RE: One Weird Battle

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: One Weird Battle

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: One Weird Battle

Page: << < prev 30 31 [32] 33 34 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: One Weird Battle - 11/25/2010 6:29:42 AM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

Now back to the game, where I just received a most thought-provoking - actually mystifying - piece of SigInt: 2nd Division is at Truk.

2nd Division originally participated in the invasion of India and at one time was posted at Diamond Harbor. You may recall that months ago I recieved a piece of SigInt that part of the division was aboard a Maru bound for Truk. I took this as a sign that Brad wasn't committing all his efforts to India (else why would he be drawing down his forces?) Others noted that it might be part of an elaborate ruse, offering plausible scenarios under which Brad might "orchestrate" such a SigInt report. So that left me uncertain as to whether to put any stock in the report. Adding to my uncertainty was that I didn't get any sightings of the division anywhere (especially in India) thereafter....until today.

I had been afraid that 2nd Division might make up the core of an amphibious invasion force of perhaps three to five divisions that might land at Surat or the base across the bight.

All this leaves me totally puzzled - I know that Brad has at least 15 divisions committed to India. So he has made a fullscale commitment and effort...but actually weakened his forces by at least one division. The absence of 2nd could be a critical subtraction.

Also, if he wanted a division in CenPac, why not just send one of those he was buying from China? IE, why buy a division in China, ship it all the way to India, while also shipping one from India all the way back past China to Truk?

If this was part of some elaborate ruse to confuse, it obviously worked to an extent.

Finally, 2nd Division has now been at Truk for at least a few months. It's either serving as a counterinvasion reserve or is in a position to hit some Allied outpost like Midway, Baker Island, or even Suva.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 931

RE: One Weird Battle - 11/25/2010 9:17:09 AM

gladiatt

Posts: 2576
Joined: 4/10/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Also, if he wanted a division in CenPac, why not just send one of those he was buying from China?� IE, why buy a division in China, ship it all the way to India, while also shipping one from India all the way back past China to Truk?

I think i had read in an old AAR on Witp forum (maybe one of John3rd) some kind of things like that :
training in combat units, then drawing them out of harm ways, to garrison pacific island with high value-highly trained units, and sending to front the "greens" units who still need training.
Could be an explanation ?

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 932

RE: One Weird Battle - 11/25/2010 9:43:04 AM

beppi

Posts: 382
Joined: 3/11/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

If he sends just a fragment of the Unit to Truk, does that trigger a SIGINT message that the division is in Truk or could the SIGIN be a false warning ? As you say the offensive in India has quite stopped and he drained a real lot of units there and weakened everything else. Possible he starts to reinforce some other positions.

(in reply to gladiatt)

Post #: 933

RE: One Weird Battle - 11/25/2010 2:38:04 PM

vettim89

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: beppi

If he sends just a fragment of the Unit to Truk, does that trigger a SIGINT message that the division is in Truk or could the SIGIN be a false warning ? As you say the offensive in India has quite stopped and he drained a real lot of units there and weakened everything else. Possible he starts to reinforce some other positions.

That was my thought exactly. If he used one small AP the parent unit would load onto it while leaving 2nd Division/1 at the port of embarkation. It could easily be that 90% or more of the unit is still in India with the small "parent" fragment at Truk. Clever ruse if he did it

_____________________________

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

(in reply to beppi)

Post #: 934

RE: One Weird Battle - 11/25/2010 2:53:54 PM

Smeulders

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

quote:

ORIGINAL: beppi

If he sends just a fragment of the Unit to Truk, does that trigger a SIGINT message that the division is in Truk or could the SIGIN be a false warning ? As you say the offensive in India has quite stopped and he drained a real lot of units there and weakened everything else. Possible he starts to reinforce some other positions.

That was my thought exactly. If he used one small AP the parent unit would load onto it while leaving 2nd Division/1 at the port of embarkation. It could easily be that 90% or more of the unit is still in India with the small "parent" fragment at Truk. Clever ruse if he did it

Wouldn't the parent unit remain in India and the /1 unit be in Truk ?

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 935

RE: One Weird Battle - 11/25/2010 2:56:40 PM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: beppi

If he sends just a fragment of the Unit to Truk, does that trigger a SIGINT message that the division is in Truk or could the SIGIN be a false warning ? As you say the offensive in India has quite stopped and he drained a real lot of units there and weakened everything else. Possible he starts to reinforce some other positions.

No, then the sigint message would say something like 2/2nd division is located at Truk. Usually the fragment is identified not the whole unit.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to beppi)

Post #: 936

RE: One Weird Battle - 11/25/2010 3:02:22 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Another problem is that the game lets both sides use Army bombers to conduct ASW. Both sides had serious interservice cooperation issues. This would just not have been done. I wish the game would be more selective in what aircraft are allowed to do ASW patrol for both sides. Why do you think the USN bought all those B-24 variants? So they could use that great airframes LR capabilites for their use because the USAAF wasn;t going to task them to NavSearch/ASW. Now there was some NavSearch by the USAAF early in the war but it ended as soon as the USN was up to speed. Perhaps that would be a good HR - neither side may use Army aircraft for NavSearch/ASW after say 1/43
JOMHO

I think that's a great idea!

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 937

RE: One Weird Battle - 11/25/2010 4:01:10 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Another problem is that the game lets both sides use Army bombers to conduct ASW. Both sides had serious interservice cooperation issues. This would just not have been done. I wish the game would be more selective in what aircraft are allowed to do ASW patrol for both sides. Why do you think the USN bought all those B-24 variants? So they could use that great airframes LR capabilites for their use because the USAAF wasn;t going to task them to NavSearch/ASW. Now there was some NavSearch by the USAAF early in the war but it ended as soon as the USN was up to speed. Perhaps that would be a good HR - neither side may use Army aircraft for NavSearch/ASW after say 1/43
JOMHO

I think that's a great idea!

No can do. There are examples replete in AE of USAAF / USNAF (and IJNAF/IJAAF) cooperation in some sense, whether shared recon, ASW, ASuW, escort, CAP, deployment, homogenous standing mission orders, etc. that did not exist IRL. Unless it is your intent to unravel these activities and have the services act as the separate structures they truly were, there's no sense in singling out the ASW mission.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 938

ASW Thoughts - 11/25/2010 6:51:39 PM

Capt. Harlock

Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

quote:

What does rankle, even as a JFB, is that I seriously doubt USN subs shot at DDs or PBs when tankers or merchies were present.

I find it believable later in the war. Submariners who had lost friends to the Japanese escort ships were often looking for payback. Also, IIRC the official targeting priorities changed during the war as there were fewer large merchants and tankers. CENTPAC decided that destroying escorts left the convoy more vulnerable to mop-up attacks.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Cribtop)

Post #: 939

RE: ASW Thoughts - 11/25/2010 7:19:53 PM

vaned74

Posts: 389
Joined: 11/17/2008
Status: offline

Just a thought - I think we need to remember that most of the people playing AE are history buffs who have read or studied the various Pacific campaigns in some depth. What this means is that these folks are less likely to make the same mistakes as the sides made historically. So, that said, when I consider the Pacific War on a strategic level, I can readily think of any number of huge mistakes in strategy and industrial production that Japan made. On the Allied side, the mistakes I come up with are more on the operational-strategic or tactical side - and quite honestly, relatively few.

For instance on Japan's side, some thoughts - knowing history,

1) what good Japanese player is going to route his merchants and tankers independently or in unescorted convoys?
2) what good Japanese player is going to neglect building up an escort fleet early?
3) what good Japanese player is going to neglect air-ASW until 1944?
4) what good Japanese player is going to not try and optimize port capacities, attempt to position repair assets along convoy routes to save damaged ships, etc?
5) what good Japanese player is going to decide to build a plethora of types of aircraft and not concentrate on streamlining production to a small set of mass produced proven airframes (proven in 20/20 hindsight...this applies to both sides - we have the straight mvr, cannon acc, numbers, etc all published for us)?
6) what good Japanese player is going to neglect pilot training early in the war?
7) what good Japanese player is going to split his carrier forces when fighting the Allied main forces? most keep KB concentrated in mass, and even build that mass, throughout the entire existence of it
8) what good Japanese player is going to decide to not start preparing his interior lines of defense early in the game, knowing that at some point they will be attacked?
9) what good Japanese player is not going to sock away fuel, resources, oil for a rainy day late in the game?
10) what good Japanese player is going to waste, as Mike correctly points out is the key, critical HI on projects like the CV Shinano, amounting to 10% of the entire 1941-1946 naval production of Japan in the game?

I think hindsight almost always favors the side that lost and made the most strategic mistakes in a war game. In this case, it was clearly Japan. So, one can expect that in the game, Japan will do far better than it ever did historically. We need to be careful to factor that in when we consider if the game model itself is right or wrong in its execution. It could be that the industry production of Japan is quite right, the ASW capabilities are quite right, etc. It could just be that Japanese players know what mistakes were historically made and hence avoid those.

By the same token, several mistakes the Allies made historically are oft not repeated in the game - ie, Mac doesn't forget to move supplies to Bataan for the inevitable retreat to it; Force Z doesn't sail north typically, good players seldom risk their precious early war Allied CVs in single carrier TFs, etc. These are more tactical or at best operational strategic as compared to Japan's mistakes which are on an entirely different scale.

Just some thoughts.

Canoerebel - keep up the great AAR! I always enjoy reading yours. Sorry for the digression.

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)

Post #: 940

RE: One Weird Battle - 11/25/2010 8:27:58 PM

VSWG

Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The 1,000 lb thing has been addressed mostly. I'll just round it off by saying it's level bombers (2E and 4E, don't know about light bombers) and it does (AFAIK) apply to naval as well as port missions. DB's and FB's are fine with 1,000 pounders.

I thought the 70+ exp applies to DBs as well...?

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Allied heavy land based bombers may carry 1000 or 2000 lb bombs to normal range against TFs in place of 500 lb bombs (device = 203).
- Based on chance and group experience 70+. But not a low altitude ( would need to be 6000+, IIRC)
- If year is 1943+ and the group base has ample supply and the 2000lb bomb has a PEN value >100, it will carry 2000lb'ers ( quarter as many larger bombers) (device = 205)
- Else it will carry 1000lb'ers ( halve as many larger bombers). (device = 204)

Allied dive bombers may carry 1000 lb AP (device = 198) bombs to normal range against TFs rather than 1000 lb GP (device = 204) bomb.
- Based on chance and group experience 70+. But not a low altitude ( would need to be 6000+, IIRC)
- If date is Aug 1942 or later, and the group's land base has ample supply or the group's ship has sys+float <30, and the 1000lb AP bomb has a PEN value >70, it will use the 1000 lb AP.

This is basically what was in the original WITP with things like device # changed.
As far I know this still happens as I have seen in in some of my earlier games.

[edit]
Haven't checked to see if aircraft actually are using the stated device numbers.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 941

RE: One Weird Battle - 11/26/2010 1:21:10 AM

witpqs

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

VSWG,

It might be that "AP" is the distinction there. Most of the time the Allied DB's are carrying either SAP or GP. All just AFAIK of course.

(in reply to VSWG)

Post #: 942

RE: One Weird Battle - 11/29/2010 3:18:25 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

9/4/42 to 9/12/42

A quiet eight-day period on the front lines:

India at Sea: Japanese subs have sunk four supply or empty xAK (three near Karachi and one near Socatra) over the past three days. Two large air cargo TFs will exit the Abadan Channel in two days, escorted by a BB/CA/DD TF (since this convoy is a critical one in terms of air reinforcements). Since the recent IJN CL raid against Karachi, in which the Japanese sank a handful of empty transports but got spanked in return), I haven't seen any enemy surface assets in the Arabian Sea.

India in the Air: Regular, but relatively small scale, engagements occur over Bombay, with the Allies scoring slightly better than Japan. For months, Bombay has been protected by either two (and more recently by one) P-38 fighters squadrons. These squadrons were overworked and understrength. But for reasons I still don't know, Brad hasn't employed overwhelming air power to shut down Bombay and hammer the supplies there. He's either got supply woes or he's waiting to coordinate the strikes with a ground move at some propitious moment.

India on the Ground: Nothing has changed here. 268th Mechanized Brigade (120 AV) scheduled to arrive in Aden in 2 days, but I think she'll actually show up at Karachi. An Indian division will arrive in two weeks (also at Karachi, I hope).

SigInt: Nothing helpful in India, but I did receive a report that part of 8th Division is aboard a Maru bound for Rabaul. I think that means Brad has at least three divisions in the CenPac/SoPac region - 2nd at Truk, 14th at Rabaul, and 8th on the way to Rabaul.

NoPac: BB South Dakota and BB Warspite are in separate small combat TFs operating in the Aleutians. I am trying to use these and a handful of transport convoys to quietly, believably, create a "presence" in NoPac.

CenPac: Forts at Midway are nearing level five. I've always thought it was a dead certain target. Meanwhile, all Wake/Marcus troops plus plenty of transports are located at Pearl Harbor. If the Allies get a sighting of the KB somewhere near India, I'll proceed with the CenPac invasions immediately.

SoPac: Norfolk Island invasion troops plus transports are prepositioned at Melbourne and Auckland. I'm thinking D-Day in early October.

Allied Carriers: Returned to Capetown with a handful of squadrons upgrading to SBD-3s and TBFs. I think all dive- and torpedo bomber squadrons have upgraded. At least one fighter squadron is still equipped with F4F-3s. I thought I was going to move the carriers to the Pacific, probably via Balboa, but possibly by moving to Wellington. But for the past two days I haven't been able to bring myself to issue the orders - a lingering feeling that the war isn't going to be won or lost in the Pacific in 1942, but that it might be in India.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 943

RE: One Weird Battle - 11/29/2010 4:08:34 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

VSWG,

It might be that "AP" is the distinction there. Most of the time the Allied DB's are carrying either SAP or GP. All just AFAIK of course.

Yup.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 944

RE: One Weird Battle - 11/29/2010 4:33:48 PM

crsutton

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

F4F-3 is actually a better fighter in game terms. Slightly faster and more important can fly above 30k which the F4F-4 cannot. And height is important in AE.

I can't believe that QBall is not just sweeping any base you have that has fighters in number. Scen #2 makes it so easy for the Japanese player to do so. Allied weakness is aircraft production. Killing Allied airplanes should always be the target-even if you lose more planes it still pays off. He could close down Bombay in a week with massive sweeps. Course, we won't tell him that......

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 945

RE: One Weird Battle - 11/30/2010 2:47:38 AM

Capt. Harlock

Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

quote:

F4F-3 is actually a better fighter in game terms. Slightly faster and more important can fly above 30k which the F4F-4 cannot. And height is important in AE.

All that is very true, but IRL the -4 had one crucial advantage: folding wings, which allowed another nine or ten fighters onto a carrier. Is this reflected in the scenario?

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 946

RE: One Weird Battle - 11/30/2010 11:55:41 AM

Smeulders

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

quote:

F4F-3 is actually a better fighter in game terms. Slightly faster and more important can fly above 30k which the F4F-4 cannot. And height is important in AE.

All that is very true, but IRL the -4 had one crucial advantage: folding wings, which allowed another nine or ten fighters onto a carrier. Is this reflected in the scenario?

There is no way to do that, one plane takes up one space on a carrier, so in game the -3 is better in all respects.

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)

Post #: 947

RE: One Weird Battle - 12/2/2010 5:16:12 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

9/13/42 and 9/14/42

Q-Ball is tied up with real life matters for an indefinate period, so the game has slowed considerably. I don't know when or if he'll be able to resume a quicker pace, but I'm keeping my finger's crossed.

India in the Air: The Allies continue to win the not-so-bloody war of attrition over Bombay. For the first time, a large enemy raid hit the city on the 14th, knocking out roughly 2k supplies. I'm down to 39k. I've just upgraded to my first P-40K squadron. I'm moving that unit to Bombay, plus perhaps 70 Hurricane IIb and IIc, to lend a hand to the P-38s tomorrow.

India at Sea: An RN combat TF is escorting two large air-cargo TFs to Karachi. All three TFs arrive tomorrow. No sign of enemy ships other than subs.

India on the Ground: Status quo continues. I am air transporting 20th Division from Bombay to Surat. This cadre (7 AV) is now the division as the original remnant in South India was recently destroyed. I don't want to use Bombay's limited supplies to rebuild the division, and Surat will be a good alternative. Eventually, I plan to send an army south from Surat to try to reopen the supply line to Bombay. The armored reinforcement that just arrived chose to do so in Aden rather than Karachi, so now I've got to tote the unit there. An Indian division assigned to Southern Command is due in about 14 days. It would be nice if it showed up at Karachi rather than Aden (the reinforcement list shows: Aden*).

KB: No sign of these rascals. If I could get a good sighting of the Japanese carriers around India, I'd proceed with the Marcus and Wake invasions immediately. A USN sub near Truk did catch sight of BBs Heie and Kirishima, and CAs Chikuma and Tone, near Truk on the 13th. I think some of these ships were last seen up around Hokkaido. I need to check my records to see.

NoPac: After dropping off supplies to various Aluetian islands, several empty transport TFs are steaming around and from port to port to create some noise up here. Ketoi Jima's airfield just went to level four, so Brad's actively building in this region.

CenPac: A newly arrived Marine tank unit will prep for Tarawa. I'm moving the unit forward from SD to Pearl Harbor where the rest of the Tarawa and vicinity troops are prepping.

SoPac: Most ships and troops to participate in the Norfolk Island invasion are in place. Prep is under 30%. I won't feel comfortable proceeding until prep is about 50% (the island is very lightly held, so I'm satisfied that 50% will suffice).

SWPac: I'm continuing to move forward from San Diego troops prepping for Sumatra. Today, a combat engineer unit prepped for Padang, and 3rd Marine 'Chutes prepped for Terapo on New Guinea, embarked aboard transports. (Terapo will serve as part of a diversion at some point to persuade Brad that a move on eastern New Guinea is imminent). Both units are 100% prepped.

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 948

RE: One Weird Battle - 12/2/2010 6:54:15 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

Just a note since SBD's are mentioned. So far, in my 2 games, the SB2C Helldiver "appear" to only carry 500lb'ers. Pilot exp is in the 70's. SBD-5's still carry 1000lb'ers. Allied subs start getting hammered Sept '43, about the time the dud rate noticeably improves. Apologies for the interupt.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 949

RE: One Weird Battle - 12/2/2010 6:55:59 PM

Cribtop

Posts: 3890
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline

The ships near Truk are prime KB escorts. Not definitive, but maybe a probable sighting.

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 950

RE: One Weird Battle - 12/2/2010 7:07:48 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

Cribtop: That would be a prime, central place to post them if Brad was anticipating an Allied move towards either the Kuriles, Tarawa, or Noumea in the next month or so. Unfortunately, that would be a very bad location with respect to any Allied move on Marcus or Wake. Those moves are still a month away (unless I get a good KB sighting far away), but I'm not going anywhere then if I don't know the KB's whereabouts.

Lecivius: You're right. I experienced the strength of Japanese ASW in 1943 and afterwoards in my previous game. I lost hundreds of subs to ASW, and most of them were parked in deep water hexes. I won't do that again. If I start experiencing ridiculous patrol losses I'll pull my subs back and use them for screening and to "flood the zone" whenever I expect a concentration of Japanese warships in a particular area.

(in reply to Cribtop)

Post #: 951

RE: One Weird Battle - 12/2/2010 7:14:31 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

The ships near Truk are prime KB escorts. Not definitive, but maybe a probable sighting.

I'll second that. In addition, I believe you noted a Division or 2 that was recently in India is now in Truk. Seems like a bit of a land and sea buildup. I am guessing your opponent is not afraid of you invading Truk so one wonders what the build up is all about.
Sometimes those "Heavy Radio Activity at xxx" indicates the KB. Seeing any of those?

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to Cribtop)

Post #: 952

RE: One Weird Battle - 12/2/2010 7:28:52 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

Yeah, I get lots of the "heavy radio activity" messages. Too many to make any sense of them.

Brad has 2nd Division at Truk and two divisions at Rabaul. My best guesses as to why they are there:

1. Amphibious invasion of Midway, or 2. Amphibious invasion of Suva, or 3. a reserve to permit Brad to counterinvade any bases taken by the Allies (he might be wondering about Noumea, Tarawa, and Wake).

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 953

RE: One Weird Battle - 12/3/2010 8:34:25 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

9/15/42 and 9/16/42

India in the Air: Allied fighters achieved a 2:1 victory over Bombay on the 15th (downing about 20 planes and losing 10). Brad didn't send any raids on the 16th. The Allies have begun air transport of supplies to the city, which I'll continue until Brad catches wind and posts LRCAP over the city.

Air Reinforcements: Nearly ten USAAF units just arrived at Karachi, including a bunch of Marauders, P-40E, and P-39. As soon as Ahmadebad airfield reaches level nine (it's currently at 8.6), the Allies can move forward these aircraft and proceed wtih a move by ground on Bombay (assuming the situation doesn't change between now and then).

India at Sea: Quiet.

India on the Ground: Quiet. I am not at all sure that Brad intends on moving on northwestern India, but I'm still playing on the assumption that he will.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 954

RE: One Weird Battle - 12/3/2010 9:58:33 PM

paullus99

Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline

Perhaps the calm before the storm? It doesn't make a lot of sense for him to be sitting idle in light of trying to achieve auto-victory by the end of the year. If he isn't pushing hard in India anymore, where could he go to try to:

1) Goad you into a fight with your carriers

2) Grab bases worth enough to put him within spitting distance of AV

Or perhaps both?

I can't imagine he'd shoot for Hawaii (though it is a thought) - I imagine it would have to be something that he could reasonably take with 3 - 5 Divisions (if he even had that available). I would watch his India dispositions closely, because if it looks like he's starting to bug out it may be something you can take advantage of.

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 955

RE: One Weird Battle - 12/3/2010 10:08:01 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
1. Doesn't it require 70 exp. pilots for bombers to carry 1,000 pounders or heavier? It's going to be a rare engagement indeed in which Allied dive bomber pilots have that level of experience. If SBDs are carrying 500 pounders for most of the war, that puts the Allies at a disadvantage.

This applies only to level bombers, as far as I know. For sure, whenever I saw SBDs, they always flew with 1000-pounder bombs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
2. The Allies do begin the war with some decent carrier squadron pilots, but once the first big naval battle takes place with high pilot losses, the Allies may not reach that level of quality again for a year or perhaps two or three years. That's gruesome.

This is just not true. From what I can remember from playing Allies, their carrier pilots start with about 60-70 in their main skills. Pilots can be trained to level better than this in 4-5 months. EXP will be lower at first, but EXP does not matter that much for carrier pilots, if carriers are used properly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
4. The Netty factor - Japanese LBA can be lethal out to a range of, what, 15 hexes? The Allies cannot counter.

Netties fail against any decent air opposition. Their pilots are irreplaceable as much as carrier airgroups, except with a much lesser chance of a big, coordinated strike. I never saw Netties attacking beyond 10-12 hexes. Certainly, beyond 14 (range of their escorts) they are mostly useless. Allies can counter this with 4E bombers on naval attack. Sure, they are less effective against major warships, but they do not explode whenever enemy fighter fires in their general direction. Plus, skipbombers that also can survive fighter attention, to an extent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
5. Anemic flak.

6. Anemic CAP. This idea has been dismissed as being without merit, but I still think CAP is far too porous from what I've seen in my games and plenty of other AARs.

Don't see either. Well, except US land-based flak units. Their fire seems inexplicably ineffective in both Scen 70 and - as far as I can judge by my PH attack - Scen 2 at the moment. Probably some code issue. It is possible, that Allied flak will not improve enough in 1943 and later, but so far results seem to be in line with reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
These are some of the things that make it very difficult for the Allies to compete historically in the air war. Am I overlooking any others?

I faced no problems competing much better than historically in the air war, when I played Allies. Even after a lot of tactical naval mistakes I made, my bomber steamroller started flattening everything in the way as early as autumn of 1942. Japanese found no counters against skipbombers torching any convoy that dared to come in range, Lightnings sweeping at extreme altitude and Flying Fortresses coming after them in groups of 50-70. I even played a mod that boosted Japanese planes' speed by 10-15 knots, made some available earlier and gave Japan better flak. On the other hand, Allies had more aircraft replacements. But I don't believe this completely counterbalanced everything else.

< Message edited by FatR -- 12/3/2010 10:22:24 PM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 956

RE: One Weird Battle - 12/3/2010 10:33:11 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

Don't see either. Well, except US land-based flak units. Their fire seems inexplicably ineffective in both Scen 70 and - as far as I can judge by my PH attack - Scen 2 at the moment. Probably some code issue. It is possible, that Allied flak will not improve enough in 1943 and later, but so far results seem to be in line with reality.

Got to disagree on the Flack. Allied Naval flack is not as effective as it should be after 1943 and gets worse as the war goes on. The 5 inch DP guns are not modeled correctly. The allied advantage in radar and the vast advantage in proximity fuses are not properly accounted for. Allied and Japanese naval flack late in the war is about equal and that is not close to correct. This was a major allied advantage, and it does not work

_____________________________

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 957

RE: One Weird Battle - 12/3/2010 10:36:47 PM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Cribtop: That would be a prime, central place to post them if Brad was anticipating an Allied move towards either the Kuriles, Tarawa, or Noumea in the next month or so. Unfortunately, that would be a very bad location with respect to any Allied move on Marcus or Wake. Those moves are still a month away (unless I get a good KB sighting far away), but I'm not going anywhere then if I don't know the KB's whereabouts.

Lecivius: You're right. I experienced the strength of Japanese ASW in 1943 and afterwoards in my previous game. I lost hundreds of subs to ASW, and most of them were parked in deep water hexes. I won't do that again. If I start experiencing ridiculous patrol losses I'll pull my subs back and use them for screening and to "flood the zone" whenever I expect a concentration of Japanese warships in a particular area.

AE rule number one: The Allied player would be foolish to commit to any operation with or without his carriers without having prior knowledge of exactly where KB is.

AE rule number two: Make sure you have fully read and understand rule number one......

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 958

RE: One Weird Battle - 12/3/2010 10:43:01 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

Wise words as recently demonstrated in another aar.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 959

RE: One Weird Battle - 12/3/2010 10:49:07 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth
Got to disagree on the Flack. Allied Naval flack is not as effective as it should be after 1943 and gets worse as the war goes on. The 5 inch DP guns are not modeled correctly. The allied advantage in radar and the vast advantage in proximity fuses are not properly accounted for. Allied and Japanese naval flack late in the war is about equal and that is not close to correct. This was a major allied advantage, and it does not work

I cannot yet judge the situation late in the game. Losing 32 planes to flak (plus some ops losses caused by damage) in a decisive all-out carrier battle seems to be about right for June of 1942, considering that most of my raids had enough numbers to swamp their targets. Japanese flak in the same battle might have been too effective in proportion to the number of attacking planes, but half of its victims were British biplanes.

I intend to watch Nemo/Panzerjager Hortlund pair of AARs very carefully to see how flak works in 1945. The free use of exploits, like kamikaze approaches at extreme altitude will skew the picture somewhat, though.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 960