Iwo-Jima Defeat

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Iwo-Jima Defeat

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 >> The War Room >> Iwo-Jima Defeat

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/13/2013 3:22:50 PM

hades1001

Posts: 977
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline

Hi all,

Want to share the battle of Iwo-Jima in my game with Hongye San.

A perfect start and disastrous end.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Oct 31, 44

Naval bombardment, landing, air raid and beachhead bombardment are all perfectly executed.

All troop 100% preparation, Command HQ, corps HQ present, unloaded in one turn, abundant supplies.

The only problem is I had over 60,000 troops and they are disrupted a little at the beginning.
And there were more than expected Tojos on the island, equal to almost 3 divisions. And This is actually how much the island can hold without much penalty.

I have fought my way to Iwo-Jima and had experienced so many atoll/island battles and I never seen something like this.
I was hoping to get a 1:1 for the first day...but...

My question is: Is there a hidden bonus for Jap? To simulate the bloody battle of the history? :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Iwo-jima at 108,77

Allied Ships
BB Queen Elizabeth
BB Valiant
CA Wichita
CA Vincennes
CA Quincy
CA San Francisco
CA Minneapolis
CA Astoria
CA Chicago
CA Louisville
CA Chester
CA Northampton
CA Portland
DD William Porter
DD Leutze
DD Dyson
DD Daly
DD Cowell
DD Cotten
DD Conway
DD Charles Ausburne
DD Anthony
DD Ammen

Japanese ground losses:
308 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 13 disabled
Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 33 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 19 (4 destroyed, 15 disabled)
Vehicles lost 11 (3 destroyed, 8 disabled)

Airbase hits 21
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 38
Port hits 26
Port supply hits 3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Iwo-jima at 108,77

Japanese Ships
ACM Wa 21, Shell hits 1, heavy damage

Allied Ships
BB Mississippi
BB New Mexico
BB Idaho
BB West Virginia
BB Colorado
DD Picking
DD LaVallette
DD Killen
DD Johnston
DD Howorth
DD Hailey
DD Gatling
DD Erben
DD Eaton
DD Brownson
DD Braine
DD Bradford
DD Bennion
DD Bearss

Japanese ground losses:
230 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 9 destroyed, 24 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 23 (7 destroyed, 16 disabled)
Vehicles lost 8 (5 destroyed, 3 disabled)

Airbase hits 4
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 5
Port hits 10
Port supply hits 3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Iwo-jima Naval Guard Unit, at 108,77 (Iwo-jima)

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 21,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Allied aircraft
Corsair II x 68
F4U-1A Corsair x 408
F4U-1D Corsair x 76
F6F-3 Hellcat x 429
F6F-5 Hellcat x 380
SB2C-3 Helldiver x 346
SBD-5 Dauntless x 24
TBM-1C Avenger x 297

Allied aircraft losses
SB2C-3 Helldiver: 3 damaged
SB2C-3 Helldiver: 1 destroyed by flak
SBD-5 Dauntless: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
1837 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 78 disabled
Non Combat: 9 destroyed, 58 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Guns lost 38 (9 destroyed, 29 disabled)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Iwo-jima (108,77)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 22400 troops, 416 guns, 160 vehicles, Assault Value = 1208

Defending force 61294 troops, 907 guns, 2075 vehicles, Assault Value = 2535

Japanese ground losses:
4954 casualties reported
Squads: 146 destroyed, 31 disabled
Non Combat: 38 destroyed, 20 disabled
Engineers: 11 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 66 (58 destroyed, 8 disabled)
Vehicles lost 13 (13 destroyed, 0 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
33 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 34 (24 destroyed, 10 disabled)

Assaulting units:
50th Ind.Mixed Brigade
54th Naval Guard Unit
48th Ind.Mixed Brigade
89th Division
9th Ind.Mixed Regiment
14th Ind.Mixed Regiment
57th Ind.Mixed Brigade
45th Ind.Mixed Bde /2
37th Army
19th RF Gun Battalion
18th RF Gun Battalion
3rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
52nd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
72nd Field AA Battalion
3rd Mortar Regiment
65th Field AA Battalion
31st Air Defense AA Battalion
11th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
2nd Medium Mortar Battalion

Defending units:
1st USMC Amphb Tank Battalion
24th Infantry Division
194th Tank Battalion
193rd Tank Battalion
1st Cavalry (Spec) Cavalry Division
2nd USMC Tank Battalion
1st Marine Division
124th Cavalry Regiment
3rd USMC Tank Battalion
1st USMC Tank Battalion
102nd Combat Engineer Regiment
754th Tank Battalion
25th Infantry Division
192nd Tank Battalion
4th USMC Tank Battalion
XI US Corps
10th USMC Field Artillery Battalion
Pacific Ocean Areas
1st USMC Field Artillery Battalion
225th Field Artillery Battalion
1 USMC Seacoast Art

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Iwo-jima (108,77)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 53802 troops, 903 guns, 2027 vehicles, Assault Value = 2508

Defending force 35339 troops, 530 guns, 217 vehicles, Assault Value = 996

Allied adjusted assault: 191

Japanese adjusted defense: 1465

Allied assault odds: 1 to 7 (fort level 5)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), disruption(-), preparation(-)
Attacker: shock(+), disruption(-)

Japanese ground losses:
2687 casualties reported
Squads: 67 destroyed, 69 disabled
Non Combat: 14 destroyed, 55 disabled
Engineers: 7 destroyed, 4 disabled
Guns lost 158 (54 destroyed, 104 disabled)
Vehicles lost 23 (10 destroyed, 13 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
24417 casualties reported
Squads: 619 destroyed, 403 disabled
Non Combat: 1246 destroyed, 147 disabled
Engineers: 127 destroyed, 29 disabled
Guns lost 519 (380 destroyed, 139 disabled)
Vehicles lost 1407 (1348 destroyed, 59 disabled)
Units destroyed 5

Assaulting units:
1st USMC Tank Battalion
3rd USMC Tank Battalion
1st USMC Amphb Tank Battalion
2nd USMC Tank Battalion
754th Tank Battalion
102nd Combat Engineer Regiment
194th Tank Battalion
193rd Tank Battalion
124th Cavalry Regiment
24th Infantry Division
25th Infantry Division
1st Cavalry (Spec) Cavalry Division
192nd Tank Battalion
1st Marine Division
4th USMC Tank Battalion
Pacific Ocean Areas
225th Field Artillery Battalion
XI US Corps
1st USMC Field Artillery Battalion
10th USMC Field Artillery Battalion
1 USMC Seacoast Art

Defending units:
9th Ind.Mixed Regiment
54th Naval Guard Unit
48th Ind.Mixed Brigade
89th Division
14th Ind.Mixed Regiment
57th Ind.Mixed Brigade
45th Ind.Mixed Bde /2
3rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
72nd Field AA Battalion
52nd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
31st Air Defense AA Battalion
65th Field AA Battalion
37th Army
3rd Mortar Regiment
11th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
50th Ind.Mixed Brigade
19th RF Gun Battalion
18th RF Gun Battalion
2nd Medium Mortar Battalion

Post #: 1

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/13/2013 3:27:20 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

It's generally a good idea to let your troops get ashore before you attack. And it's rarely a good idea to shock attack. Unless you have overwhelming superiority. You didn't. The Japanese did.

Look at the AV ratio. There is a lot of information right there. The Japanese were heavily fortified. Little had been done to reduce those fortification. In essence, uncoordinated , disorganized units , with only minor cadre ashore , were ordered to shock attack heavy , well entranced and prepared defenders. Worse than a frontal attack against WW1 style trenches.

< Message edited by AW1Steve -- 9/13/2013 3:31:08 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to hades1001)

Post #: 2

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/13/2013 3:30:45 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

Shock attack is mandatory in atolls like Iwo...

WOW.... truly a bad dice and roll... but surely he had quite a lot of men at Iwo... but, above all, he had a perfect assembled army. Infantry, AA units, Artillery and AT guns. That's a good defence! You should have avoided it and landed on something else less defended

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 3

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/13/2013 3:33:13 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Shock attack is mandatory in atolls like Iwo...

WOW.... truly a bad dice and roll... but surely he had quite a lot of men at Iwo... but, above all, he had a perfect assembled army. Infantry, AA units, Artillery and AT guns. That's a good defence! You should have avoided it and landed on something else less defended

Why do you feel a shock attack is mandatory?

Any target is conquerable. It takes time, planning and a systematic reduction of the defenses. Today we call that "preparing the battlespace".

_____________________________

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 4

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/13/2013 3:34:40 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

I don't see many combat engineers employed. You need more to reduce fortifications.

< Message edited by AW1Steve -- 9/13/2013 3:35:36 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 5

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/13/2013 3:35:18 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Shock attack is mandatory in atolls like Iwo...

WOW.... truly a bad dice and roll... but surely he had quite a lot of men at Iwo... but, above all, he had a perfect assembled army. Infantry, AA units, Artillery and AT guns. That's a good defence! You should have avoided it and landed on something else less defended

Why do you feel a shock attack is mandatory?

Any target is conquerable. It takes time, planning and a systematic reduction of the defenses. Today we call that "preparing the battlespace".

I mean, the code forces you to shock attack as soon as you land on a atoll or small islands. you can't help. The first combat phase after the landing occurs, your troops will ALWAYS shock attack

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 6

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/13/2013 3:36:41 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I don't see many combat engineers employed. You need more to reduce fortifications.

yes, there's just one combat eng regiment but all those divisions have embedded combat eng so I think, with better odds, he should have reduced the forts no matter what... surely that was a bloodbath for the allies

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 7

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/13/2013 3:39:22 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Shock attack is mandatory in atolls like Iwo...

WOW.... truly a bad dice and roll... but surely he had quite a lot of men at Iwo... but, above all, he had a perfect assembled army. Infantry, AA units, Artillery and AT guns. That's a good defence! You should have avoided it and landed on something else less defended

Why do you feel a shock attack is mandatory?

Any target is conquerable. It takes time, planning and a systematic reduction of the defenses. Today we call that "preparing the battlespace".

I mean, the code forces you to shock attack as soon as you land on a atoll or small islands. you can't help. The first combat phase after the landing occurs, your troops will ALWAYS shock attack

Really?

I wasn't aware of that. Then you need even more bombardment, bombing and engineers. 100% damage in all categories, then reduction of supplies. A larger 1st wave with more combat engineers in the 1st wave. But you are right that there are other islands that could be used instead of Iwo for the same purpose.

_____________________________

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 8

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/13/2013 3:41:19 PM

hades1001

Posts: 977
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline

yes, I had experience with atolls but clearly Iwo-Jima is a different story. I can't send in more troops because of stack cap.

More troops will cause more disruption.

I was trying to play historical battle of Iwo-Jima and this is the fun part of the game.

However the truth is basically a well defended island like this Iwo-Jima should be avoided...

The Allies shall return...

< Message edited by hades1001 -- 9/13/2013 3:42:39 PM >

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 9

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/13/2013 3:42:32 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Shock attack is mandatory in atolls like Iwo...

WOW.... truly a bad dice and roll... but surely he had quite a lot of men at Iwo... but, above all, he had a perfect assembled army. Infantry, AA units, Artillery and AT guns. That's a good defence! You should have avoided it and landed on something else less defended

Why do you feel a shock attack is mandatory?

Any target is conquerable. It takes time, planning and a systematic reduction of the defenses. Today we call that "preparing the battlespace".

I mean, the code forces you to shock attack as soon as you land on a atoll or small islands. you can't help. The first combat phase after the landing occurs, your troops will ALWAYS shock attack

Really? I wasn't aware of that. Then you need even more bombardment, bombing and engineers. 100% damage in all categories, then reduction of supplies. A larger 1st wave with more combat engineers in the 1st wave. But you are right that there are other islands that could be used instead of Iwo for the same purpose.

Yes, atolls are nasty. Try to land at Truk and then tell me...:-)

You need weeks of preparation. Weeks of naval and aerial bombings. You need to reduce defenders' supplies as much as possible and to have their distruction levels as high as possible. Still, a bad dice and roll can screw your first shock attack... but that's the way it should be. There's a reason why a small place like Iwo with a garrison undergunned and without much of artillery could inflict so many losses to the americans.

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 10

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/13/2013 3:44:04 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001

yes, I had experience with atolls but clearly Iwo-Jima is a different story. I can't send in more troops because of stack cap.

More troops will cause more disruption.

I was trying to play historical battle of Iwo-Jima and this is the fun part of the game.

However the truth is basically a well defended island like this Iwo-Jima should be avoided...

The Allies shall return...

You should embark your most distrupted troops, while leaving the rest there. With atoll landings you need to have a second (or even a third) landing corp ready as reserve...

(in reply to hades1001)

Post #: 11

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/13/2013 3:49:40 PM

catwhoorg

Posts: 686
Joined: 9/27/2012
From: Uk expat lving near Atlanta
Status: offline

How many days did you pre-bombard?

Historically, the US started softening up Iwo in the summer of 1944, for the Feb 1945 landings.

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 12

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/13/2013 3:50:33 PM

hades1001

Posts: 977
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline

I don't have a sec corp, the current force already exhaust most of my APA/AKA.

Looks like I over simplify the battle of Iwo-Jima and I paid the price.

Japs won a glorious victory here in Iwo-Jima

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 13

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/13/2013 3:53:18 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Shock attack is mandatory in atolls like Iwo...

WOW.... truly a bad dice and roll... but surely he had quite a lot of men at Iwo... but, above all, he had a perfect assembled army. Infantry, AA units, Artillery and AT guns. That's a good defence! You should have avoided it and landed on something else less defended

Why do you feel a shock attack is mandatory?

Any target is conquerable. It takes time, planning and a systematic reduction of the defenses. Today we call that "preparing the battlespace".

I mean, the code forces you to shock attack as soon as you land on a atoll or small islands. you can't help. The first combat phase after the landing occurs, your troops will ALWAYS shock attack

Really? I wasn't aware of that. Then you need even more bombardment, bombing and engineers. 100% damage in all categories, then reduction of supplies. A larger 1st wave with more combat engineers in the 1st wave. But you are right that there are other islands that could be used instead of Iwo for the same purpose.

An auto-shock attack happens when landing on

- any island of terrain atoll regardless of size;

- any island of size 1 or size 2 regardless of terrain.

The more recent Betas include code in the mouse-over that will show the terrain if atoll or the size if 1 or 2.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 14

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/13/2013 4:13:19 PM

hades1001

Posts: 977
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline

Hi GreyJoy,mind to answer the question I have in the other post about aircraft carriers rule in base hex?

what do you mean "Coastal hexes do not have that penalty"? Would you please explain a little more?

Thanks a lot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Shock attack is mandatory in atolls like Iwo...

WOW.... truly a bad dice and roll... but surely he had quite a lot of men at Iwo... but, above all, he had a perfect assembled army. Infantry, AA units, Artillery and AT guns. That's a good defence! You should have avoided it and landed on something else less defended

Why do you feel a shock attack is mandatory?

Any target is conquerable. It takes time, planning and a systematic reduction of the defenses. Today we call that "preparing the battlespace".

I mean, the code forces you to shock attack as soon as you land on a atoll or small islands. you can't help. The first combat phase after the landing occurs, your troops will ALWAYS shock attack

Really? I wasn't aware of that. Then you need even more bombardment, bombing and engineers. 100% damage in all categories, then reduction of supplies. A larger 1st wave with more combat engineers in the 1st wave. But you are right that there are other islands that could be used instead of Iwo for the same purpose.

Yes, atolls are nasty. Try to land at Truk and then tell me...:-)

You need weeks of preparation. Weeks of naval and aerial bombings. You need to reduce defenders' supplies as much as possible and to have their distruction levels as high as possible. Still, a bad dice and roll can screw your first shock attack... but that's the way it should be. There's a reason why a small place like Iwo with a garrison undergunned and without much of artillery could inflict so many losses to the americans.

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 15

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/13/2013 4:25:26 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

The 50% mission penalty for CV/CVL types only applies to coastal base hexes (including dot bases). It does not apply to a coastal hex without a base.

Re: Iwo Jima: Actually you did ok and I wonder if the landing would have succeeded without the disruption (-).

As it already has been stated the main problem was that for a 1 day softening up of defenses the defenders were too numerous, but most of all well balanced and entrenched. I am sure with your force you could have succeeded with about 1 week of air strikes like the one you performed on landing. That would have sacrificed surprize obviously in case you relied on that.

_____________________________

(in reply to hades1001)

Post #: 16

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/13/2013 4:29:03 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001

yes, I had experience with atolls but clearly Iwo-Jima is a different story. I can't send in more troops because of stack cap.

More troops will cause more disruption.

I was trying to play historical battle of Iwo-Jima and this is the fun part of the game.

However the truth is basically a well defended island like this Iwo-Jima should be avoided...

The Allies shall return...

You should embark your most distrupted troops, while leaving the rest there. With atoll landings you need to have a second (or even a third) landing corp ready as reserve...

+1
It is my experience that subsequent landings (meaning lots of troops are already ashore) do not get messed up as bad as the first wave. And spent troops can be taken off simultaneously.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 17

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/13/2013 4:37:43 PM

Chickenboy

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

Agree with AW1Steve, Greyjoy and the other posters above.

Iwo (and other atolls) will code mandate a shock attack. You would have been well served by more extensive target preparation, including LBA port bombing, LBA Japanese ground unit bombing, additional shore bombardments and so on. WEEKS to MONTHS of extensive preparation will be necessary on forts like Iwo-Jima.

Your battle had a historically comparable Allied force attacking a Japanese force approximately 2-3x reality. Forts IRL were probably 8-9 (compared to your in game level 5), so that may have mitigated your damage a bit.

Overstacked defenders will eat supply like there's no tomorrow. You've got to bombard all supply centers (airbase and port) to facilitate their starvation. Then your adjusted AV comparison will benefit from the poor Japanese supply levels.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 18

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/13/2013 4:49:39 PM

hades1001

Posts: 977
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline

But if you look at my air raid 100% of my bombers went on strike but not all my caps flied.

I'm missing about 1000 planes here.

I'm still confused about the this rule.

This turn I have about 1400 fighter flying 100% CAP on CVE, 1700 planes on CV/CVL, including 1000 fighters, 900 100% on CAP, 120 escort and 700 bombers on ground attack. I'm parking at the hex of Iwo-Jima.

Somebody please help me do the math here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Iwo-jima Naval Guard Unit, at 108,77 (Iwo-jima)

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 21,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Allied aircraft
Corsair II x 68
F4U-1A Corsair x 408
F4U-1D Corsair x 76
F6F-3 Hellcat x 429
F6F-5 Hellcat x 380
SB2C-3 Helldiver x 346
SBD-5 Dauntless x 24
TBM-1C Avenger x 297

Allied aircraft losses
SB2C-3 Helldiver: 3 damaged
SB2C-3 Helldiver: 1 destroyed by flak
SBD-5 Dauntless: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
1837 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 78 disabled
Non Combat: 9 destroyed, 58 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Guns lost 38 (9 destroyed, 29 disabled)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

The 50% mission penalty for CV/CVL types only applies to coastal base hexes (including dot bases). It does not apply to a coastal hex without a base.

Re: Iwo Jima: Actually you did ok and I wonder if the landing would have succeeded without the disruption (-).

As it already has been stated the main problem was that for a 1 day softening up of defenses the defenders were too numerous, but most of all well balanced and entrenched. I am sure with your force you could have succeeded with about 1 week of air strikes like the one you performed on landing. That would have sacrificed surprize obviously in case you relied on that.

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 19

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/13/2013 4:53:17 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001

Hi GreyJoy,mind to answer the question I have in the other post about aircraft carriers rule in base hex?

what do you mean "Coastal hexes do not have that penalty"? Would you please explain a little more?

Thanks a lot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Shock attack is mandatory in atolls like Iwo...

WOW.... truly a bad dice and roll... but surely he had quite a lot of men at Iwo... but, above all, he had a perfect assembled army. Infantry, AA units, Artillery and AT guns. That's a good defence! You should have avoided it and landed on something else less defended

Why do you feel a shock attack is mandatory?

Any target is conquerable. It takes time, planning and a systematic reduction of the defenses. Today we call that "preparing the battlespace".

I mean, the code forces you to shock attack as soon as you land on a atoll or small islands. you can't help. The first combat phase after the landing occurs, your troops will ALWAYS shock attack

Really? I wasn't aware of that. Then you need even more bombardment, bombing and engineers. 100% damage in all categories, then reduction of supplies. A larger 1st wave with more combat engineers in the 1st wave. But you are right that there are other islands that could be used instead of Iwo for the same purpose.

Yes, atolls are nasty. Try to land at Truk and then tell me...:-)

You need weeks of preparation. Weeks of naval and aerial bombings. You need to reduce defenders' supplies as much as possible and to have their distruction levels as high as possible. Still, a bad dice and roll can screw your first shock attack... but that's the way it should be. There's a reason why a small place like Iwo with a garrison undergunned and without much of artillery could inflict so many losses to the americans.

just read of what LoBaron said...he's very seldom mistaken

(in reply to hades1001)

Post #: 20

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/13/2013 4:56:56 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001

But if you look at my air raid 100% of my bombers went on strike but not all my caps flied.

I'm missing about 1000 planes here.

I'm still confused about the this rule.

This turn I have about 1400 fighter flying 100% CAP on CVE, 1700 planes on CV/CVL, including 1000 fighters, 900 100% on CAP, 120 escort and 700 bombers on ground attack. I'm parking at the hex of Iwo-Jima.

Somebody please help me do the math here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Iwo-jima Naval Guard Unit, at 108,77 (Iwo-jima)

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 21,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Allied aircraft
Corsair II x 68
F4U-1A Corsair x 408
F4U-1D Corsair x 76
F6F-3 Hellcat x 429
F6F-5 Hellcat x 380
SB2C-3 Helldiver x 346
SBD-5 Dauntless x 24
TBM-1C Avenger x 297

Allied aircraft losses
SB2C-3 Helldiver: 3 damaged
SB2C-3 Helldiver: 1 destroyed by flak
SBD-5 Dauntless: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
1837 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 78 disabled
Non Combat: 9 destroyed, 58 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Guns lost 38 (9 destroyed, 29 disabled)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

The 50% mission penalty for CV/CVL types only applies to coastal base hexes (including dot bases). It does not apply to a coastal hex without a base.

Re: Iwo Jima: Actually you did ok and I wonder if the landing would have succeeded without the disruption (-).

As it already has been stated the main problem was that for a 1 day softening up of defenses the defenders were too numerous, but most of all well balanced and entrenched. I am sure with your force you could have succeeded with about 1 week of air strikes like the one you performed on landing. That would have sacrificed surprize obviously in case you relied on that.

Depends on the settings... CAP and Escort, even on the same hex, do not cooperate IMHO. So you're only seeing planes on escort duties and planes on LRCAP duties...not the ones on CAP duties.
And your CVs should be one hex far from Iwo. You SHOULD NEVER, EVER, place your CVs on a base hex, no matter the reason. You suffer penalities

(in reply to hades1001)

Post #: 21

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/13/2013 8:53:02 PM

leehunt27@bloomberg.net

Posts: 533
Joined: 9/6/2004
Status: offline

this inspires me as a Japanese defender :). there is hope playing the "bad guys" lol

_____________________________

John 21:25

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 22

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/14/2013 4:40:51 AM

hades1001

Posts: 977
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline

I just want to point out that in this battle, my carriers are parking at Iwo-Jima hex,

and all my 700 bombers went on strike mission, there is no 50% reduction for strike mission apparently.

Which is contradict to the rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001

But if you look at my air raid 100% of my bombers went on strike but not all my caps flied.

I'm missing about 1000 planes here.

I'm still confused about the this rule.

This turn I have about 1400 fighter flying 100% CAP on CVE, 1700 planes on CV/CVL, including 1000 fighters, 900 100% on CAP, 120 escort and 700 bombers on ground attack. I'm parking at the hex of Iwo-Jima.

Somebody please help me do the math here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Iwo-jima Naval Guard Unit, at 108,77 (Iwo-jima)

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 21,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Allied aircraft
Corsair II x 68
F4U-1A Corsair x 408
F4U-1D Corsair x 76
F6F-3 Hellcat x 429
F6F-5 Hellcat x 380
SB2C-3 Helldiver x 346
SBD-5 Dauntless x 24
TBM-1C Avenger x 297

Allied aircraft losses
SB2C-3 Helldiver: 3 damaged
SB2C-3 Helldiver: 1 destroyed by flak
SBD-5 Dauntless: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
1837 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 78 disabled
Non Combat: 9 destroyed, 58 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Guns lost 38 (9 destroyed, 29 disabled)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

The 50% mission penalty for CV/CVL types only applies to coastal base hexes (including dot bases). It does not apply to a coastal hex without a base.

Re: Iwo Jima: Actually you did ok and I wonder if the landing would have succeeded without the disruption (-).

As it already has been stated the main problem was that for a 1 day softening up of defenses the defenders were too numerous, but most of all well balanced and entrenched. I am sure with your force you could have succeeded with about 1 week of air strikes like the one you performed on landing. That would have sacrificed surprize obviously in case you relied on that.

Depends on the settings... CAP and Escort, even on the same hex, do not cooperate IMHO. So you're only seeing planes on escort duties and planes on LRCAP duties...not the ones on CAP duties.
And your CVs should be one hex far from Iwo. You SHOULD NEVER, EVER, place your CVs on a base hex, no matter the reason. You suffer penalities

< Message edited by hades1001 -- 9/14/2013 4:41:15 AM >

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 23

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/14/2013 5:09:13 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001

I just want to point out that in this battle, my carriers are parking at Iwo-Jima hex,

and all my 700 bombers went on strike mission, there is no 50% reduction for strike mission apparently.

Which is contradict to the rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001

But if you look at my air raid 100% of my bombers went on strike but not all my caps flied.

I'm missing about 1000 planes here.

I'm still confused about the this rule.

This turn I have about 1400 fighter flying 100% CAP on CVE, 1700 planes on CV/CVL, including 1000 fighters, 900 100% on CAP, 120 escort and 700 bombers on ground attack. I'm parking at the hex of Iwo-Jima.

Somebody please help me do the math here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Iwo-jima Naval Guard Unit, at 108,77 (Iwo-jima)

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 21,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Allied aircraft
Corsair II x 68
F4U-1A Corsair x 408
F4U-1D Corsair x 76
F6F-3 Hellcat x 429
F6F-5 Hellcat x 380
SB2C-3 Helldiver x 346
SBD-5 Dauntless x 24
TBM-1C Avenger x 297

Allied aircraft losses
SB2C-3 Helldiver: 3 damaged
SB2C-3 Helldiver: 1 destroyed by flak
SBD-5 Dauntless: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
1837 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 78 disabled
Non Combat: 9 destroyed, 58 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Guns lost 38 (9 destroyed, 29 disabled)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

The 50% mission penalty for CV/CVL types only applies to coastal base hexes (including dot bases). It does not apply to a coastal hex without a base.

Re: Iwo Jima: Actually you did ok and I wonder if the landing would have succeeded without the disruption (-).

As it already has been stated the main problem was that for a 1 day softening up of defenses the defenders were too numerous, but most of all well balanced and entrenched. I am sure with your force you could have succeeded with about 1 week of air strikes like the one you performed on landing. That would have sacrificed surprize obviously in case you relied on that.

Depends on the settings... CAP and Escort, even on the same hex, do not cooperate IMHO. So you're only seeing planes on escort duties and planes on LRCAP duties...not the ones on CAP duties.
And your CVs should be one hex far from Iwo. You SHOULD NEVER, EVER, place your CVs on a base hex, no matter the reason. You suffer penalities

Is it your own base or an enemy base? The rule regards own base.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to hades1001)

Post #: 24

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/14/2013 8:00:04 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

To my best knowledge it should not matter whether it is an enemy base or friendly base. The rule should apply to both kinds, the manual does not distinguish between ownership either.

What I do remember - but that was from the days of UV - was that the original intent was to reduce the effectiveness of CAP for CVs in friendly bases to prevent, or at least make it unattractive for, the player to use the carriers for CAP traps. The rationale was that fleet CVs need room to mvr when operating aircraft which might not be available close to a port.

All bombers launching for a strike could be
- caused by the way the missions are capped @ 50% (e.g. not per air unit but per carrier)
- due to the rule not applying for enemy bases on purpose
- or due to a bug

Personally in practice I cannot say whether the rule applies to enemy bases as well as I have never moved a fleet CV into an enemy base hex. Tactically I think it is a very bad idea independent of any additional penalty applied.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 25

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/14/2013 3:06:00 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

To my best knowledge it should not matter whether it is an enemy base or friendly base. The rule should apply to both kinds, the manual does not distinguish between ownership either.

What I do remember - but that was from the days of UV - was that the original intent was to reduce the effectiveness of CAP for CVs in friendly bases to prevent, or at least make it unattractive for, the player to use the carriers for CAP traps. The rationale was that fleet CVs need room to mvr when operating aircraft which might not be available close to a port.

All bombers launching for a strike could be
- caused by the way the missions are capped @ 50% (e.g. not per air unit but per carrier)
- due to the rule not applying for enemy bases on purpose
- or due to a bug

Personally in practice I cannot say whether the rule applies to enemy bases as well as I have never moved a fleet CV into an enemy base hex. Tactically I think it is a very bad idea independent of any additional penalty applied.

That rationale is a bit fuzzy, as it could apply to a coastline too. But I do remember clearly that the motivation for the rule was not allowing carriers to sit in-hex at a friendly air base and have the combined CAP. So, that might be the reason that it only applies to a friendly base (if that is correct).

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 26

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/14/2013 5:08:40 PM

rockmedic109

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline

I had thought it was because the carriers had limited maneuverability and could not sail into the wind as long {run into the shore}. But this is dredged up from the depths of Uncommon Valor days and a memory that began to slip into senility long before that time.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 27

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/14/2013 7:57:28 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

I had thought it was because the carriers had limited maneuverability and could not sail into the wind as long {run into the shore}. But this is dredged up from the depths of Uncommon Valor days and a memory that began to slip into senility long before that time.

Yes, this was more or less what I have been referring to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
That rationale is a bit fuzzy, as it could apply to a coastline too.

I agree with you, but it is about as fuzzy as any rationalisation of applying the penalty to a friendly but not to an enemy base. Imagine a CV TF located fully operational at a landing site and suddently being penalized when the landing troops are victorious. Does not make much sense either.

I also agree on the reason the penalty was introduced in the first place, but that does not say much about the detail of how it was implemented. The manual does not distinguish between base ownership, and, besides some minor exceptions and missing references to functionalities introduced with later patches, tends to be accurately formulated in such regards.

Whatever, I guess a couple of simple test will reveal the truth, but neither result will make basing fleet carriers at enemy bases a good idea.

_____________________________

(in reply to rockmedic109)

Post #: 28

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/14/2013 8:39:01 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

I guess what I was trying to say was that, in this case, I think the rule was implemented to be aligned with the motive, not with the rationale.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 29

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat - 9/14/2013 11:31:57 PM

mike scholl 1

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline