Matrix Games Forums

Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser TrailerDeal of the Week Alea Jacta Est
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Death to Corsiars!

 
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: Death to Corsiars! Page: <<   < prev  29 30 31 [32] 33   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Death to Corsiars! - 12/30/2010 7:05:00 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
What he's doing is an error irrespective of his goal.

1. If he's trying to close Truk he's going about it the wrong way. Sweep, sweep, sweep and when your fighter backbone is broken hit it with one or two days of overwhelming bomber strikes. That would cost far less than this half-hearted, mixed effort.

2. If it is a diversion then he is losing the airframes he needs to dominate the skies over the schwerpunkt - this is poor play. In essence his diversion is reducing the chance of his primary thrust succeeding. This is a massive strategic faux pas. Diversions must ALWAYS promote the schwerpunkt, never reduce its chance of success.

3. If it is anything else then he is guilty of a lack of clarity of thought and is frittering away forces in neither a diversion nor a full-blooded effort to take Truk. Again, a serious error.


Overall I think it is most likely that we're seeing a poorly executed attempt to neutralise Truk. The question is why?
1. Is this the instinctual - "I've just lost a huge battle, I've got to hit back somewhere, about the only place the USAAF can hit which matters is Truk so I'll hit that." If that's the case then I would suggest you not seek to defeat this thrust. I do my very best not to dissuade an opponent when they're busy impaling themselves on their own sword. Let his attacks continue and only feed in sufficient forces that you keep a nice level of attrition. Over time you can wear down his forces such that his LBA will take months to recover. If you concentrate too much and destroy one raid in its entirety it may dissuade him from further raids before his LBA and fighter squadrons are sufficiently destroyed that they'll give you the strategic space you need to reinforce your perimeter.

2. He may be trying to reduce Truk so that he can move amphibious TFs into the area free of the spectre of LBA. This is poor strategic thinking as surprise is a far better cloak than suppression of LBA when it comes to protecting shipping. E.g. I recently reinvaded Malaysia with just under 300 ships in a PBEM as the Allies. My total losses comprised one xAK and one xAP. I had NO bombing raids suppressing fields or recon flights in the two weeks preceding the invasion and in the month preceding invasion I had a total of two bombing/recon raids to check the defences. Surprise is a far better cloak than suppression when you don't have CVs able to stand up to KB.

So, really, whatever he is doing it appears to be a mistake you can take advantage of so long as you continue to draw him into committing in such unfavourable circumstances. Just don't commit too much so he doesn't reconsider until attrition has destroyed his 4-engines ability to achieve strategically-relevant results.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Misconduct)
Post #: 931
RE: Death to Corsiars! - 12/31/2010 5:33:31 PM   
cap_and_gown


Posts: 2691
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
Feb. 6, 1942

First off, let me thank Jcar, RedCharlie65 and Misconduct for their kind words. I am glad that this AAR has proven useful. I have learned a lot and I would do things rather differently were I to play this again. I will have more to say about that later, but for now I hope this AAR can provide insight into both winning and losing tactics/doctrines/strategies.

Nemo: I would have to disagree about the sweep-sweep-sweep idea. As long as your opponent can keep feeding in reinforcements, you will never get to the bomb-bomb-bomb part. If the idea is to shutdown the airfield, then you need to work on shutting down the airfield. We are now on day three of the current operation against Truk and witpqs has gotten the service damage up to 35 and runway damage up to 18. Because of the service damage, my planes are repairing slower, particularly the high service rating planes, and this keeping on the ground as effectively as if they had been shot down.

The question is: can he keep it up? He has apparently planned on a sustained campaign here. On the first day, 48 B-24s flew out of Ponape. On the second day, 48 B-24s flew out of Kusaie. On the third day, 48 B-24s again flew out of Ponape. So he has intentionally staggered the commitment of 4E in order to apply steady pressure instead of relying on one big raid. Also, the fighters have been alternating rather than all being committed at once. How long can he continue to sweep the field to clear the way for his bombers, though?

Running Tally of allied fighter strength and losses:
day 1 - 111 fighters, 59 lost
day 2 - 159 fighters, 66 lost
day 3 - 89 fighters, 34 lost

Running Tally of Japanese fighter strength and losses: (excluding ground)
day 1 - 173 fighters, 41 lost
day 2 - 123 fighters, 30 lost
day 3 - 155 fighters, 32 lost

Details of Day 3 action:

56 x F4U-1 - 12 A2A, 4 ops (28% loss rate)
33 x F4U-1A - 16 A2A, 2 ops (54% loss rate)
48 x B-24J - 2 A2A (4% loss rate)

65 x Tojo - 11 A2A, (17% loss rate) +1 ground
24 x George - 7 A2A, 2 ops (37% loss rate) +4 ground (flying night ops)
38 x Tony - 8 A2A, 2 ops (26% loss rate)
28 x Frank - 1 A2A, 1 ops (7% loss rate) +2 ground

Pilot losses:
11 KIA, 5 WIA

Kills claimed by airframe type:
George - 6 kills
Frank - 3 kills
Tony - 6 kills
Tojo - 12 kills

The Tony did not behave as I expected, perhaps because it was flown by rather decent pilots. It was not as deadly as I thought it might be with its highly accurate 20mm cannons. OTOH, it was not as vulnerable as I feared. The loss rate was not out of line for the other airframe types. OTOH, this was only one combat. We will see how that holds up.

Total Corsair F4U-1 losses are now 260. Only 270 are produced and about 50 more arrive with squadrons. So the Marines have just about run out of F4U-1's. Obviously, F4U-1A's are now being produced and their production numbers are much higher. But if he gives those newer Corsairs to the Marines, he will not be able to outfit his CVs with them, which is what I am sure he wanted to do. (That is why, I believe, this operation has mostly relied of the older Corsair - the newer model was being used for the CVs!) On top of that, if these were all marines, and I suspect they were, then the Corps has lost ~100 pilots in the last few days. That is a fairly heavy toll. There are also Army pilots/planes that could be thrown into the mix again. But the P-38J made a very poor combat debut. Probably the pilots were not as good. Maybe he will bring over some P-47s. Right now they seem to be operating in Northern Australia and Burma.

So the allies have taken a hit, but so have the Japanese. I am bringing in reinforcements from other theaters to help out. A George unit that had been practicing on the Chinese is coming down south. A Frank unit and a Tojo unit are also heading over from the DEI.

What is most worrisome is the airfield service damage. This will keep my planes from being repaired. I am also concerned that production of "frontline" fighters (i.e. Tojo IIc, Tony Id, Frank) is not keeping up with losses. I am producing 20 of these planes a day, but losing 30+ a day. I have a bunch of older Tojo IIa's, but I don't want to fight with those! Production is increasing, but that is a slow process.

So, to do something about this situation, I have decided on a bombardment against Ponape. I am going to use my 4 fast BBs plus 2 CAs to bombard Ponape. Right now they are at Satawal and will be in position to make their run tomorrow night. From my recon, and from the fact that no naval attacks against my shipping at Truk have occurred, it seems evident that there are no dive or torpedo bombers at Ponape, just the B-24s. Thus, I am gambling that my ships will not face an air attack tomorrow as they set up for their run into Ponape. With moonlight at 96% and 9 DDs with surface radar, PT boats and enemy surface forces should not be a problem. Also, the appearance of my bombardment group may prompt a pause in the action over Truk as witpqs retreats various air groups to protect them from being destroyed on the ground. That, anyway, is my thinking.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 932
RE: Death to Corsiars! - 1/1/2011 3:49:01 AM   
cap_and_gown


Posts: 2691
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
Feb. 7, 1942

The allies are making progress in their effort to shutdown Truk airfield. It looks like they are going to commit everything they have to this effort. What they hope to gain I am not sure, though. I have 3 divisions there, 1400 AV behind 6 forts in Jungle-Rough terrain with a 60,000 man limit. My sense is that an invasion would be a disaster. Short of invasion, what is the point?

At any rate, airfield damage is up to: Service 50, Runway 43
If the Runway goes to 75 the place will be shut down.

Today saw B-17s committed. They had been over in Northern Australia. Now the last of the allied Fortress fleet is being thrown into the battle. For the first time, allied losses were less than Japanese. Our pilots are getting tired. A new formation was flown in today and two old, beat up ones were rotated out to rebuild.

72 x F4U-1A - 20 A2A, 4 ops (33% loss rate)
12 x F4U-1 - 2 A2A (16% loss rate)
47 x B-17E
11 x B-17F
30 x B-24J - 1 flak

George - 3 kills - losses 2 A2A, 5 ground
Tony - 0 kills, - losses 8 A2A, 2 ground
Frank - 7 kills - losses 6 A2A, 1 ground
Tojo - 9 kills - losses 17 A2A, 2 ops, 4 ground

Pilots: 12 KIA, 9 WIA

The Tony's did horrible today, and the Tojo's suffered higher losses than I have ever seen from them. Maybe a symptom of fatigue.

To generate more "second generation" planes for reinforcements, I have now down graded almost all the Tojo IIc formations in China to older planes. The Army is also running low on fighter pilots. I may need to take a couple of front line formations and strip them of veteran pilots and turn them into training formations.

The bright spot is that my bombardment TF was not spotted. Amazing! It consists of 4 x BB, 2 x CA, and 9 x DD = 15 ships. And yet they were not seen. Believe me, I checked, rechecked, and checked again that I have everything set right: no escort bombard, all float planes to night recon with 0 hex range, mission speed, retirement allowed, Truk as home port, min range of 26 (I am sure the allies have put in coastal defense guns and I would like to mostly avoid them. they also no doubt have mines, but they rarely impact bombardment TFs.) At any rate, I think bombardment will come as something of a shock. I just hope it hits the airfield which recon indicates has 135 fighters and about 60 bombers.

(in reply to cap_and_gown)
Post #: 933
RE: Death to Corsiars! - 1/1/2011 4:03:05 AM   
vicberg

 

Posts: 682
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
Absolutely no reason for him to invade it.  He's going to do what the allies did IRL.  He's going to neutralize Truk, bypass it for deeper targets and make 1400 AV of POWs.  He can't strike past truk if you have a fully functional air force. 


(in reply to cap_and_gown)
Post #: 934
RE: Death to Corsiars! - 1/1/2011 4:21:06 AM   
vicberg

 

Posts: 682
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
Cap, George is a well read historian.  That's his achilles heal so to speak.  He's following right along with the allied historical advance.  Marshalls, now neutralize Truk.  His next steps will most likely be two step...landings on New Guinea to support invasions on the Phillipines and a deep strike towards Saipan...his carrier losses have put his time table back some, so he may skip New Guinea, and go straight for Saipan.  It's pretty obvious that this is his direction of attack.  It's the most direct route to Tokyo. 

Consider everything in Sopac (and I haven't seen a map in a while, so no idea what's there) at risk.  Also, the 1400 AV in Truk.  It may be too late for them. 

You should consider that if you totally expend yourself in Truk, there may be nothing left for the Marianas.  I haven't looked at your defensive scheme in a while, but I believe you've built up the marianas in a number of places.  Without adequate planes to defend it, he'll step right in and have built in airfields to attack the Phillipines and/or go straight for Iwo-Jima and assault up that chain to japan. 

If victory is Tokyo, and my time table was put back some, I'd go Iwo-Jima, and up from there. 

< Message edited by vicberg -- 1/1/2011 5:20:01 AM >

(in reply to vicberg)
Post #: 935
RE: Death to Corsiars! - 1/1/2011 4:37:49 AM   
vicberg

 

Posts: 682
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
I haven't seen the combat results from your carrier battle (and I have been following this AAR for a while), but you didn't get all of them and he's getting a BUNCH more...

Nemo121...this isn't an error in thinking.  It's exactly what the allies did IRL.  And it's working. 

This truk attack is a preperation.  No way to know his time table.  But say by mid 44, he'll have MORE than enough carriers to do a marianas and New Guinea assault (though I think New Guinea is not an option because of his losses), even with a functional KB, and I doubt he'll make the same mistake twice with his carriers. 

You need to decide when to fold on Truk...how many air and pilot losses can you take?  If it's too much, then there won't be much to stop the marianas attack and if that falls, you'll be in trouble.  He may not even go for phillipines to prevent kamakazies...he'll wait for Iwo...there aren't that many island above that could launch kamakazies and he will have quite a few level 4 fields in the marianas to start strategic and tactical bombings.

The devious part of me says bail on Truk and hope he thinks it's weak enough to invade.  If he falls for it, he will get involved in a long ground battle and that will set him back much further. 

(in reply to vicberg)
Post #: 936
RE: Death to Corsiars! - 1/1/2011 2:18:54 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12179
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
The Corsair losses are horrible, losing more than a monthly replacement of the F4U-1, two weeks of the F4U-1A and three weeksī replacements of the B-24 in three days is something the Allied is absolutely feeling. For my taste, I would have stopped after the first day already, no, I guess I wouldnīt even frontally attack a fully stacked fighter nest because until late 44 itīs still easier for the Japanese to replace fighter losses than it is for the Allied IMO. Doing it that way, the Allied is hurt by far more than the Japanese. Everything below a 3:1 for the Allied in first line aircraft losses is a loss IMO at this date. Iīve just had quite some success with a naval bombardment, so that would be the way to go for me for the first attack.

The problem with "neutralizing" a place is that you canīt in the game IMO if the enemy has got enough eng there. Iīve thought I would do the same with a couple of major Japanese strongholds but having three divs plus support at Truk means the airfield is going to be repaired in a couple of days so permanently shutting it down is more or less impossible. At some point you suddenly meet 200 fighters there again that trash your daily milk run and then the fighters are flown out again when you try to kill them off. Rinse and repeat... Bypassing the place yes, neutralizing it permanently, no. I donīt see much problem of bypassing Truk as it is just too far away from all the other bases. Ok, it of course depends on the exact way the Allies take. All in all, to me it definately looks like a Japanese victory here and like Cap said, an invasion against such a force would only result in a disaster. Not because the Allied canīt take out three divs in general, they just canīt take them out if they only land 60000 troops and landing far more is senseless with the stacking rules.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 1/1/2011 2:27:10 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to cap_and_gown)
Post #: 937
RE: Death to Corsiars! - 1/1/2011 11:34:18 PM   
krupp_88mm


Posts: 411
Joined: 10/13/2008
Status: offline
i would absolutely not abandon truk, what about using some carrier force with fighters to place cap over truck, you outnumber him so well in carriers now it might be worth it to ambush his carrier planes and 4E's over truk and essentially reset the progress hes made, you wouldnt even have to commit the entire KB and could keep others ready to counter invasions in the Mariannas or elsewhere, this is the last time you'll have an advantage for some time id use it to set back his advance as late as you can, if you can halt his advance to 1945 the game will be won

< Message edited by krupp_88mm -- 1/1/2011 11:35:12 PM >

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 938
RE: Death to Corsiars! - 1/2/2011 12:27:29 AM   
cap_and_gown


Posts: 2691
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: krupp_88mm

i would absolutely not abandon truk, what about using some carrier force with fighters to place cap over truck, you outnumber him so well in carriers now it might be worth it to ambush his carrier planes and 4E's over truk and essentially reset the progress hes made, you wouldnt even have to commit the entire KB and could keep others ready to counter invasions in the Mariannas or elsewhere, this is the last time you'll have an advantage for some time id use it to set back his advance as late as you can, if you can halt his advance to 1945 the game will be won


The problem is that carriers use the Zero which is totally outclassed by Corsairs/P-47s/P-38s. Also, there is no reason to use the carrier planes for anything other than in an anti-shipping role or against land targets where little Flak and few fighters will be located. Castor Troy is right. Although Truk could be shut down for a while, to keep that up would require a huge portion of the 4E fleet. And then what do you get anyway? You still can't invade it successfully.

Believe me, I am not going to abandon it. My guess would be he might like to take for the same reason I so much want to hold it: it is key to my LOC to the Solomons. Without it, supplying my forces in the Solomons would be almost impossible. (OTOH, I am now starting to draw down my strength in the Solomons for use elsewhere.)

< Message edited by cap_and_gown -- 1/2/2011 2:58:19 PM >

(in reply to krupp_88mm)
Post #: 939
Boom! - 1/2/2011 4:06:00 PM   
cap_and_gown


Posts: 2691
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
Feb. 8, 1944

Our bombardment run did alright.

First, we ran into two separate groups of PTs. What was interesting is that they did not try to engage us but instead tried to flee right off the bat. One of the groups even had a message about "allied TF tries to get underway." Odd. I guess they didn't have any ammo.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Ponape at 119,113, Range 8,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo
BB Haruna
BB Hiei
BB Kirishima
CA Kumano
CA Aoba
DD Hamakaze
DD Nowaki
DD Arashi
DD Hagikaze
DD Tanikaze
DD Asashio
DD Shigure
DD Murasame
DD Harusame
DD Yamakaze

Allied Ships
PT-285
PT-286, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
PT-287, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
PT-288, Shell hits 2, and is sunk
PT-295, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
PT-296, Shell hits 2, and is sunk

Improved night sighting under 100% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions and 100% moonlight: 8,000 yards
CONTACT: Japanese radar detects Allied task force at 12,000 yards
Range closes to 11,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 11,000 yards
Allied ships attempt to get underway

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

Allied Ships
PT-297
PT-298
PT-299
PT-300
PT-301
PT-320

Improved night sighting under 100% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions and 100% moonlight: 8,000 yards
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 14,000 yards
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 11,000 yards
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 9,000 yards
Allied TF attempts to evade combat
Allied PT Boat TF evades combat


Next up, two of our DDs hit mines. One was sunk right away. They other may be sunk tomorrow by enemy air activity. It is right now only 2 hexes away from Ponape. I have ordered it to head to Rabaul at full speed, but that is only 4 hexes a day, and with 76 float damage a full speed run may rip the hull wide open even without any enemy attacks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 11 encounters mine field at Ponape (119,113)

Japanese Ships
DD Harusame, Mine hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Shigure, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Normally, bombardment TFs will not hit mines. In this case, however, I suspect that since the minefield was not detected ahead of time, it made our ships more likely to hit any mines there. (which actually would not be possible IRL at Ponape since the place is a seamount.)

Finally, we come to the bombardment. I suppose I should not complain since I did alright. Nevertheless, I believe that when bombarding we should be given the option of what to shoot at, just like when bombing we can target ports, airfields, or ground troops.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Ponape at 119,113

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1 Corsair: 3 destroyed on ground
B-17E Fortress: 5 destroyed on ground
P-38J Lightning: 4 destroyed on ground
B-24J Liberator: 3 destroyed on ground
F4U-1A Corsair: 5 destroyed on ground
B-17F Fortress: 1 destroyed on ground

Japanese Ships
BB Kirishima
BB Hiei
BB Haruna
BB Kongo
CA Aoba
CA Kumano

Allied ground losses:
286 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 11 destroyed, 47 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 4 disabled
Guns lost 17 (4 destroyed, 13 disabled)
Vehicles lost 20 (4 destroyed, 16 disabled)

Airbase hits 17
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 39

BB Kirishima firing at Ponape
E13A1 Jake acting as spotter for BB Hiei
BB Hiei firing at 7th Infantry Division
BB Haruna firing at Ponape
BB Kongo firing at 7th Infantry Division
E13A1 Jake acting as spotter for CA Aoba
CA Aoba firing at 33rd Infantry Division
CA Kumano firing at 7th Infantry Division

Here is the day's tally as reported by Tracker:
F4U-1A - 11 ground
F4U-1 - 4 ground
P-38J - 8 ground
B-17E - 7 ground
B-17F - 2 ground
B-24J - 6 ground, 2 ops

I don't understand the Lightings. That makes a total of 50 that have been lost. And I have seen 75 actually in the air. Yet they only produce at a rate of 10 a month starting in Dec. 43 and none arrive with squadrons. Supposedly, then, there should only be ~20 of them available. So where did the 75 come from?

By my (apparently faulty) calculations, the allies have only 40-50 F4U-1 left and they have burned up 1 month of F4U-1A production out of 4 months production so far. (F4U-1A starts in Oct. 43) They should be down to just 16 B-17F. Unfortunately, they may still have ~90 B-17E left. And, of course, Liberators are going to be very abundant no matter what I do. (double )

While the losses caused to allied AC were OK, more important was a pause in the allied bombing/sweeping campaign. I don't know if that was a result of the bombardment, or whether they were going to have a pause anyway. According to recon, the airfield at Ponape is 29% damaged. That obviously is down from whatever the BBs caused and is subject to FOW anyway. Recon indicates there are more fighters there today (196) then there were yesterday (135). So rather than backing off, it looks like witpqs was ramping up his commitment to this campaign.

Interestingly, there were no P-47s lost. Just Lightnings and Corsairs.

For my own part, runway damage at Truk, which was at 43 yesterday came down to 9 today. Service damage, of course, remained at 50. More importantly, my fighter groups got a rest and my reinforcements are now in place ready to rebase to Truk while the groups currently at Truk can be pulled out to rebuild and rest.

Perhaps most odd, the bombardment TF has still not been spotted! As far as witpqs knows, they came out of Rabaul since that is the direction my damaged DD is heading in and he has spotted that ship and its escorts. In reality, the bombardment group is heading to Truk (2 hexes away) to refuel and rearm.


< Message edited by cap_and_gown -- 1/2/2011 4:14:41 PM >

(in reply to cap_and_gown)
Post #: 940
RE: Boom! - 1/2/2011 5:24:24 PM   
USS Henrico

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 8/2/2009
From: Charlottesville, VA
Status: offline
The two older Lightning factories on the WC, 20 in 42/10 and 20 in 43/06, should have upgraded to the current version in 12/43 as well. With the 10 that started being produced in 12/43, Allied Lightning production should now be 50/mth. Just over two months into production, he should have gotten a bit over 100 of them, which would explain the 75 you've seen.

Great AAR, BTW, from a lurker.


(in reply to cap_and_gown)
Post #: 941
RE: Boom! - 1/2/2011 8:46:18 PM   
cap_and_gown


Posts: 2691
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS Henrico

The two older Lightning factories on the WC, 20 in 42/10 and 20 in 43/06, should have upgraded to the current version in 12/43 as well. With the 10 that started being produced in 12/43, Allied Lightning production should now be 50/mth. Just over two months into production, he should have gotten a bit over 100 of them, which would explain the 75 you've seen.

Great AAR, BTW, from a lurker.




Ahh that's it. Thanks.

(in reply to USS Henrico)
Post #: 942
RE: Boom! - 1/3/2011 1:12:50 AM   
krupp_88mm


Posts: 411
Joined: 10/13/2008
Status: offline
put a cap over the damaged DD's you might bag some kills easily

(in reply to cap_and_gown)
Post #: 943
RE: Boom! - 1/7/2011 10:55:06 PM   
cap_and_gown


Posts: 2691
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
Feb. 9-10, 1944

Allied efforts to shutdown Truk airbase continue. Runway damage is up to 48. More serious is service damage which is up to 73. This is preventing my planes from repairing, meaning fewer and fewer are flying. This is a problem with an airbase not connected to a rail network. Over in Burma, and now Thailand, I had/have the option of rotating damaged squadrons back to rear area bases to repair damaged planes, the damaged one, of course, using the rail network to move. That is not possible at Truk, and so the damaged planes just sit there. This also point to a doctrinal issue: use high service rating planes like Georges and Franks at bases connected to a rail network, while low service rating planes, like the Tojo, should be used at airfields that are not connected by rail.

My bombardment TF refueled and rearmed at Truk during the night of the 8th and headed back to Satawal during the daylight phase of the 9th. Surprisingly, it was still not spotted. Because of that, and because the allies have come right back at me, I decided to have another go at Ponape with my battleships. They are in position to bombard the field again tonight and, again, they are still not spotted!

Here are the air loss figures from the last two days:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 x P-38J - 8 A2A, 1 ops (50% loss rate)
67 x F4U-1A - 11 A2A, 3 ops (21% loss rate)
22 x F4U-1 - 6 A2A, 2 ops (36% loss rate)
66 x B-24J - 8 A2A, 2 ops (15% loss rate)

Tojo - 15 A2A, 4 ops, 1 ground
Frank - 15 A2A, 5 ops, 1 ground
George - 7 A2A, 1 ground

Pilots 11 KIA, 14 WIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27 x F4U-1A - 15 A2A, 2 ops (63% loss rate)
16 x F4U-1 - 6 A2A, 1 ops (43% loss rate)
16 x P38J - 7 A2A, 1 ops (50% loss rate)
19 x B-17E
6 x B-17F
76 x B-24J - 3 A2A (4% loss rate)

Tojo - 6 A2A, 16 ground, 1 ops
Frank - 4 A2A, 7 ground
George - 7 A2A, 1 ground

Pilots 5 KIA, 7 WIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Running Tally of Allied Losses:
59+66+32+26+23+31+32=269 x fighters
51 x B-24J

I would think that this level of losses would be a deterrent to continued operations against Truk, but apparently not. The Marines, especially, must be running low on pilot reserves.

In other news, I collected enough PPs to buy another division out of the home islands. It is on its way to Thailand. That will give me 7 infantry and 2 tank divisions, 3 tank regiments, and 2 independent infantry regiments there, plus the Thais. There are also numerous artillery and anti-tank battalions/regiments there.


(in reply to krupp_88mm)
Post #: 944
RE: Boom! - 1/8/2011 2:26:35 AM   
vicberg

 

Posts: 682
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
"A George don't take a dump son, without a plan"

He's starting to get all of his goodies online.  No idea about his pilot training, but it could be kicking up into high gear. 

I think he wants this and that's not good for the japs.  


(in reply to cap_and_gown)
Post #: 945
RE: Boom! - 1/8/2011 2:35:36 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2511
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
The number of losses by itself is not significant, and about pilots, Allies should have hundreds of pilots in reserve for every branch of service, due to low intensity of combat so far. The only worrysome thing for Allies is losses being suffered by their top types. But Japanese squadrons already seem to be crumbling under assault, and if Truk is rendered incapable of launching planes, keeping it in such state will be relatively easy, considering how 4Es stack against Japanese flak. I think unless Allies fail to return on the next turn or tow, due their losses or weather, to it's the time to decide whether you want to try evacuating Truk, while you still can pull anything out.

< Message edited by FatR -- 1/8/2011 2:44:17 AM >

(in reply to vicberg)
Post #: 946
RE: Boom! - 1/8/2011 2:59:55 AM   
vicberg

 

Posts: 682
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
Yep...he has more planes in reserve and probably doesn't care about pilot quality that much because his planes are much higher quality...he'll neutralize truk and then nail the marianas.  From there, Iwo and Phillipines.  He's using available assets while waiting for repairs and new, beautiful, wish japanese would have some, essex carriers to come online.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 947
RE: Boom! - 1/8/2011 1:08:32 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
CVs with fighters on LRCAP over Truk for 2 days....

In a similar situation I raced in 6 CVs with their decks full of fighters. 100 fighter CAPed the fleet while about 300 LRCAPed the base under threat. In the meantime I rotated out the damaged squadrons and flew in fresh.

End result, the next day the Allies ran into 500+ defending fighters instead of the normal 100. That made all the difference, bought a couple of days of respite and rest the clock to the beginning of the aerial campaign.... The campaign then collapsed as he no longer had the reserves to accept the necessary attrition.

BBs are available but may not cause the losses necessary to be truly effective.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to vicberg)
Post #: 948
RE: Boom! - 1/8/2011 4:47:16 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12179
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
I know that this is common tactic for you to use these "fighter" CV but many other will find this to be gamey. While the CV TFs were reinforced with fighters in real life, itīs not nearly what you suggest. If not gamey, itīs unrealistic for sure. Not impossible in real life, but no Admiral would have done that, no matter if you argue this or not. Even worse, if I would end up in such a fantasy game, I would just smile about it and would think about using a 2000 Hellcat CV TF to reduce any Japanese aircraft able to take off at any time I wish to do so. But hey, this goes into the direction of Command & Conquer and sending out 30 Mammut tanks...

Can only hope that cap & gown isnīt thinking about actually doing this, as it would bring the game to another level IMO.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 1/8/2011 4:48:15 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 949
RE: Boom! - 1/8/2011 4:59:19 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Well, it was possible.

You may choose not to do it - and that's fine - but I don't see why things which were possible should be banned.

As to going in the direction of Command and Conquer... No, those are fantasy units which never existed. In real life the numbers of fighters which were stationed on CVs varied. In late-war US CVs up to half the planes were fighters or fighter-bombers. I simply don't mind taking that a step further to 75 or even 100%. It was possible and in the real war some CVs DID have all-fighter loadouts. Some RN CVs when operating in combined TFs for example. So there is historical precedence for such a move.

As to no Admiral would have done it. Well, historically it was done. I think historical fact trumps your argument.

You may not like it, which is fine. As to you choosing not to play such a game. That's fine. I'd not choose to play someone who would complain about the game being broken whenever something goes against him. We all draw the line in different places. I offered it as an option to Cap and Gown. It was POSSIBLE and in certain situations in the actual real war it WAS DONE. Hence I am comfortable with doing it in game.

That you choose to view something which was possible and was done as gamey is your own business. As to 2000 Hellcat CAP. Well, in a "if it was possible feel free to do it" game I would have no problem with you doing so. I'd simply find a way to get through your CAP and sink those CVs anyway.

Each to their own though, you play your style of game, I'll play mine but to say it was unrealistic and equating it to C&C when it was done is not, IMO, reasonable of you.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 950
RE: Boom! - 1/8/2011 5:21:45 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 17377
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

I know that this is common tactic for you to use these "fighter" CV but many other will find this to be gamey.


I would not view it this way. This is no panacea for the CVTF and represents a very risky action, basically handcuffing themselves to a spot to LRCAP the land hex.

What happens to the CVTF when an enemy CVTF surprises them? Whoops-all their fighters are off LRCAPing some base somewhere else. No friendly CAP for the CVs. Bye bye CVs. That would be the ultimate 'pants down' moment.

You'd really have to hand it to your opponent if he took advantage of such a tactical lapse, wouldn't you? Maybe CNG's opponent is setting the table for this, hoping it will happen? I mean, every fighter is likely set to high CAP (or LRCAP) levels with short range settings over Truk, right? None to escort, no LBA bombers / torp planes at Truk to be damaged, right? If CNG is so focusing on defending Truk from aerial onslaught, he's likely disregarding his 'sword'...

I wouldn't be at all surprised if, when Truk gets closed down, Allied CVTFs turn up in short order to deal with any shipping around Truk.

Anyways, a bit off topic there towards the end, but there IS an Allied countermove to this CVTF LRCAP approach. It was done IRL. It's (CVTF LRCAPing) a risky short-term fix, not a great war-winning uberstrategy. Therefore not gamey.

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 951
RE: Boom! - 1/8/2011 5:27:33 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12179
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well, it was possible.

You may choose not to do it - and that's fine - but I don't see why things which were possible should be banned.

As to going in the direction of Command and Conquer... No, those are fantasy units which never existed. In real life the numbers of fighters which were stationed on CVs varied. In late-war US CVs up to half the planes were fighters or fighter-bombers. I simply don't mind taking that a step further to 75 or even 100%. It was possible and in the real war some CVs DID have all-fighter loadouts. Some RN CVs when operating in combined TFs for example. So there is historical precedence for such a move.

As to no Admiral would have done it. Well, historically it was done. I think historical fact trumps your argument.

You may not like it, which is fine. As to you choosing not to play such a game. That's fine. I'd not choose to play someone who would complain about the game being broken whenever something goes against him. We all draw the line in different places. I offered it as an option to Cap and Gown. It was POSSIBLE and in certain situations in the actual real war it WAS DONE. Hence I am comfortable with doing it in game.

That you choose to view something which was possible and was done as gamey is your own business. As to 2000 Hellcat CAP. Well, in a "if it was possible feel free to do it" game I would have no problem with you doing so. I'd simply find a way to get through your CAP and sink those CVs anyway.

Each to their own though, you play your style of game, I'll play mine but to say it was unrealistic and equating it to C&C when it was done is not, IMO, reasonable of you.



you definitely live in a fantasy world and you obviously donīt even notice it or you believe your own dreams.

quote Nemo:

In a similar situation I raced in 6 CVs with their decks full of fighters. 100 fighter CAPed the fleet while about 300 LRCAPed the base under threat.

So go ahead and show me your historical fact.

asuming you talk about Japanese fleet CV with up to 72 aircraft each we get the roughly 400 fighters. Now please show me one instance where a 6 CV TF were used with fighters only. NEVER! I have no problem with fantasy mods, or like you call them, "what ifīs" but then please donīt make other ppl believe these things would have been realistic.

Yes, fighter numbers on CVs varied, but no CV TF of a couple of ships was ever sent out without any bombers. Your "tactics" arenīt brilliantly thought out, they are at best gaming a game. If you ever have been in the military and took part in any maneuvers then I wonder what you have been told.

Like Iīve said, I can only hope for this PBEM it wonīt head into this fantasy world direction. But I agree, to each his own.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 1/8/2011 5:30:18 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 952
RE: Boom! - 1/8/2011 5:33:11 PM   
invernomuto


Posts: 950
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

CVs with fighters on LRCAP over Truk for 2 days....



Hi Nemo,
why simply park the CV in Truk and putting fighters in 100% CAP? It should be more effective than LRCAP. Also, in WITP days, I transferred all my CV Zero squadrons in a base threatened by Allied 4E, putting them at 100% CAP. It was a bad surprise for my opponente and a huge success for me... I do not know if it's gamey but IRRC it was done by Japanese Commanders in real life.


_____________________________

Small Ship, Big War - the Voyages of the Hibiki
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1363103

Best AAR I've ever seen!!!

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 953
RE: Boom! - 1/8/2011 8:07:04 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12179
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: invernomuto


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

CVs with fighters on LRCAP over Truk for 2 days....



Hi Nemo,
why simply park the CV in Truk and putting fighters in 100% CAP? It should be more effective than LRCAP. Also, in WITP days, I transferred all my CV Zero squadrons in a base threatened by Allied 4E, putting them at 100% CAP. It was a bad surprise for my opponente and a huge success for me... I do not know if it's gamey but IRRC it was done by Japanese Commanders in real life.




Cap from CVs would be reduced by 50% then.

btw, if someone brings up the example of a single Brit CV joining a USN CV where the British operated fighters and the USN operated the bombers for a short period of time seriously is something different from operating a whole task force of six CV with fighters only. Wonīt spam the AAR more about this issue.

_____________________________


(in reply to invernomuto)
Post #: 954
RE: Boom! - 1/8/2011 9:59:00 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5464
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


Anyways, a bit off topic there towards the end, but there IS an Allied countermove to this CVTF LRCAP approach. It was done IRL. It's (CVTF LRCAPing) a risky short-term fix, not a great war-winning uberstrategy. Therefore not gamey.

+1

Hope this is not highjacking C&G's AAR. Apologies.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 955
RE: Boom! - 1/8/2011 11:47:45 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Castor,

I'm not going to get into this further with you beyond this post. Historically when the USN and RN operated together it was not at all unknown for one carrier to carry the fighters and another to carry the bombers in order to ease logistics. There is even literature about how some of the later USN fighters were too large to allow such cross-decking because of the small sizes of the RN hangar decks. So, CVs with 100% fighter loadouts did happen in the war. Was it rare? Yes. But so were torpedo attacks with special assemblys attached to the torpedo to prevent it hitting the bottom of a shallow harbour. We don't ban torpedoes in PH attacks because of that.

Even if it never happened I wouldn't be too bothered as it was certainly possible and my arbiter of what is fair in-game is what was possible in real life, not what was necessarily done. It was possible, carries a risk and is counterable by the enemy ( whether they be Allies or Japanese ). You may not like it but saying it was impossible is ignorant of historical fact. Use google to do a search of the forum. Several posts here recently spoke about RN/USN cross-decking in mixed TFs. Again you might say that isn't "valid" somehow but it shows it happened and the difference is only a matter of degree.

Again though, as usual, you mistake something you don't like for something which shouldn't be allowed and never happened. Let us be clear, I believe things which historically happened are perfectly valid irrespective of your opinion... especially when you have a history of foregoing facts for hyperbole and complaint.


Invernomuto,
Aye, it was done in real life so I see no problem with doing it in-game.

Complaining that doing it with a lot of fighters is "gamey" is ridiculous because if that's the yardstick we will use for gamey then none of us should be allowed to fly any missions in greater strength than the Allies or Japanese achieved on the same date in the war. If I want that level of orthodoxy I'll go watch a documentary.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 1/8/2011 11:49:51 PM >


_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 956
Boom II - 1/9/2011 1:36:39 AM   
cap_and_gown


Posts: 2691
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
Feb. 11, 1944

Interesting comments. I would agree with Nemo that the tactic he suggests (vicberg also suggested this) is not "gamey." I am also not going to do it. So that should satisfy Castor Troy. These are unarmored and slow Zeros we are talking about here that would be going up against Corsairs and, probably at some point, P-47s. Besides, I don't see the point of worrying overly much about the outcome of this air battle. Truk may be shutdown, but so what? With 260 engineers, how long could it stay shutdown? What level of commitment would it take to keep it shut down? Quite a bit. And then what? An invasion? There is a 60k stacking limit there so the allies could probably dump up to 4 divisions on the island, max. They would be facing 3 divisions behind level 6 forts in Jungle/Rough terrain. Those 4 divisions would not be able to dislodge my guys. Stalemate.

I am not sure what people mean when they say "evacuate." I am not pulling my ground pounders out of there. For the reasons just outlined, they should be safe. And while I don't know that the allies need Truk, I certainly do. It secures my SLOC to the Solomons. If the allies had it they could easily interdict supply shipments to Rabaul. Now the Solomons are not as important any more as they once were, but I have alot of troops down there and I am not just going to write them all off.

Anyway, my bombardment went off, though it did not cause too much damage. It did, apparently, shutdown the airfield for the day since there were no air attacks on Truk today, giving my flyboys some rest, allowing some damaged planes to be fixed, and most of the holes in the runway to filled in: Runway 8, Service 78. (Service will not start repairing until the runway is completely fixed.)

Again, we should be allowed to select what we want to target with a bombardment. The allies have the runways at Ponape packed with planes, yet our ships instead target ground troops that we don't care about.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allied ground losses:
202 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 19 disabled
Engineers: 4 destroyed, 6 disabled
Guns lost 5 (3 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Vehicles lost 7 (3 destroyed, 4 disabled)

Airbase hits 3
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 12

E13A1 Jake acting as spotter for BB Kirishima
BB Kirishima firing at Ponape
E13A1 Jake acting as spotter for BB Hiei
BB Hiei firing at 7th Infantry Division
E13A1 Jake acting as spotter for BB Haruna
BB Haruna firing at 33rd Infantry Division
BB Kongo firing at 33rd Infantry Division
E13A1 Jake acting as spotter for CA Aoba
CA Aoba firing at 57th Coastal Artillery Regiment
57th Coastal Artillery Regiment firing at CA Aoba
57th Coastal Artillery Regiment firing at CA Kumano
CA Kumano firing at 57th Coastal Artillery Regiment

Finally tally:
7 x B-17E
1 x B-17F
6 x B-24J
3 x F4U-1A

As payment, the allies were able to put a torp into one of my DDs at 6k yards (amazing!) and another DD collided with the CA Kumano. That is 2 DDs severely damaged, though not yet sunk.

I am sure the allies will be back tomorrow. I have moved in a Jack J2M3 squadron to Truk. I will interested in seeing how they do. I also have several Tojo squadrons ready to be committed.

I will say, this battle is interesting in the lessons learned. The allied are throwing the kitchen sink at Truk and have not yet shut the place down. And that is an isolated, solitary base. If it were part of a interlocking network of bases I don't think the allies would be able to even come close to shutting it down.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 957
RE: Boom II - 1/9/2011 2:42:43 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5464
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

...
I will say, this battle is interesting in the lessons learned. The allied are throwing the kitchen sink at Truk and have not yet shut the place down. And that is an isolated, solitary base. If it were part of a interlocking network of bases I don't think the allies would be able to even come close to shutting it down.


Agreed, and somewhat surprising. Very interesting watching this ...

You've got a solid defense there, and as historical, this was a place that was hard to crack.

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 1/9/2011 2:43:08 AM >


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to cap_and_gown)
Post #: 958
RE: Boom II - 1/9/2011 2:46:27 AM   
vicberg

 

Posts: 682
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
No he couldn't shut down multiple bases without CBA support or massed Brit and American air assets (all of them) and sufficent bases within range, yada yada yada....with CBA support, Truk probably would have been closed down within a few days.  If he had another few hundred fighters to throw into the mix....

Fun in the Pacific, carriers rule, limited bases, limited avenues of attack and why the allies island hopped. 

However, you are da man.  I've learned more from this AAR than any other.  You have good instincts when it comes to these things.  Moving damaged air units away from front lines via rail is just brilliant.

< Message edited by vicberg -- 1/9/2011 2:47:13 AM >

(in reply to cap_and_gown)
Post #: 959
RE: Boom II - 1/9/2011 3:09:09 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5464
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg

...

However, you are da man.  I've learned more from this AAR than any other.  You have good instincts when it comes to these things.  ... just brilliant.

+1

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to vicberg)
Post #: 960
Page:   <<   < prev  29 30 31 [32] 33   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Death to Corsiars! Page: <<   < prev  29 30 31 [32] 33   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

0.127