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: Hitting the sweet spot

 
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: Hitting the sweet spot Page: <<   < prev  24 25 [26] 27 28   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Hitting the sweet spot - 10/15/2010 8:03:41 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		A great victory, and good planning, but I'd say your opponent asked for this. Maybe easy retaking of Southern Pacific made him complacent, and he underestimated your true carrier strength by a lot, but he still should have drawn necessary tactical lessons from your actions at Marshalls.

Now Allies must resort to what they should have been doing from the beginning - applying relentless pressure and making small leaps wherever they can bring their LBA to play. At least Burma and New Guinea fit for this.

(in reply to Ketza)
Post #: 751
RE: Hitting the sweet spot - 10/15/2010 9:58:15 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

A great victory, and good planning, but I'd say your opponent asked for this. Maybe easy retaking of Southern Pacific made him complacent, and he underestimated your true carrier strength by a lot, but he still should have drawn necessary tactical lessons from your actions at Marshalls.

Now Allies must resort to what they should have been doing from the beginning - applying relentless pressure and making small leaps wherever they can bring their LBA to play. At least Burma and New Guinea fit for this.



My analysis of this battle is that witpqs felt that the IJN would withdraw after suffering 500 plane losses last turn. This is what happened after the strike on Wotje. He probably felt we would do that again.

A comment on my overall planning: It has been my plan all along to have a decisive carrier battle sometime in 1943 after the arrival of the Taiho and the first 3 Unryu's, (April) or all six Unryu's (Sept.). My plan was to use LBA to weaken allied carrier CAP during the initial stages of the battle and then commit the KB once the allied CAP had suffered high levels of attrition.

This was the battle plan I attempted to execute in the Marshalls. The problem there was that the only effective way to attack the carrier CAP was to have the allies strike at something and attack their fighter escorts with my own CAP/LRCAP. The altitude advantage is too absolute and exaggerated to hope to be able to hurt the enemy CAP with escorts and sweeping an enemy fleet is not possible. Thus, the only effective way to engage the enemy CAP is to provide "bait" TFs which your own fighters can then CAP/LRCAP. I did not recognize the game system was flawed in this way until I put my battle plan into effect in the Marshalls. It is because of the flawed game system that I decided I had to resort to "bait" TFs.

OTOH, the Marshalls did show it was possible to hit the allies without being hit in return. This is what we did at Wotje and had pretty good results: 3 CVE; 2 BB sunk. So now my thinking turned to trying to arrange a one way strike as soon as possible before the allies grew any stronger. A battle over Ponape was hardly ideal for this. Ponape itself is isolated and easily suppressed. (which is what I plan on doing to it.) And the only other base close by is Truk. I would have preferred to have this battle in the Marianas where the allies would not be able to have the support of LBA and where I would have multiple airfields for basing my LBA. But the battle needed to happen sooner rather than latter, so Ponape was chosen.

The fleet based itself at Satawal, a dot base. This was far enough away from allied bases to avoid naval search planes, yet close enough to reach position for the decisive battle in one move. Basing at a dot base also offered the advantage of avoiding allied recon. They have been reconnning my major bases such as Rabaul and Truk. Occasionally they will recon some other base in the Gilberts or Solomons. But generally, they have not been reconning the dot bases. So Satawal was not only the right distance from the projected battle zone, but was sufficiently nondescript that the allies might overlook it.

Pilot losses today:
KIA 118
MIA 40
WIA 40


< Message edited by cap_and_gown -- 10/15/2010 10:00:56 PM >

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 752
RE: My God! - 10/15/2010 11:22:58 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman

If I may offer some advice:

"You're all clear kid, now let's blow this thing and go home!"





Ah, but you forget the other advice: "Great kid, don't get cocky."
Post #: 753
RE: Hitting the sweet spot - 10/15/2010 11:23:39 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline 		Great show C&G
Guess your opponent got big wide eyes when he met 15 Jap fleet carriers by 10/43!!

Hitting the enemy when he's preoccupied with protecting an invasion force is ideal.
You're the hunter and he's the hunted.

I think the Allied player should use 1943 to advance under LBA cover and only start major amph operations in 1944; especially if playing Scen 2.
You will probably not be challenged at sea again until mid 44 - this game will most likely run all its length into 46 now

_____________________________



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

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 754
RE: Hitting the sweet spot - 10/16/2010 1:21:34 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Well it is possible to advance without LBA cover or even much air cover from carriers if you engage in sufficient strategic deception so I wouldn't say that the Allies need to stick to small advances in 43 ( as necessitated by being under LBA cover ). You can eschew the air cover with a good enough deceptive plan - I routinely invade without air cover in 42 and 43. It costs but strategically it gains far more than it loses IF you choose critical targets. It isn't viable if you conduct a conventional, island by pointless island campaign.

With that said C&G has done very well. If he still has fighters for CAP he should definitely pursue with the CVs etc which are undamaged. He needs to maintain a strong CAP and accept losses to Allied fighters amongst his strikegroups. In the arithmetic of war those strike planes (and their pilots ) are utterly expendable as he can retrain an entirely new strike component from scratch in a quarter of the time it'll take the Allies to bring their CV strength back up to par.

So, keep the CVs safe with massive CAP and only very lightly escort your strike groups. Let them take significant losses on the way into the target. Right now even a few planes getting through will wreak havoc, particularly as the USN FlAK supplies are likely to be running low.

Above all though keep your CVs safe, fly Zeroes from damaged decks to undamaged decks and pursue.... but keep the CAP strong, your strike groups are now ( as opposed to in most normal games ) utterly expendable. If none survive the battle it doesn't matter one iota. But your flightdecks need to survive.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear the Allies sue for peace shortly if you can eliminate their total CV power.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 755
RE: Hitting the sweet spot - 10/16/2010 4:22:40 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		 Great job.  Excellent plan flawlessly executed. 

AS you summarize above, this has been your plan since day 1.  To be able to follow through after +600 turns is a real tribute to focus.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 756
RE: Hitting the sweet spot - 10/16/2010 8:54:21 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

A great victory, and good planning, but I'd say your opponent asked for this. Maybe easy retaking of Southern Pacific made him complacent, and he underestimated your true carrier strength by a lot, but he still should have drawn necessary tactical lessons from your actions at Marshalls.

Now Allies must resort to what they should have been doing from the beginning - applying relentless pressure and making small leaps wherever they can bring their LBA to play. At least Burma and New Guinea fit for this.



My analysis of this battle is that witpqs felt that the IJN would withdraw after suffering 500 plane losses last turn. This is what happened after the strike on Wotje. He probably felt we would do that again.

A comment on my overall planning: It has been my plan all along to have a decisive carrier battle sometime in 1943 after the arrival of the Taiho and the first 3 Unryu's, (April) or all six Unryu's (Sept.). My plan was to use LBA to weaken allied carrier CAP during the initial stages of the battle and then commit the KB once the allied CAP had suffered high levels of attrition.

This was the battle plan I attempted to execute in the Marshalls. The problem there was that the only effective way to attack the carrier CAP was to have the allies strike at something and attack their fighter escorts with my own CAP/LRCAP. The altitude advantage is too absolute and exaggerated to hope to be able to hurt the enemy CAP with escorts and sweeping an enemy fleet is not possible. Thus, the only effective way to engage the enemy CAP is to provide "bait" TFs which your own fighters can then CAP/LRCAP. I did not recognize the game system was flawed in this way until I put my battle plan into effect in the Marshalls. It is because of the flawed game system that I decided I had to resort to "bait" TFs.

OTOH, the Marshalls did show it was possible to hit the allies without being hit in return. This is what we did at Wotje and had pretty good results: 3 CVE; 2 BB sunk. So now my thinking turned to trying to arrange a one way strike as soon as possible before the allies grew any stronger. A battle over Ponape was hardly ideal for this. Ponape itself is isolated and easily suppressed. (which is what I plan on doing to it.) And the only other base close by is Truk. I would have preferred to have this battle in the Marianas where the allies would not be able to have the support of LBA and where I would have multiple airfields for basing my LBA. But the battle needed to happen sooner rather than latter, so Ponape was chosen.

The fleet based itself at Satawal, a dot base. This was far enough away from allied bases to avoid naval search planes, yet close enough to reach position for the decisive battle in one move. Basing at a dot base also offered the advantage of avoiding allied recon. They have been reconnning my major bases such as Rabaul and Truk. Occasionally they will recon some other base in the Gilberts or Solomons. But generally, they have not been reconning the dot bases. So Satawal was not only the right distance from the projected battle zone, but was sufficiently nondescript that the allies might overlook it.

Pilot losses today:
KIA 118
MIA 40
WIA 40




can only agree here, with the Hellcats having the never ending dive (which theyīre going to always have due to numbers, working ship based radar and therefore being higher) you get kill rates that seem to be totally absurd. In my last carrier battle the 400 Hellcats lost something like 25 of their own and downed around 400 enemy aircraft. So after one day and downing 400 ac the Hellcat Cap was down by around 5-7%. And the aircraft they faced were crack KB aircraft. Cap isnīt bullet prove anymore (by far not) but with the power of the dive in AE, the kill rates have become even worse than in WITP. In WITP Iīve worn down enemy Uber Cap dozens of time, in AE if you end up against a couple of hundred diving enemy fighters (no matter what side) you will only wear down your own fighters.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 10/16/2010 8:57:54 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 757
RE: Hitting the sweet spot - 10/16/2010 10:48:24 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Castor, that just isn't true. While diving airplanes do get an advantage ( as is proper ) this doesn't relegate one to massive losses. If you plan things well you can get good exchange rates. In a scenario 2 game I'm not having any difficulty keeping to 1:1 loss rates with my escorting fighters vs the enemy CAP fighters.

You have a point re: diving fighters but you damage your own argument with the fact that you keep presenting only the extreme position and not the more rational, realistic one.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 758
RE: Hitting the sweet spot - 10/16/2010 11:00:03 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline 		Witpqs lost the moment he attacked.  He failed to obey several crucial lessons from history.  One was "Recon, recon, recon -- know what, where, when and why".   He did not have a picture of the situation, and stumbled into it blindly.  A good recipe for disaster (unlike the US carriers for example historically at Midway, but again the Japanese!).

C&G excellently used this to his advantage, picked the battle by attacking selectively a weaker portion of the enemy (weaker due to range issues in this case), and defeating them piecemeal.  C&G made excellent use of the initiative he gained by being the one with the complete overview of the situation.  Basically it wasn't Witpqs battle, or attack.  He just brought in his forces in range for the slaughter, but C&G picked and designed the battle.  This is definitely true for the first day's engagement.

Sure luck was with him, but even the bold and aggressive move by Witpqs to continue the battle on the 2nd day was proven a bad decision -- that probably was more a consequence of the omissions on the first day, and a misinterpretation of C&G's expected reaction.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 759
RE: Hitting the sweet spot - 10/16/2010 11:08:07 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Castor, that just isn't true. While diving airplanes do get an advantage ( as is proper ) this doesn't relegate one to massive losses. If you plan things well you can get good exchange rates. In a scenario 2 game I'm not having any difficulty keeping to 1:1 loss rates with my escorting fighters vs the enemy CAP fighters.

You have a point re: diving fighters but you damage your own argument with the fact that you keep presenting only the extreme position and not the more rational, realistic one.



well, there is no realistic one and thatīs the problem. My opponent must be quite a couple of times more stupid than you because Iīve just took down 400 aircraft with a Hellcat Cap for the loss of 25 Hellcats. The combat reports can be seen in my AAR if you want to check it, with all details as I deliberately not edit anything out of the reports. The enemy sent in 500+ aircraft from KB (believe me, these surely were trained ones) and we had 400 Hellcats meeting them. They didnīt stop the raid but the Hellcats suffered only the above mentioned losses and it would have needed 3000 enemy aircraft to wear the Hellcats down as they never stopped diving as radar has put them to a height that they needed so whatever height the enemy uses, the Hellcats are right there. Remember the rabbit and the hedgehog? Of course my fleet would be annihilated due to the "leakers" getting through the Cap (but thatīs not the point here).

My PBEM is scen 2 and believe me, no matter what you do, you would not score a 1:1 in escorts vs Hellcat Cap against me as thereīs nothing you can do, other than to change the code and thatīs not possible for you. But thatīs your word against mine. Itīs the same as when you say you take down 50% of the enemy bombers at 20000ft with 200 3.7 flak guns and I post screen after screen that 280 3.7 inch guns in my PBEM canīt even take out more than 5-8 bombers at 10000ft out of 100 bombers.

But hey, Cap&gown probably hasnīt got the same knowledge (or not the same game) as you because otherwise he would also score a 1:1 vs diving Hellcats. Donīt take that personal Nemo, but we seem to have two completely different versions of the game, which isnīt the case.

I can only agree with Cap&gown about what he said about enemy Cap and them diving as itīs the same I see in my PBEM. I also donīt like to use "baits" and this is going into the gamey direction sooner than later but itīs exactly what he said, the game forces him to do so. But I also wouldnīt agree with many things you (Nemo) come up with in the game as having a 600 fighter with no bomber CV TF is also something I find off the mark, so perhaps itīs just the playstyle that creates absolutely different results between your games and othersī.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 10/16/2010 11:13:09 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 760
RE: Hitting the sweet spot - 10/16/2010 11:33:47 AM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline 		The problem with a 400 hellcat CAP is the following:

They will outnumber the Japanese fighter component of the strike (isolating and engaging the escort while a significant part of the CAP is free to engage bombers)
They will be faster then the Japanese fighters (better capability to get to a better - safer - position then the Japanese fighter)
They have a better climb rate then the Japanese fighters (better capability to get to a better position)
They have an altitude advantage against the Japanese fighters (better position)
They are free to engage the enemy strike (no need to protect slow bombers)
They have better armour and better guns then the Japanese aircraft (resulting in one pass, one kill while receiving fewer losses)
They will have equal or better experience then the Japanese pilots in this stage of the war

The only advantage the Japanese fighters will have is manoeuvrability... and that is hard to exploit if the enemy is not playing your game.... (dogfight)

I have put hundreds of hours into online flightsimming (BGE) and while taking into account the fact that it is just a game/sim - I would love to go up against a raid of 500 japanese aircraft with 400 experienced pilots - I wonder how many of the enemy would survive in the end.....


< Message edited by Cannonfodder -- 10/16/2010 11:37:32 AM >

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
Ŋ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 761
RE: Hitting the sweet spot - 10/16/2010 11:53:31 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		So, the results are consistent with expectations.  As IJN you have to be very careful and plan any attack after late '42, otherwise the superior USN a/c will have a significant advantage.  Even then the IJN needs some luck to succeed. 

I think this is exactly what C&G accomplished.  Kudo's.  Not easy to do by any measure.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 762
RE: My God! - 10/16/2010 12:14:32 PM   
invernomuto


Posts: 986
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline
quote:


Morning Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 118,112
Weather in hex: Moderate rain
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 44 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 26
A6M5 Zero x 151
A6M5b Zero x 17
A6M5c Zero x 35
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 36

Allied aircraft
F6F-3 Hellcat x 44
SBD-5 Dauntless x 144
TBF-1 Avenger x 54

Japanese Ships
I will post a screen shot of the damage later. Shoho is fairly heavily damaged, the others could all make it if not for allied subs, which will probably find some of them.
CV Taiho, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CV Kasagi
CV Ikoma, Bomb hits 1
CV Zuikaku, Torpedo hits 1
CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 2
CVL Chiyoda, Bomb hits 1
CVL Shoho, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires
CVL Chitose, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CVL Zuiho
CVL Ryujo
CL Kitakami
DD Fumizuki
DD Hatsukaze
DD Kuroshio, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Makigumo
DD Takanami
DD Onami

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CV Taiho
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CVL Shoho

This strike is from the CVEs



1st AE lesson learned: less CAP, more escorts: If the Allies managed to have more Hellcat to cover this strike, probabily it would have hurt IJN badly.


_____________________________


(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 763
RE: My God! - 10/16/2010 12:33:18 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Castor,

There are a few problems with your reply and basically they boil down to the use of hyperbole and it presentation as fact rather than the use of facts....

quote:

The enemy sent in 500+ aircraft from KB (believe me, these surely were trained ones)


Probably but the level of their training and the A2A skill differential with your Hellcats is unknown. So, crucially, is the level of their defensive training which is the crucial skill in determining whether they will survive the initial diving attack and engage in a much more even battle with your fighters.


quote:

My opponent must be quite a couple of times more stupid than you


It isn't a matter of stupidity so much as judgement and only picking the right kinds of fights. I fight VERY selectively so when I do fight even though I may be escorting bombers I stack as many other things in my favour as possible and vs Zeroes have achieved 1:1 ( sometimes better, sometimes a little worse ) kill rates vs them with my escorting fighters. Is it easy to do? No. Is it possible every time? No. Is it, however, possible much of the time if you plan properly? Yes.

Is your opponent planning these things properly operationally? It doesn't seem so to me from my reading of your AAR. He allowed his strikes to go in in highly sub-optimal conditions and, rightly, took massive losses for it.


quote:

My PBEM is scen 2 and believe me, no matter what you do, you would not score a 1:1 in escorts vs Hellcat Cap against me as thereīs nothing you can do, other than to change the code and thatīs not possible for you.


This is an example of hyperbole masquerading as fact. The only fact contained in the above sentence is that you are a playing a Scenario 2 PBEM - as am I. Everything else is mere conjecture. I would point out also that abandoning hope of finding a counter is the first step to never looking for a counter. If you don't look for something then, unsurprisingly, you'll never find it. This train of logic is why I believe you haven't found the counters to "diving CAP" which I have. Since you KNOW ( albeit that this KNOWing is unsupported by facts ) there is no counter you don't look for it and thus don't find it.


quote:

Don't take that personal Nemo, but we seem to have two completely different versions of the game, which isnīt the case.


Yes, which is why I find it disappointing, but not surprising, that when we achieve different results your only position is that the results you obtain are the ONLY way things can turn out. Surely if you accept, as you do, that we are playing the same scenario and game then if you cannot achieve 1:1 exchange rates vs diving CAP but I CAN then perhaps you should look into what I'm doing that you aren't?

After all, why should I be getting better results than you if we're using the same scenario and game? Maybe I'm doing something different and better and thus am getting the rewards for my attention to detail and operational planning?

The problem, of course, is that since you have decided that you KNOW there is no possibility of doing anything different that precludes the possibility that I'm doing anything different and thus there can be no explanation for my doing better...... despite the fact that after reading your AAR I have clearly stated I can identify things I do differently than you or your opponent and that within those areas I can find the reasons for the different exchange rates.

You choose to simply ignore the evidence which doesn't agree with your position and then substitute hyperbole for facts. This is a pity because you have spotted issues with the game but your unwillingness to engage with facts and an open mind undercuts your ability to contribute to correcting the game's issues.


As to playstyle etc:
Well the mechanics of defeating diving CAP are not related to numbers so while I appreciate the jibe it is, again, not germaine to the discussion and not the reason underlying the differences in results.

I would also point out that in my game there are many examples where 20 or 30 planes have faced off on each side and escorting fighters have gotten the better of defending, diving CAP. So, objectively I can prove that this is independent of numbers and not a result of a knee point statistical factor.


Lastly, given that my opponent is setting his fighter CAP at maximum altitude for Zeroes and Oscars etc how WOULD you explain the fact that I can get a better than 1:1 ratio vs Zeroes and roughly 1:1 vs Oscars using P40s, Hurricanes or Wildcats in April 1942? Objectively I can, even though you hyperbolically claim this is impossible ( my numbers in my AAR are supported by the Combat Reports). So, basing this in fact can you explain away those numbers without resorting to hyperbole?

Feel free to post any response to my AAR so we can continue the discussion there. I don't want to pollute C&Gs AAR any more than necessary.




As tot he 442 fighters you had facing the IJA raids, let us look at it in a non-hyperbolic manner....

1st raid: 442 Allied fighters vs 131 Zeroes, 80 torpedo bombers and 132 divebombers.
confirmed kills in the CR were 11 IJNAAF fighters and 115 strike planes. Given that there were over 3 Allied fighters to every IJNAAF escort that doesn't seem at ALL unreasonable to me. Hell, in the real war the Allies would have been a bit disappointed not to have killed more based on historical loss rates in several battles.


2nd raid: 394 Allied fighters vs 56 IJNAAF fightyers and 49 strike planes.

So, IJNAAF fighters were outnumbered 7 to 1. Hardly a recipe for a good exchange rate. In reality a fighter squadron outnumbered 7 to 1 is bound to take excessive losses. Lanchester laws and the history of aerial combat demand that it is so... ESPECIALLY when they are outnumbered 7:1 and tied to escorting strike planes ( which means they won't even get the opportunity to launch an attack at their own time of choosing with an altitude advantage ).


3rd IJNAAF strike:
428 Allied fighters faced 94 IJNAAF fighters and 82 strike planes.
The IJNAAF escorts were outnumbered about 4.5 : 1 and tied to close escort strike planes.


4th IJNAAF strike:
397 Allied fighters faced 11 Zeroes and 11 strike planes. With odds of over 30:1 in fighters the IJNAAF did poorly.


5th IJNAAF strike:
317 Allied fighters fought 24 IJNAAF fighters and 42 strike planes.
Outnumbered 13 to 1+ the IJNAAF fighters didn't do that well... Unsurprisingly when each IJNAAF fighter could be facing up to 10 Hellcats and were flying inferior planes they did poorly.

There is NOTHING surprising about this.

The USN managed to achieve massive concentration of force with an average of 4+ fighters in the air for every escorting Zero. They also had less fatigue, superior positioning and could attack at a time and from a position of their choosing. As additional USN planes entered the fray on already committed Zeroes ( which were already "low and slow" from evading the initial passes ) the position snowballed - just as it does in real life - with Zeroes which survived the initial passes being in gradually worsening positions to survive additional, newly arriving Hellcats which dived on them.

This is how things happened in real life too.

This battle follows the Lanchester laws clearly insofar as once a great disparity in force is established it is followed by an even greater disparity in exchange rates which increase at a logarithmic rate.

So, when you examine the strikes with a little common sense and look at the extent to which IJNAAF fighters were outnumbered there really aren't any surprises here at all. I'm disappointed you chose not to analyse these strikes beyond the obvious as the causes for the disparate results are really rather obvious and tied into the fact that your opponent didn't maximise his advantages or minimise his disadvantages. He COULD have put in better strikes than this if he had planned things better and that would have resulted in less loss for greater payback to him.

But he committed in a sub-optimal manner and given that your fighters vastly outnumbered his, had superior airframes, superior positioning and could take advantage of the Lanchester Laws and the logarithmic worsening in energy differential which accrues vis a vis escorting fighters and newly arriving CAP ( of which there was a lot given the vast outnumbering by the Allies ) the outcome was inevitable.

It seems to me that you may be unaware of the effect of this differential which is clearly created during combat since you don't seem to have accounted for its effect at all in your partial analysis.




< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 10/16/2010 12:52:09 PM >

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to invernomuto)
Post #: 764
RE: My God! - 10/17/2010 2:57:18 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		I have decided to retreat the KB. The undamaged carriers will provide air cover for the damaged ones. Our pace of retreat for now is limited to 4 hexes per turn, so we will still be in striking range of any remaining allied carriers/surface ships in the morning. I have put the carriers into just three TFs so that the number of escorting DDs could be increased for each group. I also put a BB into each carrier group to help provide protection from surface raiders. It seems to me that the allies may try for a surface intercept during the night.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 765
RE: My God! - 10/17/2010 3:21:17 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		Tough call. 

7 IJ CV/CVE/CVL's are either near or over 50% damage, so they are borderline air op's.  That's a major loss. 

I think I would have pursued. 

The only reason is the date.  You are already at a VERY late point in the game for the IJN.  Given USN repair capabilities, you will be facing most of this damaged TF again in 90 days in a renewed offensive.  If you can sink more of the cripples, you force that out to +200, maybe even as much as 400, days for replacements. Even if you lose all of your CV force in getting the cripples, the allies cannot advance without CV air cover.  You can defend without it.  Granted, not as efficiently, but the point is they cannot advance.

Just my thoughts...

PS: BUT, given how well you are playing, I am 100% POSITIVE that you have made the correct decision.  I just have to figure out the errors in my reasoning to improve my game!!! 

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 10/18/2010 4:04:12 AM >

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 766
RE: My God! - 10/18/2010 11:52:43 AM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		So where do we stand now C&G ? Do you have the turn back yet ?

_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 767
RE: My God! - 10/18/2010 12:00:32 PM   
TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum


Posts: 312
Joined: 1/12/2010
Status: offline 		I think pulling back was the smart move.

Don't get greedy while you're still relatively unscathed.

You'll want that mobile striking power to keep the Allies on their toes while they rebuild their carrier fleets.

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 768
RE: My God! - 10/18/2010 12:03:11 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		Depending on the final tally of the Battle, once KB has been restocked with greenish pilot, using it on fairly low risk missions to train it again would be the clever thing to do. Actually retaking Ponape would'nt be a bad move : bombard for a bit then invade.. He will have a hard time covering it. What is the situaiton in the Indian Ocean, Burma front ?

_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam
Post #: 769
RE: My God! - 10/18/2010 12:13:50 PM   
TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum


Posts: 312
Joined: 1/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

Depending on the final tally of the Battle, once KB has been restocked with greenish pilot, using it on fairly low risk missions to train it again would be the clever thing to do. Actually retaking Ponape would'nt be a bad move : bombard for a bit then invade.. He will have a hard time covering it. What is the situaiton in the Indian Ocean, Burma front ?


Yep, limited counter invasions with KB support would be excellent while you have no fear of reprisal.

Meanwhile, when not using the KB on the offensive, you can use it to prevent the Allies from attempting further landings.

Just try to keep it near where you think the enemy wants to push.

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 770
RE: My God! - 10/18/2010 3:05:50 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		I'm not so sure ... Ponape w/LBA and the USN right now would be fight I would take as the allies.  It about a draw on a/c and on the defensive that gives me enough advantage that I take the chance.

The problem, as I see it (and I will absolutely deny anything close to 20/20 ) is that with C&G CV damages right now the KB isn't strong enough to go offensive against LBA+USN.  Plenty strong for continued defense.  Easily can handle raids almost anywhere.  By the time C&G repairs his carriers, the USN ones will be repaired.  So what he has now is about 90 days stalemate.  Really good for this point in time.  However, after 90 days, the allies are back on offensive footing.... and they lost far fewer pilots and a/c.

_____________________________

Pax
Post #: 771
RE: My God! - 10/18/2010 3:22:22 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		I am not in any way calling for an offensive right now. In any circumstances the dust first needs to settle on this battle : Has C&G sunk 3/4 CVs or 6/7 ? etc... Give him the week he needs to get his ships safe, and then he will be able to plan based on the availability of his CVs, the quality of his KB AF, his estimate of the abilities of the allies for the nead future, etc...

_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 772
Killing strays - 10/19/2010 4:26:21 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		Oct. 27, 1943

This will just be a quick report on the day's action. I will not be able to actually do anything until tomorrow. But my plans right now are leaning in the direction of splitting up the KB and going for some deep raids aimed at allied LOC between PH and the Marshalls, Capetown-Australia, and maybe even San-Fran-PH. Once the cripples are safely out of danger (at least from air and surface threats) then the fast carriers will head off into the CentPac/EastPac zone while the CVEs head off into the IO. I am not going to try to regain Ponape, a hopeless task. If any place shows the potential for a counter offensive, it is Darwin and/or the Aleutians. I will consider this. Regardless, Japan now has undisputed carrier superiority to such a degree that she must launch at least some sort of naval offensive designed to slow down the allied build up in the CentPac and Australia regions.

The turn starts with some pay back for the allies. Just when I thought these guys had successfully exited the danger zone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Marcus Island at 119,94

Japanese Ships
CV Junyo, Torpedo hits 2 (34 float, 28 major/9 engine, 2 major)
DD Oshio
E Sanae
DD Asagumo
DD Yamagumo
DD Natsugumo
DD Arashio

Allied Ships
SS Balao, hits 1

SS Balao launches 6 torpedoes at CV Junyo

An allied destroyer shot up by CD guns is still too nimble to be hit by 8 torpedoes. Stupid sub skipper!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Kusaie Island at 122,115

Japanese Ships
SS I-159

Allied Ships
DD Lansdowne, heavy damage

The CVE Santee, OTOH, is not so lucky. This is the one CVE that I thought might still be afloat after yesterday's action. Not anymore.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Ponape at 121,114

Japanese Ships
SS I-26

Allied Ships
CVE Santee, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

SS I-26 launches 6 torpedoes

Now come a series of air attacks on assorted allied TFs, as well as a few feeble allied attempts to counter attack. Their carriers have cleared out of the area, leaving behind numerous surface forces composed of destroyers that I assume were trying to intercept the KB but missed.

This raid is coming out of Truk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Kusaie Island at 123,116
Weather in hex: Partial cloud
Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 23
P1Y1 Frances x 9

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 12

Allied Ships
AKA Jupiter, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk [Jupiter was already damaged in yesterday's action]
AM Requisite


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 118,109
Weather in hex: Light rain
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 44 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 12
A6M5b Zero x 3

Allied aircraft
SBD-5 Dauntless x 13 [these are out of Kusaie, 5 break through the CAP but are destroyed on the way home]

Japanese Ships
BB Hiei


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 118,114
Weather in hex: Thunderstorms
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 40 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 19
D4Y1 Judy x 3
D4Y3 Judy x 11

Allied Ships
DD Taylor
DD Sigsbee
DD Terry

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 121,112
Weather in hex: Moderate rain
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 40 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5c Zero x 19
B6N2 Jill x 4
B6N2a Jill x 6
D4Y1 Judy x 11
D4Y3 Judy x 11

Allied Ships
DD Grayson, Bomb hits 3, and is sunk
DD Gwin
DD Aaron Ward, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Monssen, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Aaron Ward


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 120,114
Weather in hex: Heavy cloud
Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 20 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 3
D4Y1 Judy x 8

Allied Ships
BB Indiana, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk [I had considered Indiana sunk after yesterday, but apparently she needed one more bomb to finish her off.]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 121,115
Weather in hex: Heavy cloud
Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 26 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 2
B6N1 Jill x 9

Allied Ships
DD Dent, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Drayton
DD Lamson

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 118,114
Weather in hex: Thunderstorms
Raid detected at 13 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
B6N2 Jill x 7

Allied Ships
DD Strong


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 118,114
Weather in hex: Partial cloud
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 36 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 7
P1Y1 Frances x 9

Allied Ships
DD Sigsbee
DD Terry
DD Strong

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 120,114
Weather in hex: Moderate rain
Raid spotted at 13 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5b Zero x 6
B6N2 Jill x 2

Allied Ships
DMS Hovey

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 121,112
Weather in hex: Moderate rain
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 31 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 6
A6M5c Zero x 19
D4Y1 Judy x 18
D4Y3 Judy x 15

Allied Ships
DD Aaron Ward, Bomb hits 6, and is sunk
DD Monssen, Bomb hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Aaron Ward
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Monssen

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 121,115
Weather in hex: Light cloud
Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 26 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 3
B6N2 Jill x 3

Allied Ships
DD Drayton

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 118,114
Weather in hex: Partial cloud
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 40 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 26
B6N2 Jill x 2
D4Y1 Judy x 24

Allied Ships
DD Strong, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
DD Taylor
DD Terry
DD Sigsbee, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires
DD Trathen, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Trathen


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 121,115
Weather in hex: Light cloud
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 40 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 6
B6N1 Jill x 1
D4Y3 Judy x 19

Allied Ships
DD Lamson, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
DD Drayton

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Lamson


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 120,114
Weather in hex: Moderate rain
Raid spotted at 47 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
B6N2 Jill x 3

Allied Ships
DMS Boggs, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk [Lucky shot!]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 118,109
Weather in hex: Clear sky
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 41 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 2
A6M5 Zero x 17
A6M5b Zero x 3

Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 11

Japanese Ships
BB Hiei

Finally, Ponape was captured by the following forces:
Assaulting units:
767th Tank Battalion
1st USMC Corps Tank Battalion
766th Tank Battalion
33rd Infantry Division
7th Infantry Division
2nd USMC Field Artillery Battalion
1st USMC Field Artillery Battalion
I US Amphib Corps /1





Attachment (1)

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 773
RE: Killing strays - 10/19/2010 5:14:29 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		Do you think some of the DD groups might be escorts to a hurt ship that sank?  Any changes in ship VP's?

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 774
RE: Killing strays - 10/19/2010 8:36:17 AM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		I look forward to the final tally of the battle.

edit : by the way, did the allies lose more planes from the "ground" column of the plane losses, indicating further loaded carrier sinkings ?

< Message edited by veji1 -- 10/19/2010 8:37:05 AM >

_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 775
RE: Killing strays - 10/19/2010 9:56:02 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown
BB Indiana, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk [I had considered Indiana sunk after yesterday, but apparently she needed one more bomb to finish her off.]


I think this is going to be the truth for a good number of his CV/L/E too. I think he did actually not loose as much as it would presently look like. Allied damage control is excellent, and surely one should not count a ship sunk unless it can be confirmed unambiguously. Unless you can exploit your success and take down the 7 damaged CV, and some of the other cippled CVL, CVE and BB, this battle is actually more a draw now.

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 776
RE: Killing strays - 10/19/2010 3:02:07 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		Come on, a draw is excessive. At worse he sank 4 CVs, 2CVLs, 4 or 5 CVEs and 2 or 3BBs... This is not a draw. This might not be a warchanger, just a 4/6 months push back, but still, it qualifies as a pretty nice victory..

_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 777
RE: Killing strays - 10/19/2010 3:08:21 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline 		Right, draw isn't the correct term -- "warchanger" is what I meant.  Let's wait any see what the final result will be.  Too bad witpqs ain't posting, I would be really tempted to check.  Also the planned interdiction of the LOC to Pearl, WC, OZ and India might result in some low hanging fruit...

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 778
RE: Killing strays - 10/19/2010 3:20:06 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown
BB Indiana, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk [I had considered Indiana sunk after yesterday, but apparently she needed one more bomb to finish her off.]


I think this is going to be the truth for a good number of his CV/L/E too. I think he did actually not loose as much as it would presently look like. Allied damage control is excellent, and surely one should not count a ship sunk unless it can be confirmed unambiguously. Unless you can exploit your success and take down the 7 damaged CV, and some of the other cippled CVL, CVE and BB, this battle is actually more a draw now.



why is it a draw? If he would have only sunk one CV or one BB it would be a Japanese win. Japanese aircraft and pilots can be replaced, no Japanese or Allied ship will be replaced. And there were sure far more than one * (add in ship type) sunk with the Allied not even able to strike back.

And also heavily damaged CVs (those that would be in sinking condition but making it) can be out of the war for a hell a long time. I had two heavily damaged carriers and both nearly needed a year repair time.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 10/19/2010 3:21:03 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to janh)
Post #: 779
RE: Killing strays - 10/19/2010 3:56:25 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


Castor, see above. To me it presently looks more like a major tactical victory, and several ships may be out for several months. Perhaps C&G can exploited this success now and make it a strategic victory, a "war-changer".

After all, the degree to which this is a victory will lastly be defined by the capabilities that witpqs and C&G still have left, and how the game will continue now. It could be possible that witpqs will be defeated by auto-victory conditions if C&G can exploit his situation now, while witqs is ripped of the initiative. Then, of course, it also will be a strategic victory.



< Message edited by janh -- 10/19/2010 4:01:01 PM >

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 780
Page:   <<   < prev  24 25 [26] 27 28   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Hitting the sweet spot Page: <<   < prev  24 25 [26] 27 28   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.828