground

Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 19

Aircraft Attacking:
20 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 11000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
29 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 11000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Chittagong , at 55,41
Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 37 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 30
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 27

Allied aircraft
Mohawk IV x 5

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 1 destroyed, 15 damaged
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
C-47 Skytrain: 1 destroyed on ground

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 7

Aircraft Attacking:
29 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 11000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
11 x Ki-43-Ic Oscar sweeping at 11000 feet *

CAP engaged:
No.60 Sqn RAF with Mohawk IV (5 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(5 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 30000
Raid is overhead
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 3rd Raiding Regiment, at 58,34 (Rangpur)
Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 45 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Allied aircraft
Blenheim I x 9
Blenheim IV x 21

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
7 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x Blenheim I bombing from 15000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
15 x Blenheim IV bombing from 15000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
6 x Blenheim IV bombing from 15000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 3rd Raiding Regiment, at 58,34 (Rangpur)
Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 39 NM, estimated altitude 21,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Allied aircraft
Blenheim IV x 6

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
6 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x Blenheim IV bombing from 15000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 castor troy)
Post #: 1101
RE: Monsoon - 7/30/2010 8:55:20 AM   
MikeS4269


Posts: 182
Joined: 9/14/2004
Status: offline
I am left wondering what kind of briefing those paras had before going out on this particular mission....

I raise a glass in their honor.

May their sacrifice never be forgotten and may we forever sing their praises at the great Yasukuni Shrine!

Lb

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1102
RE: Monsoon - 7/30/2010 9:04:57 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
LoL! That's indeed true, but since this game is all about abstractions that was actually a mission initiated with Chandra Bose and Pro Japanese Indian soldiers that dropped into a few villages to encourage a patriotic war to free India of the Imperialists and install a more benign rule

In 1944 the entire 11th Division in the Pelieleus was ordered to kill as many Americans as possible. There would be no hope for salvation, just an oath to defend the Empire and the Emperor to the last bullot. And so it was...

It is in this contect I feel justified to undertake such missions as Japan, doing it as the Allies would be harder to justify.

_____________________________



"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 MikeS4269)
Post #: 1103
RE: Monsoon - 7/30/2010 10:01:59 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
I think your air campaign in Burma is very promising.

From what I gather from other AARs (see Cannorebel, and other at this stage), the allied production of air frames at this point in time is still lagging behind your numbers, and it will keep that way from almost 6-12 months until Andy could "produce" parity.  I think these months you could use to attritt him in OZ and Burma.  His losses have been systematically almost a factor of 2-4 higher than yours.  He looses lots of pilots, especially when you are fighting on home territory with CAP.  Any pilot he looses now while you still have a chance to make him pay at a favorable loss rate is a pilot that will not gain experience to come up against you in 43 and 44 with much better planes.  So I would drive the campaign in Burma hard, and even try to organize a ground offensive.  He is binding tons of your heaviest units, and his unit numbers don't really tell you what true strength and troop numbers he is having there?   And I do not get the impression he is seriously advancing against you.  More like probing, maybe even just demonstrating.  Why not finally take the initiative back into your hands and engage him?

Same in the Indian Ocean.  Yes, the loss of 3 BB is bad for Japan.  And yes, I would be more careful now too.  Maybe having send them as raiders elsewhere they could have sunk a couple of TK and AK before getting sunk, and that would perhaps be worth more in the long shot?  Anyway, the age of BB is over, and you need to cover BB and CA always with LBA, of CV's.  I find you could make more use of your carriers, even if that burns a lot of fuel.   Now is the time where the RN and USN are still comparably weak, and have worse fighters than in a year from now.  So if you want to regain the initiative, and "drive Andy nuts", I would fight now.

Send KB to cover another BB SRON in Indian ocean, and raid Ceylon again.  Find the RN before Andy can send USN CV's from CentPac over.  Andy will likely not do so, nor will he attempt another badly prepared Palmyra disataster within ~3-5 months I would bet.  It will take him time to recover from that, and he probably is busy organizing an advance on Darwin, and of transfer idle units from AUS Zone 3 to CentPac to back up future amphib ops.   I would rush KB back from the Indian ocean exercise immediately, no matter whether you can bag the RN, and send 1 or 2 BB and CA out raiding the convoys in CentPac and EastPac, with KB hovering hidden behind.  If you hit a couple of convoys, he would likely be forced to commit the USN CV's to cover his routes of supply.  Maybe you get a favorble battle such as John 3rd just reported in his AAR?  That would be exactly the trick I would do.

Preserving fuel for later is likely wasting it, because later, when the allied advance begins in earnest, you will have interior lines and short routes.  And judging from other AARs, you won't be moving your ships a lot anymore anyways because of the allied air superiority.  By then, fuel is probably not your biggest problem anymore, but rather the much improved AAA armament of the allied ships compared to now, or the new Corsairs, Hellcats, Mustangs, Thunderbolts etc.  I think you navy is much more powerful and valuable compared to Andy's at this point, and now you need to go shopping with it...












< Message edited by janh -- 7/30/2010 10:03:15 AM >

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1104
RE: Monsoon - 7/30/2010 11:11:43 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
Yes indeed janh, we can have a lot of fun in the air in Burma over the next 6 months, but as mentioned the range from my main bases
and to enemy troops and rear airfields is so long that I can't get the full strength to bear. If Andy advance just another hex or two things will change drastically.

I also need to figure out what is inside that 26 units stack; all the units I've bombed thus far is division and brigade sized.
Any advance into that jungle north of the basin will be into the teeth of enemy bomber formations and as noticed, units move 2 miles a day.
The only option is an advance up the road to Akyab, but such a march also takes much time and until I know the enemy plans and strength I will wait.
- If and when the Army is committed the battle should already be all but won, can't afford any big FUBARS in Burma!

I do have plans for the Fleet as well, but would like to keep them for myself until further notice
It's not like I'm hoarding fuel, but any major offensive requires planning. Forward bases must be provided with fuel and replenishment fleets must be topped up
and placed along the fleets path. The fastest fleet oilers must also sortie with the fleet if required.

Sending battleships as raiders is too costly and risky, a single ship inflicts little damage on a huge enemy convoy.
The escorts will draw it into combat and ammo is quickly expended and there won't be a refill in thousands of miles. The sortie with the Chikuma in the beginning of the war
showed just this. If you wish to achieve something in AE you need carriers. Whether to strike against the British Eastern Fleet or the Americans in the Central Pacific then becomes
the big question. Do I want to send the KB to the Indian Ocean?

South of Tennant Creek a stack of 12 enemy units has been spotted towards Tennant.
- My next task is to identify these units and figure out whether to stand or attack.

_____________________________



"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 janh)
Post #: 1105
RE: Monsoon - 7/30/2010 11:30:28 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
Found a few interesting links:

U.S. Ships Sunk or Damaged in Pacific Area during World War II

I looked up the William H. Berg, the tanker just sunk, and found an interesting story about Jap sub activity in 42.
The web page was messy and filled with adds and junk so I'll paste the article in here:

The War Off California by Michael Ellis

A Night to Remember On the evening of Monday, February 23rd, 1942, Ellwood, California is quiet.

The coastal oil refineries in the Ellwood Oil Field are mostly deserted except for some workmen still on duty. Most of their fellows have gone home, whilst others have gone to nearby Wheeler’s Inn to relax before retiring home for a night’s rest. Just after 7:00 PM the President begins his Fireside Chat, and the radio at Wheeler’s Inn is tuned to that broadcast. The tranquillity of the scene is ironic considering the events taking place elsewhere in the world. On the Eastern Front, the Red Army has retaken Dorogobuzh, a town about fifty miles east of Smolensk. President Franklin Roosevelt has just ordered General MacArthur to leave his beleaguered forces on Luzon and report to Australia. On the Sittang River in Burma, Japanese troops threaten to envelop the British Army’s 17th Indian Division as it attempts to withdraw under heavy fire. Singapore and its 100,000-strong garrison has fallen, and within the next two weeks, the Dutch stronghold on Java will follow. Admiral William Halsey’s meager naval task force based around the aircraft carrier Enterprise is approaching Wake Island, which fell to the Japanese onslaught two months previous.

And cruising silently off Ellwood is a lone, undetected Japanese submarine. Poised to Strike That submarine is HIJMSI-17 under the command of Japanese Navy Commander Kozo Nishino. Launched in 1939, I-17 displaces 3,654 tons submerged, employs a crew of 101 officers and men, and is armed with six 21” torpedo tubes with eleven spare torpedoes plus the six already in the tubes. When cruising at 16 knots, I 17 had a range of 14,000nm. She could also carry a single seaplane if her mission required her to do so. Finally, I-17 carried a single 5.5”/40 caliber (140mm) deck gun for surface attacks or shore bombardments. That deck gun will be employed to effect this night.

Commander Nishino knows the area around Ellwood well. Prior to the outbreak of hostilities, Nishino had captained an oil tanker which loaded at the Ellwood facility many times. The scene on the conning tower can be easily reconstructed. It has been three days sinceI-17 arrived on her patrol station off San Diego. So far, no shipping targets have been found. The crew, full of bushido, the Samurai warrior code, are no doubt itching for action. Nishino too is probably anxious for a chance to fight. The Japanese Empire has won victory after victory in the Pacific and even the most level headed in the High Command are affected by it. Soon this euphoric attitude will cause several disastrous miscalculations which will lead to Japan’s defeat. The staff officers will call it “victory disease.” On February 23rd, however, this is all in the future.

Now theI-17 is sailing off the Ellwood Oil Field. Nishino will probably be sweeping the horizon with his binoculars, his eyes keenly adjusted to the rapidly approaching darkness. Until the US Navy’s introduction of shipboard fire control radars later that year, the Japanese have the advantage in night actions, for their shipboard optics and lookout training are the best in the world.

The tall, pyramidal derricks of Ellwood’s oil wells come into sight. Nishino may have called down to his navigator to get his position, or maybe he knew already. The coast seems almost totally quiet, and there is no sign of armed opposition in the vicinity. “What to do now?”, Nishino doubtlessly wonders.

His mind probably drifts back to the days just after the Pearl Harbor attack when I-17 and seven of her sister submarines were deployed to positions off the U.S. West Coast. The submarine force’s commanding officer, Vice Admiral Shimizu, passes on instructions for the submarines to shell targets along the coast on Christmas Eve. This decision comes from the Imperial High Command. The operation is postponed until the 27th, and then finally cancelled outright. A key reason in the cancellation of the shelling is the fear of American reprisals if civilian areas such as Los Angeles or San Francisco are attacked.

As I-17 cuts through the sea unseen from the shore, Nishino makes his decision and calls down into the sub’s steel hull. “General Quarters! Action stations, guns!”
The disciplined crew quickly take up their positions. They will carry out a bombardment of the U.S. mainland, the first such attack since the War of 1812. Why Commander Nishino chooses to attack is not known with any certainty. Perhaps I-17’s other officers coaxed him into the decision, or he wants to goad a fight with any nearby American warships. One rumour which circulated after the war is that an incident of some sort took place when his tanker was loading at Ellwood. Angered by this incident, he now has a chance to take his revenge.

Ultimately, however, Nishino’s reason is of little concern. What is of real concern, however, is the fact that Nishino and the I-17 are about to cause quite a commotion in Southern California. “It started about 7:15…” Inside Wheeler’s Inn, dinner is being served to the patrons by the owner, Laurence Wheeler, and his staff. Franklin Roosevelt’s characteristic New England brogue is echoing from a radio set. During the broadcast, he claims: "…the broad oceans that have been heralded in the past as our protection from attack have become endless battlefields on which we are constantly being challenged by our enemies". As if to underline this statement in the most vivid manner possible, Nishino orders his gun crew to open fire. The first shells land in one of the refineries. The workmen on site are no doubt baffled momentarily. Maybe an underground gas pocket has caught fire and exploded violently to the surface. Perhaps a fifth-column saboteur dynamited something in the refinery. Several seconds later, another explosion rocks the area. They wonder what is happening.

Then someone spots the submarine out to sea. A witness, refinery workman G.O. Brown, later describes it as “so big that I thought it might be a destroyer or a cruiser.” Brown and the others race to inform the local authorities.
A shell sails over Wheeler’s Inn, and Laurence Wheeler telephones the Sheriff’s office. They tell Wheeler planes will be there in “ten minutes”, but no planes arrive. I-17 escapes undamaged. Around the same time, I-17 is observed by Reverend Arthur Basham of Pomona, California. Reverend Basham was visiting Montecito, about sixteen miles east of Ellwood. He later told the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s office that the submarine was: “…heading south toward Los Angeles and flashing lights as if it were attempting to signal with the shore.” Reports of lights flashing out to sea in the Santa Barbara-Ventura area are also reported. The Santa Barbara area is blacked out after the attack (the all-clear signal was given at 12:12 am.) I-17’s attack lasted somewhere around twenty minutes. Nishino’s crew fired between twelve and twenty-five 5.5” AP (armor-piercing) shells, causing little actual harm apart from a direct hit on an oil derrick and slight damage to a catwalk and a portion of the Ellwood Pier. The attack, first reported by the Associated Press Wire Service, sent a chill up the country’s spine. The next day’s Late City Edition of The New York Times carried the headline: SUBMARINE SHELLS CALIFORNIA OIL PLANT. The attack also exacerbated animosity towards the Japanese-American population of California, already at a critical point because of the attacks on Pearl Harbor. The Silent Hunters The bombardment of Ellwood was an unintended climax to the Japanese Navy’s submarine warfare campaign off the U.S. West Coast. Although Japanese submarine doctrine emphasized that submarines were intended to sink capital ships in order to weaken an enemy’s potential battle line, their captains would usually attack merchant shipping if the opportunity arose. Indeed, the first attack occurred before the first bombs fell on Pearl Harbor.

The steam schooner Cynthia Olson was about 1,000nm northwest of Diamond Head, Hawaii on December 7th when she was attacked at 8:00 am (Hawaiian Time) by the submarine I-26 under Commander Yokota. A shore station received an SOS signal from the Cynthia Olson reporting a submarine attack. This message was the last that was heard of both the Cynthia Olson and her 33 crew and passengers, which included two U.S. Army radio specialists, one of whom probably sent the SOS signal.

On the 11th, the freighter Lahaina was sunk 800nm of Honolulu by Lieutenant-Commander Fujii’s I-9. Four of the crew were killed, two from jumping overboard during the attack, and two dying from exposure during the ten days the survivors spent at sea before washing ashore at Kahtilui, Maui.

Several more ships were sunk close to Hawaii during December of 1941, but they are not as relevant as the sinking of the tanker Emidio on December 20th. A Prequel to Ellwood The Emidio, an oil tanker bound from Seattle to Ventura, was attacked by Nishino’sI-17 on the afternoon of the 20th at a position twenty miles off Blunts Reef. Lookouts aboard the Emidio spotted the submarine, but Nishino overtook the tanker and opened fire, forcing the Emidio’s captain, Clarke Arthur Farrow, to stop the ship. Nishino continued firing, one shell hitting #3 lifeboat and killing two of the crew. Three others died when another boat overturned. As the crew abandoned the tanker, a navy patrol bomber appeared overhead and attacked the fleeing I-17 with depth charges, which did no damage, but drove off the submarine. The tanker’s survivors were later rescued by the Coast Guard cutter Shawnee. The tanker did not sink immediately, however, and drifted aground near Crescent City, California, wrecking herself against the rocky shore. Two days previous to his attack on the Emidio, Nishino had attacked the San Diego bound freighter Samoa with torpedoes and her deck gun. The attack failed to damage the ship, however, and Samoa arrived in San Diego safely.

The same day as the Emidio was sunk, Lieutenant-Commander Shibata’s I-23 attacked the tanker Agwiworld off Santa Cruz, firing eight shots from her deck gun. However, the tanker’s captain managed to evade Shibata by zig-zaging. Agwiworld sought refuge in a nearby coastal anchorage and reached her destination safely a few days later.

On December 22nd, the I-19 under Lieutenant-Commander Narahara chased the oil tanker H.M. Storey for an hour before firing three torpedoes. All the torpedoes miss and the H.M. Storey escapes I-19, only to be sunk in May 1943 by I-25.
The next day saw Nishino’s I-17 attack the tanker Larry Doheny southwest of Cape
Mendocino. Nishino fires four shells at the tanker, causing some damage, but the appearance of a patrol plane forces him to dive. Later, he executes a torpedo attack against the tanker, but the torpedo detonates prematurely. The Larry Doheny escapes with minor damage.

Commander Matsumura’s I-21 had more success that day. He found the tanker Montebello off Cambria, California. A torpedo struck the tanker’s #2 hold and set the ship ablaze. Within twenty minutes the entire crew had begun to abandon ship. Matsumura fired several deck gun rounds into the burning tanker to speed her sinking. All hands from the Montebello survived. Later that day, I-21 attacked the tanker Idaho without success.

Monterey Bay was the site of another attack on December 24th. The steamer Dorothy Philips was attacked by I-23. The sub’s lookouts initially identify the Dorothy Philips as an old gunboat, but soon realize their mistake. I-23 shells the steamer, damaging her rudder and forcing the ship aground.

On December 25th, Narahara’s I-19 attacks the lumber carrier Absaroka about three miles off Point Vicente. One of the submarines torpedoes hits the #5 hold, causing extensive damage and forcing the crew to abandon ship. The Absaroka is later reboarded and towed back to San Pedro. I-19, meanwhile, attacks the Barbara Olson off San Pedro with torpedoes, but misses. She is counterattacked by a U.S. Navy coastal patrol vessel, but escapes without damage.

One final attack took place on the 28th, when Commander Tagami’s I-25 damaged the tanker Connecticut with a torpedo. Connecticut runs aground as a result of the torpedo, but is later salvaged. I-25 also attacked the tanker L.P. St. Clair on December 14th without effect.

By the end of December 1941, the Japanese submarines operating off the West Coast were low on fuel and provisions, and were ordered back to their bases in the Marshall Islands to resupply and refuel. Finally, on February 28th, five days after the attack on Ellwood, Nishino and the I-17 attacked the tanker William H. Berg with a torpedo which detonates prematurely. Although Nishino thinks he hit the tanker, in fact she escapes undamaged.




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 #: 1106
RE: Monsoon - 7/30/2010 11:35:24 AM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: PzB

No problem CT

Sorry to say so but low level heavy bomber attacks against ships is a joke and I would never play a game were hundreds of B-24's were used in this fashion.




you seem to misunderstand or miss something.

We´ve got a hr about no USAAF heavy bombers below 10000ft on nav attack. On 10000ft my USAAF heavy bombers and on 6000ft my USAAF medium bombers have dropped about 1800 500lb bombs during a couple of turns in a row for not a single hit on enemy shipping (from freighters to cruisers) - no joke, this with 70 navbomb skill. That were the turns when I decided to a) train my crews in lownav because they couldn´t hit something with 70 skill from 10000ft (4E) or from 6000ft (2E) and wait for my USN bombers to show up as well as my attack bombers

USN heavy bombers are allowed to do lownav attacks because that´s what they did in real life, same goes for USAAF medium bombers and the attack bombers attack at 100ft by default.

There aren´t hundreds of B-24 on lownav attack because USAAF isn´t allowed to do so. And I guess you have to admit that USN heavy bombers exactly did this in real life. About 3,437 times more often than Betties or Nells attacked with torps btw...


Operationally, the classic use of patrol bombers is to hunt down and sink enemy ships. The Privateer stepped easily into this role, the way having been paved by years of anti-submarine and anti-ship operations in Navy PB4Y-1 Liberators and USAAF B-24s equipped with a series of radar sets collectively known as "Low Altitude Bombing" sets. By WWII standards, the Privateer was lavishly equipped with an electronic suite that could be customized on a mix and match basis so that Privateers could be airborne communication platforms, radar and radio station hunter/killers, anti shipping search and destroy units, weather reconnaissance planes or search and rescue units to locate downed airmen with their radio direction finders. If the situation demanded, they could even act as their own standoff anti radar jamming unit.

Patrol craft are not glamorous, like fighter planes, or vital to the troops on the ground like bombers, close support attack planes, or the cargo planes that keep them supplied. What the Privateer lacked in pizzazz, it more than made up for in versatility and practicality. The Navy wanted the seas swept clear of enemy transport, enemy radars, enemy radio navigation aids, and enemy scouting vessels. It wanted mines planted, submarines harassed or destroyed, communications augmented and weather information for 1,300 miles around the Privateer's base. No other aircraft was as capable of this as the Privateer .




If you restrict USN heavy bombers from lownav attacks then you have to restrict Betties from using torps. It´s that easy. No, you could allow around 100-150 torpedoes dropped from Betties and that´s it then.


And regarding my question about flak, yes, in my game it´s useless. Stacked bases in Burma with 200+ 3.7 inch guns (all in combat mode of course) and the average kill numbers are 1,5 ac per attack out of 50+ bombers at 11000ft. In 4/43, Allied flak downed something like 500 Japanese ac, out of 5500 lost in total. Japanese flak downed something like 150 Allied ac out of 4500 total.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 7/30/2010 11:46:08 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1107
RE: Monsoon - 7/30/2010 11:45:17 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
The challenge with AE is that some weapons don't work as intended; either they hit anything at all or they hit to well and to much.
When you show results were a cruisers and 4 destroyers are sunk by 20-30 Liberators something is wrong.

"In addition to very long range patrols, the B-24 was vital for patrols of a radius less than 1,000 mi (1,600 km), in both the Atlantic and Pacific theaters where U.S. Navy Privateers and USAAF B-24s took a heavy toll of German and Japanese submarines, and also some Japanese surface shipping."

_Some_ Japanse surface shipping". I don't define wiping out fleets as some

Medium bombers like the B-25 was a more usual ship bomber in 43-44 and reflects a challenge to Japan in AE as well.

- If 4Es can be designed to score a few hits now and then, especially against slow and vulnerable targets --> fine.
Until this happens I think we need houserules to play a balanced game. If you wish to play a game without rules that's also fine, but then
this game can't be compared with others that have.

Let us leave it at that




< Message edited by PzB -- 7/30/2010 11:51:12 AM >


_____________________________



"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 #: 1108
RE: Monsoon - 7/30/2010 11:54:52 AM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: PzB

The challenge with AE is that some weapons don't work as intended; either they hit anything or they hit to well and to much.
When you show results were a cruisers and 4 destroyers are sunk by 20-30 Liberators something is wrong.

Medium bombers like the B-25 was a more usual ship bomber in 43-44 and reflects a challenge to Japan in AE as well.

- If 4Es can be designed to score a few hits now and then, especially against slow and vulnerable targets --> fine.
Until this happens I think we need houserules to play a balanced game. If you wish to play a game without rules that's also fine, but then
this game can't be compared with others that have.

Let us leave it at that






to each his own, no problem. But you are aware of the Betties, Nells, Frances and Peggies and what you, me and other Japanese players did with them in WITP and AE. While I´m the same fanboy as you (I´m only playing the wrong side at the moment), there are these complaints on one side while we use this "special" weapon on and on and have been doing so for years. Everyone seems so used to these torp attacks that it seems it´s believed that this is how it was done in real life. A classic WITP or AE game sees hundreds of ships sunk by 18 inch aerial dropped torps, and that seems to be normal . Problem indeed is, that it was absolutely the other way around in real life. PB4Y on lownav attacks sunk far more ships than Betties did with torps and I´m sure you are as aware of that historic fact like I am. Now many if not most of these attacks happened during dawn or even at night, but how would the outcry look like when I would start setting these bombers to night attack and they would start hitting ships with the enemy totally unable to defend itself?

We´ve all read the same books and know what happened in real life, we´re only discussing small issues usually, while there usually is consens on the big picture. And the big picture is more or less what I´ve written above. No? Would there be an outcry if I post a combat report of 20 Betties sinking 3 or 4 Allied DDs with torps? You don´t need to answer this question, just think about it...

< Message edited by castor troy -- 7/30/2010 11:56:09 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1109
RE: Monsoon - 7/30/2010 12:06:16 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
My last post on this issue in your AAR as this really goes into spamming your really interesting AAR and I don´t want to fed you up anyway. Below there´s something nice I´ve found about VPB-117, which was equipped with 15 PB4Y Privateers. You quote "some Japanese shipping was sunk by these bombers". Ok, it depends on how you quantify "some" of course. These are the stats and claims for ONE squadron, not for the entire USN heavy bomber force. And I bet this single squadron sunk more enemy ships than all Betties, Nells, Frances and Peggies together sunk with torps. Again, I´m a JFB just as you, but we should not ignore how it really was.

edit: this squadron was commissioned in early 44 btw, so we´re not talking about years of attacks, but one and a halve year of attacks.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by castor troy -- 7/30/2010 12:13:47 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1110
Page:   <<   < prev  35 36 [37] 38 39   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Monsoon Page: <<   < prev  35 36 [37] 38 39   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

1.191