RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room



Message

Sardaukar -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/7/2010 1:34:30 PM)

Using both KB and Baby KB around PI/DEI from start has it's merits. You will have to call off Wake landing, but there is nothing really strategically important in CentPac during that time for IJN anyway. If Allies want to challenge IJN in CentPac during early 42, they'd be foolish.

As Japanese, you need to secure the most important area of advance fast. This means PI and DEI. By preventing most if not all shipping around this area, you can be very aggressive and prevent Allies having any real hope of defence. For example, you can definitely prevent "Fortress Java"-strategy, which is still available for Allies in AE. That strategy would require evacuating AUS brigades from Singapore to Java and redirecting Rangoon reinforcements there. This would give Allies approx. 3 divisions worth of extra troops there...which would be very difficult to dislodge, 18th UK Div and brigades from 8th AUS being about best troops Allies have. They could and would be augmented with 46th Indian Brigage (low exp mediocre but lot of replacement available) and 48 Gurkha Brigade (very good unit too). This could basically lead to crumbling of Japanese war economy, since all DEI would be within heavy bomber range from Java later.

So, for Japanese, they need to move early and aggressively to PI, DEI and Rabaul, to secure southern flank, inflicting maximum ground losses to Allies and most importantly, enabling their war economy.

In this light, I myself would see PH attack very secondary. Those old battle-wagons in PH will not get that dangerous until USN can achieve carrier parity. That is not going to happen in early 1942.



vlcz -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/7/2010 4:10:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste
How mamy planes did the british lose at Tarantino ?  And they were already at war ! 


As you most sure doesn´t refer to plane losses in "inglorious bastard" filmaking, surely you mean Taranto [;)]

"....Of the two aircraft lost, two crew members of the first plane were taken prisoner, and the other two were lost..."



Wirraway_Ace -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/7/2010 4:19:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Nicely said Zace.

I too really believe that the Commanders in Luzon---read Dugout Doug--would have been caught flat-footed from a Port Strike.  The Commander of the Asiatic Fleet was very competent but even he didn't react quickly.  The Japanese crushed Clark in the afternoon when the Americans had had well over 8 hours warning.  The Japanese strikes came in over land along a route predicted and they achieved surprise. 




Oddly enough, the reason the Japanese were so successful in the PI was that they DIDN'T show up when they planned to..., the weather in Formosa had them "socked in" all morning when the Americans were up looking for an attack. It cleared up just in time to let them catch the US on the ground re-fueling and preparing it's own strike. Blind stupid luck, good or bad, depending on your point of view.

I'm not defending MacArthur..., the man was a first-class jack-ass (along with Bereton, his air commander). But the Japanese not only benefited from good planning in their opening moves..., they also had a world-class run of "good luck" in everything they tried. Which turned against them about the first of May, and "crapped out" entirely in early June.


Very true. However, I was still surprised how long it took the Asiatic Fleet to put is subs to sea and evac other key ships. A few Commanders (or their execs who where sober) did take their subs out and submerge according to Blair, but most still appeared to be tied to their tenders when dawn, 8 Dec, arrived. This is why I allow 2 port attacks on Day 1. My only restriction, is the KB can't be used West of Manila. I think it could have approached Manila from the Pacific and maintained surprise, but sailing through the South China Sea was not an option for surprise.

As far as the Brits being better led at Singapore, I would argue that about the only leaders who did as badly (or worse) than the MacArthur and his staff over the first few weeks of the war were those the Empire had sent to Singapore. The RAF and RN greatly underestimated the operation range of the Japanese bombers and I suspect a reasonable degree of surprise could have been achieved with early morning port strike on Singapore. Given that the RAF had no first line fighters in the Far East (the Philippines had the Allies only modern fighters in the theater), and very few functional radar sets, Force Z might never have got to sea...



John 3rd -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/7/2010 4:31:05 PM)

There were NOT very many good leaders for the Brits in Malaya.  Quite true.



Wirraway_Ace -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/7/2010 4:50:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Using both KB and Baby KB around PI/DEI from start has it's merits. You will have to call off Wake landing, but there is nothing really strategically important in CentPac during that time for IJN anyway. If Allies want to challenge IJN in CentPac during early 42, they'd be foolish.

As Japanese, you need to secure the most important area of advance fast. This means PI and DEI. By preventing most if not all shipping around this area, you can be very aggressive and prevent Allies having any real hope of defence. For example, you can definitely prevent "Fortress Java"-strategy, which is still available for Allies in AE. That strategy would require evacuating AUS brigades from Singapore to Java and redirecting Rangoon reinforcements there. This would give Allies approx. 3 divisions worth of extra troops there...which would be very difficult to dislodge, 18th UK Div and brigades from 8th AUS being about best troops Allies have. They could and would be augmented with 46th Indian Brigage (low exp mediocre but lot of replacement available) and 48 Gurkha Brigade (very good unit too). This could basically lead to crumbling of Japanese war economy, since all DEI would be within heavy bomber range from Java later.

So, for Japanese, they need to move early and aggressively to PI, DEI and Rabaul, to secure southern flank, inflicting maximum ground losses to Allies and most importantly, enabling their war economy.

In this light, I myself would see PH attack very secondary. Those old battle-wagons in PH will not get that dangerous until USN can achieve carrier parity. That is not going to happen in early 1942.



I find Sardaukar's arguement for focusing on the DEI more compelling than those who argue for destroying the Asiatic Fleet.
My opinion: The Asiatic Fleet assets based at Manila do not represent a strategic target. The USN gets S-boat replacements, for what they are worth, in time to use them in SOPAC and SWPAC. The older fleet boats at Manila are meaningless in the short term and long term. There are very few good commanders that might be lost with their ships. In the game, the loss of the tenders is not particularily important (though IRL, the loss of the torps and skilled techs was a big deal). None of the other shipping matters to the Allied war effort in the short or long term. All key assets (Naval base forces) can be evaced by PBY.

For those who don't think CENPAC is very important, remember that if it hadn't been for MacArthur, and the nearly unlimited assets available the the US in 1944, all efforts would have been focused on the "shortest route to Japan". As it was, the endgame was still played out along the islands of the CENPAC axis of advance. Any Japanese strategy that is DEI focused also needs to be able to avoid the Americans from early establishment of bases in the Marshalls.



Q-Ball -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/7/2010 6:18:27 PM)

I agree with the maximum focus on the DEI, but I don't think you need KB for that. A Max DEI focus means committing almost all available ground troops, most of your IJN Air assets, and most of the IJN Surface ships, including BBs and cruisers. Baby KB can provide air support for invasion fleets.

What will KB do to speed up the DEI, bomb land bases? This is a waste of a strategic asset.

I personally think SPLITTING KB is wise in the first month. This is the only time in the game I would split KB. 4 IJN CVs are still more than enough to take on the USN CVs, as you only have 3 in the first month (and even those 3 don't have enough Wildcats to go around).

Take the other 2 CVs, PLUS Baby KB, and commit to DEI.

The other 4 CVs can still cover landings at Rabaul, Port Moresby.

The old BBs are not useless: Far from it. Surface warships are important in AE. That's why taking them off the board early is important, whether they are sunk or not.




John 3rd -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/7/2010 6:29:26 PM)

Qball--You and I have similar views of things when it comes to operating the KB!  Using 4 CVs to hit PH and then cause chaos in the Pacific is enough for the first couple of months.  After that, however, one needs to be a bit more careful.




Wirraway_Ace -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/7/2010 6:39:01 PM)

I have not yet (500 turns or so) been able to get my USN dive bombers to be able to hit a moving warship (with one very small exception).  They can hit unloading transports and even a moving transport, but not a CV or BB.  From my experience to date, you could split the KB 4 ways in the first few months of the war, and I would be hesitant as the Allies to offer battle.



crsutton -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/7/2010 7:45:08 PM)

I would rather lose six old BBs over 20 subs. Lousy torps or not the subs are too important.

However, I only play historical first turn.



Q-Ball -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/7/2010 8:32:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I would rather lose six old BBs over 20 subs. Lousy torps or not the subs are too important.

However, I only play historical first turn.


The difference is that damaged Subs are repaired quickly, whereas BBs are not. A Manila strike does nothing for Japan in 1942; damaged subs will repair quickly, and their poor torps stink anyway. A PH strike will take BBs off the board for months, even if you don't sink them.



koontz -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/7/2010 11:04:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

The difference is that damaged Subs are repaired quickly, whereas BBs are not. A Manila strike does nothing for Japan in 1942; damaged subs will repair quickly, and their poor torps stink anyway. A PH strike will take BBs off the board for months, even if you don't sink them.


Well If u use KB (or parts of it)
Not many subs survives.

Also was thinking of the HR that restricts IJN to the nr of port strikes.
Think it should be unlimited portstrikes in that timezone. so if someone strikes at Manilla they should be allowed to also strike at i.e Hongkong.




Chickenboy -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/7/2010 11:22:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I would rather lose six old BBs over 20 subs. Lousy torps or not the subs are too important.

However, I only play historical first turn.


The difference is that damaged Subs are repaired quickly, whereas BBs are not. A Manila strike does nothing for Japan in 1942; damaged subs will repair quickly, and their poor torps stink anyway. A PH strike will take BBs off the board for months, even if you don't sink them.

A properly executed (read: overkill) Manila strike will kill 20-25 subs and ancillary support vessels. KILL, not damage.



AW1Steve -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/8/2010 11:49:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I would rather lose six old BBs over 20 subs. Lousy torps or not the subs are too important.

However, I only play historical first turn.


The difference is that damaged Subs are repaired quickly, whereas BBs are not. A Manila strike does nothing for Japan in 1942; damaged subs will repair quickly, and their poor torps stink anyway. A PH strike will take BBs off the board for months, even if you don't sink them.

A properly executed (read: overkill) Manila strike will kill 20-25 subs and ancillary support vessels. KILL, not damage.


In your dreams CB! [:D] I'm waiting for you! The might Canopus and Black Hawk are waiting to smash your vaunted "KB"![:D]
(This trash talk is referring to a upcoming campaign where CB plans to test his theory against me). [:D]



Sardaukar -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/8/2010 1:15:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I agree with the maximum focus on the DEI, but I don't think you need KB for that. A Max DEI focus means committing almost all available ground troops, most of your IJN Air assets, and most of the IJN Surface ships, including BBs and cruisers. Baby KB can provide air support for invasion fleets.

What will KB do to speed up the DEI, bomb land bases? This is a waste of a strategic asset.

I personally think SPLITTING KB is wise in the first month. This is the only time in the game I would split KB. 4 IJN CVs are still more than enough to take on the USN CVs, as you only have 3 in the first month (and even those 3 don't have enough Wildcats to go around).

Take the other 2 CVs, PLUS Baby KB, and commit to DEI.

The other 4 CVs can still cover landings at Rabaul, Port Moresby.

The old BBs are not useless: Far from it. Surface warships are important in AE. That's why taking them off the board early is important, whether they are sunk or not.




I would not advocate using carrier air against land bases (apart from ships in ports). IJN planes are like cardboard boxes compared to USN Dauntlesses etc. and even USN planes find it hard going against bases both in game and in history.

What KB (or heavy enough CV presence) could do in PI & DEI is to prevent Allied utilizing Surface Combat TFs and troop transport convoys. Together with Betty/Nell/Kate units, that is enough to completely shut down the area for Allied shipping.

This would mean you could land in DEI lot before Allies have chance to dig in or bring in reinforcements..or evacuate. If you do PH attack, it'll take couple of weeks before IJN can bring full presence to area..time that wise Allied player can use.

Surface warships are important in AE but they are twice as important in DEI. You need to hammer Allied surface assets with LBA ad CV planes to keep his SC TFs off your invasion convoys. During first 2-3 months, those old US BBs are not going to be able to do much and it'd be even beneficial to IJN to encounter them at sea with CV air.

So, KB and other IJN CVs are more useful in "power projection" in area than directly supporting invasions, that is where IJN BB/CA force is needed.

USN can conduct "hit & run" raids as they did in history, but this sort of strategy would speed invasion of DEI. There is absolutely nothing in Cent Pacific that IJN needs to invade apart from Guam and other bases closer to South Pacific. You can always take Wake later, US is not going to be able too defend it, since you can bring whole IJN CV force to Cent/South Pacific in Feb 42 after PI and DEI are secured.



John 3rd -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/8/2010 3:35:05 PM)

Sard--YOu are totally on with those comments.  The use of CVs in the DEI absolutely hastens its collapse.  If you pull a pair of KB CVs plus the 2 CVLs and CVE, the Japanese can create a pair of CTF carrying at least 100-125 planes each and that will wipe the floor of anything in the DEI area.  LOTS of ships going blub-blub...



bklooste -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/9/2010 4:11:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vlcz

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste
How mamy planes did the british lose at Tarantino ?  And they were already at war ! 


As you most sure doesn´t refer to plane losses in "inglorious bastard" filmaking, surely you mean Taranto [;)]

"....Of the two aircraft lost, two crew members of the first plane were taken prisoner, and the other two were lost..."

yes i just watched the movie when i wrote that



Djordje -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/9/2010 9:32:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

I have not yet (500 turns or so) been able to get my USN dive bombers to be able to hit a moving warship (with one very small exception).  They can hit unloading transports and even a moving transport, but not a CV or BB.  From my experience to date, you could split the KB 4 ways in the first few months of the war, and I would be hesitant as the Allies to offer battle.


At what altitude do you use your dive bombers? If I recall correctly you should set them to 10-15k. Below that dive bombers don't have time for full dive so they use glide attack (less accurate), above that they would get too much speed and could not pull the nose up so game uses level bombing routine instead, which is far less accurate as well.
There is a thread around with exact altitude ranges.



AcePylut -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/10/2010 6:02:08 AM)

Well I'm still fighting against the Jap invasion of the DEI in my PBEM, and I am ecstatic that my opponent hit Pearl, and not the 27ish subs in Manila - they have really been "effective" as can be. I get at least one or two actual "hits" every turn on ships. It's forced the Japanese to waste valuable fuel and escorts ships on asw missions, instead of escorting fleets.

Had those subs been sunk - the 8 BB's at Pearl would be available now, instead of in a year or so (didn't lose any BB's in 2 days worth of PH strikes - an uncommon result to be sure - but as this PBEM is showing, one that could happen). Had the subs been sunk, things would be much worse for me. There wouldn't be any "do I send the mini-KB through these straights, knowing that the allies have about 10 subs waiting for me" hesitations.

As far as the planes go - by Dec 25th, I had full search arc coverage from a 330degree heading out of Midway, all the way down and around to Oz (but before that happened, my sneaky opponent got the KB down by Sydney). The fighters lost - heck, by the time my pilots are trained enough to "not" die in massive amounts, those squadrons will be stocked. I really view the airplane losses as a wash. I can lose them on Dec 7th, or I can commit them to battle asap and lose them becuase the pilots all suck. It'll take time to train up decent pilots capable of battling the Jap "with a chance", and by then I'll have the planes.

Meh - i'm really leaning towards the Manila strike. Those subs are going to be alot more effective than the BB's are. If each sub sinks just 5 ships a year, that's ~125 ships per year, 500 between '42 and Jan '46. That, imho, is going to have a lot "bigger" effect on the war effort than 8 old, slow, bombardment/bomb magnet BB's will.



Chickenboy -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/10/2010 2:59:24 PM)

Nice. Thanks AcePylut for posting your thoughts.

I was thinking of something else this morning while laying in bed (thinking about AE when I first awake-I'm pathetic I know).

How many of the Allied players have successfully attacked the PH AOs that accompanied KB? I've certainly heard of it being done-sneaking Enterprise over to within striking range of the replenishment TF.

A Manila strike takes THAT off the table too-you don't need to expose your IJN AOs to that sort of surprise attack because you don't need them in theatre. Just a thought.



John 3rd -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/10/2010 3:42:37 PM)

I never bring my AOs with me.  They go to the Kwajalein area or to whatever my rendezvous point will be in 3-4 days.  Hate having those precious things out in the middle of nowhere.



Micke II -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/12/2010 6:53:48 PM)

In my PBEM (2 Japanese players against 1 American) we have decided to use a non historical start by launching a raid on Manila on December 7th instead to attack Pearl Harbor. KB went at 3 hex East of Luzon. All bombers based in Formosa attacked either Manila port or airfields as Clark Field and Iba but emphasis was put on Manila harbor.
Mini KB (2 CVE + 1 CVL) was positioned east of Luzon to intercept any ship trying to escape.

Results went well above our expectations. According to our opponent 98 % of the Asiatic fleet was destroyed in 4 days including 24 submarines + 1 sunked in Iba, in total more than 80 ships. Ships trying to escape from Hong Kong were also trapped. Bombing of Manila and Clark Field lasted during 3 consecutives days and achieved destruction of every damaged ship. We used only bombs and no torpedoes. Only one bomb of 800 kg and sometimes 250 kg is sufficient to annihilate a submarine. Big disappointment was CA Houston’s escape which has survived to 3 torpedo attacks conducted with Nells and Bettys without any damage.

A lot of US fighters in Manila, Iba and Clark Field were destroyed but B17 succeeded to escape. After 5 days of raid allied air force on Luzon was no more effective.
In the following days we split KB in 2. 3 CV were sent to support the invasion of Wake and Rabaul, reinforced by 2 CVL.
3 CV and mini KB stayed in Celebes and Java Seas south of Borneo to avoid any Dutch ships to escape and to sustain invasion of these islands.
At January 25th 1942 Balikpapan and Tarakan are in Japanese hands as well as Manado, Manila, Malacca, Amboina, Rabaul, Wake.
With this strategy we have been able to seize Palembang on January 18th and to land on Java on January 21th.
Singapore will fail probably in 3 or 4 days.

The main advantages to launch a surprise raid on December 7th on Manila compare to the historical start to my opinion are the following:

- Speed the invasion of Borneo, Java, and Sumatra due to the decisive support and early positioning of 5 CV which has discouraged any allied initiative or counterattack.

- Leave to Japanese player more strategic options after the capture of Java and Sumatra at an early stage where the Allied player has been able to bring reinforcements.

- Even if the US submarines have dud torpedoes, in 1 case every 3, these torpedoes are functional and are able to sink a transport, a tanker or a cargo. So it’s a thread to cope with. With this strategy this threat has disappeared. Japanese have still to fight with the Dutch and British submarines with are rather effective. One of them succeeded to torpedo big liner Argentina Maru in Palembang harbor.

Chinese sea and approach of Honshu are very peaceful, so convoys can sail safely with very low commitment of escorts. We have lost only 1 AO in the vicinity of Luzon in 7 weeks due to submarine actions.
(In an another game with historical start where I am playing on the Allied side, in 4 weeks even with dud torpedoes problem, US entire Asiatic submarine fleet has been able to sink a dozen of transport and cargo, some of them full of troops. Compare to the Manila gambit Japanese side is 4 to 5 weeks behind for invasion of Dutch East Indies)

- Put at bay Dutch bombers and ABDA fleet which have sustained heavy losses due to the action of the 5 CV. Remnants of the ABDA fleet have withdrawn from the Dutch East Indies.

- Avoid any escape of Dutch troops and evacuation of oil, resources or fuel to Australia.

Drawbacks of this strategy are not yet visible.

As underlined by others Pear Harbor’s fleet is intact but the old BBs will not be effective as long as the US side will not have air domination with his CV on Pacific Ocean. It will take at least one year to achieve it.
Most important drawback is to leave intact airplanes and auxiliary ships which are able in a very short term to sustain development of basis along the California-Australia sea road.
Inconvenient at this stage of the game are not so important compare to the advantages.
Only future will tell us if it’s a good strategy or not and if the Allies will recover more quickly with this opening move than with historical start.


Here are the lists of the ships sunk in 4 days in Luzon or around Bornéo and Mindanao. A important blow against the allied navies.

[image][URL=http://img717.imageshack.us/i/manillle.jpg/][IMG]http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/2073/manillle.jpg[/IMG][/URL][image]

[image][URL=http://img697.imageshack.us/i/manillebis.jpg/][IMG]http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/1301/manillebis.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/image]



Ketza -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/13/2010 1:15:13 AM)

A properly conducted PI attack accomplishes the following:

1) Sinks 20-27 subs and damages the rest enough so they either sink to the mines you lay or founder in the harbor from follow on port attacks.

2) Airstrikes that shut down or severly damage Clark and Manila and delay fort building. Usually some 40 or so planes are destroyed and another 40 or more damaged making it easier to keep things locked down over the next few turns without the KB present.

3) A bombardment TF will usually shut down IBA saving more planes for Clark and Manila.

4) Sinks/damages most of the Asiatic fleet of course.

The most important factor beyond these basic pluses is the change of the strategic dynamic in the theatre. With KB in the area early there it becomes very difficult for an allied player to turn Java into a fortress or solidify his defence to the point where it is costly for Japan to clear the area.

Another thing it does is gives ther allied player more toys to play with. I have found this makes most allied players more aggressive early. So far I have been able to "handle" the extra agressiveness and sink some major allied assets early.

Of course your own mileage may vary.



bklooste -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/13/2010 3:01:55 AM)

 
If you do hit Manilla you need a very good strategy in the Pacific. I would argue if you hit PH KB can go to the DEI  , if you dont it is needed in the Pacifc. 

As i said in Nemos AAR  his oponent didnt hit PH , when KB went to the DEI  he used all the old BBs and the CVs
and the Marshals ,  Marcus Is and some of the Kuriles look likely to be in Allied hands by Feb 42 . There goes the SW pacific and the home islands are under threat of strat bombing.



Ketza -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/13/2010 4:00:11 AM)

I agree you need to be smart about the Cent Pacific. My first AE game I handled things a bit loosely there and the early Tarawa and Makin TFs got severly roughed up and my Nells were out of position so they could not use torps.

You cant take anything for granted if KB is in the SRA thats for sure.



AcePylut -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/13/2010 4:35:17 AM)

True that, but really, does any Japanese player worry about the US forces in Feb '42? I'd let em take Marcus, that's just beenies for the Jap!



crsutton -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/13/2010 8:03:02 PM)

Well, if you hit Pearl and have a good first strike, there is nothing to keep you from staying around and hitting Pearl for a day or two more. (The American fighters are fairly easy to overwhelm)  It is not hard to sink most all of the old BBs. A very nice VP haul.

That is a consideration.



Micke II -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/13/2010 8:25:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Well, if you hit Pearl and have a good first strike, there is nothing to keep you from staying around and hitting Pearl for a day or two more. (The American fighters are fairly easy to overwhelm)  It is not hard to sink most all of the old BBs. A very nice VP haul.

That is a consideration.


Risk is not US fighters but very heavy flak . During a second day attack you can easily have 50 bombers destroyed by AA.



vlcz -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/14/2010 12:08:10 PM)


KB can be in the DEI theatre seven days from the PH attack, those seven days are NOT critical in seizing DEI. Java, Sumatra etc will not be made a fortress in those seven days.
specially if you seize khendari at day one and base torpedo armed betties over there on 8 december (doable).  

 By attacking PH you can keep KB in DEI for longer (my preference being splitting KB in two keeping 3 CV in Truk-Rabaul axis anyway)

IMO the only real “pro” for a Manila option is the sub pest-control operations, on this matter and  assuming no HR against it,  I would defend the strategy of double attack, KB hits PH and all Netties port attack Manila at low altitude, test it yourself and you will find results against subs over there are quite good.



Chickenboy -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/14/2010 1:27:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vlcz


KB can be in the DEI theatre seven days from the PH attack, those seven days are NOT critical in seizing DEI. Java, Sumatra etc will not be made a fortress in those seven days.
specially if you seize khendari at day one and base torpedo armed betties over there on 8 december (doable).  

 By attacking PH you can keep KB in DEI for longer (my preference being splitting KB in two keeping 3 CV in Truk-Rabaul axis anyway)

IMO the only real “pro” for a Manila option is the sub pest-control operations, on this matter and  assuming no HR against it,  I would defend the strategy of double attack, KB hits PH and all Netties port attack Manila at low altitude, test it yourself and you will find results against subs over there are quite good.

While it's true that KB (at high speeds) can make the DEI threshold in 7 days post Pearl attack, I think this is overstating their capabilities. If they did so, they would be in bad need of a refuel and they would either be 'winchester' on ammo or essentially devoid of torpedo loadouts. For maximum efficacy, they should be refueled and rearmed, probably in the home islands. This is likely to add another 4-5 days to this trip, maybe more.

The last thing I would want as the IJN would be to put an underarmed or underfueled KB within the DEI. There they can be ambushed by a surprise SCTF, have numerous submarines vectored to their position or likely chokepoints that they must transit or even be susceptible to air attacks by an awakened foe.

That more realistic window (about 10 days-2 weeks) is plenty of time for the Asiatic fleet to scamper, pick up units and flee or establish a defensive network.



Ketza -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/14/2010 1:49:55 PM)

One of the nice things about AE is the multiple strats that are possible as evident in this thread. I imagine the Manila or Pearl discussion could go on forever.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6875