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: Before and after

 
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: Before and after Page: <<   < prev  213 214 [215] 216 217   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Before and after - 1/5/2016 2:37:46 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Sea trial by fire...the APD has two 12.7cm guns, but doesn't fire. She is now a little north of the Bonins, and might get away.

A freshly build E wasn't as lucky, and is put down by 3 Fletchers.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6421
RE: Before and after - 1/5/2016 7:53:22 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I get three full divisions in Honshu in the next 30 days. Here is a better look at the short term reinforcements.

The 56th Independent Mixed Brigade clocking in at 184 AV in Osaka in 4 days will most likely have 100% prep, in urban heavy terrain, and will punch far above its inherent firepower.

Since the TOE leaves a lot to be desired, having armor and heavy artillery at Osaka to help the 56th is very important.

Both Nagoya and Osaka will get one good infantry division, but then will rely upon regiments and brigades to fill out the defense along with plentiful AA, and ART. Divisions will form the primary forces in the x2 terrain and also on prospective new landing sights.

The Armor will pull back if I can establish a defensive line here so hopefully they will only be fighting for about a week to 10 days.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6422
RE: Gifu - 1/5/2016 8:02:46 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
The weak spot...plentiful AA, but not much to stop tanks, yet.

I wonder, do bigger AA guns help at all during land combat in AE? Recall 88-ers' reputation in Europe

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6423
RE: Gifu - 1/5/2016 8:20:26 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		When it comes to armor...what the Japanese reap in China in 42 they sow when the Shermans come online for the allies. Its China seal clubbing in reverse. Its in my AAR against Erik somewhere but I think throughout the war I never lost a Sherman in combat. Only disablements if I remember correctly. I love Shermans.

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 6424
RE: Gifu - 1/5/2016 8:22:35 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
The weak spot...plentiful AA, but not much to stop tanks, yet.

I wonder, do bigger AA guns help at all during land combat in AE? Recall 88-ers' reputation in Europe



In tracker the AA does have some statistics that makes it seem like they do contribute in land warfare, but the 8cm AA gun has an anti armor of 14...whereas the 47mm rapidfire AT cannon has an anti-armor rating of 52.

Even if I had any the 88's don't seem like they would be that great at taking out Allied armor.

And finally, the AA units are usually shell shocked from heavy aerial fighting during the day, protecting the troops and their usually much higher disruption would make their addition to land combat most likely very small.

The Type 3 tank has 120 anti-armor rating and will see their trial by combat shortly here.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 1/5/2016 9:26:40 PM >

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 6425
RE: Gifu - 1/5/2016 8:28:26 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

When it comes to armor...what the Japanese reap in China in 42 they sow when the Shermans come online for the allies. Its China seal clubbing in reverse. Its in my AAR against Erik somewhere but I think throughout the war I never lost a Sherman in combat. Only disablements if I remember correctly. I love Shermans.


I get so distressed at not seeing a little more on what exactly is destroyed, or what exactly is doing the attacking. I wish the combat report would put in nuggets of intel...

I have thought of adding a joint AAR where both sides could post some interesting tidbits for bigger fights.



< Message edited by Lowpe -- 1/5/2016 9:29:38 PM >

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 6426
RE: Gifu - 1/5/2016 8:43:18 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
Its in my AAR against Erik somewhere but I think throughout the war I never lost a Sherman in combat. Only disablements if I remember correctly.

That is pretty ridiculous, JFBs should be throwing tantrums on the idea =) I'm sure there were quite some in older days. Game balancing can get to some amusing results, while overall picture of fighting is very nice in the game

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 6427
RE: Gifu - 1/5/2016 8:50:55 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		I think for that you need to look at DP guns (Dual-Purpose for both AA and ground combat). Maybe pure AA (flak) devices get to play a role in defense in the game, but I think they do not count on offense. DP guns do. I think (anyone recall for sure?) that they also can fire on ships, although that does not happen very often.

From my game:




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 6428
RE: Gifu - 1/5/2016 8:56:50 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		The Type 3 is solid tank, better than a 43 Sherman. But according to most players that have been there, it doesn't perform well.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 6429
RE: Gifu - 1/5/2016 8:58:16 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		It seems to me that DP guns definitely fight in land combat....and I recently saw a post where some AA guns fired on landing ships, but they might have been DP guns too.



< Message edited by Lowpe -- 1/5/2016 9:59:11 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6430
RE: Gifu - 1/5/2016 9:05:39 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

It seems to me that DP guns definitely fight in land combat....and I recently saw a post where some AA guns fired on landing ships, but they might have been DP guns too.



Landing ships would be on the offense close in, so I would expect that defensive abilities are in play. I know that a bunch of Allied CD units get DP gun upgrades, which is what makes be try to recall if they fire on ships (not landing types). But as mentioned CD units rarely fire at warships bombarding, mostly they oppose invasions.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6431
RE: Gifu - 1/5/2016 9:12:19 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I had four or five naval bombardments last turn, and my CD guns fired at every single one. Didn't do much good....but occasionally they will sink a destroyer.




Ok, there were 6 bombardments last turn, and CD guns fired at 4 out of 6 (Chiba got bombarded twice and the CD guns there didn't fire both times). The Chiba bombardment was only 2 TF of 2 Destroyers each, and not with any heavier ships.

And the other hit was on the California and not the Pennsylvania.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 1/5/2016 10:16:47 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 6432
RE: Gifu - 1/5/2016 9:16:38 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

The Type 3 is solid tank, better than a 43 Sherman. But according to most players that have been there, it doesn't perform well.





Experience differences? Full-stack-combat differences? What's the context?

Because the numbers are the numbers. There isn't a different model for how one nation's devices perform.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6433
RE: Gifu - 1/5/2016 9:19:51 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I had four or five naval bombardments last turn, and my CD guns fired at every single one. Didn't do much good....but occasionally they will sink a destroyer.




Ok, there were 6 bombardments last turn, and CD guns fired at 4 out of 6 (Chiba got bombarded twice and the CD guns there didn't fire both times). The Chiba bombardment was only 2 TF of 2 Destroyers each, and not with any heavier ships.

And the other hit was on the California and not the Pennsylvania.

OK, but what are they? I suspect that things in the range of the 155 mm guns are less likely to duke it out with ships than larger guns. Plus the usual AE randomness!

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6434
RE: Gifu - 1/5/2016 9:20:55 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Experience differences? Full-stack-combat differences? What's the context?

Because the numbers are the numbers. There isn't a different model for how one nation's devices perform.


I agree, Lok.

I bet I can wring pretty good performance out of the Type 3. I know my usage of tanks in Burma/Thailand/Indochina has frustrated Allied intentions many times and that was before the Type 3 came along.

Too bad I can't make enough of them.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 6435
RE: Gifu - 1/5/2016 9:25:40 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


OK, but what are they? I suspect that things in the range of the 155 mm guns are less likely to duke it out with ships than larger guns. Plus the usual AE randomness!


Here there was a mix of CD and DP guns, another base had only DP guns and fired, and Chiba had only DP guns and didn't fire. Hard to target a task force of 2 destroyers I bet.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 6436
RE: Gifu - 1/5/2016 9:34:10 PM   
njp72

 

Posts: 1372
Joined: 9/20/2008
Status: offline 		I intend to make thousands if I can.

I too have found the Type 2 delivering good service. I think when the Type 3 is utilised in late war combat the other combat multipliers of the Allies (air and arty) detracts from its perceived performance.

I am looking forward to using the Type 3 against the Soviets especially when I have air superiority.

Keep up the fight.




quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Experience differences? Full-stack-combat differences? What's the context?

Because the numbers are the numbers. There isn't a different model for how one nation's devices perform.


I agree, Lok.

I bet I can wring pretty good performance out of the Type 3. I know my usage of tanks in Burma/Thailand/Indochina has frustrated Allied intentions many times and that was before the Type 3 came along.

Too bad I can't make enough of them.



(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6437
RE: Before and after - 1/5/2016 9:38:11 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		In real life 166 Type 3 tanks were made, and never saw combat. Mine will.

The Type 3 was allocated to the Japanese home islands to defend against the projected Allied Invasion. At least 6 tank regiments were equipped with Type 3 Chi-Nu tanks on Kyūshū and Honshū, including the 1st Tank Division and 4th Tank Division based around Tokyo. As the surrender of Japan occurred before that invasion, the Type 3 was never used in combat.[5]

One surviving Type 3 medium tank is on display at the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force Military Ordnance Training School at Tsuchiura, Ibaraki, Japan.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6438
RE: Gifu - 1/5/2016 9:42:44 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: njp72

I intend to make thousands if I can.

I too have found the Type 2 delivering good service. I think when the Type 3 is utilised in late war combat the other combat multipliers of the Allies (air and arty) detracts from its perceived performance.

I am looking forward to using the Type 3 against the Soviets especially when I have air superiority.

Keep up the fight.

quote:



According to Pax, you will need three out of four Tank Divisions to stop the Soviets in mid 45.

I agree, that by the time the Type 3 comes into play the Allies are really nailing you with air superiority and naval bombardments.

Heck, I only need to make 60 more Type 3s and I will equal the historical record.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 1/5/2016 10:43:09 PM >

(in reply to njp72)
Post #: 6439
RE: Before and after - 1/5/2016 10:02:35 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I hope to get this unit up and fighting....but I will need vehicle production factories and that might be questionable by late September of 44.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6440
RE: Gifu - 1/5/2016 11:31:12 PM   
BBfanboy


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

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
The weak spot...plentiful AA, but not much to stop tanks, yet.

I wonder, do bigger AA guns help at all during land combat in AE? Recall 88-ers' reputation in Europe


AA can shoot at tanks. I had two armored units attack some AA guns at Matsuyama. To my surprise a lot of the AFVs were disabled and a few destroyed with almost no losses to the AA units. So the AA can shoot at tanks in defence, but I am not sure they can do so in offence.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 6441
RE: Gifu - 1/6/2016 9:09:37 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		Regarding artillery land combat usage, see my post in this thread.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3701981&mpage=1&key=counter%2Cbattery&#3702249

Alfred

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 6442
RE: Gifu - 1/6/2016 9:48:59 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Experience differences? Full-stack-combat differences? What's the context?

Because the numbers are the numbers. There isn't a different model for how one nation's devices perform.


Speculating a bit a contributing factor is probably the insane anti armor value of allied squads at the time when better Japanese tanks are available. Commonwealth squads with a value of 75 and US/USMC of 55. Also lots of 57mm AT guns in the allied divisions.

Not sure why the Shermans did so well against Erik. Perhaps something has changed in DBB compared to stock? I remember setting up a sandbox with 2 US tank battalions against a Japanese tank division in a clear hex and the tank division was wrecked. Can´t remember the exact setup but its in the AAR somewhere. Might not have been against Type 3s.





(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 6443
RE: Before and after - 1/6/2016 2:05:14 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		Too bad most games don't go long enough, but would love to see some Pershings in action.

_____________________________


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6444
RE: Before and after - 1/6/2016 8:59:34 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline 		Regarding artillery.

The Allies hold most of the cards in this regard. The artillery organic to their infantry LCU's (particularly US/USMC divisional units) is vastly superior to that of Japanese LCU's, both in terms of quality and quantity. The 75's of the IJA can't really compete with the abundance of 105's that the Allies can use.

This is reflected in the artillery LCU's as well. The Allies, and again the US Army in particular, get plenty of big artillery units with lots of big guns.

The only good news for Japan is that some of the heaviest guns are pretty much Japan only affairs. Besides the Russians, the Allies don't get many of the really big hitters.

In retrospect, I wish I'd concentrated all of these big artillery pieces as Japan into a single artillery park, rather than breaking them up into smaller groups. Out-massing the Allies in terms of big guns is about the only qualitative advantage you can get on the ground in 44 and onward.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6445
Osaka attacked! - 1/7/2016 5:24:06 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		June 20, 1944

The Allies push a strong surface group up into Kobe...the hapless local patrol is sunk.

Night Time Surface Combat, near Kobe at 108,59, Range 2,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
ML G-318, Shell hits 1, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CL Raleigh, Shell hits 1
DD Beale
DD Swanson
DD Gwin
DD Shaw
DD Porter
DD Worden
DMS Macomb
DMS Elliot

Low visibility due to Rain with 3% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Rain and 3% moonlight: 2,000 yards
Range closes to 24,000 yards...
Range closes to 18,000 yards...
Range closes to 12,000 yards...
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
Range closes to 6,000 yards...
Range closes to 4,000 yards...
Range closes to 2,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 2,000 yards
Japanese open fire on surprised Allied ships at 2,000 yards
ML G-318 fires at CL Raleigh at 2,000 yards
ML G-318 sunk by CL Raleigh at 2,000 yards
Combat ends with last Japanese ship sunk...

But their sacrifice, and the minefields present extract some payback.

TF 303 encounters mine field at Kobe (108,59) - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

80 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
DMS Elliot, Shell hits 12, heavy fires, heavy damage
DMS Macomb, Shell hits 9, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Raleigh, Mine hits 1
DD Worden, Mine hits 1, heavy damage
DD Porter, Mine hits 1
DD Shaw, Mine hits 1
DD Gwin, Mine hits 1, on fire
DD Swanson, Mine hits 1

Yura Fortress firing at DMS Elliot
DMS Elliot firing at Yura Fortress
Yura Fortress firing at DMS Macomb
DMS Macomb firing at Yura Fortress
7 mines cleared

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6446
RE: Osaka attacked! - 1/7/2016 5:26:05 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Makes me smile.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6447
RE: Osaka attacked! - 1/7/2016 5:28:07 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Then daylight, and the Allied bombers strike. Of all the juicy targets they concentrate on two: Osaka and Dalat in Indochina.

Japanese flak downs a few planes...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6448
RE: Osaka attacked! - 1/7/2016 5:30:19 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		The main event, a deliberate attack at Osaka.

Ground combat at Osaka/Kyoto (109,59)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 24484 troops, 436 guns, 842 vehicles, Assault Value = 2799

Defending force 63005 troops, 705 guns, 436 vehicles, Assault Value = 1805

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 2

Allied adjusted assault: 386

Japanese adjusted defense: 3893

Allied assault odds: 1 to 10 (fort level 2)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), preparation(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1349 casualties reported
Squads: 15 destroyed, 86 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 31 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 16 disabled
Guns lost 22 (1 destroyed, 21 disabled)
Vehicles lost 29 (1 destroyed, 28 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
981 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 23 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 36 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 54 disabled
Guns lost 22 (1 destroyed, 21 disabled)
Vehicles lost 65 (5 destroyed, 60 disabled)

Assaulting units:
1st USMC Tank Battalion
25th Infantry Division
I Corps Cmbt Engineer Regiment
193rd Tank Battalion
Americal Infantry Division
6th Infantry Division
706th Tank Battalion
2nd USMC Tank Battalion
4th USMC Tank Battalion
33rd Infantry Division
3rd USMC Tank Battalion
104th Combat Engineer Regiment
5th USMC Tank Battalion
110th Combat Engineer Battalion
766th Tank Battalion
7th Infantry Division
2nd Marine AA Battalion
147th Field Artillery Regiment
8th USMC Field Artillery Battalion
7th USMC Field Artillery Battalion
10th USMC Field Artillery Battalion
198th Field Artillery Battalion
251st Field Artillery Battalion
11th USMC Field Artillery Battalion
189th USAAF Base Force
2nd USMC Field Artillery Battalion
1st USMC Field Artillery Battalion
148th Field Artillery Battalion

Defending units:
3rd Raiding Regiment
52nd Division
26th Tank Regiment
12th Tank Regiment
1st Guards Division
76th Infantry Brigade
47th Ind.Mixed Brigade
44th/A Division
50th Ind.Mixed Brigade
14th Ind.Mixed Regiment
44th/B Division
8th Tank Regiment
44th/C Division
21st Air Defense AA Battalion
3rd Air Division
61st Field AA Battalion
140th JAAF AF Bn
28th Special Base Force
63rd Infantry Brigade
11th Air Defense AA Battalion
43rd Ind.AA Gun Co
Suzuka JNAF Base Force
23rd Air Defense AA Regiment
12th Ind.AA Gun Co
2nd Air Defense AA Regiment
44th Ind.AA Gun Co
1st JAAF AF Bn
83rd JAAF AF Bn
44th IMB Artillery Battalion
21st Ind.Mixed Rgt /13
74th JAAF AF Bn
Osaka Naval Base Force
51st Air Defense AA Battalion
47th JNAF AF Unit /1

Japan loses a full fort level and 90% progress to the next level. For the next attack, 3 Japanese Armored units are now on the front lines, along with more troops out of railroad cars. Hopefully we can do better.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6449
RE: Osaka attacked! - 1/7/2016 5:32:23 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		It seems Allied troops, the USMC divisions, are moving on Nagoya.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6450
Page:   <<   < prev  213 214 [215] 216 217   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Before and after Page: <<   < prev  213 214 [215] 216 217   next >   >>
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.750