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: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-)

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-) Page: <<   < prev  45 46 [47] 48 49   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-) - 11/11/2005 5:45:47 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline 		The more surface combat I see with the Japanese attacking the more concerned I am that surface combat is borked.

These battles don't bother me in one respect, the Japanese TF heavily outnumbered the Oklahoma TF and under those circumstances the Oklahoma should get murdered.

But the way the Japanese plow through enemy surface TFs is much more effective than what the Allies do. And my experience is with British Tfs, with night fighting experience in the 70s and 80s, and admirals with 60+ naval skill and 60+ agression.

In my game with Mogami as Japanese attack similar to this one just went off and got similar results. The Japanese seem to attack everything in the hex, the Allies seem to hit about half.

There are also very serious problems with hits and damage. The combination of high manuever and high rate of fire in CLs makes them too dangerous in comparison with a BB. High rate of fire is what generates hits in this game, and high manuever causes misses. The result is that BBs (low ROF, low manuever) get hit and don't do much damage, but CLs (high ROF, High Manuever) score lots of damage and don't get hit. This shows a failure to understand naval combat, because in WWII ships that are trying to score hits need to steam in straight lines, which means by definition they are not using manuever.

I'm not very sympathetic to Nomad in this situation becuase I think he came to the party with inadiquate force and then lost. But I am absolutely certain that surface combat has problems for the reasons I listed above, and I suspect that there are bonuses to the Japanese that we are not aware of and that the Allies need to play around in order to be successful.

I do think your playing rings around Nomad, just as you did with Wobbly. With Dave its is harder to tell because the two of you were in a build up stage so there were no huge battles.

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1381
RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-) - 11/11/2005 5:50:29 PM   
ADavidB


Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

Yea i didn't want it to sound so harsh. :) But even when getting my ass stomped in Fortress America i still enjoyed the fun of the fight until i knew i was beat and then i gave up. But as America sure you'll get your butt stomped and the score will be bad but come 1945 regardless of what you went through before you will feel the thrill of conquoring.


I guess that is the fundamental divide here - those folks who don't mind a "what if" game, in the spirit of Fortress America, and those folks who want a historically accurate simulation.

It's just too bad that Matrix/2x3 didn't give the option in WitP to choose between the two versions.

Cheers -

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to bwheatley)
Post #: 1382
RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-) - 11/11/2005 5:58:13 PM   
ADavidB


Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

I do think you're playing rings around Nomad, just as you did with Wobbly. With Dave its is harder to tell because the two of you were in a build up stage so there were no huge battles.


John played rings around me too - no doubt about that! He just understands the fine points of what needs to be done in the game better than most players.

I think that it's a mindset issue with those of us who are WW II Pacific war "otaku" (Japanese term for obsessed fan) - we have expectations and we keep on getting surprised because our expectations aren't always met.

I guess bwheatley hit it on the head - if the rest of us start to think of this game as "Fortress (Pacific) American 1942", then we will start to play the Game instead of trying to re-fight the War and probably have more success. John already does that very successfully on both sides.

Cheers -

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 1383
RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-) - 11/11/2005 6:47:00 PM   
brisd


Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline 		Congrats PzB on a well planned and successful operation! You put sufficient forces into the battle, the classic concentration of forces needed to achieve a decisive result. Allied players crying over broken game routines should instead look at their own flawed strategies. Japan WAS and should be superior at these type of surface battles, given nearly equal forces, up till the end of '43. The OK is a very obsolete vessel to be the center of a surface battle group on the front lines of the WITP. The superior forces won and people are surprised or disgusted? I guess you should stick to 1944 scenarios if you want Allied victories every turn. The losses PzB suffered, esp. in fighter aircraft were significant but he scored in ships sunk. That means Victory Points and that is what winning this game is all about. There are other fine naval tactical simulations out there, this is a strategic/operational game and the designers did a fantastic job IMO.

If one is going to go into an operation in face of the enemy's (IJN) main forces, one should bring maximum power to bear, the Grant doctrine works, give it a try. PzB did!

_____________________________

"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1384
RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-) - 11/12/2005 2:24:09 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Appreciate all the input and comments guys!

I've caught a cold and been out for the most of this day. That in combination with a somewhat unexpected reaction
to yesterdays battle made the sofa a much more desirable battleground

Yesterdays battle may have yielded better results than I had dared to hope for, but it was in no way a decisive battle.
It will at best delay the Allied advance for a few weeks. Still, it may have had a more profound psychological effect.
No doubt Ken will get over it in a day or two! He has no intentions of quitting the game, only his AAR...for now anyway.

To be honest I don't know how I would react if I received a drubbing or two like this from time to time. That's what I expect
to find out - and deal with - during 1944 and 45 in this game

What I admired most about playing Wobbly was that he always managed to hand out praise in defeat and make me laugh
heartedly. Too bad I couldn't return the favor often enough. It's a brilliant trait in any person. Personally I tend to accept
setbacks with a few curses and a 'Ouch'... But I always enjoy discussing the why's and how's afterwards. That is almost half
the fun if you ask me.

It would be a bit unfair to blaim neither Dave or Ken for the reverses against me, impressive that they wished to take over
such a hot potato at all. They're both excellent opponents with different playing styles. You should have seen how Ken has managed
to master amphibious warfare on a miniature scale over the last few months. I'm still able to 'go with the flow' in this game, even though
it's getting more and more difficult. That's why I appreciate even the smaller achievments, heck - the victories in 1942 came easily compared
to the last one.

I do consider this a game and try reminding myself of this every now and then - especially when I don't agree with how the
game works Every now and then I've suggested house rules for both the Allied and Jap side to make the game more balanced and
historical as possible. So while I agree with several of your points Dave, I don't think that you and me play this game that differently
even though we base our strategies on different assumptions.

An example: I don't think the Japs would give up any ground at all and feel obligated to defend the territory I've captured. Trying to avoid
loosing more than I can afford though. In your game Dave, you choose not to defend several Allied bases in order to avoid losses. Very
logical and sensible, but still an option that isn't valid for me.

I'll try to analyze some of the experiences from yesterdays battle in another post!




< Message edited by PzB -- 11/12/2005 2:25:54 AM >

_____________________________



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

(in reply to brisd)
Post #: 1385
RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-) - 11/12/2005 2:47:26 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Tom, in regard to your comment about how my ships 'went over' all of the Allied TFs in Gasmata yesterday:

Several times during the last month my warships have steamed into a port only to engage the PT boats while the
fat, juicy transports easily glide out of the hex. Very frustrating.

If you go over my battle plans for Operation Shogun, you will see how I moved my carriers only 3 hexes away from
Gasmata as this would enable them to launch strikes at convoys that did just that. And it worked!

Must admit that I was a bit surprised at how well my bombardment force engaged multiple enemy targets before bombarding
Gasmata. Perhaps V.Adm Yamamoto was an ideal choice for such an assignment? You should still keep in mind that each of
the engagement were pretty short - no long exchanges of gunfire. So how long would it take for the battlegroup to steam past
the Allied invasion beaches and fire at all and everything that was observed before bombarding the beach head?

One large Allied transport group - the one attacked by my naval bombers - wasn't hit at all. Still grumpy about that. Several
apds and cruisers got away without a scratch. So we didn't clean sweep the place at all. Stacking as much as 50 ships outside
a small base like Gasmata is bound to have consequences if 3 enemy battleships suddenly breaks through the outer defenses....

Regarding Toms comments about rate of fire: The enemy light cruisers got of many shots and damaged my heavy cruisers, but
the hits weren't very serious. I was impressed about my battleships accurate shooting, they landed lots of hits. The Oklahoma didn't
hit $hit! I've learned to respect a few different ship classes when it comes to lashing out accurate gunfire:

Large US light cruisers like the two that were sunk yesterday
Porter class destroyers armed with 8x5" guns
Akitsuki class destroyers armed with 8x3.9" guns

Most modern British destroyers also perform very well .

Otherwise it was superior numbers and experience that ensured victory in the naval battles fought during the night.
I thought Ken may have tried to move all his ships away from Gasmata after he spotted my surface groups the previous day.
By moving in more PT boats he could have made the mission very unprofitable for me to say the least... Guess he assumed that his forces
were sufficient to hurt me. So he learned a lesson and will perhaps treat the IJN with more respect in the future

_____________________________



"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 #: 1386
RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-) - 11/12/2005 3:27:17 AM   
ADavidB


Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

An example: I don't think the Japs would give up any ground at all and feel obligated to defend the territory I've captured.


The Japanese quite willingly abandoned the Aleutians and pulled out of Guadalcanal when they saw no point in continuing in either. Afterwards the extremely rapid US mastery of the air eliminated that option for the Japanese and they had to stay and fight. So don't let a misconception of the Japanese approach limit your options in the game.

Various Allied commanders took similar approaches in the early part of the War. Hart deliberately disobeyed orders and scattered his fleet to the South weeks before the Japanese attack on the Philippines. So chosing to be a "smart" commander, Allied or Japanese, is never "gamey" when you look at the War in detail.

Cheers -

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1387
RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-) - 11/12/2005 3:46:14 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Agree Dave, but we both follow our ideas about what would have been a realistic approach for our games, right!

As for Japan I do try to abandon a base when the situation becomes strategical or tactical hopeless - but before that happends
we refuse to yield more ground than we have to <G> From the Allied point of view I would use the following reasoning: 'It would have been
very difficult to convince Gen MacArthur and the Australians to abandon PM without a fight in May 1942!', and therefore left a reasonably strong
garrison there.

I don't mean to apply that one approach is more correct than another, but our personal perceptions do provide guidance for our strategic decisions, right!?
Without them the game would simply have been a game without any thought for 'historical accuracy'....






_____________________________



"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 ADavidB)
Post #: 1388
RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-) - 11/12/2005 6:22:42 AM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline
quote:

You put sufficient forces into the battle, the classic concentration of forces needed to achieve a decisive result. Allied players crying over broken game routines should instead look at their own flawed strategies.
- brisd

My strategies are not flawed, I regularly achieve numeratical, material, crew quality and leadership superiority over my opponents (the Japanese) and I beat them. However I do not get the same result that they achieve under the same conditions against other players. This leads me to question the system.

(in reply to brisd)
Post #: 1389
Stand off at New Britain - 11/12/2005 8:33:04 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Ok, back to the war after a short break.

I've started several large barge convoys between Emirau and Rabaul. This is the only
safe way to bring supplies in now. At the same time I'm bringing most of my base force units out.
No use for them there anymore as the place will remain closed...

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 07/05/43

Air Combat

We continue to nib at the enemy bomber streams over Rabaul.

Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 16

Allied aircraft
F-5A Lightning x 3
B-17E Fortress x 17
B-24D Liberator x 13

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 1 destroyed, 7 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed, 11 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 6 destroyed, 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
12 casualties reported

Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 23
Port hits 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_____________________________



"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 Tom Hunter)
Post #: 1390
RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-) - 11/12/2005 10:13:54 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

The Japanese quite willingly abandoned the Aleutians and pulled out of Guadalcanal when they saw no point in continuing in either.


I don't think they "willingly" gave up Guadalcanal. They did it out of necessity. They fought like hell to keep it but in the end they simply realized that they couldn't keep their troops supplied and couldn't keep US troops from getting supplies.

The Aleutians were a different matter. They had zero strategic or tactical importance for the Japanese and were taken only as a feint for the Midway operation.

Other than the Aleutians, I can't think of anywhere they voulntarily gave up without a fight.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to ADavidB)
Post #: 1391
RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-) - 11/12/2005 11:39:45 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		That's my understanding as well Chez. Trying to be a bit more flexible than the Japs
were historically...bend but not break.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 07/06/43

Sub/ASW Attacks

A sub has been sneaking around Lautern harbour for a while and I dispatched
an asw group to get rid of it. Sayonara...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Lautem at 33,78

Japanese Ships
DD Hayate
PC Seki Maru #2
PC Kyo Maru #6
DD Yayoi
DD Ikazuchi
DD Yudachi

Allied Ships
SS Snapper, hits 7, on fire, heavy damage *sinks*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

The next two attacks illustrates the magnitude of my training program in China:

Day Air attack on 62nd Chinese Corps, at 42,36

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 109
G4M1 Betty x 81
G4M2 Betty x 22
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 63

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
74 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 55th Chinese Corps, at 43,37

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 159
A6M5 Zeke x 42
B6N Jill x 18
G4M1 Betty x 45
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 36
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 36

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
7 casualties reported
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The asw group at Lautern also attracted other visitors. The CAP
gave them a rough welcome:

Day Air attack on TF, near Lautem at 33,78

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6
A6M3 Zero x 12
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 7

Allied aircraft
Beaufighter Mk 21 x 13
P-40N Warhawk x 35

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Beaufighter Mk 21: 2 destroyed, 5 damaged
P-40N Warhawk: 7 destroyed, 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
PC Kyo Maru #6
DD Yayoi
DD Ikazuchi, Shell hits 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasmata was covered in clouds today and a couple of anti shipping strikes
went after a couplf of convoys:

Day Air attack on TF at 58,91

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 5 damaged

Allied Ships
DD Waller
LST LST-17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 58,91

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 1 damaged

Allied Ships
AP President Monroe, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage *sinks*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

I saw that an enemy unit had marched ito Salamua yesterday and decided to
airlift the 5th Kure SNLF. The Oz Brigade must had already been half eaten by
mosquitos and didn't perform too well:

Ground combat at Salamaua

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 4884 troops, 51 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 470 troops, 3 guns, 0 vehicles

Allied assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 0)

Allied Assault reduces fortifications to 0

Japanese ground losses:
61 casualties reported

Allied ground losses:
27 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 1943

Here is a statistical overview:




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 ChezDaJez)
Post #: 1392
RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-) - 11/13/2005 2:46:13 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		I've not abandoned my plans regarding the carrier sweep in the Pacific. It is a bit
difficult to move my carriers away from the 'Schwerepunkt' however. Will spend the next
month upgrading all my A6M2s and then we'll see. One unit pr day now.

Found 3 heavy and 5 light cruisers + 9 destroyers that were due for upgrades. They're going
to Singapore and Hong Kong.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 07/07/43

Air Combat

Both sides attacked the ground units at Salamua today with similar results:

Day Air attack on 7th Australian Brigade, at 54,88

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 17
Ki-21 Sally x 50

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
44 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Kure 5th SNLF, at 54,88

Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk I x 7
Beaufighter Mk 21 x 28
P-39D Airacobra x 24

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
56 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Buin at 64,92

Japanese aircraft
G4M2 Betty x 7

Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk I x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M2 Betty: 3 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied Ships
DD Fletcher
AK Zebra, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

Salamua fell today, guess it will be built pretty soon...will be very expensive to bring
supplies from PM though. I didn't want to fight over it as my units would have been blasted
from the air in no time.

Ground combat at Salamaua

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 4772 troops, 47 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 866 troops, 5 guns, 0 vehicles

Allied assault odds: 22 to 1 (fort level 0)

Allied forces CAPTURE Salamaua base !!!

Japanese ground losses:
22 casualties reported

Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Reinforcements

As you can see I'm receiving substantial reinforcements soon. Will put most of the
naval bombers on my carriers.






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 #: 1393
RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-) - 11/13/2005 12:10:28 PM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline 		I must say that you are a lucky bastard, getting the zekes two months early and all.

That armor point, increased speed and durability is so precious to the japanese. I can imagine what would happen if you sent the A6M2 vs hellcats... The A6M5 atleast stands a chance of not suffering horrendous losses.

Oh, btw, how much are you producing per month?

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1394
RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-) - 11/13/2005 4:31:51 PM   
Rob Brennan UK


Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline
quote:

Oh, btw, how much are you producing per month?


I think he said 300 ! 30/day wow

and nice going Pzb .. are you going to drive nomad insane too ?

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to String)
Post #: 1395
RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-) - 11/13/2005 4:37:01 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Erm, 30/day would be 900/month...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)
Post #: 1396
RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-) - 11/13/2005 4:46:42 PM   
Rob Brennan UK


Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline 		OK i cant count ! .. I did look back a page and he got 10 planes on the first day so 300/month is correct i believe. It's just my addled brain that cant do multiplication very well !

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 1397
RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-) - 11/13/2005 5:32:10 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Initially I produced 300 pr month, but that was before my last factories auto converted - closer to 460 now
So we're getting 15 new Zekes pr day - upgrading one Daitai every 2nd day.

Hope you're right String, the A6M2 is horrible outclassed versus the new Allied fighters.

It's not easy for Ken to come in at a critical stage and turn the boat around. As he said, everyone are expecting him to
whac me around now and setbacks are therefore even more frustrating. It will become increasingly difficult to hurt him,
hopefully I can remain sane myself

_____________________________



"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 Rob Brennan UK)
Post #: 1398
RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-) - 11/13/2005 6:22:01 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 07/08/43

Air Combat

Had to retire my Kavieng CAP today - the 'leakers' over Rabaul were hit by a P-47 sweep.
8 Tojos for 2 Bolts isn't very kewl...

Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 14

Allied aircraft
P-47C Thunderbolt x 36

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 8 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-47C Thunderbolt: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 5

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 11
B-17E Fortress x 35

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 3 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-38G Lightning: 1 destroyed, 3 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed, 14 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
68 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Airbase hits 5
Runway hits 38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My CAP has now been stationed over Emirau Island Bringing fuel and supplies here
so I can resupply Rabaul and other island with barges.

Day Air attack on TF, near Emirau Island at 60,84

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 5

Allied aircraft
B-24D Liberator x 20

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-24D Liberator: 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
TK Shimotsu Maru, Bomb hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
PG Kaikei Maru
PG Hakkai Maru
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken immediately sent a fast transport group to Salamua - and it attracted some
attention. The Canberra escaped again, but the Ralph Talbot lost her bows!

Day Air attack on TF, near Salamaua at 54,88

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 8

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed, 3 damaged

Allied Ships
DD Ralph Talbot, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CA Canberra

Allied ground losses:
42 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air production stats




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 #: 1399
RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-) - 11/13/2005 7:36:42 PM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline 		Congrats PZB, scoring such a victory in 1943 is always good for Japanese ego. I really think Nomad should have left Gasmata port as he saw you coming and the end result will be to delay his operations for some days while some of your cruisers will be damaged by LBA or PT boats.

As for the result of the naval battle and the comments of Tom, I think that the game is simulating well the fact that Japan had the best crew, admirals and weapons for night surface battle until the second part of 1943. In my own experience the modern Allied CL are real killers later on, they are blasting Japanese CA off the water with no problem.

As for the fact that Japanese troops should not retreat because it is unhistorical, I strongly disagree. As for examples of places abandonned by Japanese troops without a fight, I will cite Rangoon, a good part of China in 1945, the main part of Okinawa, and to some extent Manila (that was abandonned by the Army but the Navy refused the order and stayed in the city). Also several Solomon Islands bases were bypassed and then evacuated by the Tokyo Express.


(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1400
RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-) - 11/13/2005 8:14:29 PM   
WhoCares


Posts: 653
Joined: 7/6/2004
Status: offline 		Looking at your production, 'I'd suggest to stop Val and Kate production as their replacements will soon arrive and you have plenty reserves in pool: Judy 43-09 with >800 Vals in pool, Jill 43-11 with >1000(!) in pool. If you produce as many Judys as Vals, you might have to look after your Aichi engine production as well

Tonys you need till '45 - considering that they will suffer more and more from better enemy fighters it is useful to build a stock early, same for their Kawasaki engines, of course. However, considering that you already have more than a years 'usage' (~400 from 42-08 to 43-07) you might consider to reduce production just to the level of demand.

How's your situation with Resources, Oil, Manpower, ...?

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 1401
RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-) - 11/13/2005 8:35:19 PM   
PzB74


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

That was what I feared Nomad would do...guess he hoped to hurt me - and he came close. As I said, a risky
operation that ended well

I actually like to use my Kongo's in a battlecruiser role. They make pulp out of enemy cruisers...and old battleships.
The ships that took part in the operation gained experience nicely:

Kirishima 78/79 -> 79/82
Hiei 74/81 -> 74/84
Kongo 84/79 -> 87/79

The Japs did evacuate some bases, but that mostly happened when the situation became hopeless. If the Allies hadn't
forced them to leave, they wouldn't have. In 1945 the situation was much more critical than in 1943 and I guess more and
more of their own people realized that stubborn Banzai charges wasn't the way to go....

WhoCares, I have stopped producing Kates and Judys. The production screen doesn't show this.
I've stopped Tojo and Tony production as well...when it comes to Tonys I don't loose too many. So difficult to move them accross
the Pacific, so they are mostly kept stationary above important bases like Kendari and Kwajalein.

Can give you a screenie of my resource pools when I get the next turn. Things are mostly good, after I stopped some merhcant yards
and armaments factories the HI pool increased from 4 to 65k. With parts of China, all of Burma and India in our posession it will be
very difficult to starve me out of this game.

_____________________________



"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 WhoCares)
Post #: 1402
RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-) - 11/14/2005 3:48:29 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 07/09/43

Air Combat

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Dobodura at 55,91

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 3
G4M2 Betty x 3

Allied aircraft
Boomerang II x 3
Hurricane II x 12
Kittyhawk I x 5

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
G4M2 Betty: 3 destroyed

Allied Ships
AO Cimarron

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

Ken has brought in reinforcements and Buin will soon be pacified!

Ground combat at Buin

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 11043 troops, 118 guns, 106 vehicles

Defending force 4370 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles

Allied assault odds: 11 to 1

Japanese ground losses:
101 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Industry July 1943




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 #: 1403
Re-organizing - 11/14/2005 4:10:51 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		It's time to re-organize the fleet:

The KB now consists of:
10 fleetcarriers (9 operational)
6 light carriers
4 escort carriers (another 2 are due in less than a month)

I've experienced some problems launching large air strikes. There may be several reasons for this:
Too many carriers in a single TF
Carrier air groups have been re-organized

To fix this the following will be done:
The KB has been divided into 4 fixed carrier divisions - Car Div I-IV
A capable commander will be assigned
As far as possible the original air groups will be re-assigned to their ships

Carrier Division 1: Yamaguchi 287 ac
Cvs: Shokaku, Zuikaku, Katsuragi
Cvls: Ryujo, Shoho

Carrier Division 2: Nagumo 264 ac
Cvs: Taiho, Unryu, Amagi
Cvls: Chitose, Chiyoda

Carrier Division 3: Yamada 239 ac
Cvs: Akagi, Junyo, Hiyo
Cvls: Ryuho, Zuiho

Carrier Division 4: 161 ac
6 Cves (including the two that will arrive within a month)

It is possible to overload each carrier with 10% additional ac, but I will try to avoid this.
There will thus be available

287
264
239
161
72 (when the Kaga is repaired she will join Car Div 2 - she's currently at 58 sys damage)
----------------
=1023 ac
---------------

Each carrier division can operate independently and if speed is required the light carriers
can be dispatched from Car Div 1 and 2 in order to increase speed from 5 to 6.

The overall plan is to combine this fleet when the enemy strikes at a crucial target like the Marianas or
the Phillippines. It should be attempted to combine both land based and carrier based ac for this 'final battle'.

The problem with having 4 Carrier Divisions is that it takes a lot of escorts.
I'm thinking about providing Car Div I-III with:
1 Kongo class battleship (may be exchanged with a slower one if speed is not essential)
1 Furutaka class heavy cruiser
1 modern light cruiser (Agano/Oyodo)
2 Akitsuki class destroyers
3 other destroyers with a heavy AA/ASW compliment

Car Div IV will be escorted by 1 light cruiser and 5 Mutsuki class destroyers

This will require:
3 battleships
3 heavy cruisers
4 light cruisers
20 destroyers

These can be dispatched before/after a carrier battle has taken place to strengthen the surface fleet.

What do the rest of you think, will this composition allow me to get the most out of my carriers?




_____________________________



"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 #: 1404
RE: Re-organizing - 11/14/2005 8:49:16 AM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline 		I think you should stay below 200 A/Cs for each CV division....with >250 planes the risk of having uncordinated strikes is quite high imho

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1405
RE: Re-organizing - 11/14/2005 11:34:57 AM   
Honda


Posts: 953
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Karlovac, Croatia
Status: offline
quote:

It should be attempted to combine both land based and carrier based ac for this 'final battle'.


Whoa!!! This is every Jap admiral's wet dream. A decisive battlwe that is really decisive and Japan has a chance. lol
Great job. GH is right. You have a huge CV force. There's bound to be mayhem in the air over the CVs soon. Ken has to think of something immediatly or lose thinking about it. Only a devastating blunder by you can ruin this game for IJ.
Good hunting

_____________________________


AAR of my game vs Raver on my clan forum in croatian language (despite the language differences, no Ravers allowed)

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 1406
RE: Re-organizing - 11/14/2005 1:58:18 PM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline 		Kitakami and Oi have both good AAA ratings after their mid 43 refit, you should use those as well imho.

(in reply to Honda)
Post #: 1407
RE: Re-organizing - 11/14/2005 7:09:20 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Thx for the suggestions....

Yes, I do have a large carrier force Honda, but if I launch them all against an all mighty US striking force it
will be mayhem. And not the kind of mayhem I desire

Ken is already having wet dreams about this, here is his 'estimate':
Well, you wont see my CVs outside of my LBA until after 1/1/44. Then I will have 8 Fleet CVs( 40xF6F, 34xSB2C, 18xTBF ) and 9 CVL( 21xF6F, 9xTBF) plus the Wasp and Formidable. :-) I'll let you do the math, my calculations say 500+ fighters, 300+ DB, and 240+ TB at least. All I have to do is not get killed between now and then. Easier said than done I think. I'll probably need all of that and the 12 CVE with combat F4Fs and TBMs.

The combined might of 500 Hellcats, Corsairs, Wildcats and a lethal AA rating will splash the KB all over the Pacific.
I really need a miracle, so I have to come up with a really good plan.

Let's look at what counts in our favor: Ken will have to attack the Marianas/Philippines in 1944. This will take him into dangerous waters
and I will be ready for him. The initial invasion wave will have to fight a protracted battle to capture any of the key bases there that are heavily fortified.
So the KB doesn't have to spring into action at once, but will be able to 'circle' their foe that's busy supporting the invasion force fending of the cream
of the IJAAF. This is the moment I'm usually looking for: an opening, a short window of opportunity - then we strike with all we have!

So you're suggesting I split the KB into another 2 Car Div's Hoepner!? Hm, that holds both advantages and disadvantages:

On the 'plus' side:

- more coordinated air strikes (or will it become more difficult to treat 6 Car Div's as one and get them to coordinate their strikes+
- more targets for the enemy to hit

On the 'minus' side:

- Less AA guns in each of the TFs
- More escorts required

Let's see how this could be done:

Carrier Division 1: Yamaguchi 192 ac
Cvs: Shokaku, Zuikaku (72+72 ac)
Cvls: Ryujo (48 ac)

Carrier Division 2: Nagumo 199 ac
Cvs: Taiho, Unryu (74 + 65 ac)
Cvls: Chitose, Chiyoda (30+30 ac)

Carrier Division 3: Yamada 197 ac
Cvs: Junyo, Hiyo (53 + 53 ac)
Cvls: Ryuho, Zuiho, Soho (30 + 30 + 30 ac)

Carrier Division 4:
Cvs: Akagi, Amagi, Katsuragi (72 + 65 + 65 ac) 202 ac

Carrier Division 5: 161 ac
6 Cves (including the two that will arrive within a month)

The Kaga is not included in this setup and the carrier Kasagi should arrive in ca March 1944 with
her sisters Aso and Ikoma + the light carrier Ibuki following suit in the following couple of months.

I will certainly need to use both the Kitakami and Oi as carrier escorts if I get this many Car divs.
A carrier escort of 5 destroyers, 1 cl and 1 ca and or bb will probably be as much as I can afford.

_____________________________



"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 String)
Post #: 1408
RE: Re-organizing - 11/14/2005 8:52:19 PM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline 		Yes PzB...always try to stay below 200 planes/TF.
More escorts needed..yes..but in those conditions you described it will be a "all or nothing" game. Surely few more CAs won't stop the allied counterstrike, so you'll need to rely only on your first strike, possibly coordinated with a good IJAF strike...so you won't need that many flak guns...your only defence will be your planes

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 1409
RE: Re-organizing - 11/14/2005 9:48:51 PM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline 		I might be mistaken, but i think that most CL's get a lot of nice AA in the 43/44 upgrades, which makes them useful as carrier escorts. I don't see them going into surface combat past 43 as the new allied CL will murder them, and considering the amount of CA/CL you have sunk the allies are gonna get a lot of pretty Baltimores and Brooklyns soon.


(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 1410
Page:   <<   < prev  45 46 [47] 48 49   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Naval victory at Gasmata! :-) Page: <<   < prev  45 46 [47] 48 49   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

0.844