RE: Bombardment efficency (LCUs)

RE: Bombardment efficency (LCUs) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Halsey -> RE: Bombardment efficency (LCUs) (2/13/2005 1:00:02 AM)
I see this all the time Ron. I'm at a point where I very rarely ever do a bombardment attack as the defender. It's worthless, sucks up supplies, and can cause more casualties to your own side. Sometimes an aggressive commander will bombard anyway. Even when set on defensive stance. But I figure what the "ell", he'll probably vanish in a couple of turns anyway. Just like so many officers before him.

ADavidB -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/13/2005 1:04:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: moses Here's an interesting bombardment. The Chinese bombard and kill nothing. But they take casualties. This is why I think there must be some kind of odds calculation here somehow. Ground combat at Kaifeng Allied Bombardment attack Attacking force 35600 troops, 267 guns, 0 vehicles Defending force 20764 troops, 240 guns, 7 vehicles Allied ground losses: 49 casualties reported Guns lost 11 The rationale there is that counter-battery fire hit the Chinese and caused those casualties. And since bombardments are treated like any other type of land combat, the weaker side (as measured by morale, experience, leadership, etc.) gets whacked. Dave Baranyi

2ndACR -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/13/2005 1:43:29 AM)
Here is a bombardment for you guys. I will grab one from China in a few. I tried a deliberate attack last turn in China and got tossed aside. I will be bombarding this turn. Ground combat at Clark Field Japanese Bombardment attack Attacking force 68736 troops, 779 guns, 151 vehicles Defending force 73607 troops, 783 guns, 229 vehicles Allied ground losses: 267 casualties reported Guns lost 6

2ndACR -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/13/2005 2:09:04 AM)
Here is a bunch of bombardment attacks for you guys to argue over. If every bombardment attack went like the attacks at Clarke, Henchow or Jorhe Borhu I would be happy. Except where the Allies pound me harder than what i do to them. Ground combat at Clark Field Japanese Bombardment attack Attacking force 84895 troops, 989 guns, 152 vehicles Defending force 73670 troops, 776 guns, 229 vehicles Allied ground losses: 183 casualties reported Guns lost 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ground combat at 45,50 Japanese Deliberate attack Attacking force 26895 troops, 252 guns, 157 vehicles Defending force 5312 troops, 8 guns, 0 vehicles Japanese assault odds: 44 to 1 Japanese ground losses: 75 casualties reported Guns lost 3 Vehicles lost 1 Allied ground losses: 245 casualties reported Notice the Japanese are not the only ones to refuse to die!!! Guns lost 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ground combat at Hengchow Japanese Bombardment attack Attacking force 157256 troops, 1998 guns, 21 vehicles Defending force 110896 troops, 729 guns, 0 vehicles Allied ground losses: 458 casualties reported The chinese are at fort level 4 Guns lost 5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ground combat at 43,40 Japanese Deliberate attack Attacking force 76680 troops, 910 guns, 41 vehicles Defending force 82534 troops, 440 guns, 0 vehicles Japanese assault odds: 3 to 1 Japanese ground losses: 1319 casualties reported Guns lost 27 Vehicles lost 2 Allied ground losses: 660 casualties reported Guns lost 7 Defeated Allied Units Retreating! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ground combat at Khota Bharu Japanese Deliberate attack Attacking force 12187 troops, 137 guns, 0 vehicles Defending force 7343 troops, 24 guns, 0 vehicles Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 4) Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 3 Japanese ground losses: 127 casualties reported Guns lost 4 Allied ground losses: 65 casualties reported -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ground combat at Johore Bahru Japanese Bombardment attack Attacking force 71062 troops, 895 guns, 32 vehicles Defending force 32216 troops, 269 guns, 17 vehicles Allied ground losses: 109 casualties reported Guns lost 5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ground combat at Hengchow Allied Bombardment attack Attacking force 97263 troops, 709 guns, 0 vehicles Defending force 170744 troops, 1998 guns, 21 vehicles Japanese ground losses: 13 casualties reported -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ground combat at Johore Bahru Allied Bombardment attack Attacking force 26151 troops, 220 guns, 7 vehicles Defending force 80814 troops, 895 guns, 32 vehicles Japanese ground losses: 241 casualties reported Guns lost 5 Vehicles lost 2

Halsey -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/13/2005 2:16:16 AM)
Interesting. Do you have any with an Allied bombardment attack in the same turn as a IJA deliberate attack? Then a reverse turn with the IJA doing a bombardment attack while the Allies do a deliberate attack.

2ndACR -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/13/2005 3:36:41 AM)
Nope. I do not have one of those. This is a PBEM game and not a test.

Nikademus -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/13/2005 6:41:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl Nikademus. Those "special HE" rounds that the Japanese made a batch of in 1942 were not "Anti-personel" rounds. They were an attempt at a High Explosive Incindiary round to increase damage to A/C. Marines weren't sinking the IJN's ships, it was the A/C they hoped to destroy. And they didn't work very well in practice (about as successful as those "special 18.1" AAA rounds" for the Yamato were in 1945). Correct, however given their nature....they work the same as an anti personell ordinance. 470 individual incendiary sub-munitions per shell scattering over a wide swath on detination doesn't care if it's hitting aircraft, supply dumps or personel and weapons. They made for a poor weapon against flying targets, but worked very well when used against a static ground target. quote: The game produces some rediculous combat results in bombardments. Rationalizing them doesn't help. The game uses the mission profile of a middle of the night, high speed, shoot and scoot, operation----but the damage profile is more representative of a week-long deliberate bombardment. Where have i been rationalizing it? I've stated from the start the factors that help quote "magnify" the effects of bomardment unquote. Perhaps you can point me to where i've said "the routines work fine and produce totally historical results all the time."

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/13/2005 7:11:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac I have had 30,000 casualties in one night from a single 6 BB gp. two days later 200,000 infantry surrndered because they were all disrupted from the BB's. It really pissed me off as 30,000 casualties seemed excessive... I just look forward to Allied BB's doing the same later in the war. Andy What?!? That's absolutely ludicrous!

BlackVoid -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/13/2005 12:41:58 PM)
Unkillable troops are your friends. Best training ground for your low exp pilots, if you can bomb the enemy in their own hex.

Andy Mac -> RE: Bombardment efficency (2/13/2005 12:51:10 PM)
nope was 30,000 the previous ones had been weaker because of my PT boa screen. But after they were gone 6 BB's incl Yamato and Musashi pounded my defenders to pulp it took my defenders from 2600 AV to about 1500 in one night that was the end of my defence....

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.453125