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: 26th October - The POW Camps Swell

 
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: 26th October - The POW Camps Swell Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 26th October - The POW Camps Swell - 1/5/2012 4:02:10 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Changeable: See Nemo.

Thats what a dictionary might say after today.... I've been very busy with work and so simply didn't get a chance to send the orders file back. Over time as I had the file sitting on my computer the idea that hitting back now might be worthwhile as I'd mostly only be using up obsolescent airframes began to grow. Additionally I was disappointed at the poor success of my kamis and want to test another attack to see if I was just unlucky or if the BETA has affected something major in terms of hit rates.

So, I've put together an attack comprising about 80%+ obsolete airframes with a view to trying to do some damage and also testing this new BETA we're playing under. In addition I might as well use up these obsolete airframes. Doing so will help reduce my supply expenditure and that will help me a lot as Japan is very short of supplies right now due to the strain of keeping this high level of conflict up.

What tipped me over the edge is the fact that a series of successful strikes would act to cover a relatively major IJN reinforcement effort aimed at Ishigaki. I've managed to FT TF in a division over the past two days but have three more division equivalents at sea aboard xAKs and xAKLs making for Ishigaki. They should reach it tomorrow and the day after and be finished unloading four days from now. Hitting the USN in the waters in between Formosa and China should help distract Damian from mounting an expedition to disrupt these reinforcements. With those reinforcements and the division I'm currently transporting I expect, in 5 days time, to have boosted the AV of the Ishigaki defenders from only 900 AV to about 2,400 AV with another 600 or so AV on the way. Combine this outnumbering of US Army defenders by 3:1 with daily bombing runs and I might be able to push the 3 divisions of invaders back into the sea, completing the destruction of 10 US Army Divisions ( + hordes of support troops ) over the past 2 months.


So, what are we looking at as the combined IJNAF and IJAAF attack?

Well I'm basing about 400 Ohka Model 22 kamis out of the Pescadores Islands. These can fly 2 hexes and hit the ships landing at the nearest CHinese base. I've scattered about 100 kamies throughout Formosa and Hong Kong/Canton to draw USAAF airfield suppression strikes. I'll lose those old airframes but that's fine.

I've flown in 400 obsolescent IJNAF and IJAAF fighters ( KI-61s, Ki-44s, A6M5s, Ki-84 early models --- nothing modern ) into the Chinese mainland to provide escort for bombers flying from three airbases within China. On these three airbases ( some of which I've expanded in preparation for this sort of battle ) I have committed 1800 G4Ms, G3Ms, P1Y1s, about half of my P1Y2s ( these are my current front-line plane so I don't want to risk too many of them ), all of my D4Ys and most of my single-engined torpedo-bombers ( since single-engined planes are cheap to replace and I currently have enough planes in my pool to replace my entire force of D4Ys and B7A2s should they all be shot down ). I also have some 300 IJAAF bombers hitting the airfield at the base the Allies just took to prevent CAP being based there the day after tomorrow - since I don't want to allow a safe haven for the Allies if these strikes are successful.

All of my torpedo bombers are coming in at 100 feet ( and will pop up to 200 feet during their attack run ) in order to avoid radar. My kamis are going in at maximum altitude ( to draw the escorts up high ) and my D4Ys are coming in at 14,000 ( at which altitude I believe they will dive-bomb-- correct me on this if I'm wrong ) and should also serve to distract the enemy CAP.

I'm hopeful that sheer weight of numbers will get hits although I expect the losses to CAP and FlAK to be high. Might as well lose them now, save months of supply expenditure on maintaining them and still be able to train as many pilots as if the squadrons were full. One other reason behind this is that IF I cannot continue to draw new pilots of low quality once the training pool runs out I'm going to have to switch my entire war strategy from low-quality kami strikes to high quality survivable strikes --- this raid will help me weed out the waste and concentrate on building a small high-quality core group.

Lastly but not leastly I am commiting one group of Ki-94s to action as high cover for my escorts - I expect the Ki-94s to keep the enemy fighters occupied for quite some time, saving a lot of bombers as the Ki-94 pilots are actually top-notch IJAAF flyers - AND I'm commit my entire G9M force of 130 bombers. If the G9Ms get in amongst the transports, CVEs/CVs or BBs then they'll cause a slaughter as they really are tough planes to fight off.

So, in total, about 2,600 planes are tasked with missions tomorrow, some 2,300 of which are naval attack ( or escort of naval attack ) missions. We'll see how well we do. I don't expect anything too much from most of the commited airgroups though as the IJNAF and IJAAF have terrible trouble co-ordinating anything these days. I am hopeful that the G9Ms can sink some BBs or CVEs though.

_____________________________

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 #: 241
RE: 26th October - The POW Camps Swell - 1/5/2012 4:04:02 AM   
Nemo121


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

There's no specific night fighter skill, they just use the AIR skill. So I'm just referring to night fighter groups which have pilots with high AIR skill - I usually use my night fighter groups to train up low skill pilots ( say 50 Air skill pilots ) by using 20% CAP and 30% training so for me to have a night fighter group ( which might rarely see combat ) stuffed to the gills with 70 Exp and 70 AIR skill pilots was, I felt, noteworthy.

_____________________________

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 #: 242
Japan in '45 sucks... - 1/7/2012 7:01:41 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Well another day in which things didn't go to plan.

1. Damian hit one of my staging bases with B-29s. I confirmed with him he'd never reconned the base ( and he'd never hit it before ). He says he didn't even see an airfield sign there but elected to hit it based on the belief I might stage something out of it. I had several hundred fighters on CAP just in case but when his 450+ B-29s came calling not a single fighter actually took off to intercept them. So I lost about 150 planes on the ground there. Mostly I lost twin-engined planes ( about 1/3rd of the P1Y2s I'd commited and a lot of other obsolete planes I don't much care about ).

2. Some raids went in against his CV fleets but they were piecemeal with most being unescorted and most being under 20 planes per raid. So his CAP easily handled them. I lost about 100 planes in those disjointed raids from China.

3. Somehow and out of nowhere a CVE/CVL TF popped up in between Formosa and the Philippines. Damian tells me it was his flank guard designed to draw any strikes from Okinawa and Japan away from his APAs etc. Well, it did its job and my G9Ms from Okinawa all diverted to his this CVL/CVE TF which had a huge amount of CAP - over 300 fighters.

My G9Ms dribbled in in groups of 12 and 18 planes each and so instead of 100+ planes punching through losing 10 or 12 of their number on the approach each group of 12 or 18 planes took 50% losses in A2A combat ( which definitely seems to be allowing more firing passes ). FlAK was murderous. On one occasion 4 G9Ms made a torpedo attack on a CVE and every single one was shot down before they could launch. Anyways, about 90 G9Ms attacked in total. 46 were shot down by fighters and another 18 were shot down by FlAK. The other 26 scored a single torpedo hit on a CVE. The only bright news was that some of the G9Ms which were badly shot up by fighters and FlAK attempted to kamikaze and 4 of them hit CVEs/CVLs. 1 CVE took a G9M and had a fuel storage explosion. a British CVL took a G9M and had a fuel explosion and another CVE took 2 G9Ms.

At the end of the day 20 Seafires and about 20 FM2s were found to be ops losses so I am taking it that the British CVL and the CVE which took two G9Ms both went down. I have high hopes the other two CVEs will sink tomorrow.

3 CVEs and a CVL would be a reasonably trade for 64 G9Ms actually. What turned the day into a bit of a disaster is next though.

4. This CVE TF was just at extreme range to Ishigaki and managed to launch several strong raids on the xAKLs unloading there. Basically I lost about 20 small transports and lost every single man in 2 tank regiments, an AAA Regiment and lost about 35% of an infantry division ( basically all its artillery and motorised support ).

Losing tank regiments always hurts as it takes so damned long to rebuild them. On the plus side IJA losses in terms of points are about 880 while Allied ground losses come to about 3,600 points so the IJA is definitely winning the war as far as ground troop losses goes. In future I'm going to limit efforts to reinforce Ishigaki to FT TFs.



Overall the dive-bombers going in at 14,000 feet showed up on radar so early that they were all shot down. I think I'll switch my IJAAF and IJNAF training to solely LOW NAVAL training so that I can send twin-engined and single-engined planes in at 1,000 feet. The D4Ys can level bomb at that altitude plus it'll streamline my training by having pretty much every bomber training group training in the same skill - absent a couple of naval torpedo bomber groups and, perhaps, a single IJAAF bomber group which will still train bomber pilots.


So, over the last two days I've lost 1100 planes in return for 5 hits on CVEs/CVLs. Not great at all but, still, it is attrition. Fortunately I recently increased G9M production so I have almost enough planes in reserve to make good my losses.

In other news: The garrisoning of the Kuriles is coming along well with several islands reaching their target garrison of 1000 AV each + Level 6 forts. Most bases on the coast in Japan have a minimum of 1,000 AV and level 6 forts. Same for Korea and the Formosa/Okinawa axis. Overall my garrisoning redeployments are pretty much complete. Once they are complete I plan to fully withdraw the IJN from outside of the Sea of Japan, confine my air force to CAP over Japan and just wait for good opportunities to find, fix and destroy his next amphibious landing on an island.


So a bad couple of days but, to be fair, this is what playing Japan in 1945 is like. I'm definitely going to make a push to force the Allies out of Ishigaki though as killing ground troops is always good PLUS it might draw the USN back into action on my terms and getting an opportunity to hit his APAs/AKAs and BBs again would be most welcome.

_____________________________

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 #: 243
RE: Japan in '45 sucks... - 1/7/2012 9:22:01 AM   
Rainer79

 

Posts: 603
Joined: 10/31/2008
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
3. Somehow and out of nowhere a CVE/CVL TF popped up in between Formosa and the Philippines. Damian tells me it was his flank guard designed to draw any strikes from Okinawa and Japan away from his APAs etc. Well, it did its job and my G9Ms from Okinawa all diverted to his this CVL/CVE TF which had a huge amount of CAP - over 300 fighters.


Thanks for an interesting read.

The only thing I would quibble with is describing a 300 fighter CAP as huge. Having had to deal with 1000+ CAP fleets (which the USN can easily achieve at this stage of the war) 300 is a nice afternoon stroll.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 244
RE: Japan in '45 sucks... - 1/7/2012 9:32:20 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
Watching this with interest, need to start planning the late war game...

Cheers

Rob

_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to Rainer79)
Post #: 245
RE: Japan in '45 sucks... - 1/7/2012 9:47:38 AM   
obvert


Posts: 11934
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
Do you ever use float planes as kamis say in you opponent's rear areas, where they could fly into a dot base (but with a few support troops flown in the same turn) and hit transports behind CAP coverage. Something I've been wondering about.

< Message edited by obvert -- 1/7/2012 9:50:12 AM >

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 246
RE: Japan in '45 sucks... - 1/7/2012 4:52:38 PM   
Nemo121


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

Yes I've got a Seiran unit which can do that and also a G4M2 unit which pops into Truk ( and elsewhere ) and makes the occasional strike whenever my opponents re-allocate the 100 or so bombers they have busy suppressing Truk. They don't hit much but they do draw 100 bombers off from the areas of strategic decision.

For long-range strikes I mostly use the Ki-74 ( of which I build about 30 per month ) and which has a normal range of 29 hexes with a 500 Kg bomb. It can operate from any Level 4 airfield, flies at 39,000 feet and by putting my best kami pilots in it I can achieve a good hit rate if it finds an unescorted convoy.

Mostly though since CAP eats anything without escorts alive I just sit back and let him move where he wishes - with the occasional strike as dictated above.

Since Damian is changing tactics a little I'm going to change tactics too. He is nibbling around the edges now and so my previous plan of drawing him in and then really being able to mass the IJN, IJNAF, IJAAF with combined long and short-range strikes accompanied by escorts isn't going to work --- for the simple reason that he can simply use his B-29s to close down all the peripheral airfields I'd base my escorting fighters at and because I cannot CAP the IJN strike groups and so they cannot survive within 9 hexes of a USN TF at the edges of my empire... closer in the IJN TFs CAN shelter under 400 fighter CAP for a day or two waiting to strike.


So, I'm looking at converting more fighter units to Ki-43s ( I've been maintaining a few skeleton units as small training groups so I can use those without lessening my fighter defences ) and using them as long-range escorts for my kamikazes. Under this new beta with increased firing passes I think the days of trying to sneak bombers in under radar are gone. Having a core of 250 Ki-43 IIIs as escorts should help significantly though in getting long-range raids through ( and it will let me base my escorts 10 to 12 hexes behind the contested base as opposed to 4 or 5 hexes from it as I currently have to do --- well, try to do as that base 5 hexes from the contested landing has usually been blasted to pieces by B-29s over the previous week).

So, he adjusts, I adjust.

_____________________________

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 #: 247
RE: Japan in '45 sucks... - 1/7/2012 5:02:25 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3377
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
quote:

Since Damian is changing tactics a little I'm going to change tactics too. He is nibbling around the edges now and so my previous plan of drawing him in and then really being able to mass the IJN, IJNAF, IJAAF with combined long and short-range strikes accompanied by escorts isn't going to work --- for the simple reason that he can simply use his B-29s to close down all the peripheral airfields...


This small detail is what the previous player failed to do in executing somekind of focused strategy .. instead they shifted targets and allowed you to accumulate platforms in strategic locations ...

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 248
RE: Japan in '45 sucks... - 1/7/2012 5:13:26 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Aye, well Damian has played me before and knows that if you don't cover every possible option I have then I'll definitely use one of them to get my teeth into you . To be fair his adopting this strategy means I've achieved one of my primary strategic goals - preventing the Americans from driving deeply into my strategic depth before I had the strength to adequately defend myself. At the beginning of the game the Allies definitely had the capability to drive into the coastal islands surrounding Japan, take them and gain aerial supremacy over Japan rapidly. Now they aren't even attempting that quick path to victory which is a victory of sorts. I've traded a quick death for a slow, lingering, painful one. YAY!!!

He's shifting to a strategy of going for very limited objectives under the safest conditions possible and maximising his usage of land troops and phasing of landings. This reduces losses to his shipping and planes BUT the cost is that I now have a very solid core of Ki-94s and J7W2s over Japan and I am now much, much more confident about my ability to withstand a B-29 bombing campaign than I was even 2 weeks ago.

Bottom line though: You're right. He is focused and is going to conduct operations which further his strategic goals exclusively. He won't fritter away assets elsewhere. The question is whether or not this slow approach is going to increase his casualties in the long run as I turn Japan from quite a weakly defended place ( when the scenario began ) into a true fortress with 1,000 AV + level 6 forts at every possible landing beach, operational reserves comprising several thousnad AV in every region and a strategic reserve of 4,000 AV.

_____________________________

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 #: 249
2 Month Assessment - 1/9/2012 5:32:39 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
So, I think that after two months of play it is useful to have a review of the situation, see what went right, what went wrong and where we are now.


Strategic Layer:
My primary strategic goals were:
1. To prevent the Allies from bombing my HI to nothingness in the first few weeks of the war, utterly destroying my ability to resist.
2. To buy time for Japan to redeploy, upgrade, rebuild and generally build the weapons needed to resist, get those weapons to the front and form a cohesive mutually supporting front.

To that end I set myself the short-term goal of taking Naha and using the siege of Naha as a focus for the USN to prevent deep raids, deep invasions and also to draw them into close action along the Okinawa/Formosa axis where I hoped to be able to inflict a stinging defeat on the enemy fleet.

Elsewhere I was reasonably happy to cede any territory more than 20 hexes (P-51H range ) from Tokyo or Kobe and thus began a wholesale withdrawal from China in order to bolster Korea and western Japan.


After 2 months: I took Naha and have inflicted some 3,500 points worth of ground losses ( akin to 10,500 squad equivalents ) in return for suffering 850 points worth of ground losses ( equivalent to some 5,100 squads ) The Ishigaki island chain served as an excellent diversion and over the next fortnight I expect to annihilate another 3 US divisions there to bring to 10 the number of US divisions destroyed during the Okinawan campaign of September to November 1945. The USN went into action around Naha on two occasions and suffered the loss of 3 CVs, 8 CVEs and 5 BBs as well as about a half-dozen cruisers and 30 DDs to combined IJN and IJNAF/IJAAF strikes. Japanese losses amounted to 1 CL and less than 10 DDs. More recently the allies have landed at the undefended bases of Amoy and Swatow and should be beginning a ground campaign in China. I've already evacuated over 60% of all troops in China and am continuing my evacuations as planned. Over time I expect to be able to put in an orderly retreat to Shanghai and delay the enemy significantly and tieing up significant ground forces. Of note it is 18 hexes from Shanghai to Kobe and 19 to Osaka so even if the enemy take Shanghai they will only be able to sweep Shanghai and Kobe at extreme range - a range at which the extra fatigue will ensure poor performance from his P-51H pilots.

All of the islands in the Kuriles and along the Okinawan/Formosan axis have about 1,000 AV behind Level 6 forts. The islands along the Iwo Jima/Tokyo axis are considerably weaker but that's because I want him to take that route.


Overall Allied losses comprise 3 CVs, 11 CVEs and 1 CVL, 5 BBs and various other smaller craft. A significant number of these losses occured to Shinyos with a much smaller number being credited to kamikazes. As such it seems the Shinyos are far and away my best kamikazes at the moment. They are hellaciously fragile though and need to be carefully husbanded. Once you use them you lose them. With that said the removal of roughly 630 flight deck spaces from the USN is helpful. Unfortunately the USN can probably muster another 4,800 flight deck spaces at the moment. Still, if I can whittle away 300 to 400 flight deck spaces a month that'll soon cause serious pain and limit concomitant operations.


Moving forward I believe I need to more pro-actively engage his B-29s so I am going to:
1. Continue attacking his airfields. It might only kill 4 or 5 a night but over time that's 150 a month - or half his monthly replacements )
2. Work hard to create fighter traps using my 30mm-armed fighters with a view to getting the B-29s to bomb a particular base only to find that the strike groups he thought were sitting there waiting to hit his CVs were actually heavily armed fighters capable of downing B-29s.

In terms of the USN:
I believe my recent attempts to engage it forward were poor and resulted in heavy losses to little gain ( about 1100 planes in return for less than 200 + 3 CVE and a CVL ). To be fair, exchanging 200 planes for a CVE or CVL is a good trade for me but the closer to my main defensive belt I was engaging the enemy the more likely they were to inflict damage for less and less cost. During the Ishigaki Island Chain Battles, for example, I managed a 1:1 exchange ratio with the enemy whilst sinking several CVs and BBs with airstrikes.

In terms of long-term pilot sustainability:
Given the changes to pilot replacements in the BETA made by michael the number of pilots Japan was graduating in this mod was completely insufficient to meet demand ( I was graduating 560 between both IJNAF and IJAAF a month ). So we've quadrupled that but dropped experience of graduates from 70 to 30. The change MAY take effect on 1st December, we're not sure, so fingers crossed.


Level of success:
Naha operation: highly successful.
Ishigaki operation: highly successful
Keeping the B-29s away from HI: highly successful
Inflicting losses on B-29s: Highly successful - It looks like in two months I've destroyed somewhere between 550 and 600 B-29s ( and that's without my new 30mm-armed fighters )
Keeping the IJN intact as a fleet in being: Successful. I've lost 2 CVEs ( to subs ) and less than a dozen DDs and a CL. Essentially the IJN remains fully intact and ready for combat.
Redeploying and upgrading defensive ground forces: Work in progress but going well ahead of schedule - at least in part because my active defence has kept the Allies pinned back around the Philippines most of the game.
Attempts to interdict the Allies outside the main defensive zone: utter failure.


Going forward:
1. Continue with the active defence, crushing the last 3 divisions of invaders at Ishigaki.

2. Hold the IJNAF and IJAAF within the main defensive belt and wait till I can combine them with IJN activity at amphibious landing zones.

3. Finish the upgrading of all of my fighter units to 30mm-armed fighters.

4. Begin the planned transition of IJAAF and IJNAF fighter-bomber units to Ki-94 IIs once all IJAAF fighter units have upgraded. I'd like to use some Ki-94s as kamikazes once I have enough available for front-line fighter groups that I can spare a little production. Combining the KI-94s altitude with 500 Kg bombs and my best kamikaze pilots ( 60 LOW NAVAL SKILL ) should result in planes which can fly a VERY long distance ( with external fuel tanks ) from Level 2 airfields and conduct effective kamikaze attacks. I'm thinking of trying for a theoretical mix of 2 escort Sentai, 4 Oscar Sentai and 1 Ki-94 Sentai as a sort of theoretical goal for my IJAAF kamikaze Corps. In total that would be a fighter Corps of 100 escort fighters and 250 fighters as kamikazes.

5. Begin downgrading twin-engined IJAAF torpedo strike squadrons to single-engined squadrons armed with B7A2s or D4Y4s. Lethality will lessen but I make lots of single-engined strike planes (about 500 per month ) and few twin-engined strike planes ( about 60 per month ).

6. No more offensives are needed, just a stubborn defence with the ability to rapidly reinforce bases which have been invaded by flying in or FT TFing in 2 divisions a week. I now have the ability to more than achieve that goal, simultaneously along the Kuriles and Okinawa/Formosa axis. I am less able to do it along the Iwo Jima/Tokyo axis as that isn't part of my plan there. My plan along that axis is to invite him in, close and then smash him.

_____________________________

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 #: 250
RE: 2 Month Assessment - 1/9/2012 11:55:43 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
5th November:

A quiet day. My Netties from Truk finally flew and while about 20 of them flew directly into the CAP over Saipan ( and obviously died ) another 20 or so attacked shipping on its way over from PH. I put 1 torpedo into an APA and 2 torpedoes into an AKA. Not much of a haul but better than nothing.

In other news I'm continuing to filter cannon-armed fighters into Naha in an attempt to draw a strike. Whenever he strikes me he'll break through and get at my airbase but I have a HUGE number of engineers at Naha and am very confident I can keep it open no matter what. In any case I just want to mark his cards about bombing the core defensive line. I don't want him thinking he can get away with it no matter what - this represents the first time in the game in which I actually feel I have sufficient power to base a fighter force at Naha which has a possibility of being able to withstand B-29 raids and is a significant turning point in the air war ( if I'm right )>

Elsewhere the number of Ki-94s continues to rise and about half of the IJAAF is now flying these pressurised cabin boom and zoom fighters which fly fast, high and carry 2 x 30mm and 2 x 20mm cannons. I've just noticed though that I removed the bombs from them in the editor ( probably to discourage people using them as high altitude kamis ). Damn!!! That kinda scuppers my plans. I guess I'll just have to use them as fighters then ;-).

In other news I now have 1900 AV on Ishigaki and 8,000 tons of supplies. Subs and APDs etc are bringing one more division and then when I hit 2500 AV plus 15,000 tons of supplies I'll begin attacking the Americans ( supported by bombing raids by the IJAAF ( another reason I'm eager to be able to base bombers safely out of Naha ) ). I'm pleased with how my FT TFs are working so smoothly to rapidly bring in reinforcements in spite of USN CV-based strike groups flying search missions in the region. If I can replicate even half of this success when he lands my island bases should be relatively safe.

I'm finding ( as expected ) that the key to holding an island is being able to reinforce it more rapidly than the Americans can reinforce their lodgement. Combining patrol planes and amphibian transport planes, rapid repair of airfields by large numbers of engineers ( backed by enough L2D2s and other transports to fly in a division over four days ) and FT TFs which can deliver a division in two runs ( and complete one run in two days ) and you can, under perfect conditions, fly and FT TF in 4 divisions a week - roughly 1600 AV in a week... enough that if your initial forces hold then you can make the base impregnable.

That and judicious counter-invasion to recapture what the Allies do take in spite of your best efforts can, I believe, stalemate the front at each of the IJA defensive lines for an additional several months. Add 3 or 4 such delays over 1944 and 1945 and by the end of 1945 the Allies might still be fighting along the line they historically attained in January 1945 - a major victory for the Japanese.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 1/10/2012 12:10:09 AM >


_____________________________

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 #: 251
RE: 2 Month Assessment - 1/10/2012 3:05:48 AM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4095
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
What do you consider your most deadly Kami planes? I haven't played that far in GC to know.... I have messed around with Downfall a lot to just goof around...

_____________________________


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 252
RE: 2 Month Assessment - 1/11/2012 8:30:51 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
They pretty much all suck because you need your best planes for anti-bomber defence and the only good kami is a kami which hits --- which is a function of escorting fighters and pilot experience more than plane characteristics.

The kami plane which has done the most damage to the Americans ( mostly because it is the plane I have been almost exclusively using ) is the cave-launched Ohka which damaged several BBs and CAs which were later finished off by suicide torpedo boats or conventional attacks around Ishigaki.


Theoretically the best kamis would be the Ki-264 ( a four-engined "Amerika-bomber ) which has sufficiently high durability that if I committed 40 to action about 20 would break through CAP and of those 20 I'd expect about 10 to hit targets- if each of those targets was a CV then that would knock out 10 CVs since each Ki-264 carries 20 x 250 Kg bombs. I am planning on creating a 36 plane unit of Ki-264s to use to launch kamikaze attacks on his CVs/APAs whenever he invades one of the inner perimeter bases. I only make 40 a month but if he pulses one invasion per month and I can seriously damage even 4 or 5 CVs each time he'll find himself unable to launch more than one invasion at a time within 2 or 3 months --- and if he can't do that I'm confident I can mass enough to blast through a single invasion.

In terms of cost-effectiveness even though they cost 6 times as much as a fighter-bomber and about 3 times as much as a P1Y2 or Netty they still work out as more cost-effective per 250Kg payload delivered to a major ship. Also by concentrating on fewer but much higher quality kamis I think i can save a lot of pilots --- an important consideration since I only get 360 pilots per month due to the BETA changes made by michaelm --- and can then use them for non-kami work.


This turn I managed to find that when flying without drop tanks the Ki-94 II DOES carry a 500 Kg bomb ( at normal - 6 hexes ) and a 250 kg bomb ( at extended - 8 hexes ). So I graduated the best 50 kami trainees from my kami training programme ( these are pretty much the first graduates to reach 60 LOW NAVAL SKILL ) and created a 49 plane Ki-94 kami group. This is going to be a CV/APA-hunting group. The plan is to fly in as high as possible ( the Ki-94 had a pressurised cabin and was designed as an ultra-high altitude interceptor by the Japanese so I think this usage is reasonable - plus its a no holds barred game and it isn't like Damian is holding back ;-) ) and dive down onto the enemy shipping. Hopefully these Ki-94s can achieve something. If they can then I might make two groups of Ki-94 kamis ( 98 planes ) and use them to hunt his CVs/APAs


In other news: I'm hitting Ishigaki with Ki-264s to see if I can cause infantry casualties to his forces. If I can then they'll be a little disrupted and tomorrow I'll attack. I have about 2100 AV available on Ishigaki now ( I put a huge number of FT TFs in last night which delivered almost 2 divisions worth of troops ) vs 900 US AV so it is time to begin whittling them down. Hopefully the USN will come into action and I can hit them with my prepared, layered defences again.

Damian appears to have spotted my "training" base in China. Basically I had two bases where I stashed all my training and bomber squadrons while they were training so they wouldn't consume supplies in the Home Islands ( where supply levels are critical ). Hopefully Damian will do me a favour by bombing the 1500 trainers I have left on my training base without CAP. Every plane he destroys ( ki-27s, K5Ws, Ki-79s etc --- utterly useless types ) will be one less plane consuming supplies over the next 14 months and so destroying them actually helps me quite significantly.

I've got two CAP traps up and running designed to draw in B-29s. Each has about 300 fighters so we'll see how that goes. Damian's definitely beginning to eye up a bombing campaign of the Home Islands but I'm betting he'll want to test the waters at the CAP traps first, just to get a sense for his potential loss rate.

The last tranche of evacuees from China is almost at the evacuation port. This wave of evacuees comprises some 2,000 AV and over 140,000 troops. They join over half a million troops and 6,000 AV I've already evacuated from China and used to bolster the defences of the core perimeter. It would appear that Damian is unaware of this activity ( largely due tot he fact that he's occupied forward and doesn't have the force projection capability to intefere with my actions deep in the Yellow Sea.




_____________________________

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

(in reply to jeffk3510)
Post #: 253
RE: 2 Month Assessment - 1/11/2012 10:32:25 AM   
obvert


Posts: 11934
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

Damian appears to have spotted my "training" base in China. Basically I had two bases where I stashed all my training and bomber squadrons while they were training so they wouldn't consume supplies in the Home Islands ( where supply levels are critical ). Hopefully Damian will do me a favour by bombing the 1500 trainers I have left on my training base without CAP. Every plane he destroys ( ki-27s, K5Ws, Ki-79s etc --- utterly useless types ) will be one less plane consuming supplies over the next 14 months and so destroying them actually helps me quite significantly.


So do you plan then to not do any training after this point? I guess I don't understand how destroying your training groups would help, even though it would reduce supply.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 254
RE: 2 Month Assessment - 1/11/2012 7:45:41 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline
The pilots still train without planes. Possibly at a slower rate though. Not sure exactly but you definitely don't need planes to train.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 255
RE: 2 Month Assessment - 1/12/2012 12:07:05 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Well today went pretty much as expected although with a little bright news:

1. Damian hit Wuchang ( the base I'd been basing all of my training squadrons at in order to use supplies in China rather than Japan ) and destroyed just under 500 of the 1500 planes stationed there. I've evacuated the airgroups which had less than 10 planes in the group and am leaving the rest until they get reduced to that level ( less than 10 planes in the group ). This will mean that training will proceed more slowly but due to the BETA changes my problem now is NOT the rate of training but a limit on the absolute number of pilots I can train. So, saving supplies - several thousand tons per month per training group quickly adds up - Wuchang had a requirement for almost 100,000 tons of supplies per month - at the expense of numbers of trained pilots per month is a reasonable compromise for me. Of course if the BETA changes back to the way it was previously this will hurt me but we have to play the game as is, not as we'd like it to be.

2. Ishigaki is ready to go. I lost 2 DDs there today from my FT TFs but they delivered a lot more troops and supplies. Tonight another two FT TFs will race in and drop the rest of the 34th and 154th Divisions as well as about 5,000 tons of supplies. In the meantime here's how things stack up...

Ground combat at Ishigaki (90,66)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 21471 troops, 456 guns, 642 vehicles, Assault Value = 943

Defending force 77384 troops, 622 guns, 42 vehicles, Assault Value = 2587

Japanese ground losses:
72 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


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


Assaulting units:
40th Infantry Division
632nd Tank Destroyer Battalion
Sixth Army Combat Engineer Regiment
762nd Tank Battalion
1st Cavalry Division
158th(Sep) Infantry Regiment
XI Corps Artillery

Defending units:
34th Div /1
57th Infantry Brigade
13th Division
58th Infantry Brigade
54th Div /2
4th Depot Division
46th Ind.Mixed Brigade
156th Div /27
75th Ind.Mixed Bde /1
154th Div /2
Ishigaki Brigade
79th Division
62nd Ind.Mixed Brigade
216th Div /2
4th Mortar Bn /1
Takachiko Det. /11


I sent in my Ki-264s as planned and they did good work:
Afternoon Air attack on 1st Cavalry Division, at 90,66 (Ishigaki)

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 27 NM, estimated altitude 23,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-264 Angel x 97



Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-264 Angel: 2 damaged


Allied ground losses:
339 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 18 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 19 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 45 (7 destroyed, 38 disabled)

The 1st Cavalry Division nand 632nd Tank Destroyer Battalion were hit. It seems like the Tank Destroyer Battalion wa hit particularly hard. They'll hit again tomorrow and accompany the IJA infantry assault. From this point on, unless casualties stop me, IJA infantry assaults will continue until the invaders are driven back into the sea.

A USN CV TF is hovering about 8 hexes from Ishigaki. It appears to be covering movement of convoys to the Philippines but is also close enough to cover a Dunkirk-style rescue mission. I am hopeful a rescue will be attempted. If it is I'll swamp it with strike aircraft and escorts. If a rescue isn't attempted then in 4 or 5 days once the Ki-94 kamikaze squadron's planes are all repaired I'll commit them to attack the CV TF. It'll be interesting to see how they do.



3. Enemy B-29s attacked Naha again ( where I'd based my G9Ms in their previous rather disastrous raid ) and continue to tangle with leaky CAP from Nago. This time the 200 B-29s tackled some 60 fighters and it appears about 12 were shot down - which isn't a bad result at all.


4. Amoy: I sent in some test kamikaze strikes against Amoy today. Basically I committed 100 fighters as escort and then sent in a Daitai of A6M2-Ks, 9 B5M1s, about 120 Oscars and about 120 Ohkas. My goal was to see if a 1:2 ratio of escorts to kamikazes would get them through. It seems that the answer is no. A 1:1 ratio is much, much more successful and in terms of number of hits you are going to do FAR better by having 200 escorts and 200 kamis than 100 escorts and 300 kamis.

Well, I thought I was going to hit a couple of APDs and xAPs/xAKs unloading. The intel was telling me there were a lot of CVEs present but I dismissed it as just being unbelievable. Well, I found out differently. When my strikes they attacked 6 x CVLs and 6 CVEs. Quite a large combat grouping by any account.

My most successful low-level strike comprising 37 kamikazes and 32 fighters and faced 312 fighters on CAP - most of them were on high CAP and with the short warning time ( since my flights went in low ) the escorts kept the CAP occupied long enough for a fair number of my kamikazes to get through. They hit 3 ships:
CVE Petrof Bay: 2 kamikaze hits.
CVE Rudyerd Bay: 1 kamikaze hit.
CVE Kadashan Bay: 1 kamikaze hit.

Those ships should have to be ported at Amoy. Damian may decide to keep his CVL/CVE TF around for another day. If he does he is going to find about 9 Shinyo DD flotillas dart in overnight to make their attack runs. With a little luck I might bag a few CVEs overnight unless he retires.

To be fair, at this stage, in the last week I've sunk at least 3 CVEs and damaged 4 more as well as 1 CVL. That's not a bad tally... although the cost has been high.

So, let's wait and see how the attack at Ishigaki goes.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 256
RE: 2 Month Assessment - 1/13/2012 4:15:56 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Well today saw the attack on Ishigaki go in.

2500 AV of Japanese troops attacked 900 AV of Allied troops. The Japanese lost about 400 AV either destroyed or disabled while the Allies appear to have lost about 150 AV destroyed or disabled. My disruption is low, supplies are available and the bombers are due to fly again tomorrow so the IJA will attack again. I'll have to rest after that attack but within a couple of days I'll be ready to attack again. From then the attacks will continue until the base falls.

The USN got complacent around China, safe under their aerial CAP and 9 Shinyo DDs managed to sneak into Amoy and sank 4 unloading AKs during a night-time battle. 3 of the Shinyos were sunk the next day by air attacks after they disobeyed orders to disband into the port at the Pescadores. The remaining 6 have refuelled and re-armed and are going CVE hunting again tomorrow. Later attacks by a dozen kamikazes sank another AK as it fled.

The USN CV TF south of Okinawa has finally moved into surface strike range of Okinawa and tonight 6 Shinyos will scour the hexes around the CV TF hoping for a lucky encounter.

Elsewhere things are reasonably quiet. The Americans advance along the undefended Chinese coast while my evacuation of China continues unhindered. More reinforcements are moving into the Kuriles and more airgroups are beginning to filter into position there also.

A little more pressure is beginning to be exerted by the Allies along the Iwo Jima/Tokyo axis --- Hopefully they'll fall into the trap there.


Apart from that there's nothing much new. Just
1. waiting for the A7M3J ( which is the last fighter upgrade of the war ) and upgrading fighter units in the Home Islands as quickly as new production allows. The IJAAF has a surplus of fighters while the IJNAF has a significant deficit.

2. begining the PP-intensive task of changing twin-engined IJNAF torpedo attack squadrons over to single-engined strike planes ( B7A2 or D4Y4 ) in order to preserve numbers of front-line planes.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 1/13/2012 4:21:29 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 #: 257
The Bomber Offensive - 1/14/2012 3:09:13 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
The main news today comes in two parts:

1. At Ishigaki Japanese AV has fallen to 1800 while Allied AV has fallen to 600. What this means is that Japan has lost 700 AV since the battle started ( 2 and a bit division's worth ) while the Allies have lost only 350 AV ( 1 division's worth ). One Allied Tank Destroyer Battalion has been wiped out and other Allied forces on the island appear to be at between 33 and 66% strength. I have lost two more APDs today ferrying supplies in but with the supplies available I should be able to mount 3 more attacks. I'm waiting 1 day to recover disruption and then I'll attack again. I'm hopeful that two more days of attacks will see the US forces surrender. If not I may need 1 more cycle of attacks before they finally collapse. Either way though Ishigaki's invaders' fates are sealed.


2. The USAAF decided to get frisky with its bombers.
a. It sent 30 B-32 Dominators to bomb Daito Shoto ( which I haven't been resisting for the past few weeks ) but found a new formation of Ki-94s present. The 70 Ki-94s swarmed the B-32s and downed 10 of them.
b. It sent 120 B-29s to bomb a city just south of Nagoya where I had a B7A2 factory of 16 planes. CAP leaked into the hex from nearby Osaka and approximately 20 B-29s were downed. Unfortunately the B7A2 factory was also destroyed.
c. It sent 20 B-29Bs to bomb one of my islands and found leaky CAP. 10 of the B-29Bs were downed by the CAP of just 20 fighters. The lack of defensive armament on B-29Bs really showed they cannot survive if intercepted.
d. Another 160 B-29-25s bombed a city 1 hex east of Tokyo. I have about 600 fighters over Tokyo so my CAP leaked and some 200 of them intercepted this raid. It appears losses in this raid were very heavy with approximately 60 B-29-25s being downed.

Overall it appears that 85 B-29s and 10 B-32s were downed today.

I'm pleased with these results as analysis shows me that a CAP of 300 first-rate fighters should suffice to reasonably protect a city against a 200 bomber raid. That means I can create 8 Fighter Divisions and nominally protect 10 hexes. Obviously a couple of the hexes ( Tokyo, Osaka etc ) will need 2 fighter divisions defending them ( 600 fighters ) so, in total, I'll probably only be able to adequately protect 6 hexes entirely. If I choose the 6 hexes wisely I may find myself able to arrange for leaky CAP to adequately protect intervening hexes.

This is a huge improvement on September when Japan was stretched to adequately protect just Tokyo and Osaka and singularly failed to be able to protect Kobe. I'm graduating 30 or 40 x 70 A2A Skill fighter pilots a week ( which keeps up with losses to my better units ), am producing enough planes to continue upgrading squadrons and finally have enough PP that I can begin spending PP on swapping occasional bomber groups to fly fighters ( thus bolstering my defences even more ).


In other news: His subs are infesting Japan. I don't have a proper ASW force yet. In a month I should have something formidable ready to go but for right now I'm very limited in my ASW capabilities. I sank 1 sub today in return for 2 APDs and an xAK. So far his subs have been his most devastating anti-ship weapon.


It looks like we're going to upgrade to the latest beta now ( the same one Greyjoy and Rader are using ). Also Damian has agreed to me switching on "Convert Obsolete Devices" in the preferences window. I had thought that was already on but with my armaments points running low I went to check and lo and behold it was off. So, hopefully that'll boost my armaments and armour points - both of which I could do with.

_____________________________

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 #: 258
RE: The Bomber Offensive - 1/14/2012 3:30:46 PM   
ny59giants_MatrixForum


Posts: 9613
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: online
quote:

Also Damian has agreed to me switching on "Convert Obsolete Devices" in the preferences window. I had thought that was already on but with my armaments points running low I went to check and lo and behold it was off. So, hopefully that'll boost my armaments and armour points - both of which I could do with.


My understanding is that only infantry and engineer devices are effected by this enhancement feature. It should help you get strong infantry LCUs as the old devices/squads will go through their local depot and get better rifles and anti-armor devices and come back as the newest devices.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 259
RE: The Bomber Offensive - 1/15/2012 4:43:37 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
ny59, aye but for some reason the old stuff just isn't getting recycled at all.

Anyways onto today's news:

1. I-124 sank a fuel-loaded xAK at Swatow. Obviously Damian is trying to set it up as a naval base if he's bringing fuel in.

2. 32 x P-51Ds swept Ishigaki. Bad move on their part, the P-51Ds aren't suited to fighting my best fighters once you take account of fatigue. Over their own bases they'll destroy my best but after flying 18 hexes fatigue makes them much less formidable. In any case 69 of my fighters opposed them including 19 J7Ws and 34 Ki-94s. The results were predictable with about 10 of my fighters ( mostly the obsolescent Ki-61s ) being destroyed in return for 25 of the P-51 Ds

Overall I lost 26 planes in return for 42 Allied planes. I lost 9 pilots KIA and 7 WIA. 3 of the pilots I lost were flying kamikazes so, overall, I lost 6 pilots KIA and 7 WIA. My training squadrons are really beginning to graduate pilots with 70 A2A skill in good numbers now so while this quiet continues I'm using it to build my fighter pilot reserve. I still have many squadrons which don't have reserve pilots in the IJAAF and many of my IJNAF squadrons are short of their basic number of pilots but compared to the beginning of the game where I had, perhaps, 500 or so pilots of 70 A2A skill throughout both air forces my position now is immeasurably better.


3. The bombers didn't suppress the enemy formations on Ishigaki so my ground attack suffered heavily.

Ground combat at Ishigaki (90,66)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 72514 troops, 637 guns, 42 vehicles, Assault Value = 1851

Defending force 25337 troops, 465 guns, 737 vehicles, Assault Value = 649

Japanese adjusted assault: 634

Allied adjusted defense: 1267

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2

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

Japanese ground losses:
3242 casualties reported
Squads: 77 destroyed, 289 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 47 disabled
Engineers: 5 destroyed, 33 disabled
Guns lost 17 (1 destroyed, 16 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
752 casualties reported
Squads: 7 destroyed, 82 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 18 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 16 disabled
Guns lost 53 (1 destroyed, 52 disabled)
Vehicles lost 24 (3 destroyed, 21 disabled)


Assaulting units:
4th Depot Division
79th Division
154th Div /2
46th Ind.Mixed Brigade
Ishigaki Brigade
62nd Ind.Mixed Brigade
156th Division
58th Infantry Brigade
54th Div /2
57th Infantry Brigade
34th Division
13th Division
75th Ind.Mixed Bde /1
4th Mortar Bn /1
Takachiko Det. /11
216th Div /2

Defending units:
40th Infantry Division
762nd Tank Battalion
1st Cavalry Division
Sixth Army Combat Engineer Regiment
158th(Sep) Infantry Regiment
XI Corps Artillery

Still, notwithstanding the losses I am rendering combat incapable some 70 AV this turn in return for a loss of 400 AV. I will need to bring in some reinforcements but throw in a bit of disruption from a bombing run and a precipitous drop in his AV once I tip one of his two divisions into losing squads destroyed instead of disabled ( when it falls below 50% TO&E ) and this should still go my way.

4. In other news I've been looking over my bomber formations and I've found a few which can convert to fighters and/or fighter-bombers. More fighters = more defence vs bombers and more escorts and since 100 fighters + 300 bombers will probably result in fewer bombers getting through than a mix of 200 fighters and 200 bombers I'm going to convert these bombers to fighters.

5. Lastly Shinyo production is really beginning to ramp up and I'm producing a dozen or more flotillas a week now.


Damian's making noises about invading somewhere else soon. We'll see. He certainly can but I've done pretty much everything I can to prepare. If he invades I'm as ready as I can be so let's see what happens.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 1/15/2012 11:11:00 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to ny59giants_MatrixForum)
Post #: 260
RE: The Bomber Offensive - 1/17/2012 4:02:38 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4095
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
Curious to see how the Ki-264 will fair in the Kami role you mentioned in response to my question on the most effective Kami..

_____________________________


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 261
1100 planes lost in a day.... - 1/21/2012 12:38:57 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
And its a great day for Japan. All those planes were Ki-79s or Ki-27s and other trainers and so all they were doing was speeding up pilot training a little at a huge cost in supplies. Losing the 1100 planes is going to save me a minimum of 50,000 tons of supplies per month, saving 600,000 tons over the next 12 months. My pilot training will be a bit slower but 600,000 tons of supplies is something I cannot afford to pass up.

In addition I have an idea of using this same base as another gathering post in a week's time but, this time, gathering 800 fighters there and seeing what they can do to his B-29 numbers. It'd be worth taking a risk to make an ambush like that work out.

Elsewhere my first group of Ki-94 kamikazes is ready for action and I have converted a second group of kamis from Ki-43s over to Ki-94s. So, at this moment in time I have 2 Ki-94 kami groups and 4 Ki-43 kami groups. All I really need now is his navy to bring CVs into range so I can expand the Ki-94s on worthwhile targets.

Amazingly enough the IJAAF and IJNAF protective CAP bubble is beginning to expand outward. At its worst I was CAPing only three Japanese bases on the whole map ( Tokyo, Kobe and Osaka ). Today I'm CAPing 7 bases with a view to expanding to 8 or 9 over the next fortnight. That's a huge change and reflects my growing confidence in my new generation of fighters' ability to deal with bombers.

In other news I've lost 4 ships ( including 2 escorts ) to submarine attack today. There are hordes of US subs and with so many attacks some are bound to get through.

I'm finding myself relying more and more on fast transports everywhere except one or two very short, heavily mined routes ( e.g. Korea to Japan/ Honshu to Hokkaido ).

In the north the final batch of reinforcements has arrived for Hokkaido and the Kuriles and are sitting in northern Honshu waiting to be ferried across. Some 4,500 AV are available for strengthening Hokkaido/Kuriles which should give each base 1,000 AV behind Level 6 forts + a reasonable operational ( airmobile ) reserve.

I'm also about half-way through the process of reconstituting my strategic reserve and have about half of the necessary 5,000 AV of troops ( including large numbers of tank formations ) in mainland Japan ready to rapidly reinforce any landing sites. My goal is to have a division of tanks on-site within 2 days of any invasion and to have half of the strategic reserve on-site within a week of the first landing. So, 1,000 AV ( basic garrison ) + local operational reserves ( 2,000 AV ) + half of strategic reserves ( 2,500 AV ) = 5,500 AV + Level 6 forts. That's what I expect to have at my least defended bases. At my most defended bases the original garrison is obviously much, much higher.


Most of the USN TFs have pulled back to Manilla and elsewhere with just a couple of replenishment TFs moving from Saipan to Manilla at present. I believe that the Allies are pulling back in order to mount another operation - I think they may hit Formosa next using their LBA to cover the landings. If they hit Formosa I plan to let them have it and accordion my defence ever inward, slowly.


jeffk3510,
I've been toying with this for some time but recently made the decision that given the HUGE amount of supplies the Ki-264s consume per month I cannot justify their continued use so I'm saving some of my top IJA pilots for re-assignment to the Ki-264s and they'll fly them into whatever seems useful. My current thinking is that if I see a USN CV TF I might send in the Ki-94s first ( letting 100 of them attack ) and then send in 40 Ki-264s the next day, taking advantage of the lack of CAP ( assuming I've hit some CVs ) to avoid attrition in the CAP zone and get a very high hit rate. With each Ki-264 carrying 20 x 250 Kg bombs even a single hit should devastate any CV or BB. I'd expect 2 hits to sink anything and 1 hit to leave any CV or BB crippled and easy picking for follow-on raids.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to jeffk3510)
Post #: 262
RE: 1100 planes lost in a day.... - 1/21/2012 7:40:14 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5146
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

If they hit Formosa I plan to let them have it


Given the massive stock of Kamis and other things you have prepared the phrase "let them have it" is a wee bit ambiguous. I'm going to assume you meant a temporary Sir Robin maneuver.

_____________________________

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 #: 263
RE: 1100 planes lost in a day.... - 1/21/2012 11:22:26 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Ah, I can see how that would be....

Well, basically my plan has always been to extend the perimeter out beyond P-51H+drop tank sweep range. That way I can prevent the Allies using fighters to attrit my CAP before they send bombers in. That was essential before I had the new generation of fighters online. As it is now my new generation of fighters are, I believe, more than a match for the P-51H and other sweeping Allied fighters at long range.

So, if the Allies invade Okinawa ( as they have invaded China ) that will mean they will get airbases within 18 hexes of mainland Japan. So, at that point I am planning to accordion my defences inwards slowly but surely conducting a strategic amphibious withdrawal. I won't abandon every island since some are useful as bases for spoiling attacks but, basically, if he has 5 bases within 18 hexes of Osaka on one axis it doesn't really make much sense to lose 3,000 AV trying to deny him another 5 bases the same distance from Osaka on another axis.

Since he is now marching up China towards Shanghai ( which I will let him have with only a little resistance from me) the time is coming when the forces on Okinawa will be rendered irrelevant and so some basic planning is going on about how to FT the vital forces out.

Shrinking the perimeter means more IJA troops per base and, overall, greater problems for the Allies. In a sense allowing me to accordion makes the next phase of operations more difficult for Damian. Personally I'd look to strike deep with a view to preventing the huge forces in the outer perimeter from joining up with the forces in the inner perimeter. It'd be costly to strike deep but in the long run it'd be much, much cheaper.


Elsewhere, over the past 2 days;
1. the B-32s struck Daito Shoto again and were met by 60+ Ki-94s. The Ki-94s downed 13 of the B-32s... even better than last time.

2. I've begun removing my armoured formations from Okinawa for the central strategic reserve in Japan.

3. The Allies have taken all of the bait of my planning and have invaded Chichi-Jima. This is brilliant news and means I should be able to lure them to invade the next base in line. When they invade that they are going to run into hell. I've made preparations which will make what happened to the USN around Okinawa look like a water balloon fight.

Since the time is coming for another major fight aimed at destroying USN CV TFs I want to test my formations just a little. To that end I'm sending 60 G9Ms and 100 Ki-94 kamikazes in against the USN amphibious TFs. I am supporting them with a long-range sweep by 150 IJA fighters - 100 Ki-94s and 50 Ki-84rs. I've also finally switched my first group of 36 Ki-264s to kamikaze missions. They won't be ready for another day or so but I'm hopeful they'll be able to hit some of the stragglers from the amphibious TFs.

If Damian pulls back entirely from Chichi-Jima tomorrow he can avoid these attacks since they are all going in at pretty much maximum range in order to avoid being sucked into the CAP trap of Iwo-Jima. If he sticks around we'll get to see the Ki-94 kamis in action and I'll learn much about the best force mix going forward.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 1/21/2012 11:25:46 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 #: 264
17th November: The Battle for Chichi Jima - 1/22/2012 2:34:11 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Once again Allied efforts to approach the inner perimeter have resulted in significant Allied losses. While the Ki-94s, unfortunately, did not fly due to bad weather around Chichi Jima and suffered 50% losses to a massive B-29 raid the G9Ms more than made up for this failure sortieing to Iwo Jima ( again, avoiding Chichi Jima because of bad weather ) and pushing home a large, co-ordinated low-level, radar-avoiding attack in the face of severe storms.

They attacked what appeared to be an amphibious TF ( Damian seems to default to having 5 to 6 CVEs, 2 or 3 CAs and a dozen DD/DEs in each of his amphibious TFs ). FlAK was extremely heavy causing severa G9Ms to be so badly damaged that they attempted to ram US CVEs. Gushi W succeeded and inflicted a mortal wound on the CVE Kasaan Bay.

Elsewhere the other 61 G9Ms managed to secure 15 torpedo hits spread amongst the 5 enemy CVEs and put another 3 torpedoes into APAs. All attacks on the CA Chicago II were ineffective, including a torpedo which hit but failed to detonate.

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Iwo-jima at 108,77
Weather in hex: Severe storms


Raid detected at 77 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 16 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G9M Marlin x 62



Allied aircraft
FM-2 Wildcat x 13
F4U-1D Corsair x 13
F6F-5 Hellcat x 38


Japanese aircraft losses
G9M Marlin: 1 destroyed, 45 damaged
G9M Marlin: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1D Corsair: 9 destroyed
F6F-5 Hellcat: 20 destroyed

I think these losses include Allied planes which went down with the ships.


Allied Ships
CVE Kasaan Bay, Torpedo hits 4, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk
CVE Shamrock Bay, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
CVE Commencement Bay, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
CVE Takanis Bay, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
CVE Long Island, Torpedo hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage

3 CVEs sank during the attack. I imagine Tanakis Bay and Long Island are both doomed also.

Personally I'm going to claim 5 CVEs today. That makes a total of 4 CVs, 5 BBs and 18 CVEs over the past 10 weeks. Not bad for an on-the-ropes Japan. I think it is interesting to look at the difference between what happens when he hits my inner perimeter or traps ( places I've prepared and can bring combinations of forces/spotters into action ) and what happens when I try to resist him on the outer perimeter ( where I don't have the option of combining my airpower with my navy or delaying ground forces ).

CA Chicago II
APA St. Mary's, Torpedo hits 1
APA Kittson, Torpedo hits 2, heavy damage


Allied ground losses:
Guns lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Ammo storage explosion on CVE Shamrock Bay
Ammo storage explosion on CVE Shamrock Bay
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CVE Kasaan Bay
Gushi W. gives his life for the Emperor by ramming CVE Kasaan Bay
Massive explosion on CVE Commencement Bay
Fuel storage explosion on CVE Takanis Bay
Ammo storage explosion on CVE Takanis Bay
Ammo storage explosion on CVE Long Island


I've pulled the Ki-94s back to rebuild. I'll probably try them near China next, I see some CVE TFs there I'd like to hit.

Tomorrow the first Ki-264 Kamikaze squadron takes to the air. The pilots have between 50 and 60 LOW NAVAL Skill and I'm expecting 1 hit kills. I have set their ranges so they can either hit Chichi Jima, Iwo Jima or Foochow ( the base the CVEs were at ) using their central position to threaten multiple bases. Their base is covered by 300 fighters and, to be honest, there's no way Damian can be expecting this so I'm confident they'll at least live long enough to launch their attack.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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 #: 265
18th November: - 1/22/2012 2:49:51 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Well today was a quiet day. My Ki-264s bombed Ishigaki again and tomorrow I'll be ready to launch another attack. I've driven the Allied AV down from 1,000 AV to just 450. I have 2,000 AV ready to attack after bringing another division in overnight and so tomorrow I'll attack. I'm hopeful that I won't have to bring any additional reinforcements in after tomorrow.

I've also gotten a major reinforcement of Shinyo Suicide Motorlaunch Flotillas at Tokyo. 35 of them came into service today, which is more than I had on-map prior to today. I have spotted a potential opening in Allied defences and over the next 3 days I'm going to test that potential gap with 1 Shinyo flotilla while moving the Shinyos from Tokyo ( and local reserves ) into position. If everything goes right I may, in 4 or 5 days, be launching a 50 Shinyo assault on an allied force - that should be fairly devastating to Allied forces.

More importantly though it'll establish a narrative where it is dangerous for Allied forces to use forward staging areas for pre-invasion forming up and I'd really like to push their deployment zones back to Saipan and the Phillipines as that extra day or two of warning is crucial in really getting significant forces into action defensively.


I also upgraded one of my land-based Zero units to J7W2s. Why is this important? Well, I've been upgrading a unit every 3 or 4 days but this is the first of my "mediocre" units I've upgraded. What I mean by this is that while I've been switching fighter units with high A2A skill ( anything above 60 ) to J7W2s and A7M2s for a while now I've never had the pilots or planes to begun upgrading my mediocre units. Today was the first day that my experienced fighter groups all had top-line fighters and I had enough pilots to completely remove all of the 50 A2A skill pilots from a mediocre group, replace them with 70 A2A Skill pilots from training AND upgrade the group to the new generation of fighters in a single day.

The 50 A2A Skill pilots have gone into the general reserve from which I'll send them to training groups. Instead of 3 months of training they should only need 1 month of training to get up to 70 A2A Skill and so by doing this, in 1 month's time, I should begin to have a large, steady flow of trained pilots for the IJAAF again.

Oh, lastly, the Allies took Chichi Jima. Not really a big deal as it was only bait. There's 1 more bait island and then he'll hit rock and find the going very, very tough.

Oh I should have mentioned losses from yesterday.
Basically I lost 7 G9Ms. Almost all of the rest were damaged but the short range to target let them make it home. The Allies lost 90 planes on the CVEs ( about 50 Corsairs, 35 Hellcats and some Avengers ). Today recon shows 1 CVE docked at Iwo Jima. So, 4 CVEs down, 1 badly damaged. Since Iwo is a tiny port and since the CVE must be on fire I'm quite hopeful it will sink soon.

Irrespective though I should get a few more CVEs soon.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 1/22/2012 2:52:24 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 #: 266
RE: 18th November: - 1/23/2012 2:42:02 AM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4095
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
Nemo-

I think it is safe to claim 5 CVEs... they don't have to take a whole lot before they slip under the waves..

I am very excited to see your KI-264 Kamis in action against the fleet CVs if the opportunity presents itself...

_____________________________


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 267
RE: 18th November: - 1/24/2012 12:41:37 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5809
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
You and me both.

I had a gander at the turn last night ( I'm doing some logistical housekeeping while Damian travels ) and so far my intel is telling me I've sunk 5 fleet CVs ( 90 planes each = 450 ) and 14 CVEs or CVLs ( 30 planes each = 420 ) for a total USN flightdeck space loss of 870 planes.

They get 40 fleet CVs ( including some 100+ deckspace CVs ) for a total of about 3,800 flight deck spaces and they get 102 CVEs/CVLs with roughly 3,060 flight deck spaces. So they had a potential of 6,860 flight deck spaces and now have 5,990.

So, there's been a 13% or so reduction in their flight deck space. That's important because their CVs are what they'll have to use to cover their amphibious invasions in the Kuriles or closer to Japan and so anything which reduces those flight deck spaces ( or causes them to be diverted to convoy protection duties ) helps me.

It puts the USN into perspective though to realise they still have 6,000 flight deck spaces and that probably equals the entire strength of my IJAAF and IJNAF non-kamikaze units. Basically the USN can, without any support, equal my aerial combat power. Pretty impressive!!!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to jeffk3510)
Post #: 268
RE: 18th November: - 1/24/2012 2:05:37 AM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4095
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
Never thought of it that way. That is very impressive.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 269
RE: 18th November: - 1/24/2012 2:33:27 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5146
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

Basically the USN can, without any support, equal my aerial combat power. Pretty impressive!!!


Not unless the CV's are carrying F8F Bearcat squadrons. Numbers alone don't tell the story when you've created a force of uber-fighters. (Not that I blame you for doing so.)

_____________________________

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 #: 270
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: 26th October - The POW Camps Swell Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   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

0.186