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: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J)

 
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: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/20/2015 10:06:04 PM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline
Combat Report


for


December 28, 1941


Japanese Shove Chinese Around Near Sinyang and Kweisui:

Ground combat at 85,47 (near Sinyang)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 13245 troops, 228 guns, 105 vehicles, Assault Value = 471

Defending force 2455 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 3

Japanese adjusted assault: 222

Allied adjusted defense: 33

Japanese assault odds: 6 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), op mode(-), leaders(+), fatigue(-), morale(-)
experience(-)
Attacker:

Allied ground losses:
735 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 51 destroyed, 17 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Units retreated 3

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
13th Tank Regiment
20th Ind.Mixed Brigade
1st Ind.Mixed Brigade
2nd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
1st Mortar Battalion
51st Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
52nd Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
14th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
51st Road Const Co
15th Ind.Medium Field Artillery Regiment
52nd Road Const Co

Defending units:
3rd Group Army
2nd Group Army
31st Group Army

Ground combat at Kweisui (92,35)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 4087 troops, 30 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 145

Defending force 4559 troops, 43 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 169

Japanese adjusted assault: 202

Allied adjusted defense: 76

Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1

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

Japanese ground losses:
312 casualties reported
Squads: 13 destroyed, 11 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
1591 casualties reported
Squads: 58 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 35 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 3 disabled
Units retreated 1

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
2nd Ching An Tui Brigade
11th Indpt Infantry Regiment
1st Ching An Tui Brigade

Defending units:
3rd Prov Chinese Corps

Tarakan Coastal Guns Mangle Japanese xAKLs!

Invasion Support action off Tarakan (67,91) - Coastal Guns Fire Back!
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

71 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
DD Kuri
xAKL Shinrei Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire
xAKL Unyo Maru, Shell hits 20, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Hirota Maru

Invasion Support action off Tarakan (67,91)
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

20 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
xAKL Bunzan Maru, Shell hits 4
xAKL Shinrei Maru, Shell hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Yamagiri Maru, Shell hits 4, heavy fires

Invasion Support action off Tarakan (67,91)
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

28 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
xAKL Zuiho Maru, Shell hits 10, heavy fires, heavy damage

Invasion Support action off Tarakan (67,91)
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

12 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
xAKL Tokuwa Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Zuiho Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Ume Maru
xAK Anzan Maru
xAK Yoneyama Maru
xAK Hirota Maru

Tarakan Holds!

Ground combat at Tarakan (67,91)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 988 troops, 27 guns, 7 vehicles, Assault Value = 35

Defending force 3785 troops, 34 guns, 12 vehicles, Assault Value = 140

Allied ground losses:
18 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
VII KNIL Battalion
Tarakan Coastal Gun Battalion
Tarakan Base Force

Defending units:
21st/A Division

Ground combat at Tarakan (67,91)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 3785 troops, 34 guns, 12 vehicles, Assault Value = 140

Defending force 1792 troops, 52 guns, 7 vehicles, Assault Value = 34

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 0

Japanese adjusted assault: 92

Allied adjusted defense: 49

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 0

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

Japanese ground losses:
48 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
30 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 5 (1 destroyed, 4 disabled)

Assaulting units:
21st/A Division

Best Regards,

-Terry



_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 91
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/21/2015 3:27:46 PM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline
Combat Report


for


December 29, 1941


Japanese Capture Djambi and Sambas!

Ground combat at Djambi (48,88)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 3632 troops, 26 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 127

Defending force 236 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 3

Japanese adjusted assault: 60

Allied adjusted defense: 3

Japanese assault odds: 20 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Djambi !!!

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

Allied ground losses:
295 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 33 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Units destroyed 1

Assaulting units:
42nd Infantry Regiment

Defending units:
Djambi Base Force

Ground combat at Sambas (57,88)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 1184 troops, 7 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 43

Defending force 728 troops, 11 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 18

Japanese adjusted assault: 27

Allied adjusted defense: 4

Japanese assault odds: 6 to 1 (fort level 1)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Sambas !!!

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

Japanese ground losses:
109 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 12 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
378 casualties reported
Squads: 13 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 18 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 3 (3 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 2

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
I./124th Infantry Battalion

Defending units:
West Borneo KNIL Battalion
Sambas Base Force

Tarakan Coastal Guns Continue to Riddle Japanese Transports!

Invasion Support action off Tarakan (67,91)
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

37 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
xAK Kikukawa Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire
xAKL Bunzan Maru, Shell hits 11, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Asuka Maru, Shell hits 5, heavy fires
xAK Taiko Maru
xAK Kinkai Maru
xAK Hirota Maru, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Kuri

Singapore and Tarakan Hold Their Ground!

Ground combat at Singapore (50,84)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 22518 troops, 254 guns, 90 vehicles, Assault Value = 682

Defending force 19144 troops, 267 guns, 139 vehicles, Assault Value = 303

Japanese adjusted assault: 345

Allied adjusted defense: 507

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

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), preparation(-), morale(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1557 casualties reported
Squads: 13 destroyed, 126 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 20 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Guns lost 10 (3 destroyed, 7 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
789 casualties reported
Squads: 16 destroyed, 51 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 18 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Guns lost 21 (5 destroyed, 16 disabled)
Vehicles lost 12 (4 destroyed, 8 disabled)

Assaulting units:
15th Naval Guard Unit
21st Infantry Regiment
Tanaka Det
Imperial Guards Division
15th Ind. Engineer Regiment
Kanno Det
16th Naval Guard Unit
54th Const Co
18th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
55th Const Co
3rd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
53rd Const Co
3rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
41st Guard Bn /1

Defending units:
2nd Loyal Battalion
SSVF Brigade
3rd Cavalry Regiment
2nd Gordons Battalion
1st Malay Battalion
2nd Malay Battalion
1st Manchester Battalion
2/17 Dogra Battalion
27th Australian Brigade
24th NZ Pioneer Coy
22nd Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
224 Group RAF
Singapore Fortress
1st Indian Heavy AA Regiment
Malayan Air Wing
III Indian Corps
2nd HK&S Heavy AA Regiment
Singapore Base Force
1st HK&S Heavy AA Regiment
Malaya Army
111th RAF Base Force

Ground combat at Tarakan (67,91)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 3749 troops, 34 guns, 12 vehicles, Assault Value = 137

Defending force 1764 troops, 51 guns, 7 vehicles, Assault Value = 31

Japanese adjusted assault: 41

Allied adjusted defense: 31

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 0

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

Japanese ground losses:
57 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled

Allied ground losses:
54 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Assaulting units:
21st/A Division

Defending units:
VII KNIL Battalion
Tarakan Coastal Gun Battalion
Tarakan Base Force

Best Regards,

-Terry

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 92
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/22/2015 2:03:52 AM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline
Combat Report


for


December 30, 1941


Japanese Subs Continue to Wreak Havoc:

Submarine attack near Newcastle at 94,166

Japanese Ships
SS I-5

Allied Ships
xAK Ravnaas, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage

xAK Ravnaas is sighted by SS I-5
SS I-5 launches 4 torpedoes at xAK Ravnaas

Japanese Ships
SS I-5

Allied Ships
xAK Yu Sang, Torpedo hits 1, on fire

xAK Yu Sang is sighted by SS I-5
SS I-5 launches 4 torpedoes at xAK Yu Sang

Japanese Forces Invade Batavia:

Amphibious Assault at Batavia (49,98)

TF 97 troops unloading over beach at Batavia, 49,98

Japanese ground losses:
33 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)

18 troops of a IJA Engineer Squad accidentally lost during unload of 15th Guards Rgt /2
10 Support troops lost in surf during unload of 15th Guards Rgt /2
37mm Type 01 AT Gun dropped into water during unload of 15th Guards Rgt /3
19 troops of a IJA Infantry Squad lost overboard during unload of 15th Guards Rgt /3

Allied Mines at Batavia Prove Their Worth!

TF 97 encounters mine field at Batavia (49,98)

Japanese Ships
LSD Shinshu Maru, Mine hits 1
xAP Kamo Maru, Mine hits 1

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

TF 391 encounters mine field at Batavia (49,98)

Japanese Ships
DD Samidare, Mine hits 1, heavy damage

Allied Coastal Guns Rock Japanese at Batavia!

Pre-Invasion action off Batavia (49,98) - Coastal Guns Fire Back!
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

270 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
xAK Johore Maru, Shell hits 17, heavy fires
LSD Shinshu Maru

Japanese ground losses:
122 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 21 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allies Hold at Manila, Batavia, and Tarakan!

Ground combat at Manila (79,77)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 20188 troops, 156 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 723

Defending force 15207 troops, 129 guns, 150 vehicles, Assault Value = 338

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 0

Japanese adjusted assault: 380

Allied adjusted defense: 263

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 0

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

Japanese ground losses:
934 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 80 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 30 disabled

Allied ground losses:
1111 casualties reported
Squads: 10 destroyed, 84 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 38 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 11 disabled

Assaulting units:
2nd Engineer Regiment
I./4th Infantry Battalion
20th Infantry Regiment
113th Infantry Regiment
56th Engineer Regiment
148th Infantry Regiment
II./4th Infantry Battalion
16th Engineer Regiment
16th Infantry Regiment
56th Field Artillery Regiment

Defending units:
71st PA Infantry Division
1st PA Infantry Division
2nd PA Constabulary Regiment
USAFFE
Cavite USN Base Force
Manila USAAF Base Force
South Luzon Force

Amphibious Assault at Batavia (49,98)

TF 97 troops unloading over beach at Batavia, 49,98

Japanese ground losses:
33 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)

18 troops of a IJA Engineer Squad accidentally lost during unload of 15th Guards Rgt /2
10 Support troops lost in surf during unload of 15th Guards Rgt /2
37mm Type 01 AT Gun dropped into water during unload of 15th Guards Rgt /3
19 troops of a IJA Infantry Squad lost overboard during unload of 15th Guards Rgt /3

Ground combat at Batavia (49,98)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 6927 troops, 122 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 370

Defending force 3924 troops, 47 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 139

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

Assaulting units:
2nd KNIL Regiment
1st KNIL Regiment
Batavia Coastal Gun Battalion
1st Regt Cavalerie
1st KNIL Landstorm Battalion
4th KNIL Landstorm Battalion
1st KNIL AA Battalion
1 ML-KNIL Aviation
ML-KNIL
Batavia Base Force

Defending units:
15th Guards Rgt /1

Ground combat at Tarakan (67,91)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 925 troops, 27 guns, 7 vehicles, Assault Value = 28

Defending force 3717 troops, 34 guns, 12 vehicles, Assault Value = 133

Assaulting units:
VII KNIL Battalion
Tarakan Coastal Gun Battalion
Tarakan Base Force

Defending units:
21st/A Division

Ground combat at Tarakan (67,91)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 3717 troops, 34 guns, 12 vehicles, Assault Value = 133

Defending force 1731 troops, 51 guns, 7 vehicles, Assault Value = 28

Japanese adjusted assault: 33

Allied adjusted defense: 34

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 0)

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

Japanese ground losses:
94 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 11 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled

Allied ground losses:
171 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 17 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
21st/A Division

Defending units:
VII KNIL Battalion
Tarakan Coastal Gun Battalion
Tarakan Base Force

Best Regards,

-Terry

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 93
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/23/2015 7:54:07 PM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline
Combat Report


for


December 31, 1941


Japanese Subs Continue to Take a Toll on Allied Ships:

Submarine attack near Newcastle at 92,167

Japanese Ships
SS I-22

Allied Ships
xAK Governor Wright, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage

xAK Governor Wright is sighted by SS I-22
SS I-22 launches 2 torpedoes at xAK Governor Wright

Sub attack near Port Kembla at 90,170

Japanese Ships
SS I-6

Allied Ships
xAKL Patris, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
xAKL Siberoet
xAKL De Haan
DD Le Triomphant

Sub attack near Portland Roads at 93,131

Japanese Ships
SS I-10

Allied Ships
xAKL Sigli, Shell hits 15, heavy fires, heavy damage

SS I-10 attacking on the surface
Massive explosion on xAKL Sigli

Batavia Mines Damage Japanese DMSs!

TF 93 encounters mine field at Batavia (49,98) - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

23 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
DMS W-19, Shell hits 2, on fire
DMS W-18, Shell hits 3, on fire

DMS W-19 firing at Batavia Coastal Gun Battalion
Batavia Coastal Gun Battalion firing at DMS W-19
Batavia Coastal Gun Battalion firing at DMS W-18
DMS W-18 firing at Batavia Coastal Gun Battalion
9 mines cleared

And Again

TF 93 encounters mine field at Batavia (49,98) - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

4 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
DMS W-19, Shell hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage

Batavia Coastal Gun Battalion firing at DMS W-19
DMS W-19 firing at Batavia Coastal Gun Battalion
6 mines cleared

And One More Time

TF 93 encounters mine field at Batavia (49,98) - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

1 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
DMS W-19, Shell hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage

Batavia Coastal Gun Battalion firing at DMS W-19
DMS W-19 firing at Batavia Coastal Gun Battalion
7 mines cleared

Batavia Coastal Guns Riddle Jahore Maru & Kamo Maru!

Invasion Support action off Batavia (49,98) - Coastal Guns Fire Back!
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

150 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
LSD Shinshu Maru
xAK Johore Maru, Shell hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage

Japanese ground losses:
130 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 12 destroyed, 11 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Invasion Support action off Batavia (49,98)
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

23 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
xAP Kamo Maru, Shell hits 3
LSD Shinshu Maru

Japanese Push Allied Troops Around Near Georgetown:

Ground combat at 50,74 (near Georgetown)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 15672 troops, 231 guns, 10 vehicles, Assault Value = 553

Defending force 3545 troops, 28 guns, 11 vehicles, Assault Value = 148

Japanese adjusted assault: 365

Allied adjusted defense: 23

Japanese assault odds: 15 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
887 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 93 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
1377 casualties reported
Squads: 58 destroyed, 36 disabled
Non Combat: 47 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Guns lost 17 (5 destroyed, 12 disabled)
Vehicles lost 3 (1 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Units retreated 4

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
4th RTA Division
2nd RTA Division
41st Infantry Regiment
7th RTA Division
55th Mountain Gun Regiment
25th Army
5th Field Artillery Regiment
21st Medium Field Artillery Battalion

Defending units:
6th Indian Brigade
15th Indian Brigade
109th RAF Base Force
137/155th Field Regiment

Allies Hold Their Ground at Batavia & Tarakan!

Ground combat at Batavia (49,98)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 6895 troops, 122 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 369

Defending force 4069 troops, 47 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 140

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

Assaulting units:
Batavia Coastal Gun Battalion
2nd KNIL Regiment
1st KNIL Landstorm Battalion
1st Regt Cavalerie
1st KNIL Regiment
4th KNIL Landstorm Battalion
ML-KNIL
1st KNIL AA Battalion
1 ML-KNIL Aviation
Batavia Base Force

Defending units:
15th Guards Regiment

Ground combat at Tarakan (67,91)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 772 troops, 27 guns, 7 vehicles, Assault Value = 12

Defending force 3645 troops, 34 guns, 12 vehicles, Assault Value = 126

Assaulting units:
VII KNIL Battalion
Tarakan Coastal Gun Battalion
Tarakan Base Force

Defending units:
21st/A Division



Best Regards,

-Terry


_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 94
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/23/2015 11:18:50 PM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline
Month End Report

of

Main Japanese Advances

December 31, 1941


Opening Note

December was not a good month for the Allies.

We lost 273 aircraft, 1,097 troops, 87 ships, and 31 bases compared to the Japanese only losing 186 aircraft, 48 troops, and 7 ships.

The Allies have fled best they could from Malaya, the Philippines, and the DEI. In other areas, the Allies have withdrawn to consolidate available forces to form more compact and stronger defensive positions.

The following consists of a brief report regarding Japanese Major Advances.

Singapore and Manila are under siege.

Palembang has been captured. Batavia is under siege.

Singkawang, Sambas, Miri, Brunei, and Beaufort have been captured. Tarakan is under siege.

The Japanese own all of Mindanao except for Cotabato and Malaybalay.

In China, the Japanese appear to have three main thrusts, all toward Sian. The first thrust is along the Northern road to Lanchow (5 units) and the Japanese are 9 hexes East of Lanchow. The second thrust is along the road from Taiyuan to Sian (12 units) and the Japanese are three hexes East of Sian. The third and largest thrust is along the road from Loyang to Sian (80 units) and the Japanese are four hexes East of Sian. The Japanese seems to be in a holding pattern for all points South of Loyang.

Best Regards,

-Terry


_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 95
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/24/2015 6:44:57 AM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline
Combat Report

for

January 1, 1942


Japanese Capture Manila:

Ground combat at Manila (79,77)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 19733 troops, 156 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 677

Defending force 14432 troops, 129 guns, 152 vehicles, Assault Value = 231

Japanese adjusted assault: 504

Allied adjusted defense: 227

Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Manila !!!

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 28 destroyed
Beech 18-S: 1 destroyed

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1000 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 86 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 12 disabled

Allied ground losses:
6298 casualties reported
Squads: 119 destroyed, 32 disabled
Non Combat: 510 destroyed, 44 disabled
Engineers: 36 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 66 (58 destroyed, 8 disabled)
Vehicles lost 155 (144 destroyed, 11 disabled)
Units retreated 5
Units destroyed 2

Assaulting units:
113th Infantry Regiment
I./4th Infantry Battalion
2nd Engineer Regiment
16th Engineer Regiment
20th Infantry Regiment
II./4th Infantry Battalion
56th Engineer Regiment
148th Infantry Regiment
16th Infantry Regiment
56th Field Artillery Regiment

Defending units:
1st PA Infantry Division
71st PA Infantry Division
2nd PA Constabulary Regiment
Manila USAAF Base Force
Cavite USN Base Force
USAFFE
II Philippine Corps

Japanese Subs Heavily Damage Two Allied Transport Ships:

Submarine attack near Bundaberg at 98,154

Japanese Ships
SS I-20

Allied Ships
xAK Bintang, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage

xAK Bintang is sighted by SS I-20
SS I-20 attacking on the surface

Submarine attack near Coal Harbour at 205,50

Japanese Ships
SS I-1

Allied Ships
xAKL Pacific, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage

xAKL Pacific is sighted by SS I-1
SS I-1 attacking on the surface

Japanese Ground Troops Bash Dutch Troops Near Benkoelen:

Ground combat at 46,91 (near Benkoelen)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 690 troops, 0 guns, 103 vehicles, Assault Value = 58

Defending force 301 troops, 2 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 4

Japanese adjusted assault: 26

Allied adjusted defense: 1

Japanese assault odds: 26 to 1

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

Allied ground losses:
218 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 26 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Units retreated 1
Units destroyed 1

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
1st Tank Regiment

Defending units:
So.Sumatra Garrison Battalion
Palembang Base Force

Japanese Troops Slash Chinese Near Nanyang and Sian:

Ground combat at 85,46 (near Nanyang)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 630 troops, 0 guns, 94 vehicles, Assault Value = 53

Defending force 1815 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 3

Japanese adjusted assault: 53

Allied adjusted defense: 14

Japanese assault odds: 3 to 1

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

Allied ground losses:
694 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 71 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Units retreated 3

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
13th Tank Regiment

Defending units:
3rd Group Army
2nd Group Army
31st Group Army

Ground combat at 85,41 (near Sian)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 28981 troops, 291 guns, 101 vehicles, Assault Value = 928

Defending force 3307 troops, 41 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 67

Japanese adjusted assault: 296

Allied adjusted defense: 9

Japanese assault odds: 32 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: morale(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
119 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 14 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
2452 casualties reported
Squads: 108 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 69 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 13 destroyed, 8 disabled
Guns lost 25 (7 destroyed, 18 disabled)
Units retreated 2

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
41st Division
37th Division
4th Ind.Mixed Brigade
1st Army
6th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
56th JAAF AF Bn

Defending units:
61st Chinese Corps
8th Group Army

Allies Hold Out at Singapore, Batavia, and Tarakan:

Ground combat at Singapore (50,84)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 35278 troops, 367 guns, 90 vehicles, Assault Value = 1118

Defending force 19953 troops, 269 guns, 137 vehicles, Assault Value = 250

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 1

Japanese adjusted assault: 927

Allied adjusted defense: 419

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

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 1

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

Japanese ground losses:
1455 casualties reported
Squads: 10 destroyed, 61 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 9 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 15 disabled
Guns lost 4 (1 destroyed, 3 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
518 casualties reported
Squads: 43 destroyed, 34 disabled
Non Combat: 26 destroyed, 31 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 11 (5 destroyed, 6 disabled)
Vehicles lost 20 (17 destroyed, 3 disabled)

Assaulting units:
Kanno Det
16th Naval Guard Unit
15th Ind. Engineer Regiment
21st Infantry Regiment
4th/B Division
15th Naval Guard Unit
4th/A Division
Imperial Guards Division
Tanaka Det
4th/C Division
54th Const Co
3rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
53rd Const Co
18th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
55th Const Co
3rd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
27th JAAF AF Bn /1
41st Guard Bn /1

Defending units:
1st Manchester Battalion
2nd Gordons Battalion
3rd Cavalry Regiment
2nd Loyal Battalion
2/17 Dogra Battalion
2nd Malay Battalion
SSVF Brigade
1st Malay Battalion
27th Australian Brigade
Singapore Base Force
224 Group RAF
Singapore Fortress
24th NZ Pioneer Coy
1st Indian Heavy AA Regiment
1st HK&S Heavy AA Regiment
2nd HK&S Heavy AA Regiment
Malayan Air Wing
Malaya Army
AHQ Far East
III Indian Corps
22nd Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
111th RAF Base Force

Ground combat at Batavia (49,98)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 6897 troops, 122 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 371

Defending force 4045 troops, 47 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 138

Japanese ground losses:
27 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
2nd KNIL Regiment
1st KNIL Landstorm Battalion
1st Regt Cavalerie
1st KNIL Regiment
Batavia Coastal Gun Battalion
4th KNIL Landstorm Battalion
ML-KNIL
1st KNIL AA Battalion
1 ML-KNIL Aviation
Batavia Base Force

Defending units:
15th Guards Regiment

Ground combat at Tarakan (67,91)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 777 troops, 27 guns, 7 vehicles, Assault Value = 12

Defending force 3691 troops, 34 guns, 12 vehicles, Assault Value = 129

Allied ground losses:
19 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
VII KNIL Battalion
Tarakan Coastal Gun Battalion
Tarakan Base Force

Defending units:
21st/A Division

Best Regards,

-Terry

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 96
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/24/2015 11:22:39 AM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline
ALLIED DEFENSIVE POSITIONS REPORT


January 1, 1942




Opening Note

Since December 7, 1941, the Allies have been falling back, consolidating and regrouping ships, aircraft, and troops. The Allies have established new defensive positions. As a part of this process, the Allies have, for the most part, abandoned numerous bases and have given up lots of territory. As a result, the Allies Main Lines of Resistant have become more compact and base garrisons are stronger. The Allies have taken this course of action for the following reasons:

1.) To tempt El Lobo to stretch his assets further and further from Japan. Hopefully, the consequence of which is that El Lobo will not only eat up precious fuel and supply, but will also thin out his troops and thereby present the Allies with opportunities to strike behind his lines and disrupt his logistic pathways.

2.) The Allies will have more troops to garrison less bases. Accordingly, the bases the Allies garrison will be in a better position to defend themselves. Additionally, with Allied interior lines shorter, the Allies will be able to move troops quicker to confront any Japanese attack.

3.) The ports, air bases, and forts will build faster as the defensive bases are fewer and will have more troops available to build those bases. Example: Instead of 500 bases with fort levels of one, the Allies will have 100 bases with fort levels of 3 (just a guess here, but bases will build up faster).

4.) Logistic pathways will be fewer, thereby presenting less opportunity for El Lobo to sink transport convoys. Also, with fewer bases to supply, the bases will have more than adequate fuel and supply required to bring troops to full strength and support training for pilots.

5.) These bases will provide ready-to-go jump off bases for when the Allies are strong enough to go on the offensive. The Main Lines of Resistance and bases therein have been selectively chosen to present the Allies with the opportunity to launch offensives from Alaska, the Pacific Islands, Australia, and India. Accordingly, the Allies will be able to pick and choose where they want to attack.

The Main Lines of Resistance are as follows:

North Pacific

Anchorage, Seward, Kodiak Island, and Prince Rupert. All three of these bases have been built up a bit with coastal guns, AA and artillery units.

Nome and Dutch Harbor troops will be bought out and retreat to one of the above three Alaskan bases.

Two infantry (Sep) regiments and one infantry battalion are at Prince Rupert; awaiting to be bought out and moved to the aforementioned Alaskan bases.

Central and South Pacific

Pearl Harbor, Midway, Johnston Island, Palmyra, Christmas Island, Tahiti, and Aitutaki.

Of these seven islands, only Pearl Harbor and Tahiti have been built up so far. USMC units have moved to and continue to move to Pearl Harbor. Tahiti has been built up with Southwest Pacific base forces, artillery, and infantry units.

Tahiti is important to the Allies as it is the main logistic path to Australia is via Tahiti. All Southwest Pacific reinforcement troops will go to Tahiti.

Midway is important to the Allies as the Allies would like to bombard the Marianas Islands a few times commencing March 1, 1942 or sooner.

By June 30, 1942, the Allies hope to have all of these Pacific Island Bases built up with sufficient engineer units to speed up port, airbase, and fort levels. Additionally, each base will have a minimum of a Marine Corps Defense Battalion and Marine Regiment.

Of course the Japanese, with the exception of Perl Harbor, can assault and take any one or more of these Pacific Islands. That is fine with the Allies. El Lobo will be a long way from home and he will have to bring substantial assets to take any of these islands once sufficiently built up.

Australia

With the exception of bases requiring garrisons, Perth, and Alice Springs, the Australians have withdrawn to the Wbyalla-Brisbane Line and points South.

The Wbyalla-Brisbane Line consists of Wbyalla, Port Augusta, Broken Hill, Bourke, Toowoomba, and Brisbane. Each of these bases have been garrisoned with a minimum of one RAN and one RAAF base force. Wbyalla, Port Augusta, and Brisbane each have an Infantry Brigade. Broken Hill, Bourke, and Toowoomba each have a Calvary Brigade.

Each base South of the Wbyalla-Brisbane Line has at least one engineer unit. With the exception of Rolo, Mildura, and Geelong, each base South of the Wbyalla-Brisbane Line has one Infantry Brigade. Rolo has the 4th Infantry Battalion. Mildura has the 39th and 53rd Infantry Battalions. Geelong has the 32nd and 38th Infantry Battalions.

Alice Springs will be built up to provide early warning of a Japanese invasion from Darwin. Presently, the following troops are either at Alice Springs or are in route to Alice Springs: 7th Military District HQc, 19th Infantry Battalion, 11th RAAF BF, Darwin RAAF BF, Wyndham RAAF BF, Katherine RAAF BF, 2nd RAN BF, Broome RAN BF, and Derby RAN BF. The required BF garrison at Tennant Creek will provide early warning to Alice Springs. If the Japanese invade in strength from Darwin, the troops at Alice Springs can easily and quickly be moved by rail to points South of the Wbyalla-Brisbane Line.

Perth has been and is presently the staging area for 11 Armor Units and 3 Machine Gun Battalions that have been bought out under I Australian Corps. 7 of these units are already in route to Bombay. The remaining Armor and Machine Gun Battalions will follow as port loading capacity permits. A list of these bought out units will be provided under India’s Main Line of Resistance.

U. S. Army Units consisting of Base Forces, Coastal AA Regiments, FA Artillery Regiments, and Infantry Regiments are in route to Australia. Without listing every unit, 6 Infantry Divisions (the 24th, 25th, 27th, 40th, 41st, and Americal) are earmarked for Australia. With the exception of the 4 regiments at Pearl Harbor and the 132nd and 182nd Regiments that haven’t arrived yet, all other infantry regiments of these 6 Divisions have left the U. S. East Coast for Cape Town. As soon as the 4 regiments at Pearl can be bought out under the Pacific Fleet Command and upon arrival of the two Americal regiments that arrive, they will be shipped from Pearl to Australia. In addition, the 87th Mountain Regiment, 2 armor units, 6 coastal AA Regiments, 6 FA Regiments and 1 FA Battalion, and 6 Engineer Units have also left the U.S. East Coast for Cape Town. Upon arrival, at least 4 more Armor Units, 2 EAB units, and 5 Seabee Units will be sent to Australia. Additionally, the II U.S. Fighter Squadrons and V U.S. Bomber Squadrons will all be sent to Australia. All of these units are estimated to be in Australia by Mid March of 1942.

All of the above U.S. units being sent to Australia will leave Australia for India no later than July 30, 1942. Hopefully, by July 30, 1942, other U.S. Army Units will have arrived in Australia and can mop up any Japanese that may be in Australia.

India

With the exception of perhaps Pearl Harbor and the U. S. West Coast, India has been the Allied top priority and will continue to be the Allied top priority as the Allies plan to launch an offensive to take back Burma commencing October 15, 1942.

The Main Line of Resistance in India will be the Bombay-Lucknow Line and points North. The Bombay-Lucknow Line will consist of the following bases: Bombay, Jalgaon, Bhopal, Cawnpore, and Lucknow.

It is imperative that the Allies keep Bombay, Surat, and Karachi.

However, considering the Allies plan an early invasion to take back Burma, if possible, the Allies also want to try build up and hold the Chittagong-Ledo Line. The Chittagong-Ledo Line consists of the following bases: Chittagong, Cornilla, Silchar, Imphal, Kohima, Dinapur, Jorbat, and Ledo. Presently, each of these bases have a Base Force and Infantry Battalion. If the Japanese press hard against the Chittagong-Ledo Line, the Allies will withdraw to the Bombay-Lucknow Line and points north thereof.

The Bombay-Lucknow Line and points north will be garrisoned with the Northern, Eastern, and Southern India Command forces, Burma Corps, III India Corps, Far East (ABDA), I Australia Corps, the Chinese Corps that make it to India, and eventually the U.S. Army.

Aircraft were saved from Malaya and the Philippines. The aircraft saved are as follows: 57 of the 221 RAAF, 6 of the 222 RAF, 56 of the 223 RAAF, and 92 of the 224 RAAF. These aircraft are presently based as follows: 221 RAAF is at Karachi, 222 RAAF is at Hyderabad (Sindh), 223 RAAF is at Surat, and 224 RAAF is at Bombay.

52 aircraft of AHQ India is at New Delhi.

As you will note below, the Tenth USAAF, the II U.S. Fighters, and V U.S. Bombers are also earmarked for India.

The following Australian Units have been bought out under I Australian Corps and are either in route to India or staging at Perth to board ships bound for India: I Australia Corps HQc, 17th, 19th, and 24th Machine Gun Battalions, 2/4, 2/5, 2/6. 2/7, 2/8, and 2/9 Armor Regiments, 2nd Recon. Armor Battalion, 10th Light Horse Armor Battalion, 1st and 3rd Motor Armor Brigades. The 2/3 and 2/4 Machine Gun Battalions are already in India. All I Australia Corps reinforcement arrivals in Aden are earmarked for and will be sent to Australia.

And, don’t forget the 6 U.S. Army Divisions, supplemental units, II U.S. Fighters, and V U.S. Bombers that are estimated to arrive in India by the end of August, 1942.

In addition, the Tenth USAAF is planned to arrive in India by the end of August, 1942.

With the exception of the Victoria Point BF, the entire Burma Corps is leaving Burma and bound for India. The bulk of these units are one hex away from Imphal. The balance of these units are two hexes away from Imphal.

Several ABDA units that either fled from the DEI or left from Darwin are in India.
Several III India Corps Units are in India, including but not limited too, the British 18th Division.

The 36th and 88th Chinese Divisions are in Burma at Katba and moving toward Imphal. The 96th and 200th Chinese Divisions and the 22nd New Chinese Division are two hexes Northeast of Lashio. The 2nd Reserve Division is 4 hexes Northeast of the Burma border. Accordingly, it looks like the entire 5th Chinese Corps will escape to Burma and into India.

The entire 6th Chinese Corps and 66th Chinese Corps are at Tsuyung and in all likelihood will escape to Burma and into India.

The 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 8th New Chinese Corps are beating the mules to get the wagons into Burma and out of Burma before the Japanese cut off their retreat. It will be touch and go whether any of these four corps make it to India.

Malaya, The Philippines, DEI, China, and Burma

Lost causes...punt!

End Note

Well, that is a brief synopsis of what the Allies have been doing and where they are heading for the next six months. Primarily, just building up the ports, airbases, and forts at the listed bases making up the Main Areas of U.S. Resistance.

Pretty much the Allies have only been engaged in defensive measures.

Bombardment of The Marianas Islands

However, with an early bombardment of the Marianas Islands in mind, the Allies have consolidate the following Warships and Support Ships, at the following locations:

Seattle: 3 CVs, 10 BBs, 11 CAs, 7 CLs, and 34 DDs. The Yorktown left San Diego for Seattle on December 31, 1941.

Tacoma: 8 DMs, 13 DMSs, 3 AVs, 6 AVDs, 5 AVPs, 7 AOs, and 3 AEs.

Lihue: 26 Submarines.

Should the Allies set sail for a coordinated strike of the Marianas Islands now while intelligence suggests the KB is in the DEI or should the Allies wait until Midway is properly built up and strike from there around mid March of 1942?

As always, The War College members analysis and comment will be appreciated on any issue presented herein.

Best Regards,

-Terry



_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 97
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/24/2015 11:56:14 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		In your plans for India I do not see mention of Ceylon. Are you going to evacuate? Reinforce? Defend with present units? Did I miss your plans in my scan of the India section?

Other than some experience for you carrier pilots and ships, what do you expect to achieve attacking the Marianas between January and March 1942? Are you expecting to bag major transport shipping and warships? You are risking your most critical strategic force going to hit a chain of islands with interlocking airfields for what?

Closing an airbase or two? They'll be back in operation in a few days. Shoot down/bomb some planes? You will lose some to CAP/AA/Ops too, and likely lose the pilots.

IMO the Marianas is too deep a target without Nav Search/Recon being able to check what is in the area. If you want to upset his complacency you can make a deep strike at less risk using some DDs and old CLs. Your CVs can do a quick strike into the Southern DEI from West Oz, into PNG or the New Hebrides from Eastern Oz or the Aleutians/Kuriles from your westernmost bases there. The idea is to be able to retreat back to your own air cover within a turn, especially if some of your ships get damaged.

When not doing air strikes the best use of the CVs is to cover your own major transport convoys taking troops to Australia, NZ or SoPac. They will help detect the subs and can smack any AMC/CL/DD raiders he sends out.

That's how I see it - would like to see other ideas.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 98
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/24/2015 12:09:35 PM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

In your plans for India I do not see mention of Ceylon. Are you going to evacuate? Reinforce? Defend with present units? Did I miss your plans in my scan of the India section?

Other than some experience for you carrier pilots and ships, what do you expect to achieve attacking the Marianas between January and March 1942? Are you expecting to bag major transport shipping and warships? You are risking your most critical strategic force going to hit a chain of islands with interlocking airfields for what?

Closing an airbase or two? They'll be back in operation in a few days. Shoot down/bomb some planes? You will lose some to CAP/AA/Ops too, and likely lose the pilots.

IMO the Marianas is too deep a target without Nav Search/Recon being able to check what is in the area. If you want to upset his complacency you can make a deep strike at less risk using some DDs and old CLs. Your CVs can do a quick strike into the Southern DEI from West Oz, into PNG or the New Hebrides from Eastern Oz or the Aleutians/Kuriles from your westernmost bases there. The idea is to be able to retreat back to your own air cover within a turn, especially if some of your ships get damaged.

When not doing air strikes the best use of the CVs is to cover your own major transport convoys taking troops to Australia, NZ or SoPac. They will help detect the subs and can smack any AMC/CL/DD raiders he sends out.

That's how I see it - would like to see other ideas.



BBfanboy-

You have me laughing this morning.

By an early strike of the Marianas Islands, I was hoping to accomplish three things:

1.) Advise El Lobo that nothing is sacred for his precious Japanese.

2.) Hopefully, catch some troop transports.

3.) At a minimum, slaughter some troops and aircraft, and if real fortunate, destroy his airfields badly enough that his aircraft have no where to land and are all destroyed.

And, I was thinking that maybe El Lobo hasn't invested too much in the Marianas Islands yet, it would catch him by surprise, and perhaps turn out to be easy pickings.

As always, thank you for analysis and comment.

Best Regards,

-Terry

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 99
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/24/2015 12:16:14 PM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline 		BBfanboy-

OOPS! Forgot to address this: In your plans for India I do not see mention of Ceylon. Are you going to evacuate? Reinforce? Defend with present units? Did I miss your plans in my scan of the India section?

I didn't forget Ceylon nor did you miss it. I just didn't mention it. I would really like to keep Ceylon, but I am not willing to invest a great deal of assets there to be trapped by the Japanese. I would rather stuff India with what I can, and then if need be, take back Ceylon later.

Best Regards,

-Terry

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 100
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/24/2015 6:13:47 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline 		Ceylon is important, if for no other reason than it's shipyard. Bombay has one, but for him the next closest one is Singapore. I can understand not wanting to loose troops to it as it is a PIA to defend early on, but if he takes it on the cheap he is going to own this theater for a long time.

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 101
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/25/2015 12:15:27 AM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Ceylon is important, if for no other reason than it's shipyard. Bombay has one, but for him the next closest one is Singapore. I can understand not wanting to loose troops to it as it is a PIA to defend early on, but if he takes it on the cheap he is going to own this theater for a long time.


Lecivius-

How much would you invest in Ceylon?

I have left all the Ceylon Command troops in Ceylon (but that sure isn't much to fight with).

Thank you for your analysis and comments.

Best Regards,

-Terry



_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 102
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/25/2015 3:31:32 PM   
Lecivius


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

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Ceylon is important, if for no other reason than it's shipyard. Bombay has one, but for him the next closest one is Singapore. I can understand not wanting to loose troops to it as it is a PIA to defend early on, but if he takes it on the cheap he is going to own this theater for a long time.


Lecivius-

How much would you invest in Ceylon?

I have left all the Ceylon Command troops in Ceylon (but that sure isn't much to fight with).

Thank you for your analysis and comments.

Best Regards,

-Terry




I read all the AAR's, and I am about to go read his (I have not at this point), so I will not comment further. But IMHO Ceylon is tactically, and even strategically on several levels, more important than everything south of Bombay.

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 103
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/25/2015 3:35:43 PM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Ceylon is important, if for no other reason than it's shipyard. Bombay has one, but for him the next closest one is Singapore. I can understand not wanting to loose troops to it as it is a PIA to defend early on, but if he takes it on the cheap he is going to own this theater for a long time.


Lecivius-

How much would you invest in Ceylon?

I have left all the Ceylon Command troops in Ceylon (but that sure isn't much to fight with).

Thank you for your analysis and comments.

Best Regards,

-Terry




I read all the AAR's, and I am about to go read his (I have not at this point), so I will not comment further. But IMHO Ceylon is tactically, and even strategically on several levels, more important than everything south of Bombay.


Lecivius-

Noted, appreciated, and scrambling through sticky paste notes to find some troops to boost up Ceylon!

Thank you.

Best Regards,

-Terry

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 104
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/25/2015 7:48:13 PM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline
Combat Report

for

January 2, 1942



Japanese Sub Sinks Another Allied Transport:

Submarine attack near Newcastle at 94,166

Japanese Ships
SS I-5

Allied Ships
xAKL Shinai, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

xAKL Shinai is sighted by SS I-5
SS I-5 attacking on the surface

Allies Bommbard Japanese at Batavia and Tarakan!

Ground combat at Batavia (49,98)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 6930 troops, 122 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 373

Defending force 4040 troops, 47 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 137

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

Assaulting units:
2nd KNIL Regiment
1st Regt Cavalerie
1st KNIL Landstorm Battalion
1st KNIL Regiment
Batavia Coastal Gun Battalion
4th KNIL Landstorm Battalion
ML-KNIL
1 ML-KNIL Aviation
1st KNIL AA Battalion
Batavia Base Force

Defending units:
15th Guards Regiment

Ground combat at Tarakan (67,91)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 772 troops, 27 guns, 7 vehicles, Assault Value = 12

Defending force 3705 troops, 34 guns, 12 vehicles, Assault Value = 130

Assaulting units:
VII KNIL Battalion
Tarakan Coastal Gun Battalion
Tarakan Base Force

Defending units:
21st/A Division

Best Regards,

-Terry

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 105
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/27/2015 5:58:31 AM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline
Combat Report

for

January 3, 1942


Japanese Subs Dent Three Allied Ships:

Submarine attack near Bowen at 97,146

Japanese Ships
SS I-174

Allied Ships
xAKL Silindoeng, Shell hits 19, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage

Submarine attack near Brisbane at 97,162

Japanese Ships
SS I-166

Allied Ships
AG Gemma, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage

Sub attack near Bundaberg at 98,154

Japanese Ships
SS I-172

Allied Ships
AG Albatros, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships Hit Japanese Sub!

Sub attack near Burnie at 82,174

Japanese Ships
SS I-24, hits 3

Allied Ships
AM Latrobe
AM Lithgow

Allies Bombard Japanese at Batavia & Tarakan!

Ground combat at Batavia (49,98)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 6936 troops, 122 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 374

Defending force 3981 troops, 47 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 131

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

Allied ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
1st Regt Cavalerie
1st KNIL Landstorm Battalion
1st KNIL Regiment
2nd KNIL Regiment
Batavia Coastal Gun Battalion
4th KNIL Landstorm Battalion
1 ML-KNIL Aviation
1st KNIL AA Battalion
ML-KNIL
Batavia Base Force

Defending units:
15th Guards Regiment

Ground combat at Tarakan (67,91)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 780 troops, 27 guns, 7 vehicles, Assault Value = 13

Defending force 3705 troops, 34 guns, 12 vehicles, Assault Value = 130

Assaulting units:
VII KNIL Battalion
Tarakan Coastal Gun Battalion
Tarakan Base Force

Defending units:
21st/A Division

Best Regards,

-Terry


_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 106
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/27/2015 6:37:46 PM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline
Combat Report

for

January 4, 1942


Japanese Sub Puts Another Allied Transport on Fire with Heavy Damage Near Newcastle:

Submarine attack near Newcastle at 92,167

Japanese Ships
SS I-22

Allied Ships
xAKL Benkoelen, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Japanese Push Allies Back Near Malacca:

Ground combat at 50,80 (near Malacca)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 3760 troops, 5 guns, 355 vehicles, Assault Value = 236

Defending force 1958 troops, 21 guns, 1 vehicles, Assault Value = 25

Japanese adjusted assault: 123

Allied adjusted defense: 13

Japanese assault odds: 9 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), morale(-), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Allied ground losses:
1223 casualties reported
Squads: 62 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 62 destroyed, 26 disabled
Engineers: 4 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 15 (10 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Vehicles lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 5

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
14th Tank Regiment
5th Recon Regiment
4th Tank Regiment
48th Recon Regiment
7th Tank Regiment

Defending units:
22nd Australian Brigade
5/2nd Punjab Battalion
11 Battery/3 HAA
30 Battery/3 HAA
112th RAF Base Force

Allies Bombard Japanese Forces at Batavia and Tarakan Again!

Ground combat at Batavia (49,98)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 6918 troops, 122 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 374

Defending force 4001 troops, 47 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 133

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

Assaulting units:
2nd KNIL Regiment
Batavia Coastal Gun Battalion
1st KNIL Landstorm Battalion
1st Regt Cavalerie
1st KNIL Regiment
4th KNIL Landstorm Battalion
1st KNIL AA Battalion
ML-KNIL
1 ML-KNIL Aviation
Batavia Base Force

Defending units:
15th Guards Regiment

Ground combat at Tarakan (67,91)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 788 troops, 27 guns, 7 vehicles, Assault Value = 15

Defending force 3761 troops, 34 guns, 12 vehicles, Assault Value = 136

Assaulting units:
VII KNIL Battalion
Tarakan Coastal Gun Battalion
Tarakan Base Force

Defending units:
21st/A Division

Allies Hold Out at Tarakan Again!

Ground combat at Tarakan (67,91)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 3761 troops, 34 guns, 12 vehicles, Assault Value = 136

Defending force 1592 troops, 44 guns, 7 vehicles, Assault Value = 15

Japanese adjusted assault: 56

Allied adjusted defense: 37

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 0

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

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

Allied ground losses:
10 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
21st/A Division

Defending units:
VII KNIL Battalion
Tarakan Coastal Gun Battalion
Tarakan Base Force

Best Regards,

-Terry

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 107
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/27/2015 7:12:06 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline 		One or two tips on subs, then you're on your own.

The code has always seemed to hyper-target unescorted merchants. It LOVES tankers sailing alone. In AI games it almost seems magical how subs can find tankers six hexes away if they are alone. But I digress. Even one escort of any kind will increase your odds of not being attacked and attack success odds. The code way, way over-targets escorts versus the real war. In my observations, and I'm sure there are randoms, 40-50% of the time as Allies your sub will shoot at the escort and not the merchant. Escorts tend to have high(er) maneuver ratings in the DB and thus are missed more than slow, fat merchants.

As Allies you don't have enough escorts for awhile. You have to use what you have that can carry a DC. AMs, KVs, DMSes, even YPs in a pinch. Sometimes you may have to go to an Escort TF to get odd types to join; this is OK on a homeward leg when not carrying cargo.

Lone merchants also get surface gun attacked a lot more. Which saves torpedoes for Japan which saves transit time and wasted fuel to reload. In my Sept 1943 PBEM game I think there have been fewer than 5 surface gun attacks by either side. In my AI games the AI runs Japan merchants alone a lot and you can up your sub success rate in 1942 that way when the dud rate is a back-breaker. One escort of any kind and there is virtually no chance of a gun attack.

Early, when the Mk14 dud rate is massive, consider using more subs for mining, and a limited number for re-supply. The latter are pretty wasteful, delivering I think 32 supply per trip. Not enough to keep Bataan in business, but enough to maybe delay the Japanese on a Dutch island a few days. Getting rid of the amphib bonus changes the game markedly. Japan has to be racing under it. Anything that delays is a win for you.

Sub mining is a bit of an art form. You have to look at decay rates so some are left by the time they get there, but also guess right on their base target pattern. Nothing worse than to invest 100 mines in an island and have them bypass it for six weeks, You watch your field fall apart and can do nothing. Mines are pretty precious during the amphib bonus. But timing is key.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 6/27/2015 8:14:28 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 108
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/27/2015 7:27:24 PM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

One or two tips on subs, then you're on your own.

The code has always seemed to hyper-target unescorted merchants. It LOVES tankers sailing alone. In AI games it almost seems magical how subs can find tankers six hexes away if they are alone. But I digress. Even one escort of any kind will increase your odds of not being attacked and attack success odds. The code way, way over-targets escorts versus the real war. In my observations, and I'm sure there are randoms, 40-50% of the time as Allies your sub will shoot at the escort and not the merchant. Escorts tend to have high(er) maneuver ratings in the DB and thus are missed more than slow, fat merchants.

As Allies you don't have enough escorts for awhile. You have to use what you have that can carry a DC. AMs, KVs, DMSes, even YPs in a pinch. Sometimes you may have to go to an Escort TF to get odd types to join; this is OK on a homeward leg when not carrying cargo.

Lone merchants also get surface gun attacked a lot more. Which saves torpedoes for Japan which saves transit time and wasted fuel to reload. In my Sept 1943 PBEM game I think there have been fewer than 5 surface gun attacks by either side. In my AI games the AI runs Japan merchants alone a lot and you can up your sub success rate in 1942 that way when the dud rate is a back-breaker. One escort of any kind and there is virtually no chance of a gun attack.

Early, when the Mk14 dud rate is massive, consider using more subs for mining, and a limited number for re-supply. The latter are pretty wasteful, delivering I think 32 supply per trip. Not enough to keep Bataan in business, but enough to maybe delay the Japanese on a Dutch island a few days. Getting rid of the amphib bonus changes the game markedly. Japan has to be racing under it. Anything that delays is a win for you.

Sub mining is a bit of an art form. You have to look at decay rates so some are left by the time they get there, but also guess right on their base target pattern. Nothing worse than to invest 100 mines in an island and have them bypass it for six weeks, You watch your field fall apart and can do nothing. Mines are pretty precious during the amphib bonus. But timing is key.



Welcome to my AAR Bullwinkle-

I agree and have noticed that escorting a logistical convoy makes a big difference in the effectiveness of Japanese subs. My problem, as I suspect is the problem for most allied players early on, is one can't wait for escorts when steaming away from Malaya, the Philippines and DEI.

Interesting comments you made regarding sub surface actions. That I will keep in mind.

I recall in the war with Germany, the German sub packs, wolf packs, were quite effective, especially when roaming as a group of four. In your opinion would that be good for the allies against japan...groups of four allied subs...hunting?

Best Regards,

-Terry

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 109
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/27/2015 7:28:55 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline 		Sorry, one more.

In April you get to decide which upgrade path to take for Argonaut, Nautilus, and Narwhal. SST or keep them around as up-gunned mining specialists. (The ship-killer mines come later, in late 1942 I think.)

I think they have much more value as SSTs. They make all of the para-capable LCUs sub-transportable. I use the Aussie Kangas a lot, as well as the Marine Raiders of the USMC (not para-capable, but great fighters once ashore.) They are useful for taking dot bases for later development, or unoccupied bases you can then land bigger forces on without prep time. Their supply capacity is also about triple an SS.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 6/27/2015 8:32:30 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 110
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/27/2015 7:31:31 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		There are two monster Dutch sub laying machines...I seem to recall.

put mines in choke points, or in front of CD guns, or in bases the IJN wants to bombard or Japanese bases where cripples might go to after a fight.

Nasty.

Save your 13 knot Yank subs...you can turn them into SSTs which are a lot of fun.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 111
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/27/2015 7:35:25 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

There are two monster Dutch sub laying machines...I seem to recall.

put mines in choke points, or in front of CD guns, or in bases the IJN wants to bombard or Japanese bases where cripples might go to after a fight.

Nasty.

Save your 13 knot Yank subs...you can turn them into SSTs which are a lot of fun.


I think you're referring to the Dutch O-boats.

Problem with choke points is decay rate. It's a trade off. I've put mines a few times in deep water when I thought the odds were worth it. But they go poof pretty fast. Shallow water is slower, but still faster than a harbor. Mines don't hit in&out bombardment missions much. They do mess up landings with bombardment as a piece.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 112
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/28/2015 3:30:27 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		Don't forget that APDs are capable ASW ships and can be used to haul stuff while escorting a convoy.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 113
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/28/2015 5:08:17 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Don't forget that APDs are capable ASW ships and can be used to haul stuff while escorting a convoy.


I tend to use them in ASW TFs at first as they're better than anything you have except the very few RN DDs that often die near Singers. Later they're Fast Transport guys until I get LST/LCI.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 114
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/28/2015 5:11:04 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo


I recall in the war with Germany, the German sub packs, wolf packs, were quite effective, especially when roaming as a group of four. In your opinion would that be good for the allies against japan...groups of four allied subs...hunting?

Best Regards,

-Terry


I missed this one yesterday.

A lot of discussion of this topic early in the game's life. One good thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2889330&mpage=1&key=multiple�

In particular Don Bowen's post. He wrote/developed/altered much or all of the naval code in the game as part of the Henderson Field team:

"There are several general issues with single/multiple sub TFs.

Chance to find the enemy - each TF has a chance, without regard to number of subs in the TF. So 3 TFs with one sub are more likely to encounter the enemy than one TF with three subs.

Which sub attacks - Only one sub from each TF will attack. In a single sub TF there is no option. In a multiple sub TF the "best" sub will be selected. This is based on damage, ammo, (and fuel?) Basically the least damaged with the most ammo. I think fuel is also considered in the spirit of "one more attack before I have to run home to refuel". Once that single sub attacks, the engagement is over. There is no code to support multiple attacks.

Multiple attacks - There is, however, a chance that the same sub TF will re-contact the same enemy TF. If that happens a different sub from a "wolf pack" might be chosen to attack. This could look like coordinated attacks in the combat report but it is really just a series of attacks.

Detection - I do not know is multiple subs increases the chance of detection of the "wolfpack", but I suspect so. I don't think there is special-circumstance code either way, so whatever the general detection code does... In most circumstances, more ships in the the TF means higher chances of detection.

For the record - I never run wolfpacks. I prefer "line" patrol zones - two points fairly close together so the sub bounces back and forth in the targeted area. Multiple sub TFs can be placed in the same area, with patrol lines crossing. "

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 115
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/28/2015 5:48:23 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo


I recall in the war with Germany, the German sub packs, wolf packs, were quite effective, especially when roaming as a group of four. In your opinion would that be good for the allies against japan...groups of four allied subs...hunting?

Best Regards,

-Terry


I missed this one yesterday.

A lot of discussion of this topic early in the game's life. One good thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2889330&mpage=1&key=multiple�

In particular Don Bowen's post. He wrote/developed/altered much or all of the naval code in the game as part of the Henderson Field team:

"There are several general issues with single/multiple sub TFs.

Chance to find the enemy - each TF has a chance, without regard to number of subs in the TF. So 3 TFs with one sub are more likely to encounter the enemy than one TF with three subs.

Which sub attacks - Only one sub from each TF will attack. In a single sub TF there is no option. In a multiple sub TF the "best" sub will be selected. This is based on damage, ammo, (and fuel?) Basically the least damaged with the most ammo. I think fuel is also considered in the spirit of "one more attack before I have to run home to refuel". Once that single sub attacks, the engagement is over. There is no code to support multiple attacks.

Multiple attacks - There is, however, a chance that the same sub TF will re-contact the same enemy TF. If that happens a different sub from a "wolf pack" might be chosen to attack. This could look like coordinated attacks in the combat report but it is really just a series of attacks.

Detection - I do not know is multiple subs increases the chance of detection of the "wolfpack", but I suspect so. I don't think there is special-circumstance code either way, so whatever the general detection code does... In most circumstances, more ships in the the TF means higher chances of detection.

For the record - I never run wolfpacks. I prefer "line" patrol zones - two points fairly close together so the sub bounces back and forth in the targeted area. Multiple sub TFs can be placed in the same area, with patrol lines crossing. "

I remember that. I don't how this experience I'm about to relate plays into - were there code changes since Don's post or is it just how things show up in the combat report - but for what it's worth... in my AAR I show where in a single 'combat' as shown in the replay animations and in the combat report, one of my opponent's subs sank 3x AO (three fleet oilers) at once. If I can find the AAR post I will put a link here.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 116
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/28/2015 5:56:49 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Here, at post 1985
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2966329&mpage=67&key=

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Iwo-jima at 109,78

Japanese Ships
SS I-54, hits 16, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
DE Engstrom
AO Mascoma, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
AO Cahaba, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
AO Monongahela
AO Tappahanock, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage

SS I-54 launches 2 torpedoes at DE Engstrom
I-54 diving deep ....
DE Engstrom fails to find sub, continues to search...
DE Engstrom fails to find sub, continues to search...
DE Engstrom fails to find sub, continues to search...
DE Engstrom attacking submerged sub ....
SS I-54 forced to surface!
AO Mascoma firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Cahaba firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Monongahela firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Tappahanock firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Mascoma firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Cahaba firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Monongahela firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Tappahanock firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Mascoma firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Cahaba firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Monongahela firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Tappahanock firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Mascoma firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Cahaba firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Monongahela firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Tappahanock firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Mascoma firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Cahaba firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Monongahela firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Tappahanock firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Mascoma firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Cahaba firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Monongahela firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Tappahanock firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Mascoma firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Cahaba firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Monongahela firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Tappahanock firing on surfaced sub ....
Sub slips beneath the waves


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


_____________________________

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

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 117
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/28/2015 6:01:23 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline 		I think when a sub is forced to surface from damage and enters the "desperation phase attacks" just before it usually sinks, that all bets are off. IOW it goes to a different sub-routine (or method) in the code.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 118
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/28/2015 6:06:20 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I think when a sub is forced to surface from damage and enters the "desperation phase attacks" just before it usually sinks, that all bets are off. IOW it goes to a different sub-routine (or method) in the code.

Then from now on all my escorts will be ordered to attack subs 'just a little'!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 119
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 6/28/2015 6:30:14 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I think when a sub is forced to surface from damage and enters the "desperation phase attacks" just before it usually sinks, that all bets are off. IOW it goes to a different sub-routine (or method) in the code.

Then from now on all my escorts will be ordered to attack subs 'just a little'!


Riiiiiight!

FWIW I've never seen a desperation phase total like you show. Anyone would be fine losing a sub for that bag.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

0.782