RE: May 1944

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: May 1944

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: May 1944

Page: << < prev 108 109 [110] 111 112 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 2:05:35 AM

AcePylut

Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline

A serious attack from the south aimed at taking those bases back would serve to:

1. Draw his forces away where we could be prepared to launch a massed attack by land and sea at his main bases (Naga--Lepaspi) with the hopes of attriting his airpower AND damage those 100s of ship disbanded in port.

Why do you think it would draw his forces away?

2. (If no response) then allow for the base of the salient to be cut FORCING him to add more escorts to fight any convoy through.

Meanwhile - as you're wasting 5 ID in Burma, he's closing in on the Home Islands. That's where the war is going to be won or lost. Not Burma.

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 3271

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 3:55:50 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

A serious attack from the south aimed at taking those bases back would serve to:

1. Draw his forces away where we could be prepared to launch a massed attack by land and sea at his main bases (Naga--Lepaspi) with the hopes of attriting his airpower AND damage those 100s of ship disbanded in port.

Why do you think it would draw his forces away?

2. (If no response) then allow for the base of the salient to be cut FORCING him to add more escorts to fight any convoy through.

Meanwhile - as you're wasting 5 ID in Burma, he's closing in on the Home Islands. That's where the war is going to be won or lost. Not Burma.

No. I am saying in lieu of doing the Burma Gambit. Use the troops for cutting the bottom section of his salient off.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to AcePylut)

Post #: 3272

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 4:52:56 AM

adarbrauner

Posts: 1496
Joined: 11/3/2016
From: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy
Status: offline

My first leading thoughts (in your situation) would be:

- 1st: is Formosa and the WHOLE home Islands sufficiently protected and prepared?

- 2nd: where can I hit where his fleet is not present?

ALL (stressed) the rest, is clutter.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 3273

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 1:00:50 PM

AcePylut

Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline

The way I see it - to cut off that salient, you're going to have to send troops across open terrain, far from a friendly airforce base. Not sure you're going to be able to cover your ground forces with enough CAP to prevent your troops from becoming slaughtered. Not to mention you only have like 1 or 2 air bases in range. If they get shut down, you have no air cover and will shortly have 5 trashed JAP ID's.

I don't see this attack gaining you any time or delaying the inevitable US advance one iota.

_____________________________

(in reply to adarbrauner)

Post #: 3274

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 1:18:34 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

A serious attack from the south aimed at taking those bases back would serve to:

1. Draw his forces away where we could be prepared to launch a massed attack by land and sea at his main bases (Naga--Lepaspi) with the hopes of attriting his airpower AND damage those 100s of ship disbanded in port.

Why do you think it would draw his forces away?

2. (If no response) then allow for the base of the salient to be cut FORCING him to add more escorts to fight any convoy through.

Meanwhile - as you're wasting 5 ID in Burma, he's closing in on the Home Islands. That's where the war is going to be won or lost. Not Burma.

No. I am saying in lieu of doing the Burma Gambit. Use the troops for cutting the bottom section of his salient off.

John,

If I'm Dan, I couldn't give a rip about what you do in Ambon or the Vogelkopf head of P/NG at this point. The so-called 'base of the salient'. You're thinking very two dimensionally about his presence in the Philippines. Ambon is no longer a critical gateway to the Philippines and it's certainly not the answer to the existential threat his presence on Luzon now poses. Yes, at one time, it could have been a greater counteroffensive gesture. Now, it's largely superfluous.

From your screenshot on the previous page, I count 19 Allied bases in the Philippines in the limited screenshot you've provided. That's not including anything in the southern DEI. These include Puerto Princessa to the West (on Palawan) and several islands around Leyte and Luzon. Most of these can be built up to size 5+ AF and port. Within a couple months-tops-he'll have an impenetrable web of mutually reinforcing bases from which to either springboard further onto the Asian mainland, Formosa, Okinawa or the other usual suspects in the area.

These 19 bases (+others) cannot all be heavily garrisoned-yet. Once they are, however, they will be inextricable as a group.
At that point, he need not venture into the narrow waters of the southern DEI to supply troops there. He can crawl up the Eastern / Northern side of P/NG or even come into the Philippines from due East and the Philippine sea, side-stepping the Marianas, Palau, Truk and Rabaul. Yes, the Southern DEI route would be *easier* if he still held it. But with his overwhelming naval strength escorting the supply runs (which don't need to come in that often, by the way), you'd be hard-pressed to challenge the supply runs before they closed within air cover of the now-built Philippines.

Maybe once upon a time, the Southern DEI was more critical to a springboard action into the Philippines. But the Philippines are now largely lost, John. He's got them. The baseline just changed. The line got moved. You've got a number of troops stuck in the wrong place and putting MORE troops in 'wronger' places won't change the enemy's positions meaningfully.

Start putting your head together about a meaningful defense in depth close to home. If you fritter away your defensive opportunities by casting your troops further abroad, you will make the same mistake that the Japanese did IRL-having hundreds of thousands of their ablest warriors stranded from where they are most needed. Failure to buttress your defenses closer to home will hasten the end of this war and meaningful resistance.

< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 2/23/2017 1:35:19 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 3275

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 1:28:56 PM

adarbrauner

Posts: 1496
Joined: 11/3/2016
From: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy
Status: offline

Dear John,

I don't come to disqualify or discourage you in this planned "Ardennes" offensive, but we read you despaired a little.

Don't despair.

You don't know what to do with your prized reserves divisions and how to capitalize them?

I would suggest to send a good number of them at Luzon, and start land attacks. Not with the goal to win the battles. But with the goal to start attriting his units and array.

I would accept even higher losses from my side - even on the air. Yes, full air support- at least with caps. I'd rotate the weared down units with fresh ones, and attack continously. If he uses his air support, so then he's not using it somewhere else. This would eat up more and more and more supply from Dan. You have the advantage that you can rotate your forces, air and land, much more easily than Dan.

I would go and on and on, without respite, and in spite of losses in the land and the air. At the end, Dan would be placed in unconfortable position, very unconfortable, with a terrible burden to massively resupply. That shall halt his advance also.

Meanwhile, the KB would remain alert, staring from distance, ready to dive on pray. I'd base it even southern, at TRuk, letting Dan knowing it very well.

I'd keep the mini KB more western, something around northern Borneo or Makassar-Surabaya(now we have it,isn'it?).

You'd like to reconquest some lost territories southern more and dispose of enemy's garrisoning air and land forces, do you?
Me too. You have the islands in Makassar Strait, and in southern DEI. They are close, damnly close to his resupply path. I don't know why haven't you handled them already. Main US Carrier Fleet is not there, isn'it? It is far from it. just keep an eye and watch on her whereabouts and be alert.

Your opinion?

< Message edited by adarbrauner -- 2/23/2017 1:44:56 PM >

(in reply to AcePylut)

Post #: 3276

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 1:32:26 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

Puerto Princessa is most troubling. From there, he can interdict most of your traffic through the South China Sea, unless it's very heavily escorted. All it would take would be a springboard from there onto Hainan island or the Vietnamese coast to secure the other side, block your railway to China and completely strangle oil and fuel transshipments. Were I to look at a particular locale needing gaijin-removal services, this would be my first stop. Before it gets too strong.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 3277

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 2:53:20 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

Dear John,

Gawds, worst words ever

(in reply to adarbrauner)

Post #: 3278

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 4:18:18 PM

BillBrown

Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

Dear John,

Gawds, worst words ever

My name is not John but I got two of those letters.

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 3279

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 4:45:37 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

Dear John,

Gawds, worst words ever

My name is not John but I got two of those letters.

Sorry to hear that, Bill. By chance, did either of them contain the phrase, "it's not you, it's me?"

_____________________________

(in reply to BillBrown)

Post #: 3280

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 5:17:48 PM

BillBrown

Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

Candi said I was a complete jerk and didn't want to see me anymore. I was in Vietnam at the time and never went back to where she lived.
Wendy said she found some one better, I think she found someone who was more willing to buy her large quantities of weed.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 3281

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 5:24:55 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

My ex just said <in a loud voice> "What are you doing home tonight??!!!" The rest is hazy. Good thing my uncle was the sheriff at the time (true story, too

)

(in reply to BillBrown)

Post #: 3282

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 6:03:52 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

Candi said I was a complete jerk and didn't want to see me anymore. I was in Vietnam at the time and never went back to where she lived.
Wendy said she found some one better, I think she found someone who was more willing to buy her large quantities of weed.

Ugh.

_____________________________

(in reply to BillBrown)

Post #: 3283

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 6:04:10 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

My ex just said <in a loud voice> "What are you doing home tonight??!!!" The rest is hazy. Good thing my uncle was the sheriff at the time (true story, too )

Hory ****!

_____________________________

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 3284

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 8:04:08 PM

adarbrauner

Posts: 1496
Joined: 11/3/2016
From: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy
Status: offline

Aren't you exaggerating a little?

(well at least now i now someone reads my comments)

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 3285

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 8:21:17 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

Aren't you exaggerating a little?

(well at least now i now someone reads my comments)

If you mean me.....no.

(in reply to adarbrauner)

Post #: 3286

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 8:42:55 PM

BillBrown

Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

No.

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 3287

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 9:33:36 PM

adarbrauner

Posts: 1496
Joined: 11/3/2016
From: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy
Status: offline

No not exaggerating or no not reading?

(in reply to BillBrown)

Post #: 3288

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 9:38:22 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Puerto Princessa is most troubling. From there, he can interdict most of your traffic through the South China Sea, unless it's very heavily escorted. All it would take would be a springboard from there onto Hainan island or the Vietnamese coast to secure the other side, block your railway to China and completely strangle oil and fuel transshipments. Were I to look at a particular locale needing gaijin-removal services, this would be my first stop. Before it gets too strong.

As an AFB I can not agree with you more .. secure both sides Southeast Asia and Puerto Princessa and everything becomes a target for dive bombers within normal range .. basically ensuring nothing passes unharmed. I have used this strategy in this pass .. train P39's and B-25's for low level strikes and this becomes even more dangerous to pass

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 3289

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 9:45:09 PM

Grfin Zeppelin

Posts: 1515
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

Its difficult with him siting in the PI and lots of good advice here.

That said, its a game, no one dies or suffers. So do what makes you happy and gives you (and your opponent) a good time.

_____________________________

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 3290

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 9:48:54 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Puerto Princessa is a definite concern. Have an Air Flotilla, Brigade, and Engineer present. Probably a very good idea to add to that.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 3291

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 9:50:10 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

Dear John,

Gawds, worst words ever

My name is not John but I got two of those letters.

HAH! I have been getting 'those letters' for 50 years!

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to BillBrown)

Post #: 3292

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 9:51:29 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

My ex just said <in a loud voice> "What are you doing home tonight??!!!" The rest is hazy. Good thing my uncle was the sheriff at the time (true story, too )

Hory ****!

I leave for a seven hour work shift and my AAR blows up with confessions like this. Goodness. It is OK. EVERYONE can confess...

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 3293

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 9:53:10 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

No not exaggerating or no not reading?

Adar,

I'm going to guess-based solely upon your name and your choice of diction-that you may not be native to the United States. In US linguistic vernacular, a "Dear John" letter is a letter one gets (historically, soldiers got this letter while away at the front) from one's sweetheart in which she breaks up with him. There are other equivalents-two posters shared theirs. I believe that one of them is even named John IRL, which makes the receipt of such a letter twice as ironically bitter.

I'm guessing that their responses-in terms of what they experienced in a "Dear John moment" are what they're saying was awful. Their experiences and their reactions have nothing to do with John III or this game or this AAR. Their visceral responses are their personal experiences with breakups and spousal infidelity.

Hope this helps.

_____________________________

(in reply to adarbrauner)

Post #: 3294

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 9:54:50 PM

Grfin Zeppelin

Posts: 1515
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

No not exaggerating or no not reading?

Adar,

I'm going to guess-based solely upon your name and your choice of diction-that you may not be native to the United States. In US linguistic vernacular, a "Dear John" letter is a letter one gets (historically, soldiers got this letter while away at the front) from one's sweetheart in which she breaks up with him. There are other equivalents-two posters shared theirs. I believe that one of them is even named John IRL, which makes the receipt of such a letter twice as ironically bitter.

I'm guessing that their responses-in terms of what they experienced in a "Dear John moment" are what they're saying was awful. Their experiences and their reactions have nothing to do with John III or this game or this AAR. Their visceral responses are their personal experiences with breakups and spousal infidelity.

Hope this helps.

I assumed so but thanks for the confirmation.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 3295

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 9:54:57 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Nice Chickenboy.

Wife #1 didn't work out so well for me. Wife #2 is the KEEPER!

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 3296

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 9:57:55 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Puerto Princessa is a definite concern. Have an Air Flotilla, Brigade, and Engineer present. Probably a very good idea to add to that.

Looking at the map I realize now that it is not Puerto Princessa on Palawan that is already in Allied hands. What is the (now) Allied base that is 3 hexes WSW of Basuanga? That is the one to which I refer.

Puerto Princessa doesn't matter all that much compared to the chain of bases transiting unabated through the central Philippines. He still will have access to the South China Sea from that *other* base on Palawan-the one he currently 'owns'. A little supply and an EAB or two and he'll be good to go in no time.

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 3297

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 10:02:50 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Let me pull up a saved file and Post a map of the area.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 3298

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 10:04:59 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Let me pull up a saved file and Post a map of the area.

Bitte, baybee...

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 3299

RE: May 1944 - 2/23/2017 10:05:14 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

No not exaggerating or no not reading?

Adar,

I'm going to guess-based solely upon your name and your choice of diction-that you may not be native to the United States. In US linguistic vernacular, a "Dear John" letter is a letter one gets (historically, soldiers got this letter while away at the front) from one's sweetheart in which she breaks up with him. There are other equivalents-two posters shared theirs. I believe that one of them is even named John IRL, which makes the receipt of such a letter twice as ironically bitter.

I'm guessing that their responses-in terms of what they experienced in a "Dear John moment" are what they're saying was awful. Their experiences and their reactions have nothing to do with John III or this game or this AAR. Their visceral responses are their personal experiences with breakups and spousal infidelity.

Hope this helps.

The practice at West Point, during that first miserable year, when the plebes get "Dear John" letters was for the upperclassman to read, correct, and annotate the Dear John letter with editorial comments and return it to sender and share the letter with all.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 3300