Islands of Destiny: RA 5.0 Japanese Side

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

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

User avatar
Panther Bait
Posts: 654
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:59 pm

RE: May 1944

Post by Panther Bait »

John,

I hope your mother in law pulls through okay, although I expect it will be a long road back even then. I think I can say we'll all keep warm thoughts in our hearts.

Mike
When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard
User avatar
Bif1961
Posts: 2014
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:52 pm
Location: Phenix City, Alabama

RE: May 1944

Post by Bif1961 »

Hoping for her successful surgery and a swift recovery.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17459
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: May 1944

Post by John 3rd »

Just sent this to Michael and Dan but thought I'd Post it here as well:

Hi Guys.

Worked until 3:30pm today and then went to the hospital. My Mother-in-Law was in surgery from 2-5pm and they didn’t let her up to her room until 8pm. We got home around 9:00pm. Tired and worn out but Mary (Paula’s Mom) did quite well with the surgery and LOOKS like she will recover. She had to have her C7-C8 fused together with a metal plate and screws but everything looks OK. She has a three month (minimum) recovery in front of her.

John
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
BillBrown
Posts: 2335
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 3:55 am

RE: May 1944

Post by BillBrown »

That is good news John.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17459
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: May 1944

Post by John 3rd »

Thanks guys. Much appreciated.

Got a turn off to Dan and am headed to work. Am planning on an update tonight.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17459
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

June 1944

Post by John 3rd »

Wanted to take a moment and Post what the surviving Kaigun looks like presently:

The main portion of the Fleet is at Yokohoma:
Kido Butai-1
CV--Hiryu, Soryu, Shokaku
CVL-Ibuki
CB Ikoma
CA 2, CL, and DD 6

Kido Butai-2
CV--Unryu, Amagi, Katsuragi, and Kasigi
BC--Hiei
CA 2, CL, and DD 6

Kido Butai-3
CV--Ryukaku, Taikaku, Renkaku (Shokaku-Kai Class)
CV--Junyo
BC--Kongo
CA 2, CL, DD 6

STF-1
BC--Kirishima
CA 2, and 8 DD

Aircraft: 413 A6M8/Sam, 229 Judy, and 170 Jills.

BB Ise is unassigned as she is re-sizing FP groups by the bucket.


Dutch East Indies
Kido Butai-4
CV--Akagi, Aso, Ikoma
CVL-Ryujo, Shoho, Ryuho, Kurama
BC--Haruna
CA 1, CL 2, DD 9

Aircraft: 218 A6M8/Sam, 55 Judy, 87 Jills.

STF-2
BB--Nagato and Musashi
CL 2, and DD 5

There is one CA getting repaired at Saigon presently.

That is the entire Fleet.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
Anachro
Posts: 2506
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 4:51 pm
Location: The Coastal Elite

RE: June 1944

Post by Anachro »

Serial 0228E June 3, 1942
SECRET

From: Commander-in-Chief, Combined Fleet
To: Commander, Mobile Fleet (Operation Plan Z)
Subject: Letter of Instruction

1. In carrying out the task assigned in Operation Z you will be governed
by the principle of calculated risk, which you shall interpret to mean the avoidance
of exposure of your force to attack by superior enemy forces without good prospect
of inflicting, as a result of such exposure, greater damage to the enemy.

2. The fate of the nation rests on the outcome of this one battle and you should act
accordingly.

Toyoda
"Now excuse me while I go polish my balls ..." - BBfanboy
User avatar
DRF99
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:51 pm

RE: June 1944

Post by DRF99 »

So the main KB is:
418F, 229DB, 170TB

And the DEI KB is:
218F, 55DB, 87TB

Combined they would be:
636F, 284DB, 257TB

Are you better combining them? Would the combined KB have a significantly better chance going toe-to-toe against the Death Star or not? I don't know the answer but if the present main KB would have a low chance of success and the combined a 50/50 or better chance you should consider combining them. I'm not sure what the benefit of the DEI KB is and if it's worth the increased risk to the main KB.

DRF
MechFO
Posts: 767
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:06 am

RE: May 1944

Post by MechFO »

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth
What a load of horse caca...
In June & July 1944 the Allies successfully use 4EB to inflict similar casualties on large concentrations of dug in German troops. Lancaster's, Liberators and B-17 bombardments were regularly used before attacks to do exactly what Dan is doing. There is historical precedent for this. On July 26th 1944, the 8th airforce used 4EB to kill 1,000 German troops. The Germans had no fighter cover and little AAA to speak of and the results were devastating. You need fighters, you need AAA. Without them, you are seeing accurate, historical results.

Even in the one case where it arguably worked, it took

1500 4EB
300 2EB
500 FB

all flying at very short range, so with heavy bomb loads, to achieve the effect.

A few dozen or even a hundred 4EB achieving something similar is ludicrous.

This kind of support stopped because the effect was dismal compared to the massive resources invested.

Fewer bombers will get disproportionally worse results since a smaller footprint means a heavy reliance on intel, targeting and accuracy to hit something worthwhile.

That said, this is a game engine, with all the idiosyncrasies that this entails.
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7191
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: May 1944

Post by HansBolter »

ORIGINAL: MechFO

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth
What a load of horse caca...
In June & July 1944 the Allies successfully use 4EB to inflict similar casualties on large concentrations of dug in German troops. Lancaster's, Liberators and B-17 bombardments were regularly used before attacks to do exactly what Dan is doing. There is historical precedent for this. On July 26th 1944, the 8th airforce used 4EB to kill 1,000 German troops. The Germans had no fighter cover and little AAA to speak of and the results were devastating. You need fighters, you need AAA. Without them, you are seeing accurate, historical results.

Even in the one case where it arguably worked, it took

1500 4EB
300 2EB
500 FB

all flying at very short range, so with heavy bomb loads, to achieve the effect.

A few dozen or even a hundred 4EB achieving something similar is ludicrous.

This kind of support stopped because the effect was dismal compared to the massive resources invested.

No more ludicrous than netties having a 60%-65% hit rate with torpedoes......

You want the 4Es nerfed then in all fairness you HAVE to nerf the netties as well.c[;)]


Hans

MechFO
Posts: 767
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:06 am

RE: May 1944

Post by MechFO »

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: MechFO

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth


In June & July 1944 the Allies successfully use 4EB to inflict similar casualties on large concentrations of dug in German troops. Lancaster's, Liberators and B-17 bombardments were regularly used before attacks to do exactly what Dan is doing. There is historical precedent for this. On July 26th 1944, the 8th airforce used 4EB to kill 1,000 German troops. The Germans had no fighter cover and little AAA to speak of and the results were devastating. You need fighters, you need AAA. Without them, you are seeing accurate, historical results.

Even in the one case where it arguably worked, it took

1500 4EB
300 2EB


No more ludicrous than netties having a 60%-65% hit rate with torpedoes......

You want the 4Es nerfed then in all fairness you HAVE to nerf the netties as well.c[;)]
500 FB

all flying at very short range, so with heavy bomb loads, to achieve the effect.

A few dozen or even a hundred 4EB achieving something similar is ludicrous.

This kind of support stopped because the effect was dismal compared to the massive resources invested.

It's not about nerfing anything, merely to correct assertions that ludicrous results due to game engine logic has anything to do with reality. This can be extended to all wargames since arguably non get it "right".
User avatar
JohnDillworth
Posts: 3102
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:22 pm

RE: May 1944

Post by JohnDillworth »

full stop. the complaint was that 4EB were not operationally used to bomb ground troops. John said he was fine with 2EB, but 4 EB should not be allowed. I called BS. 4EB can, and were, and should be, allowed to bomb troops. There track record is short...but it certainly happened to great effect.
Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17459
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: May 1944

Post by John 3rd »

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
ORIGINAL: MechFO

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth


In June & July 1944 the Allies successfully use 4EB to inflict similar casualties on large concentrations of dug in German troops. Lancaster's, Liberators and B-17 bombardments were regularly used before attacks to do exactly what Dan is doing. There is historical precedent for this. On July 26th 1944, the 8th airforce used 4EB to kill 1,000 German troops. The Germans had no fighter cover and little AAA to speak of and the results were devastating. You need fighters, you need AAA. Without them, you are seeing accurate, historical results.

Even in the one case where it arguably worked, it took

1500 4EB
300 2EB
500 FB

all flying at very short range, so with heavy bomb loads, to achieve the effect.

A few dozen or even a hundred 4EB achieving something similar is ludicrous.

This kind of support stopped because the effect was dismal compared to the massive resources invested.

No more ludicrous than netties having a 60%-65% hit rate with torpedoes......

You want the 4Es nerfed then in all fairness you HAVE to nerf the netties as well.c[;)]



I wouldn't have an issue with that at all! It is a two way street after all...
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
Aurorus
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 5:08 pm

RE: May 1944

Post by Aurorus »

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

full stop. the complaint was that 4EB were not operationally used to bomb ground troops. John said he was fine with 2EB, but 4 EB should not be allowed. I called BS. 4EB can, and were, and should be, allowed to bomb troops. There track record is short...but it certainly happened to great effect.

Allied generals were concerned with the inaccuracy of the 4 engine bombers as close support bombers, not the effectiveness of 4 EBs on ground troops. Everyone acknowledged that they were very effective against ground troops.

That 4 EB were not used frequently against ground troops in WWII has more to do with allied strategic decisions than the aircraft capabiities. The allies chose to use them against airbases, railheads, and industry. There is no reason that an allied player in WiTP should be bound by this strategic decision, just as the Japanese player should not be forced to send 4 of his carriers half way across the Pacific blind in support of an invasion of an insignificant atoll.

In my opinion, the game engine handles all aspects of the airwar very well. That is just my opinion. If I did not think so, I would not enjoy the game.
MechFO
Posts: 767
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:06 am

RE: May 1944

Post by MechFO »

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

full stop. the complaint was that 4EB were not operationally used to bomb ground troops. John said he was fine with 2EB, but 4 EB should not be allowed. I called BS. 4EB can, and were, and should be, allowed to bomb troops. There track record is short...but it certainly happened to great effect.

Calling a

1 casualty per 1.5 4EB sortie
1 casualty per 4.5 ton bombs (includes ordnance from FB/2EB)

ratio (assuming generously that the other 800 aircraft in Cobra were twiddling thumbs) vs a concentrated, very well reconned enemy force in open terrain that was about as easy to pinpoint by air navigation as it gets "great effect" brings new meaning to that word.

Minisubs were used operationally as well. They did not sink half the Pacific Fleet. It is trivial to give them game values that allow them to do so and there might even be good gameplay reasons, but it would bear no relation to the real world.
User avatar
Bif1961
Posts: 2014
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:52 pm
Location: Phenix City, Alabama

RE: May 1944

Post by Bif1961 »

4E bombers were used very frequently in NG against ground troops the problem was ground troops were very hard to see in the jungle so they used area bombing and hop bombers so 2E bombers were far more frequently used in the Pacific. To say that 4E bombers can not bomb troops is to say Betties can't as well since they were naval bombers. It is not true and short of the game engine fluke, it should be allowed.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17459
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: May 1944

Post by John 3rd »

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

full stop. the complaint was that 4EB were not operationally used to bomb ground troops. John said he was fine with 2EB, but 4 EB should not be allowed. I called BS. 4EB can, and were, and should be, allowed to bomb troops. There track record is short...but it certainly happened to great effect.

Allied generals were concerned with the inaccuracy of the 4 engine bombers as close support bombers, not the effectiveness of 4 EBs on ground troops. Everyone acknowledged that they were very effective against ground troops.

That 4 EB were not used frequently against ground troops in WWII has more to do with allied strategic decisions than the aircraft capabiities. The allies chose to use them against airbases, railheads, and industry. There is no reason that an allied player in WiTP should be bound by this strategic decision, just as the Japanese player should not be forced to send 4 of his carriers half way across the Pacific blind in support of an invasion of an insignificant atoll.

In my opinion, the game engine handles all aspects of the airwar very well. That is just my opinion. If I did not think so, I would not enjoy the game.

Everyone points to the single big example of Cobra for 4EB. How about the massive 'friendly fire' casualties that happened in several the Bocage attacks there. Didn't the army lose a 3-Star General who went to watch and got killed when they bombed short?

Simple reality, as alluded to earlier, is that the game engine simply cannot handle it.

EX: June 5th Turn just run in Dan and I's game. A 32 plane Liberator attack at Batangas against troops in Sz-4 Forts, not moving, two AA units present, and CAP. Result: 1 Liberator shot down, 11 Damaged to AA/Fighters, and 404 Japanese Cas on the ground.

Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17459
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

June 1944

Post by John 3rd »

June 5, 1944

Back to the war...

Japanese IHQ has been highly concerned about the lack of American Army troops being seen in the SW Pacific offensive. There has been great worries of a third front (after Burma--Thailand and the DEI) opening but this turn calms fears somewhat. Three US Inf Div are identified in the attack upon Lucena. There are certainly more with 38 units still in Legaspi.

Thank goodness these are finally spotted. Orders are given to lift to full strength, experienced ID out of the Marianas for deployment elsewhere. Additionally, four HQ units present in the Marianas will also be lifted for redeployment. Southern Army to go to Formosa. The AK/APs are already there so this shall be done quickly.

At Tokyo an Infantry Division begins loading.

An additional ID will be pulled from the Kuriles as well.


Image
Attachments
060544.jpg
060544.jpg (417.11 KiB) Viewed 100 times
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17459
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: June 1944

Post by John 3rd »

I nicely successful aerial ambush occurred today over Central Luzon. Results are very pleasant:


Image
Attachments
060544a.jpg
060544a.jpg (266.62 KiB) Viewed 100 times
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17459
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: June 1944

Post by John 3rd »

ORIGINAL: Anachro

Serial 0228E June 3, 1942
SECRET

From: Commander-in-Chief, Combined Fleet
To: Commander, Mobile Fleet (Operation Plan Z)
Subject: Letter of Instruction

1. In carrying out the task assigned in Operation Z you will be governed
by the principle of calculated risk, which you shall interpret to mean the avoidance
of exposure of your force to attack by superior enemy forces without good prospect
of inflicting, as a result of such exposure, greater damage to the enemy.

2. The fate of the nation rests on the outcome of this one battle and you should act
accordingly.

Toyoda

The Fleet raises anchor after six weeks in Yokohoma. First step is moving to Hiroshima where another Daitai of M8 will convert to Sam. After that, the TFs move on the Naha, Okinawa.


Image
Attachments
060544b.jpg
060544b.jpg (375.26 KiB) Viewed 100 times
Image

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

Return to “After Action Reports”