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: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik)

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 3/31/2010 9:45:52 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
The BB's at Zamboanga were interesting... good intel, that makes at least 7 BB in the area... good to know!

Having Kaimana is very very nice. An expanding torent approach is forming... if I can get forces moving on the other side of the coast!

Cheers

Rob



_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 541
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 3/31/2010 2:24:43 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar

10-11 Sep 1942

...Which enouraged our troops to give the enemy a bit more of the old bayount (the ratio increased!).

Ground combat at Zamboanga (75,89)...



You do recall what Corporal Jones in "Dad's Army" regularly said about bayonets:

"They don't like them, Captain Mainwaring"

Of course he was referring to Kitchener's 1898 Sudanese campaign. With the recent reported US Army decision to phase out bayonets, it won't be long before someone posts here the question:

"What is a bayonet?"

Alfred

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 542
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 3/31/2010 8:57:56 PM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
Gagh I can't believe I misspelt bayonet.... I was in a rush...


Yep they don't like it up 'em!

Cheers

Rob

_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 543
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/1/2010 1:30:08 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
Sigint indicates the 11th Div is on transports to Onnetaken-Jima... I don't think we can intercept them with anything... but having a Div there stops any real thoughts of a Kurile adventure... well hat wasn't going to happen during the winter, so I guess it is still an option for mid 43!

Have to clear Adak first...

Cheers

Rob



_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 544
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/1/2010 6:50:39 PM   
Rob Brennan UK


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

"They don't like them, Captain Mainwaring"


Wasn't it " They don't like it up em !" .. also many referances to fuzzywuzzies which todays PC police would ban immediately /sigh.

Bayonet = lightbulb attachment. how can that hurt ?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 545
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/1/2010 9:51:47 PM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
Yep don't like it up 'em....

The bayonet lightbulb hurts when the glass breaks!

Cheers

Rob


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

quote:

"They don't like them, Captain Mainwaring"


Wasn't it " They don't like it up em !" .. also many referances to fuzzywuzzies which todays PC police would ban immediately /sigh.

Bayonet = lightbulb attachment. how can that hurt ?



_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)
Post #: 546
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/2/2010 10:30:32 PM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
12-13 Sep 1942

Subs
Bit of action from both sides but no bangs. Off Milne bay though we get some decent ASW hits on a Japanese sub, it will be going home...

Burma
The JAAF was mostly absent over the area. Some strikes on our flanking forces, and they intercepted and shot down 5-10 Blenheims in our attacks.

Over Rangoon around 60 B-17 worked over the airfield, followed by a series of attacks by about half of the Allied Army!

Ground combat at Rangoon (54,53)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 62228 troops, 851 guns, 996 vehicles, Assault Value = 1761

Defending force 17816 troops, 149 guns, 78 vehicles, Assault Value = 466

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 2

Allied adjusted assault: 1387

Japanese adjusted defense: 877

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

Allied Assault reduces fortifications to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), op mode(-), leaders(+), disruption(-)
preparation(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1376 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 83 disabled
Non Combat: 8 destroyed, 166 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Vehicles lost 34 (2 destroyed, 32 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
1268 casualties reported
Squads: 10 destroyed, 38 disabled
Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 92 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 11 disabled
Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost 28 (0 destroyed, 28 disabled)


Assaulting units:
23rd British Brigade
42nd Cavalry Regiment
41st Infantry Division
22nd (East African) Brigade
17th Australian Brigade
16th British Brigade
2/15 Punjab Battalion
7th Aus Div Cav Regiment
16th Australian Brigade
19th Australian Brigade
23rd Indian Division
2/1 AIF Pioneer Battalion
45th Recce Regiment
23rd Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
21st Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
XV Indian Corps
6th Medium Regiment

Defending units:
18th Division
3rd Air Division
44th Field AA Battalion

Ground combat at Rangoon (54,53)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 61081 troops, 851 guns, 996 vehicles, Assault Value = 1685

Defending force 15937 troops, 149 guns, 76 vehicles, Assault Value = 384

Allied adjusted assault: 1319

Japanese adjusted defense: 621

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

Allied Assault reduces fortifications to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), op mode(-), leaders(+), disruption(-)
preparation(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1797 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 71 disabled
Non Combat: 13 destroyed, 181 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 11 disabled
Guns lost 2 (0 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Vehicles lost 34 (6 destroyed, 28 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
1297 casualties reported
Squads: 10 destroyed, 111 disabled
Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 108 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Guns lost 2 (0 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Vehicles lost 34 (3 destroyed, 31 disabled)


If the Japanes were 1.5 divs, and had lvl 4 forts we wouldn't be moving.... the only problem with tis approach is the 18th Div will fall back on Pegu, which is going to be a real pain to take...

Tony also hits Port Blair with Wellingtons and they do good damage to the airfield. It looks like they are not trying to defend?


PI
At Zamboanga I continue to try to clear the Japanese who have landed so far. I have the odds (40:1 then 14:1) but the Japanese just aren't dying :(.

DEI
A 6" gun CL TF hits Koepang nicely!

Naval bombardment of Koepang at 68,116

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
CL Newcastle
CL Mauritius
CL Hobart
DD Electra
DD Arrow
DD Tjerk Hiddes
DD Van Galen
DD Isaac Sweers

Japanese ground losses:
66 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled

Airbase hits 47
Airbase supply hits 17
Runway hits 187
Port hits 1


Only an Inf Regt is detected here (4th Inf). This should have closed the base down, will start bombing from Broome which has just reached lvl 4 airfield to make sure of it.


SWPAC

We are flying lots of recon. Koepang has decent numbers of aircraft and a lot of shipping in port. Other bases also have aircraft. The B-24 units and the B-17 units are just about full and reasonably traing (40-50's) so will start the air campaign agin here soon.

Madang falls to a para attack.

A BF is flown into Kaimana.

Apart from a few TF spoted in the area it is quiet.

SOPAC
Forces continue to pour into Rabaul. Have begun moving back the Pacific Ocean Marine regiments to Townsville as a backload. Shortland is a nice little supporting base, and Tulagi is building. Lifting forces from Luganville to Rabaul.

Fiji has no fuel, but 100k is on its way soon. Shipping is gathering here as we lift forces forward to Rabaul and TB.

A BB TF has left Suva for Townsville, 3 old BB's and escorts.


CENTPAC
The CV TF's are now halfway to PH from Suva. Fast BB's and another CLAA has arrived at PH.

NORPAC
The usual. The BB bombardment TF has put to sea, and I will attack again in a turn or two with its support.

China
At Kanshein they rest and bombard from air and ground. Not much we can do.







Attachment (1)

_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 547
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/2/2010 10:32:48 PM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
It looks like we are going to be able to bounce them out of southern Burma.... it depends on how much they have at Pegu and how well dug in they are. The fact they didn't counter against the 3 armounred units that moved into Pegu is an indication they aren't in a good shape. They continue to send forces against our inland flanking attack, which is a good thing for us!

Cheers
Rob

_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 548
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/3/2010 4:52:42 AM   
DanielAnsell

 

Posts: 128
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
Great AAR as always, jrcar!

It looks like they are trying to either pull troops out, or maybe rail some in. They took a hit for ops mode.

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 549
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/3/2010 6:14:28 AM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3890
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
The enemy is in trouble in Burma. This will soon be the Thailand front.

_____________________________


(in reply to DanielAnsell)
Post #: 550
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/3/2010 9:14:27 PM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
We are still shaking our heads in disbelief... we are only here (Rangoon) because they have let us.

They should concentrte thier Divisions and counter attack at one point, we would be screwed...

Cheers
Rob

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

The enemy is in trouble in Burma. This will soon be the Thailand front.



_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 551
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/3/2010 11:50:10 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3890
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
Agreed. Sometimes Player morale gets in the way of good decisions. Y'all's Burma offensive was partly smoke and mirrors AV wise. Perhaps the enemy fears the eventual Allied steamroller so much that they didn't pay attention to the calendar and the actual, rather than perceived, size of your advancing armies.

_____________________________


(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 552
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/4/2010 12:13:25 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
I think the appearance of "Allied Air superiority" is the main culprite. In WITP this definately was an issue, in AE aircraft replacement rates (compared to WITP) are dramatically lower... until about mid 1943.

From other AARs neither Allied or Japanese players appear to appreciate that for the Japanese the important thing early on is:

Destruction of the Allied airforce, in particular on the ground where possible (in particular the 4E types).

Destruction of allied combat units (via descending on isolated Garrisons). This delays the Allied counter attack.

Ground it self has little importance. Come mid 1943 the Allies can bypass as much as they want, and potentially generate a 3-4 div landing force ANYWHERE. Nomea and Fiji are only useful to destroy units that a foolish Allied player who defends with too little, and to delay fuel to Oz (the bulk of which should come from the Middle East... taking Perth to deny this fuel to Oz is, I admit, appealing...)


For the Allies it is delay, delay, delay, while concentrating and culminating the Japanese, before they stop and dig in... once dug in Japanese forces are a real pain...

For us Adak culminated them... it was a close run thing... but we got there in the end.

A mistake they made at both PM and Adak was to close the place down, but then to not attack with enough, or to supress the closed base, so we were able to get back up and running. Plus we didn't loose many aircraft.

Cheers
Rob

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Agreed. Sometimes Player morale gets in the way of good decisions. Y'all's Burma offensive was partly smoke and mirrors AV wise. Perhaps the enemy fears the eventual Allied steamroller so much that they didn't pay attention to the calendar and the actual, rather than perceived, size of your advancing armies.



_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 553
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/4/2010 12:49:56 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Umm, I wouldn't say everyone is unaware of the importance of saving the air force and ground units and not spreading them around in penny packets to be destroyed cheaply in series...

I think that in this game and in my game the lack of speed of the Japanese thrust has also helped immensely... In your game they've also made the huge mistake of, on several occasions, attacking bases with insufficient force and then neither quickly reinforcing nor pulling back but accepting attritional meat-grinding. Mostly this appears to have been done on Nikademus' side of things - I think he is the weak link on that team based on the current position although I admit he simply may not have been given sufficient forces for the job by Wilkerson, although if that's the case he still bears the blame for not pulling back once he realised he couldn't take Adak.

I think your opponents are now so mired in a defensive mindset that the fact that they could counter-attack successfully if they just mustered their defensive forces into an offensive thrust appears to have utterly escaped them... Their OODA loop appears broken and it appears they are no longer oriented to the realities on the ground and thus their decisions and actions are becoming increasingly irrelevant. I am certain that if you take Rangoon etc this will be held, by them, as further proof of the strength of your offensive and their need to phase completely over to the defensive when, in fact, it means no such thing at all.


As to you being where you are because they let you... 9 times out of 10 people defeat themselves and the battlefield exchange of territory etc merely plays out what has already gone on in the opponents' minds. This is a clear example of that. More times than I care to remember my opponents have abandoned clearly winning positions etc simply because they convinced themselves they couldn't hold in spite of far superior forces and locations. I think that's all we're seeing here. It does reflect on your good play though.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 4/4/2010 12:53:04 AM >

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 554
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/5/2010 1:35:54 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
Thanks Nemo, yes I should have modified my language a bit... what you are doing is very interesting!

Cheers

Rob

_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 555
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/5/2010 1:39:18 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
Nik is interesting to deal with, as he often does out of the box things... and sometimes he gets away with it! Joe is very methodical, too methodical really for playing Japanese as the Japanese player needs to accept more risk (and can afford to do so generally) where as the Allied player needs to really husband resorces and not waste them...

I have a lot of respect for both as players, they are both good, but aI think you are right, they are talking themselves out of things, and we are bluffing nicely in a few areas!

Cheers

Rob

_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 556
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/5/2010 1:54:28 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
Here is Burma.

At Rangoon we have a US Div, Aussie Div, 2 Brit/Indian Divs total 1600 AV.

At Pegu we have an Aussie Div, Chinese forces, and a collection of Burma/Brit/Indian units with about 4 armourde units. Total 1600 AV, but not well prepped (if at all ) for Pegu.

To the right of them on the Map we have a Brit Bn feighting against their forces in the forest, which now appear to be in retreat.

On the Tahi/Burma border we have 2 bdes that have molested the Recon/tk units back accross the border, but more reinforcements are on the way.

Deep we have the Bataan BF marching to Rangoon. It was evacuated to French territory early in the war, and has spent the last month marching from China back to Burma. It will make a nice BF for Rangoon!

We have about 3-4 bdes of troops defending the line ofcCommunications back through Burma, with lots of engineers building more airfields.

Toungoo and Prome have around 100 fighters each, with the bombers generally operating back further.

Cheers

Rob




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 557
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/5/2010 10:34:49 PM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
14=15 Sep 1942 A big turn for the Allies!

Subs
Subs are active around the place, they now have a number around Rabaul, and around Dutch Harbour. One of the later sink a YP between Dutch Harbour and Adak.

With the signint of the 11th div in the Kuriles I send over ome subs, they attack a large xAP but get no hits. I may be ble to get a SCTF here in time to catch this force....

Burma
They land at Little Andaman.

We hit Port Blair with Wellingtons, and the forces at Rangoon with B-17.

WE attack at Rangoon!

Ground combat at Rangoon (54,53)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 59928 troops, 851 guns, 993 vehicles, Assault Value = 1613

Defending force 13955 troops, 149 guns, 70 vehicles, Assault Value = 314

Allied adjusted assault: 3129

Japanese adjusted defense: 51

Allied assault odds: 61 to 1 (fort level 1)

Allied forces CAPTURE Rangoon !!!

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
No Japanese losses

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), op mode(-), disruption(-), preparation(-)
fatigue(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
6237 casualties reported
Squads: 140 destroyed, 61 disabled
Non Combat: 260 destroyed, 48 disabled
Engineers: 38 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 48 (47 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost 68 (68 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 2


Allied ground losses:
981 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 60 disabled
Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 99 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 8 disabled
Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost 21 (0 destroyed, 21 disabled)


Assaulting units:
23rd Indian Division
16th Australian Brigade
23rd British Brigade
22nd (East African) Brigade
2/1 AIF Pioneer Battalion
16th British Brigade
17th Australian Brigade
41st Infantry Division
19th Australian Brigade
42nd Cavalry Regiment
7th Aus Div Cav Regiment
2/15 Punjab Battalion
45th Recce Regiment
XV Indian Corps
23rd Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
21st Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
6th Medium Regiment

Defending units:
18th Division
3rd Air Division
44th Field AA Battalion


The AA Bn is destroyed, and the 18th Div and the air HQ retreats WEST into the marshes as we have a strong force at Pegu! These foprces are now trapped and will be in no state to do anything.... ever!

A great result, Tony has orchestrated this battle brilliantly.

DEI
WE hit Koepang again with a CL TF:

Naval bombardment of Koepang at 68,116

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
CL Newcastle
CL Mauritius
CL Hobart
DD Electra
DD Arrow
DD Tjerk Hiddes
DD Van Galen
DD Isaac Sweers

Japanese ground losses:
29 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled



Airbase hits 11
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 153
Port hits 3
Port fuel hits 1


They are now headed to Darwin to marry up with an AKE to rearm and refuel. Love those 12 6" CL's!

Philippines
Despite being bombed from the air, and after two more days of desparete fighting we finally win at Zamboanga.

Ground combat at Zamboanga (75,89)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 1946 troops, 30 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 113

Defending force 481 troops, 4 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1

Allied adjusted assault: 21

Japanese adjusted defense: 1

Allied assault odds: 21 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), disruption(-), preparation(-), fatigue(-)
experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker: disruption(-)

Japanese ground losses:
1215 casualties reported
Squads: 45 destroyed, 30 disabled
Non Combat: 36 destroyed, 30 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 9 (8 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Units destroyed 1



Assaulting units:
73rd PA Infantry Regiment
101st PA Infantry Division
3rd PI Base Force
4th PI Base Force

Defending units:
86th Naval Guard Unit



SWPAC
Quiet apart from sub action. Should have started unloading at Madang this turn. Lae makes lvl 2 Afld, Aru lvl 3 Port.

The enemy base of Morotai shows a lvl 2 Port being made.

SOPAC
Forces are still moving into Rabaul. Moving troops around to Shortlands and Tulagi, while pulling forces out of Luganville.

CENTPAC

Quiet. Unloading supply at TB. Forces are preping for attacks on islands in the Marshalls.

NORPAC
The usual. The BB tf is ready to run in, but I may try and get the transports in the Kuriles detected by SIGINT and subs instead...

China
around 150 aircraft bomb Kanhsein, then the shock attacks go in...


Ground combat at Kanhsien (81,57)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 33168 troops, 278 guns, 304 vehicles, Assault Value = 1001

Defending force 25441 troops, 124 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 636

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 2

Japanese adjusted assault: 751

Allied adjusted defense: 400

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 2)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: forts(+), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
857 casualties reported
Squads: 30 destroyed, 33 disabled
Non Combat: 23 destroyed, 60 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Vehicles lost 71 (15 destroyed, 56 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
3027 casualties reported
Squads: 94 destroyed, 53 disabled
Non Combat: 128 destroyed, 78 disabled
Engineers: 5 destroyed, 5 disabled


Ground combat at Kanhsien (81,57)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 32208 troops, 278 guns, 284 vehicles, Assault Value = 953

Defending force 22788 troops, 124 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 565

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 1

Japanese adjusted assault: 627

Allied adjusted defense: 453

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 1)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(+), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
1391 casualties reported
Squads: 34 destroyed, 52 disabled
Non Combat: 30 destroyed, 41 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Vehicles lost 47 (34 destroyed, 13 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
1399 casualties reported
Squads: 8 destroyed, 91 disabled
Non Combat: 12 destroyed, 172 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 8 disabled


They appear to be low on supply as tpt aircraft are hit by AA as they fly in.

Not sure how much longer we can hold... not long I suspect!

Over Changsha Oscar sweeps are met by the recently increased fighter force (Vanguard squadrons!) a couple of planes are lost on both sides.





< Message edited by jrcar -- 4/5/2010 10:37:37 PM >


_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 558
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/6/2010 12:16:36 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline
Your opponent really seems to have botched Burma, losing a division and sundry troops like that in Rangoon (or soon to be lost). As someone said above, you guys have caused them to ignore their counterattack opportunities, and there must have been some in Burma. Well played by you and Tony. And I just noticed you have the 41st ID there. That must have taken some time to ship, eh?

Cheers,
CC


_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 559
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/6/2010 1:17:52 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
The 41st was shipped "early" via the long way... a tough call be we decided early to comit the two Aussie divs and a US Div to CBI theatre, and in return to comit two UK divs to the defence of Darwin... I feel that that swap would have been politically acceptable in real life. Early on we decided not to be active in the CENTPAC, or even the SOPAC.

Those 3 extra div make a big difference, in part because we can afford for them to take casulties (unlike the UK/Indian Divs).

As usual Nik and Joe have under estimated the forces they needed (Adak, and now Zamboanga also examples!).

They now have 3 divs and a regiment (including the 2 Div at Adak) out of action/destroyed, and the odds are definately in our favour now...

Planning for operation TIGER is now increasing, expecting to launch late Dec early jan 1943... It will co-incide with other actions in the SWPAC and CENTPAC.

Cheers

Rob

_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 560
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/6/2010 2:00:56 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar
...the Japanese player needs to accept more risk (and can afford to do so generally) where as the Allied player needs to really husband resorces and not waste them...


Now that is an interesting statement.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 561
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/6/2010 2:14:32 AM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar
...the Japanese player needs to accept more risk (and can afford to do so generally) where as the Allied player needs to really husband resorces and not waste them...


Now that is an interesting statement.


I agree with Mike....I kind of feel the other way. The Allied player can afford a catastrophic loss. The Japanese player cannot. I think the Japanese player DOES take on more risk in most instances, because there are few replacements, but generally cannot really afford those high risks.

The Allied player has room for error. The Japanese player does not. This, among many reasons, is why AE is harder for the Japanese player than for the Allied.

Good AAR though, and you are doing a good job

_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 562
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/6/2010 2:33:34 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
From what perspective?

Cheers
Rob

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar
...the Japanese player needs to accept more risk (and can afford to do so generally) where as the Allied player needs to really husband resorces and not waste them...


Now that is an interesting statement.



_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 563
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/6/2010 2:47:25 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
To me it seems backward, as Q-Ball said. I believe the Allied player can expend forces (with the exception of carriers - unless he trades carriers with the Japanese) and the Japanese player has to conserve constantly.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 564
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/6/2010 2:47:33 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
I agree that the room for error as the Japanese is tight (you can make 1-2 mistakes) but mainly in the surface fleet. I guess my point was aimed more early war, and more land centric. As the Allies if you loose 2-4 Div you are in real problems, even with the fragments rebuilding it takes a long time to recover, or if they are UK/Indian maybe never.

The Japanese can afford land unit losses and can rebuild easier and in a more flexible way. It still hurts and costs, but the Japanese OOB allows you to burn ground combat units more so than the Allies. This is impoartant in Burma in particular, but also in the delaying battles in the SWPAC/DEI.

In the air the Japanese can also provide plenty of planes (their real limit is squadrons, and pilots, not airframes). If the allies loose a number of mediums then they take forever to recover (as we have found out, down about 50 mediums at the moment), fighters are also tight until mid 43. Squadrons and pilots you have plenty!

The Allies can burn engineers and BF from late 42 (but are scrambling before then), this is one area where the Japanese are well behind.

Playing as Japanese IS tough in AE (I've done it once in testing to late 42)... I'm starting to formulate a strategy and policy though that I'd like to test... we should win this gme by Christmas and then maybe swap sides!


And thanks for the comments :)

Cheers

Rob



quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar
...the Japanese player needs to accept more risk (and can afford to do so generally) where as the Allied player needs to really husband resorces and not waste them...


Now that is an interesting statement.


I agree with Mike....I kind of feel the other way. The Allied player can afford a catastrophic loss. The Japanese player cannot. I think the Japanese player DOES take on more risk in most instances, because there are few replacements, but generally cannot really afford those high risks.

The Allied player has room for error. The Japanese player does not. This, among many reasons, is why AE is harder for the Japanese player than for the Allied.

Good AAR though, and you are doing a good job



_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 565
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/6/2010 2:59:19 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
Ok, thanks.

The Allied player can only accept losses if they also create losses on the Japanese. 1:1 or 1:1.5 (against) is OK. But if the Allied player looses ships (capital mainly, but also escorts) at 2-3:1 against then they will soon be in trouble... I know I've done it!

Then there are the ground forces... if a Japanese player can destroy a couple of Allied divs then the Allied player lacks the capability for simultaneous operations, even if they have the shipping... this restricts options and allows the Japanese to face (and handle) one threat, not 2-3.

Loosing BF and engineers early as the Allied player REALLY hurts... if you can't generate a 60-100 aircraft CAP then KB can trash areas at will (like has happened to Andy against PZB).

By late 1942 the Allies have an excess of BF/Eng units, but are still at a disadvantage ground combat wise (but as the Japanese are on the defensive, the Allies can concentrate in time and space).

IMHO I think that the important thing as the Japanese is to :

Destroy the Allied airforce, preferably on the ground. Kill planes early why you can. This also stops the Allied player from being able to train.

Attempt to isloate and destroy 1-2 Allied Divs. This is the benefit of invading places like Fiji. This creates a weakness that can be exploited later (if you have the CV's...)

Apart from the DEI, ground is unimportant.

The Japanese can sacrifice ground combat units for delay.

Cheers

Rob

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

To me it seems backward, as Q-Ball said. I believe the Allied player can expend forces (with the exception of carriers - unless he trades carriers with the Japanese) and the Japanese player has to conserve constantly.



_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 566
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/6/2010 3:03:31 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar

I agree that the room for error as the Japanese is tight (you can make 1-2 mistakes) but mainly in the surface fleet. I guess my point was aimed more early war, and more land centric. As the Allies if you loose 2-4 Div you are in real problems, even with the fragments rebuilding it takes a long time to recover, or if they are UK/Indian maybe never.

The Japanese can afford land unit losses and can rebuild easier and in a more flexible way. It still hurts and costs, but the Japanese OOB allows you to burn ground combat units more so than the Allies. This is impoartant in Burma in particular, but also in the delaying battles in the SWPAC/DEI.

In the air the Japanese can also provide plenty of planes (their real limit is squadrons, and pilots, not airframes). If the allies loose a number of mediums then they take forever to recover (as we have found out, down about 50 mediums at the moment), fighters are also tight until mid 43. Squadrons and pilots you have plenty!

The Allies can burn engineers and BF from late 42 (but are scrambling before then), this is one area where the Japanese are well behind.

Playing as Japanese IS tough in AE (I've done it once in testing to late 42)... I'm starting to formulate a strategy and policy though that I'd like to test... we should win this gme by Christmas and then maybe swap sides!


And thanks for the comments :)

Cheers

Rob



Rob, for the most part I agree with you. I'll take your word for the Allied side. I've never played them.

I do question your comments concerning the Japanese land forces though. In my AAR, that's my big shortage. It's really slowing me down. In regards to your comments about the Japanese ability to rebuild land forces, as long as they aren't destroyed, then yes, I agree. As long as the Japanese player has sufficient armament and vehicle points (I think manpower points are going to be a non-issue in AE as it was in WitP), he can rebuild anything. I'm really curious how to successfully keep to the historic Japanese invasion timeline though. The Allied infantry may be weak, but it is numerous. My infantry is getting weaker each day (mainly disruption, not loss). So far, the only non-historic areas I've taken were the Pt. Moresby area and Pt. Blair.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 567
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/6/2010 4:37:07 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar

The 41st was shipped "early" via the long way... a tough call be we decided early to comit the two Aussie divs and a US Div to CBI theatre, and in return to comit two UK divs to the defence of Darwin... I feel that that swap would have been politically acceptable in real life.


Speaking of course hypothetically, I personally would not argue that such a swap would have been politically acceptable in real life. Not totally impossible, but on the balance of probability, unlikely to have been acceptable in political terms in all three countries. My hypothetical take is as follows.

1. Australia

The Australian public would probably have seen a swap of the 6th and 7th AIF divisions for two British divisions as OK, being a demonstration of Empire solidarity and in keeping with the Imperial rationale which resulted in the 8th AIF being deployed to Singapore. However from Curtin's perspective, being privy to military information from the professionals, I suspect he would (a) have been suspicious of such a swap being aware that in terms of troop quality Australia was losing out on the deal, and (b) wary that Churchill would still maintain de facto control over the British units and subjugate them to British interests rather than Australian interests.

2. America

Prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, the British had over a period of time engaged the Americans in discussions aimed at forging a coordinated naval plan to discourage a preemptive Japanese strike on Singapore. Those discussions led nowhere, largely because the Americans were not satisfied as to the willingness of the British to fight. Immediately following Pearl Harbor, the American public was anti Japanese, not really pro British in terms of deploying American forces - particularly when there was concern regarding the defences on Hawaii and the West Coast. So to me there is a large question mark as to whether, in practical terms (as opposed to in principle) whether Roosevelt would have commited before Midway, the despatch of an entire American division to Burma, an area which the British were clearly abandoning.

3. Britain

In view that Churchill would be exchanging 2 divisions for 3 higher quality divisions, and thinking that the British units at Darwin would not necessarily be out of his command reach, he probably would acquiese, although he would have tried to also keep the British divisions as that would have been consistent with the pre war Singapore strategy and provide him with the resources to deal with Vichy African colonies (= Madagascar).

Alfred

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 568
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/8/2010 7:22:27 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
We have the turn and have processed our part. They have a strong SCTF covering their unloading in the Kuriles, so the attack will go in at Adak as originally planned.

In Burma things are looking good for us, but even without any real opposition the B-17 groups are at half strength (from damaged aircraft).

In the SWPAC area groups of B-25 (Dutch, Australian, US) are now assembling for an attack on Dili with support from Beufighters and maybe P-38. Many of our B-25 groups are at only half strength, but should be able to generate a force of around 50-70 B-25. I don't have an airHQ in Darwin though, and with wildly different experiance levels and different HQ's I have no expectation of a co-ordinated attack.

The B-17 groups at Darwin are still at half strength airframe wise, only just starting to be moderately trained (in the 50's) and not really redy for battle... but they may have to be committed anyway so I "punch" and not tickle.

The B-24 group is almost full strength airframe wise, but is still woefully trained...

I'd like to commit all three at the same time, on at least 2 different targets... but don't want to wait... but so far have no plan beyond "attriting the enemy".


Intel wise Koepang is showing 5 units (even though only one was hit by the CL bombardments) and Kendari has 20 units!


I'm still moving forces into Kaimana. Significant forces are unloading at Madang now, with more engineers on the way.

In SOPAC lots unloading at Rabaul, and much is then reloading in preparation for Operation TIGER.


Someone still inssists on sending mega convoys that take forever to unload... good help is hard to find...

Cheers

Rob

_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 569
RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) - 4/8/2010 7:29:21 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
Ref point 2 there was a lot of "push" from Stillwell (and some others) to send a Div to this area. Lots of aircraft, basforce pers and engineers were sent. So it is plausible.

In our alternative universe the Brits agreed to an early offensive (in real life they kept getting cold feet and claiming a lack of transports and resources) and so the US has comitted a force as part of the ABDA (the ABDA HQ is here) to attempt to strike back towards the DEI.

The Brit forces really can't sustain an attack as this point of the war without significant help, they are a shallow force with little depth (land, air and sea).

Cheers

Rob


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar

The 41st was shipped "early" via the long way... a tough call be we decided early to comit the two Aussie divs and a US Div to CBI theatre, and in return to comit two UK divs to the defence of Darwin... I feel that that swap would have been politically acceptable in real life.


Speaking of course hypothetically, I personally would not argue that such a swap would have been politically acceptable in real life. Not totally impossible, but on the balance of probability, unlikely to have been acceptable in political terms in all three countries. My hypothetical take is as follows.

1. Australia

The Australian public would probably have seen a swap of the 6th and 7th AIF divisions for two British divisions as OK, being a demonstration of Empire solidarity and in keeping with the Imperial rationale which resulted in the 8th AIF being deployed to Singapore. However from Curtin's perspective, being privy to military information from the professionals, I suspect he would (a) have been suspicious of such a swap being aware that in terms of troop quality Australia was losing out on the deal, and (b) wary that Churchill would still maintain de facto control over the British units and subjugate them to British interests rather than Australian interests.

2. America

Prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, the British had over a period of time engaged the Americans in discussions aimed at forging a coordinated naval plan to discourage a preemptive Japanese strike on Singapore. Those discussions led nowhere, largely because the Americans were not satisfied as to the willingness of the British to fight. Immediately following Pearl Harbor, the American public was anti Japanese, not really pro British in terms of deploying American forces - particularly when there was concern regarding the defences on Hawaii and the West Coast. So to me there is a large question mark as to whether, in practical terms (as opposed to in principle) whether Roosevelt would have commited before Midway, the despatch of an entire American division to Burma, an area which the British were clearly abandoning.

3. Britain

In view that Churchill would be exchanging 2 divisions for 3 higher quality divisions, and thinking that the British units at Darwin would not necessarily be out of his command reach, he probably would acquiese, although he would have tried to also keep the British divisions as that would have been consistent with the pre war Singapore strategy and provide him with the resources to deal with Vichy African colonies (= Madagascar).

Alfred



_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 570
Page:   <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Aussies vs Amis - World Defence(no Joe or Nik) Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   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

1.297