Iwo-Jima Defeat

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

hades1001
Posts: 977
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:05 pm

Iwo-Jima Defeat

Post by hades1001 »

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
Image

As swift as wind;
As calm as wood;
Invasion like flames;
Defense like rocks.
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat

Post by AW1Steve »

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. [:(]
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat

Post by 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
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat

Post by AW1Steve »

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".
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat

Post by AW1Steve »

I don't see many combat engineers employed. You need more to reduce fortifications.
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat

Post by GreyJoy »

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

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
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat

Post by GreyJoy »

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[:D]
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat

Post by AW1Steve »

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

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.
hades1001
Posts: 977
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:05 pm

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat

Post by 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...
Image

As swift as wind;
As calm as wood;
Invasion like flames;
Defense like rocks.
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat

Post by GreyJoy »

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve



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.
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat

Post by GreyJoy »

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...
User avatar
catwhoorg
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Location: Uk expat lving near Atlanta

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat

Post by catwhoorg »

How many days did you pre-bombard?

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



Image
hades1001
Posts: 977
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:05 pm

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat

Post by hades1001 »

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
Image

As swift as wind;
As calm as wood;
Invasion like flames;
Defense like rocks.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


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.
hades1001
Posts: 977
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:05 pm

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat

Post by 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.


ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy




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.
Image

As swift as wind;
As calm as wood;
Invasion like flames;
Defense like rocks.
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat

Post by 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.
Image
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
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.
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat

Post by Chickenboy »

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.
Image
hades1001
Posts: 977
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:05 pm

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat

Post by 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)
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.
Image

As swift as wind;
As calm as wood;
Invasion like flames;
Defense like rocks.
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: Iwo-Jima Defeat

Post by GreyJoy »

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.


ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve





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 [;)]
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”