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: DISASTER IN BURMA!

 
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: DISASTER IN BURMA! Page: <<   < prev  40 41 [42] 43 44   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/19/2010 9:10:06 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Yep, those last tankers will hurt!
- Still it's a costly and time consuming operation we have launched. I'm using 2 replenishment fleets and it has taken weeks to get them unnoticed into the Central Pacific.
A natural #2 assignment will now be to destroy the Allied buildup in the Marquese islands.

No idea were US carriers are; some will still be repairing battle damage and I would assume West Coast and PH.
It's also possible that Andy has transferred one or more to the Indian Ocean but I don't think this is the case.

Andy will not sortie his carriers unless he thinks he can take on only a part of the Combined Fleet; as long as the KB is around he will shun the place.
So if we want to arrange a carrier clash we need to use bait and trickery

Being able to take a battle of attrition in Burma is hardly a victory, but at least we prevented a major defeat.
We need 2-3 weeks to rest and replenish our troops in the region and bring in reinforcements. A New Years offensive may be an option unless Andy goes at it again (which I think he will).

I have not see anything more of the RN since the massacre of our Bombardment Fleet.
The Mini KB together with 100 naval bombers in Rangoon and Port Blair is more than enough deterrent; on the other hand the Mini KB is to weak to go hunting on its own.
- So I'm playing a waiting game in the Indian Ocean; maybe Andy will sortie again and / or try to bring in more supplies to Chittagong. He will have to if he's planning another offensive...so let's prepare a welcome committee for him


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Nov 28, 42

Sub Attack

US subs are getting more numerous; this hit wasn't lethal fortunately.
Sub attack near Tokara Retto at 99,62

Japanese Ships
xAK Batopaha Maru, Torpedo hits 1
CMc Ma 1
CMc Ma 2

Allied Ships
SS Shark

SS Shark launches 4 torpedoes at xAK Batopaha Maru
Shark diving deep ....
CMc Ma 2 fails to find sub, continues to search...
CMc Ma 2 fails to find sub, continues to search...
CMc Ma 2 fails to find sub, continues to search...
CMc Ma 2 fails to find sub, continues to search...
CMc Ma 2 fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

The usual attacks by our AF in Burma and Australia.

Morning Air attack on 1st Motor Brigade, at 79,138
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 33 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 17

No Japanese losses

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

Aircraft Attacking:
17 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 8000 feet *
Ground Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 3rd Motor Brigade, at 76,135
Weather in hex: Clear sky

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

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 27

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

Allied ground losses:
42 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
27 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 7000 feet *
Ground Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 3rd Motor Brigade, at 76,135
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 16 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 15
Ki-21-Ic Sally x 27

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

Allied ground losses:
42 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
27 x Ki-21-Ic Sally bombing from 5000 feet *
Ground Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Tennant Creek , at 76,137
Weather in hex: Overcast

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

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 27

No Japanese losses

Runway hits 26

Aircraft Attacking:
27 x Ki-49-IIa Helen bombing from 9000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The KB runs accross another merchant cruiser and pummels it!

Morning Air attack on TF, near San Diego at 224,108
Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 39 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 18
D3A1 Val x 15

No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
AMC Monowai, Bomb hits 12, heavy fires, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
11 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring AMC Monowai
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Nov 29, 42

Air Combat

Morning Air attack on 1st Motor Brigade, at 79,138
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 25 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 18

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
70 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 6 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 7 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 6 (2 destroyed, 4 disabled)

Aircraft Attacking:
18 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 8000 feet *
Ground Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A bit dissappointed by the damage done by Jap bombers; poor weather not an excuse this turn; light cloud.
Still 78 bombers achieved 2+3 hits...that's terrible and no more than a single 4E achieves on its own.

I'm keeping the attacks up to prevent Andy from expanding the base.

Morning Air attack on Shwebo , at 59,45

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 41 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 78
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 41
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 29
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 17

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 29 damaged

Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 3

Aircraft Attacking:
20 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
33 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
25 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 15000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Shwebo , at 59,45
Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 16 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 27

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49-IIa Helen: 1 damaged

Runway hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
27 x Ki-49-IIa Helen bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Shwebo , at 59,45
Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 29 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 25
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 28

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

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

Runway hits 5

Aircraft Attacking:
25 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 15000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Burma




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 janh)
Post #: 1231
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/20/2010 9:47:23 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Nov 30, 42

Air Combat

Most of our escorts stayed home and we suffered heavy losses by a LRCAP of P-39's of all thing!

Afternoon Air attack on 66th Chinese/A Corps, at 61,46

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 16 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6
Ki-48-IIa Lily x 17

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 20

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed
Ki-48-IIa Lily: 7 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 1 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x Ki-48-IIa Lily bombing from 5000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 100 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
AVG/1st Sqn with P-39D Airacobra (20 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(27 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
20 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 14000
Raid is overhead
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

This was a bit typical - and expected; a crack Jap regiment; 99 exp and 91 morale attacked
a 1/3 Chink Corps which we know would be lucky to have half the Jap stats and training.
- Still terrain was the only meaningful factor. What happened to quality in AE?

Ground combat at 61,46
Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 3632 troops, 26 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 127
Defending force 2487 troops, 39 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 96

Japanese adjusted assault: 117
Allied adjusted defense: 142

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2

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

Japanese ground losses:
66 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
209 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 14 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled

Assaulting units:
47th Infantry Regiment

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

_____________________________



"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 #: 1232
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/20/2010 9:59:57 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 01, 42

Sub Attacks

Submarine attack near Hiva Oa at 192,169

Japanese Ships
SS I-169

Allied Ships
xAK Alcoa Pennant, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage

xAK Alcoa Pennant is sighted by SS I-169
SS I-169 attacking on the surface
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

The most constructive thing we did today was to bomb an armored bde in North Oz.
All attacks in Burma is doing fine little else than burning supplies.

Guess Andy's escorts and sweepers stayed home again today cause all his B-17s came out against
Mandalay alone. The first 61 met no opposition but the following 2x6 flights met a total of 73 fighters with plenty
of time to intercpet; yeah that's overkill - you would think.

The results were simply that all our fighters were damaged, shot down, spent their ammo, fuel, chickened out or some other failure.
Not a single 4E was reported shot down and all 12 bombed Mandalay. True enough, 4 were reported as OP losses against 4 Tojo's lost in A2A.

- I know what Andy would say; I lost 4 irreplacable B-17's....yeah, but shouldn't 73 fighters make short process of 12 unescorted Forts?
Was this just another in the long long line of poorly organized and executed attacks in poor weather were we should expect this realistic outcome?

What do you think, is this out of whack or high level realism

Morning Air attack on Mandalay , at 59,46
Weather in hex: Heavy rain

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

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 1

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 61
B-25C Mitchell x 3

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 2 damaged

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

Airbase hits 7
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Mandalay , at 59,46
Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 33 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 4
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 39

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 6

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

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 2 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
260th Sentai/B with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(4 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 30000
Raid is overhead
260th Sentai/C with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(4 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 30000
Raid is overhead
11th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (13 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(13 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
13 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 30000
Raid is overhead
50th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (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
64th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (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 15000
Raid is overhead
77th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (8 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(8 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 30000
Raid is overhead
68th Sentai/B with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(4 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Mandalay , at 59,46
Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 17 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 1
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 29

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 6

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

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 2 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
77th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(2 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 30000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 170 minutes
50th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (7 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(4 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
7 plane(s) intercepting now.
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 30000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 30000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 16 minutes
64th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (8 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(8 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes
260th Sentai/B with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 30000
Raid is overhead
11th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 30000
Raid is overhead
68th Sentai/B with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 112 minutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Untouchables

These Forts have been armed with rapid cycling lasers and titanized armor plates; our 39 Tojo's got whacked as they should be against suck uber power.





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 #: 1233
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/20/2010 10:09:05 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		Your results in this case were particularly poor. Generally, though, you can and will do better. I have done better. Forts are tough, but once they are gone, it will get easier until the super forts come along. Liberators, although tough, are not nearly as tough as the forts.

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1234
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/20/2010 10:24:49 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Well, I've never done better and never managed to directly shoot down more than a couple of B-17s in any circumstances in AE.
It could of course be that the Tojo doesn't pack enough punch but with high quality pilots and so many fighters I would expect more.

- One of the problems may be that in AE all the fighters go in piecemeal; in real life they would go in 2 and 2 or more and disrupt the defensive gunners.

One thing I know and that is that we can never stop or turn back a formation of 50+ Forts, not even with 250 Tojo's.



_____________________________



"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 CapAndGown)
Post #: 1235
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/20/2010 11:13:01 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline 		Hmmh, it does sound very weired -- if not like a joke -- that 73 Ki-44 wouldn't score some success against 12 B17 in flights of sixes.  Either your pilots are totally inexperienced, forgot their ammo, or were caught in a typical Burmese "snow" storm and missed the party...   Maybe they had way to much sake.  Seriously, if the circumstances were not totally against them, coming in droves they should have downed at least a few of them directly.   The Fortresses are armored comparably well, yes, but 73 should have managed to convert some wings and engines intp cheese -- more than just 4 operational losses...  Maybe would be interesting to send a save to the developers and have them analyze why basically nothing happened.

< Message edited by janh -- 8/20/2010 11:14:50 PM >

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1236
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/21/2010 12:13:35 AM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A bit dissappointed by the damage done by Jap bombers; poor weather not an excuse this turn; light cloud.
Still 78 bombers achieved 2+3 hits...that's terrible and no more than a single 4E achieves on its own.

I'm keeping the attacks up to prevent Andy from expanding the base.

Morning Air attack on Shwebo , at 59,45

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 41 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 78
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 41
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 29
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 17

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 29 damaged

Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 3

Aircraft Attacking:
20 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
33 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
25 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 15000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No surprising result: Bombing from 15,000 feet, no heavy bombload for the Sallies (25 of them did even fly extended range with a bombload of just 2x 250kg) and ostensibly quite heavy flak that damaged some bombers and disrupted the others (seems that Andy has some 3.7in AA guns at Shwebo). B-17 at normal range (8x 500lbs = 4,000lbs) has the double bombload as a Sally at normal range (4x 250 = 2,000lbs). B-17 has longer range, of course.

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1237
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/21/2010 12:17:11 AM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

Hmmh, it does sound very weired -- if not like a joke -- that 73 Ki-44 wouldn't score some success against 12 B17 in flights of sixes.  Either your pilots are totally inexperienced, forgot their ammo, or were caught in a typical Burmese "snow" storm and missed the party...   Maybe they had way to much sake.  Seriously, if the circumstances were not totally against them, coming in droves they should have downed at least a few of them directly.   The Fortresses are armored comparably well, yes, but 73 should have managed to convert some wings and engines intp cheese -- more than just 4 operational losses...  Maybe would be interesting to send a save to the developers and have them analyze why basically nothing happened.


Depends on how many actually engaged the B-17's. Not shown in the Combat Reports. But it seems that the Ki-44's at least disrupted the B-17's (if PzB did not delete their bombing results before posting the CR's).

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 1238
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/21/2010 4:08:47 PM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline
hi PzB... nice to see youre doing good. Good ol' Andy the Steamroller (Burma and Australia, lol). Saw your raids with KB - congrats. Where were Andy's carriers?

Well, i have to say that i predict some things correctly with Allied Edition and im sorry to see you struggle with that same things. Oh well...

im more interested if you have some news for STL.ol...(you can PM me if you like) im pretty suprised that this stock is under 125 last several weeks :)

_____________________________


(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 1239
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/21/2010 5:00:33 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Ground combat in Burma (as well as the extreme terrain modifiers)and 4E uberability are my main concerns in AE.
If there is something I would like to discuss with the devs it would be these areas.

Yes, we obviously disturbed the 2x6 B-17's - but 70 fighters should have that effect. Some fighters attacked after the bombing runs
but in total 80-85% of the fighters attacked or tried to attack.

Hi Pauk-San, will send you a PM!
Andy's carriers have been somewhat put out of action for some time. 1 Yorktown class carrier was bombarded and sunk in Sydney while its sisters both were torpedoed and
damaged by subs. The Lexington and Sara fled and are probably repaired by now. There is a British carrier fleet in the Indian Ocean; so Andy don't want to face the KB with
3-4 US carriers.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 02, 42

Sub vs Sub

Close call for the RO-63!

Sub vs Sub: SS Gar attacking SS RO-63 at 175,102 - near Niihau
Japanese Ships
SS RO-63

Allied Ships
SS Gar

SS Gar launches 6 torpedoes at 3,000 yards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Zeke's from an escort carrier swept Dacca, then we bombed from long range with 19 Sally's and destroyed
a B-17 on the ground and damanged several other 4Es.

The results by these Sally's were quite good despite bombing from long range and 15k feet.

Morning Air attack on Dacca , at 56,38
Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 35 NM, estimated altitude 30,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 13

Allied aircraft
P-40K Warhawk x 2

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-40K Warhawk: 1 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
10 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 30000 feet

CAP engaged:
23rd FG/Hq Sqn with P-40K Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 2 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 19000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Dacca , at 56,38
Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 18 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 19
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 24

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 10 damaged

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

Airbase hits 3
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 5

Aircraft Attacking:
19 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 15000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

Absolutely despicable results in the jungle again; 4-1 numerical superiority is the only way to win.

Ground combat at 61,46
Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 3632 troops, 26 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 127
Defending force 2288 troops, 39 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 77

Japanese adjusted assault: 47
Allied adjusted defense: 175

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 3

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

Japanese ground losses:
92 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 15 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
29 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
47th Infantry Regiment

Defending units:
66th Chinese/A Corps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 75,142
Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 2256 troops, 18 guns, 222 vehicles, Assault Value = 189
Defending force 14 troops, 6 guns, 2 vehicles, Assault Value = 1

Allied adjusted assault: 81
Japanese adjusted defense: 1

Allied assault odds: 81 to 1

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

Japanese ground losses:
Vehicles lost 2 (2 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 1

Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
255th Armoured Brigade

Defending units:
8th RF Gun 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 pauk)
Post #: 1240
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/21/2010 7:11:13 PM   
crsutton


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

In defense of the 4E problem. They may be a little too strong but they are about all the Allies have. I have pretty much found that allied mediums, lights, attack bombers and fighter bombers are fairly useless in game and get slaughtered in mass, so the 4Es are about the only effective offensive plane that we AFBs have. The tojo is an excellent fighter vs all Allied fighter aircraft and is very adept at killing medium bombers. If there would be a call to nerf 4Es then I would have to say that the tojo itselt (a very mediocre aircraft in reality) should be nerfed as well.

In addition, the Allies get such a paltry flow of 4Es that they really do not become such a threat until 2/43 when sufficient numbers start to come on line. In my scen #2 game it is just turning 2/43 and I would have to say that I have about a dozen or more HB units that are still flying bolos, B17D, or mostly nothing at all due to no aircraft. Many of these units have been around since the first month of the war. Of my operational units, most are at about 1/2 to 2/3rd strength. This shortage of bombers of all types hinders training as well as units without airplanes train only very slowly, so there is a shortage of bomber pilots as well.  Andy is right, the loss of 4 HB to any means is big and not sustainable until production changes.

I know it is a bitch for a Japanese player but as the game is now designed (read tojos) here. Japan can maintain air superiority or parity through mid 1943, and put up a good fight through 1944. Talk about out of whack. In the end, which would you prefer, realistic B17s or a realistic Japanese airforce. You pick. 

One last note. Japanese pilots were very poorly trained in formation fighting and rarely could put together the group formation tactics necessary to bring down heavy bombers. Part of the problem was training and doctrine and more serious was the lack of radios which in itself greatly hindered any sort of formation tactics. I suppose they adopted formation tactics later in the war but by then lack of overall training would have made the situation worse. Your inability to shoot down heavies is really not too far off base IMHO. Japanese fighters lacked both the firepower, doctrine and training to shoot down heavies.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1241
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/21/2010 8:01:04 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		I do understand that the Allies have their own concerns; ideally I would like to see both the Tojo as well as the 4Es "adjusted" to historical levels.

Guess playing without PDU's on would be a good start to achieve more historical play...but only after 4E's have been modified.
- Playing scenario 2 which simulates increased Jap pilot training is also a player made choice that will affect how much you can judge a game with real life experiences.

My experience is that it's plenty difficult to shoot down B-25s; B-26's a bit easier and most British mediums are very vulnerable.
But should the Allied player send his 2 and 4Es on offensive missions without sufficient escorts and sweepers?

I think it's the feeling of being helpless that is the worst part; in 42 when Japan is supposed to have the upper hand it's quite devastating to watch 120 4Es pave the way and demolish
any of your largest bases, no matter how many defensive fighters there are around. Charters Towers was the first base to suffer this fate; in Burma I can't base bombers within 4E range
cause they will be nuked; so my offensive air power becomes extremely limited. Only fighters on CAP that will take to the air before the place is hit is acceptable in Mandalay to Magwe.

Andy is very fearful about letting his 4Es go in without escorts and sweepers, but when it happens he usually get away with it without loosing more than 4-5 bombers.
If he released his wrath upon Rangoon the place would go up in smoke; that's why I can't use it efficiently as a port...it can be nuked any day. Everything within normal 4E range is in jeopardy.

All of this would be easier to accept in 44 when numbers and quality Allied 2 and 4Es and long range Allied fighters made such tactics and results realistic and possible.
In my first game it was easier to accept the hard times from 44-46 because I had my fun in 42-43. Now I find it very hard even to enjoy 42, if I don't uberdo my deployment I'll get kicked out of Burma before Christmas!


_____________________________



"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 #: 1242
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/21/2010 8:58:49 PM   
witpqs


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

A couple things. Probably a bit too early in your game to matter, but a bug is newly discovered that causes Attack Bombers (most all of the USAAF mediums after the B-25C) to forgo bombing and strafe only. Second, as cap_and_gown (my opponent) pointed out, you can do better against 4EB - even B-17's. But don't expect Luftwaffe performance.

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1243
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/21/2010 9:15:08 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		I really don't think the B-17s are too strong. If you look at what Germany ended up putting in the air as bomber destroyers in 1943 and 44 you'll find the following:

1. Minimum armament which was considered effective was 4 x 20mm cannon or 2 x 30mm cannon. The reason for this was that only high speed slashing attacks or direct frontal attacks were considered safe for German fighters facing bomber boxes and, as such, they needed a tremendous rate of firepower being projected per second to enable enough damage to be done in the 1 to 2 seconds of clear, close-range firing they had at the cockpits or engines.

One of the best sites for a basic overview of this issues is listed following : [url] http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Looking at these figures an IJAAF fighter equipped with 2 x 12.7mm MGs would have a "gunpower" of 90 per second. A German fighter equipped for bomber-busting duties in 1944 ( the typical Fw-190A4/R8 would have had a gunpower of 1608 per second). In essence the FW-190A4/R8 would have been able to inflict as much damage on a B-17 in one second as a Ki-44 with 2 x 12.7mm MGs could have inflicted in 17.9 seconds.

In aerial combat the ability to down a bomber with a 2 second burst is one thing, being able to down it after 36 seconds of fire pretty much guarantees bomber survival and the defending fighter being damaged during its multiple firing passes. It also requires very different tactics which increase the lighter fighter's vulnerability since, to get 18 x 2 second firing passes you do NOT have time to set up for 18 end runs ( frontal firing pass before extending past the bomber, racing to get a mile or two in front of it again and then turning into a nose-on attack position again for another head to head pass). No, instead you go for multiple swooping attacks from on high or below, precisely the sorts of attacks the B-17Es and other early bombers were designed to deal with and punish.


So, really, fighters with such weak armaments face a double whammy of:
1. Not having enough firepower per second to enable them to take down bombers quickly and
2. having to therefore utilise tactics which require multiple firing passes and play to the bomber's strengths and don't capitalise on their weaknesses.


Even nothwithstanding the German air force's concentration on anti-bomber armament ( via bolt-on 20mm and 30mm weapons packs ) they still ended up losing a fighter per bomber and didn't generally turn the raids back. Admittedly the raids were much stronger than in AE but there you go.

I'd be quite willing to bet that 100 Fw-190A8/R8s targetting 50 unescorted B-17Es or Fs would see those B-17s downed well short of the target...



_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1244
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/21/2010 9:55:18 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Hopefully there'll be a fix for that bug soon witpqs!

Yes I agree that Tojo armament is rather unsuited for dealing with B-17s.
Even the Nick's ain't very formidable gun platforms.

It's possible to understand that large formations of Forts pose a formidable challenge to these Jap fighters, but I can't say that a flight of 6 B-17's should be able to
withstand 30+ fighters. As bombers were damaged they broke out of formation and as soon as a box formation got broken up the single bombers could be picked off one by one.

Maybe the results achieved by 4Es in 42 is caused more by the fact that these ac can actually be put to a use which they never were used for?
- Bombing airfields and troops was scondary and tertiary targets for B-17s that usually went after strategic targets. The fact that a formation of 100 B-17s can cause such massive damage against
tactical targets like airfields, ports and troops is perhaps more of a problem than how vulnerable they are? If bombing accuracy was + / - 4-5 clicks it shouldn't be possible to achieve as much as you can in AE, especially not when the weather is anything else than clear.

Does this make sense?


_____________________________



"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 Nemo121)
Post #: 1245
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/21/2010 10:08:13 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: PzB

Maybe the results achieved by 4Es in 42 is caused more by the fact that these ac can actually be put to a use which they never were used for?
- Bombing airfields and troops was scondary and tertiary targets for B-17s that usually went after strategic targets. The fact that a formation of 100 B-17s can cause such massive damage against
tactical targets like airfields, ports and troops is perhaps more of a problem than how vulnerable they are? If bombing accuracy was + / - 4-5 clicks it shouldn't be possible to achieve as much as you can in AE, especially not when the weather is anything else than clear.

Does this make sense?



No. Because in Europe they faced much tougher flak defenses and had to bomb from a higher altitude. Even at night the flak was tougher because of the German's integrated defenses (mostly talking against British Bomber Command at night, USAAF in daytime).

I think also the tougher fighter opposition in Europe probably had an impact on accuracy too, with more damaged bombers, etc.


(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1246
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/21/2010 10:14:59 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		I'm not so sure this was the case in 42 and 43 when B-17s first started bombing targets in France..!?
- Those first raids in 42 and 43 I have read about struggled to achieve much even against targets close to the coast without much protection.

Bombing missions in very cloudy or poor weather was regularly cancelled as well.
As I see it it was the large number of bombers that made them so devastating later in the war.


_____________________________



"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 witpqs)
Post #: 1247
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/21/2010 10:42:06 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		PzB,

If you look at some of the early raids over Europe in 1942 - shallow penetrations over France where B-17s didn't face very strongly armed German fighters ( a couple of 12.7mm MGs and a 20mm cannon ) then B-17 losses ( for even small raids ) weren't huge. Higher than in this example but the difference between facing an Oscar or early model Tojo vs a Bf-109 or Fw-190A4 could be a quadrupling of the per second "gunpower" being projected.

\Let us not forget that the Germans also figured that if you attacked frontally you needed 4 to 5 x 20mm cannon hits ( or 1 x 30mm cannon hit ) to achieve a B-17 kill but 5 times those hits if you were attacking from the rear or side ( since then cannon hits were "wasted" on the tail, fuselage etc where they weren't instantly fatal.)

Chuck this into the Oscar/Tojo situation and you have another reason why the poorer armament actually led to expontentially increasing difficulty shooting B-17s down. With that said, just mod in some Fw-190A8/R8s into a test and see how they work. I'm sure they'd work just fine in-game. The problem here is that a Tojo with 2 x 12.7mm MGs is not just 4 or 5 times worse as a B-17 killer than a plane with a couple of 20mm cannons. It is probably on the order of a minimum of 20 times worse as a B-17 killer by dint of their actual firepower and the different tactics this forces them to employ which means poorer-armed fighters need even more hits to acheive a critical hit than well-armed fighters which can attack from the front. The Germans found the Bf-109Fs to have by far insufficient firepower to bring down B-17s. Gunpower of the 109Fs on the aforementioned page comes out at 226 ( 2.3 times that of a Tojo with 2 x 12.7mm ) and the FW-190A4 ( with a firepower rating of 666 - some 7 times more than the Tojo ) comes out at 666.

The Germans found the 109F to be hopeless at going against B-17s and the 190-A4 to be barely adequate and whenever possible they brought these planes into action vs bombers only when they had additional underwing gun packs.

So, really, the Germans had planes with 3 to 7 times the firepower the firepower during the same time period vs the same bombers and found it extremely difficult to get kills to the point that unofficially they reckoned a four-engined kill was a special thing to be recognised in a separate category of a pilot's kill listing. Even with planes with 7 times the firepower of the Tojo they went on to try to double and eventually almost quadruple that firewpower ( with the late-war bomber-killing configuration of four nose-mounted 30mm Mk108s ).

So, with 3 to 7 times the firepower the Germans found it very difficult to shoot them down and decided to uparm their fighters. I don't see why we should expect Japanese minnows to be shooting these B-17s down even when unescorted. It didn't happen historically that way. Again though, if you got good fighters multiple nose-mounted cannons ( 4 x 20mm or 2 x 30mm ) per plane then I think those B-17s would go down pretty easily ( just as was found over Germany ).

Also, don't forget that "gunpower" etc misses some crucial components. Being hit with 10 x 12.7mm bullets which pass through a crewmember and some fuselage - while a human loss - doesn't actually impair the plane much. Hell, even 10 x 12.7mm bullets through the middle of the wing might lose a bit of fuel but generally that'll seal and even if one or two were incendiary fire extinguishers might be able to put out the fire. Being hit by a single 20mm cannon shell in the wing might cause damage to both engines, major controls elsewhere through the wings etc...

It all gets very complicated but the bottom line is that vs something as "big" as a B-17 a few bullets have very little chance of hitting something which will cause enough damage to force them out of formation. I've watched lots of movies of the damaged B-17s returning to base because I got fascinated by their ability to sustain damage when Il-2 came out and I will say that the B-17 is one of the most impressive and durable planes I've ever seen. Its ability to return back to base when in an utterly irreparable condition ( and often one would judge unflyable condition ) is amazing.


I'm the first to call the developers on some errors they've made but AE is a huge leap forward and the air team deserve kudos for their work. Hell, one of the biggest problems with AE as it stands is that there is so little wrong with the tactical side anymore that a lot of the workarounds from EA aren't needed anymore ;-). I understand why you might be sore about the B-17s but in real life the Japanese did swarm them with hordes of Oscars and achieved very little. That's what seems to be happening here. Essentially you are using planes armed with 2 medium or heavy machineguns to take down the most heavily armoured and rugged bomber anyone in the world would design until the mid-40s. A bomber which was renowned for making it home after being rammed ( multiple occasions of this ), taking direct hits from FlAK, losing entire control surfaces, entire turret positions, the bombardier position and large chunks of the fuselage ---- all of which cause damage many times greater than anything which could be done by 12.7mm non-explosive rounds. I just don't see why we should expect the B-17s to go down easily.

I seem to remember you saying you shot four down. In your shoes I'd count that a good day at the office and just count the days till I got a fighter or fighter-bomber with cannon-armament and could send it into the air vs the B-17s ---- ideally you want 4 x 20mm cannon as they are much more than twice as good as 2 x 20mm cannons vs heavy bombers. It is all logarithmic which is why so often it doesn't scale well with people since people are unused to reasoning logarithmically since most of the natural world doesn't quite work that way ( at least not at the level where our survival instincts were developed etc ).




As to effectiveness vs tactical targets... Well that's certainly a different thing. Personally I think it would all depend on entrenchment level. With what would seem to equate to Level 5 or 6 entrenchments in Normandy various German forces were able to survive even massive B-17 bombing raids somewhat intact ( not in great shape but good shape considering how many hundred heavy bombers had just unloaded on them ). But vs a regiment in simple slit trenches of Level 1 to 2 entrenchments I would expect B-17s, if they could drop on the centre of mass of the regiment, to cause absolutely massive casualties and disruption.

So, unless they are dug in I'd expect massive casualties... To be honest with you from what I see in my game air attacks seem to cause too few casualties, not too many but I don't have a huge number of data points for that so it is a very subjective finding.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 8/21/2010 10:45:22 PM >

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1248
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/21/2010 10:49:36 PM   
witpqs


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

Note that PzB included airfields and ports as tactical targets and expects poor bombing results against them.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 1249
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/21/2010 11:05:25 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		witpqs,

Thanks, I had glossed over that....

My take on that is that a tactical target is something which moves. An airfield or port in Rangoon has all the same characteristics as a collection of houses/factories in Tokyo... It has a fixed location, a fixed size and since it can't move your accuracy is a function of the accuracy of your intelligence ( detection level ), weather ( which is, I'm certain accounted for in the code ) and lead bombardier experience ( which is, abstractly, accounted for by the squadron commander's land attack skill - I've checked this and found it to be true in-game ).

So, hitting a 1km x 1km grid containing an airfield is no more or less difficulty than hitting a 1km x 1km grid containing any other stationary target ( port, factories, people's homes ). I don't think the game differentiates and I don't think bombs do either. Just cause B-17s were rarely used to do something doesn't mean they couldn't have and one of the great arguments of the war was whether B-17s would have been better used to hit more ports and airfields etc nearer the front lines than in Germany so that shows that there really was a possibility of them being used this way during the war. Just because a given 1km x 1km grid contains an airfield or port is, I think, no reason to add a special modifier to decrease the effectiveness of attacks against it. It was a stationary target and if your DL is good, your bombardier good and the weather right then you can plaster it.

IN my game vs Mike I killed something like 60 IJNAF and IJAAF planes on the ground with a 60 B-17 raid. Now I had a DL of 10 on the day of the raid and went in at 6,000 feet. Do I find that result unreasonable? No, I had maximised my DL, hit during clear weather and had spent about 100 PP making sure I had the best land attack values possible for all of the B-17 squadron leaders. All of those things came together and I got good results. I think that's perfectly acceptable.

When you see B-17s misused you often find them doing much more poorly than this and that's, also, perfectly fine. The trick is to model them properly. So far while it is tough for you that they are pounding you I don't see that the model is wrong...

Can I ask you what have you done to ensure you:
a) recon the B-17 home airfields
b bomb the B-17 home airfields? ( even if only at night )
c) bring cannon-armed fighters into the air over Burma to let them have a go at the B-17s
d) capitalise on the lack of B-17s on other fronts. It seems like his use of what looks like all his B-17s here in Burma SHOULD be giving you opportunities elsewhere as you'd only be facing medium bombers there?
e) done what you can to bring really heavy FlAK to bear on the places the B-17s hit? The IJA has a few seriously good FlAK units which can wreak havoc on B-17s, are they in-theatre?

I've had success with all of the above and also the sixth option of just letting him bomb, accept the losses, refuse the attrition of my pilots and just say that if he can wreck a division a month that I'll commit an extra division to the theatre, rotate it into the front and let the others rebuild. Hell, if he's bombing your bases to prevent supply flow just let the damage get to 100, remove the engineers and no matter how much he bombs the situation can't get worse. You'll have, passively, created a situation in which his effort ( and B-17 losses ) are wasted effort.

Sometimes you DO win by not fighting but allowing the enemy to exhaust himself. Fortunately for you B-17s are an easily exhausted asset. Unfortunately for you Andy babies his airgroups and troops and likes to keep ample reserves etc.

If I was in your shoes I would simply withdraw from the area for a week, assemble every fighter I had on-map in Malaysia and Vietnam and then fly them into Burma for a day. Aim to shred ONE B-17 raid utterly with 250 or 300 fighters and watch what happens. I'd be happy to bet that Andy would stand them down for a month or two while he rebuilds. I think there are many ways to approach this, are you sure you've explored them all??? Maybe you need to focus less on "breaking" the B-17s and more on "breaking" your opponent's faith in them? I would suggest that it may be much easier for you to beat Andy than to beat the B-17s and that what you need to do is provide a sharp shock which is psychologically calibrated to be delivered after a period in which he comes to feel he has broken your resolve and is growing in confidence. Breaking his will then will be much easier than breaking it when he still feels he is in a closely-matched fight.

Show weakness, then unexpected strength and he will break. That's my read of Andy after playing him. I did it in-game to him and it worked. If you do it properly I think you can eschew all of the in-game ways of beating the B-17s ( all of which would work if you tried them IMO ) using strength and direct and indirect approaches within the game system and could just focus on beating Andy through use of the game and external factors and, by doing so, beating his use of B-17s in-game.

It is up to you of course but the option is, I believe, there.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 8/21/2010 11:09:09 PM >

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1250
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/21/2010 11:10:18 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

Maybe the results achieved by 4Es in 42 is caused more by the fact that these ac can actually be put to a use which they never were used for?
- Bombing airfields and troops was scondary and tertiary targets for B-17s that usually went after strategic targets. The fact that a formation of 100 B-17s can cause such massive damage against
tactical targets like airfields, ports and troops is perhaps more of a problem than how vulnerable they are? If bombing accuracy was + / - 4-5 clicks it shouldn't be possible to achieve as much as you can in AE, especially not when the weather is anything else than clear.

Does this make sense?



Not so sure that B-17s weren't used for airfield suppression in the Pacific in 1942-43 at least. There weren't many strategic targets they could reach and I have seen pics of heavily cratered Japanese airfields like the one at Buna [near Kolombangara in the Solomons] that must have been subjected to heavy bomber raids. I don't think the precious SBDs on Guadalcanal would have been risked on airfield bombing. I think the B-17s came from Noumea or possibly PNG [although I can't imagine MacArthur helping out Nimitz like that].

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1251
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/21/2010 11:14:50 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		I am also disheartened by the "uberness" of the allied 4E bombers, but I don't actually think anything should be changed in this regard. I think it is working as well as it ever will.

Nemo is right about the Tojo. Those 2 12.7mm's are really wimpy. I just shot up a bunch of Hellcats with Tojo's and the normal result was a damage hit rather than a kill. If a Tojo cannot take down a Hellcat, it is certainly not going to find it easy to take down a 4E bomber. Surprisingly, the Zero, with its 2 20mm cannon is a more deadly fighter than the Tojo is some ways. The problem with the Zero is its very low durability.

What you need are some Nicks. Not great, but they stay in the fight longer (because of their armor and higher durability) and they pack a greater punch. Too bad there are only two squadrons not tied to the Home Islands which can upgrade to the Nick. I suppose that is for the best, otherwise us JFB's would probably upgrade everyone to the Nick!

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1252
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/21/2010 11:16:09 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		To a large extent I agree with you Nemo; 4E's were tough customers.
- I still think they were vulnerable when flying in small formations and attacked by large number of fighters manned by veteran pilots.

I didn't say I shot down 4 B-17's in my previous posts, actually 4 B-17s were reported as OP losses and that includes not only the 2x6 ac raids, but also the big 60 ac raid that didn't meet any opposition.
The 4 OP losses can therefore not be positively traced back to our attacks on the 2x6 B-17s flights. Most likely 1 or 2 Forts from the main formation were lost in landing / take off accidents while another couple were lost returning to base after being damaged by our fighters.

In total 17 out of 90 B-17 losses have been credited to fighter attacks thus far in the game, the rest are flak, ground and OPS losses.

Based on this I think it would be logical to look at the damage inflicted on tactical targets by B-17s.

Quote: "Tactical bombing uses aircraft to attack troops and military equipment in the battle zone. This is in contrast to strategic bombing, which attacks an enemy's cities and factories to debilitate the enemy's capacity to wage war as well as the civilian population's will to continue the war."

In my definition a tactical target would include ships in ports and aircraft on airfields.
- Strategic targets most usually targetted by 4Es would be railroad stations / junctions, submarine pens, bridges, power plants, cities etc.

Being able to positively close down a major Japanese base with one attack by 100 4Es is a bit in excess.
Being able to hit ground targets in a hex with strategic bombers would also be very difficult unless a) the number of bombers is very high b) the troops are moving on open roads and not hidden or entrenched. There is also nothing like collateral damage in AE; I would expect friendly losses in most instances when bombing enemy troops in a contested hex.

Didn't the USAAF conclude themselfe that only one percent of their bombs hit their targets?
- I also don't think that the box formation was "invented" until late? 43!...let me look up that;
"A 1943 survey by the Air Corps found that over half the bombers shot down by the Germans had left the protection of the main formation.
To address this problem, the United States developed the bomb-group formation, which evolved into the staggered combat box formation where all the B-17s could safely cover any others in their formation with their machine guns, making a formation of the bombers a dangerous target to engage by enemy fighters".

4E formations should therefore be more vulnerable before the introduction of "box formations".

You know, it's very difficult to run an Evil Empire when the Benign Empires is equiped with better Uber weapons even early in the conflict

Shortly I'll be leaving for a 2 week vacation to Rhodes to scorch my delicate white skin as the missus demands an uberdose of deadly sun radiation at least once each year!
I'll try to drop in to repudiate the worst AFB claims now and then; Empire building is a 24x7x365 job you know

_____________________________



"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 witpqs)
Post #: 1253
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/21/2010 11:28:39 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

I'll try to drop in to repudiate the worst AFB claims now and then; Empire building is a 24x7x365 job you know


Oh well - at least you get one day off every four years ...

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1254
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/21/2010 11:33:40 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		A quick reply to the last posts:

Yep, the 2 Nick groups are stationed at Rangoon to deter 4E attacks.
I try to use them for LRCAP but then they usually have to face enemy sweeps and never get to the 4Es.

- As you can read from my last pot Nemo I did attack Dacca and destroyed a B-17 on the ground.
I know were to find them, I have recon'ed the base but don't have anything to hit them with expect a few Sally's at extreme range.
Was considering sending my Nells and Betties but decided against it as they are to valuable in their naval attack role to risk.

Andy's offensive in Northern Oz has collapsed; I'm suppressing Tennant Creek and he can't bring in the heavies needed to strike back against me.
Port Moresby is also left alone and I don't have to worry about long range 4E naval search and bombers in the Central Pacific; that's about it.

Yep, I've hauled most heavy flak guns in the Empire to Burma. They achieve fine little, even got 10.5cm guns in place.

Misunderstand me correctly; I don't intend a few 4Es to topple the Empire and I've already threatened to chase Andy back to Scotland
Andy is handling his SEAC operation very well and I don't enjoy the way things play out in Burma; especially not that it's possible to supply 200k troops without roads.
The around the clock bombardments from the air is just another nuisance we have to live with.

Essentially my wish is that Japan's ability to fight and advance should be rather high throughout 42 and that the Allies ability to retaliate should slowly increase and finally turning into
a fury by 1944-45. It's a bit skewed now, but I also see great improvements from stock and we shouldn't take these achievements away from the dev team that has done a tremendous job!
- I still feel some tweaking is needed and maybe our discussions will one day influence some positive changes!

_____________________________



"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 #: 1255
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/21/2010 11:45:46 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline 		Nemo121, for 1944-45 I concur with your analysis of Luftwaffe performance and the fighter-bomber loss correlation.  However, for the earlier US daylight raids with 4E heavy bombers into Germany, I do not agree.   Surely the Luftwaffe realized quickly that the armament of the Bf109E/F was entirely insufficient.  The FW190A4 was just barely satisfactory with the 2x20mm cannons with low cadence to deal with B-17E and F by rear attacks. 

In late 1942 and 43, the primary daylight tactic of LW one-engined fighters against 4E bombers was the attack from the upper rear if I recall correctly.  Only late in 43 the paradigm shifted to frontal high speed passes.  In 1942, the Luftwaffe was also unexperienced in fighting 4E bomber formation effectively, but the 4E formations were also substantially looser and wider than later in the war.  Probably the LW training was much superior to IJAAF's, but the latter were surely also not total newbies and "uninventive".

More importantly, the disastrous double-raid by USAAF 8th against Schweinfurt and Regensburg on 8/17/43 was countered by mostly BF109G and FW190A4.  Approximately 400 German fighters engaged 376 4EB on their way in and out (with a refueling break) and downed 60 bombers directly above the Reich and Belgium, which was the only space during the mission where ca 350 allied fighter could perform escort duties.  Operational losses amounted to another 87 bombers.  All this was achieved for a loss of 40 LW fighters! 

Of course this was the worst example, but many of the raids prior to this without long-range escorts incurred also substantial losses.  So it does leave a weired feeling that in PzB's case >6= fighters engage 2x6 B-17F, and only cause 4 operational losses.  Maybe it was bad luck, bad weather, bad coordination, bad training etc in this case.  But PzB is right that this wasn't a singular experience in his game so far (not to mention other AARs that reported similarly "excellent" perfomance of 4Es).   For sure the result can't be far off, but I would concur with PzB that the 4E (as much as the Tojo) überperform very well.   Maybe 4 additional direct losses would have made this seem more balanced. 
With this performance one is left to wonder why the USAAF bombers performed historically so "badly" and ended up as an unimportant side-notice until about 1944?  The US should perhaps have been able to shut down Rabaul from Australia and PM already by mid 1942 prior to the Solomon campaign?

Also 1km x 1km grid containing an airfield is unlike a 1km x 1km grid containing factories and buildings.   For both, the density of crucial target points would count.  An airfield contains a lot of open space besides runways, hangars (or none), maintenance and supply facilities and crew, command&control installations.   Hits on an airfield thus likely have a much larger chance to end up just kicking up dust, in contrast to  a denser area with factory buildings, resource storage, process heat plants etc.  However, I am not sure whether there is really any issue with this in AE; rather tuning the Tojo and B17 might resolve the issue of allied air being able to shut down any Japanese airport throughout the entire war.


< Message edited by janh -- 8/21/2010 11:55:51 PM >

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 1256
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/21/2010 11:57:34 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3890
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline 		There is little risk to the Netties if they bomb at night. Might be worth setting one or two 36 plane Nell groups to 11K night raids.

_____________________________


(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1257
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/22/2010 2:32:44 AM   
crsutton


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

ORIGINAL: PzB

Hopefully there'll be a fix for that bug soon witpqs!

Yes I agree that Tojo armament is rather unsuited for dealing with B-17s.
Even the Nick's ain't very formidable gun platforms.

It's possible to understand that large formations of Forts pose a formidable challenge to these Jap fighters, but I can't say that a flight of 6 B-17's should be able to
withstand 30+ fighters. As bombers were damaged they broke out of formation and as soon as a box formation got broken up the single bombers could be picked off one by one.

Maybe the results achieved by 4Es in 42 is caused more by the fact that these ac can actually be put to a use which they never were used for?
- Bombing airfields and troops was scondary and tertiary targets for B-17s that usually went after strategic targets. The fact that a formation of 100 B-17s can cause such massive damage against
tactical targets like airfields, ports and troops is perhaps more of a problem than how vulnerable they are? If bombing accuracy was + / - 4-5 clicks it shouldn't be possible to achieve as much as you can in AE, especially not when the weather is anything else than clear.

Does this make sense?




Well, in fact this is an excellent point and needs to be addressed. It is better than WITP but still an issue. We players love to mass our aircraft into "big wing" operations when in the Pacific a bomber attack of 30 or 40 planes by either side was about the biggest you would normally see. (until say 44 when the Allies were in a better position. This is not just an Allied issue as I am playing scen #2 and my Japanese opponent always uses the big hammer. They need to improve coordination in general but should actually make it much worse for mass attacks in 42 and 43. But this problem is not just with the Allied heavies, but goes all across the board. Sweeps, super CAP, and so on. We just have too much ability to put a lot of planes in the air.

As an aside, once again, your situation is not ahistorical. By early 1943, if the Allies had enough resourses in range, they could and did close down Japanese bases at will. They could it do in 43 and it just got worse for Japan in 44 and 45. Once Guadacanal became secure, the Allies pretty much systematically shut down Japansese LBA in the Solomons. And I am not positive but the B17s in 42 really were used to hit airbases and ports. Not too many strategic targets were in range.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1258
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/22/2010 4:19:50 AM   
vicberg

 

Posts: 1176
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline 		PZB,

I've enjoyed your AAR and feel compelled to post.

Crsutton, i totally agree about too many planes in the air. I also agree that the allies should be able to shut down where they want. I believe though that shutting something down should come at a cost. Even B-29s had a 30% loss by end of war (roughly 10% per raid). B-24s and B17s had a higher rate of loss. Most AARs say the same thing. The 4Es are unstoppable against fighters and don't seem to suffer the operational losses. If unescorted bombers are outnumbered 10-1, one would think some damage would be done.

The supply bug is definately there. There's no way that 200,000 troops can be supplied accross 120 miles of jungle between India and Burma and a major river with no bridge, not without massive air transport that I highly doubt the aliies have in 42.

I ran accross the same problem playing as Jap in China. I had all of southern China from Hangchow to Kanhsien, plus controlled the bridges accross the major river running south of Nanchang. I isolated Chuhsien expecting them to be out of supply. For 3 weeks, my opponent told me that his base had zero supplies, but his troops were fully supplied, in spite of daily bombardments, bombings and repeated attacks. Closet chinese supply base was 240 miles away(!) and supplies were able to move overland, accross a major river, rough terrain, enemy controlled territory, without impedment. That's a bug.

Japanese strength lies in air power and naval power in 42-43. The massive land attack negates japanese naval power and the 4E issue negates japanese air power.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 1259
RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! - 8/22/2010 4:46:26 AM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: vicberg

PZB,

I've enjoyed your AAR and feel compelled to post.

Crsutton, i totally agree about too many planes in the air. I also agree that the allies should be able to shut down where they want. I believe though that shutting something down should come at a cost. Even B-29s had a 30% loss by end of war (roughly 10% per raid). B-24s and B17s had a higher rate of loss. Most AARs say the same thing. The 4Es are unstoppable against fighters and don't seem to suffer the operational losses. If unescorted bombers are outnumbered 10-1, one would think some damage would be done.

The supply bug is definately there. There's no way that 200,000 troops can be supplied accross 120 miles of jungle between India and Burma and a major river with no bridge, not without massive air transport that I highly doubt the aliies have in 42.

I ran accross the same problem playing as Jap in China. I had all of southern China from Hangchow to Kanhsien, plus controlled the bridges accross the major river running south of Nanchang. I isolated Chuhsien expecting them to be out of supply. For 3 weeks, my opponent told me that his base had zero supplies, but his troops were fully supplied, in spite of daily bombardments, bombings and repeated attacks. Closet chinese supply base was 240 miles away(!) and supplies were able to move overland, accross a major river, rough terrain, enemy controlled territory, without impedment. That's a bug.

Japanese strength lies in air power and naval power in 42-43. The massive land attack negates japanese naval power and the 4E issue negates japanese air power.


10% loss rate for the B-29 really doesn't sound right. I'm searching the net now - can you say where you got that statistic?

(in reply to vicberg)
Post #: 1260
Page:   <<   < prev  40 41 [42] 43 44   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: DISASTER IN BURMA! Page: <<   < prev  40 41 [42] 43 44   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

1.188