RE: Battle for Okinawa!

RE: Battle for Okinawa! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports

Message

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/14/2013 1:24:20 PM)
2rd April 1945 ______________________________________________________________________________ Not much happening ------------------------ Okinawa ------------------------ Ships are now in position to land on the last two islands. I don´t expect any interference. Masses of engineers are being dumped on each liberated island. ------------------------ China ------------------------ Erik finally reacts. But its too late. Don´t really understand what he is trying to do though. Makes no sense. [&:] The crossing of the CMA didn´t trigger a shock attack which means the BTL that was guarding the crossing is completely wiped out by the bombings or doesn´t have any AV left. Can anyone make any sense of this? [image]local://upfiles/32406/351471639D3A4CD1914FB4D2A888A490.jpg[/image]

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/14/2013 1:49:03 PM)
Strategic Bombing ______________________________________________________________________________ I´ve decided to restart the HI campaign again. First strike will go in on the 5th. It will begin slowly with B29s staging from various bases on Luzon. I have to be very, very careful with losses and keep a better eye on that this time around. I will add B24s as bases on Okinawa gets ready to receive them. Right now I have 300 B29 of various models ready for action. I just checked the total losses of the same models. 400 have so far been lost. 190 to NFs, 75 to flak and the rest to OPS. If my math has´t failed me that 133% losses. [X(] Keeping an eye on losses and stop the campaign if losses start to mount will be extremely important. These are the replacement rates. B29-1 = 0 B29-25 = 40 B29-B = 40 B24J = 65 As mention before I the pilot quality will be a lot worse this time. So we will begin by striking inside the normal range. I won´t manpower bomb to start with. I hope that bombing from normal range will allow me to hit the HI/LI directly which wasn´t possible from extended range. I also hope that normal range will cut down a lot on the losses. The initial bombings will be mostly test runs to check losses and results. It will also be an evaluation of the B29B version which I fear will be useless due to its lack of armaments and the extreme lethality of Japanese NFs. A quick and dirty count still show about 5000 HI and 4500 LI on the Home Island. No aircraft factories have been damaged. Around 100 engine factories have been destroyed but it was a older model not used on the most modern air craft.

JeffroK -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/14/2013 7:39:10 PM)
Maths bad, 400 lost out of 700 available is only 57% losses, just a scratch!

JeffroK -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/14/2013 7:44:22 PM)
Maybe warm up the B29B on some Chinese ports/HK. Get their experience up and maybe force Erik to disperse his NF, how heavily defended is Shanghai by NF? You dont have to send them into the Valley of Death, pick away at the edges. Any rules about 4E attacking ground units??? Anytime you see a stack in open terrain bash it with B29's!!!

ny59giants -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/14/2013 9:58:13 PM)
Besides going for his HI/LI, maybe hit his Oil and Refineries. He will still need them to get fuel for his HI and ships. Kyushu: Kurume - 10 Oil Fukuoka - 12 Oil & 10 Refineries Honshu: Shimonoseki - 16 Oil & 160 Refineries Tokuyama - 5 Oil & 5 Refineries Port Arthur - 120 Refineries Fushan - 55 Oil The ones in Japan can be hit by B-24s from the size 6 AFs around Okinawa. The ones in Manchuria can be from the B-29s from the size 8 AF. Give him other bases to worry about. Spread his defenses out.

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/15/2013 5:29:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK Maths bad, 400 lost out of 700 available is only 57% losses, just a scratch! Are you sure that is how you count combat losses? The operational strength of the B29 are around 300. So 300 planes have suffered 400 losses. Surely that must account for over 100% combat losses? I just figured that is how you calculate it. [:)] quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK Maybe warm up the B29B on some Chinese ports/HK. Get their experience up and maybe force Erik to disperse his NF, how heavily defended is Shanghai by NF? You dont have to send them into the Valley of Death, pick away at the edges. Any rules about 4E attacking ground units??? Anytime you see a stack in open terrain bash it with B29's!!! That is what I have been doing for the last 2 months. I cleaned up what was left after the year long Strat campaign flying from Burma. It has boosted the EXP somewhat but much less than anticipated. 70% of the pilots are still under 50 EXP which worries me quite a lot. But suffering 1-2 losses per mission instead of 30-50 has allowed the squadrons to fill out again which was the plan [:)] 4Es are free to attack ground targets but I´m reluctant to use the B29s for that. With a SR of 4 they take AGES to repair. Besides I have the B24s and 2Es I can use for that. [:)]

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/15/2013 5:32:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ny59giants Besides going for his HI/LI, maybe hit his Oil and Refineries. He will still need them to get fuel for his HI and ships. Kyushu: Kurume - 10 Oil Fukuoka - 12 Oil & 10 Refineries Honshu: Shimonoseki - 16 Oil & 160 Refineries Tokuyama - 5 Oil & 5 Refineries Port Arthur - 120 Refineries Fushan - 55 Oil The ones in Japan can be hit by B-24s from the size 6 AFs around Okinawa. The ones in Manchuria can be from the B-29s from the size 8 AF. Give him other bases to worry about. Spread his defenses out. Thanks Micheal. I´ll get to it! [:)] Any point hitting the refineries this late btw? I figured there won´t be enough oil for them anyway?

JeffroK -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/15/2013 6:28:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK Maths bad, 400 lost out of 700 available is only 57% losses, just a scratch! Are you sure that is how you count combat losses? The operational strength of the B29 are around 300. So 300 planes have suffered 400 losses. Surely that must account for over 100% combat losses? I just figured that is how you calculate it. [:)] quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK Maybe warm up the B29B on some Chinese ports/HK. Get their experience up and maybe force Erik to disperse his NF, how heavily defended is Shanghai by NF? You dont have to send them into the Valley of Death, pick away at the edges. Any rules about 4E attacking ground units??? Anytime you see a stack in open terrain bash it with B29's!!! That is what I have been doing for the last 2 months. I cleaned up what was left after the year long Strat campaign flying from Burma. It has boosted the EXP somewhat but much less than anticipated. 70% of the pilots are still under 50 EXP which worries me quite a lot. But suffering 1-2 losses per mission instead of 30-50 has allowed the squadrons to fill out again which was the plan [:)] 4Es are free to attack ground targets but I´m reluctant to use the B29s for that. With a SR of 4 they take AGES to repair. Besides I have the B24s and 2Es I can use for that. [:)] No, your current 300 plus the lost 400 makes a total of 700, from these you have lost 400 or 57%. You can't lose more than 100%. Otherwise I've been screwing up Accounting for the past 35 years.

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/15/2013 6:49:39 AM)
I´m just thinking I´ve quite often read about military units suffering over 100% losses? So I wonder if they are calculated based on the strength of the unit rather than total availability?

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/15/2013 7:41:17 AM)
3rd April 1945 ______________________________________________________________________________ Some interrupted landings. ------------------------ Okinawa ------------------------ As the allies land on Amami Oshima (the most eastern island in the Okinawas) two small Japanese DD forces interrupt. They are unable to effect the actual landing and all units are unloaded properly. But both sides suffer some losses. quote: AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 05, 45 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Amami Oshima at 98,64, Range 12,000 Yards Japanese Ships DD Tachibana, Shell hits 1 DD Tsuta, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk DD Kaki, Shell hits 3, on fire Allied Ships CA Chester CA Chicago, Shell hits 2 DD Satterlee DD Baldwin DD Carmick DD Shubrick DD Sampson DD Sims DD Hammann DD Russell DD O'Brien DD Henley DMS Boggs DMS Long APA Wharton APA Harris APA Henry T. Allen APA J. Franklin Bell APA W.A. Holbrook APA Leonard Wood APA American Legion APA Fuller APA Harry Lee APA U.S. Grant APA Barnett APA President Adams APA President Polk APA Thomas Jefferson APA Charles Carroll APA Arthur Middleton APA Henrico APA Lamar AKA Hydrus AKA Caswell AKA Devosa AKA Circe AKA Andromeda AKA Cepheus AKA Procyon AKA Lycoming LCI(M)-803 LCI(M)-804 LCI(R)-72 LCI(R)-73 LCI(R)-74 LCI(R)-224 LCI(R)-225 LCI(R)-226 LCI(R)-230 LCI(R)-337 LCI(R)-338 LCI(R)-339 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Amami Oshima at 98,64, Range 12,000 Yards Japanese Ships DD Ikazuchi DD Isonami, Shell hits 2 DD Ayanami, Shell hits 15, heavy fires, heavy damage Allied Ships CA Chester CA Chicago, Shell hits 5, on fire DD Satterlee DD Baldwin DD Carmick DD Shubrick DD Sampson DD Sims DD Hammann DD Russell DD O'Brien DD Henley, Shell hits 13, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk DMS Boggs DMS Long APA Wharton APA Harris APA Henry T. Allen APA J. Franklin Bell APA W.A. Holbrook, Torpedo hits 1 APA Leonard Wood APA American Legion APA Fuller APA Harry Lee, Shell hits 18, heavy fires, heavy damage APA U.S. Grant APA Barnett APA President Adams APA President Polk APA Thomas Jefferson APA Charles Carroll APA Arthur Middleton APA Henrico APA Lamar, Shell hits 1, on fire AKA Hydrus AKA Caswell AKA Devosa AKA Circe AKA Andromeda AKA Cepheus AKA Procyon AKA Lycoming LCI(M)-803 LCI(M)-804 LCI(R)-72 LCI(R)-73 LCI(R)-74 LCI(R)-224 LCI(R)-225 LCI(R)-226 LCI(R)-230 LCI(R)-337 LCI(R)-338 LCI(R)-339 The APA later sinks. I´m pretty sure DD Ayanami will sink too. So I traded 2 Jap DDs for a Bagley class DD and an APA. Can´t complain about that. If Erik had sent in BBs this could have turned out very nasty for us. The troops are onshore safe and sound but will require a couple of days rest before attacking. They will secure the base pretty easily. If needed the Navy can lend a hand. Erik might try his usual trick of flying in troops to stiffen the defense but he might not have troops to spare. quote: Ground combat at Amami Oshima (98,64) Japanese Bombardment attack Attacking force 6995 troops, 102 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 253 Defending force 23105 troops, 434 guns, 803 vehicles, Assault Value = 958 Japanese ground losses: 37 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Allied ground losses: Vehicles lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled) Assaulting units: Oshima Naval Guard Unit 70th Ind.Mixed Brigade Amami Oshima Fortress 34th Const Co 189th JAAF AF Bn Defending units: 754th Tank Battalion 3rd USMC Tank Battalion 6th Infantry Division 25th Infantry Division 5th USMC Tank Battalion We also land and secure Okinoerabushima. Pretty lucky here because I failed to notice it was an island size 2 meaning a shock attack. Luckily I had some nifty LCIs with me... [:)] quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pre-Invasion action off Okinoerabushima (96,65) 15 Coastal gun shots fired in defense. Allied Ships LCI(G)-442 LCI(G)-440 LCI(G)-438 LCI(G)-437 LCI(G)-408 LCI(G)-407 LCI(G)-406 LCI(G)-405 LCI(G)-404 LCI(G)-403 LCI(G)-401 LCI(G)-398 LSM(R)-199 LSM(R)-198 LSM(R)-197 LSM(R)-196 LSM(R)-195 LSM(R)-194 LSM(R)-193 LSM(R)-192 APA Winged Arrow DE Tabberer Japanese ground losses: 652 casualties reported Squads: 1 destroyed, 28 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 48 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ground combat at Okinoerabushima (96,65) Allied Shock attack Attacking force 3112 troops, 60 guns, 43 vehicles, Assault Value = 109 Defending force 2043 troops, 34 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 46 Allied adjusted assault: 75 Japanese adjusted defense: 11 Allied assault odds: 6 to 1 (fort level 3) Allied forces CAPTURE Okinoerabushima !!! Combat modifiers Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), disruption(-), fatigue(-) experience(-) Attacker: shock(+), leaders(+), leaders(-) Japanese ground losses: 284 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 32 disabled Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 5 disabled Engineers: 9 destroyed, 0 disabled Allied ground losses: 190 casualties reported Squads: 1 destroyed, 18 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled Assaulting units: 30th Australian Brigade Defending units: 14th Naval Guard Unit 52nd JNAF AF Unit I also got some very interesting SIGINT this turn. quote: CVL Mizuho is moving to Nagasaki/Sasebo (102,58). Its the second time I get a fix on this CVL. This means the KB will take station here next turn. By now Erik will have recovered fully from the last attempt. So its not impossible he will try again. This puts the KB within Fletcher range...hmm. [sm=00000622.gif] We also intercept some more ASW TFs around Formosa. Looks like Erik is still sending ships here. Don´t know why. quote: Day Time Surface Combat, near Taihoku at 88,63, Range 18,000 Yards Japanese Ships E No.60, Shell hits 31, and is sunk E No.72, Shell hits 13, and is sunk Allied Ships DD Bennion DD Callaghan DD Cogswell DD Erben DD Foote DD Gregory DD John Hood DD Hopewell DD Johnston DD Laws DD Longshaw DD McCord [image]local://upfiles/32406/D1552A63D54A4D3F800B7B8D1CAC2655.jpg[/image]

Barb -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/15/2013 7:55:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK Maths bad, 400 lost out of 700 available is only 57% losses, just a scratch! Are you sure that is how you count combat losses? The operational strength of the B29 are around 300. So 300 planes have suffered 400 losses. Surely that must account for over 100% combat losses? I just figured that is how you calculate it. [:)] quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK Maybe warm up the B29B on some Chinese ports/HK. Get their experience up and maybe force Erik to disperse his NF, how heavily defended is Shanghai by NF? You dont have to send them into the Valley of Death, pick away at the edges. Any rules about 4E attacking ground units??? Anytime you see a stack in open terrain bash it with B29's!!! That is what I have been doing for the last 2 months. I cleaned up what was left after the year long Strat campaign flying from Burma. It has boosted the EXP somewhat but much less than anticipated. 70% of the pilots are still under 50 EXP which worries me quite a lot. But suffering 1-2 losses per mission instead of 30-50 has allowed the squadrons to fill out again which was the plan [:)] 4Es are free to attack ground targets but I´m reluctant to use the B29s for that. With a SR of 4 they take AGES to repair. Besides I have the B24s and 2Es I can use for that. [:)] No, your current 300 plus the lost 400 makes a total of 700, from these you have lost 400 or 57%. You can't lose more than 100%. Otherwise I've been screwing up Accounting for the past 35 years. Military losses are usually calculated against a unit "paper" ToE - thus unit with ToE manpower of 3000 men that was in combat long enough an refilled several times could loose 4000 men - or about 133%... Same goes for squadron - if its full ToE has 25 planes and had lost 50, its actually 200% losses. The number you are calculating is total number of losses against total number of available planes in theater. Jock is calculating the number of losses against total unit capacity... :) Both numbers are correct, but each in its own level... Oh I do love statistics :D

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/15/2013 8:12:27 AM)
China ______________________________________________________________________________ Turns out the lone unit sent out to meat the allied main army was a Tank RGT. Emphasis on "was"... quote: Morning Air attack on 8th Tank Regiment, at 73,57 , near Pakhoi Weather in hex: Severe storms Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 11 minutes Allied aircraft Thunderbolt I x 37 B-24J Liberator x 12 B-24J Liberator x 149 B-25D1 Mitchell x 9 B-25G Mitchell x 15 B-25H Mitchell x 33 B-25J1 Mitchell x 70 B-25J11 Mitchell x 39 P-38J Lightning x 24 P-38L Lightning x 39 PB4Y-1 Liberator x 17 PBJ-1D Mitchell x 16 PBJ-1H Mitchell x 3 PBJ-1J Mitchell x 14 PV-1 Ventura x 12 No Allied losses Japanese ground losses: Vehicles lost 230 (82 destroyed, 148 disabled) During the day the following bombers completely eliminate the RGT. Still no idea why Erik sent it there. While he doesn´t know the exact composition of the main army his recon should show him its 150.000 men. Not something a lone unit can do anything about. Strange thing is that I still see movement from Liuchow towards the army. But he only have 50.000 men there. Also see movement out of Nanning. I feel I´m missing some crucial piece of the puzzle here. Erik is a smart fellow. He won´t throw units in my way for nothing. So whatever he is doing here he is doing it for a reason. I just don´t see it yet. The attack at Wuchow goes as plan. Only drawback with this is that Erik now knows the exact composition of the CMA. quote: Ground combat at Wuchow (76,57) Allied Deliberate attack Attacking force 33508 troops, 524 guns, 1851 vehicles, Assault Value = 1743 Defending force 540 troops, 5 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 5 Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 2 Allied adjusted assault: 1337 (Only computer neards get the joke) [:D] Japanese adjusted defense: 1 Allied assault odds: 1337 to 1 (fort level 2) Allied forces CAPTURE Wuchow !!! Combat modifiers Defender: Attacker: Japanese ground losses: 739 casualties reported Squads: 19 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 46 destroyed, 0 disabled Engineers: 41 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 5 (5 destroyed, 0 disabled) Units destroyed 3 Assaulting units: 11th PAVO Regiment 18th Cavalry Regiment Provisionl Tank Brigade Guides Cavalry Regiment 3rd Cavalry Regiment 50th Tank Brigade 255th Indian Tank Brigade 19th Motorised Division Gardner's Horse Regiment 254th Armoured Brigade 17th Motorised Division Defending units: 68th Ind.Infantry Battalion 60th Construction Battalion 32nd JAAF AF Coy Time to use the transport fleet...2500 AV will be flown into Wuchow while the CMA presses on. If I can secure Kukong the Superstack of 200.000 men in HK/Canton are in big, big doodoo. This also threatens the Changsha region. I know I say this almost every post but I´m ecstatic with the advances here. I feel like Patton moving around all the German "Festungs". [:D] To add mobility I´ve started transferring US airborne units to China. While this is not a complete Japanese collapse in China its certainly a complete collapse of the MLR. I still don´t think Erik has seen the danger. He should be racing in units to plug the gap but instead seem to stay put or send units North towards the Chinese? I wish I could see what his overall plan is. I´m missing something. I want to add something about supply here also. Its just too easy to keep my units in supply. I bitched and moaned about how easy it was for Erik to keep massive armies in Burma in supply without Rangoon and his 350.000 unit stack that took China. Its not less silly when I can do it. I don´t even have to pump much supply in. I have 200k at Hanoi and thats it. It keeps flowing just fine 13 hexes east over yellow roads. This should be A LOT harder then what it is. I don´t know how much fuel two Motorized divisions and 800 heavy Tanks would use racing at full speed east. But I think keeping them in supply over bad roads 520 miles away from the nearest big supply dump would be VERY difficult. But I guess it goes both ways so no real harm done. Its just one of those things... [image]local://upfiles/32406/B9A43FC364E247AF8F8883732AC7D2A7.jpg[/image]

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/15/2013 8:14:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Barb Military losses are usually calculated against a unit "paper" ToE - thus unit with ToE manpower of 3000 men that was in combat long enough an refilled several times could loose 4000 men - or about 133%... Same goes for squadron - if its full ToE has 25 planes and had lost 50, its actually 200% losses. The number you are calculating is total number of losses against total number of available planes in theater. Jock is calculating the number of losses against total unit capacity... :) Both numbers are correct, but each in its own level... Oh I do love statistics :D Ah, thanks for clearing that up! I was pretty certain I had seen combatlosses over 100%. [:)]

JeffroK -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/15/2013 9:29:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister I´m just thinking I´ve quite often read about military units suffering over 100% losses? So I wonder if they are calculated based on the strength of the unit rather than total availability? I know the US Army posted losses as a % of the TOE, so from ORDER OF BATTLE, US ARMY, ETO The Per Cent of T/0' figure is merely a measure indicating the relationship between the authorized strength and the total casualties for each division. These casualty figures are based solely on data available on 18 ,May 1945, 1st US Infantry Divison reports Casualties (Tenttive) .. Killed.....................3,973 Wounded.............. ... 11,448 Missing.". ..... ,..... . - 951 Captured........ .. ,. . . Battle Casualties.. ....15003 ' Non-Battle Casualties - 14002 Total Casualties .'.''' 29,005 Percent of T/O Strength .. 205.9

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/15/2013 9:41:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK I know the US Army posted losses as a % of the TOE, so from ORDER OF BATTLE, US ARMY, ETO The Per Cent of T/0' figure is merely a measure indicating the relationship between the authorized strength and the total casualties for each division. These casualty figures are based solely on data available on 18 ,May 1945, 1st US Infantry Divison reports Casualties (Tenttive) .. Killed.....................3,973 Wounded.............. ... 11,448 Missing.". ..... ,..... . - 951 Captured........ .. ,. . . Battle Casualties.. ....15003 ' Non-Battle Casualties - 14002 Total Casualties .'.''' 29,005 Percent of T/O Strength .. 205.9 Very interesting numbers! Whats "Non battle Casualties" and why does it have a minus sign in front? So does the "missing" column. The 1st ID suffered over 200% losses during the war? [X(] But I guess you have to weigh in how long they have been in combat. And some wounded would of course return?

koniu -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/15/2013 10:59:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Very interesting numbers! Whats "Non battle Casualties" and why does it have a minus sign in front? So does the "missing" column. "Non battle Casualties" = injuries, diseases (physical or mental), accidents, natural deaths, desertions, etc. But all those things dont involving enemy actions. So if You shoot your self in leg when cleaning weapon You will be "Non battle Casualty" I found something like that. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/Casualties/Casualties-1.html

paullus99 -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/15/2013 11:42:09 AM)
US Infantry Divisions, over the course of the European Campaign, took upwards of 300% losses before the end of the war....some, like the 106th, for instance, were at the higher end of that scale (particularly after being blown apart by the initial German onslaught during BoB).

Barb -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/15/2013 11:54:11 AM)
Jock - one one side you find ridiculous how supply can flow to your units far away, yet on the other side you do not seem to be bothered about the fact, that several hundred bombers (Marines included ...) had concentrated on single tank regiment and wiped it out completely in a day ... [8\|] Some say this game is broken ... well I see things much differently [:D]

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/15/2013 2:11:52 PM)
I find it absolutely amazing that "non combat" losses are almost as high as the combat losses. [X(] I mean how much casualties can you have outside combat. I can certainly illness and accidents taking a toll. But almost 15.000 men lost in a single ID is crazy! [X(] Would that number include people who got sick and temporarily sent to hospital and later be returned? If not what could cause so many "non casualties"? Barb, I feel the same way about bombings as I do about supply. But its been debated to death. My comment on supply was just a reflection of how easy it is to draw supply even over long distance and crappy roads.

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/15/2013 2:23:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paullus99 US Infantry Divisions, over the course of the European Campaign, took upwards of 300% losses before the end of the war....some, like the 106th, for instance, were at the higher end of that scale (particularly after being blown apart by the initial German onslaught during BoB). I wonder how it looked on the Russian and German sides!

princep01 -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/15/2013 2:47:40 PM)
"I want to add something about supply here also. Its just too easy to keep my units in supply. I bitched and moaned about how easy it was for Erik to keep massive armies in Burma in supply without Rangoon and his 350.000 unit stack that took China. Its not less silly when I can do it. I don´t even have to pump much supply in. I have 200k at Hanoi and thats it. It keeps flowing just fine 13 hexes east over yellow roads. This should be A LOT harder then what it is. I don´t know how much fuel two Motorized divisions and 800 heavy Tanks would use racing at full speed east. But I think keeping them in supply over bad roads 520 miles away from the nearest big supply dump would be VERY difficult. But I guess it goes both ways so no real harm done. Its just one of those things.." Jock, this complaint is true, but it is a very common characteristic of wargames generally. Very few games I have played over the years have come close to capturing the logistics of warfare with any degree of accuracy. One can see why. In a game, we want to play the part of Patton or Zhukov, not some obscure, but essential, logistics commander trying mightily to keep those "fighting" generals in supply....a commodity no army in history goes far without. Yes, it is too easy to keep vast armies in supply in the ground portion of WitPAE, but the naval and air training aspects of it are fairly good. So, half a loaf is better than none at all. Besides, WitPAE is a BIG game anyway. Why go and complicate it further. Few make it as far as you and obvert have. I don't know that you would have made it here if there existed a huge land logistic module to worry with in addition to everything else you must watch in the game. I rejoice in getting to read about a great end game between two good opponents. Keep it up. Good show. Oh, I don't normally say anything about these, but, you are guilty of a very funny Greyjoyism on this or the previous page. In it you said something like " I want my forces to meat at Wuchow". The correct word is meet. You may be aware that meat generally means "animal flesh"....the kind most of us eat. It can have other contextual meanings (ie That idea then is the meat of the issue) and slang uses (Come on Meat, throw the ball and I will hit it out of the ballpark. Here Meat is a slang expression for a pitcher that a batter believes he can hit a homerun off of. Perhaps a poor example as baseball is not likely Sweden's national pasttime:)). Anyway. A small misuse of the word....and now you are to be found in the world renown Greyjoy collection, Admiral's Edition.

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/15/2013 3:15:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: princep01 Jock, this complaint is true, but it is a very common characteristic of wargames generally. Very few games I have played over the years have come close to capturing the logistics of warfare with any degree of accuracy. One can see why. In a game, we want to play the part of Patton or Zhukov, not some obscure, but essential, logistics commander trying mightily to keep those "fighting" generals in supply....a commodity no army in history goes far without. Yeah, sadly I noticed the same thing with WITE. Very, very simplistic supply model in there too. But you are right. I guess very few people would want to play a game with "true logistics". I would probably quit after a couple of minutes and a few hairs less! [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: princep01 Oh, I don't normally say anything about these, but, you are guilty of a very funny Greyjoyism on this or the previous page. In it you said something like " I want my forces to meat at Wuchow". The correct word is meet. You may be aware that meat generally means "animal flesh"....the kind most of us eat. It can have other contextual meanings (ie That idea then is the meat of the issue) and slang uses (Come on Meat, throw the ball and I will hit it out of the ballpark. Here Meat is a slang expression for a pitcher that a batter believes he can hit a homerun off of. Perhaps a poor example as baseball is not likely Sweden's national pasttime:)). Anyway. A small misuse of the word....and now you are to be found in the world renown Greyjoy collection, Admiral's Edition. Haha, Whoops! I hope I didn´t catch Greyjoyism. Its not contagious? Right? Right? [:D] EDIT: Quit not Quite. OMG. It is contagious! [X(]

Crackaces -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/15/2013 4:09:52 PM)
It looks like you have a good plan toward victory. At least from the VP standpoint ..[8D] Given my experiences, it looks like by your map that China will totally collapse soon. It also looks like you will have multiple bases to strat bomb the Home Islands ... Once the IJ economy completely collapses, it does not matter how many planes are in the pool ... the minimal supply requirements can prevent replacements .. I am assuming that the expectation of the game is that Tokyo must be taken by XXX date for victory?

catwhoorg -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/15/2013 6:11:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister I find it absolutely amazing that "non combat" losses are almost as high as the combat losses. [X(] I mean how much casualties can you have outside combat. I can certainly illness and accidents taking a toll. But almost 15.000 men lost in a single ID is crazy! [X(] Extreme example I know but Spanish flu killed more people than the Entirety of WWI. These may generally be fit young men, but they are being put into pretty extreme environments for infections.

paullus99 -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/15/2013 6:39:50 PM)
German & Russian infantry divisions were rarely rotated out of combat until they were completely destroyed....many of the Panzer Divisions that escaped the debacle after Normandy were down to less than 2000 men & 20 tanks....the infantry divisions weren't much better, if not worse.

Barb -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/15/2013 7:54:13 PM)
Well even for the divisions that were pulled out of combat from some to time (usually because they were down to battalion strength) and refitted completely - like Panzer Divisions, GrossDeutchland, or several SS Panzer Divisions (LSSAH, Das Reich, Totenkopf), these were wiped out several times on several fronts ... So I believe a total casualties for these divisions could be well into 1000% of their ToE strength [X(] For example a US 442nd Infantry Regiment (Nisei) suffered a casualty rate of 314% of their established strength of about 3800 in just 11 months ... [X(]

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/16/2013 4:41:30 AM)
Crap, Looks like I will have to do a complete windows reinstall. Not really sure what happened but it looks like a disc failed during a windows update last night. [:(]

DOCUP -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/16/2013 4:48:38 AM)
Ouch I hate that

JeffroK -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/16/2013 5:02:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paullus99 US Infantry Divisions, over the course of the European Campaign, took upwards of 300% losses before the end of the war....some, like the 106th, for instance, were at the higher end of that scale (particularly after being blown apart by the initial German onslaught during BoB). No US Div suffered 300% 1st Div 205.9% 292 days of combat 2nd Div 183.7% 303 days of combat 3rd Div 201.6% 233 days 4th Div 252.3% 9th Div 240.4% 29thDiv 204.2% 106th Div 75.7% 63 days of combat Does not include losses in NW Africa 1, 3 & 9th served in Italy and NW Europe. edit. These numbers may not include Italy as well as NW Africa, a bit more digging to be done.

CaptBeefheart -> RE: Battle for Okinawa! (12/16/2013 5:24:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Finally Friday night! [:)] Here is tonight's listening. They guys in Nightwish finally found a worthy successor to Tarja. Won´t miss Anette for a second despite her origin (she is Swedish). This girl fits like the hand in the glove! [&o] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3brcfttchzA Tonight drinking is dedicated to Commander Cody! Finally got my case. [:)] I don´t know the English words to properly describe the taste. But its VERY good and I will definitively buy another case! [:)] http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/193/86256 Thanks for the tip! [image]local://upfiles/32406/A7C76C82E1FA43B991A4EE3D9751D58B.jpg[/image] Very nice! Glad you like the beer. Are those moose antlers on that bear? The CEO and head of marketing of Ballast Point Brewery of San Diego were here last week. It was good to talk beer with them for over two hours. Are you able to get their Sculpin IPA on draft? Expensive, but good. If you are limited to bottles, I'd recommend their Big Eye IPA, which seems to survive better in a bottle. Cheers, CC

Page: << < prev 105 106 [107] 108 109 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.09375