Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN

 
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: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN - 10/7/2011 2:48:43 PM   
obvert


Posts: 11437
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online
quote:

Oh, how so, if you don't mind me asking?


Your detail is just beyond my current level of playing this game. I learn because I get a view inside how you put an attack like that together, and all of the thoughts and analysis and knowledge that go into it. I could try to apply certain aspects, but I don't yet have a rounded understanding of the game in this way. I believe that only comes with experience and the desire and humility to keep learning.


(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 181
RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN - 10/7/2011 8:31:38 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5029
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

I sortied a full strike of 3 kamikaze squadrons of Ki-43 IIIas against Manilla. 78 of the Ki-43 IIIas broke through enemy CAP over Manilla - which, as expected, had been significantly weakened in order to provide LRCAP of retreating USN ships. Unfortunately only 5 kamikazes hit the enemy shipping ( the FlAK was truly murderous ) and 3 of them concentrated on the CB Alaska.


Were there any hits on the Alaska? I've always been fond of that class -- I would rather have an extra CB than an extra North Carolina class BB. (Five more knots makes them able to escort CV's or run fast bombardment missions.)

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 182
RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN - 10/8/2011 4:01:06 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Obvert,

Well, there's no plan or game so good that you don't make mistakes and even if you win there's value in analysing what went wrong and what you could have done better. I'm glad you are finding it useful but, really, I didn't go into any real detail about the tactics in this AAR. One or two of my older AARs would be much more useful if that's an area you'd like to focus on. In some of them I went into great detail on how to achieve specific objectives or how to counter specific tactics. If you'd like I could post some links.

Harlock,
CB Alaska took three x Ki-43 IIIas to the deck armour. None of them penetrated although one did take out one of her radars and another took out a AAA tub. Nothing major though but probably enough to put her in port for a few days repairing damage.


I thought it might be interesting to review the current aerial losses for both sides.

Japan has lost a total of 5,140 planes while the Allies have lost 4,101 planes. That's in just 5 weeks of fighting. With that said quite a few of my losses were in the more obsolescent plane types which I'm more than willing to lose so as those are attrited out of service AND as my strategic plan comes together - to push the Allies back out of range of Japan - I believe that my losses should fall significantly.

Japan's losses, in order, of plane types which have suffered more than 100 losses are as follows:
Ohkas: 716
Ki-43 IIIs: 395
A6M5: 271

All three of these types are exclusively used as kamikazes or kamikaze escorts.

Ki-84a/b: 319 ( obsolescent, no longer in production )
A6M8: 199 ( obsolescent, no longer in production )
N1K5J: 168 ( no longer in production. I am producing A7M2s and J7Ws in favour of the N1K5J )
D4Y4: 165 ( in production - I plan to use D4Y4s as kamikaze only planes once I have enough B7A2s to equip all the dive-bomber units I wish to keep as conventional DB units )
Ki-67 Ib: 137 ( in production )
A6M7: 115 ( in production )
Ki-84r: 112 ( in production )
A7M2: 108 ( in production )
Ki-94 II: 105 ( in production )
G9M: 101 ( in production. I lost 63 to a single day's bombing. That really hurt. In response I've decided to ramp up production from 40 per month to 120 per month. I've been most impressed by their ability to damage BBs and CVs and create the initial breaches which have allowed later kamikaze waves through )

Overall I've been reasonably successful in concentrating my losses among obsolescent types and kamikazes and allowing a solid cadre of A7M2s, J7Ws, Ki-94 and Ki-84rs to build up in the Home Islands while the second rate planes and pilots keep the Allies occupied. By the end of this month though I should be able to put more first-rate fighters into the air and relegate second-rate fighters to the kamikaze role - I plan to commit leftover Ki-44s, Ki-61s etc etc to low-level ( 100 feet ), high speed kamikaze attacks at which I believe their speed and manoeuvrability will help them evade interception and their armour will help them to be better at survivng FlAK than Ki-43s and Ohkas are.


Allied losses:
F6F5: 490 ( including 166 on the ground, most of these went down with CVEs or were destroyed on the ground at Naha ).
SB2C5: 459 ( including 184 on the ground )
B-29s: 467 ( almost 500 B-29s destroyed in 5 weeks of fighting. This shows just how determined his B-29 attacks are and how often they fly.)
P-47N: 398
TBM Avengers: 450 including 140 on the ground
A-26C: 268
P-51H: 206
F4Us: 350 including 150 on the ground
P-38L: 139
P-61C: 136 ( I've inflicted significant losses on his night-fighters which is helping my raids achieve more. It cost me a lot of bombers to inflict these attritional losses but not I'm reaping the benefit )
B-25: 104
B-24: 103

It should be noted that the aircraft loss screen shows 3,570 Allied planes lost but the points tally shows me 4,101 have been lost. All of the above figures are from the aircraft loss screen so, really, the losses above underestimate the true losses by about 16% so instead of almost 480 B-29s it might well be 550 to 560 B-29s.


In other news:
I've sent most of my units back to their training areas to refit and take on replacements. I'm sortieing some naval units to land about 2 divisions worth of troops at Miyako Jima and I'm continuing to shuttle supplies around Korea etc to ensure I can build factories to build the Ne Turbojet required for the J7W2 ( the jet-powered version of the J7W1 ). We've updated to the latest beta and it has hugely improved my supply situation. Under the previous beta supplies were being "trapped" in some places and refusing to move to areas where I was trying to expand factories ( admittedly these were unusual places since I'm trying to spread my factories out a bit to better withstand strategic bombing ). With the new beta the supplies are moving much more reasonably. One or two out of the way places are still stuck without enough supply but these make sense now ( at the end of trails, not railways etc etc.


The IJAAF and IJNAF will keep the pressure on Naha and once I get the supplies I've unloaded to flow to the troops at Naha I'll begin ground attacks again. I expect to break them reasonably quickly once those attacks begin properly and will then shift Corps-sized forces to Miyako and Ishigaki to drive the US army units there into the sea. This will result in the Allies either accepting the loss of 10 division-equivalents of troops OR committing their navy again in either a rescue or reinforcement mission. Either way I'll get another crack at their navy and should be able to wreak even more havoc.

If they withdraw I can't prevent them doing so. There are simply too many US ships. If, however, they seek to reinforce the landings at Ishigaki or Miyako then I am hopeful I can stalemate them again and escalate things to the next level - inviting several phases of USN-protected intervention --- each intervention allowing me to sink more CVs, BBs, CAs and APAs/AKAs.

Lastly, I'm shifting more and more forces northward to accelerate my buildup there. I have many islands with garrisons of 500 to 600 AV in the north but I want every island to have 500 to 600 AV (including a tank regiment ) but I want my key islands to have 1,000 to 1200 AV. Fortunately I've managed to gather some 8,000 AV for the task of securing these islands and Hokkaido to add to the 4,000 AV I already have garrisoning Hokkaido and building defences there.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 183
RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN - 10/9/2011 7:42:08 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
4th day of battle.

USN forces continued their pullback supported by heavy 4-engined bomber strikes on Okinawa and the Ishigaki island group. About 800 4-engined bombers flew in these raids while another 400 attacked Nagasaki again - where I'd left decoy planes on the field to draw the strikes.

As the USN withdraw past Formosa multiple minisub attacks occured but unfortunately all missed or resulted in duds. They were successful in triggering two night-time aerial attacks by torpedo bombers though and one Betty crew put another torpedo into a USN CV which had already taken two torpedoes. This is now heavily damaged and appears to be slowing the retreating Americans down significantly.

I am focusing my efforts now on reducing the US Army forces at Naha and the Ishigaki chain but will still send 100+ Ki-43 IIIs kamikazes and a kamikaze Betty unit after it. That's about 130 kamikazes so I'm hopeful of getting a few more hits and finishing it off. At this stage my losses inflicted screen continues to claim 3 US CVs sunk in the last few days. I hope that's so but I can only truly claim 4.

In other news I've closed Naha down again with a combination of night-time and daytime air attacks and naval bombardments. I have enough supplies available for a full ground attack and 2,000 additional AV should be at Naha in 7 days. In the meantime tomorrow I am mounting significant CAS missions - I've ordered about 800 bombers and dive-bombers to fly ground attack missions but expect I'll be lucky if 200 do. IJAAF and IJNAF morale and aggression is pretty shattered right now.

Another 300 bombers are tasked to split their attention between Ishigaki and Miyako Jima. The US Army attacked in both islands again yesterday and in both cases found itself unable to achieve 1:1 odds or lower my fortifications. I believe now they are properly stalled and can be rolled back over the next weeks.


Many of my IJNAF dive and torpedo attack units are now back in Japan upgrading, refitting and taking on replacements and should be ready for action next week. I've also spotted the enemy pushing forces into the islands in the Aleutians closest to my position and am tasking a Nell unit to bombing them and sinking those transports.

Things should be pretty quiet in the air once I move my transports from Naga ( and thus can move my fighters away from their CAP duties there ) although ground combat should be fairly intense for the next fortnight.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 184
Naha besieged.... - 10/9/2011 10:23:07 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Well today was a very quiet day in terms of the aerial and naval battles. I sent my bombers in against the ground troops at Naha and pounded them with several hundred sorties of twin-engined bombers, dive-bombers and torpedo-bombers.

After that the IJA forces - some 5,500 AV - attacked the 1400+ AV of US troops. In spite of fortifications and favourable defensive terrain the Allies suffered so heavily in the fire phase ( their unadjusted AV fell from almost 1500 to just over 1,000 ) that they mustered an adjusted AV of just 1295 compared to my adjusted AV of 4,127. So, with 3:1 odds I dropped the forts from Level 5 to Level 3.

Ground combat at Naha (95,66)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 165196 troops, 1475 guns, 2331 vehicles, Assault Value = 5535

Defending force 79217 troops, 599 guns, 1833 vehicles, Assault Value = 1405

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 3

Japanese adjusted assault: 4127

Allied adjusted defense: 1295

Japanese assault odds: 3 to 1 (fort level 3)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 3

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

Japanese ground losses:
4940 casualties reported
Squads: 66 destroyed, 934 disabled
Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 94 disabled
Engineers: 4 destroyed, 52 disabled
Guns lost 71 (6 destroyed, 65 disabled)
Vehicles lost 275 (73 destroyed, 202 disabled)



Allied ground losses:
2199 casualties reported
Squads: 46 destroyed, 86 disabled
Non Combat: 64 destroyed, 180 disabled
Engineers: 16 destroyed, 131 disabled
Guns lost 117 (24 destroyed, 93 disabled)
Vehicles lost 273 (115 destroyed, 158 disabled)
Units destroyed 2

What strikes me are the heavy US vehicular losses and the huge number of Japanese forces disabled - some 900 combat squads and 202 vehicles.

What also strikes me is that with 4,100 AV of troops left after yesterday facing 1,000 US AV I have the 4 to 1 odds necessary to continue pushing this battle for another day. It'll be costly but if I can hit him without giving him pause to recover I might destroy additional units - I believe I wiped out two US Tank Bns in the fighting today and seriously mauled the 541st Parachute Regiment, Tenth Combat Engineer Regiment and the 296th Separate Infantry Regiment.

Either way, in 4 days time I will have an additional 2,000 AV available to continue the fight so rather than wait until then and let the Allies recover I'll attack now while they are disrupted and then recover my losses until the reinforcements are available in 4 or 5 days time.



At Ishigaki the Allies continued to attack but suffered 1,038 casualties vs 975 Japanese casualties. Their adjusted AV is just 92 vs my own 489. I was tempted to counter-attack today but decided to wait. I don't need to rush. I want to clear Naha first, then bring troops in to clear Miyako Jima and then, finally, Ishigaki.


Ground combat at Ishigaki (90,66)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 25767 troops, 451 guns, 758 vehicles, Assault Value = 819

Defending force 26101 troops, 309 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 667

Allied adjusted assault: 92

Japanese adjusted defense: 489

Allied assault odds: 1 to 5 (fort level 4)

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

Japanese ground losses:
975 casualties reported
Squads: 24 destroyed, 89 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 9 disabled
Guns lost 19 (2 destroyed, 17 disabled)



Allied ground losses:
1038 casualties reported
Squads: 38 destroyed, 137 disabled
Non Combat: 13 destroyed, 25 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 52 disabled
Vehicles lost 30 (20 destroyed, 10 disabled)



At Miyako the Allies attacked desparately again but were, again, repulsed. When it becomes time for me to transition to the offensive these losses will be most helpful in weakening the Allied ground forces.

Ground combat at Miyako-jima (91,66)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 13816 troops, 223 guns, 146 vehicles, Assault Value = 520

Defending force 22394 troops, 244 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 664

Allied adjusted assault: 106

Japanese adjusted defense: 505

Allied assault odds: 1 to 4 (fort level 5)

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

Japanese ground losses:
927 casualties reported
Squads: 17 destroyed, 55 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 9 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 0 disabled



Allied ground losses:
1424 casualties reported
Squads: 87 destroyed, 209 disabled
Non Combat: 12 destroyed, 29 disabled
Engineers: 21 destroyed, 35 disabled
Guns lost 28 (4 destroyed, 24 disabled)
Vehicles lost 25 (2 destroyed, 23 disabled)



So, all in all, a quiet day with things unfolding along the lines the plan requires. I'm quite pleased to be able to mount a counter-offensive in September/October 1945 and to be pushing the Allies back. In addition having 10 of their division equivalents at my mercy ( 1/6th of their total ground force ) and subject to piecemeal destruction will be immensely helpful throughout the next year. Hell, if this was real life I imagine destroying 10 US divisions once they reached what were viewed as the Home Islands ( Formosa, Okinawa etc ) might have made the US reconsider any plans for additional invasions. They start getting nukes in this scenario come January 1946. I expect to see a lot of nukes used all over the Home Islands.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 10/9/2011 10:42:12 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 185
RE: Naha besieged.... - 10/9/2011 11:05:33 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3376
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
Ahhh I did not know the WMD's do not come in Aug .. that makes sense then ..

In my opinion Nemo you have just justified not invading Japan, and doing the "Dresden" to every one of the cities of Nippon. Rather than speculating about losing 1M troops you are rather proving how costly this adventure will be ...I would bet that Kobe could be brought into the picture as a target

So the Americans will have five A-bombs in January?

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 186
RE: Naha besieged.... - 10/9/2011 11:41:55 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Oops, I made an error. For gameplay purposes I decided to only give the US Atomic Bombs from June 1946 and then only deliver them at a rate of 1 a month.

Just assume someone made a terrible mistake in the US and half of the Atomic Bomb project became an irradiated slagheap, setting them back a year. Really though it is to force the Allied player to use skill rather than brute force to win. While you can win a scenario I design through brute force they are designed to reward more skillful nuanced play.

Giving a player a nuke a month so they can sit back and nuke Japanese HI to nothingness by December 1945 isn't really the acme of skillful play so I wanted 9 months in which Japan could fight and possibly actually achieve something ( even though that would be pretty unlikely given the fact that I didn't beef up their conventional navy at all - I just added in the missing suicide attack motor boats ) and then wanted to allow the Allies to close in so the Japanese player would have to fight in a deteriorating situation - which would push them to the absolute limit and let them see how good they really were.


As you say though I think if nukes had been available at this time the response would be to sit back and let nukes turn Japan's cities into glass at the rate of 1 per month. But to get the types of play I wanted out of PBEMers I didn't give them that option. Anyone can win crudely using brute force. I'm not interested in rewarding that sort of approach.


In other news I've decided to turn most of my remaining Ki-264s into kamikazes beginning immediately and crewing them with the highest quality Low Naval Skill pilots I have. With their ability to survive fighter interception ( a la B-17s ) and their bombload of 20 x 250 Kg bombs a single hit should pretty much sink any CV or anything other than a BB. So, 36 of them launching in a co-ordinated attack against a US CV TF may well give me just the level of disruption I need to break up the next major USN offensive. I'm a big believer in not showing all your cards at once.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 187
RE: Naha besieged.... - 10/10/2011 1:50:17 AM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3376
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
Well in November they would have 4 historically by now .. I would Put LeMay in charge and set him loose on Kobe, Osaka, Nagoya, and Tokyo in that order and when you're not making glass... burn the cities down ...

However, you have shown what can be done with a little determination. I am glad that the Japanese decided against a last stand .. I might not be here today

Do you think you can make March 1946 or is a sudden collapse possible from airpower losses? Those Kami attacks take up quite a few airframes although highly effective ..

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 188
RE: Naha besieged.... - 10/10/2011 8:32:03 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5029
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

In other news I've decided to turn most of my remaining Ki-264s into kamikazes beginning immediately and crewing them with the highest quality Low Naval Skill pilots I have. With their ability to survive fighter interception ( a la B-17s ) and their bombload of 20 x 250 Kg bombs a single hit should pretty much sink any CV or anything other than a BB.


Yikes. I'm interested to see what the results are against the 4 X 20mm versions of the F8F Bearcat.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 189
RE: Naha besieged.... - 10/10/2011 10:33:15 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Well, they'll do damage but I'm sure they'll have as much trouble actually straight out shooting them down as my cannon-armed fighters have in shooting the B-29s down.

A few will be lost, many will be damaged but I'm betting that even the damaged ones will still be able to make it to the CVs and make a good try at hitting them. We'll find out soon enough

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 190
RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN - 10/11/2011 9:03:50 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Quick question re dive-bombers. What are the altitudes for them dive-bombing? I thought it was 14 to 19k but last turn a load of my DBs over Naha at 15k just level-bombed.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 191
RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN - 10/11/2011 9:13:02 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5202
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Quick question re dive-bombers. What are the altitudes for them dive-bombing? I thought it was 14 to 19k but last turn a load of my DBs over Naha at 15k just level-bombed.


10-14k.

Alfred

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 192
RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN - 10/15/2011 3:18:12 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8345
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
Nemo,

I'm playing Downfall right now .. not your scenario I know, but similar endgame scenario.  Question: how in the heck do you keep your good pilots (+70 exp) from ramming allied bombers instead of shooting them down?  I don't mind when the 30 exp pilots ram a B-25, but when I lose ~4 +60 exp pilots a turn for ramming instead of shooting ... 

Any insights?  Thanks!!!

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 193
RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN - 10/15/2011 3:29:31 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Paxmondo,

Different ethos here. I wish I could order more of my pilots to ram bombers. I'd happily give every fighter squadron orders to use every plane and pilot to ram enemy four-engined bombers. I'd love a day in which I lost 500 70 skill pilots ramming 500 US bombers. Sadly I only get a couple of rammings a day :-(

My view is that I can produce more planes and 70 A2A skill pilots than the Allies produce four-engined bombers. I haven't found ramming to be a significant issue vs twin-engined bombers. It seems they select ramming if having difficulty shooting the bombers down - and twin-engineds are east to shoot down.



_____________________________

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 #: 194
RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN - 10/16/2011 2:07:41 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8345
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
Wow, you're right.  Not only different ethos, but different combat results.

I have had situations where multiple attacks on a target result in multiple ramming attacks by my defending groups.  Such that I start with ~45  in a group and at the end of the day have ~7. 

Here's the worst:  I lose +35 planes and +25 pilots.  They end up with 5 losses and 30 damaged.  Ramming is no guarantee that the bomber will be destroyed. 

Maybe later in the scenario, I wouldn't mind losing the 70 skill pilots.  But this is early and I need those high skill pilots I start with to protect important targets.  Besides, a 70 skill pilot can only ram once  ... he can shoot many times and in a Shinden he can hold his own against even the best allied fighter plane ...  

PS: thanks for sharing your thoughts though ... guess I need to go back to the drawing board on this one ...

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 10/16/2011 2:09:30 PM >


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 195
RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN - 10/26/2011 9:57:52 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Well over the past 4 or 5 days things have settled down nicely. Allied B-29s are concentrating on smashing my airfields at Okinawa and in the surrounding islands - and they've torched about 400 to 500 fighters on the ground - but while they are doing that I am managing to keep the US airbases on Okinawa closed through a combination of bombardments and airfield attacks and, crucially, my upgrade to the last generation of IJN fighters has been largely completed and these are now beginning to enter squadron service.

Elsewhere my redeployment of naval assets away from the Okinawa region is largely completed with combat elements of the IJN docking in various ports to repair system damage - all elements should be ready for combat again within 5 to 6 days -, transport elements moving back to China to transport some 2,500 AV to Korea for defensive operations there and APDs ranging farther afield past Formosa in a determined effort to rescue the last of the forces trapped on Hainan Island. At the beginning of the game I was unable to have any surface assets survive in this region but now, with the recent losses to the USN, the Allies have ceded the waters around Formosa to me ( except for subs and USN strikegroups operating from land bases ).

At Naha my forces have attacked again and despite horrific casualties ( which brought their unadjusted AV down from just over 5,000 to just over 3,400 ) they managed to drop the forts again. Fortifications are now down to Level 2 and the US defenders have been reduced from 1,450 AV to just 850 AV. It appears that their tank Bns and the 3 Independent Regiments of troops they had at Naha are now utterly combat ineffective and one of their two divisions is at under 50% strength while the other is at about 80%.

The first half of the reinforcements I landed in the past ten days have now finally made their way to Naha and my AV has been boosted to over 5,000 again. That means that tomorrow I'll attack. I expect the attack to drop my AV to back under 4,000 AV but two days later another 1,000 AV should arrive and then I'll attack again. I believe that sheer weight of numbers should see me through. One other positive is that this extended period of combat has allowed me to boost the experience of these troops from an average of 30 Exp to over 60 Exp, doubling the adjusted AV of these troops.

Intel tells me that 100,000 + US troops are trapped on Okinawa so within the week they should all be killed or forced to surrender.



At Miyako-Jima I have managed to FT and fly in an additional 2 division equivalents. These troops have tipped the scales at Miyako-Jima and in the past three days of attacks 228 combat , 91 non-combat, 78 engineer squads, 47 guns and 26 vehicles have been destroyed. Allied AV has fallen from 288 to 84 and IJA odds have increased from 6:! to 41:1 in that time. Intel shows anopther 12,000 troops, 200 guns and 130+ vehicles at Miyako-Jima. Again, within the week I expect the Allies to be forced to capitulate. Already, yesterday the 102nd Combat Engineer Regiment was wiped out in combat.


Once Miyako-Jima falls I'll shift troops to Ishigaki. Ishigaki will be more difficult to take as the terrain is wooded but I have air superiority over Ishigaki and can flood it with troops so I'm quite confident that I'll be able to bring in 2,000+ AV and overwhelm the Allies through weight of numbers + aerial attacks. With a little luck it might even draw the USN into combat again in this region - and then I'll unleash my kamikaze corps.



Elsewhere Korea is fortifying and building up nicely and with the recent shift in transport and ASW assets to the Northern region they are really beginning to firm up as well. I've had significant losses to submarines in that area and so have concentrated about 30 of my E-type ships in hunter-killer groups and combined them with the new crop of ASW-trained pilots ( I am beginning to graduate the first tranche of 70 Skill pilots from my training schools - this is good news since up till now I've been relying on pilots with ASW skills of 30 or 40 in my ASW groups and that's just not good enough. With a steady supply of 70 ASW Skill pilots I am expecting to dampen down US submarine attacks in the north). In an effort to reduce the number of trips I have to make to the islands I've created an Aerial Transport Division comprising just under 90 L2D2s which is capable of flying all of the infantry in an Independent Infantry Brigade to an island in 2 days and all of the infantry in a division to an island in 1 week. This allows me to save a LOT of cargo space on my few remaining xAKs and optimise it for non-airtransportable equipment and supplies which is hugely reducing the number of trips I need to make to bring each island up to its planned garrison of 800 to 1200 AV.



Strategic Situation:
The initial plan to push the Allies out of fighter sweep range of the Home Islands is now largely complete. The only base left to the Allies within P-51H extended range of the Home Islands is Iwo Jima and, frankly;
a) It is too small to allow them decisive results
b) I can suppress that relatively easily if the Allies start using it.

The concept of using Okinawa to lure the Allied Navy in to a relief effort which I could use to ambush them on favourable terms worked well. I had thought it most likely that the Allies would try to land troops directly at Naha but I'd planned a secondary trap centred around the Ishigaki Island chain so when the Allies went there I was reasonably well prepared to pin them on the beaches and then transform one of those islands into the next "lure". At Naha and Miyako-Jima I'll eradicate the Allies while at Ishigaki I'll pound them and attrit them but won't eradicate them too quickly as I want that to be my next lure. If it looks like the Allies have abandoned the troops there then I'll finish them off also of course. Ideally though I'd like to sink more CVs and BBs in another relief effort.


The Northern region is firming up nicely and has the same basic plan as the Okinawa axis had - let them land ( cause I can't stop them landing ) but then stalemate them and force them to bring in more reinforcements and supplies and maintain a costly blockade if they want to take any island they invade. I expect the US landings in the northern region to be much stronger and more concentrated than they were at the Ishigaki Island Chain and so I'm doubling my garrison requirement in the area.

With the Home Islands secured from significant fighter sweeps the next step is to push the Allied forces back even more. This is the second phase of Japanese spoiling operations and will unfold as follows:

1. Ki-264s basing out of Tokyo will begin bombing Manilla and the B-29 bases around Saipan/Guam etc. I won't "gift" my opponent any intel about this but I expect him to be able to put 2 and 2 together and figure out, from the track of the bombers on-screen, that they must be basing out of Tokyo. He will then counter-attack there. It'll cost me some Ki-264s destroyed on the ground BUT:
a) I have all of my best AAA concentrated at Tokyo ( 10cm and 12cm FlAK )
b) I have created an anti-bomber ambush there concentrating all of my best pilots and best bomber-destroyers there. In total I have slightly over 1100 fighters there at present and am seeking to build that up to over 1200.

I expect to lose Ki-264s ( which hurts me ) but I expect to be able to significantly attrit the B-29s which do attack.


2. IJAAF and IJNAF twin-engined elements operating out of Formosa will commence low-level night-time port attacks against Manilla. My losses might be high due to FlAK but even if I lose 20 planes in order to put a single 250 Kg bomb into a CV that will, I believe, be worth it. - I already put several 250 Kg bombs into the USN CV Wasp last night, causing a fuel storage explosion which should keep her out of the war for a couple of months.


3. IJNAF elements basing out of Truk will commence night-time low-level airfield attacks on US airbases around Saipan/Guam. They will cause some damage initially but the enemy will quickly respond by closing Truk and keeping it closed. That's fine though since that'll mean them having to divert 50 B-29s a day, every day for the rest of the war in order to accomplish that mission.


4. Raids by the remnants of KB. I don't have the range to hit the Aleutians with bombers but, obviously, it wouldn't be good to let any buildup there go unchallenged. The remnants of KB will challenge in this region. It'll run at the first sign of trouble and try to draw the USN into range of my kamikazes and other attack formations in the Kuriles.


The goal of the second phase of operations is to threaten and attrit enemy bases in the operational and strategic depth forcing the Allies to deploy forces defensively - reducing the pressure on my forces on the front line - and also trying to force them to remove their high-value shipping from Manilla and, instead, base it at Guam/Saipan. This will lessen its ability to interfere with my operations along the Okinawa/Formosa axis and should open further counter-attack opportunities for my forces.

The subsidiary goal is to more passive and involves providing so many threats, all of which can easily be countered by the committment of USAAF strategic bombers, that the USAAF strategic bomber assets are misallocated to non-strategic targets ( suppressing Truk, Formosa, the Ishigaki Island Chain etc ). I can't defeat this strategically decisive arm in battle but I can tempt its mis-deployment so that's my minimum objective for phase 2.


Phase 3 will really either be:
a) hunker down, fight hard and die in place, albeit with a bit of fancy footwork.
b) counter-invade any weak Allied lodgements if they manage to overcome my garrisons.

Sidenote:
I query though whether the US would have considered a ceasefire in place if it lost about 50,000 dead and 100,000 POWs in the Okinawa + Ishigaki fighting? Especially since, at this stage, Japan would have had no issues with using those POWs as human shields - or even worse, pledging to execute a set number for each US invasion or bombing raid. Would the pretty certain loss of those 100,000 POWs have resulted in a ceasefire in place if Japan had made it clear they would have executed them if the war continued?

I've discussed it with my opponent a little and he seems to think the US would just have dropped A-bombs. I'm not so sure they would have if for every A-bomb dropped 20 or 30,000 US POWs would have been beheaded. Fortunately we'll never have to find out what would have happened. It did occur to me though, when I realised I was about to take about 120,000 US POWs in this game, just what great bargaining chips they would have made if this were real life.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 10/26/2011 10:07:26 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 #: 196
RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN - 10/26/2011 11:24:20 PM   
obvert


Posts: 11437
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online
quote:

Sidenote:
I query though whether the US would have considered a ceasefire in place if it lost about 50,000 dead and 100,000 POWs in the Okinawa + Ishigaki fighting? Especially since, at this stage, Japan would have had no issues with using those POWs as human shields - or even worse, pledging to execute a set number for each US invasion or bombing raid. Would the pretty certain loss of those 100,000 POWs have resulted in a ceasefire in place if Japan had made it clear they would have executed them if the war continued?

I've discussed it with my opponent a little and he seems to think the US would just have dropped A-bombs. I'm not so sure they would have if for every A-bomb dropped 20 or 30,000 US POWs would have been beheaded. Fortunately we'll never have to find out what would have happened. It did occur to me though, when I realised I was about to take about 120,000 US POWs in this game, just what great bargaining chips they would have made if this were real life.


These are very good questions.

The other issue not dealt with as by game mechanics is what affect this kind of loss and the taking of this many POWs would have on the morale of the other Allied fighting troops and sailors. How could yuo go into another island chain knowing you would be chewed to pieces by kamis, land troops that might stalemate and be eventually overwhelmed again, and all after 4 years of difficult battles?

Anyone watching Band of Brothers or The Pacific realized the strain that mounted over those years of campaigning, and to suddenly have reversals and massive losses at this stage of the war might have sent many of the men fighting over the edge and given a huge boost to the remnants of the Japanese forces.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 197
RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN - 10/26/2011 11:36:50 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Aye, I certainly wouldn't have been at all keen to be in the next amphibious force after the Ishigaki Island Chain debacle. It is one thing to land on an island, be forced into heavy fighting but be fairly sure of victory. It is another to land and have at least a 50/50 chance of ending up a POW and potential hostage.

Then again armies throughout time have dealt with that by landing inexperienced, unblooded units who take disproportionately heavy casualties but, through inexperience, are more eager than the vets who know what is actually waiting for them.

Personally I think the breaking point would have been on the home front. Would 120,000 mothers really have stood idly by while their sons became POWs and a conditional peace offer was put on the table by Japan for a cessation in place which would have let those sons go free within months and whose rejection would fairly certainly have resulted in their deaths? I think that that those mothers would have mobilised - not all, but enough.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 198
RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN - 10/27/2011 5:51:41 AM   
Schlemiel

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 10/20/2011
Status: offline
I think this is quite a good question. Would the US have been able to conceal sufficiently the scope of the event to buy themselves some time on the home front? (My thought is probably not). On the other hand, culturally the United States was somewhat different then. I could, potentially, believe that a general public outcry against such an atrocity as executing prisoners could lead to even more massive firebombing and nuking of the civilian population of Japan, as the media, to my mind, would likely have suppressed news about the protests of mothers and without the modern networking conveniences, a proper union of such women would have been more difficult if it was against the grain of social thought. They may have simply turned inward and become bitter about the situation rather than try to fight a push for more brutal punishment of Japan, especially since it might have taken time to find out who exactly had become a pow. I could imagine the army taking its sweet time informing people. I do think it would have lead to a much stronger reaction to end the war, either with the obliteration of Japan or a more equitable negotiated peace, but the post war period would have been probably worse for both sides in such an event. I think it would be much harder to provide any aid to a nation that had used 100,000 POWS as a human shield to get some kind of peace, and the Japanese economy would probably have resembled that of Germany after WWI in terms of rebuilding.


My suspicion is that, in real life, would such a backhand blow on the part of Japan may not have even been possible if it had been planned and adopted. I'm no expert, but I would think between air superiority for recon purposes and magic codebreaking an operation of sufficient size to dislodge the Okinawa garrison would have been extremely difficult to stage unnoticed. You brought many, many division equivalents. What size vessel would be necessary to safely move troops between the mainland and Okinawa? I can perhaps imagine concealing small vessels and small units of troops along the coast, but I would think the communication necessary to coordinate an operation like that with the secrecy you would need to prevent sufficient reinforcements on the beaches to throw you back into the sea would be difficult at best in real life, especially since I imagine many of the best staff officers were already stationed in places they could not contribute. I say this without any great in depth knowledge, however, but merely my intuition on the subject from what I've picked up over the years.

In game terms, since the tempo of operations can be so much faster than irl, I think we can make allowances for the Allies to continue fighting in such an event, since they might be able to hope for an early rescue (the POWS would still probably be difficult to ship off the island with the strains on Imperial shipping, so a quick reinvasion might very well rescue most of them). I know in your game, your shipping would seem to be prioritizing the redeployment of your army assets that had gained experience in the fighting to your defensive perimeter. Unless you were fairly certain of a negotiated peace, I would think you in the place of Japan would be unlikely to spend too much effort shipping prisoners when soldiers could be redeployed, especially since it would potentially give you another chance to attrition the allied navies in a rescue operation. Such POWS would seem to provide better bait than shield (this would probably also limit the potential for genocidal fervor on the homefront if it was a mere prison camp).

I would imagine in game terms there would be ways for the allies to bring sufficient force to blast the Ishigaki chain and prevent proper timely reinforcement (perhaps long range p51h + bearcat lrcap + large screens of small units of pts and dds after landing overwhelming force? I'm no expert but from what I understand that should make the two basic methods of reinforcement difficult.) I'm not sure of the stacking limits on those islands off the top of my head, but given what you were able to pull off with Japanese naval assets, I'd have to imagine it would be even more possible for the allies to deny the opportunity to be stalemated if they are willing to commit sufficient force with their superior tools (excepting no kamikazes) to accomplish it. Now that wouldn't be as possible irl, especially if the ground troops had been bloodied and lost morale for invading islands as in your world, but I've already said I'm not sure the operation to successfully capture 120k pows by Japan would have been possible given their technical-tactic options.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 199
RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN - 10/27/2011 8:40:13 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5029
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

Especially since, at this stage, Japan would have had no issues with using those POWs as human shields - or even worse, pledging to execute a set number for each US invasion or bombing raid. Would the pretty certain loss of those 100,000 POWs have resulted in a ceasefire in place if Japan had made it clear they would have executed them if the war continued?


A tough call for the Western allies, but it seems virtually certain to me that the Chinese would have continued fighting -- especially the Communist units. Also, a ceasefire in place would have meant the sea lanes to the NEI would be open again, and oil would flow back to the Japanese economy. It is worth noting that on the order of 100,000 POW's were taken from the fall of Singapore, and it did not overly affect the British Empire's calculations.

The Western powers would probably have made a counter-offer of ceasing attacks on mainland Japan, but insisting on a return of at least some territory still in Japanese hands.

< Message edited by Capt. Harlock -- 10/27/2011 8:43:07 PM >


_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 200
RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN - 10/27/2011 11:19:03 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Schlemiel,

As regards capabilities. I didn't augment the Japanese transport capabilities at all so when I made the invasion I landed 3,000 AV initially using pretty much every transport available ( including almost 200 xAKLs with under 900 tons of capacity ( 848 tons, 470 tons and 170 tons ) as well as FT TFs. I then flew in lots of troops using all of the air transports available to Japan. So the numbers were there albeit that it could only be done at horrific cost - I lost about 250 ships in the first week of the scenario in order to invade Okinawa.

My next major reinforcement run - during the Ishigaki Island Chain (IIC) battle - could have been crushed if the USN battlefleet had abandoned the landings at the IIC. One thing I like to do - Cribtop is reading this so should take note - is to give an opponent a whole host of options, all of which, in different ways, serve my purposes. But, the Allies had the capability to crush my forces. To do so they would have had to sacrifice the ground forces at the IIC. I believe my opponent believed he could win those ground battles and so perservered. I, personally, if I were in his position would have abandoned them to their fate and crushed the IJN and reinforced Naha. The IIC is an irrelevancy and allowing the IJN to escape was, IMO, an error. Of course if he had sent the USN in to defeat the IJN at Okinawa he would have run into the plan I had in place to destroy the USN if they took that option. I, personally, believe that if he had attacked into Okinawa with the USN at that time the preparations I had made ( and which I didn't reveal since I've had bad experiences with plans being spilled to my opponents by forum members ) would have resulted in every vessel he committed to that battle being sunk ..... but I might be wrong, that possibility of error and surprise is what makes the game challenging and interesting.

Bottom line, capabilities don't equal actuality and so when we talk about capabilities in 1944 and 45 for the USN pretty much everything is possible. A good Japanese player lessens what is possible and makes whatever is actually achieved much more costly than the Allied player thought imaginable. I think that's all that the Japanese player can achieve - certainly in 1945. I'm sure others could do better than I in this scenario but I think I'm doing reasonably well. I've made several mistakes but I've noted them and, hopefully, next game I will eradicate them. Every turn is an opportunity to make a mistake, learn from it and be better next turn, next game etc.

So, talking about capability isn't necessarily that useful as what a force is capable of is rarely what it actually achieves. You're right they have the capability. The question to ask is why that capability was frustrated/misdirected and, in some ways, turned against them and used against them.

As to Japan not being able to muster those forces secretly. Well, I didn't stage in forward bases but staged from within the Sea of Japan - which helped with deception operations and I'd also point out to the Japanese defence plans for Kyushu. They had significantly more troops and aerial and naval capability than US planners had realised. The game allows us to use capabilities in a different way than they were actually used. I've chosen to use my capabilities to invade Okinawa. The opportunity cost of that has been that I haven't moved nearly as much fuel, oil and resources as I might have if I'd devoted those ships to economic matters. However I decided that by pushing the US back I could make the Yellow Sea much safer for my shipping and make up for last time in November - which is my plan. By the end of November I plan to have emptied China and Korea of all of their usable resources and shipped them all to Japan.

In terms of staff officers. Well, don't forget that the IJA had only been very slightly involved in the war up until the Phillipines so in terms of experienced staff officers there were many available in the Home Islands, China, Manchuria etc. I think the quality of their forecasting and planning for the defence of Kyushu and their understanding that it might be followed by a landing around the central plains of Japan shows that they had good people still available.


As to amphibious-capable officers and doctrine. Aye that's a very valid point. On the other hand one could argue much the same thing should apply to USMC landings in 1943 wherein, historically, their amphibious doctrine was flawed and corrected over time through harsh experience. This is an area the game doesn't model. There are lots of areas the game doesn't model. I fully support the game modelling all of these areas perfectly but when push comes to shove I play the game as is ( except for HRs to fix obvious bugs ) and while I support michaelm in fixing anything which is unrealistic if something cuts both ways ( the lack of detailed modelling of the difficulties of non-amphibious experienced forces conducting amphibious operations ) then I choose to just play the game as is. As it was I had to use massively overwhelming numbers to allow for a 30% or so disablement rate in unloading ( which was down to lack of preparation ) and suffered huge losses to a relatively small defensive force. So, it was still hugely costly - although I figured the pay-off of capturing 120,000+ US troops would be worth it later.

Obviously though others are free to draw their "what should and shouldn't be done in-game" line in a different place. I respect that but I generally play the game as is. I view it as an interesting game which allows us to look at the strategic issues and which models many of the issues which were present to a reasonable degree of verissimilitude. I don't make the mistake of thinking it is perfectly realistic and will reliably give me historical outcomes when played in ahistorical ways. Others philosophies differ and that's fine. What matters is that everyone gets to enjoy the game on their own unique terms and that, in the meantime, some broad strategic lessons are generally applicable.


Schlemiel,
I think you under-estimate the difficulty of counter-invading Okinawa at this time and under-estimate the facility with which Japan could have moved POWs using barges, FT TFs and air transport. Using slow, large transports is a recipe for disaster so it makes sense not to do so. I amn't using slow, large transports at the front lines anymore. Instead I'm using up my small coastal steamers ( sub 1,000 tons capacity ), fast transport TFs, aerial transport etc etc.




Harlock,
Well, that counter-offer would have preserved the Emperor. It may well have been acceptable, even with the territories returned.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 10/27/2011 11:37:51 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 201
RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN - 10/28/2011 1:06:29 AM   
Schlemiel

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 10/20/2011
Status: offline
Oh, I don't think the reinvasion of Okinawa could be achieved easily at all, and it would cost precious months in prep time that would help you that much more, as well as having a pretty great cost in material and a large opportunity cost in potential economic damage, since you have a network of supporting bases that would require some sort of neutralization. I'm sure future people playing the scenario will pay more attention to reinforcing Okinawa, though larger garrisons have their own opportunity cost. I'm just saying I can imagine a situation where leaving the prisoners there could create better opportunities than moving them.

I have absolutely no problem with the "gamey" aspects of the game, as any simulation will tend to have them. They make things interesting and raise lots of interesting "what ifs". I just have to wonder to what degree the system can actually model the difficulties a real counterinvasion might face. How many people familiar with the island would have been absent from the initial defense to ? What's to stop the US forces from pulling something similar to the initial Japanese defense with dug in positions but superior tactical equipment? Additionally, I wonder if the US wouldn't have been able to build fairly effective fire bases; I can imagine it anyway.

BTW, the talk about the public reaction in the US really got me thinking. Have you ever read the book In the Name of War by Jill Lepore? It is a fairly recent history of King Phillip's War in the late 17th century New England, and Lepore makes an interesting case for the way in which identity and a lack of differentiation raise the stacks and made the war more brutal than it might otherwise have been. Anyway, need to run.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 202
RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN - 10/28/2011 2:58:26 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3484
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
I think people lose sight of the fact that this is an Alternative History Mod; I freely admit I do it myself at times. If you frame this game in the historical context of where the forces of Japan were in the fall of 1945, the events portrayed here will not make sense. Nemo has said from the outset that this Mod/game is not in any way meant to portray how the historical approach and invasion of Japan would have gone without the A-Bomb, but instead a model where both sides can explore various strategic and tactical options available to the combatants at the end of WWII.

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Schlemiel)
Post #: 203
RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN - 10/28/2011 6:41:53 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8345
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I think people lose sight of the fact that this is an Alternative History Mod; I freely admit I do it myself at times. If you frame this game in the historical context of where the forces of Japan were in the fall of 1945, the events portrayed here will not make sense. Nemo has said from the outset that this Mod/game is not in any way meant to portray how the historical approach and invasion of Japan would have gone without the A-Bomb, but instead a model where both sides can explore various strategic and tactical options available to the combatants at the end of WWII.

+1

I agree in that I can't see how the allies would have allowed the starting situation to have ocurred. Nemo's hypothesis is fairly accurate and well known to the US military leadership. If you review the actions from '43 on, they were clearly put in place to precisely avoid the hypothesized situation. The A Bomb was also used for this reason: the Allied command understood what the probable troop losses would be from an invasion on the HI. Pretty sure they weren't happy about using the Bomb, but against the +100K forecasted US losses it wasn't that hard of a decision for them.

So while Nemo's suggestion is correct, it never happened and to construe events to get there is similar to John III's mod: it takes a lot of fantasy to arrange things to get there (starting with Nimitz has to be replaced with MacArthur, sorry, couldn't pass up the chance to "dig" on dug-out Doug. ). Doesn't detract from the "what-if" interest, but it really is a "what if" and a pretty far placed on at that.



_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 204
RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN - 10/29/2011 8:18:51 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Schlemiel,

Aye, when I heard about it and its focus on interpretation I had hoped it would deal with hermeneutics and how language was utilised to present a particular viewpoint and how that usage changed over time as revisionism began to occur. As it was I thought that it didn't really say anything about history and war that we didn't already know in general and some of the attributions made by the author are unsupportable - e.g. Some guy robbing a bit of the Indian leader's skeleton and that bit happening to be the jawbone does not, IMO, readily equate to a sophisticated metaphorical attempt to "silence" the Indian side of the story. That sort of thing really takes away from the rest of the book IMO since it is so utterly unsupportable by the facts.

As to lack of differentiation raising the stakes and making war more brutal. Most of the psychological research on the topic shows that people are much more likely to be cruel if they do not identify with "the other" and thus where there is more differentiation there is more likely to be cruelty and violence. One reason why psychopaths are so capable of inflicting pain is that they don't identify with others and don't generate the type of empathy which stops most of the rest of us acting on our baser instincts.


Vettim, PaxMondo,

Well, my understanding is that the initial starting position of Andy's Downfall mod is as realistic as is reasonable without hundreds of hours of work. Since I used this mod as the basis for mine and didn't change any naval disposition at all and made very few IJA changes ( and the ones which were made were more than balanced by giving the US about 15 additional divisions ) I think it actually represents the situation around September the 1st 1945 quite closely at sea and on land. In the air is where it is more differentiated since it assumes that Japanese R&D wasn't as messed up as it really was and some of their experimental types were just either on-line or due to come on-line in September 1945.

So, it is a what if mod but navally and on the ground it actually isn't a what if mod. Only in terms of aerial forces does it become quite a what if mod. Taking Okinawa was done in the face of the USN and USAAF and they could have intervened and destroyed the landing force. So, that was done in competitive play and was, obviously, within the capabilities of the forces.

With that said it is also, unabashedly, designed to punish poor play and reward good planning and play by letting Japan remain competitive... you can decide for yourself how realistic that is. I will say though that, IMO, it shouldn't be at all difficult to knock Japan completely out of the war by the end of November 1945 in this mod... and to do so with slight casualties to the Allied forces. It isn't, however, my job to tell my opponent how to do that


Anyways onto the turn....

Ground combat at Naha (95,66)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 196652 troops, 1889 guns, 2232 vehicles, Assault Value = 5956

Defending force 72651 troops, 540 guns, 1739 vehicles, Assault Value = 920

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 1

Japanese adjusted assault: 3634

Allied adjusted defense: 1287

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

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 1

Damn, I was just about 300 AV away from getting a 3:1 and taking the base. Ah well, 4 days from now I'll go again and I'll take it then.



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

Japanese ground losses:
6329 casualties reported
Squads: 78 destroyed, 617 disabled
Non Combat: 18 destroyed, 44 disabled
Engineers: 17 destroyed, 62 disabled
Guns lost 53 (11 destroyed, 42 disabled)
Vehicles lost 168 (39 destroyed, 129 disabled)
Units destroyed 1

So, I lost about 134 AV of combat squads and AFVs destroyed.



Allied ground losses:
2741 casualties reported
Squads: 79 destroyed, 83 disabled
Non Combat: 21 destroyed, 151 disabled
Engineers: 165 destroyed, 175 disabled
Guns lost 82 (16 destroyed, 66 disabled)
Vehicles lost 112 (49 destroyed, 63 disabled)

In return the Allies lost about 293 AV of forces. In particular it looks like their engineers really took a beating. By the end of the fire phase only the 93rd Infantry Division still had any AV left. The 97th Infantry Division and the Combat Engineer and Infantry Regiments all had 0 AV.

At the end of the turn Japanese AV at Naha had fallen from 5,960 to 5,336 while Allied AV had fallen from 920 to 581 AV. In 4 days time another 600 AV will arrive. That should help push my AV back to about 5,900 and then I'll attack again since Allied AV will have difficulty recovering above 700 by then. 2, perhaps 3 more attacks should see me take the base at that time. I think the Allies might be evacuating forces at this stage. I'm OK with that since any cadres evacuated will require a LOT of rebuilding. For Japan now it isn't about destroying forces as much as it is about mauling them and delaying the Allies.



Ground combat at Miyako-jima (91,66)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 42317 troops, 344 guns, 108 vehicles, Assault Value = 1402

Defending force 10499 troops, 185 guns, 114 vehicles, Assault Value = 53

Japanese adjusted assault: 380

Allied adjusted defense: 17

Japanese assault odds: 22 to 1


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

Japanese ground losses:
288 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 26 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Vehicles lost 12 (7 destroyed, 5 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
1279 casualties reported
Squads: 53 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 46 destroyed, 58 disabled
Engineers: 20 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 35 (31 destroyed, 4 disabled)

The Allies here are, I believe, evacuating by seaplane also. Irrespective of that destroying 150 squads/guns/vehicles a turn is more than welcome.



Elsewhere the Japanese redeployment continues untroubled by Allied interference.

I put an 800 Kg bomb into the CV Indomitable at Manilla. That's 3 CVs hit over the past 5 days, not bad.

I tried a daylight raid on Saipan and while I torched 20 B-29s on the ground I lost roughly the same number of Ki-264s. So I'll have to hold back from further daylight raids for a while. On the plus side I found 150 USAAF and USMC fighters on CAP so that speaks of a significant re-allocation of US fighter assets from the front lines.

_____________________________

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 #: 205
RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN - 10/29/2011 8:22:06 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8345
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

It isn't, however, my job to tell my opponent how to do that

As always, an astute observation!

This is a great AAR. Keep going!



_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 206
RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN - 10/29/2011 8:41:16 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4084
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
Always enjoying Nemo. Just thought I would drop in to say hello.

_____________________________


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 207
RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN - 10/30/2011 12:00:20 AM   
pat.casey

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Sidenote:
I query though whether the US would have considered a ceasefire in place if it lost about 50,000 dead and 100,000 POWs in the Okinawa + Ishigaki fighting? Especially since, at this stage, Japan would have had no issues with using those POWs as human shields - or even worse, pledging to execute a set number for each US invasion or bombing raid. Would the pretty certain loss of those 100,000 POWs have resulted in a ceasefire in place if Japan had made it clear they would have executed them if the war continued?


Personally, I'd think not. The pacific war was a much more brutal war than the european war (for americans at least), helped long by the fact that A) the Japanese were a radically alien culture and B) they'd attacked the us at a time of peace. Given the psychology of the day I think a large number of human shields would simply have confirmed American belief that the japanese were a dishonorable, aggressive, barbarous race (I use that word delibrately, we're talking 1945 psychology here), and had to be dealt with.

Its one of those cases where I think the Japanese were perceived as barbarians. Anything they did which confirmed that belief would make the average american more, rather than less, likely to pursue the war to the end, up to, and including depopulating the home islands.

The irony of course is that when push comes to shove nominally "martial" cultures like the japanese are generally more constrained in their behavior than your typical west european.

There's no way to know something like this of course, so its always going to be a matter of informed opinion.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 208
RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN - 10/30/2011 2:03:54 AM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3376
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pat.casey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Sidenote:
I query though whether the US would have considered a ceasefire in place if it lost about 50,000 dead and 100,000 POWs in the Okinawa + Ishigaki fighting? Especially since, at this stage, Japan would have had no issues with using those POWs as human shields - or even worse, pledging to execute a set number for each US invasion or bombing raid. Would the pretty certain loss of those 100,000 POWs have resulted in a ceasefire in place if Japan had made it clear they would have executed them if the war continued?


Personally, I'd think not. The pacific war was a much more brutal war than the european war (for americans at least), helped long by the fact that A) the Japanese were a radically alien culture and B) they'd attacked the us at a time of peace. Given the psychology of the day I think a large number of human shields would simply have confirmed American belief that the japanese were a dishonorable, aggressive, barbarous race (I use that word delibrately, we're talking 1945 psychology here), and had to be dealt with.

Its one of those cases where I think the Japanese were perceived as barbarians. Anything they did which confirmed that belief would make the average american more, rather than less, likely to pursue the war to the end, up to, and including depopulating the home islands.

The irony of course is that when push comes to shove nominally "martial" cultures like the japanese are generally more constrained in their behavior than your typical west european.

There's no way to know something like this of course, so its always going to be a matter of informed opinion.



On the other hand the powers to be, unlike the common folk, actaully realized the part they played to this end .. but as long as the common folk would keep dying for the cause the US was in it ... thank God for patroitsim

(in reply to pat.casey)
Post #: 209
26th October - The POW Camps Swell - 11/13/2011 3:43:08 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
25th - 26th October 1945:

Today was a notable day for four-engined bomber activity and IJA offensives.

Four-engined bombers first:
600 x B-29s attacked into a trap at Kagoshima. IJA and IJN formations had been prepped for anti-bomber activities - meaning I had concentrated most of my fighters armed with 30mm cannon there - and went into action against the B-29s. Japanese forces claimed just over 100 B-29s downed in the air of Kagoshima but with the IJAAF and IJNAF losses on the ground losses actually turned out relatively even. On the other hand the IJAAF and IJNAF were trading 2nd generation fighters for B-29s so that's a good trade for the IJNAF and IJAAF.

Elsewhere well over 600 four-engined bombers continued to strike Formosan airfields heavily as well as Ishigaki.


A major USN armada was spotted leaving Manilla. Kamikaze and naval strike groups were moved into position around Formosa and it appears the USN TFs aborted their mission. I think though that this was a test as, in reality, I doubt my opponent would have aborted a mission so easily. I think he just wanted to identify which airfields I would base planes into to resist him. Unfortunately for him my planning doesn't involve repulsing him on the advance march but rather, letting him in, letting him land and then splitting his forces and trying to destroy them as they egress.


The IJA continues to attack at Miyako Jima and Naha with the arrival of another 2 division equivalents of troops at Naha.

On the 26th the US Army forces at Miyako are completely wiped out, freeing my forces to be redeployed to Ishigaki and to begin reducing the invaders on that island.

On the same day the Allied base of Naha falls and the troops there surrender to IJA forces. With the capture of Naha the Allies can ONLY fly sweeps over the Home Islands from Iwo Jima. That means I only have to neutralise a single base in order to keep Japanese air free from Allied fighters. That's a huge victory as it means my most potent bomber-destroyers ( the 30mm-armed fighter bombers ) can now be used to cover the skies over my cities without fear of just being swept into oblivion by enemy P-51/P-47 sweeps.



Ground combat at Naha (95,66)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 228710 troops, 2184 guns, 2281 vehicles, Assault Value = 6466

Defending force 67449 troops, 520 guns, 1667 vehicles, Assault Value = 606

Japanese adjusted assault: 5216

Allied adjusted defense: 313

Japanese assault odds: 16 to 1 (fort level 1)

Basically the 300 US AV represents the AV generated by their support squads. The combat power of the 2 US Infantry Divisions was entirely destroyed during the fire phase.


Japanese forces CAPTURE Naha !!!

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
F-5E Lightning: 1 destroyed
F-6D Mustang: 5 destroyed
F6F-5N Hellcat: 7 destroyed
SB2C-5 Helldiver: 17 destroyed
TBM-3 Avenger: 3 destroyed
F4U-4 Corsair: 16 destroyed
F4U-1A Corsair: 3 destroyed
Spitfire F.XIV: 7 destroyed
P-47N Thunderbolt: 9 destroyed
P-51H Mustang: 9 destroyed
P-61C Black Widow: 8 destroyed

I was surprised to see this many planes destroyed on the ground. I wonder if I actually destroyed any of the airgroups? I doubt it but, at the very least, I've destroyed yet more P-51Hs, P-47Ns and F4Us.


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

Japanese ground losses:
6549 casualties reported
Squads: 115 destroyed, 317 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 52 disabled
Engineers: 8 destroyed, 44 disabled
Guns lost 68 (1 destroyed, 67 disabled)
Vehicles lost 74 (15 destroyed, 59 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
40185 casualties reported
Squads: 649 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 5353 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 1094 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 333 (333 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 2233 (2233 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units destroyed 28

That represents about 7,200 squads or guns destroyed just today.


10th US Army, 2nd Corps, a USAAF HQ and the 97th and 93rd Infantry Divisions all marched into captivity this day. As well as lots of BFs, engineers etc. They can easily be replaced though.


In total my points for destroyed Allied ground forces went up from about 1100 points to just over 3,600 points. That represents roughly 10,800 squads/guns destroyed ( I don't believe the scoring algorithm counts vehicles as it doesn't appear to be doing so in this game )

This cost Japan some 700 points which equates to about 4,200 squads/guns destroyed - the vast majority of which occured in the fighting on Okinawa.



So, what now?
1. The IJAAF and IJNAF are going to be pulled back almost entirely to the mainland - in particularly the region east of Osaka/Kyoto. Elsewhere I will allow the US to bomb with impunity. Once I've finished upgrading my fighter forces to the A7M2, J7W and Ki-94/Ki-84r then I'll begin feeding them into combat again.

2. The Kuriles are pretty much all up to 500 or 600 AV garrisons each. I want to bring them to 1,000 to 1200 by the end of the month and then I'll stabilise at that level.

3. The garrisoning of Korea is on track with major fortification building and garrison increases ongoing.

4. Japan proper is a little less developed then I would like but it is coming along nicely with most of the absolutely necessary improvements completed and all that's left being the apportionment of divisions which have finished rebuilding.


So, it is coming together nicely. By November I'll be set and ready to fight even attritional battles on favourable terms against the USN.

What do I think the Allies will do?

1. I think they'll bomb Formosa and neighbouring islands to dust. I think they'll also bomb the Home Islands but be very wary of hitting Tokyo and other significantly protected bases as I've shown I can hurt his B-29s when he does that.

2. His low-risk option would be to invade Formosa and then use that as an unsinkable aircraft carrier for his move up the Ishigaki island chain.

3. Moderate risk would be hitting the Kuriles. I believe he has been building up to this for some time and I've carefully been "missing" his recon ships.

4. Elsewhere I think he could come straight for Japan - I think that'd be just intensely suicidal. With my first tranche of pilot trainees almost ready to graduate an invasion of the Home Islands would suffer hundreds upon hundreds of ship losses and his ability to actually take a base under those conditions would be gravely in doubt.


So, in short I believe he'll hit Formosa or the Kuriles. Either one could be successful so long as he brings enough forces and so long as he concentrates them appropriately. Wherever he goes though he won't have 9 to 10 division equivalents he has lost to captivity or quagmires around Okinawa/Ishigaki.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 11/13/2011 3:44:10 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: October 14th: The Humbling of the USN Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   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

0.257